CHAP. I. Of the Persons of head Socinians, and of their Opinions.

OUR blessed Lord and Saviour, in his Parable Mat. 13 of the Sower and the Tares, doth plainly declare and forewarn us of what should befal his Church from his time, which was that of her Birth, un­to the end of the World: In general, the Field is the World, but in particular, 'tis his Church; the Sower, as he explains it, is himself, both in person and by means of the Labourers his Disciples, and other Ser­vants of his; the good Seed are the Children of the Kingdom, and the true sound Doctrines thereof, taught by his faithful Ministers; but the Tares are the Chil­dren of the wicked one, not only as to Persons, but in relation to false Doctrines, Errors, and Heresies, which whilst Men that ought to have watched, slept, Christ's Enemy, which is the Devil, took that opportunity, for he loses none, and in part, through the fault of the Watchmen, did his work: This Mystery is by S. Paul represented under the notion and name of a Building, whereof the Lord Jesus is the Foundation; for, saith he 1 Cor. 3.11, 12., other foundation can no man lay; the wise and faithful Builders do upon that Foundation build Gold, Silver, and precious Stones; but the unfaithful and mercenary are not content to raise a Superstructure of their own, which is Wood, Hay, and Stubble, but also attempt to overthrow the Foundation, and in opposi­tion to the City of God, would build a Babel of their own; yet I make no doubt, but through God's just Judgment, it will at last end in their Confusion, as [...] happeneth unto all that Acts 5.39. be found even to fight against God.

Surely in the superlative degree, they fight against God, who reach, and as far as they can, do strike at divine Nature and at the Godhead it self, which any one doth that speaks or writes against the holy Trinity of Persons, or denies the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, as Socinians do: To what I said Serious Advice to a Preser­vative against, &c. elsewhere of the Authors of such Blasphemies, I shall add some few Circumstances of their Rise and Pro­gress, whereby it will appear how, as the Devil at our Saviours coming into the World, was very busie to use means, and by Herod, to destroy his Person, so by the Scribes and Pharisees, to oppose the Preaching and Progress of the Gospel. Thus about the time when God dispersed Popish Errors, Darkness and Ig­norance, and through a happy Reformation, caused the Light of the Gospel again to shine, the same Ene­my to God and Mankind, stirred up Instruments to stop the Work, or at least to corrupt and hinder it from coming to its due perfection.

These hellish Instruments were Michael Servetus, born in Artagon, one of the Kingdoms of Spain, who having past his Youth in Africa, amongst Jews and Mahometans, was infected with their Blasphemies; and being come back into Europe, did in 1525. write Books entituled, The Divine Nature of Christ, and the Errors of the Trinity, &c. that Wretch made such an abominable and hellish Comparison of the most ado­rable Trinity, that I abhor to think on't, much more to set it down upon Paper. He came to Geneva, where neither the Writings of, nor Conferences with Calvin, could work upon him; so that at last, in the Year 1553. he there was put to death for Blasphemy and Sedition.

The next is Valentinus Gentilis, of Cosenza in Italy [...] who forged the Blasphemy of Three Gods, and other­wise corrupted the Doctrin of the Ʋnity of Essence and Trinity of Persons: This Man, after Servetus's death, was in the same Town put in Prison, and re­canted; soon after he went away, but returned to his Vomit; for he again asserted it in publick, and dis­persed it in Poland and Suitzerland, but being taken in the Canton of Bern, in 1566. was there put to death.

Laelius Socinus, Son to Marius Socinus, a famous Lawyer of Siena, came also to Geneva, which, at that time, was the great place of refuge for those who went out of Italy and neighbouring Countries to forsake Popery, where he was known to Calvin; and thence he went to Zurich; but Calvin having found him out, did write him two sharp Letters, one in 1552. the other in 1555. at Zurich he did, but under the borrow'd Name of Martinus Bellius, write some­thing to shew how Servetus had unjustly been put to death: In his Commentary upon the first Chapter of John, he lays the Foundation of whole Socinianism, which, indeed, is but a Chaos and Confusion of natu­ral and spiritual Ignorance, and a meer Contempt of the Word of God; Zanchius was one of the first that refuted it. This Loelius, all the while he conversed with Zanchius, never opened himself to him, only seemed to propound him Questions according to the Schoolway, to exercise his Parts, but not to be posi­tive; so that indeed he imposed upon him and Me­lanchton, so cunning was he not to discover his Opi­nions.

Bur his Nephew Faustus, born in Siena in 1538. was a bolder Man, of acute Parts, but a Sophister, and consequently fit to perfect the Heresie which the other was broaching: He, with his Uncle, went first to Geneva, afterwards to Zurich: at Basil he made ac­quaintance with Sebastian Castellio, of whom he learn­ed something in the Hebrew and Greek Languages, and the That Christ is merely Man, and had no Be­ing till his Incarna­tion. Samosatenian Heresie. His Uncle being dead in Zurich in 1562. the 37th of his Age, at which time Faustus was 23 years old, as soon as he heard of his death, he went to the place to secure his Manu­scripts (which he had desired him to publish in due time) for fear they should fall into other hands: with these Faustus went into Italy, where for about Twelve Years he lived about the Duke of Florence's Court, whence he returned to Basil in 1574. the 35th of his Age, and there lived Three Years, thence he went in­to Transylvania, about 1577. lastly into Poland, in 1579. about the 40th of his Age, where he made it his whole business to propagate his Uncles Opinions: [Page 4]There he publish'd Castellio's Pelagian Dialogues about Predestination, Election, Free-Will, and Faith, with a Preface of his own, under the Name of Felix Turpio, which Book, Arminians, because it served their turns, caused to be reprinted with Additions at Gouda in Hol­land, in 1613. He also in the Year 1582. being in Cracovia, published a Tract of his upon a part of the Seventh Chapter to the Romans, wherein he endeavours to prove how in that place S. Paul speaks of himself not as being a regenerate Man; and in that too he dis­guiseth his Name, as the manner is among pestilent Heresiarks, the more easily and safely to spread the Poyson, and wound Souls with an unknown and invi­sible hand; in that Book he calls himself Prosper Dysi­daeus, which answers to his true Name Faustus Socinus, as also doth his other borrow'd Name of Felix Turpio; for the three Latin Words Prosper, Felix, and Faustus signifie the same; also the Words Dysidaeus, Turpio, and Socinus have the same signification; the first is Greek [...], which signifieth filthy and deform, so doth the Latin Turpio, also the Italian Socinus from Sozzo. Thus, though his true and borrowed Christian Names be not proper for him, because such a misera­ble Wretch may not be called happy, yet his Sur-Names, whether true or borrowed, are to signifie his filthy, hellish, and monstrous Blasphemies. Sozzo, whence comes the Word Socinus, as by him owned in the Names which in his Books he calls himself by, in Italian sig­nifies foul, nasty, filthy; and here we may say, con­veniunt rebus nomina saepè suis; for in his Opinions he was as impure a Man as ever was born of a Woman. He lived in Cracovia in Poland, whence, towards the latter end of his Life, he removed to a Country Town about Nine Miles distant, called in Latin Luclavicia, and in Polonish, I think Luklow, or Luklowi [...]z, where he dyed in 1604. and of his Age 65.

This I have been the more particular upon, because he is look'd upon as the chief Promoter and Publisher of an Heresie, which, of all the rest amongst Christians, is the most unworthy of the Name of Christ, whereof it hath but the shadow, and in some respect, is worse than Heathenism, makes way for Mahometism, Juda­daism, [Page 5]and Atheism, and under a false Notion of Piety, laughs at, despiseth, and perverteth all Articles of our Faith, and, in short, goes about to form a new Religion.

Hereunto I shall add only this, how these Heresies had some other Followers, which made some noise in the World, George Blandrata of Saluzze, and Paul Al­ciati of Milan, both Italians and Physicians, after Ser­vetus's death and Gentilis's Recantation, fled into Po­land: Bernard Ochinus (a true Disciple of Socinus, as the other two were of Gentilis) who, for some impure Dialogues of his, had been expell'd out of Zu­rich and Basil: all of them were in the Year 1565. banished out of Poland, by reason of their Heresie: Alciati went into Turky and embraced Mahometanism: Ochinus into Moravia to the Anabaptists, and Blandrata fled into Transylvania, where, by the Favour of one Francis David, he was entertained as Physitian to the Prince; this David differ'd from Socinus, in that he denyed Jesus Christ should be adored, or any Prayers to be made in his Name. This is that hellish Covy of abominable and pernicious Fowl, and that Generation of Vipers, out of which sprung since, and now more than ever, many of the kind; so that Den is, like Ba­bylon, to speak in Scripture Language Revel. 18.2., become the ha­bitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird; for the profane, Deists and Atheists, &c. fall into them. But that Poy­son infected not only those fore-named Parts, it also spread into Hungary and Germany, nay, as far as Hey­delberg, where one Neuserus, with two or three more, privately taught those Heresies, yet at last boasted he had Seventy Five unanswerable Arguments against the Trinity; but through the care of Prince Frederick III. the guilty being punished, the Infection ceased there; a Precedent for other Princes and States to follow; And from such Wretches, what else can be expected but Overturnings and Confusions in Church and State?

Thus, having said something of the Persons, We must name some of their [...]hief Opinions, and then speak of the Cause: As to the first, they have much con­founded the whole Doctrine of Religion from first [Page 6]to last: They believe that Man, before his Fall, was naturally mortal; so God's threatning, the day that thou eatest thou shalt surely dye, was frivolous; then that by the Light of Nature, no Man can have the knowledg of God; that Man before his Fall had no original Righteousness, and that there is in us no ori­ginal Sin, as it imports Deformity of Nature: They say there is in us free Will to that which is good; that the Causes of Predestination are not in God, but in Men; and that he doth not predestinate to Salvation any particular and certain Person; and that Predesti­nation may be frustrated: As to Providence, they as­sert that God hath no fore-knowledg of Contingencies determinately, but alternatively; and as to most of these Matters of Grace and Providence, they are agreed with Arminians: Further, they say that God could justly pardon our Sins without any Satisfaction; that Christ, by his Death, did not satisfie for us, but only obtained for us Power to satisfie for our selves by our Faith and Obedience; that Christ dyed for him­self, that is, not for his Sins, but for the Mortality and Infirmities of our Nature which he took upon him; Christ became not our High Priest, nor immor­tal nor impassible before he ascended into Heaven; that everlasting Death is nothing else but a perpetual Continuance in death or Annihilation; that Eternal Fire is so called from its Effect, which is the eternal extinction or reducing to nothing of the Wicked which shall be found alive at the last Day. They would have Christ's Incarnation to be against Reason and Scripture, they deny him to be truly God; the like of the Holy Ghost: That there is in One God no Trinity of Persons; and that the Old Testament is needless for Christians, &c. All these and other Blas­phemies are found in the Works of Socinus, in the Racovian Catechism, whereof Smalcius is the Author, of Ostorodius, Crellius, Wolkelius, Vaydovius, &c. but we shall, by the Grace of God, insist only upon some of their greatest Blasphemies. Now to the Cause:

Matters of this high Nature and fundamental Con­cernment to our Holy Religion, must not be prostituted [Page 7]to the captious scanning of Men of corrupt Minds, nor the ways of God be made layable to the Judgment of Men, rather humbly to be adored with Submission of Mind and Obedience of Faith to the Revelation declared in God's Word; and herein we ought the more to be sober and cautious that we know Errors to be link'd together, and to have a dependency one upon another; he that strikes at the Grace of the Lord Jesus, will afterwards make no Conscience to fly out against his Person; he who denies him to be a Prophet, will soon disown him to be a King and a Priest; for as one Depth calls to another, so an Arminian can easily become a rank Pelagian and Socinian: Wherefore 'tis necessary, at the very beginning, to oppose Errors, de­fend every inch of ground against such as will daily grow worse and worse, as do the James 1.8. double-minded men, that are for their own, more than for the Truth's Interest; for they are unstable in all their ways: and the more Hands orderly employed, the better is the Effect like to be, This Consideration makes me to appear amongst those who heretofore did, and now do, oppose false Teachers, who not only privily, but also in publick, bring in again those damnable Heresies, which, of old, Truth and Learning exploded and baffled out of the World.

The Divinity of Christ was the Stumbling-block to the Jews, who could not endure to hear him call him­self the Son of God absolutely and without limitation, and thereat were enraged, which made 'em take up Stones to cast at him, John 8.59. and also at another time, Chap. 10.31. the Doctrines about the Holy Tri­nity and the Person and Deity of Christ, do stand and fall together. In our Saviour's time it began to be oppos'd by the Jews, and since from time to time continu'd to be so by the Devil's Instruments raised to that same purpose, and within the last Age revived by the fore-named Blasphemers against the Rock of the Church, which is built on the Confession that Christ is the Son of the living God, not by any special Fa­vour or any such Restriction, for then there would be only a gradual difference between his and our being Sons of God; but he is simply the Son of God, yea, his only begotten.

Before we enter upon this important Matter, some things to clear the state of the Question must be pre­mised, so that we must shew wherein we agree, before we speak of that wherein we differ, as to the first this Foundation must be laid, there is a God the Cause of all, the Effect of none, who hath made all, and is made by none, who hath given all things their Being, and hath his own of himself: This is not denyed, so I shall not go about to prove it, the Light of Nature, the Book of Scripture, and the Testimony of Consci­ence, do sufficiently convince Men of it. The next thing is, what God is? He being infinite cannot be defined, but imperfectly described, only according to what he hath in his Word revealed of himself, how he is infinite, independent, self-sufficient, eternal, un­changeable. But such is the blindness of some Mens Judgments, or the Perverseness of their Hearts, that they will cavil at the Nature, Names, Attributes, and Works of this eternal and infinite Being.

But about this fundamental Truth, our Faith must be directed by the Revelation which God hath made of it in his holy Word, herein Men must not follow their own fancy; for [...] Mat. [...] no man knoweth the father but the son, and he to whom the son will reveal him: Now the sum of this Revelation in the Word is, that God is One, that this One God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; that the Father is the Father of the Son, and the Son the Son of the Father; and the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Father and of the Son; and that they are distinct one from another in respect of this their mutual Rela­tion; by this Rule we must be guided how to know, believe, worship, love, fear, and obey him, that is the Father One true God, the Son One true God, and the Holy Ghost One true God, to be believed, wor­shiped, and obeyed.

Now for our Edification and further Instruction, th [...] Doctrin admits of some Enlargement and Expla­nation to prevent undue Notions of God, which, by reason of the Blindness and Ignorance we are natu­rally involv'd in, our Minds are liable unto; thus out of the Revelation that God is One, we easily de­duce he is so in respect of his Nature, Essence, or [Page 9]Godhead; and how being. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, he doth subsist in these Three distinct Persons; thence also is derived the manner of their Subsistence, what are their mutual respects to each other, and such like things by a necessary Consequence from the Re­velation: Upon these Grounds were compiled the Nicene, Athanasian, and other Creeds or Articles of Faith, in opposition to the Heresies of those Times; for therein was explained the true Sense of Scripture about those matters, which were wrested by the Enemies of the Truth; and though the Orthodox Do­ctors and Councils, to oppose the Error, and lay open the Venom, made use of some Words and Expressi­ons which in so many Letters are not set down in the Word of God, yet they were not to blame; for they were drawn out of it by lawful and necessary Conse­quences; Men may lawfully conceive in their Minds what is the nature of the Things or the sense of the Words according to the scope of the Spirit of God in the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles, and also as to the Analogy of Faith, or else we are no better than Brutes. So that if the chief Assertion contained in the Revelation be true, so must also be whatsoever is therein included, and in the Explication thereof drawn by a true and right Consequence: Wherefore, seeing God hath declared Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be One God, it necessarily follows they are One in Nature; because therein only they can be One: And this is the ground of any other Unity; and see­ing it is also declared they are Three, it must be ex­plained of three distinct Persons or Subsistences where­in only it is possible they can be Three.

The Revelation is clear, there is One God, this God is Father called God, Son called God, Holy Ghost called God; and here the Enemies of Truth should begin their Opposition, which is the true way and method, yet they do not, but they except against the Explication, which only tends to farther Edifying and Instruction, and quarrel with Words, as Essence, Trinity, Persons, &c. Divine Nature is One, yet com­mon to Three; in the Mystery of the Trinity we must learn the Truth, the Height and Excellency thereof; [Page 10]the Truth doth not depend upon our Apprehension and Understanding of it, but upon the Consent of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; and tho', under the first, Men were more in the dark, yet there was Light enough to make 'em believe it with humble Faith and Piety; but under the last, that Truth is clearly apparent, 'tis by John 5.4. Faith only that we are enabled to overcome the World: so 2 Cor. 5.7. we walk by faith and not by sight; to shew our Religion is matter of Faith more than of Fact, to be attained unto through Belief, and not through Senses, whose Object is visible and temporal, but that of Faith is 2 Cor. 4.18. spiritual, invisible, and eternal; the holy Mystery of the Trinity cannot be comprehended by the Light of Grace nor of Glory, much less by that of Nature.

Controvertes about Principles are more intricate and difficult than about Conclusions, especially in things relating to God, the Principal of all Beings; and that for two Reasons, the first, because the in­finite and incomprehensible Majesty of God, doth far exceed our Understanding; the second, upon the ac­count of the Blindness and Vanity of Man's Mind, which either will not depend upon the Revelation, without which we can never know things of that nature, or else goes about with its wrong Notions to depravate it, not so much as to the Words as in the Sense and Doctrine wherein Heresie doth consist: Now, as 'tis a damnable Presumption in those who in these Matters do pervert the true Sense of the Word of God, so I must say, 'tis a great Imprudence in those who undertake to refute them, to abound in their own Sense, leaving the trodden way, and slight­ing Arguments made use of by the former Assertors of these Truths, to set up new Notions and Hypotheses of their own, which render those Points more ab­struse, and these new Lights of theirs, instead of clearing make them darker, instead of proving they do not so much as illustrate the matter; the Proofs ought to be drawn out of the Revelation, and in the Explanation thereof 'tis no Shame nor Loss of Repu­tation to follow the Steps and Methods of Learned and Orthodox Men who went before, and, with great [Page 11]Success, opposed Error and Blasphemy; I do not hereby intend to deny a Man the liberty of making use of the Parts and Learning which God hath endued him with above others, and improve them to a fur­ther Confirmation of the Truth; but I would not have them to depart from the Foundation laid before them, nor to exercise their wandring Thoughts about the adorable and incomprehensible Nature of God, merely to affect Singularity, and thereby to be ap­plauded.

This very thing hath, of late, led if not tumbled some into strange and horrid Precipices, which, to a­void, they more and more intangled themselves there­in, as hath well been observed by others; 'tis no good Consequence for such to say, that if a Person be a Mind, a Spirit, and a Substance, then Three Persons must be Three distinct Minds, Spirits, and Substances, as distinct as Adam and Abel, though not separate: But the Error of the Hypothesis lies in this which openeth the false Ground thereof, namely, be­cause Mind, Spirit, and Substance, in their proper sig­nification, are absolute; but Person, in its proper sig­nification, is a relative Term: because King William is King of England, Scotland, and Ireland, must we ar­gue, that since a King is a Man, an Animal, a Sub­stance, therefore, because of Three distinct, substan­tial Kingdoms, he is Three distinct Men, Three di­stinct Animals, and Three distinct Substances; not so, because Man, Animal, and Substance are Terms absolute, but King is relative. Suppose (as one said before, and to the purpose) a Man were Dean of Pauls, of Westminster, and of Windsor, should we thence conclude, that since a Dean is a Man, an Animal, a Substance, therefore because of Three di­stinct Deanaries, he is Three distinct Substances? I think not, because Man, Animal, Substance are Terms absolute, but Dean is relative. It is very sad now to see the blasphemous Heresie of the Threetheites or of Three Gods revived among us by such as might do better; in every well-order'd Christian State Idolatry and Blasphemy ought not to be tolerated, but severely punished.

I know there are certain Terms to be explained in the Discussion of these Controversies, especially in the Schools, as, may be, Essence, Existence, Subsistence, Substance, Individuum, Suppositum, Hypostasis, or Person, wherein they agree, and wherein they differ; but I conceive they who writ for a publick good, and would make these Points intelligible to most, if not to all Readers, might well avoid too far engaging in Meta­physical Notions; I humbly conceive it were better, because more profitablē, in a Theological way to write and explain that which is most necessary to be un­derstood according to the Pattern of Scripture and the Practice of the Orthodox Primitive Church, and of its Doctors, against Hereticks, as we have it in the three Creeds, which are a production of their universal Consent: But for some Men, herein thus far to in­dulge their fancy, as to let it spatiate as much as it will, and give it a full Latitude to wander, and then express it self in such Terms as one of a Hundred Thousand can hardly understand the meaning there­of: Nay, upon reasonable grounds, it may be doubt­ed whether the Author doth well understand them; this is only to intricate the Matter, to puzzle the Rea­der, and that which is worse, to want a due respect for the Majesty of God, whose Mysteries ought to be handled with an awful Reverence; no Man may pre­sume to know of him beyond what he hath been plea­sed to reveal himself; for if we cannot well and per­fectly know things created, much less the Creator, neither can the less comprehend the greater; and if Rom. 11.33. God's Judgments be past finding out, much more is he himself. Besides that, this way of thus managing these Matters doth much prejudice the Cause, and gives the Adversaries thereof ground to say of us, They cannot among themselves agree how to defend it.

CHAP. II. Of Divine Essence.

HERETICKS Dispute against the Words Es­sence, Trinity, and Person used in the Primitive Church; but sound Faith contendeth not a­bout Words, when the Truth of the thing is agreed upon: Trinity is the abstract whereof three is the Concret, expressed 1 John 5.7. as that of Jehovah and Lord signifie the Essence render'd by him Revel. 1.8. Which is, which was, and which is to come: as for Persons, though it be not as to the Letter in Scripture, yet 'tis virtually, first in the word [...], equivalent to that of Heb. 1.3. Person; then in the very same word, but spoken of 2 Cor. 1.11. Men, where it signifies an Individuum or a Person, and though just the very word is not used in Scripture, 'tis not material, because in Divinity; not the Word but the Thing, not the Sound but the Sense, are to be minded: And though the word Person be deduc'd from Stages and things not serious, yet we ought to look to the Use more than to the E [...]ymology or Derivation; and what if it be taken from things created and very unlike to God? So we may say, Are all Words purified from their original Imperfe­fection? But for the abuse of a Word or a Thing, we must not leave the right use of it.

When Scripture saith, there is One God, this One­ness can relate to nothing but to the Being, Essence, or Nature of God; for in this respect, God is one; so we have reason thereby to represent the Unity of the Godhead; there is in Scripture mention of God's God­head Rom. 1.20., and of his Nature; when they which by na­ture are no gods Gal. 4.8., are excluded from being Objects of our Worship: So when Scripture reveals there is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it makes a distinction between them, yet calls every one God; have we not cause thereupon to call them Three Persons, and af­firm, [Page 14]that in One Essence or Godhead are Three Per­sons? Do not these Words express the thing, with­out doing it any Wrong or Injury; for they are nei­ther profane nor unworthy of God; if the Words Essence, Unity, Trinity, be not in so many Letters in Scriptures, no more is the Word Sacrament; yet though the Name be not in, the thing is. But herein they are more peevish than their Father Socinus, who tells Francis David Vol. I. p. 778., that though the Terms of Essence and Person be not in Scripture, if the Sense be, 'tis no matter, and that they who went upon such Grounds exposed their Cause. The Method which the Ene­mies to this Truth ought to take, should be this, Whe­ther they own, according to the Revelation, the Fa­ther, Son, and Holy Ghost to be One God? Which, if they deny, we want no Proofs; but if they own it, then let them proceed to a Debate, whether they are One in Nature and Three in Persons, or how the Case is to be stated; for it is very unreasonable to di­spute about Words and Explication of any thing con­cerning the Relations or Manner, till the thing it self be plainly confessed or denied.

Now by the Grace of God, we must proceed, and though I love not a [...], a Dispute about Words, yet as Words do signifie Things, so some are so fun­damental to the matter in hand, that something I must say about 'em; the first is Essence, [...], de­rived from [...], he which is; what Exod. 3.14. we call Es­sence or Nature, is not an imaginary thing, and ex­isting only in the Mind as in an Idea, neither is it a thing separated from the Persons, but always inhe­rent in them, whereby they subsist; so that if there were no Individuum of such a Species, there also would be no Essence of that Species, as in the case of Human Nature, which comprehends a rational Soul, and an organical Body; then Humanity is that where­by every Man is a Man, but this Nature doth not subsist without Men, but is so inherent in Men, that in case there were no Men, there could be no hu­man Nature, or Humanity: Thus in God, the Di­vine Essence is not a thing Existing without Son, Fa­ther, and Holy Ghost, as if it was a fourth thing [Page 15]wherein these Three be contained; but as we say in Philosophy of the Soul, est tota in toto, & tota in qualibet parte, so divine Nature is whole in the Fa­ther, whole in the Son, and whole in the Holy Ghost, and that in an infinitely more excellent way than ei­ther Nature or the Soul are in us; for they are finitely in Men, but infinitely in every Person of the Trinity, and exactly and perfectly the same; for indeed the Essence of God is nothing else but his Nature, name­ly the Deity or the Godhead; God is not divided into divers Essences, but distinguished into divers Persons; God cannot be divided into several Natures or Parts, so the Persons which subsist in that One Essence, are only distinct, and not separate one from another: He who saith a Person of the holy Trinity, saith One Essence common to Three Persons. Hereupon we must know how in the most Holy Trinity some­thing is common to the Three Persons, such is the Essence, and something incommunicable and pro­per to every one in their respective relations: We ought further to know how the Words Essence, Sub­stance, and Nature, though in some respect they may admit of some difference, yet when spoken of the Godhead they are taken for one and the same: Where­unto may be added Deity and God's being, there is in Schools of Divinity and Philosophy but one Greek word [...] from [...] to be, to signifie Essence and Substance, and therefore let me speak to some by way of warning, that they may multiply Substan­ces no more than Essences, for 'tis but one and the same thing, without running into Tritheism or the Blasphemy of Three Gods; neither may they enter­tain the Notions of Three Minds, Beings, or Spirits; for as there is but One divine Nature and Being, and but One God, so that same God is but One Spirit: Wherefore in these times Men should follow the Chri­stian Prudence and Moderation of the Doctors of the Church in former Ages, who were very cautious not to rush into new Notions of their own about these Matters, or rashly to run into new fangled Opi­nions or Hypotheses, as they call them, or Supposi­tions of their own, when it would be much better [Page 16]for them to follow the Theses of the Text, among Attributes of what we call Essence, Metaphysicians reckon this to be one, that it is to be participatively indivisible, because 'tis equally imparted to those whose Essence it is; for if there was any Addition, Diminu­tion, or Alteration, it would not be the same; much more and upon a better account doth this hold about that Divine Nature by the Apostle in the very words at­tributed unto God, 2 Pet. 1.4. In the Godhead there is no Division, only Distinction, the Essence and Persons not really but rationally distinct; for the Essence is whole and indivisible in every Person, but the Persons be really di­stinct one from another, by means of some incommuni­cable Attribute; for the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Holy Ghost either Father or Son.

The Essence is, as School-men say, the Quiddity of the thing, that whereby the thing is what it is; con­cerning which this is to be observed, the Essence nei­ther begetteth nor is begotten, it neither breatheth nor is breathed; this is the Attribute of the Person not of the Nature; nevertheless, in the Generation and Breathing is the whole Essence, because 'tis indivi­sible, communicated to the Person begotten, the Son, and to the proceeding, the Holy Ghost, and 'tis true, the Son is begotten of the Essence of the Father, for he is God of God, Light of Light, and to his only begotten Son the Father hath given all things, except to be Father, according to that saying of our blessed Saviour John 5.26., as the father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the son to have life in himself.

CHAP. III. Of the Persons of the Godhead.

BUT this leads me to speak of the Persons, and upon the matter 'tis fit to know in general what a Person is, namely one particular thing indivisible, incommunicable, living, reasonable, subsisting in it self, [Page 17]and not having part of another; the first, because no general Notion is a Person; the second, because a Person may not be divided into many parts; the third, because thô one may communicate his Nature, yet his Personality he cannot communicate; the fourth, no Person without Life and Reason; the fifth, because every Person is a Being that hath its own proper sub­sisting; thus Christ's Humanity is not a Person, because it doth not subsist in it self; the sixth, because that which is part of another is no Person; thus the Soul of Man separated from the Body is no Person. Now the words [...] and [...] are of a larger ex­tent than that of Person, for they are spoken of any in­dividual Substance; but a Person is an individual Sub­stance, complete, rational, and as we said, differing from another by means of some incommunicable Pro­perty: Hence we say that a Person in the Trinity is whole God, not absolutely or simply consider'd, but by means of some personal Propriety; 'tis not a Species of God, or of the Deity, nor part, nor a thing dif­ferent from the Deity, nor a bare relation, or only a manner of being and subsisting, but 'tis the Essence of God with a certain manner of subsisting, [...], neither is it a Compound of the Essence or of the manner of subsisting.

So then a Person of the Deity is usually described to be an incommunicable Subsistence of the divine Es­sence; for in One and most simple nature of God are several Persons distinct, to whom the infinite and sin­gular Nature of One onely God is common; for Scri­pture doth teach us, that there is but One God, and Three distinct Persons, to whom it doth attribute the Proprieties of God, whence we may conclude, that there is in God Oneness or Unity of Essence and Plu­rality of Persons: This is matter of Faith to be be­lieved, and not of Fact to be cavil'd at: Hence we find how in Scripture the word God is sometimes ta­ken for the Essence and Nature of God, and at other times for certain Persons of the Godhead, as we shall have occasion to shew; the Father hath his Essence originally in himself, and from none other; the Son [Page 18]and the Holy Ghost have the self-same increated Essence in themselves, as well as the Father, but not from themselves; the Son and Holy Ghost are [...] of the same nature with the Father, not in the same sense as Men are among themselves, for Men are di­vided one from another, but the Persons of the blessed Trinity not so, for they be absolutely undi­vided, so that the Three are but One God. The Greeks call [...] a Person in the same signification as we use when we say the Person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: Now Scripture names them as things distinguished between themselves, individual, subsi­sting, &c. as we said just before, if they be, as they are, working and acting, then they are Persons ac­cording to the Axiome in Philosophy, actiones sunt suppositorum: Now if the Father be such, if the Son and Holy Ghost be such, what can hinder us from saying, the Father is a Person, the Son is a Person, the Holy Ghost is a Person? The Greek Fathers made use of the word [...], which in Heb. 1.3. Scripture we find in the same sense, that is, Person, as we use it, where Christ is called the express Image of his [the Father's] person: I say, they made use of it against Hereticks who denyed Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be Three things, so different as that the one is not and cannot be the other; though as I already said, in Scripture we have not in so many Letters the Words of Unity, Trinity, Essence, and Person, yet we therein have the things themselves whence they be derived, and the very Words we find used by many of the antient Fathers.

Now Person and Personality are in divine much different of what they are in human things, because the one is infinite and the other finite; human Nature is One, but in Specie in many Persons, as Peter, James, Paul, but divine Nature is but One and the same in number, existing in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; as far as we are able to apprehend, the Person differs from the Nature not really but rationally, as the man­ner. of a thing from the thing it self, as may be a degree of heat from the heat it comes to: Divine [Page 19]Essence is whole in every Person, but not as the whole is in its parts; for 'tis not divided as we said, but indivisible; now the manner of subsisting of the Divine Essence, which is but One in number in Three Persons, is incomprehensible and unexpressible, and the manner how the Godhead is attributed to the Three, is singular and wonderful, which no Rea­son can demonstrate, nor Example illustrate; to which purpose, saith our Saviour Luk. 10.22. No man knows who the son is but the father, and who the father is but the son, and to whom the son will reveal him: By virtue of that Revelation, the manner of knowing the Fa­ther is not the same as is in the Son; yet Nature doth not produce Nature, nor Nature Person, nor Person Nature; but Person doth Person, not of the Essence, but in unity of the same Nature, common to the Three Persons, neither doth it produce with­out it self as in corporeal things, because no Pe­netration of Dimension, but within it self, for 'tis in­finite: Now the Father gives Nature to the Son, and both to the Holy Ghost, not by Alienation, but by Communication, which is so imparted to the Re­ceiver, as that it still remains in the Giver, as one Light hath it from another, without any Diminution: Hence it is that one Person doth not subsist without the other, as 'tis in Men, but all Three do, one with­in another; this made our Saviour say John 10.38., The father is in me and I in him, and Ch. 14.10. I am in the father and the father in me: Yet this hinders not but that they are distinct among themselves; for they are not so one in another as the Accident is in its Subject neither is one predicated and spoken of the other, as Man is of John; for the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Holy Ghost, 'tis enough they are personally di­stinguished, and in their manner of subsisting, the Fa­ther unbegotten begets the Son, the Son begotten of the Father, the Holy Ghost proceeding from both; as this is ad intra, inwardly and among themselves, so outwardly; though the outward Works be com­mon to the Three, yet it seemed good to divine Wis­dom, particularly to attribute unto the Father the [Page 20]Work of Creation, to the Son that of Redemption, to the Holy Ghost that of Sanctification; Works of Power in Schools of Divinity are attributed to the Father, of Wisdom to the Son, of Mercy and Good­ness to the Holy Ghost. In these Works ad extra, as Creation, Salvation, Sanctification, essentially there is but One Cause and Principle; for there is but One God, but personally there are Three, because Three Persons, which not [...] but [...] do free­ly cooperate; and as these Persons in subsisting are distinguished in order, so also in their working, one doth not operate without the other, and this Ope­ration follows the Subsistence; the Father is and works from none, the Son from the Father, and the Holy Ghost from both; yet this order of work­ing doth take away the Equality of Persons no more than doth their Order of subsisting.

Now the Acts whereby the Father hath begot­ten the Son, and both produced the Holy Ghost, are in several senses voluntary and necessary; the first, be­cause no Violence or Compulsion, but very freely; the second, 'tis not voluntary but necessary, if we take Voluntary in opposition to Natural; for Vo­luntary signifies Contingent, that which can be or not be; but 'tis so necessary, that the Father could not but beget the Son, and both breath the Holy Ghost; and this from all eternity, otherwise some new thing had befaln divine Nature, which is ab­surd: And this Generation and Production are not as in human things, where the Father is in time before the Son, but here the Son is coeternal with the Father, and the Holy Ghost with both, not forci­bly but necessarily, as Light is from the Sun, and Heat from the Fire; so the Father is no more with­out the Son and the Holy Ghost, than the Sun is without Light; God is not without his Wisdom and his Virtue, and this from all eternity, I mean that called imparticipata, or à parte ante and à parte post, that is, without beginning or ending, incom­municable to the Creature; and herein indeed doth differ this divine Production from that of the Light [Page 21]of the Sun and Heat of the Fire, wherein is a succession and a difference, the Light of the Sun to day is sometime different from that of yesterday, but the Son is to day the same he was yesterday; Heb. 13 8. Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

There is also an order among the Three Persons, the Father is first, as Matth, 28.19., Baptize the nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; thus the Father is named first, 1 John 5.7. the Son next, then the Holy Ghost: In the Creed, the Father is also named first, the Son the second, the Holy Ghost the third; the Father of himself, the Son of the Father, and the Holy Ghost, as already said, of both, yet all Three may be called and are [...] self God, as we shall by Gods Grace speak of more hereafter: Neither doth the divine Nature, though subsisting of it self, as sin­gle, and individual, make any fourth Person in the Godhead distinct from the Three, because it subsisteth in a certain manner, and only in the Persons of Fa­ther, Son, and Holy Ghost; these Three Persons are not of another or different Nature, nor of the like or [...], under which word the Arians would have shelter'd their Error, nor of a common as Men who have a common Essence but not the same in Number; but this divine Essence in Three Persons is the very same in number. All this is a great Mystery, reveal­ed in the Word of God, professed by the Church from Christ's time to this, though Satan's Rage against the Son of God, 1 John 3.8. who came to destroy his works, did from time to time raise up Instruments to blaspheme against it, and we ought humbly and devoutly to adore, and not presumptuously and profanely dive in­to it.

CHAP. IV. Of the most Holy Trinity.

ALthough the matter about the divine Nature, and the Three Persons which we have already spoken of, be but one and the same with that of the most adorable Trinity, as indeed they in Discourse are Parts one of another, and so twisted and connexed together that what we speak of one hath a Relation to, and Dependency upon the other, yet before we come to the Polemical or Controversial Part of these Points, we by the Grace of God, shall under the Head of the Blessed Trinity, continue to speak of the Didactical or Doctrinal Part of our Discourse, the more to inculcate into the Minds of the Readers less acquainted with these Disputes, what Grounds they ought to go upon, and to believe concerning these Fundamentals of our Faith, and necessary Doctrines of our Salvation. What we believe about it, is above, not against Reason, for we believe not One God to be many Gods, nor Three Persons to be but One Person: If in Human Things I should say absolutely, I James, am Father and Son, it were a Contradiction indeed, but to speak it relatively, there is none at all; I cannot say, I am Son and Fa­ther to my Father, or Father and Son to my Son, but I may very well say I James one Man, am upon a dif­ferent Account, and in a different Relation, Son and Father, in regard to my Father I am a Son, in relation to my Son, I am a Father; let the great Masters of, or pretenders to Reason, herein shew me a Contradi­ction; no more can they, when I say, in the Godhead is one Essence or Nature, subsisting in Three Persons, and Three Persons existing in One Essence, Unity in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.

This great Point is not only very hard and difficult by reason of the Mystery of the Eternal, unspeakable [Page 23]and incomprehensible Generation of the Son of God by the Father, but also of a most high Concernment; First, Upon the Account of God's Glory, for to deny this Doctrine, is to deny the True God, because 1 John 2.23. who­soever denieth the Son, the same hath not the-Father. Secondly, Upon the Account of our Salvation, which by no means can be obtained without it, let Arminians say on the contrary what they will. For, John 17.3. this is eternal life to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent: And who is he but 1 John 5.20. the Son of God, the true God, and eternal life.

We say, Trinity or Triunity not Triplicity, for this last implies a Composition of Three Parts; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are alius & alius, not aliud & aliud, other and other, but not other thing and other thing; Three distinct Persons, but One and the same Na­ture; we distinguish the Persons, saith De Trin. & Ʋnit. cap. 11. Austin, but di­vide not the Deity or Essence; they are not distinct Essentially, for there is but one Essence, but personal­ly, that is, one Person is not the other, the Father not the Son, nor the Son the Father, and the Holy none of the other two: Peter, Paul and John, are not only distinct amongst themselves, but also divided one from another; so they are three Men, though but one specifical Nature, because created and finite; but in an infinite Being 'tis otherwise, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, though distinct, yet not divided; for there is but one numerical Nature, the three are Consubstan­tial or Coessential in Nature, Coeternal in Time, and Coequal in Power.

The Knowledge of One God may be had by the Light of Nature, but that of the Holy Trinity, only out of Scripture, for the one is according to Reason, but the other above it; two ways there are to know God, the 1st. Nature, the 2d. Revelation; that, is defectuous, this is perfect to which God tied his Church, which alone knoweth and calleth upon God according to what he manifested of himself in his Holy Word, and thereby her Religion is different from that of all the rest of the World, and there is no other sa­ving way to come to God but by Christ, whose Go­spel [Page 24]is preached as the only Doctrine of Salvation; and we must not have of God such Notions as our Fancy or natural Reason suggest unto us, but such as he hath declared in his Word, for he is a vo­luntary Cause of all, whose Ways and Methods we ought to observe, and be guided by, in our Religion, for Ephes. 1.11. & v. 5. he works all things according to the counsel of his own will, and according to the good pleasure of his will: Yet this Holy Mystery is a stumbling-block unto the Jews and unto the Greeks foolishness, and both look upon it as Heresie, though if God's Word be the Word of Truth, this, as we hope to shew, is cer­tainly the True, Sound Doctrine, because grounded upon it, though unsound Men will neither believe it nor consent about it to the Faith of the Primitive Church and Orthodox Doctors of all Ages nor to the Confessions of Faith of all Christian Reformed Chur­ches, as if the Spirit of God and of Truth was de­parted from them All, to be only amongst Soci­nians.

Second Substances do exist only in the First, Man in general existeth only in James, John, that are indi­vidual, and Words are what Use makes them; an In­divisible and most single Essence abstractively consi­dered, may and doth concretively exist in Three Persons; no Man may well say, that an infinite Es­sence doth not admit of three Modes or Manners of Subsistence, but he only which fancies within his shallow and finite Intellect, to understand perfectly an infinite Nature with her Modes of subsisting, which to pretend to, implieth Absurdity and Impiety: And to affirm that to be One in relation to its Essence, and many as to the Modes, is no more contradictory, than to say the same Man is real in respect of his Essence, and modal as to his Subsistence; wherefore they who would terminate an infinite Essence only to one man­ner of subsisting, so that it may not be communicated to another Person; either they understand not what an infinite Nature is, or else misTake the meaning of the word Terminate or Confine, which is not to prescribe limits, for that an infinite Nature doth abhor; but [Page 25]the meaning is, that an Essence as may be the Father's, is so the Father's Essence, as may not be the Son's in the same manner, but it may be in a different way.

Upon this Matter, it ought carefully to be observed how the Divine Essence is considered either Absolutely or Relatively to the manner of existing; in respect to both, the Father is of himself, in relation to the first, the Son also is of himself, but as to the second, he is from the Father, so is the Holy Ghost of himself in respect to the first, that is absolutely consider'd, but as to the second, he proceedeth from both Father and Son: Wherefore the Father is absolutely [...], self God, because both as to his Essence and as to his Person he is not from another, but the Son and Holy Ghost are also Self God, though not as to the Person, the Son being begotten by the Father as the Holy Ghost proceedeth from both; but as to the Nature, because both are by that Essence which is not pro­duced by another, or depend upon another, but that same which of it self and by it self, doth exist from all Eternity; the Three Persons have but One and the same Essence, and they are not essentially distin­stinguished. The Son is from the Father by Genera­tion, not as to his Essence, but in relation to his Person; not absolutely as God, but relatively as Son, for the Son hath the same Nature and Substance as the Fa­ther, Self God as he, though not in the same man­ner; the Father may not be called Essentiator, if I may so say, of the Son or Holy Ghost, nor these Es­sentiated, the Son is God of himself, though not Son of himself; the manner whereby theSon is said to be from the Father is in Scripture described by the word Generation, which is nothing else but a Communica­tion of one and the same Essence or Life that is Eter­nal and Indivisible, as expressed Psal. 2.7. and John 5. v. 26. which are not to be confounded with, nor mea­sured by physical Generation, there being neither pri­ority nor posteriority of Duration, no mutation or pas­sing from Power to Act, from a not Being to a Being, from a division and multiplication of Essence, from a [Page 26]formal Reason of active and passive Generation, from a dependency of him that is begotten upon him that hath begotten, or from a greater to the lesser; so there is no such Imperfections as are in Natural and Meta­physical in which are priority and posteriority of Na­ture, though not of Time: So there is no Conse­quence to be drawn out of one for the other; thus though a natural begetter doth efficiently beget of himself, materially from himself, terminatively out of himself, no such thing is to be conceived of this Ge­neration of the Son of God, for though in Human Things the begetter and the begotten do sometimes differ in the genus, sometimes in the species or kind; in Divine Things they differ only in the modus or manner: This Generation is without any Motion, hath no beginning nor ending, because he that begets and he that is begotten are Coeternal.

What we say of the Son, may be affirmed of the Holy Ghost, who is from the Father and from the Son by way of procession, not as to the Nature but as to the Person, for the Essence and Self-being of the Holy Ghost is just the same with that of the Father and of the Son, he is Self-God Actually though not Originally, Essentially though not Personally. Now these Three Persons of the Godhead are distinguished by their Names, Orders, Attributes and Workings, which Di­stinctions do not prejudice either the Unity or Simpli­city of Essence, for it is not composed of Persons, which are not before it, either in Time or Order, but, every one hath the whole Essence; neither can the Persons be said to be composed of the Essence, because it is not before the Persons, neither doth the manner of sub­sisting induce any Composition into the Essence, only a Distinction, and is said to modificate not to multiply it: Now the modus or manner is here improperly taken, for commonly 'tis posterior to the Subject it doth modifie: But in this, it is not so, there is not in the Persons of the most Holy Trinity such a real Di­stinction as is between Things and Things, for the Person is not a different Thing from the Divine Es­sence, [Page 27]but 'tis the very Essence with the manner of subsisting.

In some natural Things the manner of them is hard, and sometimes impossible to be understood: Can a Man upon sure Grounds find out how Grass and Corn grows? How the Wind is formed? Whence it comes and whither it goes? and several such things in Na­ture; we no ways doubt but that there are in the World those who pretend to know all things, and pre­tend for most things to give Reasons, such as they are, But can a Man know how he himself was made and formed? How his Soul came to be united to his Body? This Ignorance in common Matters we daily see and feel to be in our selves; and what must it be in those Spiritual and High Ones which are such as no Eye hath seen, nor Ear hath heard, nor ever entered into the Heart of Man, and which 'tis impossible for the Wit of Man to conceive; which Consideration should curb the Idle Curiosity of vain Men, who as with a little short Line, would with their shallow Brains fathom the bottomless and unsearchable Depths of these adorable Mysteries, when with the Apostle 2 Cor. 12.4. that was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable Words, they should cry out, Rom. 11.33. O the depth, that cannot be fa­thomed.

Yet to shew we are not altogether unacquainted with the Notions and Hypotheses of others about these Matters, in a stammering manner, let us say, that the Psal. 147 5. infinite Ʋnderstanding of God never is or was Idle, and as it is his very Being, so from all Eternity, it ever was taken up, and this Understanding of God being All in All, it cannot meet with any thing but himself, so it did understand and conceive it self; as in a Looking-Glass, a Man doth conceive and beget a perfect Image of his own Face, so God in beholding and minding of himself, doth in himself beget a most lively and perfect Image of himself, and this in the Blessed Trinity is the Son of God, who is called Heb. 1 3. the perfect Image of God; just as if we may use such Com­parisons, Wax upon a Seal hath the engraven Form of the Seal, so the Son of God whom his Father hath be­gotten [Page 28]of his own Understanding, is the very Form of his Father's Understanding, and when one is seen, the other is seen also, as he saith to Philip, Joh. 14.9. he who hath seen me hath seen the Father; and under the Name of Wisdom, he saith, when there were no Depths, and before the Mountains were settled, Prov. 8.23, 24, 25. I was brought forth.

And as in God's Essence there is an Understanding, so there is Isa. 46.10. a Will, and by this Will God according to his own Mind, applies his Power, where, when, and how he thinks good; and as his Understanding doth so his Will everlastingly works upon himself, as it hath no other Thing to work upon but it self, it de­lighteth it self in the Infinite Goodness which it know­eth in it self, and that Delight which God or his Will hath in its own Infinite Goodness, produces a Subsi­stance in God, which is the Holy Ghost, and that mu­tual Love whereby the Father takes Delight in his Son, which is his own Image conceived by his Understand­ing, and the Son likewise rejoyceth in his Father; now this Action of the Will when it is fulfilled, is Liking and Love, as when a Man looketh in a Glass, if he smiles, his Image doth so too, and if it takes De­light in it, it takes the same in him, for they are both One, and from these Two doth result the Third, all Three are in One Face, of One Face, and but One Face: Thus if we will make use of our Reason in these Mysterious and Incomprehensible Matters, we must stutter and stammer; wherefore the best is chiefly, and only to stand to, and depend upon the Revelation thereof that God hath made in his Word, beyond which. Men ought not to presume, for in Matters of so High a Concernment to speak true and certain Things there is some Danger of the contrary: Herein we can give no Examples, because there is nothing like God; we have no natural Grounds and Principles positively to prove these Truths, all Comparisons from the Sun, the Soul, the Rain-bow, a Triangle; and of my speaking as I, my Word, and my Breath are Three several Things different one from another, yet I am but One Man, and such like lame Comparisons fall [Page 29]very short of Illustrating these Mysteries, if we can­not understand how Original Sin is propagated in us, seeing our Soul is not ex traduce, begotten by Parents, how much less can we comprehend that Infinite and Eternal Being of One God in Three Persons.

After this, is it not Just that Men should own how the Trinity is a High Mystery which falls not under Senses, and is infinitely above our Understanding? rather to be believed than felt or understood, whereof the Re­velation ought to be the sufficient and only Rule, as when Scripture saith, 1 Joh. 5.7. there are three in Heaven, the Father, the Word and Holy Ghost, and these three are one; I must not puzzle my Brain to know how this can be; thus when the Apostle revealeth there is to be a Resurrection of the dead, when some Men will say, 1 Cor. 15.35, 36. How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come? This is the rational Man who will dive too far, the Apostle for his pains calls him a Fool, thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickned except it die; so in Matter of God's Decrees, thou wilt then say unto me why doth he yet find fault? The Apostle's An­swer is, Rom. 9.19, 20. Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? This is to curb that idle and presumptuous Curiosity of vain and foolish Men who work their shal­low Brains to find out things which can be known no otherwise than by Revelation; wherefore let us stick to that Rule about the Holy Trinity, we can and must know no more than is revealed in Scripture; and here­in we must follow the Example of the Doctors of the pure Primitive Church, who borrowed no Arguments of Philosophy against the Hereticks that troubled them, but only out of Scripture, the more because in Mat­ters of so great a Concernment as are the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, the Devil hath used his strongest Batteries; but he that trusteth to his own Reason, will fall short of the necessary Knowledge thereof, and in this case, I may say what is spoken in another, that if Men had been satisfied to make use only of their own Eye, without any other help, they could never have found out the magnitude of the Sun, &c. if so in the Secrets of Nature, much less in [Page 30]Things of Divine Concernment and of Deity it self; in human and finite Things we conceive well enough how in the same Nature are many Persons to whom it is communicated, but that that Nature is but one and the same, and that so many Individuals make but one Man in the kind no Mind can conceive; but in Men the Reason of the Multiplication is in the finite Individuals, which are not only distinct one from another, but also have their several Bounds, and that universal Nature is, as if it were, rented into so many Parts; but as God is Infinite, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is In­finite, the Infinite cannot so much as in thought be se­parated, wherefore it must not be thought an absurdity if in Divine Things there is no multiplicity of Gods as there is of Men in human Nature; but still after this reasoning I return within the Circle to consult Scrip­ture, more than to stretch our Reason, with Job let us say, Job 11.7, 8, 9. Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection, &c. O Isai. 55.8, 9. my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways saith the Lord. Every Man may in this Matter apply to himself what is said, in the Book of Proverbs Chap. 30.2.3, 4., Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man. I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledg of the holy. Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the winds in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his sons name, if thou canst tell? This is by way of defiance.

In this Controversie Three several things are to be taken notice of; first, The truth of the thing, name­ly, that there is a God, but One God and Three Per­sons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which to hold is necessary to our Faith. Secondly, the Explanation thereof relating to the Doctrine which we already have said several things about, whereunto we now shall in part repeat, and in part add these few things: Divine Essence communicable to Three Persons is nei­ther multiplyed nor divided, as 'tis in Men and An­gels; for though their Natures be but one and the [Page 31]same in Species, yet 'tis different in Number, but in the Deity not so; for the same Nature in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is but one and the same in Number: in the Persons is an order of origine, according to which proceedeth not Essence from Essence absolute­ly consider'd, nor Person from Essence, nor one God from another God, but one Person from another Per­son, and from other Persons very God of very God; for the Three Persons are One God, and every Person is perfect God; in every Person is to be consider'd the common and the proper Mode; in God we may not conceive any thing besides One Essence and Three Modes, whereby with the Essence are constituted Three Persons, in these Persons one is not before or after the other, only in order and manner of subsisting, whatsoever is essential is common to the Three, and what is personal is proper to every one of the Three; the Mode or Personality is the Abstract, but the Mode with the Nature is the Concret: Here is no Acci­dent, no Genus, no Species, no Difference, no speci­fic Unity in God, but an essential and individual Na­ture. The Difference of Hypostases or Persons in Di­vine Nature is from the different relation and man­ner of Subsistence, which cannot be confounded. There are essential and relative Properties, the first belong to every Person, because every Person hath the same Nature; but not the second, whereby they are distinguished one from another; the Son is not the Father, nor the Father the Son: This also is to be taken notice of, that a finite Nature is capable of Division, which an infinite is not, or else it were not infinite; therefore in this, God's Nature admits of no Comparison with any created one whatsoever.

The Third thing to be observed in this Controver­sie is, the Proof, not to be taken out of Nature or Rea­son, but out of Scripture, of both Old and New Te­staments; and herein we must be very cautious how we draw and press Consequences from the Creature to the Creator, because there is an infinite Disparity and Disproportion between them, as there is between a finite and an infinite Nature; this last filleth all when [Page 32]the other is confined within narrow bounds; for the infinite, as we said, being communicated, is neither divided, multiplied nor alienated: Scripture calls God, the True God, God's own and proper Son; yet Socinians have rather in the Christian Religion to admit two Gods, whereof one is a made, feigned, titular God, than a plurality of Persons in the Unity of Essence, which Opinion of theirs is really more absurd than they would have the Truth we own to seem to be; because it doth quite destroy divine Nature; for a made and secondary God, is absurd and a mere Contradiction, as good as to say, God no God: This is a Notion borrowed from the Hea­thens who had their Semi-gods, that is Men, who in their life-time having done some great Actions, were after their death, by Apotheosis, deifi'd and reckon'd among their gods: According to this fancy our Sa­viour may be such a Heroe and God, as their Hercules was: This is their good Christian Doctrine. The ground of their Error is, that they think the num­ber of Persons doth multiply the Essence; also they make a Confusion between being and the manner of it: And they ask us, why we do not rather multiply Essences in the plurality of the Persons, than Persons in the Unity of Essence? whereunto we answer, that we therein follow the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost in the word, and he who makes Three Essences doth also make Three Gods, but he that saith there is One divine Nature in Three Persons doth not make Three Gods; now Scripture and Reason teach us there is but One God, and the same Scripture saith also, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are but One God; and 'tis to be ob­serv'd how the word Father, when used alone, as 'tis in the Lord's Prayer, without relation to the Son, is, as well as that of God, common to the Three Persons, but when it signifies a Person of the Trinity first in order, then 'tis relatively to the Son.

Now the Plurality of Persons in One divine Es­sence is proved by Arguments drawn out of Five several Heads, whereof the First doth consist in se­veral [Page 33]clear Testimonies out of Scripture. Secondly, from the relatives or opposite Relations, as Father, Son, Spirit, to beget, to be begotten, and to proceed from the Father and from the Son. Thirdly, by di­stinguishing Properties, as Creator to the Father, Re­deemer to the Son, Sanctifier to the Holy Ghost. Fourthly, by peculiar Apparitions to be read in both the Old and New Testaments. And Fifthly, by dif­ferent Operations; the Four last I shall not insist up­on, only some of them I shall have occasion to speak of in some place of my Discourse; but the first I in­tend by the Grace of God chiefly to enlarge upon: These Scripture Proofs are of three kinds, the first speaks of a Plurality of Persons in God, the second of Three Persons, and the third mentions the Son by himself, and the Holy Ghost by himself; for about the Father there is no Dispute, yet to avoid Prolixity, we shall make use only of some few places out of the many which Scripture doth afford.

We shall begin with that of Genesis Gen. 1.1., In the begin­ning God created: in the Hebrew the Word God is in the Plural Number, not Eloah which is the Singular, but Elohim the Plural; surely there must be some reason why a Nominative in the Plural is joyned to a Verb in the Singular as Bara is, that signifies created; certainly this shews some kind of Plurality in the divine Nature, we may well say it is not with­out cause that in a Tongue whereof in a special man­ner God is the Author, and in which are many Names in the Singular Number, yet this in the Plural is made use of to signifie God, not only in this place but ve­ry often and in many more: There are many other Names of God; but none more frequently used than this in the Plural: Why then, if in the Godhead there be but One single Person, should God delight so much in being called so often in the Plural? I say farther, that as the History of the Creation could not be written but by help of Revelation, and that God chose Moses a Man of very great Wisdom, so [...] being inspired of God, inserted therein nothing [...] might be called rash and superfluous; so 'twas [...] [Page 34]at a venture that he chose that Word amongst so many others to name God in the great Work of Creation, which being terminated outwardly, is com­mon and belongs to the Three Persons of the Tri­nity; and a thing very observable is, that in that first Chapter of Genesis, no less than Thirty two times that very same word Elohim in the plural is construed with a Verb in the singular, when in the Second Chapter that of Jehovah, which is a singular, is Ele­ven times joyned to the Verb of a singular Number: What else can the plural Number in God signifie but some Plurality?

The Name Elohim is the first given to God in Scri­pture, and though it be plural, yet 'tis not personal but essential, and according to the Hebrew Idiome is spoken both of the Nature and of the Persons; hence there is only One Elohim, not Three, as in the Athanasian Creed 'tis well observed, that the Fa­ther is Almighty, the Son Almighty, the Holy Ghost Almighty, yet not Three Almighties but only One; now the Name Elohim being derived from God's Power, there are not Three Elohims, no more than Three Almighties, wherefore 'tis joyned with an Adjective singular, Elohim Zaddik, Deus juste, O God, righteous, Psal. 7.10. which they who are for Three Spirits and Three Substances are desired to take notice of, and how their Hypothesis is herein contrary to the Athanasian Creed.

Farthermore, in the beginning of the Exod. 20.2. Decalogue, this word Elohim is joyned with the Pronoun posses­sive in the singular thy, though the word God be in the plural; and Josh. 24.19. elsewhere we have it joyned with an Adjective in the plural, and with a Relative in the singular, he is an holy God, he is in the singular, God and holy are in the plural: Nay, we have it also pre­fix'd to a Verb in the plural, where Abraham said Gen. 20.13., When God caused (this Verb is in the plural) me to wander: So we have it elswhere 2 Sam. 7.23.; hence we may conclude, how in the Text in hand, not by chance, but by a special divine direction, the Name God is in the plural Number, and in the place already [Page 35]quoted in the Preface of the Ten Commandments, God makes use of the Lord Jehovah and God Elohim, the one as it seems to declare the Ʋnity of his Nature, and the other the Plurality of the Persons. Adonai a Name of God also in the plural Number, is fre­quently used either when God speaks of himself, or Men to or of him.

Another Text to prove the Plurality of Persons in the Godhead is this Gen. 1.26., Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness, which is an Exhor­tation to the other Persons that had a hand in the Creation, the Verb and the Pronouns are used in the plural; 'tis not said let me, but let us make; 'tis not said in my but in our image, not after my but after our likeness: This manner of speaking so different from the foregoing, is not in vain, but with a purpose to give us, for whose sake that History was written, a Subject to meditate upon. I know they say, God there speaks, as 'tis usual with Princes, in the plural Number, for Majesty and Greatness sake; and what if great men do so, must this through man's wan­drings be father'd also upon God? Princes do repre­sent their People, and also they comprehend their Counsellours; whence it is that in every Proclamation we have that Form, By the Advice of our Privy Council, which God doth not want: Let us more seriously con­sider this, doth God speak it to no body, (I am ne­cessitated to make use of that Expression) or to some? Surely no man that hath any regard to God can say or think, that in so serious a matter God speaks to nothing; if to some, then either to Angels or to some other Creature, not to Angels for they are not of God's Council, nor to any other of the Creatures which had neither Soul nor Reason, and the next Verse doth decide the thing Vers. 27., So god created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, and not after the Image of Angels, or of any other Creature; neither did God speak to the Souls, for as yet they were not created. To what I said of Angels I shall add, that this could not be spoken to them, for they neither principally or instrumentally had any hand in [Page 36]the Creation of Man; for they could not, the Work of Creation requiring an infinite Power, but it must be to the other persons of the most holy Trinity, the Word and the Spirit. As to the Enallage, or that man­ner of speaking in the plural for Greatness sake, we own it hath place in some Languages, but we de­ny it ever was in the Hebrew Tongue in the Old Testament, no Man, no person in Authority, no Priest, no Judg, no King ever spoke of himself in the plural Number: Well hath the Prophet said Isai 40.12, 13.7., Who hath directed the spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him? But for any one, Grotius not excep­ted, to say that the plural Number is used for Great­ness or Majesty sake, is certainly to prevaricate in the Cause of God; for as 'tis contrary to the Idiom of the Hebrew Tongue, so to the practice of all those former times, and it is but a modern Use and Inven­tion, which so support, some Men, contrary to all true Reason, have forged in their imagination. Be­sides that in these latter times wherein the Use hath been introduced, no Emperor, King, or Prince in any Language useth his Proper Name or Appellative in the plural Number, We Leopolds, Williams, Hen­rys, Emperors, Kings, &c. but always in the singu­lar, Leopold, William, Emperour, King.

Well, though no Man of what rank soever spoke after that way, we find God hath in other places, as after Adam's Sin Gen. 3.22., Behold, the man is become as one of us, not as I, but one of us; then there is more than One person, for God speaks of himself, of the Deity, not of Angels, whom he makes no comparison with, when in the Transfiguration the Voice came from Heaven, saying Mat. 17.5, 8., This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased; 'tis observable the Apostles saw no Man save Jesus onely, that it might appear, it was not spoken of Moses or Elias, but only of the Lord Jesus: Another place there is also to the same purpose, where upon the occasion of the building of the Tower of Babel Gen. 11.6, 7., The Lord said, let us go down and there confound their language; 'tis not said I will, but let us go [...]wn, in the plural Number, as speak­ing [Page 37]of many, which may not be understood of the Nature which is most singularly One, but of the Persons. Socinians say to this, that though out of this we could prove Plurality, yet we must not con­clude for a Trinity; but the Cavil is vain, for 'tis enough that the Name of God is in Scripture attri­buted only to Three, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to infer a Trinity, and 'tis well known how Three is the first Number of the plural: Hence Hebrews and Greeks do distinguish the plural Number from the dual; neither do we read of any more Terms or Words than two of divine Emanations, namely of the Son by Generation, and of the Holy Ghost by Procession.

Our second kind of Arguments consists of those Texts of Scripture, which do expresly declare a Trinity, as is that when our blessed Saviour sends his Apostles to Mat. 28.19. baptize the Nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Hence the Son and Holy Ghost are proved to be Persons, because we are distinctly baptised in their Name; to baptise in one's Name is to make him disciple, or initiate and bring him under the Discipline of him in whose Name he is baptized; now if the Father, in whose Name we are baptized, be a Person, so must the Son, so must the Holy Ghost be, because in eve­ry circumstance we are baptized in their Name as well as in the Fathers: And observe, it is not said in the Name of God, whereby the Essence only might absolutely be taken, but of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to shew that relative Equality which is between the Persons that have but one and the same Nature: In this Text our blessed Saviour with his own Mouth declared the Trinity.

Another place very plain and positive to our pur­pose is this 1 John 5.7., There are three that bear record in hea­ven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one: Here the Trinity of Persons and Unity of Essence are so clear, that the Adversaries have nothing to say, but first to call in question the Verse, as if it had been inserted, because it is not in some [Page 38] Greek Copies, out of which the Enemies of the Truth did formerly take it away, but we have it in so ma­ny others, even before the Council of Nice, in Cy­prian's time, that there is no just ground left to doubt of its being true and authentick, which place was by Athanasius made use of against Arrius: In this Text the Apostle doth treat of confessing and believing Je­sus Christ to be the Son of God, which he to con­firm doth bring in the Article of the holy Trinity, whereof he is the second Person, and to any one that doth seriously consider the sense and scope of the place, it will appear, how without that Verse there would be a breach in that part of the Chapter to bear a proportion of Three that bear witness in Heaven, with the Three that bear it on Earth. Their next Cavil upon this place is, upon the latter part of the Verse, and these three are one, that is, say they, not in Nature but in Mind and Consent, which is as ab­surd as if one would say, when Scripture affirms Deut. 6: 4. Mark 12.29., O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord; the meaning is on­ly the Consent of many Wills; but doth not this One­ness of Will argue a Unity of Essence? For how can there naturally and essentially be one Will and Consent, if there be not one Essence and Nature? How can it essentially be one Will, if there be not one but many divine Natures? Rather there shall be many different Gods, whose different Wills shall op­pose one another, than the which nothing can be more absurd. Again, either those Persons are finite or infinite; if finite, then they have not divine Na­ture, which is infinite; if infinite, then they do pe­netrate one another; for they most perfectly and infi­nitely know and love one another; now Love is an earnest. desire of Union, so then they be most intirely united. The Apostle makes the necessary difference, of the Three on Earth he saith they agree in One, but of the Three in Heaven he saith they are One.

Moreover, either one knows something which the other doth not, or loves something which the other doth not love, or can do something which the other cannot do, or not; if the former, how are they God? [Page 39]For God knows and can do all; if the last, then not only they have one Will, but also one Mind, one Power, one Knowledg, one Love. Now let Man think upon several Natures of the same kind, which mutually do penetrate themselves, and by a mutual inclination do embrace and unite themselves insepa­rably, and have the same Thoughts, Will, and Action; doth not all this conclude for one and the same Nature? And that there is no difference but in some manner of Existing, which because they are such, are distinct one from another, without Confusion; all which from Oneness of Will, leads to Oneness of Essence; for the Will of God is not a thing different from his Nature.

Another Text wherein the most holy Trinity is de­monstrated, and not only may be read but also be heard and seen, is that about our Saviour's Baptism, where the Father speaks from Heaven and calls him his Son: Christ the Son is baptized, and the Holy Ghost appears in the shape of a Dove; if Men do believe Scripture, this they must believe to be true: S. Austin lookt upon this Text as a strong and convincing Proof of that divine and essential Truth; Vade ad Jordanem, &c. saith he, Go to the River Jordan, and there thou shalt find the holy Trinity, and be convinced of the Verity thereof. Besides these we have a Cloud of other Witnesses to prove this Truth, where the Three Persons are mentioned under their proper Names; and first Acts 2.22, 23., This Jesus being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, the Three Persons are plainly named: Again, the same Jesus Christ was declared Rom. 1.3, 4. to be the Son of God, with power according to the Spirit of holiness: Elsewhere the same Apostle saith Tit. 3.4, 5, 6., God saved us by the washing of regeneration and re­newing, of the Holy Ghost through Jesus Christ: And in another place Gal. 4.6., God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts; by the word God is meaned the Person of the Father Heb. 9.14., How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offereth himself without spot to God: Furthermore Ephes. 2.18., Through [Page 40]him [Christ] we both have an access by one spirit un­to the Father. Our blessed Saviour himself out of his own sacred Mouth doth plainly and positively speak to this purpose, when he saith John 14.16.17., I will pray the Fa­ther, and he will give you another comforter, the Father, I the Son, and the comforter, whom he calls the Spi­rit of Truth, are Three Persons, which in the next Chapter Chap. 15 26. is by him repeated; But when the Comfor­ter is come whom I will send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth. One Text more I shall bring to confirm this 2 Cor. 13.14., The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God that is the Father, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all. And in the Text of another Apostle 1 Pet. 1.2. are contained the Workings of the Three Persons in the Trinity; Elect according to the fore knowledg of God the Father, through the sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprink­ling of the blood of Jesus Christ.

As the New Testament is full of Proofs to con­firm this holy Doctrine; for indeed these Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation are more clearly and fully therein related, so out of the Old Testament we have enough to confute the Enemies of this Truth; and because we look upon Socinians in their Principles to be a sort of Jews, and as well as they, Blasphemers against our holy and blessed Saviour, so we will bring such Arguments against them, as we would if we were disputing against unbelieving Jew [...], only a few Texts out of many. We begin with the Book of Genesis, Chap. 1. wherein is contained a relation of the History of the Creation, which is a Work common to the Three Persons of the Trinity; and though we may not look upon it as the clearer upon the matter, yet in it is Light enough to shew the Truth we now assert. I shall say nothing of the Name God under that of Elohim, which already we have spoken of, as representing the plurality of Per­sons in the most holy Trinity; but we may say, that though the Name God was there (which it is not) in the singular, and taken for the Person of the Father, yet the Son had a hand in the act of [Page 41]Creation; for it is, God said, here is the word, which is the proper Name of the Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who in Scripture, especially by S. John, is so often called by that Name, the Word: God saying and speaking is that which made the World. We read, God said, when any thing was created, which be­ing compared with what is spoken by John John 1.3., All things were made by him, that is the Word, the Person of Jesus Christ; for actiones sunt suppositorum, acting is proper to Persons, and without him was not any thing made that was made; now that Word God said, is that which created every thing; so then here is the Person of the Son, but we also find the Person of the Holy Ghost, Gen. 1.2. the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, by his acting represented by motion, to cherish, give life and motion to things, as a Hen doth when sitting upon her Eggs; for the word in the Original signifies such a thing: This sense is given by a competent Interpreter Psal. 33.6.9., By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host thereof by the breath of his mouth: Here we can read distinctly the Lord, if it were to be understood only of the first Person, about which there is no dispute, the Word, and the Breath or Spirit; this, though it be clear, I could set in a greater Light, with comparing it with other places, which I now forbear to do, because I shall have occasion to make use of them in some other branch of my Discourse.

Another Text is this Isai. 42.1., Behold my servant whom I uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my spirit upon him; besides the Person that speaks, namely the Father, here we have the Son under the name of his Servant, of his elect, in whom his Soul delighteth, whereby none may deny the Lord Jesus to be understood, and the Holy Ghost or Spirit: No­thing better than this can quadrate with the History of our Saviour's Baptism Matth. 3.16.. And in another place of the same Prophet I [...]al 6.3., when he saw the Vision, and heard that Trisagion, or holy, holy, holy, which long after was also heard by John Rev. 4 8., that three-fold repe­tition of God's Name compar'd with the proper [Page 42]Hypotheses of the antient Jews', that it signified three things in God, is adapted to the Trinity of Persons; in S. John's Vision we have some enlarge­ment as to the Lord Jesus represented by the Lamb; for the same Twenty four Elders and Four Beasts Rev. 5.8, 9, 13. fell down before the lamb, and sung a new song: and every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, paid the same Worship to the Lamb as to him that sitteth on the Throne. Again, the same Prophet Isai. 61.1., The spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he hath anointed me, this to be understood of Christ, as applyed, Luke 4.18. and of the Holy Ghost by the anointing, for he was anointed with the Oyl of Gladness, that is the Gra­ces of the Spirit. These Three are also to be read amongst the last Words of David 2 Sam. 23.2., saying, The Spi­rit of the Lord spake by me, and the Word was in my tongue; here is the Lord, the Word, and the Spirit. To the same purpose speaks another Prophet Hagg. 2.5., according to the word that I covenanted with you, when ye came out of Egypt, so my Spirit remaineth among you; the Father, with the Word his Son, and his Spirit made a Covenant with Israel.

There are several other Texts in the Old Testament, of the Nature of One which I already made use of, I mean of the thrice holy, wherein the Name of God or Lord is thrice repeated; I own I have such a persuasion of the infinite Wisdom of God, as to believe there is nothing at all in his Word but what there is a particular reason for it to be in, and in this belief of mine I am confirmed by what our bles­sed Saviour saith in earnest, and with a strong Asse­veration Matt. 5.18., Verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled; and I am sufficiently satis­fied, that though through the Infirmity of our Na­ture in the Ignorance of our Mind, we cannot ap­prehend the Causes of many things in the Word of God, yet therein is nothing without a Cause: So out of that Principle, I dare say, God meaneth something when in the Blessing which he prescribed to be pro­nounced [Page 43]to the People, the Lord's Name is thrice in it thus, Numb. 6.24, 25, 26. The Lord bless thee and keep thee, the Lord make his face shine upon thee and be gracious unto thee, the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace; and when God speaks unto Moses, he dictates what he was to speak to the Children of Israel when he was come to them in his Name, that is, The Lord God of your Fathers, one would have thought this had been enough, but no, for he addeth, Exod. 3.15. The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob; it was the same God, yet thrice named. So when the Law is given, he saith Exod. 20.5. I the Lord thy God am a jea­lous God; once Lord and twice God, which is the same; so in another place, the Psalm 136.1, 2, 3. Psalmist exhorteth thrice to give thanks, to whom? unto the Lord, unto the God of Gods, to the Lord of Lords. One more I shall quote, and 'tis this, Isa. 33.22. The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King: Why thrice and no more? Surely God aims at something, for as he doth nothing, so he saith nothing in vain, these things are not in by Chance; and seeing with a full assu­rance, I believe according to Revelation a Trinity of Per­sons in the Divine Nature, Why should not I also believe that these things relate to it? Now if one would seriously attend upon these quoted places, and compare them with others of the same kind, may be God would im­part upon the Matter, greater Discoveries than I for the present am able to give, only this I shall add, how the Name Jehovah, called in Greek, Tetragrammaton, because it originally consists only of four Letters, sig­nifieth both God's Self-existence, for the Root whence 'tis derived doth denote to be, and also his Eternity, for it contains all times, to come, present and past; one, out of the two first Letters draws the Words begin­ning and to live, and the third having a Vertue of copulating or joyning together, is for Love, whereby is denoted the Holy Ghost, as by the two before are Father and Son, and because the second Letter h is twice in, he would have both Natures in the Second Person of the most Holy Trinity to be meaned: tho' I have nothing to say against these mysterious Interpre­tations which may be well grounded, yet we build [Page 44]not our main Arguments thereupon; however, know­ing that essential and incommunicable Holy Name to confist of three different Letters, I can see no­thing to hinder me from believing, that that same Nature is communicated to Three Persons, and as the same Letter is twice in, it doth signifie Two Na­tures in One Person, especially it falling upon the Se­cond Letter relating to the Second Person of the most blessed Trinity, and as God is the Author of the Name, Why may not he in his Infinite Wisdom therein denote some Mystery? This I take to be Rational.

Here I must not omit for Proof of this great Truth, to bring in our Creed called the Apostolical as an Evi­dence; I meddle not with the others, for the Adversa­ries will not own them, though they ever were by better, more Learned, more Pious and Sound in all Ages than they are, or I doubt can be: I know the World hath afforded some Men who out of a vain­glory, and to seem to be something, through a tryal of their Parts, have attempted to enervate with their Criticisms the Strength and Orthodoxy of these Creeds, but as to this, Socinians themselves can ex­cept against it, no more than they do against the writ­ten Word of God whence this is extracted; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all Three named in the Creed, and as the Word God is expressed when joined with the Father, so 'tis understood of Son and Holy Ghost, thus I believe in God his only begotten Son, and I be­lieve in God the Holy Ghost, for to them it also doth belong, and as there we profess to believe in, that is, to put our whole Trust and Confidence, not only in the Father, but also in the Son and in the Holy Ghost, so thereby we own and declare them to be God as the Father; and in the Lord's Prayer which is part of the Worship we render unto God, though we name but One that is the Father, yet we mean all, for the Word is taken Essentially, for Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and not personally, only for the first Person, because the whole Trinity are our Father in respect of Creation, Preservation, and Redemption for every such outward Work, as said before, is common to the Three Persons, and so we address our Prayer to all Three.

Now I shall lay down some few Arguments to prove the Truth: this is one, he in whose Name we are Baptized, is the True Eternal God, but we are Bap­tized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, therefore they Three are True Eternal God, the major is clear, for Baptism is a Covenant not with Man or any Creature, but with God alone, as it appears out of 1 Pet. 3.21. Peter, where Baptism is called a Stipulation or Answer of a good Conscience towards God. Secondly, They in whose Name we are Baptized, do justify us, but we are Baptized in the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; wherefore they justify us, and conse­quently they be True Eternal God, for none can ju­stify but Rom. 4.5. & chap. 8.33. God alone. Thirdly, They who regenerate us are the True Eternal God, but they in whose Name we are baptized do regenerate us. Ergo, They are the True Eternal God, such as Father, Son and Holy Ghost, if they deny those in whose Names we are baptized to justify and regenerate us, we prove it, for the Washing in Baptism signifieth our Justification and Regeneration which is performed by those in whose Names we are baptized, which is clear out of St. Paul's Words, That Ephes. 5.26. be, Christ, might sanctify and cleanse it, the Church, with the washing of water by the word; and in another place, He Tit. 3.5. saved us by the washing of regeneration; and another Argument is this, they who save us are True Eternal God, but Father. Son and Holy Ghost do, therefore they are the True Eternal God; the major Proposition is proved out of the Prophet, Isa. 45.15, 17, 21. O God of Israel, the Saviour; also, Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation; and, I the Lord, and there is no God else besides me, a just God and a Saviour, there is none be­sides me; the Expression in the Name of the Father, is observable, for the Name signifies Malac. 1.6. Authority; now because the Authority of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is but one and the same, for we are e­qu [...]lly baptized in their Name, so the Dignity is the same, if so then these Three Persons are but One God, for none can have equal Dignity with the Father, ex­cept he be God, such a Dignity have the Son and Holy Ghost; against this they object how the Fathers [Page 46]are said 1 Cor. 10.2. to be baptized unto Moses, but that's not to the purpose, 'tis of a different Nature, in that place the Design is to shew the Sacraments of the Jews to be the Types and Figures of ours, but here the Question is about the Name and Authority whereby we are baptized, they were baptized under the Ministery, but not in the Name of Moses, so now Ministers do bap­tize but not in their own Name or Authority.

CHAP. V. Of Christ's Divinity.

NOW I must come to the Third Classis of my Proofs out of Scripture, namely those Texts which speak singularly of the Son as True Eternal God, the like of the Holy Ghost. As our Blessed Savi­our from the beginning of the World to the time he was manifested in the Flesh, was the Chief Object of Prophecies, because in him through an eternal and un­changeable Decree was the Ground of the greatest of all outward God's Works, for I look upon Redemp­tion on some Account, greater than Creation, so from time to time God took care to renew and confirm the first gracious Promise of the Seed of the Woman, un­der several Names of Shiloh, Messiah, Emmanuel, the Branch, &c. and to describe him with several Names and Circumstances, that when he was come, there should be no just Cause to mistake or deny him to be he and the same, and withal it was declared what he should be in his Person, and do in his Office, so also what he was before he came, namely God by his Na­ture and Attributes, all which after his Incarnation was so highly confirmed both by a farther Revelation and many Wonders; but as Luk. 2.34. he was set for a sign which should be spoken against; so then he was op­posed, and so is now by the Enemies to his Person, Offices and Doctrine; but against such detestable Wretches he hath not left himself without Witnesses to [Page 47]make himself known to be what he really is, even God blessed for ever; wherefore our Saviour commands us to John 5.39. search the Scriptures, for they testify of him, there­in we shall find his Deity; this course himself took, when beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he ex­pounded unto them in all the Scriptures the Things concerning himself.

To this purpose the Word doth afford such a plenty and variety of Matter in such an essential Point of our Faith, and so necessary to be known, that indeed it would go near to run one into some Confusion, except some Method be used to prevent it: the Difficulty lays not in what to say, but how to say it, wherefore our Discourse and Arguments must be reduced under seve­ral Heads and Classes, as may be Names, Attributes, Works and Worship of God. Some Words used in this Matter, are in Scripture, as [...], Godhead, which some would have to differ from [...] Divinity, as cause an effect, the first the Essence, the last a Gift com­municated; though in Scripture they be synonimous, and both translated Godhead; in Scripture are also [...] One, [...] Three; [...] Subsistance or Person, [...] is: others are derived, as from [...] One, and [...] Three, are derived [...] Unity, and [...] Trinity; from [...] Being or Existing come [...] Essence. St. John alone calls the Son [...] the Word, and St. Paul alone, or the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews calls him [...] the Character of the express Image of the Person of the Father.

Of the Names of God, some signify the Essence as Jeho­vah, Proved from the Names. Jah, Ehejah; others the Attributes as Elehim Schad­dai, Adonai, &c. and in the New Testament [...] God, and [...] Lord, are frequent. Jehovah signifies God's Es­sence in Three manners; First, First, Je­hovah. That he is of himself and of no other. Secondly, All other Things are from him, not from themselves, or from any else. Thirdly, That he is true in his Promises and Threatnings; [...] when absolutely attributed to God, answereth that of Jehovah, for he is, [...], Self-Lord and of his Nature. The Name Jehovah is properly, absolutely, and without any adjection attributed to the Son, as it must amongst other places be understood in that where­in [Page 48]'tis said. Gen. 19.24. The Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomor­rah brimstone and fire from the Lord; the Lord from the Lord is a Tautology, and a gross one too, which God is not capable of, were it not that as the Father hath com­mitted all Judgment to the Son, upon that occasion, the Son executed Judgment against those wicked Cities, and to prove the Truth of this Interpretation we have two undeniable Evidences, the Expressions of one are just as in this place; and of the other, they are to the same purpose, David is the first, Psaim 110.1. The Lord said unto my Lord, which our Saviour explains of Mat. 22.44. himself; the other Witness is Hos. 1.7. Hosea by whom God saith, I will save the house of Judah by the Lord their God; not only he calls him their Lord, but also their God. Here we have the True, Eternal, and Infinite God, whose Word came to the Prophet, saying, he will have mercy upon the House of Judah; and I hope hitherto we are agreed, he promiseth to save them, By whom? By the Lord their God, that is the Lord God of Judah, for he speaks to, and of the House of Judah; he then by whom they are to be saved is the True God of Israel, for certainly the God of Judah and Israel is one and the same God, and not two; for their Saviour is their God: the next thing to be known is, who is meaned by this Lord God of theirs; not properly and immediately the Person that speaks, for then he would have said, I will save them by my self, as upon ano­ther occasion he said, Gen. 22.16. By my self have I sworn, and in some other places; wherefore here another Person is to be understood, or else the designation of another had been superfluous and not to the purpose; but here is a visible distinction of Persons, he that speaks and promiseth to save them, and he by whom they shall be saved; according to the whole Analogy of Faith, this Prophecy relateth to the Messiah, the Son of God whom the Father out of his own Bosom was to send into the World to save it; and the Lord Jesus was the Messiah which at that time was to come, and came since, who by the Prophet is called the Lord God of Judah, which was fulfilled when the Angel said unto the Shepherds, Lu. 2.11. Ʋnto you is born this day in the City of David a Saviour which is Christ the [Page 49]Lord; who came to save his People, the True Judah and Israel of God, not according to the Flesh, but the promise, from their Sins and from the Punishments which thereby they had deserved, so the Lord Jesus is the True Lord God of Israel, for the House of Israel or Judah hath no other Prince and Saviour to Act. 5.31. give them repentance and forgiveness of sins, but the Lord Jesus who in this same place is called Prince; now the Title of God of Israel, the true, eternal and undoubted God, doth in many places of Scripture appropriate to himself, and communicateth to none besides; Joh. 1.49. Na­thanael called Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the King of Israel, and we know he spoke Truth as did David when he saith, Psal. 22.28. the Kingdom is the Lord's, and he is the governour amongst the nations, and we are sure that Psalm hath a relation to the Lord Jesus, and if any doubt remaineth, it is explained in the Person of the Rev. 12.5. man child who was to rule all nations with a red of iron; and this is fully interpreted of the Person whom the Lord hath said to, thou art my Son, and hath given to, Psal. 2.7, 8, 9. the heathen for his inheritance, &c. which he shall break with a rod of iron.

In the Old Testament we read of an Angel who appeared at several times, and spoke as to Hagar, he is called the Angel of the Lord, and was the Lord Jehovah himself Gen. 16.13. for she called the Name of the Lord that spake unto her, thou God seest me; a second time he appeared unto her and said, lift up the lad Ishmael, for I will make him a great nation, this certainly was an increated Angel, namely, the Son of God, for no created Angel could make such a Promise, it being beyond the Power of any creature to perform it, and that Angel is called Jehovah, upon the occa­sion of sacrificing Isaac, and that he was God him­self, it appears not only from the Nature, but also from the Words he spake, Seeing, said he, Gen. 22.11, 12, 15, 16.17, 18. thou hast not held thy Son, thine only Son from me; now that Son was to have been sacrificed to God and none else; and this is confirmed beyond all doubt when 'tis said, And the Angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of Heaven the second time, and said, by my self have I sworn, &c. that in blessing I will bless thee, [Page 50]and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the Stars of heaven, and as the sand that is upon the sea shore, and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. This is elsewhere represented under the shape of a Man who Gen. 32.24, 28, 30. wrestled with Jacob, (might not the Name Man relate to the future Incarnation) however 'tis most certain under what Name soever, that same was God; for he said to Jacob, Thou hast power with God: and when he asked his Name, Jacob receiv'd no other Answer but this, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name, which as a Prophet saith Isai 9 6., is wonderful; Jacob, though he asked his Name, knew who it was; for he saith, I have seen God face to face, and the same is called Man, God, even the Lord God of hosts, Hosea 12.3, 5. and in the same place is called the Angel, verse 4. So the Names Man, Angel, and God Lord of hosts do belong to the same; and as upon that same occasion one of the Names belong to the Son of God, by the same reason must all the rest; and him Jacob remembers, when blessing Joseph's Chil­dren he saith Gen. 48.15, 16., The angel which redeemed me from all evil bless these lads; and just the verse before, he calls him the God of his fathers Abraham and Isaac. The better to know who this Angel is, let us hear him speak himself to Jacob Gen. 31.11, 12, 13., The angel of God, saith Jacob, spake unto me in a dream, and what saith he? I have seen all that Laban doth unto thee. I am the God of Be­thel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me. Surely this could be no crea­ted Angel: The same it was that appeared unto Moses in the Bush, mention'd by Stephen Acts 7.35., by whose Hands, Authority, and Power, Moses became Ruler and De­liverer of the People out of Egypt. Now in the same Chapter Stephen saith, v. 32. that he that appeared unto Moses in the Bush, was the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and that same God he afterwards calls the angel which spoke to him in mount Sinai, v. 38. To be short, this is the Angel of the Lord which appeared unto Moses out of the Bush, which is called Lord and God, and calls himself Exod. 3. [...], 4, 6. the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. The Adversaries cannot deny this to be the [Page 51]true and proper Character of the true God. Moreo­ver, this is the Angel promised to be sent before the People; let us hear what a Character God gives of him Exodus 23.20, 21., Beware of him and obey his voice, provoke him not, for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him: If this had been one of his created Angels, would God have spoken of him after this man­ner? Why God's Name in a most special manner, more in him than in another? Here his Name signifies his Nature; and can any but the true essential God pardon Transgressions, as it depends upon the Will of this Angel to do or not to do? According to pro­mise this same Angel appeared unto Joshuah, under the Name of Josh. 5.14, 15. captain of the host of the Lord, and of him required the same humble Obedience as before he had received of Moses; and this the Apostle doth point at Heb. 2.10., when speaking of Christ, he calls him the captain of our salvation, of which the Deliverance out of Egypt was a Type and a Figure; for he was the Rock 1 Cor. 10.4. that followed them in the Wilderness: He is farther called Isai. 63. the angel of God's presence, God in him is present wheresoever he is, because he is God, but he there is also called their Saviour, he saved them; is there any Saviour besides the Lord Jesus the Son of God? He also is called the Messenger Mal. 3. [...] or Angel of the covenant: Is not God's Covenant with Men made in Christ Jesus? Hath he not procured and published it? It was to strengthen the Faith and con­firm the Hopes of his People, that God by the last of his Prophets doth so positively promise he shall come; surely he then was and existed, though he was not yet come: The Prophet addeth, whom ye delight in; would to God this were true in every Christian; but his Enemies can take no delight in him. How­ever it remains true, that no Creature whatsoever could be this Angel, and that seeing it was not the Person of the Father, it must be that of his Son, who is another himself; and I think that to prove the Deity of the Messiah, is to prove the plurality of Per­sons in the Godhead; for as I said before, Trinity imports the Divinity of the Son, and the Divinity of the Son implys plurality of Persons in the Divine Nature.

This Angel under the shape of a Man, attended by two Angels, appeared unto Abraham Gen. 18., and in the same place he is called the Lord or Jehovah, and Man, and behaved himself both as Lord and as Man, and as both was received by Abraham: Thus 'tis neither im­possible nor contrary to Scripture, that God should in human Nature appear unto Men, as then he did unto Abraham: In his Promise to Abraham of a Son by Sarah, and as to the Judgments upon Sodom he beha­ved himself as God, as he did as Man in visibly walk­ing, discoursing, having his Feet washed, resting and eat­ing, and as herein by acting the true part of a Man he was a true Man, so he was a true God; for there he is six or seven times called Jehovah, and five Adonai; and he speaks like the Judg of the World, in whose power it lyes to punish or pardon; and the Adversa­ries can bring nothing against the Union of divine with humane Nature in the Person of Christ, but what this Instance of the appearing can refute; for indeed the personal Union of the divine with human Nature can be no better nor more plainly represented than by this Example; and if this appearing was a sign and fore­runner of Christ's dwelling and conversing among Men, certainly it became him to be such as he then appeared, namely God and Man. Now that this was a foresight of his Incarnation, our Saviour himself declares it John 8.56. relating to this, Your father Abraham re­joiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad: And upon the same account he upbraids them when he saith, John 39.40, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham, but ye seek to kill me, that did not Abraham; for he never offered to kill as a Blasphe­mer that Man whom with two others he recieved in­to his House, and who carryed himself as God; on the contrary, he all the while behaved himself towards him as being God, and at that time the same Person that appeared unto Abrham is not only called the Lord, v. 1. the Lord appeared unto Abraham, but also the judg of all the earth, v 25. a Property belonging to none but the true God; and that Christ is to judg all the Earth, it appears out of Acts 17.31. and 2 Cor. 5.10, as indeed the Destruction of Sodom and Gomo­rah [Page 53]was a figure of the Destruction of the World and of Christ's second coming: The Father saith Christ hath committed all Judgment to the Son, John 5.22.

Here I shall add a Text which may have a place in another part of my Discourse; 'tis this, God by the Prophet Isai. 40.9, 10, 11. speaks to Zion, Jerusalem, and the Cities of Judah, Behold your God, behold the Lord will come with strong hand, &c. here certainly by your God is meant the God of Israel; for the God of Z [...]on, of Jerusalem, and of the Cities of Judah, is the same with the God of Israel; now who that Person is, here called God, it doth appear out of the scope of the place, where­in the Prophet doth certainly speak of the coming of the Messiah, who is Christ, as 'tis plain out of v. 3. The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, pre­pare ye the way for the Lord, make straight in the de­sart a high way for our God: Beyond all doubt this is spoken of John Baptist, for he applieth John 1.23. it to him­self, and if we want other Witnesses, Matthew Chap. 3.3. will serve for one, and Zacharias, as recorded by S. Luke Chap. 1.76. for another; now I take it to be as unquestionable, that John was the fore-runner of Christ, who is the same Lord God for whom he prepared the way: Further, that in this place of Isaiah, Christ is the same Lord God that was to come, it appears by the description therein made of him, He will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him, v. 10. The Mi­racles he wrought by his own Power upon the sick, blind, dumb, lame, dead, commanding Wind and Sea, and the Devils themselves which observed him, did convincingly demonstrate him to be the Lord God, if any doubt should remain, 'tis clear'd, v. 11. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd, he shall gather the lambs with his arm; the comparison of the Shepherd and Sheep our Saviour doth much insist upon, and several John 10. times gives himself the Name of Shepherd; and S. Paul calls him Heb. 13.20., the great shepherd of the sheep; and by another 1 Pet. 2.25. Chap. 5.4., the shepherd of our souls, and the chief shepherd: This being his great Atrribute, as Head of the Church, and Mediatour, his Person must neces­sarily [Page 54]be designed by the Prophet, who to him attri­buteth the words feeding and gathering; the Person here spoken of by the Prophet Isaiah, called Lord God, is the same mentioned by another, who calls him king of Zion and of Jerusalem; and as he speaks of the same as Isaiah doth, so he speaks to the same Zech. 9.9., Rejoyce greatly. O daughter of Zion, shout O daughter of Jerusalem, behold thy king comes unto thee; both Pro­phets speak of the same Person's coming to the same place, he is just and having salvation, lowly and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass; these very words of the Prophet are quoted upon the oc­casion of our Saviour's entering into Jerusalem Matth. 21.4, 5., and applyed unto him, as indeed this same Prophet speaks in several places which I mention in this Discourse of Christ the Son of God as of the great and mighty God, Chap. 2. calls him Lord of Hosts, sent by the Lord of Hosts to the Nations, who was to come and dwell in thee, O Daughter of Zion, who was to speak peace unto the heathen, and his dominion to be even from sea to sea, and unto the ends of the earth, Ch. 9.10. that was to be sold for Thirty pieces of Silver, which were given for the Potters Field, Chap. 11.12, 13. and that was to pour upon the House of David and Inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of Grace and Sup­plication, (that same Spirit which was in the Prophet is call'd the spirit of Christ, 1 Pet. 1.11. or the Holy Ghost, by whom they were moved, 2 Pet. 2.21.) so Chap. 13.7. the Lord of Hosts calls him his fellow; did the Lord of Hosts ever call any meer Man his Fellow, my Compa­nion, that is united to me in Substance, equal with me in Power? Thus God doth honour Christ in this Name to shew the Unity of Essence, and the Union of the Will of the Father and of the Son the Mediator, who is in the same Verse called my shepherd, which is spoken of Christ; for unto himself he applyeth it, Matth. 26.31.

Before we fall upon examining other Texts of the Old Testament to prove the essential Names of God to belong to his Son the Lord Jesus, we must compare some places of both Testaments, to shew how many things belonging to God are applyed unto Christ, as first, that just now quoted of Isaiah Isai. 40.3., The voice of [Page 55]him that cryeth in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, or Jehovah, Luke 1.76. John 1.23. applyed one to John Bap­tist the other to Jesus Christ there called the Lord: This is another Isai. 6 1, 2, 3, 9, 10., I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, and his train filled the tem­ple, above it stood the Seraphims, and said, holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory: this in the John 12.40, 41. Gospel is applyed to the Son. Again Isai. 8.13, 14., Sanctifie the Lord of hosts himself, and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread, and he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin, and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jeru­salem; applyed unto Christ Luke 2.34. Rom. 9.33. 1 Pet. 2.8.. David saith Psal. 45.6, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; which is applyed unto Christ: Heb. 1.8. But unto the Son he saith, thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. The same Royal Prophet saith Psal. 68.17, 18., The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of Angels: the Lord is amongst them, as in Sinai in the holy place, thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also; all which is applyed Eph. 4 8. unto Jesus Christ: So is this Ps. 110.1, The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand; applyed to the Son Matth. 22 44.. We read in the Prophet Isai. 45.23., I have sworn by my self, the word is gone out of my mouth, that unto me every knee shall bow; which is attributed unto Christ Rom. 14.11. Phil. [...]2.10.. Of old, saith David Ps. 102.25., hast thou laid the foundations of the earth: and the heavens are the works of thy hands; which is by the Apostle Heb. 1.10. declar'd to be meant of the Son. Isai 44.6 Thus saith the Lord the king of Israel and his redeemer the Lord of hosts, I am the first and I am the last: Our blessed Saviour saith the same of himself Rev. 1.17. and 22.13.. God Almighty Ps 26.2. and 7.9. doth try the reins and the heart; and our glorified Saviour saith Rev. 2.23, I am he that searcheth the reins and hearts. God saith Zech. 12.10. and Rev. 1.7., I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the in­habitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and of sup­plication, and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced; the same whom they have pierced saith, he will pour the Spirit of Grace, which none but the true God can do, which is applyed to our Saviour. And [Page 56]again another scripture saith, they shall look on him whom they pierced John 19.37.; they never pierced God the Father. It is said of the Children of Israel Psal. 106 14. Numb. 14.22., They tempted God in the desart; and S. Paul applyeth it to Christ 1 Cor. 10.9., Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted; they tempted Jehovah, and that Jeho­vah is Christ, who brought them out of Egypt through the Wilderness into the Land of Canaan, who certain­ly is the only true God, maker of Heaven and Earth. It is to be observed how in another place. David speaking of the Peoples tempting God in the Wil­derness, useth very strong Expressions, for he saith Psal. 78.41., They turned back and tempted God, and limited the holy one of Israel, the God whom they tempted is the same holy one of Israel whom they limited, and the same who, vers. 56. is called the Most High God; they tempted and provoked the Most High God. Now the Adversaries must own, that the holy one of Israel, and the most high God is such by Nature; so that wholly to clear this matter we are to find out, who it is whom they tempted in the Wilder­ness; we can have no better Interpreter than S. Paul in the fore quoted place, who declares 'twas Christ, neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also temp­ted, and those very same that tempted him were de­stroyed of Serpents; so then the Consequence is easie and natural, that Christ is the holy one of Israel, and the most high God, Ps. 16.10. Acts 2.27. and 3.14. 1 John 2.20. and the Title of Holy One is spoken of Christ, if we must believe Peter and John; now all these things, as Paul saith, are written for our Admonition and Instruction.

Furthermore 'tis said, he shall be called Jehovah, Jer. 23.6. and 33.16. the Lord our righteousness, that is, a righteous branch, a king that shall reign and prosper, in whose days Judah shall be saved; a Prophesie of the Messiah explain'd of Christ 1 Cor. 1.30., who is made unto us wisdom and righteous­ness. If I would go on in this, it were an endless business, for Scripture doth abound in such Eviden­ces, whereof several more may be seen apply'd in the Book of the Revelation; and what would it be if I should bring in so many Circumstances as there were foretold by the Prophets about the coming and suf­fering [Page 57]of the Messiah, which are fulfill'd in the Life and Death of our blessed Saviour, as in their places they be observed by the Evangelists; but I think I have under this Head said enough to prove Jesus Christ to be Jehovah, the true eternal God; to this only I shall add two places out of another Prophet Hos. 13.14., I will ransom them from the power of the grave: I will redeem them from death; which S. Paul doth allude unto when he saith 1 Cor. 15 55, 57., O death, where is thy sting, O grave, where is thy victory? &c. we have the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ: And in another place formerly quoted saith the same Prophet Hos. 1.7., I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God; which was fulfilled in the Person of Christ, who is called and actually is both their Lord and their God in a true and a proper sense; whence we must necessarily conclude him to be the Lord God of Israel, about whom is the question; for they deny him to be the God of Israel; but that 'tis undisputably spoken of our Saviour, it appears by what Peter saith Acts 4.12.11.10., Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved; we may know whom he speaks of by the Description he makes of him in the fore-going Verse, This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner; which saying of David, Ps. 118.22. is by our Saviour applyed unto himself, Matth. 21.42. and in case any doubt should remain, that this of the Prophet is to be understood of Christ, Peter, in that same place, Vers. 10. names who is the Lord their God by whom they are to be saved, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified; and if the Testimony of this one Apostle be not enough, let us hear the joynt Evidence of all the other Apostles, who unanimously said unto the chief Priests Acts 5.29, 30, 31., God hath exalted with his right hand Jesus to be a prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Whosever shall call upon the name of the Lord, faith another Prophet Joel 2.32., shall be delivered and saved, which in the same words is by two Apostles Acts 2.21. Rom. 10.13. applyed unto the Lord Jesus; and in that remarkable place of the [Page 58]Prophet Zech. 11.12, 13., Jehovah, the Lord speaketh of himself, they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver; and the Lord said unto me, cast it unto the potter; a goodly price that I was prized at of them: And did not Judas Matth. 26.15. & 27.7, 10. a­gree with the chief Priests to betray the Lord Jesus for Thirty pieces of Silver? And after that Wretch had return'd the Money, did not they with it buy the Pot­ters Field? How wonderful and plain is the Harmo­ny between the Old and New Testaments, between the Prophecies and the fulfilling thereof, to demon­strate our Saviour to be the Jehovah, the Lord God and Saviour of Israel; whence we may argue, that the Saviour promised is Jehovah, Christ is the promi­sed Saviour, therefore he is Jehovah, which Name not only was known, but also was of great account among the Heathens which were Neighbours to the Jewes, as Philistines, Arabians, Idumeans, Egyptians, Syrians, &c. which according to the Idiom of their Languages, with some small alteration they made use of, thus the last named it Jehuvo, whence the Greeks derived their Jevo, and the Romans called it Jove or Jupiter, their chief and great God, whom they named Divûm ho­minumque patrem, the Father of the gods and of men, which they made his Proper Name, and never spoke it of any other, but him alone they gave it to; and according as the Jewes did in relation to the true God, so they in respect to their false gods, they attributed it only to the Head of them, and to all the rest made it incommunicable.

Here before we proceed, we must say that the Name Jehovah is not common or appellative, but proper to God, it is derived from Jah, a word which signifies fuit, a Being, for the strength of the word doth beto­ken the Nature and Essence of God, Exod. 3.14. wherein the Jews observe three different Spaces of time, future, present, and past; whereunto answers that of S. John Rev. 1.8., which is, which was, and which is to come, which the Son of God there speaks of himself, and in the same place of Exod. v. 15. God, whom we ought to believe, saith, this is my name for ever, which else­where he confirmeth Isai. 42. [...]., I am the Lord, that is my name, and my glory will I not give to another: So then that [Page 59]Name God accounts to be his Glory, and that Name he would not give the Angel we have spoken of be­fore, in whom God said was his Name, except he was his true Son, and partaker of his Nature; this is by another Prophet Jer. 16.21. confirmed, I will cause them to know mine hand and my might, and they shall know that my name is the Lord; and by another Hos. 12.5, even the Lord God of hosts, the Lord is his memorial; what follows is worthy of a most serious consideration Psal. 83.18., that men may know, that thou whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth; so then if God speaks truth, Jehovah is his Name alone, and of none else. Another Prophet is not silent upon the matter Amos 5.8., Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and makes the day dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth, the Lord is his name: One thing more I add, how after the People had seen the Fire of the Lord fall upon E­liah's Sacrifice and consume it, and all round about, they fell on their faces and said, the Lord be is the God, 1 Kings 18.38, 39. the Lord he is the God: Who after these plain and convincing Evidences can be so much a Child of the Devil, I mean a Lyar, as to deny the Name Jehovah to be God's proper Name, and consequently deny Christ, who is Jehovah, to be the true natural God. By Jehovah and Jah is primarily denoted the Essence proper only to God, whereby God is understood to have his Being of himself, and to be efficient, princi­ple in a way of Excellency of all other Beings, and the Name was not altogether unknown before Moses; for in that place Exod. 6.3. the Question is not properly or for­mally about the Word, but the Thing, as of the Un­changeableness of the Divine Truth, and of the Deli­verance of his People. The Jewes are so scrupulous about the Word, that they would not have it pro­nounced but with some change of Letters; they im­piously give a magical Virtue to the Characters, whereunto they attribute all Miracles done by our Sa­viour; the Name Schaddai signifying God's Self-suffi­ciency, is also incommunicable, but 'tis of Attribute, as the other of Nature.

They cannot deny that Christ or the Son is called Jehovah, wherefore they betake themselves to another Shift, which is to deny the Name to be incommuni­cable; for say they, it is attributed to Angels, and to other things, as unto the Mount where Abraham would have sacrificed his Son; to Jerusalem, and unto the Ark: As to the first, 'tis not to be understood of any created Angel, but of that Angel whom we proved to be God truly and properly, whom the Name doth belong unto in a proper sense: When spoken of the forenamed things, 'tis not to be taken as a Name, but as a Commendation, Testimony, Sign, and a Symbol; as if one should say, There John liveth, there James reigneth, by a kind of Metonimy used in human things, when the thing contained is put for the con­taining; as to the Ark, when Moses saith Num. 10.35., Rise up, Lord, and let thine enemies be scattered, he doth not speak to the Ark, a material Creature, unable to hear and of it self to move, but to Jehovah who had his Seat in it: Of this we can have no surer Interpreter than David, who saith Psal. 132 8., Arise, O Lord, into thy rest: thou and the ark of thy strength; the Prayer is directed to God, not to the Ark, which were Idolatry: the Ark doth neither rise nor return, but after the man­ner of Men it is attributed unto God: So in another place Ps. 68.1., Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered; be­sides, these words of Moses were spoken when the Ark was upon a motion, or at rest, wherefore it had been improper to say to the Ark, Rise, when 'twas going on, and Rest, when it was fixed; so it must be to God, who had appointed it there to manifest his special Grace or Glory. Thus the Name Jehovah is consider'd either relatively or absolutely; the first, when joyned with some thing, as we said of Jerusa­lem and of the Ark, not to be absolutely but relatively understood, as Jerusalem the City wherein Jehovah dwelleth: God's Worship was tyed to the Ark, for there, as promised, he spoke with Moses Exod. 25 22. Levit. 16.2. 1 Sam. 4 4; the second, when God takes that Name to himself Exodus 20.2., I am Jeho­vah, or the Lord thy God; and Isai. 42.8, Whose name is Je­hovah, the Lord of hosts: Thus Moses and People say in their Song Exodus 15.3., Jehovah is his name, and that accor­ding [Page 61]to the Etymology, which is, as said, from a word that signifies, is, hath been, and herein we can agree with Crellius, shall be, which properly denoteth the Essence not generally, but specially, an infinite eternal Being, existing of it self. Now this figurative way of speaking in this kind is often used in Scripture, where­of the following Text Psal. 24.5, 6. is a considerable Instance, This is the generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face, O Jacob, where Jacob is put for the God of Jacob; to seek the Face is a Duty relating to God, not to Jacob or any Man, pressed upon us in the Word; for the Psalmist not being satisfied to have said, Psal. 105.3, 4. Let the heart of them rejoyce that seek the Lord, he addeth this Command reiterated, Seek the Lord and his strength: seek his face evermore: 'Tis then a Duty which God requireth of us; for he saith Psal. 27.8., Seek ye my face; and the obedient and dutiful Soul answereth, My heart said unto thee, thy face, Lord, will I seek: Hence it appeareth how this religious Duty, to seek the Face, is not directed to Jacob, but to the God of Jacob, who in the latter end of the foregoing Verse is named the Lord God of our salvation. Thus after this figurative way of speaking the Name Jehovah is spoken of the Mount and of the Ark, which are Jehovah no more than Jacob was; and therefore when God's most holy Name is concern­ed, Men must not be so rash as to fancy and vent their profane Notions, and attribute unto any Man, or other Creature whatsoever, that which God hath reserved as proper to himself.

Tertullian tells the Heathens how their Philosophers called the Maker of the World by the Name the Word, Second, The Word. which agrees with what S. John saith John 1.3., All things were made by him; how they came to that knowledg I shall not be so positive as to determine, but in the Verses father'd upon Orpheus, the Creator of the World is called [...] the Word, so 'tis in some of the antient Books of the Caldeans; but we must draw out of purer Springs than these; for our blessed Saviour the Son of God, is in the New Tewament called [...] the Name [...] the Word, because, as Speech of Word is the Production of the Mind, so is the Son of his Father; and as a Man declareth the meaning of [Page 62]the Heart by the Words of his Mouth, so God John 1.18. Heb. 1.2. re­vealeth his Will and Mind by his Son; and because it is he whom the Father promised to Adam, Abraham, and Patriarchs, to make his Promises of Salvation sure unto them: The second Person is the Word of the Fa­ther, begotten from all eternity by Communication of a personal Being, from whom, as from the Father, proceeds the Holy Ghost: Here the Word is not a thing such as Speech may be, but 'tis a proper Name of a Person, in a Discourse it ever takes place of the Subject never of the Predicate; 'tis the Name John 1.14, 4. & 13.16. Matth. 2.17. Rom. 14.2 1 Cor. 1.19. of the Son of God our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; he is called the Word in relation both to his Person and Office; as to the first, because he is from God's Mind, and is the Image of the Father, wholly representing the Father; as to the Office, because by him all things were made, and he declares the Father's Will to Angels and to Men; he is known in three Capacities, as God, as Man, and as both, in which last relation he is the Head of the Church; as God and as to his absolute Essence and Being, he is of him­self, as to the manner he is from the Father, always he was, is, and ever shall be begotten; for absolute E­ternity hath no term before or after, and is always whole without succession; he is called not barely the Word, but Word of Life 1 Joh. 1.1, because it contains Life in himself; for in him was Life Joh. 1.4., and is the Author of Life in others.

Now it becomes an Historian, such as S. John is, who in his Gospel writes the History of Christ, if he will write things clearly and in order, and not make a Romance, to set down the true and proper Name of the Person whose History he doth pen, specially when the Name is not well know nor much in use, or else he will seem to have a design of imposing upon the Reader: To apply this to the matter in hand, if S. John, when he was about giving the World an ac­count of the Life, Actions, and Sufferings of our Saviour, had called him by a Name that was not his own and proper Name, but metaphorical, as Socinians would have it, far from being acted by a real desire to inform his Readers, he might be thought to have in­tended [Page 63]to mock and deceive them, for if the Name, the Word which had been unknown under the Old Testament, and was not used till by him, was only a figurative, improper and borrowed Name, then not to say worse, the Evangelist had not acted the part of a true and judicious Historian, for in such things, the first to be known is the true Name of the Person whose History is written; and certainly if ever he in­tended to have informed the Reader, and had his Go­spel read, he had thereby fallen into the readiest way to prevent it, for as soon as it had been found out that without Reason and Necessity the Author had with obtruse and intricate Names drawn a curtain over the first Line, then presently the Reader would have laid aside the Book; thus far goes the Opinions of these unreasonable Men, which how injurious it is to the Evangelist, I leave any rational Man to judge; how ever, we must say that seeing of the Four Evangelists, John alone, before he made any mention of the Name of Jesus Christ, in his first Line calls him the Word, and goes on till past the 14 Verse, we must own there was special cause for it, no less than Divine Inspira­tion, for we find in that part of the Vision he had in the Isle of Patmos, that he who sat upon Rev. 19.11, 13. the White Horse called faithful and true, representing our bles­sed Lord and Saviour, 'tis said there his name is called the Word of God, but Socinians make this Opposition and rise all this Dust, because to rob him of what they can, they would have him called the Word, only be­cause he hath declared us the Will of God; that he hath done it, is true, but not the whole Truth. But this relating to the first Chapter of John, we shall have a farther occasion to speak to it; let this be observed how the Name Word signifies a Substance not a Sound in the Air, and also only the Divine Nature in Christ.

The Name [...] Lord, belongs, and is proper to Christ to shew his absolute Dominion; Third the Lord. the Septuagint rendered the Word Jehovah by this, and so in the New Testament, Evangelists and Apostles make use of [...] to signify Jehovah, which both are tran­slated Lord, it is taken either primarily and absolutely [Page 64]or secondarily and relatively; in the first it signifies the infinite and independent Dominion, by reason of Right and Extent, as of Duration: About this, So­cinians do mistake, for they would have God's Do­minion to be meaned when 'tis with the Article, and without it that of the Creatures, but it appears how the Word when spoken of the Father, hath some­times the Article, as Matth. 22.44. the Lord said unto my Lord, and sometimes not, as Mark 12.29. and when of the Son, whom they would have to be a Creature, it hath no Article say they, but it hath, John 20.28. so there is no reason to consider the Ar­ticle in the Word, but rather the Subject: This Word, against Socinus's Opinion, is a Proper Name not an Appellative, because in a strict Sense it is attributed unto God alone, as in Deut. 6. Mark 12.29. The Lord our God is one Lord, and elsewhere, 1 Cor. 8.6. to us there is but one God and Father of all, and one Lord Jesus Christ, &c. and Ephes. 4.5. one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, God a­lone is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. 1 Tim. 6.15. When soever the Name Lord and God be absolutely taken, they are reciprocal with one true Lord, one true God: the word Lord in the Subject when joyned with God, doth signify the True God, as when Christ says, Matth. 4.7. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God; the like Ex­amples we have, Gen 15.2. Isa. 51.22. Mark 12.29. Joh. 20.28. which for brevities sake, I do but point at; now when this Name is absolutely spoken, or re­duplicatively, as Matth. 7.21. not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, or with an Emphasis, as Lord of Lords in the fore-quoted place of Timothy, or with an Idiom, and Property as Psalm 135.5. great Lord, or with an Energy, as Rev. 4.11. Thou art worthy O Lord to receive glory and ho­nor and power; whereby the Worship due to him is expressed, it properly belongs to God alone; in the New Testament it is mostly appropriated to our bles­sed Saviour, which he owns as the fore-quoted Text, not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, and when he speaks of the Day of Judgment, when the Son of Man shall come in his Glory, Matth. 25.44. they will say, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered; and about the time of his washing of his Disciples Feet, he said, Joh. 13.13. ye [Page 65]call me Master and Lord, and ye say well, for so I am: when after his Resurrection he appeared, John said to Peter, it is the Lord, John 21.7. that's the u­sual Name which the Apostles in their Writings do call him by. 'Tis observable, how after his Ascen­sion there are two Things peculiarly called by the Lord's Name, that is, the 1 Cor. 10.21. Lord's-Table, and the Rev. 1.10. Lord's-Day.

Now we must come to another Thing and shew how the Word [...] or God, is in Scripture in a true and proper Sense given to Jesus Christ, Fourth, GOD. but something must be premised before we come to the point; in the question what God is, we must distinguish either absolutely or relatively, that is considered either [...] Essentially, or [...] Personally, the one re­lates to the Nature and essential Attributes, the other to the Persons of the most Holy Trinity, and to their Attributes: Here we assert two Things against Soci­nians; First, the Name of God with Attributes, is not a Name of Office, as Emperor, King, Consul, Judge, &c. but of Essence and Nature as are the Names, Spirit, Man, Lyon, &c. Secondly, The Name God in its first and proper signification is not appella­tive but proper, for it signifieth an Essence of a most singular Nature, though we know it to be also impro­perly used and abused, as the Idols of the Ammonites and of several other Nations, are called their Gods, but there are with it such Circumstances as make us easily know the difference. Commonly there are such Epithets when the True God is mentioned alone with it, as the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Israel, One God, True God, Eternal Life, God blessed for ever, which leave no doubt that the True God by Na­ture is spoken of.

The Word God in the New Testament doth pro­perly first and chiefly signify the True God, and such by Nature, but secondarily and improperly those that are in high Places of Office and Power, which Sense Socinians would restrain it to when 'tis spoken of our blessed Saviour, but 'tis spoken of him not only at­tributively but subjectively, as 'tis in that place, When [...]al. 4.8. ye knew not God ye did service unto them which by [Page 66]nature are not Gods; for if there that Name had been of Office and Dignity, the Galatians might have ex­cused themselves that they did serve those that were Gods by Dignity and Place, though not by Nature, but the Apostle reproves them for it; so tho' they be called Gods, yet if they are not such by Nature, they are no Gods, according to what the Lord saith by the Prophet, Jerem. 2.11. Hath a nation changed their Gods which yet are no Gods? The reason is by the same given elsewhere, because Chap. 16.20. man makes them Gods unto himself; the proper Character which another Prophet gives of the True God is, he Isa. 43.10. before whom there was no God formed, neither shall there be after him; for being of himself, he hath no beginning, and shall have no end, such is the Son of God the Saviour of the World, before whom there was no God form­ed, upon which account he is by the Prophet called, the antient of days, Dan. 7.22. neither shall there be after him; thus he must needs be such by Nature, and every one knows that neither Angels nor Magistrates are Gods, because not such by Nature, as is the Son of God, which by God's Grace we shall demonstrate, and neither the Galatians nor none of the Gentiles, could well know God, and as he ought to be, till God was manifest in the Flesh when this Second Person of the Godhead took Human Nature in the Virgin's Womb. The Word God is either first and properly spoken of the True, Eternal God, or of the Creature, if of the Creature, then the Creature shall properly be called and properly be God, which is Blasphemy; but if it be spoken of the High, True and Eternal God, then it must signify his Essence and Nature, seeing God is such from all Eternity through the perfection of his Nature, not upon the account of any Dignity or Power different from his Nature; the Name of God if absolute, denoteth his Nature and not any Office, but if it be relative, and signifieth only an Of­fice, then from Eternity God was not God. They would have the Word God without an Article, as we observed of the Word Lord, to signify those that are Secondarily such, but with an Article only the True God, both which Notions are false; for first, the True [Page 67]God is sometimes denoted without an Article, as Joh. 1.6.12.13.18. so is the Inscription of the Rom. 1.7. Epistle to the Romans, and in other places; so is the other No­tion false, for the Word God attributed to false Gods, is sometimes with the Article, as Act. 7.43. and 2 Chron. 4.4. both which Examples are joyned together in the fore-quoted place to the Galatians; so then the signi­fication depends not upon the Article but the Nature of the Subject, but to leave off such Criticisms of the Schools, and not to bestow our time upon Words more than upon Things; I say the Word God is Jesus Christ's proper Name, for God and Christ are so un­separably united, that Ephes. 2.12. they that were without Christ, were also without God in the world.

So then the Name God signifies the Essence or Na­ture, not barely the Office and Dignity, for other­wise it would follow it should belong to God only in relation to Creatures; but 'tis most true, it absolutely belongs to him, for he was God before there were any Creature; now our God by Nature is opposed to those that are only called so, the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. [...].5, 6. Though there be that are called Gods, many, &c. to us there is but one God; and by the Epithet True God is distin­guished from them; therefore when the Word God is spoken of the True God, 'tis not appellative or common, but proper, for if it were not so, God would not absolutely be one, for that is common which belongs to many, and proper, that which belongs only to one, and the Name of one only thing must needs be proper, since Scripture teaches us there is but one God, the Name of God must needs be proper: and farther, when a Name doth of it self belong to one, and to others in relation only to that same one, it must be accounted to be that one's proper Name; thus the Name of God of it self belongs to God alone, not in relation to any thing else, but to others it belongs only in relation to the only True God; and as the Word God, spoken of the True God, is, as already said, taken Essentially or personally, so is the Name Father either for the Essence of God or for the first Person of the Trinity; now the Person is taken either abstractively or concretively, when [Page 68]we say the Word God is taken personally, we do not mean abstractively or separately from, but concretive­ly or joyntly with the Essence; so the Name Father is taken either essentially or personally, in the first manner when in the Lord's Prayer, we say, our Father, and personally when in the Creed we say, I believe in God the Father.

Thus far we in these matters do agree with the Adversaries that there is but One God, and that Isai. 42.8. he gives not his Name and Glory to another; for to whom God doth communicate the Honor of his Name and Titles, to the same he thereby imparts his Glory. Now there is a Name of God proper, and another appellative; this is given to the Creatures, and 'tis either properly or figuratively; in the first Sence the Word is not always to be understood to be the abso­lute Being but a relative one, as when some Na­tion doth through Error and Idolatry, name to her­self some Divinity or other, in this Sense God and People are relatives, so the Name God taken in the predicament of Relation and not in that of Substance, may properly be spoken of a Creature; thus I speak properly when I say, Chamos is the God of the Moa­bites, and Malcom of the Ammonites, but when I come to examine the Opinion of those Nations, it is very true that they are the Gods of such Nations, but 'tis not true that they are Gods in Nature and Sub­stance, they are but erroneously look'd upon as Gods by such Nations; so this is not a substantial and ab­solute Truth, only Relative, which the Adversaries may not affirm of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, as being feigned and invented Gods between which the Word of God makes a difference, 1 Thess. 1.9. Ye turned to God from Idols to serve the living and true God: Now the figurative signification is, when by reason of some likeness, God's Name is attributed to some Creatures, Psal. 8. thus Angels are called Elohim, and Job 1.6. Sons of God by reason of the Excellency of their Nature, Magistrates are called Psal. 82.6. Gods and Sons of God upon the ac­count of the Dignity of their Office.

But here the Case is very different, the question is, Whether the Name of God be properly or impro­perly, [Page 69]and figuratively attributed to the Son and to the Holy Ghost? I mean the Name taken appellatively, denoting in him that is so called, the Divine Nature and Essence: Socinians, though they be brazen-fac'd enough, yet not to that degree, as to say, that the Persons of the Son and Holy Ghost, are called God only by way of Figure, but they cavil that the Word signifies not a Nature but an Office, so the proper signification of the Word they extend to Angels and Magistrates, as if the Word God signified Governour, Preserver and Benefactor, &c. but before their Heresy broke out, no Man ever taught so, then no Language gives that Sence to the Word; for [...] in Greek, sig­nifies the Nature, for some accounted to be Gods, are false ones, Gal. 4.8. which by nature are not Gods; and Philosophers reckoned the Gods of the Heathens a­mongst the Animals, [...] speaking and rational, and the Hebrew Word Elohah, doth certainly, properly signify the Nature, as being given to the supreme Be­ing, which is so called, not relatively, but absolutely; when to the first Man the common Name is attribu­ted, he is not simply called Adam till that became his proper Name: Now as to the Origin or Etymology of the Word, 'tis falsly deduced from the signification of governing, helping and preserving, but truly from the Notion of the word Worship and Adoration; we must not think that our first Parents were so wanting in their Piety towards their Maker whom they wor­shipped so devoutly, to call him by a common Name proper to Creatures, as if afterwards it had been at­tributed to him by way of Excellency; And is it like­ly that God had been so wanting in what related to his Honor, as being himself the Author of the Hebrew Tongue, the Knowledge whereof he infused into Adam and Eve, as not to provide a Name proper to distinguish his own Nature? For having instituted for himself a Religious Worship and Adoration, he must need also have declared a proper Name incommuni­cable to any Creature whatsoever.

Now the Name of God is given the Son, not only attributively, Joh. 1.1. the word was God; and Rom. 9.13. Christ, God blessed for ever; but also subjectively, 1 Tim 3.16. God was ma­nifested [Page 70]in the flesh, and Acts 20.28., God purchased his church with his own blood; even in the Old Testament Psal. 97.6, 7., The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory, &c. Worship him all ye gods. Now the Adver­saries do confess that as often as the Name of God is spoken subjectively, as they call it, it signifies a Sub­stance and Person, but of God the Father of Christ; still they own it signifies a Substance and Person of the Godhead; but why only of the Father of Christ? that is [...], meerly their Opinion, without any Proof. As to that which they say about the Article in the Greek, I shewed already it is an idle Distin­ction; for out of some places of Scripture I shewed how the word [...], signifying the true God, is some­times with an Article and sometimes without, as 1 Tim. 3.16. God was manifest in the flesh, [...] is the same as [...], saith Thomas Joh. 20.28., my Lord and my God, he spoke to one whom he knew was to be worshipped with religious worship, and he own'd it so; yet Scripture commands, and often repeats, that the Lord our God alone is to be worshipped, which our Saviour Christ confirmed Mat. 4.10. with his own Mouth, and Paul Gal. 4.8. after him; and the Angel no less than twice doth direct to the true and only Object of wor­ship, when he said Rev. 19.10. and 22.9. worship God: But this belonging to another Head, I now shall proceed no farther in it.

Now to remove all improper and figurative mean­ing, when the word God is attributed to Christ, and to prove his Consubstantiality with the Father, Scrip­ture sets down Names and Epithets, which not only distinguish him from and raise him above all and every Creature, but also make him equal with God the Fa­ther: Thus he is called 1 John 5.20 the true God, and Tit. 2.13 Re. 19.17., the great God; so Rom. 9.5, God over all, blessed for ever; also Jude 4., the only Lord God, &c. Hence the Name Jehovah is joyntly, equally, and comparatively given unto the Son; as Psal. 2.11, 12., serve the Lord with fear, &c. and Isai. 25.9, this is our God, we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the Lord, we have waited for him, we will rejoyce in his salvation: Now comparatively, or in a Parallel, Christ is the same Isai. 8.13, 14. Lord of Hosts which shall be for a [Page 71]Sanctuary, a Stone of stumbling, and for a Rock of Offence to both the Houses of Israel, as confirm'd Luke 2.34. and Rom. 9.32.. Christ is he, who being by the Right Hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the Pro­mise of the Holy Ghost upon the day of Pentecost, shed forth those Gifts we read of Act. 2.3.4.33.; and 'tis the Lord God of Israel, unquestionably the true God, that promiseth Joel 2.28. in the last days to pour out his spirit, &c. so 'tis the same Lord God of Israel, the Lord Jesus is the same, who is first and last; comparing Isai. 44.6. Isaiah with S. John Rev. 1.17.. The Son of God saith Isai. 48.12, 16., He is sent from the Lord God, and from his spirit, after he had said, v. 12. I am the first, and also am the last: So the Titles proper to the true God are given Christ, as King of Kings, and Lord of Lords; as by God's Grace we shall shew when we speak about the Attributes.

So then the Son is true God, as we observed before [...], though not [...], Son of himself, when we speak of the Son simply, and without relation to the Father, we properly call him Jehovah, and self being, for he hath it of himself; but when consider'd relative­ly to the Father, then we say he hath his Being from the Father; the Son is by himself not of himself, his Essence hath no Spring, but his Person is from the Fa­ther, the Essence is not communicated to the Son, but only the manner of subsisting in the Essence; when the Son is called God personally, then he is not call'd the manner of subsisting, but an Existence with the manner of being; now the modus or manner is under­stood with the Essence, because as the manner of Di­vinity is not Divinity it self, so the mode of Essence is not Essence it self; thus when he is called God per­sonally 'tis in the Concret not in the Abstract.

If Christ be not God by Nature, he is not true God, for nothing is really such but what is so by Nature: The Adversaries say, that those things which compa­ratively are called such in Scripture, are truly such as Christ is called Joh. 1.9. Chap. 18.1, the true light, and the true vine, though he be so called by way of a Metaphor: But we do not deny, how sometimes the Name true is appropriated to those things that are so called meta­phorically, but then the sense of the Metaphor doth [Page 72]not really belong to them; for in every Metaphor there is true and false in the manner of it; thus Christ is call'd the True Light; for though in a me­taphorical way he be a Light, that is, spiritually works the same Effect as a corporal Light doth bodily, in the like manner he is called a True Vine, because that the Metaphor is truly proper to him; but here the que­stion is not about the truth of Words taken metapho­rically but properly; for when the word True is joyn'd to those that are properly taken, then it signifieth the very Nature of the thing; so when the word true is joyned with that of God, it necessarily signifies the Nature of God; and whensoever the Name of True God is given any thing, thereby is Divine Nature at­tributed to it: This shews how Socinians do not own Christ to be the true God, because, according to Scripture, there is but one true God, they deny him to be that only true God: When God is called the onely Maker of Heaven and Earth, and the onely true God, 'tis not said only by way of Excellency, as com­paring God with the Creatures, but we thereby ex­clude all others; for in those places the only true God is opposed to false gods, in relation to which he is not called true by way of Eminency, but because it is the truth; for they are true gods by no means, and the true God is ever opposed to false gods and Idols, wherefore called the Living God, Psal. 36.9. because, saith David, with thee is the fountain of Life.

He that is God only by Participation and not by Nature, is not true God; for Participation doth im­port a Likeness, but Likeness of a thing is never the thing it self; and if they would have Christ to be God only by Participation, this in effect is to deny him to be true God, that is, to make him an improper and metaphorical God; and after that way Men and An­gels might be called true Gods, which is not only Fol­ly but also Blasphemy to say and think: But they say, if God and Angels be not true Gods, then God doth mock when he calls them so; but 'tis no Mockery to give one some Name in an improper and figurative sense, or else when Christ calls his Apostles Matth. 5.13, 14., The light of the world, the salt of the earth, and a City that is set [Page 73]on an hill, he would have mock'd too; so would Paul calling 1 Cor. 3.11. and Eph. 2.20. Christ a foundation, and a chief corner stone: Seeing the Apostles are not true Light, only improper­ly and metaphorically, and Christ a Stone figuratively, they that are Gods only by Likeness and Communica­tion and not by Nature, are not Gods: Every thing is called true, as I hinted before, according to its Na­ture, a true Man, true Gold, true Silver, from the Na­ture of Man, Gold, and Silver: Now as to Christ, can he be esteemed as a true God, who first had a Be­ing according to their Principles, and was not God, then was God, and, like the Popish Wafer, God by degrees, was God more and more, till he came to a perfection of the Godhead, and we may say, was ac­cidentally so, for such Accidents have their degrees; for they say, Christ, during his whole Life, was not a perfect God or a perfect Lord, and by these means Christ's Excellency was greater for being Man than for being God; for to be a Man is to be a Substance, but to be a God, is, after that rate, to be an Accident, but every Substance is more excellent than its Accident.

Nay they grow worse and worse; for as they would not have him to have been a God from the beginning, so at last they will have him to cease from being a God; for if Christ be called true God only by virtue of that Power he hath over Believers, and in that respect only to be worshipped as true God, then after the last day he will be God no longer, for then he shall be deprived of that Power when he shall have deliver'd up the Kingdom unto God even the Father, which Text I shall elsewhere have occasion to explain; so that he shall be reduced to the common condition of other Believers, and have no Advantage over any of them. O take notice what a God they make Christ to be, for every Believer could be such a God: No Man of sound mind can't but see such an Absurdity, Impie­ty, and Blasphemy. Here farther we could shew, that as Socinians own not Christ to be true God, so they deny him to be true Man, because, they say, the Body he had of the blessed Virgin is gone, under the notion, That Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God: They also teach, the Soul of Man [Page 74]doth not subsist by it self, as Socinus pag. 79. taught against Puccius: So, according to them, Christ, such as he was, is gone and perished both in Body and Soul; this I take notice of only by the way, to come to other things.

The Name God is spoke substantively and subje­ctively, not only predicatively of Christ; for if it be not necessary it should substantively be taken of him, then neither adjectively; for the Name God is also predicatively taken of the true God, as 1 Kings 18.21., if the Lord be God follow him, and so in other places: When in Scripture the Name of God is given Christ, we do not mind so much the Word, as the Person signifi'd by the Word, who is God blessed for ever, to be adored, whereby is meaned the true God, though it be spoken by way of Attribute. What Socinus saith is false, how when the word God is spoken subje­ctively it never signifieth Christ, as it appears out of several Texts; First, The Lord of Hosts is sent by the Lord of hosts, the words of the Lord of Hosts are re­lated thus by the Angel Zech. 2.8, 10, 11., after the glory hath he sent me to the nations, after his Glorification; and he that says so adds, for lo I come and will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord, which is the proper Character of the Messiah; who to that purpose is call'd Hagg. 2.7. the desire of all nations, and only in the time of the Messiah after his Resurrection, all * Na­tions were by the Apostles call'd to believe.

Here out of that place of Haggai one thing I must observe, which is the Comparison made by the Pro­phet between the first Temple and the second, where­in the Preference is given to the last; for therein 'tis said not only and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts, but also in the next Verse but one, the glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former: I ask wherein could this greater Glory con­sist? Not in the Stateliness and Magnificence of the Building, wherein the last was much inferiour to the first, as God by the Mouth of the same Prophet de­clareth it, when he saith, Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? And how do you see it now? Is it not in your eyes in comparison of it [Page 75]as nothing? v. 3. in so much that many of the priests and Levites and chief of the Fathers who were antient men, that had seen the first house, Ezra 3.12. when the foundation of the last was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice: As indeed what a proportion could there be between a Temple built by a poor remnant of a long Captivity, who for Means to do't were beholding to Heathenish Princes, and who met with so much Op­position in the carrying on their design from open and secret Enemies, I say, what a Proportion could such a House hold with the Temple of Solomon, towards the building whereof David had for several years before made so rich and great Provisions, which his Son the most glorious King that ever sate upon the Throne of Israel, did so much increase, and erected a Temple, which, for Magnificence and Riches, was a Wonder of the World: So then the Glory of the second Tem­ple could not upon any such account be greater than that of the first; nor in reference to the Manifesta­tion of God's Presence in the Ark, at the Mercy-Seat between the Cherubims, and of the Cloud which fill'd the whole House, more conspicuous in the first than in the second Temple; wherein then could this Glory consist? Our Prophet declares it, And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of Hosts. I take it to be beyond all Dispute, that by the desire of all Nations, the Messiah, the Lord Jesus is under­stood, who came whilst the second Temple was yet standing. Christ the Messiah is called the desire of all Nations, he whom all Nations were to desire; be­cause according to the Promise unto Abraham, in him all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed, Bles­sedness is certainly a thing most desireable: It was then his Presence that made its Glory greater than the former's, for things in the first Temple did but repre­sent him, and were the Shadow and Figures, whereof he was the Body and the Truth: Solomon, thô never so glorious, was by no means to be compared with him, as he plainly declared it to the Scribes, Mat. 12.22. Behold a greater than Solomon is here: According to all human appearances, Solomon being every way compassed about [Page 76]with Glory, was beyond expression greater than Christ, a Person persecuted and derided by most Men, chiefly by the great ones of the World; and if we must speak of Gifts, Solomon was glorious not only in Riches and Honour, but also great in Wisdom; for his wisdom ex­celled the wisdom of all the children of the East country, 1 Kings 4.30, 31. and all the wisdom of Egypt, for he was wiser than all men; yet for all this, Christ saith, in Wisdom, he was greater than he, Matt. 12.42. which could never have been if he had been a meer Man; in that respect every thing was against him, therefore that preference can have no human ground, it must be by virtue of a natural Pri­vilege and of a divine Prerogative, which is the same he had over David, Solomon's Father, whose Lord he was; the same he had over Abraham, Pre-existence, before Abraham was I am, which could not be as to his Humanity, wherefore in him there must be another ground, namely his Divinity, only therein can lay the advantage he had over them all: Not only he was greater than all these, but also than the Temple it self, a place so eminently glorious by reason of God's immediate Presence in it, that it was called not only Holy, but the inner part of it was called the holiest of all, into which none but the High Priest might enter, and that only once a year, not without Blood; yet saith our Saviour, Matt. 12.6, 8. I say unto you, that in this place is one greater than the temple, which can be said of none but of God; there he also calls himself Lord of the Sab­bath, not as Man but as God, Temple and Sabbath the two holiest things in Israel.

The second Text is this Isai. 35.4, 5., Behold your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence he will come and save you; then the Eyes of the blind shall be open, and the Ears of the deaf shall be unstopp'd, which our Saviour applyeth to himself, who when John's Disci­ples ask'd him Matt. 11.3, 5., Art thou he that should come? or do we look for another? Jesus answered them by this, the blind receive their sight, &c. which were the Signes wherewith Isaiah had prophefied God would come; these things he commands them to give John an ac­count of, wherein he lookt to the Prophet, who fore­told such things should be done by the Messiah, whom [Page 77]in that place Isaiah calleth God, when he saith, God himself will come and save you, which must not be understood of the Father; for first, we never read that God the Father came into the World to save us, but that he sent his Son to do't; he that sends another in his place, cannot properly be said to come himself. Second­ly, there is an Energy in the word he himself, whereby is meaned, not that another in God's stead, but God himself, by himself would come, and though God be said to come when he shews some gracious effect of his Power, yet when he is said to send another, 'tis not to be understood in that same manner: And tho Socinus denies him at that time to be God, only that he was appointed hereafter so to be, he is refuted by his being in that Text at that time call'd the God of Israel, your God, whom you worship.

The third Text is that wherein God saith Mal. 3.1., Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple: Now who that God is before whose face John prepared his way, is clear enough, that he spake of the Lord Jesus, not of the Father's coming after him, which he pointed at when he said, John 1: 26, 27, 29.30. com­pared with Act. 13.24 There standeth one among you whom ye know not, he it is that coming after me is preferred before me; and to make it clearer, he points directly at the Person of Christ; for, the next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, behold the lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, which is he of whom I said, after me comes a man which is preferred before me, for he was before me: Can there be a plainer Designation of a person than this? To him alone, by means of his Preaching, he prepared the way; and that which is remarkable, our Saviour explains of himself the Text of Malachy, This is he of whom it is written, behold Luke 7.27. I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee; and the word my face in the Pro­phet he renders thy face, that is, of Christ; so he quoteth the place not according to the Words, but according to the Sense; Luke 1.76. Thou child, saith Zechariah of John, shalt he called the Prophet of the highest: (a high Name, proper to God) for thou shalt go [Page 78]before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; it is then most certain that John prepared the way for him that was to come after him, and to converse with, and dwell among Men, not the Father but Christ came after John, therefore he is that God that sent his Messenger as in Malachy: Socinus his Phrase, is no where in Scripture to be read, that God came in Christ, he sent Christ his Son, but came not in him, the Father is said to be, and dwéll in Christ, not to come in Christ, he sent him in his own Name.

Though Christ under the Name Word be called God absolutely, Joh. 1.1. and without any restriction, in the same manner as the True God is absolutely called God, without any thing to pretext an improper ap­pellation, and the repetition of the Word God in the same Signification, doth sufficiently demonstrate it; 1 Joh. 5.20. nay, though he be not barely called God, but the True God, whence we must necessarily conclude he is true essential God. Yet they would have the Father alone to be God, and that when the Name of God is absolutely set down, it is to be understood only of the Father, not of the Son, nor of the Holy Ghost, so they conclude Father, Son and Holy not to be One God, to which purpose they wrest some Scripture out of the Old and New Testament, which in due time we shall by the Grace of God take an occasion to an­swer; but because the Adversaries use their utmost pernicious Endeavours to oppose these Truths, we to make clear these most important Doctrines which our Faith is grounded upon, must somewhat more en­large upon it, though we take notice of some things we said before, or to the same purpose.

First, We say God is a Name of the Divine Es­sence or Nature, as Man is of Human Nature, but whereof there is a different Reason from that of all Names of other Natures; for all Individuals are a­sunder one from another, their Nature according to the mental Notion is one, but not really so, where­fore in them, Nature is the species or kind which is predicated and spoken of every singular and individual Person as James is a Man, and of many too, as Mat­thew, John and Luke are Three Men, but as in God [Page 79]the Essence is but One in number, and not only in the mental Notion, but also is really and most simply One, though in Three Persons, this Name of God is not predicated as a species of every Person. but ac­cording to the priority or posteriority of their Origin and Order, as thus, the Father is God, but unbegot­ten, the Son God, begotten, the Holy Ghost proceed­ing from both. Now if the Name God was as species spoken of the Persons, it would follow that the Per­sons should make several Gods different in Number and Nature. Secondly, We say where the Name of God is absolutely used, it doth not always as the Hereticks would have it, signify the Name of One of the Persons, but sometimes the Person and sometimes the Nature; and herein lays their Mistake, that they suppose the Name of God ever to be taken Personal­ly, and the Comparison is the cause of the Mistake, for the infinite Essence is not multiplied as the finite, now when the Name of God is taken for the Person, either something is added which gives a Notion of the Person, as when God is said, Act. 20.28. to have purchased the Church with his own blood, which is understood of the Son, or else the Persons are compared among them­selves, and then the Name of God is taken for the Person of the Father, for because the Father is the Spring of the Godhead in relation to the Order and Origin of the Persons, so in the comparison of the Persons the Name of God is by Excellency attributed to the Father, especially where mention is made of the Mediator, for whensoever Christ speaks himself, or is spoken of, as, and in the Person of the Mediator, he retains a middle degree between God and Man, and then by the Name of God is understood the Fa­ther.

Thirdly, When the Name of God is put instead of One Person, and it signifies One Father, then is thereby understood the Godhead which is common to Son and Holy Ghost, who are Author and Maker of all Creatures; for though the Son doth exercise the Office of Mediator, yet he hath not thereby lost the Glory of the Divinity with the Father, neither is his Essence inferiour or secondary to the Father's or his [Page 80]Godhead Essentiated. Fourthly, When God's Name without any personal Attribute or Comparison of one Person with the other, is simply, indefinitely and ab­solutely used, then it signifies the Divine Nature and Essence which is Father, Son and Holy Ghost, One God. Besides, in these Texts of Scripture where the Name of God is mentioned in opposition to false Gods or Creatures, it is by no means to be restrained to the Person of the Father only, but is indefinitely spoken of Father, Son and Holy Ghost; as for instance, if when the Law commands to adore One God, the Fa­ther alone, and not the Son is to be understood, it would follow that the Son who is to be adored, is a­nother God; likewise when God calls himself the God of Israel, he by this mark distinguisheth himself from all false Gods, How then might it be said of one Personal one, whether Father or Son? 2 Sam. 7.22. Who is great as thou art, who is like unto thee? for several of the Arians who denied the Consubstantiality or the Sameness of Nature, yet owned a likeness between Father and Son; and in the Prophets where God's Name is absolutely taken, often it addeth an univer­sal Negative or Exclusive; but if the Name of God belongeth only to the Father, and if Father, Son and Holy Ghost be but One God and Saviour, and One Nature, it will follow that Son and Holy Ghost are excluded from Things attributed unto God, for 'tis said of the True God of Israel, that he is the only God and Saviour, and that there is no other God besides and without him. Moreover, seeing the Father alone is One God, and they own also the Son to be God, and the Holy Ghost to be God, though not that One God, then it follows there are Three Gods, which is Blasphemy,

These Things being premised do afford Matter of answer to their Sophistical Cavils against this Truth, and so shew how the Word God absolutely used in Scripture is to be understood, not only of the Father, but also of the Son and Holy Ghost, whence also ap­peareth the Mystery of these Doctrines one with ano­ther, and they are so twisted, that they stand or fall together: So, no wonder if under one Head we say [Page 81]somethings belonging to, and spoken of in another; here they form thus an Argument against us. The God of Israel whom the Israelites ever adored, is that One God whom the Law and the Prophets speak of, but the Father of Christ is that One God mentioned in the Law and the Prophets, therefore he is that One God; but the Argument concludes nothing a­gainst us, we altogether grant it, the Father is the One God of Israel, for we do not say that there is a­nother God, another Nature in the Father, than that same, which Law and Prophets call the only God, and God alone; and we on our part do Argue thus, The God of Israel is One God, but Christ is the God of Israel who appeared to the Fathers, and by whose Spirit the Prophets being inspired, spoke; therefore Christ is that only God. For there is in Christ no other God­head, no other Divine Nature, than what is in the Father, as the Father is One, so is the Son One God, and both together are One God in Nature: But if the meaning of their Argument be that of the Three Per­sons of the Trinity, only the Father, not the Son, nor Holy Ghost, is the God of Israel, then we deny their minor Proposition, for out of Scripture the Son is the God of Israel whom they adored, for not only under the Name of God they adored the Messiah whom they believed to be God, but even they made a di­stinct mention of him in their Prayers, as we read when Jacob blessed Joseph's Children. God before whom my Fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life time to this day 3 the An­gel which redeemed me from all evil, bless these Lads; and this is spoken of the true antient Jews, for as to those that believed not when our Saviour himself spoke to them, who owned only the Father of Christ the Messiah, for their God, we may say, they knew not the True God in a true manner, seeing Joh. 14.6. none comes to the Father but by the Son, and Mat. 11. none [...] the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son [...] veal him; wherefore since they rejected the Son [...] wanted the true Knowledge of the Father, and [...] stead of God the Father, they adored the Idol [...] their own heart; wherefore when Jesus said to [...] Matt. 8.44. [Page 82] If I honour my self, my glory is nothing, 'tis my Fa­ther that honoureth me whom you say to be your God; he upbraids them with their Vain-glory who boasted to be the People of God, but falsly, by reason they owned him not to be God; in the mean while against their aspersions he asserted his Glory, because they look'd upon him as very much below Abraham and other Patriarchs; he in his Capacity of Mediatour and as a Man, owns a difference between him and God, whom he declareth to be the Author of his Glory, and he often mentioneth his Father, to the end, in this Comparison of Persons all Things may be accep­table unto him; but hence it doth not follow that Christ is not of the same Nature with the Father, seeing they are not compared in relation to the Es­sen [...] but herein he doth condescend to their Capacity, whom not owning his Deity, he would by degrees bring to the knowledge thereof.

As to the use of the Name of God in Scripture, the remaining Evidences are reduced under two kinds, First, In some the Name of God is absolutely taken for God the Father. Secondly, In others is added an exclusive Particle which is by some joyned with the Name of God, and by others with the Things spoken of and attributed unto God. Out of the first, nothing may be deduced contrary to this Doctrine, for in all those places by them quoted, which anon we shall mention, is a Comparison of the Persons, wherein the Name of God is properly attributed to the Fa­ther upon the account of Order and Origin, but 'tis inconsequent to say, that in every place where the Name of God is absolutely taken, that is, without Comparison of the Persons, it is to be understood only of the Father, for in several places where the Word God is indefinitely set down, yet it is by no means to be reduced to the Father alone; as to the other sort of Proofs wherein an exclusive Particle is expressed, that exclusive Particle relates to the Crea­tures, and to every thing which by Nature is not God, whither they be things in Nature, as Sun, Moon and Stars which Heathens worshipped as Gods, or else those which are Effects of Man's fancy and ima­gination, [Page 83]such are several Idols by foolish Men wor­shipped as Gods: wherefore, seeing the True and Es­sential God is opposed to those which by Nature are not Gods, it follows that by the Word God may well be understood Father, Son and Holy Ghost; likewise though sometimes mention be made only of One Per­son, we must not take it as if thereby the other Per­sons were excluded, but only that which by Nature is not God, and that this is a right Interpretation, it may well be proved out of several places of Scripture, as for Instance, when God saith by Isa. 43.11. the Prophet, I, even I, am the Lord and besides me there is no Saviour; and by another, Hos. 13.4. For there is no Saviour besides me. Here in the Adversaries Opinion, Salvation is attri­buted to the Father, but that the Son is not excluded, it appears out of several places, amongst the rest, out of this, Act. 4.12.10. Neither is there Salvation in any other, that is, in Jesus Christ who hath been crucified; and we know Scripture doth not contradict it self, and if out of the Prophet's, one would exclude the Son, he might as well out of this exclude the Father. Again, the Lord Jesus saith, No man knows the Father but the Son; now if all but the Son be excluded from knowing the Father, as in the foregoing Text he would be exclud­ed from being a Saviour, so in this from knowing himself, also the Holy Ghost would be excluded from knowing the Father, though he be said, To 1 Cor. 2.10. search all things, yea the deep things of God; in this very same Sense, Paul said, Chap. 2.1, 10. I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified; he doth not thereby deny that he determined to know the Father and the Holy Ghost, but he meaneth, he knows nor owns no way of Salvation out of Christ, and v. [...]1. The things of God knows no man, but the spirit of God; but in other places we read how Joh. 5.20. the Father knows the Son, and the Son knows the Father, and the Father shews the Son all things that himself doth; hence we may conclude how the Apostle speaks exclusively only of Creatures, not of the Son nor of the Holy Ghost.

CHAP. VI. Christ is True Natural Son of God by Eternal Generation.

BUT we must by the Grace of God come to a­nother Head, as Scripture gives Christ, truly, properly and essentially the Name of God, so it doth give him that of Son of God; the First we shewed al­ready; the Second whereby he is declared the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, we must now speak of, as we observed that the Word God in Scripture is spo­ken in several Senses, as the True God properly, An­gels and Magistrates improperly, and Judg. 9.2 l. 46. Idols, 2 Cor. 4.4. the Devil, and the Phil. 3.19. Belly abusively. So here I must say how the Name Son of God admits of Three different Significations, for God hath three sorts of Sons, for all others are reduced under these three Heads; the First is by Creation and Preservation which is a con­tinued Creation, for Act. 17.28. in him we live and move and have our being; thus Adam is called Luke 3.38. Son of God, and Men Gen. 6.2. Sons of God; on this Account, God is Father of all Creatures, whether in Heaven as Angels, nay, of the Sun, Moon, Stars, of the Birds of the Air, and on Earth, of all Men, Beasts, Plants, &c. and of Fi­shes under Water, this in relation to Nature, and in general to the whole Creation. The Second kind of God's Sons or Children, is by Adoption and Grace, such are his Elect and People; of these in a special manner God is called the Father.

In a Third way Scripture speaks of a Son of God, and of none else, thus the only begotten from all E­ternity, namely, our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who is not Son according to the first manner, which being common to all Men, would make no difference between him and others, and bring him into a Croud of the whole Work of Creation; neither is [Page 85]he Son of God upon the account of Grace and Ado­ption which they would have him to be, but if he be by Adoption, how can he be the Only Begotten Son, seeing that through Grace God hath adopted so many; adopted Sons once and before their Adoption were not Sons of God, which cannot be said of the Lord Jesus that the time hath been when he was not Son of God; all and every adopted Son of God were once Ephes. 2. dead in trespasses and sins, and by nature children of wrath even as others, once Colos. 1.13. under the power of darkness, and Rom. 5.10. enemies to God, none of which things may with­out Blasphemy, be spoken or thought of the Lord Jesus.

He is called Son not by Creation, for Colos. 1.16. all things were created by him, and one cannot be Creatour and Creature, nor by Adoption, for Ephes. 1.5. in him we are a­dopted; nor by any Dignity or Eminency over infe­riour Creatures, as are Angels, for the Heb. 1.4, 5. Apostle de­nies it, nor also upon the account of a personal Ʋnion or Incarnation, as he is called Son of Man, because manifested in the Flesh, he is not called Son of God upon any such account, or in any of these Senses as Socinians would have him; 1 Job. 4.14.15. for they cannot deny the Lord Jesus to be called God, Son of God, for that Name is given him in so many places of Scripture, and herein they would seem to agree, but not sincere­ly, for they cavil about the manner, and disagree as to the true Sense; he is called Son of God, by rea­son of an Eternal Generation by the Father, where­fore he is called God's Rom. 8.3, 32. own and proper Son, and Joh. 3.16. only begotten Christ is from the Father by Gene­ration, and the Holy Ghost by Spiration; to be from the Father by Generation, is to be generated or be­gotten by the Father, long before the fulness of times, and his appearing in the Flesh, God absolutely said to him, Psal. 2.7. thou art my Son this day have [...]begotten thee; this represented with Comparisons as when called Prov 8. Wisdom, for as Wisdom is produced by the Mind, so is the Son by the Father, and in the New Te­stament by the similitude of Colos. 1.15. an Image of [...] Fa­ther's Heb 1.3. Person, and of the brightness of his glory, and of the inward Job. 1.1. Word in the Mind, for as an Image [Page 86]is not every likeness, but the express Effigie or Re­presentation of that whereof it is the Image, so the Son in his Essence and Essential Attributes is so much the express Image of the Father, that Joh. 14.9. whosoever sees him, doth see the Father also; as the brightness of the Beam is from the Sun, so the Son is from the Father, as Light from Light, as equally the glorious Image of his Nature, as a Letter doth exactly represent the Character out of which it is drawn; thus the Son doth exactly represent the Father, by whom he is be­gotten, as [...] the Word, is conceived by the Mind, and remains in it, so is the Son begotten by the Father, and remains in him; and as the Wisdom, Image, Brightness, the Word, are one thing from another, so the Son is of the Father from the Father, not as an Essence is from another, but as a Person is from a Person, because he is the Character or express Image of the Person of the Father; all these in created Things are accidents, but in the Son who is in him­self and by himself, they are essential; hence appears how in this there is a true distinction of the Persons begetting and begotten.

So then Christ is called the Son of God, not by reason of any gracious Communication of Existence, or of Power, but upon the account of a secret and incomprehensible Generation of the Father of his Essence, for he is the true, proper, only begotten, highly beloved Son of the Living God, and the pre­positive Article [...] the, [...], the Son, frequently join'd to this Subject, doth denote a Filiation or Sonship, al­together of another kind from that of Heb. 1.5. Angels or Men, which can be no other than an essential one; a True Son is begotten of the Essence of his Father, but the Son of God is a True Son, therefore he is begotten of the Essence of his Father. Again, the proper Son is said to be, and is he that hath his proper Father; now he is the proper Father who hath begotten his Son of his own Essence: Farther­more, the Only Begotten Son, is only he that is begotten of the Substance of his Father, which is demonstrated by the Opposition of natural and a­dopted Sons, who are loved for the sake of the well [Page 87]beloved natural Son of God; that Confession of Peter in the Name of the Disciples, thou art not Matth. 16.14, 16, 17. repeated John the Baptist, nor Elias, nor Jeremias who had been great in God's Favour, nor none of the Pro­phets, they were a meer nothing in Comparison of Christ, but, Joh. 6.68, 69. Ver. 17. thou art Christ the Son of the living God; is not only in its true Sense approved of by our Sa­viour, but he also there attributes it to Divine Reve­lation, as of an incomprehensible Mystery; Blessed art thou Simon Bar- [...]as, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven.

Isaac as they object, is called Gen 23.2. and Heb. 11.17. Only Begotten Son, but he is not absolutely so called, but relatively secundum quid, because he was the Only Begotten Son of Abraham, by Sarah in a lawful Marriage, and thereby made his only Heir, to the exclusion of Ishmael, whom he had before by Hagar: he was Only Begotten Son in relation to the Promise which is ex­pressed in the following Verse, Heb. 11.18. of whom it was said, that in Isaac shall thy seed be called. The excellency of Filiation is between those who differ in Degrees, but here the Difference is greater than in the whole kind, as Heb. 1.4, 5. Isaac was a Type of Christ in relation to the Sacrifice, but not of the Generation; the Father hath begotten his Son thorough the Com­munication of his Nature, and so of a true and proper Generation, but not of a Physical or Natural, such as Man's, and of other animated Creatures, but by a Supernatural, whereby God begets according to the Truth of his Word, for the more Excellent he is that begets, so the more Excellent is the Generation, as it appears by the Example of every thing that doth ge­nerate, that which is esteemed a Perfection in natural Generation, is in an infinitely most Eminent Degree attributed unto God, as to beget that which is like unto himself, and by the Communication of his Na­ture, as to the thing it self the Generation, besides its being asserted in the Word of God, the secun­dity of God's Nature, is a reason for it, for it re­quites a Communication to several Persons according to that of the Prophet, Isa. 66.9. shall I cause to bring forth [Page 88]and not bring forth, or beget my self, saith the Lord, as if he had said, shall I make others fruitful, and be barren my self; that in relation to the Son and to the Holy Ghost may be done in two ways after the manner of Spiritual Substances, namely, begetting the Son by a natural Intellection, and by the same Will or Love breathing the Holy Ghost both consubstantial to himself, and of the same Nature and Perfection, distin­guished amongst themselves and one from another, only by their personalities and personal Attributes; this con­sideration serves to demonstrate, not only the Gene­ration of the Son, but also the Procession of the Holy Ghost, and consequently the whole Trinity, for Scri­ptures describe Son and Holy Ghost, as existing of themselves as the Father, working, understanding, witnessing, sending, &c. taken not only passively which is of Things, but actively, which is of Per­sons, for it belongs to none but Persons endued with Reason, and as I said before, to Persons it belongs to act.

The high Names of God's Own Son, Only Be­gotten, &c. which in Scripture are given the Lord Jesus, are not upon the account of his miraculous Conception in the Womb of the Virgin, as Socinians would have it, we confess therein God had a special Hand, and it was effected in an extraordinary man­ner, but this is not enough to entitle him to the Fi­liation, which the Question is now about, to distin­guish him from all others in the World called Sons of God, as anon we shall have occasion to speak of Adam had also a miraculous Birth, yet the Names of Only Begotten, and God's Own and Proper Son do not belong to him; in Christ's Conception and Birth, God did not concur materially, but efficiently with his Power, but not with his Substance, seeing Christ, as to the Flesh, was not of any invisible Seed of God, but of the Rom. 1.3. Seed of David; what Brothers he had, are quite of another Rom. 8.29. Heb. 2.12. Order and Quality, they are such not by Generation but by Regenera­tion, by Adoption, not by 1 Job. 1.12. 1 Joh. 3.1. 1 Pet. 1.23. Jam. 1.18. Nature as the Texts quoted in the Margin which may be perused, do de­clare; wherefore Christ is Son of God in another [Page 89]manner than men are, so he is called the Image of God, and the Character of his Person in a most dif­ferent way from that whereby Adam is said to be made according to God's likeness.

As in Creatures 'tis a perfection to beget their si­miles, or that which is like unto themselves, that may not be denyed God; now as we cannot conceive a communicability of a Nature which is spiritual and ad intra, but by the two Faculties of Understanding and Willing, whose Operations are immanent, so it may well be said, that there can be but two Processions in God, one by way of Intellection, whereby the Son is begotten, who is called the Word, Wisdom, and Image of the Father, and the other by way of Volition whereby is breathed the Holy Ghost, who for that reason is specially called Love; and though the Son doth also understand himself, yet he begets neither himself nor another; for he understands himself not of a notional Intellection to generate, which belongs on­ly to the Father, but with a notional one which is common to the Father and to the Holy Ghost. This is said not to prove our Faith, but only to demon­strate that what we believe is not contrary to Reason, though it be above it; for all these matters, as I ob­serv'd before, and as all Orthodox and learned Men that writ upon them are agreed, are to be grounded on Scripture, rather than upon human Reason.

The chief part of our Comfort and Salvation lies in the Belief of this Doctrine; for as in Christ is but one Person, so there are two Natures whereby he is in a capacity of perfecting our Redemption, which otherwise he could not be in; we own he is called Son of God [...] eminently, and by Excellen­cy; but besides he is also called [...], beloved, proper, only begotten, whereby he is distinguished from adopted Sons, and by his being called Son of the living God, distinguish'd from Elijab, Jeremiah, and such extraordinary Persons that had been in the World, which concludeth his Consub­stantiality with the Father; for it had been a mon­struous Generation, if out of the Father's Bosom had come a Son of another Nature: He that was to be [Page 90]born of a Virgin, was to be called the Son of the Highest, not by reason of a miraculous Conception, as pretended by Crollius out of Maldonat the Jesuit, but because of an eternal Generation chiefly, as also by reason afterwards of a personal Union of both Na­tures; for though upon that account he might also be call'd the Son of God, yet that could not intitle him to be the only begotten, because he is dear and beloved, but he is dear and beloved because the only begotten of the Father: Christ the first begotten in respect to adopted Brethren, not because their Son-ship is of the same Nature with his, but only thus far as Adoption imitateth Nature, as Civilians say, so their Adoption 1 Pet. 1.23. and Regeneration is a kind of Imitation of his eternal Generation; and to him belong all the Privileges of the First-born, and is called [...] the Colos. 1.17, 18. Rev. 3.14. beginning of the Creature not passively but actively: Christ is called the Beginning of the Creation of God, or of all things by him created, that is the beginner or the first efficient Cause of all Creatures according to a style used in Scripture, when the Thing is set for the Per­son, as when the Jewish Nation is called by the name of Rom. 4.9. Gal. 2.9. Circumcision, the Act for the Agent, and the Abstract for the Concret; thus Christ is said, of God made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption; that is, he makes us wise unto Salvation, makes us righteous, for he is our Justifier, Sanctifier, and Re­deemer; thus he is often called 1 John 2. and 4.2. the Popitation for our Sins, and our Salvation, for Propitiatour and Sa­viour.

Though there be an infinite difference between Christ's and human Generations, yet herein they agree that it imports in him that is begotten a Communica­tion of the Nature of the Begetter; it is said of Adam Gen. 5.3. that he begat a Son in his own likeness, after his Image; is this to be understood of a like Nature only, and not of the same? Undisputably he begat him out of his own Substance, and his own Nature and no other he communicated unto him, well repre­sented by the words in his own likeness, and after his image; the word Likeness doth not shew any Dispari­ty or Difference but an Equality and Sameness of Na­ture, [Page 91]which here by the by I observe in relation to a thing I shall have occasion to mention about the Ho­nour to be render'd unto Christ, that all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father, for they would have it only to be like but not equal or the same, when here Likeness is taken for Sameness and Equa­lity: Now as of Seth, so we must say of Christ the Son of God as the other was of Adam; for as Seth had not been Adam's Son except he were of the same Nature, so Christ could not truly and properly be God's Son, except he were of the same Nature with the Fa­ther; Seth was begotten after his Father's Image, that is, of the same Nature; and the Lord Jesus, more strongly to shew the Sameness in Nature with the Father, which he had in a more eminent way than ever Seth had his from Adam, is not said to be after his Father's Image, but in more noble, expressive, and lively Words said to be the express Image of his Father's Person: 'Tis in vain that they cavil out of God's words, Let us make man in our image, and af­ter our likeness; for the Question is about Generation, and not of Creation; God made man, that is, crea­ted him, as in that place of Genesis, explained in the following Verse; but 'tis never said that God made but begat his Son, as of Adam, not that he made but begat Seth in his own likeness after his Image. Thus the Son of God is truly and really begotten of the very Substance of the Father, and this by Imma­nence and Communication. Heathens feigned a Mi­nerva the Goddess of Wisdom and Prudence to be born ex Jovis cerebro, out of Jupiter's Head and Brain, a dark Notion of this high Mystery, as was their cara deûm soboles, magnum Jovis incrementum, as expressed by the Poet.

The Lord Jesus is called not only Heb. 1.3 [...], the ex­press Image, but also [...] the Brightness of the Glory of God, by a Metaphor taken from the Sun Beams, which if the Sun was eternal would be eternal too: wherefore in the Nicene Creed is well called God of God, Light of Light, so not only like, but also Phil. 2.6. equal with God. This eternal Generation to be look'd upon with the Eyes of Faith more than [Page 92]of human Reason, is first, not transient but immanent, secondly, terminated (if we may use the word) not in an absolute Existence, but in the Subsistence or man­ner of subsisting; for the Essence neither begetteth nor is begotten; neither through this Generation is God absolutely constituted, but the Son is relatively. Thirdly, It is eternal without any difference of time, so that the Son may not be said begotten and not be­gotten, existent and not existent, but always begotten. Fourthly, The Begetter and begotten are always the same in Nature and in Time, or rather Eternity. Fifthly, Through that same Generation the same Di­vine Nature is communicated to the Son, not in Spe­cies but in Number, not in part but wholly, not to be or exist but to subsist in such a manner. Sixthly, The same is natural, and so simply, not voluntary nor involuntary, that is necessary but not forced. But as to the main thing, 'tis enough to know that Christ was before he manifested himself in the Flesh, for therein he appears to be eternal, which Eternity of his we shall have occasion to prove.

In the Scripture none but the Lord Jesus is in the singular number called God's Son, Abraham is called his Friend, Moses his Servant, and in the Parable of the Vineyard and the Husbandmen Luk. 20.9, 10, &c., to whom God, under the name of the Lord of the Vineyard, sent his Servants, whom they beat and wounded; then, said he, I will send my beloved son, it may be they will reverence him when they see him; but they said, this is the heir, let us kill him that the inheritance may be ours. I say in that Parable where the Lord Jesus spoke of himself and against them, as they perceiv'd it, v. 19. we may observe what a vast difference he makes be­tween himself and all that came before him, who were all but Servants, but he gives himself the Cha­racter of God's beloved Son, whom they ought to have reverenced when they saw him, who was the Heir of all things by his Nature, and not by any Privilege of Dignity by Favour bestowed upon him as upon Men and Angels Heb. 1.4, 5., Being made so much bet­ter than Angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they; what this Name is, is ex­pressed [Page 93]in the next Verse, For unto which of the An­gels said he at any time, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee, &c. We see the difference of the Sonship, a Son not created nor adopted but be­gotten; for that Name comes to him by inheritance, as in the Text, that is by his own natural Right and Property, and not by Grace.

Then the Lord Jesus is Gods natural Son, because called his own and proper Son Rom. 8.3.32., every one knoweth how those Sons that are naturally begotten by their Parents are called their own Sons, and on the con­trary, those that are not so, are not proper Sons, but Strangers; so that proper and Strangers are so called and distinguished according to Nature only; there­fore seeing Scripture doth not indifferently call Christ Son, but God's own Son, thus by this special Attri­bute distinguishing him from all others, it means natu­ral Son, and of the same Essence; the more because he calls God John 5.18. his own Father, for which cause the Jews would have stoll'd him, for they well understood, as express'd in the Text, how thereby he made himself equal with God; thus he is called God's own Son, in opposition to adopted Sons; one may adopt another to be his Son, but can never make him his own na­tural Son begotten of his Substance; and as Christ is God's own Son, so is God his own Father, then from Eternity, or else there had been in time a new relation in God which had not always been, that might be called a kind of an Accident, so contrary to the simplicity of his Nature, and according to this, God had within these 1700 Years been made that which he was not before, namely, Father of his own Son, whereby Changeableness is father'd upon him, and his Immutability that is an incommunicable Attribute thereby overturned. Now in the same Chapter the Apostle to express own Son, makes use of another word, which fully and clearly doth decide the Question, which is, Whether the Lord Jesus be properly God's Son? for if he be properly so, then all improper Applications are out of doors: Now the word [...], used by S. Paul Rom. 8.32. signifies proper; so if the Lord Jesus be God's proper Son, we must properly [Page 94]understand and believe him to be such, although our shallow Brain can neither conceive in its Thoughts nor express in Words the incomprehensible and un­expressible manner of that Generation, which is won­derful Isai. 9.6. as his name is, yet we must believe it because God in his word hath declared it to be so.

The word [...] proper, they mis-interpret, and do render by special or peculiar, as if Christ was God's Son only in a special manner above others; but none can be call'd proper Son to any one except he be be­gotten of his Blood and Substance, which being not, he may not be called such a one's proper Son: Thus they would confound proper and peculiar, which two words are very different; for one may be a proper Son who hath nothing peculiar above the rest of his natural Brethren, for when a Father hath many, all are his proper and own Sons, begotten of his Substance, yet no one may happen to have any thing particular above the rest; likewise one may happen upon a special account to be call'd such a Man's Son, yet not be his proper Son; thus an a­dopted, though he excel never so much above the rest, yet that can never make him to be a proper Son. To refute some Cavils of theirs, one thing more we are again to take notice of upon this matter, how the the word God is in Scripture sometimes taken essen­tially for the most holy Trinity, and sometimes per­sonally for one of the Persons, as when 'tis said Acts 20.28., God hath purchased his church with his own blood, which is meaned our Saviour, the second Person of the Godhead: In the first sense must be understood those places of Scripture wherein 'tis said, The name of the Lord is one, and there is none besides him, there is but one God, and others to the same purpose, to shew the Oneness of the Nature, which as well as they, we do affirm; but as to teach well, one must distinguish well; so for want of observing this Rule, that which is spoken of the Essence of God, they mis-apply it to the Persons, and so make a Confu­sion between things to be distinguished: We alrea­dy proved, how the Unity of Nature doth not take away the Trinity of Persons, nor the Plurality of [Page 95]Persons destroy the Unity of Nature, which Mi­stake of theirs doth also hold in the Mystery of the Incarnation, or of the Word being made Flesh, and about our Saviour's Person in whom they confound the Natures; so that which is spoken of his Huma­nity they mis-apply to his Divinity.

The second Argument whereby Christ is proved to be God's natural Son is drawn from the word only begotten, which for greater confirmation is attributed to Christ in several John 1.18. places, wherefore in Scripture Christ is called the Son of God, to shew he is the only begotten, for that's the signification of the word; and Heb. 1.2 vers. 5. Paul's interpretation of it; for he saith, Such is the Son, to whom only God saith, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee, and other places of Scripture: By the words God's only begotten Son, do all mean Christ only: The Adversaries would have him to be called so only in a special manner above the rest, as we already have taken notice of in the instance about Isaac, whereunto here we shall add that of Solomon, which also they made use of, called, say they Prov. 4.3., only begotten in the sight of his mother; but they must not go about to impose upon us, for in the original the word begotten is not in, but only, which in our Bibles is according to the sense of the place explained by beloved, only beloved; one may be the only, yet not only begotten Son, when of many Children one alone is remaining, and the rest are dead; as to Isaac, we already observed he was the only begotten in relation to Sarab, by Pro­mise, but Christ is so called God's only begotten Son, that it was never said to any one else, Thou art my Son, &c. whence we may conclude him so to be God's Son, as to be the only begotten of him, that is, according to his Nature; in the word he is pro­perly and absolutely called the only begotten John 1.14., We beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the Father, the Particle [...], as, is not comparative, as only de­noting a likeness, but as Chrysostomus observes well is expressive of the truth, as being really, as if one willing to describe a Royal State and Carriage of a King should say, as, that is in a manner becoming [Page 96]and proper for a King, and farther the Evangelist ad­deth, v. 18. The only begotten son which is in the be­som of the Father, he hath declared him, where Christ is called the only begotten, [...] it being his own pro­per Name, signifying how besides him there is no true natural Son of God; again John 3.16., God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, and 1 John 4.9., God sent his only begotten son into the world: See what a care the Spirit of God hath taken to confirm and make that Truth known, how Christ is properly and absolutely God's only begotten Son; now he is abso­lutely only begotten, that is, not only so called, lookt upon and loved as such, but that is really so, and in­deed we know our blessed Saviour is call'd Joh. 20.17. Brother of his Disciples, and of Heb. 2.17. Believers, but not in a pro­per and strict sense: The relation of Brotherhood hath a great latitude; for among the Jews, Persons be­longing to any branch of a Family, to a Tribe, or to any of the Tribes, were call'd Brethren: Gal. 1.19. James and John were call'd the Lord's Brothers, and in ano­ther sense our Saviour calls Mat. 12.50. his brother, his sister, and his mother, whosoever shall do the will of God: He is our Brother in that he hath taken upon him our human Nature, all Men are Brothers in human Na­ture, but Adoption cannot be the ground of his, as 'tis of our being call'd the Sons of God, he is never called adopted as we are, neither can he be adopted with us, seeing we are adopted in him, we are the Branches of the wild Olive-Tree that have been grafted in him, who is the true natural Olive-Tree, and thereby are become Members of his mystical Body. How can our blessed Saviour be called God's only begotten Son, if he be not partaker of the same Na­ture? And the more to enforce this in that s [...]e Chap­ter and Verse, John 18. 'tis added, which is in the bosom of the Father; can he be in and from the Bo­som of the Father, and not be of the same Nature? All other Children of God are made, but this is be­gotten and only begotten, none but he is properly be­gotten.

Our Third Argument is taken out of our Saviour's Question to the Pharisees Mat. 12.41, 41, 4 [...], 44., What think ye of Christ, [Page 97]whose son is he? they say unto him the son of David; he saith unto them, how then doth David in spirit call him Lord? By this way of arguing he shewed how in him, besides human Nature, there was another, namely the divine; according to which, he by no means might be called David's Son but David's Lord, which to the Pharisees proved an unanswerable Argu­ment; for upon this same 'tis positively said, v. 46. and no man was able to answer him a word; one would think this should also stop the mouth of Socinians: Indeed there the Lord proposeth the Question about the Nature of Christ or the Son, whose natural Son he was? Whereunto the Pharisees returned an imperfect Answer, for only they said he was the Son of David, but the Lord Jesus, out of Scripture, which they could not deny, concluded that since he was by Da­vid's confession his Lord, he must in him have another Nature besides human, according to which he might not be called David's Son; for if only upon some borrowed account or accidental reason he were David's Lord, as may be some Power and Dignity above him, then Christ's Argument would quite loose its strength, which wholly lies in this, if he be his Lord, how can he be his Son? Upon some extraordinary account and relation it may happen that a Son may become a Lord over his Father, but here Christ is certainly asser­ted to be Lord over David, and in some sense 'tis im­possible for David to become Lord over Christ, which can be upon no other account but of his divine Nature; besides that he was David's Lord in David's time and before his Birth of the Virgin Mary: His Son he was according to the F [...]esh and his Humanity, and his Lord according to the Spirit and his Divinity.

The Fourth Argument whereby Christ is proved to be God's natural Son, is taken out of the Words whereby he declares himself to be such a Son as is one with the Father, not any other way to be under­stood than by Nature [...] for this the Jews took to be his meaning, and for that same cause called him a Blasphemer, and would have stoned him, and there­upon our Saviour did not go about to shew they were mistaken, though his Life was concerned; on the contrary he used Arguments to make 'em believe he [Page 98]was so, though to them it seemed incredible and blas­phemous. Chap. 5. And in another Text he affirmeth himself to be such a Son of God as is of an equal Power with and can do the same Works as the Father; so that what things soever the Father doth, this also doth the Son likewise; the Son doth nothing without the Father, nor the Father without the Son, by reason of their Oneness of Nature and Equality of Powe [...]: Though the Jews out of these words of his, v. 7. My father works hitherto and I work, concluded he made himself equal with God, yet though they were offended at it, and he thereupon did run the hazard of his Life; though he never was so uncharitable as to give any one just ground of offence, nor so rash as unnecessarily to venture his Life, yet he would not deny his Equality with the Father, but on the contrary, with several Arguments he confirms it from v. 19. to 22. and this not to be understood of an E­quality only in some respects, for the Unity of natu­ral Power and Operation argueth an absolute Equa­lity, and as in Power so in Nature John 10.30., I and my Fa­ther are one, and v. 38. you may by my works believe that the Father is in me, and not only so, but I in him; as for greater confirmation ch. 14.10 repeated out of that place of John, I and the Father are one: Augustine's Pereant vaniloqui & mentis seductores, &c. words are to be taken notice of, let vain and Seducers Ar­rius and Sabellius perish; Christ said not, I and the Fa­ther am one, but I and the Father are one; when I say one, let the Arian take notice of it, and what I say; we are, let the Sabellian mind it, let not the Arian divide one, nor the Sabellian take away are; one we refer to Nature, are to the diversity of Persons.

The Fifth Argument is taken out of the Lord Jesus his own words, and we know him not only to be true, but truth it self John 14.6., though he beareth record c. 8.14. of himself; this is when in a legal way, being asked by Caiaphas, and Mat. 26.63, 64. adjured by the living God to tell whether he be the Christ the son of God: Mar. 14.61, 62. the Christ the son of the blessed, he owned it, and said, Thou hast said, I am: For which Confession he was accused of Blas­phemy, and condemn'd to death; for said they to Pilate Joh. 19.7., We have a law, and by our law he ought to dye, because he made himself the son of God; so he suffer'd [Page 99]for owning himself to be the Son of God, which Confession of his S. Paul takes special notice of in the Charge he giveth his Disciple 1 Tim. 6.13.; the meaning is, that he was the true natural Son of God, or else it would not have been accounted a Blasphemy for any Jew to have called himself Son of God, no more than God's People, Abraham's Seed by virtue of the Promises and Privilege of the Covenant and Grace, and God they call their Father, John 8.41. yet thought not they were Blasphemers for that; therefore Christ's Words they took in another, that is, in a strict and proper sense. Indeed the High Priest's Question was a Snare laid for Christ; for though they sought false Witnesses, and many came, yet their Witness did not agree together, wherefore they sought to have something out of his mouth wherewith to accuse him. The Question was amongst other things, grounded upon what our Saviour had said of himself in the Fifth and Tenth Chapters of John, whether he was of the same Nature with God, and in Power equal with him, which is the same as to be natural Son of God, and of the same Essence, which he having affirmatively answered unto and said he was, thereupon having gained their Point, they rent their Cloaths and said, What need we any far­ther Witnesses, and upon this very Confession he was accused, condemned, and executed: Hence I ask So­cinians, Did Christ speak the truth when he said he was the Son of God, one with him, or of the same Nature, and to him equal in Power? I farther ask, whether the High Priest and the rest did not well ap­prehend this to be the true meaning of his words? If so, as certainly both are true; if Socinians had been in the place of the Jews, they would have used him as they did, and would do the like if ever it were in their power; for some of them, when they write and give a Character of our blessed Saviour's Person, they seem to take a pleasure to say, he was by the Se­nate or Council of Scribes and Pharisees in Jerusalem condemned and executed for Blasphemy, in that he had said he was the Son of God: that he said so, 'tis most true out of John 10.36. but I ask again, when the Lord said so, did he speak the truth or not? If the [Page 100]truth, why do Men not believe him, that is in the sense the Jews understood it, true, proper, natural Son of God, equal with God? For this they took his meaning to be; but if he was not what he ow­ned himself to be, then he must be supposed to have spoken a lye, which is a Sin: To such Blasphemers our blessed Lord speaks in defiance, as once he did to the Jews John 8.46., Which of you convinceth me of sin? We know he suffer'd as a Blasphemer, a Deceiver, and a Transgressor; but was he really so? The Apostle saith 1 Pet. 3.18., He suffered the just for the unjust, as a Lamb without Blemish and without Spot. It seems these Socinians set their Hand and Seal to his Condemna­tion; the same Question as was between our Saviour and the Jews is now between Socinians and us; he said he was Son of God, equal and one with the Fa­ther, which Socinians no more than Jews are willing to believe, and do flatly deny in the sense for which he was condemned, namely for calling himself the Son of God, and making himself equal with God, when the Devil himself was not so peremptory, for he made it but questionable, when at the time he tempted him he said, if thou be the son of God, yet at several other times those wicked Spirits owned him to be the Son of the living God.

But Socinians give him the lye when he doth several times call and suffer himself to be called Son of God in the true sense, and contrary to that of Socinians: Surely he who is the Truth would not have spoken against it, nor allowed others to tell a lye: Now 'tis most certain that he calls himself Son of God, not only in the fore-quoted place of John, where he owns he calls himself the Son of God according to the sense which the Jews had given his words, and had made himself God in opposition to man, that is, God by Nature, which no man is, but also in other places, as when he asked the blind Man, Dost thou believe in the Son of God? Which he declared himself to be, in whom the Man ought to believe and to worship him, as he did; and 'tis certain that Men must believe in and worship the only true God: Also Martha Joh. 11.27. de­clareth, she believes him to be the Christ the Son of God, [Page 101]by a gradation from his Office to his Person for the Christ or Messiah which should come into the world. The antient Jews according to several Prophecies, be­lieved the Messiah to be the true Son of God, and God by Nature, which that Second Psalm doth clear­ly prove among many others, thou art my Son; where­fore the Psalmist, v. 10. exhorteth kings to be wise, and the judges of the earth to be instructed, and to serve the Lord with fear, and to kiss the Son, to kiss his Feet in token of Obedience and Submission, lest he be angry, and they perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little, a little Wrath is sufficient to break the Heathens and the uttermost parts of the Earth, and to dash them in pieces like a Potter's Vessel: All this is spoken of him, to whom 'tis said, Thou art my Son, and in the latter end of the last Verse, the Prophet de­clareth blessed are all that put their trust in him; and Men are not to put their trust in any, but in the true God by Nature; in which sense Scripture sheweth how Christ is called God and Son of God, not only in that positive Text, I and the Father are one, but also out of this other John 8.19., Ye neither know me, nor my Father; for if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also, because we are one, and he that sees me, seeth him that sent me, because he is the express Image of him that sent him: And all this is confirmed in that other nota­ble place John 12.45. ch. 14.9, 10, 11., He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father, for, I am in the Father, and the Father in me; this truth must needs be very important, for 'tis affirmed in one Verse, and confirmed in the next, which truth appears yet farther, v. 7. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him and have seen him; the reason must needs be this, be­cause ye have seen me, and in the same Chapter to shew that Oneness and Sameness of his in Nature and Power with the Father; he saith, Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that I will do, which for greater assurance and confirmation, is repeated in the next Verse, If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it, I my self, there being no need for you to go to any one else.

S. Paul, speaking of the Mystery of Godliness 1 Tim 3.16, whereof the first part is, that God was manifest in the [Page 102]Flesh, saith it is a great one; by his Expressions the thing is unquestionable and most certain; for he saith, Without controversie great is the mystery of godliness; but Socinians are of another mind, for they make not only a great Controversie, but give a flat denyal of God being manifest in the Flesh, and one of them here a­mong us hath lately reprinted and set his Name to a Book with this Title, Christian Religion not mysterious, as it were to give the Apostle the lye, on which I in­tend by the Grace of God to make some few general Observations towards the latter end of my Discourse; we must do our Duty, tho others neglect theirs, and endeavour out of Scripture to convince or confound the Enemies of the Truth, who are suffer'd with bare face to sow their Tares and spread their Poyson and Blas­phemies; as if it be only a Problem and a disputable Case, whether or not the Lord Jesus did justly or un­justly suffer for Blasphemy, for having affirmed himself to be Son of God: Good Lord, what times are we come to, and how great a Darkness is the Nation falling into, after so much light?

And now we are upon the matter of Blasphemy, let me observe how in Scripture there is enough said about it to prove Christ to be the Essential Son of God, let the Etymology and Derivation of the word Blasphemy be what it will, it is most certain, that in Scripture Rev. 13.5, 6. it is used to express when any thing is said or done against God in his Nature or Attributes, or when one doth assume and arrogate unto himself that which belongs to God alone, in the first sense we read when Hezekiah heard the words of Rab-shakeh, 2 Kings 19.3, 6, 22. he said, This is a day of Blasphemy, and God called it so within few Verses after, The servants of the king of Assyria have blasphe­med me; and again, whom hast thou blasphemed. In the second sense the Jews called our blessed Saviour Blas­phemer, We stone thee not, say they to him John 10.33., for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because that thou being a man, makest thy self God, and so after his Confession before the Chief Priests, they said, ye have heard the blasphemy: Wherefore if Blasphemy be against God, truly and essentially taken, may we not conclude the Lord Jesus to be truly essentially God? He calls Blas­phemy [Page 103]what the Jews had said against him Mark 3.22, 23., that be did cast devils by Beelzebub prince of devils; the Evan­gelist lays upon occasion of the Abuses put upon him after he was brought before the High Priest Luk. 22.65., And many other things blasphemously spake they against him, and Paul, what before his Conversion he said or acted against, he for that same calls himself 1 Tim. 1.13. a Blasphemer, and when he made others to do as he did, that he calls Acts 26.11. 2 Tim. 3.2 Act. 18.6. he compell'd them to blaspheme. I believe the Spirit of God pointed at Socinians among others when he said by the Apostle, that in the last days men shall be blasphemers, as were those that opposed Paul when he preached Christ, wherein they blasphemed.

We have many Heads more, and abundance of Texts of Scripture to prove the Lord Jesus to be true natural Son of God, begotten of the Father from all Eternity, and these places we in the following part of our Dis­course shall have occasion to make use of, one of the fullest and plainest we shall begin with, afforded by John Joh. 1.1., In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God: Which to corrupt, the Heresiarch Socinus used his utmost wicked Endea­vours; the word is said to have been in the beginning, not as if he then had begun to be, but that then he was existing, and so from all Eternity, before any Creatures were made, there was no time, only Eter­nity: Christ is call'd the Wisdom of God, to shew he as well as the Father, is from everlasting; it were Blasphemy to think that ever there was a time when God wanted his Wisdom, which, speaking of himself, saith Prov. 8.23., I was set up from everlasting, and God by him manifested himself in the World in the Creation there­of.

That Christ the Word is eternal, that is, he was be­fore his Incarnation, before the Virgin Mary, and be­fore the Gospel began to be preached, it appears out of John's Evidence, In the beginning was the word, out of which both his Deity and Eternity are proved; the other Evangelists do write of Christ's Humanity in re­lation to his Birth or temporal Generation, when he took upon him our human Nature, and in time was born of the blessed Virgin Mary; for in her Womb [Page 104] the word was made flesh, and his Body therein formed out of her Substance, without company of Man. But John falls immediately upon his Divinity, and calls him the Word, for he was the Davar promised unto the Fa­thers; now this was in the beginning, that is, before any thing was, when things began to be made, he then was when the World was not yet made, afterwards he indeed was made Flesh, but had a pre-existing Being: Socinians cavil that by the beginning is meant the preaching of the Gospel, which is clearly false; for that doth not answer the scope of the Evangelist, whose design is to prove the Word to be God, which to do, he draws his Argument from his Being in the beginning; so by the word Beginning that must be un­derstood which concludeth the Word to be God: Their Interpretation agreeth with that of Arius, That time had been when the Word was not; and because it is in that sense taken in some places Mark 1.1 Luke 1.2. for a temporal Be­ginning, that is, the time of his Incarnation, it doth not follow that it is so to be taken in S. John, for Mark begins his Book with these words, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God, he writes the Gospel, for he is an Evangelist, and in his very first words he gives the Contents of what he is writing; but herein the Person of Christ is not immediately con­cerned; he, with other Evangelists, gives an account of his Humanity, but John speaks of his Divinity, he alludes to Moses, who had given the History of the Creation, and begins his Gospel in the words where­with Moses began his Book of Genesis, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and he his Gos­pel, In the beginning was the word. But our Evange­list is not satisfied to say the word was with God, but addeth in the next Verse, the same was in the begin­ning with God, and so v. 3. he falls upon speaking of the Creation, for all things were made by him, &c. we know how in Scripture the word Beginning, as well as se­veral others, hath different Significations, but in this place such a sense destroys the Analogy of Faith, and contradicteth those Texts which affirm the Eternity of God's Son, which hereafter we shall have occasion to mencion, as that of the Prophet Isai. 53.8., Who shall declare [Page 105]his generation, 'tis ab impossibili, as if he had said, no Man can declare it; and elsewhere, under the Type of Solomon 'tis said, Psal. 72.17. his name shall endure for ever, &c. not only of an Eternity, à parte post, but also à parte ante, as without ending so without be­ginning, as expressed in the Prophetical Psalm of Christ's Kingdom and Priesthood, Psalm 110.3. from the womb of the morning thou hast the dew of his youth. And now I am upon this first Verse of the first Chapter of St. John, I shall observe three Things much to our purpose, the First that the word Beginning ab­solutely spoken doth in Scripture relate to the Crea­tion or beginning of the World, out of several places so well known in Scripture, I shall now only quote one and more hereafter, as I shall have occasion for, hath it not been told you from the beginning, have ye Isa. 40.21. not understood from the foundations of the earth; here by Beginning is signified the Foundation of the Earth. The second Thing I observe is this, the Word was with God, here is a personal Distinction between God and the word who was with God, as if he had said, resided till he was made Flesh, and in respect to this Incarnation, he is said to have come down from the Father. The third Thing observed is this, the word was God, the Person called the Word, as it appears by the Article, is the Subject here called and asserted to be God, that is in the same essential Sense, as the God with whom the word Was is said to be God, that is by Nature, for as in this Verse, but one Word, though thrice named, is to be understood, so but one true God in Nature, though thrice named, is meaned in the place: Thus the Essentiality and E­ternity of the word who is the Son with the Father, are here evidently set forth, but this is more at large set down in the next Reason.

But a second Reason is, that John makes the Word equal with God, when he saith, the word was with God, which hath a relation to his Eternity, it was al­ways with God, for here not only he distinguisheth the Persons, but makes the Word equal with God the Father, he saith the Word that was in the begin­ning was one, and God the Father whom he was [Page 106]with, another; the Persons of the Son and of the Fa­ther were distinct indeed, but in making them Co­eternal, he makes them Equal; for them to say that the word being with God signifies that the word was known to God, but not to Men, doth them no good; the knowledge of this doth comprehend the whole Mystery of our Redemption which the Son who is in the Bosom of the Father hath revealed unto us; but to the thing, if this imported no more but that Christ was known to the Father, What could he thereby have more than we? No Prerogative at all, for be­fore the Foundation of the World God knew us, and We were present with him: Christ was with the the Father, that is, had a real Existence, did subsist in himself, which cannot be said of us or of any Crea­ture, wherefore the Word must need have been be­fore his Incarnation.

In the Third place 'tis said, [...], the Word was God, which is properly to be understood, as is 1 Joh. 5.20. that other place, we are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ, that is the true God and eternal life; and elsewhere, Tit. 1.3. God hath in due time manifest­ed his word through preaching, which is committed to me according to the commandment of God our Saviour, repeated Chap. 3.4. and Chap. 2. he is called Tit. 2.12. Rev. 19.17. the great God our Saviour Jesus Christ; and in another place he is named, 1 Tim. 1.1. God our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ; now this God, Lord and Saviour is but One, and this is Jesus Christ whose Apostle he owns him­self to be, and the Gospel he preached, Gal. 1.12. he was taught by the Revelation of Jesus Christ, who again is called, 1 Tim. 2.3. God our Saviour. There must be special Cause why the words God and Saviour are so often joyned toge­ther, and both attributed to One Person, the Lord Jesus, he is God as truly and really, as he is Saviour, which we hope the Adversaries will not have the confidence to deny him to be in the strictest Sense, though otherwise they rob him of what they can, he is then a Saviour by Office, and God by Nature; to save Men from the Dominion of Sin, from the Curse of the Law, from the Devil, Death and Hell, re­quires a true real Divine Power, which none but a [Page 107]Divine Nature is or can be possessed of. Moses was relatively called God, and Cyrus God's Anointed, or Messiah, but they were but Types of the great De­liverer. Every one knows Moses was not God, nor Cyrus the Messiah; but to say Christ Jesus is called God, though he be not, is the effect of a brazen faced Impudence, of an invincible Ignorance of the Mind, or hellish Perverseness of the Heart; as good as to con­clude, that because 'tis said, he is of God made unto us, 1 Cor. 1.30. Wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemp­tion, therefore he is neither; nor God by Nature, when he saith, Joh. 15.5. without me you can do nothing, which may not be said of Men.

The Fourth Reason out of St. John is this, Joh. 1.3. all things were made by [...]him, and without him was not any thing made that was made; certainly the Work of Creation doth evince the Eternity of the Word, for the Workman must be before his Work, and the Creator before the Creature; now the Word being the Maker must need be before Mary; here they would cavil and confine this making of Things with­in the Work of the New Creation, or renewing of the Creature, but the following Words, without him was not any thing made that was made, are universal and comprehend every thing Temporal or Spiritual, Creation of the World, or Regeneration of Men; though we own the Creation of the World is the scope of the place compared with Coloss. 1.15. All things were created by him and for him, which doth appear out of ver. 10. the world was made by him; and God created all things by Jesus Christ, Ephes. 3.9. and to remove all grounds of Exception, we have it in the Plural Number, which doth include all, Heb. 11.3. the worlds were framed by the word of God. Another Rea­son might be brought out of ver. 14. of this same Gospel, the word was made flesh; but this we shall by the Grace of God bring in under another Head.

In Scripture we have several places which either do express or imply two Natures in the Person of our blessed Lord and Saviour; the Prophet Isaiah doth among others afford us Two very considerable, the first is this, Isa. 7.14. Behold a Virgin shall conceive and [Page 108]bear a Son and shall call his name Immanuel; this affords several things seriously, but now briefly to be thought upon; this Prophecy is a sign given Ahaz King of Judah to Comfort him, when the Kings of Israel and of Syria came up against him, with a Pro­mise that they should not prevail, and that he might be confirmed and assured of the performance, he is bidden to ask a Sign, which he refusing to do, gave for Reason, he would not tempt God, whereupon is made this Gospel-Promise, which was performed at the time of the Conception and Birth of our blessed Saviour, whose Mother was a Virgin, and whose Name was Immanuel, a Name given him at that time by the Prophet through God's own appointment, and when the Angel delivered his Message to Mary, he makes use of some of the Words of the Prophet, Luk. 1.31. thou shalt conceive and bring forth a Son, and shalt call his Name Jesus, because he was to save his People; and when the thing was fulfilled, the Evan­gelist doth point at, and quote this Prophecy, adding the Interpretation of the Name Matt. 1.21. Immanuel, God with us. So there is no doubt to be made that this wholly and only, related to our Saviour; never any other Virgin did conceive and bring forth, never was the Name Immanuel given any one else, and cannot be wrested so, as to be given to any Son to be born of Ahaz, for some Reason which I presently shall pro­duce; Immanuel is God with a Divine Essence, Christ is the Immanuel, so we must conclude he hath the Divine Essence, for God with us hath the Divine Es­sence, and God with us is Immanuel; the Name God is not spoken of Angels, of no King or Magi­strate, of no Idols, which are the several significations of the Word God used in Scripture; wherefore he whom this Name is given to, must be the true essen­tial God; and this same Evangelical Prophet in the next Chapter but one after this, calls him by the Name used in this place, and the Word El, which makes the latter end of the Name, doth not barely signify God, but the Mighty God; this Word makes part of that of Michael whose signification is, who is like unto thee, thou mighty God; and he that beareth it, is [Page 109]called Jud. 9. Archangel, Prince of Angels, for Angels are called Rev. 12.7. his and him they Worship: This very Name of Michael is given to the Messiah, Dan. 12.1. and at that time shall Michael stand up, the great Prince which standeth for the children of thy people; which is a Prophecy of Christ's coming, wherein he is called El, Michael, and the Great Prince; to this Emmanuel re­lates what the Evangelist says of the Word that is Christ, how being made Flesh he dwelt among us, is not this the same as God with us? And this not ob­scurely, for he adds, Joh. 1.14. and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the father; he not only had Glory, but is called Lord of Glory, before his Ascension into, and Glorification in Heaven; and for certain, the Name of Lord or King of Glory, is proper to the true essential God, if David Psal. 24.10. speaks Truth; now this dwelling of God is not said to be in, but with Men, which doth import a Person living and conversing with Men, fully expressed in the fol­lowing Text, Rev. 21 3. Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God; all this done, not by proxy but in Person, 'tis said, God himself; so that great and infinite God, whom the Heavens of Heavens cannot contain chose our Human Nature, to dwell in as in a Tabernacle, whereof the Tabernacle in the Wilderness was a Type, as the Temple was afterwards; we know there was a Vail, this the Apostle alludeth to, when he saith, Heb. 10.20. thorough the vail that is to say the flesh; so that his Body and Human Nature is the place he chose to dwell in, and that same Nature is as a Vail to qualify that Glory which no Man could behold, for as the People could not behold Moses his Face, when he came from God, so that it was necessary he should put on a Vail, How then could Man have be­holden the Glory and Brightness of the Son of God; and how could he have dwelt amonst, and conversed with them, except he had put on the Vail of his Flesh? We must then necessarily conclude he was El the Migh­ty God, before he was Immanuel, God with us.

As to that great incomprehensible and adorable [Page 110]Mystery of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the most Holy Trinity, whereby the Divine and Human Natures were mediatly, and the Person im­mediatly united to the Nature; 'tis to be observed, that 'tis not by a Consubstantial Union, such as the Three Persons of the most Holy Trinity are united one with another; neither is it a Substantial Union only by Essence and Vertue, as the Essence of Christ is present with every thing, not by a presence of Grace only; not Physical as Form and Matter are u­nited, not as one Friend is united to one another, as the Soul of Jouathan was knit with the Soul of 1 Sam. 18.1. David, not mystical only or in the same manner as Christ dwelleth in Believers; not Sacramental as Christ is in the Bread and Wine of the Lord's Supper, but 'tis a Personal Union, and that without any Change of or in the Divine Person, without a renting of the Natures a­gainst the Nestorians, or Confusion of the same against the Eutychians, also without any Change and Separation.

Now I am upon this high Mystery of the Incarna­tion by the Evangelist expressed in these words, the word was made flesh; I shall take notice of some few things: doth not the expression which is parallel with this, 1 Joh. 4.2. that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, mean that Christ the Word was in being before he was made Flesh or came in the Flesh, and that this Being was according to the Spirit, which in Scripture is opposed to the Flesh, and that he had a spiritual Exi­stence before he took our human Nature signified by the word Flesh? for according to Scripture, Flesh sig­nifies human Nature; so to be made Flesh, to assume human Nature, let one place serve instead of many, Gal. 2.16. by the works of the law shall no flesh, that is, no Man be justified. The Son of God was first, after­wards he was manifested; as, to make use of a Com­parison in a thing which admits none, in matters of God's Decrees, the Decree is before the Declaration of it, for the Decree is from all Eternity, but the Declaration only in time; what is said of Christ, Gal. 4.4. that he was made of a woman, is considerable, for it implies that he was made Man, and took upon him our Nature, not out of the Substance of any [Page 111]Man, but only of a Woman; his Body was formed in the blessed Virgin's Womb, without any help of Man, so he became Man only by the Woman's side, but he was Son of God before he was made of a Woman, and he must need have had a Being before he was sent forth, he was with God before God sent him, which is opposed to his appearing and being manifested to the World, 1 Joh. 1, 2. we shew unto you that eter­nal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us; he was with the Father, existed and had a Being, before he was manifested unto us, dwelt and pitched his Tabernacle among us; it is observable out of that place where it is said of our blessed Sa­viour, Heb. 2.16. he took on him the seed of Abraham; the word took in the Original signifies also to take and lay hold or caught hold as he did of sinking Peter to save him from drowning, so he caught hold of Man­kind when it was ready to sink.

Against this they say there can be no such Union of Divine and Human Nature in one Person, but that such an Union is not unpossible, it may be illustrated out of the Union of our Soul with our Body, which are of two different Natures, spiritual and material, invisible and visible, immortal and mortal; and tho' we cannot conceive the Reason, it ought to be no Prejudice, neither can we conceive the manner of their Union, which yet is true and certain; we most certainly believe some things to be, tho' we do not at all comprehend the manner of it; and altho' there be an infinite disproportion between God and Man, yet that is no just Prejudice against the Union of Di­vinity with Humanity; with harbouring such No­tions, Men do too much measure God by themselves, who because they are evil are not capable of so much Goodness, and out of Pride are apt to say, so much Condescention becomes not God; but God knows better than we what becomes him, and what we can­not comprehend of him we ought to admire and adore; God's Ways are not like our Ways, nor his Thoughts like our Thoughts; and tho' he condescends never so low, yet is ever sure of his Greatness, which nothing can take away from him: This Humiliation or Con­descention [Page 112]is a wonderful Argument of God's Good­ness, which is the greatest Glory of Divine Nature; this is cause of Thankfulness, not of Cavils and Ex­ceptions; he knows what is best and fittest for him to do, and wants not our Counsel; had the Son of God appeared as a great Prince, he probably would thereby have made more Hypocrites than real Converts, and not so well persuaded Men to Holiness and Goodness, for Arguments to do it must not be fetch'd from the Pomp and Prosperity of this World, but from the great Rewards and Glory of that which is to come. But before I leave this Point I must take notice of that place wherein the Apostle makes the Son of God upon his coming into the World speak thus, Heb. 10.5. but a body hast thou prepared me; the Body was prepared against his coming into the World, and that prepared Body at his coming he took, so then he was before the Body was prepared for him, and before his coming into the World, for nothing can be said to be sitted, as the word implies in the Original, for one who is not; hence we conclude how the Son of God was before his Incarnation and had a Being; but we now return to our Proofs.

The next place is of the same Prophet, Isa. 9.6. For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the govern­ment shall be upon his shoulders; and his name shall be called wonderful, Counsellour, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace; of the increase of his Government and Peace there shall be no end, &c. I ask, Is this appliable to any Son that was to be born of Ahaz? For this is the same Person men­tioned in the fore-quoted place, and may be seen if compared together: Observe how the different Ex­pressions do denote different Natures, the Child is for Humanity, the Son for the Divinity; the Child is born, but the Son not born but given, in relation to Human Nature he had a beginning and a progress, he was a Child before he was a Man, but the Son not so; a Child is not before he be born, but the Son had a being and did exist before he was given, yet both united in one Person, for the Child was not one Person and the Son another; for all along, the [Page 113]Prophet though he had named a Child and a Son, speaks in the singular number, his Shoulder, his Name, his Government; as his Name is wonderful, so is the manner of the Union, these two Natures are in one Person without Confusion, the Divine retained her Proprieties, so hath the Human, and yet these diffe­rent Proprieties are so united in one Person, that the Person may be called by the Name of both Natures; Christ is God; and Christ is Man in the Concret, tho' in the Abstract, it may not be said Divinity is Hu­manity, nor Humanity Divinity, they are united, but without Confusion.

But to return to our Point, there was never so many glorious Names joyned together to describe one Per­son, as we find to be in this place, to him alone they all belong, because the Spirit of Truth saith so, which if they were not properly his by right, he would not give them: Wonderful in his Name, in his Nature, in his Person, in his Incarnation, Wonderful every way: Counsellour, for he is the Wisdom of the Father, with­out which the Only Wise God never doth any thing, the Mighty God, most proper to God, and never in the singular number given any Creature, Isa. 10.21. the remnant, saith our Prophet, shall return, even the remnant of Jacob unto the mighty God, the true essential God, the God of Israel is meaned in the place, 'tis such a Name as is made use of when in a most Eminent way God is described, Deut. 10.17. your God is God of Gods and the Cord of Lords, a great God, mighty and terrible: And, Nehem. 9.32. now therefore our God, the great, the mighty, and the ter­rible God; and elsewhere, Jerem; 32.18. the great, the mighty God, the Lord of hosts is his name; and when the Question is to know, who is the King of Glory? the Answer is, the Lord strong and mighty; this High and Divine Name is here in the place a [...]ibuted to Jesus Christ the Son of God, about whom is the Pro­phecy; that which follows is no less considerable or incommunicable, the everlasting Father, or as [...] Father of Eternity; nothing more Noble or becoming. God can be said, than to call him so; nothing [...]ut the True God is Eternal, and nothing more prop [...] to God than Eternity; How can a Child or any meet [Page 114]mortal Man be called everlasting Father? Now what can hinder us hence to argue thus; the mighty God and everlasting Father is true God by Nature, but Christ is such out of this place, therefore Christ is true God by Nature: Two things more are here said of this Son of God, he is the Prince of Peace, for by his Death he made our Peace with God, and procured an inward Peace of Conscience, and reconciled things in Heaven and on the earth; he came into the World in time of universal Peace, when the Roman Empire, the greatest in the World, fully enjoy'd it, and for a Sign, the Temple of Janus in Rome was shut up; nay Herod and Pilate, Luke 23.12. both his Enemies, were before his death upon his account reconciled one to another. Secondly, 'tis said of him, The government shall be upon his shoulders, and of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end: After the Father had said to him Psal. 2.7, 8, 9., Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, he promiseth to give him the Heathens for his inheri­tance, and the utmost parts of the Earth for his Pos­session, thou shalt break them with a Rod of Iron, thou shalt dash them in pieces like a Potters Vessel; where­unto agreeth another Scripture Rev. 12, 5., of the Man-child that was to rule all Nations with a Rod of Iron; this he declared unto Pilate John 18.37. Rev. 11.15. Luke 1.33, I am a king, to this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world: So then; the kingdoms of this world are his, and he shall reign for ever and ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

The New Testament doth also in several places de­monstrate two Natures in the Person of Christ, S. John having affirmed the Word to be God, which relates to his eternal Generation, he doth afterwards speak of his Incarnation, when he saith Joh. 1.14, The word, that was God, was made flesh, that is, the Person call'd the Word, the Son of God took upon him our human Na­ture, and so united two Natures, divine and human, in one Person; for this Word is in the whole Chapter spoken of as of a Person, acting, making or creating, coming, all this is the Character of a Person, and what John expresses thus, the word was made flesh, S. Paul calls it 1 Tim. 3.16., God was manifest in the flesh, if by the [Page 115]word Flesh human Nature be meaned, as certainly it is, then this imports that God appeared, made himself known, and was manifest in assuming our human Na­ture, and that the God that was thus made Flesh, and was manifest, is Christ Jesus, the second Person of the Godhead, who being in the Form, that is, in the Na­ture of God, for the Nature is the being of a thing, and the Form gives that Being; well Jesus Christ in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God Phil. 2.6, 7., because it was his right, [...] took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man; he was God be­fore he was made in that likeness, this is plain, that a God became man, he was made that which he was not, yet ceased not to be that which he was: That this God that was made Flesh, and manifest in the Flesh, and found in the likeness of men (here is explained what we must understand by Flesh) was the Son of God, the second Person of the most holy Trinity, is declared elsewhere Rom. 8.3., God sending his own Son in like­ness of sinful flesh: All these representing Christ as God and as man, doth clearly demonstrate him to be both God and man. Another place there is much to our purpose, 'tis this Rom. 9.5., of whom (the Israelites) as concerning the flesh, Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever; this restriction, as concerning the Flesh, doth imply, that Christ came not from the Jews con­cerning some other thing, this settles two Relations in Christ, one according to the Flesh, as expressed Acts 2.30. what must the other be? Scripture usually doth oppose the Spirit to the Flesh, and the Flesh to the Spirit, so in Christ there must be a Principle that is spiri­tual, or else this restriction, according to the Flesh, were frivolous and not pertinent, one thing cannot be di­stinguished of it self, a thing is in it self but one thing, and Distinctions are between different things; for no one thing doth differ from it self: Now that as there is in Christ a principle concerning the Flesh, and ano­ther according to the Spirit, anon we shall by the Grace of God have occasion to speak of; but now thus far we must say, that as by the Flesh his Huma­nity is meaned, so is his divine Nature by the Spirit; for 1 Joh. 4.24. 2 Cor. 3.17. God is a Spirit.

The Text we now are upon is remarkable upon se­veral accounts, our blessed Saviour, as 'tis very well known, was a Jew born, of the Seed of Abraham, of the Tribe of Judah, and of the Family of David; this is the Apostle's meaning when he saith, of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, which doth ne­cessarily imply, he came not of them, concerning some other thing in him, the Pedigree of his Manhood was indeed derived from thence; but it had been in vain there to have sought for another Genealogy of this Melchisedec: The Article [...] joyned with [...], shews how in him, besides human Nature, there was another; for S. Paul, who troubleth not his Readers with superfluous Expressions, would not have added those words, except in Christ had been another Na­ture, or to what purpose say, according to the flesh? if he had been a meer man; and herein chiefly lyes the Prerogative of the Jews, that Christ, who is God, was born amongst them: Their Priviledge doth not herein consist, that Moses, Jo [...]huah, Elijah, John Baptist, &c. were born amongst them, they all were but Men, but that Christ was because he is God; for this he addeth as the great reason, and speaketh of his divine Nature, who is over all, God blessed for ever, he saith not is cal­led but is; he is God over all the Fathers of the same stock tha [...] were born of the Jews, before him, or over all things whatsoever. The words blessed for ever are in Scripture attributed to the true eternal God, and even in our Saviour's time, when the Jews said the blessed, they meaned the true God: Thus the High Priest asked the Lord Jesus Mark 14.61., Art thou the Christ the son of the blessed? which another Evangelist expresses thus Luke 20 70., Art thou the son of God?

In another place the same Apostle affords a convin­cing Proof of this Truth, that in Christ are two Na­tures, where he speaks of them thus Rom. 1.3, 4., Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the son of God, with power, according to the spirit of holi­ness by the resurrection from the dead: Wherein S. Paul teaches in what respect Christ is the Son of God; not according to the Flesh, for thus he is the Son of man, [Page 117]of the Seed of David, but according to the Spirit of Holiness, which is the Spirit of God's Nature, and ac­cording to that Spirit, he hath been declared to be the Son of God with Power: Certainly the Opposition used by the Apostle, sheweth he cannot be Son of God upon both accounts, but only upon one; for if he had been according to both, Paul would have said, de­clared the Son of God as to the Flesh and as to the Spirit, and herein would have made no difference be­tween the Son of God according to the Flesh and ac­cording to the Spirit; for as it is contrary to Rom. 9.5 Scrip­ture, to call the Lord Jesus God according to the Flesh, for God and Flesh are opposite, so 'tis contrary to say Christ is Son of God according to the Flesh; for by the same reason one is said to be Son of God, by the same he may be call'd God, as we see it both joyned Psal. 82.6., I have said ye are God's, and all of you are children of the most high: And we read where the Jews upbraided our Saviour Joh. 10.33, 36. that he made himself God, that is, abso­lutely, he renders the words thus, I said, I am the son of God.

Jesus Christ is said Phil. 2.5, 6, 7, 8. to be in the form of God, and made in the likeness of men; 'tis not said, Made in the form of God, but being, his being is related to God, and made to man, he was God but made man, he was made in the likeness of men, and form'd in fashion as a man; certainly here are two Natures asserted, divine and human, whence we say, that as by his Incarna­tion he was really man, so as surely his being in the form of God; signifies that he was really God before he became man, as he was man after his being born of the Virgin Mary: These Expressions conclude for both his Deity and Humanity, and if there was any diffe­rence, the words for the first seem stronger than those for the last; for to be in the form is more than to be in the likeness, because forma dat esse rei, a thing hath being from its Form or Nature; but he gave sufficient and great demonstration of both Natures in him to those among whom he did converse.

Socinians would wrest the Text of Luke 1.3 [...] The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall over-shadow thee; therefore that also which [Page 118]shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God: They would have the Particle therefore to signifie the Cause wherefore Christ was to be called the Son of God, that is that miraculous Conception by the Ho­ly Ghost, but no such thing may be deduced; 'tis not the Cause but the Consequence or Inference which is signified by the words therefore and wherefore, by which Particles we usually draw Conclusions from Pre­mises, whether they be Causes, Effects, or Signs, or that which upon any other account whatsoever may be deduced therefrom: And in this place out of the scope thereof, it cannot be demonstrated out of any Cir­cumstances, that the Conception by the Holy Ghost is the true cause why Christ was to be called the Son of God, 'tis not upon the account of that manner of his Conception; for then for that same cause either Christ would call himself or be called by others Son of God, else the Angel's Prediction should prove false, by which reason he rather should not be called than called the Son of God, even according to their Principles which deny the Holy Ghost to be true God; but the words of the Angel do import, not that he should be called once, or by some few, Son of God, but always and gene­rally by all that should own him to be the Son of God. Besides, this Exposition of theirs, they can bring no Example to confirm it; for in abundance of places we read Christ to be called Son of God, but find none at all wherein he is called Son of God according to the Flesh: And the Angel doth not say, therefore he may happen to be, but absolutely and publickly declareth he shall be called; wherefore seeing he no where is called Son of God according to the Flesh, we may necessarily conclude he is not such in that sense; to be called is sometimes really to be as in that Text 1. John 3.1., Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed up­on us, that we should be called the Sons of God, that is, that we should really be owned and declared to be the Sons of God, such as truly we are, being adopted in Christ his true natural Son.

The word holy, used, gives a strong Evidence that Christ was to be called Son of God for a much better and higher reason than that he was to be born of a [Page 119]Virgin; he shall be called Son of God because he is holy, therefore not upon the account of the Flesh, but by reason of his Holiness, because the Holy Ghost coming upon the Virgin, some holy thing was to be born of her; that makes the Angel say, Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God; not as to the manner of Conception, but as to the thing to be conceived, though by the Angel it be not expressed; how great was that Holi­ness, we may well conceive it to be that highest and infinite Holiness as becomes the Son of God; where­fore Isaiah in his Prophecy of him, calls him, as al­ready observed, the mighty God; Elizabeth calls him Luke 1.43. her Lord; the Angel calls him Chap. 2.11. Saviour, Christ, the Lord; and Daniel Dan. 9.24. He was anointed the most Holy. Before the wise Men fell down and worshipped him, which they were sent to do, and to that purpose gui­ded by a Star Mat. 2.2, 11., and according to the Prophecies Psal. 72.10., offered him Gifts and Presents as to a King, for un­der that Name his Birth was declared to them and promised; therefore the Holiness of Christ is the Ho­liness of God, and of him who is by Nature Lord and King.

The Particle [...] and or also which follows therefore, is not in vain, but shews a Comparison, and is related not to the word called but to be born, and the sense is, not only that word which from Eternity is born of God is Son of God, but that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God, because that eternal Son of God shall take human Nature, and be born of thee: And this is one of the things which the Holy Ghost coming upon the Virgin was to do, namely, that she should conceive without Man, and conceive a Man, him who from eternity is according to divine Nature the Son of God, which could not otherwise be effected than with the Holy Ghost uni­ting human Nature, which was to be formed out of her own Blood and Substance, sanctified before and preserved from Sin and Corruption, with the Person of the Son: Men must not think there is in Scripture the least tittle or word without cause, for the Holy Ghost doth and saith nothing in vain.

Another reason is, the Angel saith, Christ shall be called the Son, not of the Holy Ghost, but of God the Father: Now if the manner of this Conception was the cause of his being called Son of God, he should properly be the Son of the Holy Ghost, not of the Fa­ther, for he is said to be conceived by the Holy Ghost (but they deny the Holy Ghost to be a Person, yet actiones sunt suppositorum, is a Rule in Philosophy) and this Conceiving being an Act, the Holy Ghost must be a Person; for I defie them to shew any thing to be done but by a Person. Scripture in the quoted place, Rom. 1.3. the Question being about Christ's being the Son of God, excludes the Flesh to attribute it to the Spirit; but Socinians would have it according to both, yet S. Paul's scope is to teach how he is Son of God according to the Flesh, and how according to the Spirit; as to the first, he explains himself when he saith, which was made of the seed of David; as to be second, he declareth his meaning when he saith, he was declared Son of God with power, whence we may conclude he saith Christ to be called and really be the Son of God, not according to the Flesh, but to the Spirit, or else he had not sufficiently declared in what sense he is the son of God; and 'tis clear how he opposes the Flesh to the Spirit; according to the first he was made of the Seed of David, according to the last he was de­clared the Son of God.

Withal, Scipture would have such a Son of God as is without Father, &c. such as Melchisedec, no men­tion being made of his Father, Mother, or Genealogy, he seemed not to be born on Earth, but rather fallen from Heaven, having neither beginning of Days nor ending of Life, but made like unto the Son of God, whereof he was a Type, shewing these Attributes to be more proper to, and true of the Son of God, which cannot be otherwise understood then thus, either that the Son of God hath such a Nature as doth by no means come and is derived from earthly and carnal Parents, without beginning or end, and so eternal to all eternity, such as is divine Nature, or else that both Natures of Christ, divine and human, are denoted human without Father upon Earth, divine without [Page 121]Mother in Heaven, and either overthrows the imagi­nary Notion of Socinus of Father according to the Flesh: This must not be understood of the Priest­hood, about which the Question is not, but about his Origine and Genealogy; he is said to be without Fa­ther or Mother, not but that he had some, only there is no mention nor description made of it; for the Greek word without Genealogy signifieth not the Genealogy it self, but the description of it; besides that, the words without beginning of Days or ending of Life, may by no means be applyed to the Priesthood; wherefore he is said to have no beginning of Days, not but that he had, but is brought in as if he had not, to answer him whose Type he was; Days and Life are not referred to a Priesthood, but to a Being, a Person, an Existence, and Life, the beginning or ending whereof absolutely no mention is made at all; so then in this place the Comparison is not about the Priesthod; but about the eternal Person of Christ; for Christ's Priesthood had a beginning, as is expressy set down in Scripture Heb. 5.5, 6., For he glorified not himself to be made an High Priest, but he that said unto him, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee; as he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec: So then in that sense it can­not properly be applyed to Christ; 'tis frivolous to say, as if it were to be understood of any Family, for the Apostle absolutely speaks of beginning of Days not of a Priesthood, to speak absolutely of a Beginning, and of a beginning of a Family, are two things, and that is to wrest the Apostle's sense and meaning, and make him say a thing which he never intended: We don't deny but that the Apostle speaks of the Priest­hood of Melchisedec and of Christ's, but it must be owned he also speaks of other things, as of Mel­chisedec's being King of Righteousness, King of Salem, King of Peace, &c. and his being without beginning of Days or ending of Life, relates to his Person and Life, for no mention is made of his Birth or of his Death, though both besel him, but from the Eterni­ty of his Person the Apostle inferreth the Eternity of his Priesthood: So then when the Lord Jesus is said [Page 122]to be [...], in the Person of Melchisedec, the two last are not to be understood of his temporal Generation and Birth of the Virgin; for two Evangelists have written his Genealogy, but of his eternal Generation; and of this speaks the Pro­phet Isai. 53.8. Who shall declare his generation? An Expres­sion equivalent to this, no Man can, it is eternal, in­comprehensible. When our Saviour was born of the Virgin, he was born in time, Gal. 4.4. When the fulness of the time was come, as Scripture calls it: Now this Parallel between the Type and Anti-Type, Melchise­dec and Christ, doth not run upon our Saviour's Birth, according to the Flesh, and about his human Nature, but about something higher, his Divinity; wherefore the Apostle in the place where he saith Melchisedec to be without Father, &c. doth ascend higher, say­ing Heb. 7.3 but made like unto the Son of God.

The more [...]o prosecute this Argument, we must say, how Christ in his Childhood, even in the Womb, was God; for he is Immanuel God with us from the Virgins Womb; the thing is clear out of this that God being not Flesh but Spirit, can have no car­nal only spiritual Sons, the true Birth makes the true Sons, and this is of two sorts, those that are born of the Flesh are carnal, those of the Spirit are spiritual; for saith Christ Joh. 3.6., That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit; now to be born of the Flesh is to be born of a carnal Seed, as to be born of the Spirit is to be born of a spiritual Seed, wherefore Peter Pet. 1.23, 24, 25. mentioneth two Seeds, one corruptible, the other incorruptible, that of the Flesh, as Grass, withereth away, the spiritual endureth for ever: If then Christ was born of the Spirit, as not long before we took notice the Adversaries would have him to be, because he is said to have been conceived by the Holy Ghost, then that Birth of Christ would be spiri­tual, but not according to the Flesh. 'Tis not with­out cause that when Scripture speaks of our Blessed Sa­viour in several places, it makes a restriction according to the Flesh, and an Opposition to't according to the Spirit; thus 'tis in the fore-quoted places, Rom. 1.3, 4. and Chap. 9.5. thus, The word was made flesh, the [Page 123] Word and Flesh do signifie two different Principles di­stinguished and in opposition one to another. So the Apostle saith 1 Pet. 3.18. Chap. 4.1. Christ was put to death in the Flesh, but quickened in the Spirit; and again, He hath suffer'd for us in the flesh, that is, in his human Nature; then in him is a Nature in which he suffer'd not, and 1 Tim. 3.16. God was manifest in the flesh: In one and the same Subject are two different Natures, divine signified by the word God, and humane by the Flesh: What mean those words of S. Peter Acts 2.30, 31., how God had sworn unto David? That of the fruit of his loins according to the Flesh he would raise up Christ, and that his Flesh did not see cor­ruption, but to shew that in Christ was another Being different from that according to the Flesh, according to which he was not David's Son. Thus S. Paul, as alrea­dy quoted, said, God sent his Son in likeness of sinful Flesh, there is a difference between being Son of God and being in the likeness of sinful Flesh: And elsewhere Ephes, 2.15. Colos. 1.22 Heb. 5.7. Ch. 10.20., Having abolished in his Flesh; and, You hath be recon­ciled in th [...]body of his Flesh: again, Who in the days of his Flesh; and, Through the vail, that is to say, his Flesh; that visible Vail did hide some invisible thing. Now, I say, it were in vain in Scripture to see so of­ten mention made of Christ's Flesh, if there was in him no other thing as the ground of the Distinction; thus when we speak of Man's Body, 'tis to distinguish it from the Soul; so of his Soul to distinguish it from the Body; for though in one Man there be Soul and Body, yet the Soul is not the Body, nor the Body the Soul: So in Christ, though he be but one Person, yet that Person consisteth of divine and human Natures, one expressed by Spirit the other by flesh, a necessa­ry Distinction to make us know which Nature in him is spoken of, for they ought not to be confounded, each having its proper Attributes.

But as their way of arguing is altogether Cavils and Sophistries, so they would put a false Gloss upon our Saviour's fore-quoted words, That which is born of the Flesh is Flesh, &c. as if he were speaking of that which is naturally done, but Christ's Conception and Birth is supernatural; but see what a wrong Principle they go upon, for the Conception by the Spirit they reckon to [Page 124]be natural, as if the Spirit of God bestowed upon us in a spiritual Generation or Regeneration was natural to us, when 'tis a supernatural Gift of divine Grace: Now seeing the Lord Jesus, according to the Flesh, is not born of any spiritual but a carnal Matter, he is not properly born as of a Seed, and so may not be called Son of God according to the Flesh, though through the Operation of the Spirit he was born of fleshly Matter: But, that one may properly be said to be born of the Spirit, 'tis not enough to have the Holy Ghost be the Author of his Birth, but also he must be born of spiritual Seed, to the end there may be a Proportion betwen a spiritual and a carnal Birth, or else if to have one to be properly born of God, it be enough for God to create a carnal Seed, then it would follow that all things which at first were created out of the Earth and Water through a Production of Seeds by God, might be said to be properly born of God, which is absurd; so that after that manner, Christ may not be said to be properly born of God, and be his Son.

The Knowledg of this matter is of so high a Con­cernment, that I must somewhat more enlarge upon't: Socinians would have Christ to be truly and properly Son of God according to the Flesh, because, say they, God acted the part of a Man; but we say, how, to the end one may, in point of Generation, act the part of a Man, it is not enough to afford any matter of Ge­neration, but it is necessary it be out of his own Sub­stance; for if he affords another and foreign Matter, that which is born may upon the account of such Mat­ter by no means be called his Son, nor be said to be born of such a one, because he is not of his own Mat­ter and Substance, neither may he be accounted to be true Father to one so born; he that is not born of the Flesh and Blood of a Man, may not be called such a Man's proper Son: Certainly if a Woman should beget a Son of anothers and not of her own Substance, she might not be called his true Mother, for she communicated nothing unto him: By the same reason one may not be called a true Father who is Au­thor of Generation not of his own Body and Substance, but of another's; to be a true Son one must be begotten [Page 125]not only by the Father but also of the Father, by the Father efficiently, and of the Father in some manner materially, that is, either of the Father's own Sub­stance, or out of that which is derived therefrom. Hence it appears how in the Generation of Christ, ac­cording to the Flesh, the Father acted not properly the part of a Man, because he communicated not his own Substance, but made use of that of another; wherefore Christ may not, according to the Flesh, be properly and absolutely called Son of God, but only secundum quid, and in some respects, as Adam by God formed out of Clay is indeed called Luke 3.38. Son of God, but improperly, for he was not begotten in the manner of a Son; so Christ, according to the Flesh, must not properly be called Son of God, not being begotten of God's Substance in the manner of a Son; to be proper­ly a Father is not to supply the part of a Father, as Socinians say, but really to beget of his own Substance, or else he may not properly be called such a ones Son. Our Saviour indeed, as to his human Nature, is pro­perly Mary's Son, because begotten of her Substance; but in this Generation of Christ, God supply'd indeed the part of a Man, as much as relateth to the abso­lute Generation of a Man, but not as to the Genera­tion of a Son; so that in relation to God it may be called a Production rather than a Generation: A Man by God's Will may be made of nothing, or of any matter, but a Son being a Relative to the Father, with whom he hath a Consanguinity and Unity of Blood, he must be formed of the very Substance of his Father. To say that God created a new Matter in the Virgin's Womb, is to talk at random, without the least ground for it in Scripture, neither was it ne­cessary; for God could out of the Virgins Blood have caused a perfect Generation of a Man: Wherefore we conclude, that since Christ is called God the Father's proper and own Son, he must be begotten of God the Father's own and proper Nature and Substance.

Hence we do also infer, that the Name of Son of God signifies some essential thing in Christ, and not an Office and Dignity, as appeareth out of the Acts Acts 8.37. I believe, saith the Eunuch, that Jesus Christ is the Son [Page 126]of God; for if to be Christ and Son of God signifieth the same thing, then the words would contain this Tautology, that Christ is Christ; but upon this solemn occasion of his being about to be baptised, in answer to what Philip had said, that he is to be baptized in the Name of Christ, so he must make a declaration that he believes in Christ, and of what he believes him to be, namely the Son of God; so that the Name Son, is not the Name of an Office, as that of Christ, but the Name of the Person that exerciseth that Of­fice, as good as if he had said, This Jesus Christ whom thou hast preached to me, is not to be consider'd only as the Son of the Virgin Mary, who dyed and was crucified, but also as the Son of God who liveth for ever: To be Christ and to be the Son of God is not the same thing, but different relations; the Son­ship hath a relation to a Father, as the Patornity hath to a Son; but the relation of the word Christ is either to God who Heb. 1.9. anointed him, or to the Church over which Zech. 9.9. he is made King: So then, according to the formal Reason, Son of God and Christ do not denote the same thing, neither could Christ by virtue of his Office, which he received but in time, be properly called Son of God and equal with God, as it appears John 10.33, 37, 38. compared with John 5.18. he made himself and really was.

No sort of Men more prone to wrest Scripture than Socinus and Socinians, wherefore in the matter now in hand, in that Confession which Peter made of and to our Saviour, Matthew hath these words Mat. 16.16., Thou art Christ the Son of the living God; and John upon an­other occasion John. 6.69., We believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God; but because Mark saith only Mark 8.29., Thou art the Christ; and Luke Luke 9.20., The Christ of God; wherefore saith he, the Name of Christ contains the full meaning of Son of the living God: But who knoweth not the diversity by the E­vangelists used in their Narrations, one more at large, the other more briefly, one sets down all, the other only some part, as 'tis observed between Matthew's and Mark's Relations. If after the Socinian way, from the comparison of words one could conclude all to be but one and the same sense, many Absurdities would arise [Page 127]therefrom; as for instance, Matthew relates that our Saviour said to the man sick of the palsie Mat. 9.2, Son, be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee; but Mark leaves out the words Mark 2.5. be of good cheer, saying, Son thy sins be forgiven thee; and Luke, instead of the word Son, uses that of Man Luke 5.20. thy sins are forgiven thee; then, according to this way of arguing, it may be conclu­ded how the words Son and Man are but one and the same, and signifie but one and the same thing; for whom Matthew and Mark call Son, Luke calls Man; so after this rate Man and Son now do not differ as an absolute Name that denoteth Nature, and a rela­tive signifying a relation to a Father. It is said how in a Vision Cornelius saw an Angel of God, Acts 10.3. and v. 30 he said to Peter, Behold a man stood before me in bright clothing; what he saw in the same Vi­sion is called an Angel and a Man; must we conclude an Angel to be a Man?

After the same manner they would wrest some other places, as when Matthew saith Mat. 26.63., The high priest said unto him, I abjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ the Son of God; and Mark Mar. 14.61. Again the high priest asked him, are thou the Christ the Son of the blessed? and Luke Luke 26.66, 67., The chief priests and the scribes led him into their counsel, saying, art thou the Christ? Tell us. Where the Name Son of God is omitted, the Heresiarch doth conclude that the words Son of God and Christ are the same: But we already shewed the Falseness of such Consequen­ces, and this is farther to be observed, how though the relations by the Evangelist be not contrary, yet they sometimes differ, and are not expressed in the same words; Matthew useth the Name Son of God, Mark calls him The Son of the blessed, where the words God and blessed signifie the same thing, though one expresseth the Nature, the other the Worship: This difference of relating doth farther appear, that Matthew and Mark say the High Priest asked, but Luke saith it of the Chief Priests and Scribes, shall we then concludé that the High Priest and the Scribes are the same? But withal, the word Son of God is not quite left out by Luke; for we find it v. 70. Then [Page 128]said they all, art thou then the Son of God? Here by the by take notice how what our Saviour said of him­self under the Name of Son of Man, by reason of what is said of sitting on the right hand of the Power of God, they well took the meaning to be Son of God, which Christ confirmed, and indeed, he often declared himself to be true Son of God, but we read no where that ever he denyed it. But to return to our Text, hence appeareth the insignificancy of their Exceptions; for all the Evangelists do joyn the Names of Christ and Son of God: And we are to take spe­cial notice, how after our Saviour had affirmed he was the Son of God, they all concluded he had blasphe­med, which there had been no cause for them to say, except thereby had been meaned he who is begotten of the Essence and Nature of God, and therein equal with him.

It seems they will not be perswaded but that Christ and Son of God are synonimous, to which end they far­ther make use of other places, whereof the first hath these words 1 Joh. 5.1. vers. 5., Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God; the next is thus, Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? The last is this †­ Chap. 4.15. Whosoever shall con­fess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God: Whence they would infer, that the Names of Christ and Son of God are the same, be­cause they are put one for the other; but the Conse­quence is not good; for, all that followeth is this, that Christ and the Son of God are the same, which we own, and is true, both do meet in the Person of the Lord Jesus, for he is Son of God and Christ, but we deny the Name of Christ to be the same with that of Son of God, because this last is a Name of Na­ture, and the first of Office; and to say he is Son of God, because he is Christ, is a meer begging of the Question: Christ is called Immanuel, Wonderful, Counselour, Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace, by Isaiah, and The Lord our Righte­ousness, by Jeremiah Chap. 23.6., all which Names are given to one and the same Person, yet none may say they do formally signifie the same thing, no more than Prudence, [Page 129]Courage, and Liberality can be said to be the same, because they meet in one and the same subject, and the same Person may be prudent, couragious, and li­beral. 'Tis bad Logical from the Unity of the Person to argue for the Unity of Names, seeing one and the same Person may be called by several Names; God is merciful and just, yet though Mercy and Justice be in God, they differ one from another between themselves abstractively taken, though we know in God they are one and the same thing. Thus though the Words Son of God and Christ belong to one and the same Person, yet in themselves they differ one from another, as do God and Lord, which in Scripture are often joyned together as the Lord God, and put one for another, yet God is a Name of Nature, and Lord signifies his Do­minion, they in themselves denote different things, thô pertaining to one and the same Subject, or else every Lord were a God; thus a Husband were a God unto his Wife, because Sarah called Abraham her Lord, the Lord of the unfaithful Servant were his God, be­cause he calls him his Lord, the Lord of the Vineyard were the God of the Vineyard, because called it's Lord, and many more such Instances: And I shall illustrate the thing by a trivial Saying among us, A Servant may say, his Master is Lord, but not God, at home.

The Text that saith 1 John 2.22, 23., Who is a liar but he that de­nieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist that de­nieth the Father and the Son; whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; these words do import, how he that denyeth Jesus to be the Christ, doth there­by deny the Son, not that Christ and the Son do for­mally signifie the same in themselves, but because to be Christ and Son of God do meet in one Person, so that none but the Son of God is Christ and Redeemer of the World. Withall after this Socinian way of ar­guing, it would follow in this Text, that the Names Christ, Father, and Son, do signifie the same; for here the Apostle offereth two Propositions, the first, He is a Lyar that denyeth Jesus to be the Christ; the last, He is Antichrist that denyeth the Father and the Son. The Adversaries make them both equivalent, for in [Page 130]both is the same Object of denyal; whence they in­fer, that Christ and the Son are of the same significa­tion; but according to this Kule it may be concluded, that Christ, the Father, and the Son, signifie the same, because in the first Proposition Christ is the Object of the denyal, and in the last the Father and Son toge­ther. Any one may see the Absurdity of such Con­sequences.

But because Christ, to prove himself to be the Son of God, speaks to the Jews about his Sanctification by the Father, which Sanctification is the anointing spoken of by Peter Acts 10.38., wherefore they would have that to be the cause of his being Son of God; but if there was no other reason of that divine Filiation but the Sanctification and Anointing, then the cause by the Angel given in Luke 1.35. Scripture were false. So then Christ is called the Son of God not only upon the account of his extraordinary Birth and of his kingly Office, as Socinus saith, but for being of the same Nature and Essence with the Father, which that Text of John 10. is not against; for in that place our Saviour doth not give in the cause why he is Son of God, but only goes about to refute the Slander of Blasphemy by the Jews cast up­on him, not by an Argument à pari, taken from equal things, but from the lesser to the greater: He had said v. 30. I and my Father are one, thereby expresly asser­ting his Consubstantiality and Oneness of Nature with the Father, whereupon they took Stones to stone him, because of that pretended Blasphemy, in that he being man made himself God, which Objection he answereth with an Instance from less to greater. Thus, if those are without Blasphemy called Gods who exercise a di­vine Office in their ruling and judging of Men, much more and upon a better account may Christ the Messiab from eternity begotten by the Father, and in time sent down from Heaven into the World, be called God, wherefore there is no Blasphemy, nor have ye any just cause of stoning me, because I said I am the Son of God, one with the Father: The Name Son of God re­lates to the eternal Generation by and Consubstantiali­ty with the Father, therefore not a Name of Office [Page 131]but of Nature and Person, and the Names Christ and Son agree as to the material in one Person, but not in the formal; the Name Son is by reason of an eternal Generation, and that of Christ, upon the account of a temporal Anointing to an Office: In the mean while we retain the proper and literal Sense of the word, and not the metaphorical, till we see cause to the contrary. And this we leave for them to prove, how because Magistrates, by reason of their Office, are called Chil­dren of the most high, therefore not because of an eternal Generation and Coessentiality with the Father, but for his Royal Dignity the Lord Jesus is called Son of God.

To be short, we have other Texts to prove how the Name God's Son signifieth some essential thing in Christ, as that heretofore quoted, Christ was made of the seed of David according to the Flesh, &c. the Flesh signifies his Humanity, as doth, Declared the son of God ac­cording to the spirit of holiness, his Divinity; for we see Dan. 9.24., To anoint the most holy, doth denote by the most holy his divine Person, and by to anoint, his Office of Mediatour: So we have that of the Angel to the Vir­gin, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. The Angel's meaning is, that in Christ's Conce­ption the Power of God was necessary, to the end he that was to be born might be called Son of God; but if that Name had related only to the Office, and he that was to be invested with it had been a meer Man, no need of that Power of the Spirit in the Conception; now the Angel calls holy that which it Essential in Christ, he was holy before he should be born, and that essential holy thing is called the Son of God: The [...] signifieth not that Man that was to be born, not holy in the Concret, but holy in the Abstract. Withall, seeing in Baptism the word Son doth not in Christ signifie his Office but his Nature; for the Names Father and Holy Ghost do not denote any Office but Persons, so in Christ it signifies his divine Nature not his Office: All this may also be proved out of other [Page 132]Texts, as this John 3.16. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, &c. compared with Rom. 8.32., He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, wherein God's Love towards the World and us is so highly comended, which if it were only an Office laid upon Christ, would come very short of that infl­nite Love of God, which as Paul saith Ephes. 3.19, 18. Passeth know­ledg, and gives it the four Dimensions, bredth, length, depth and height: But to say that God spared not his own beloved and only begotten Son, but deliver'd him to death, this is Love indeed. The same we may learn out of this Heb. 5.8., that though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. What Man is he that would sacrifice his Son to the Safety and Preservation of his Enemies? Yet God hath done it, having exposed his Son out of his Bosom to all the Abuses which the Rage and Malice of De­vils and Men could inven [...] and to the shameful, pain­ful, and cursed Death of the Cross. Take notice how the same Apostle in the same Chapter, having ap­plyed the words of the Psalmist to the Lord Jesus vers. 5., thou art my Son, he calls the time of these Sufferings vers. 7. thē days of his flesh, to make a difference between his divine and human Natures; and thus such a Son and in such a manner, as his Name to distinguish him from all Men, was never bestowed upon any Person in the singular Number; Abraham, as observed before, was called God's Friend and Moses his Servant, but to neither of them, nor to any one else, it was said, Thou art my Son; 'tis said Christ was faithful to him that appointed him; Heb. 3.2, 3, 4, 5, 6. and Moses also was faithful in all God's house, but with what a vast difference, Moses as a servant, Christ as a Son, over his own house which he had builded himself, but he that built all things is God. Thus much I could not forbear taking notice of those Texts tending to our main purpose and for Christ's Di­vinity. But to return to the exceeding greatness of God's Love to us, it would be extreamly lessen'd if Christ had been considerable only for his office and not for his Person, but Rom. 5.8 God commendeth his love to­ward us in that while we were yet Sinners, Christ his [Page 133]own, proper, well beloved and only begotten Son, dyed for us; that Christ, who according to Peter's confession, is the Son of the living God: which con­taineth two things, first that Christ is the Messiab, the second, that he is the Son of the living God.

This they object, Heb. 5.4, 5. Christ glorified not himself to be made an high Priest, but he that said unto him, thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee; Wherefore, say they, he is called Son in respect to his Office? In answer we say, if by these quoted Words, Christ was constituted Mediator, then he was constituted Mediator only after his Resurrection, for after his Resurrection Paul said, Act. 13.33. God said, thou art my Son this day, &c. Furthermore, all that can be deduced out of these Words is this, how Christ was by him that begot him called to the Office of Mediator, which we grant, but deny him only by these Words to have been constituted Mediator, Rev. 13.8. for this day have I begotten thee, do not contain the Institution of Christ's being a Mediator, but a Declaration and Manifestation thereof; he was a Mediator from the beginning, be­ing the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World; he could have been no Mediator except he had a being and subsisted. Out of all that hath been, and many more things that might be said, and of some others which by the Grace of God afterwards I shall add, it may appear how to the Lord Jesus do truly and properly belong the Names proper to the Essential God, as Jehovah, Lord, God, Son of God, God's Own, Proper, Only Begotten Son, the Word, how he was begotten from Eternity, and in him is a Divine as there is a Human Nature, &c.

Against their wresting the true Sense of the Scrip­tures which they are so much inclined, apt and study to do; we may consider how several Expressions therein do tend to condescend to our weakness and infirmity, according to the Capacity of some of those whom they were spoken or written to, or afterwards were to read them; thus our Saviour said to the Jews, Joh. 5.31. If I bear witness of my self, my witness is not true; and because John was in great esteem among them, [Page 134]he appeals to the Testimony he had given of him: That Argument was good with the Jews, Mat. 21.26. for all held John as a prophet; however, to shew he was above such things, and that his due Glory depended not thereupon, lest it should thereby suffer any Pre­judice in their Opinion, he said John 5.34, 41., I receive not te­stimony from man, but these things I say that ye might be saved: and I receive no honour from men like a tender Father he had compassion on them, and would help their Weakness and Infirmity, and re­lieve their Frailty; but when his Right and Due were questioned, then he expresseth himself in ano­ther manner; for when the Pharisees had said unto him Chap. 8.14., Thou bearest record of thy self, thy record is not true; then upon such an occasion he is not wanting in asserting his divine Prerogative; for he answer'd, Though I bear record of my self, yet my record is true; for I know whence I came, and whither I go: He might bear record of himself, and to strengthen his own Evidence, he saith it is not single, for he hath another infinitely above that of John; for Vers. 16.18. com­pared with chap. 7.32., If I judge, my judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me, who beareth witness of me; though, as Peter said Acts 10.38., He went about doing good, yet his Right he asser­ted when called in question; so no Consequence against his divine Nature, Attributes, or Actions, is to be drawn out of his Humiliation, when in the days of his Flesh, out of his infinite Love and Compassion towards poor lost Sinners, he earnestly did sollicit, and as it were beseech Men to come to and believe in him, for that was the proper Work of the day, in the time of his Humiliation, to bring about our Redemption; so what himself, or the Evangelists and Apostles spoke of him in that state of his, ought not to be wrested or mis-ap­plyed to derogate from that Glory and Honour which he had from, and shall have to all Eternity, 'tis neither just nor fair to do it, 'tis an abomi­nable Abuse of his Mercy, and to turn the Grace of our God into Lasciviousness and detestable Unthank­fulness.

Some things in Scripture of a certain Nature, and attended with particular Circumstances, as may be Types and Comparisons, must not be pressed overmuch, 'tis enough they agree in the thing for which they are made use of, or else they will fail, though they agree in many things yet not in every thing; it will be as when a Man blows his Nose, if he presses too hard he will be in danger of squee­zing Blood out of it: So in things of the nature of those we now are upon, we must not indulge our own Fancy, or suffer our Minds to wander up and down, and want the Reverence due to such holy Mysteries; we may and must often part with our own Reason, but never with the Revelation, which that Reason, though never so strong, must be ruled by; and therein the Analogy of Faith is to be ob­served: Thus when between our Adversaries and us there happens a Dispute about the meaning of a Text, and we give an Interpretation different from theirs, this Interpretation of ours ought to be groun­ded upon some other place of Scripture, and we have reason from them to expect the like; for nei­ther they nor we must be Judges in our own Cause, and Scripture ought to be explained by Scripture: But a great general Fault in them is, to force a sense upon the words that is contrary to the scope of the place and to the Analogy of Faith, and to give un­usual Meanings and different from the whole course of Scripture, as we made it appear in several pla­ces, and yet give no good reason for it, nay some­times none at all: They must pardon us if we have no such implicit Faith as to take their bare word, though they boast never so much of their strength of Reason: We now know better than to ap­prove of the old Saying, Magister dixit, ergo ve­rum, the Master said so, therefore 'tis true; in­deed in relation to our great Lord and Master we agree to't, but not so when 'tis apply'd to any Man or Sect whatsoever.

We see by experience how commonly in these things one Depth calleth to another, and when once Men are fall'n in into a wrong way, the longer they go in, the farther from the true one: Hence it is, that Errors in Judgment are attended with others in Practice: That People that think they know all, will also believe they can do all things, as they are of opinion nothing is or can be above their natural Reason, so out of Self-Love and Con­ceit they will easily be perswaded that nothing is beyond their natural strength: Thus as they can easily know what God is, so as easily they can do what he commands; and such Pharisees will not question but that they may fulfil the Law; they can repent and believe if they please, for all such Free-Willers are of that mind; yet of so many In­stances I shall bring but one wherein the word of God doth confute and confound them, indeed 'tis one, if not the main, about Mens ordering their Carriage and Conversation in the whole course of their Life, 'tis called Steps; for as we are Pilgrims and Passengers in this World, so our Actings there­in are in Scripture expressed by Walking: Now our Adversaries will say their Actions are guided by their Reason, against which I bring two Evidences with­out exception, Father and Son both great Men, and both in several things Types of Christ the Son of God; for David saith Psal. 37.23., The steps of a man are or­dered by the Lord: And Solomon declares Prov. 16.9., A mans heart deviseth his way, but the Lord directeth his steps: Reason indeed subservient to Revelation, and guided by Faith, is a good Companion; but post­poning, or putting first last and last first, and al­tering the order of things, is in these contrary to true Religion: The Prophet knew better than so when he said Jer. 10.23., O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself, it is not in man that walk­eth to direct his steps: But these Matters of Grace I elsewhere discussed somewhat at large, A Plea for Free grace against Free-will. wherefore now I shall not engage in it.

Only in relation to what a little before I spoke about Comparisons, I shall say, how though we must lay no stress upon them in Matters of this nature, nor screw up Consequences for divine from human things, by reason of an infinite disproportion between them: Yet notwithstanding that Disparity, to con­vince some sorts of Men, even among those natural things, God hath not left himself without Witness, in relation to the great Mystery about God the Fa­ther and God his Son, grounded upon a Compari­son drawn from the Sun and its Beams: First, the Sun in relation to the Beam, is of it self, and the Beam of the Sun; so is the Father of himself, and the Son of the Father. Secondly, as the Sun in order of Nature is before the Beam, but in time they both are co-existent; so is the Father in order of Nature before the Son, though in Existence both co-eternal. Thirdly, as the Sun without Diminution or Division of its Substance or change in its Nature, produceth the Beams, so is the Son begotten of the Father. Fourthly, as the Sun cannot be seen but by the Beam, no more can the Father but by and in the Son. Fifthly, as the Beam is never separated from the Sun, nor can the Sun be without the Beam, no more can the Son be from the Father, nor was the Father ever without the Son. Sixthly, as the Beam is distinguished from the Sun, so that the Sun is not the Beam, nor the Beam the Sun; so it is between the Father and the Son. Notwithstan­ding the infinite Disparity in it, this Comparison I have chosen as the most sit and proper to illustrate that adorable, incomprehensible, and incomparable Mystery, after what the Apostle said of it when alluding to the Sun, he calls the Son Heb. 1.3 The bright­ness of his Fathers Glory. The next thing I am to do, is to shew how true divine and incommunicable Attributes do also belong to him.

CHAP. VII. Essential Divine Attributes belong to Christ.

OF God's Attributes some are Negative, as Infi­finite, Independent, Immortal, Unchangeable, &c. which remove from God all manner of Imperfe­ction, and though these teach not what he is, yet they teach what he is not; others are Affirmative, as Eter­nal, Almighty, All-knowing, &c. these are not so strong as the others, because they represent Things but imperfectly; other Attributes there be, as Wis­dom, Goodness, Mercy, Justice, &c. which in some Degree God is pleased to impart unto the Creature, but these I intend not to speak of, only of those that are essential and incommunicable to the Creature; and this Rule must be laid, that whensoever any of these Attributes are in Scripture given to God essenti­ally taken, they are attributed to Christ, because he is essentially God, as I hope is sufficiently proved.

But before I proceed, something in general may be spoken about Divine Attributes. The Attributes of God are those Proprieties whereby he makes himself known unto us, and shews the Difference that is be­tween him and the Creature; these Attributes in God are not as Attributes in the Creatures, for they are no Qualities nor Accidents, nor Things different from the Essence, or from one another according to the Rule that nothing is in God but what is God himself; God's Infiniteness and Eternity, are God Infinite and Eternal; wherefore because we cannot comprehend God's Infiniteness, Eternity, Simplicity, &c. we say we cannot comprehend his Essence and Nature. The Knowledge that is in us, comes in by Parts and De­grees, How then can we know one Attribute of God [Page 139]as may be his Simplicity and Absoluteness which hath no Parts? For it doth not consist of any Genus and Difference, Substance and Accident, Power and Act, nor of Ens, being and Essence; and as to his Immensity or Infiniteness according to which he is [...], wholly, whole, whole in himself, whole in all, whole in every one, and whole out of all; he is neither circumscrib'd, defined by, included in or excluded out of any place; all these are past Understanding, not only of Men, but of Angels also. Let those who pretend to know all Things, and that to them nothing is a Mystery, take notice of this: Thus much in short of the incom­municable Attributes, or as otherwise called of the first Order. And as to those of the second and com­municable to Creatures which yet must be well un­derstood, for a thing may be said to be imparted or communicated in two ways, either when the same thing in Number and Species is imparted to another, or when the same is by Analogy in likeness and pro­portion. In the first way, no propriety of God can be communicated to the Creature, because all infinite and the same with the Nature, but in the last in some measure and degree they are, in as much as some Ef­fects like unto his Attributes according to their Capa­city come out of them.

The Attributes of this last sort may be reduced under these three Heads Mercy, Wisdom and Power; Mercy moveth and willeth, Wisdom doth contrive and dispose, and Power executes, all three in God In­finite and Eternal, all three to be found in the Son in the Works of Creation, Preservation and Redemp­tion; in relation to the two first absolutely consider'd, in his Divine Nature, and to the last in both Divine and Human in the Capacity of Mediator, wherein he is both God and Man, for indeed the Office of Media­tor required a Person that should be both, to perform those things that were to be done in relation to both; because to suffer and die was the part of human Na­ture, which the Divine is not capable of, but to over­come Death and our spiritual Enemies, could not be effected but by a Divine Power; withal it became [Page 140]the Majesty of God, that the Mediator should be God, for that Majesty is so great that none but one that is intimate and equal with the Father, could interpose between God and Man: Angels themselves could and dared not undertake it, for they stood in need of Christ to be confirmed in their state of Integrity; be­sides that, they are not pure in God's sight, much less any Man meerly such. I ask, Who but a God could destroy sin, appease God's wrath overcome the Power of Satan, with natural and eternal Death? Who could make expiation for Offences committed against an In­finite God, but he that is Infinite himself? By whose Intercession could God's Anger be pacified, but thorough him that is his beloved Son? By whose Power could Satan and the whole Power of Dark­ness be overcome but by him that is stronger than all Devils and Hell? And who could conquer Death, but he that hath destroyed him who hath the Power of Death? And as none but a God could deliver us from all these Evils, under whose Power we were; so none but a God could restore us to the Goods we had lost; Who could have restored us to a perfect Righte­ousness, but he that is Righteousness it self? Who to God's Image, but he that is the express Image of his Person, and the Brightness of his Glory? Who could make us Children of God, but he that is his natural, only begotten and beloved Son? Who could bestow upon us the Holy Ghost, but he from whom the Holy Ghost proceedeth? And who could give us eternal Life, but he that is Life it self? And by whom could we come to God, but thorough him that is the way? Out of all this it appears how none but a True and not a made God, could be a Mediator between God and us. 1 Sam. 2.25. If one man sin against another, saith Eli, the judge shall judge him; but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall intreat for him? No meer Man can, only he that is Lord God himself.

Divine Essence is necessarily attended with the Di­vine Attributes, First, E­ternity. and it being most simple, they are not otherwise distinguished then after our manner of Conceiving, so that out of the foregoing Evidences [Page 141]they must necessarily be attributed unto the Son; and first Eternity; having already proved Christ's Dei­ty and his eternal Generation, we have spoken many Things belonging to this Head: Eternity is Indivisible, as the begetting Power of the Father is Infinite, so it hath a terminus an Object of Infinite Perfection, name­ly his Son Coeternal and Coessential, and because the Generation is from Eternity, so is it true that the Son was continually and perpetually begotten, for we must not say God was first God and then Father, but without beginning always God and always Father; and seeing he ever was Father, he ever had a Son: This Reason is much to our purpose, and we could easily farther enlarge upon it; yet in order to prove this Eternity, we must draw Arguments out of Scrip­ture, without which in these Matters, all our Reasons are no Reasons at all.

Both Testaments do abound in Proofs, but out of many we shall make use of few: First out of the Old, and begin with the place where it speaks of Christ's Kingdom, and of the Glory and Power there­of. He saith, Psal. 110.3. From the womb of the morning thou hast the dew of thy youth; the Meaning and Sence of the Words is, thou art from Eternity, Morning im­plies a Day, and the first part of it too, Day imports a Time which began with the Creation; for before, there was no Time, all was Eternity; now Christ whom here David calls his Lord, is not said to have the Dew of his Youth from the Morning, but from the Womb of the Morning, that is, before there was any Morning, any Time at all; for before any Crea­ture be brought forth, 'tis in the Womb, and what is the Womb of Time but Eternity, which is the Day spoken of in another place, Psal. 2. this day have I begotten thee; with God there is no Time, with Him all is one Day, a Day of Eternity; that saying so to him, is not of a present Generation or Constitution, but the Revelation of a Thing that was before; wherefore in that same Verse it is called a Decree, I will declare the decree; 'tis the declaration of the Decree, not the time of it; now all God's Decrees are Eternal without be­ginning, [Page 142]consequently the Time therein mentioned is meaned of Eternity, which the Psalmist's manner of speaking doth confirm more, when in that first place he saith, thou hast the dew of thy youth; the Dew falls on the first part of the Morning, so in that be­ginning of Time he had not his Birth or Childhood, but his Youth not only existed, but had his whole Strength and Vigour; all this way of speaking is with condescending to our weak human Capacity, to make us understand how the Person therein spoken, is from Eternity, as 'tis plainly expressed by Prov. 8.21, 22, 24, 25. Solomon, when bringing the same Person to speak under the Name of Wisdom, saith, the Lord possessed me in the begin­ning of his ways, before his works of old; I was set from everlasting, from the beginning or ever the earth was, when there was no depths, when there was no foun­tains with water, and before the mountains were settled I was brought forth, that is, before there was any Creature; now that Christ is the Wisdom of the Fa­ther, 1 Cor. 1.30. who of God is made unto us wisdom, &c. no Man ought to doubt of.

Another Text to prove this Eternity, is one of the Names whereby the Prophet calls Christ when he fore-telleth his Birth in the place which we had occa­sion to speak of before Isa. 9.6. the everlasting Father, here is Eternity in the very Spring, he not only is Everlast­ing, but is the Father of Eternity it-self in the ab­stract. A farther Proof we draw out of another Pro­phet, who speaking of the place where the Messiah was to be born saith, Micha 5.2. Out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been of old from everlasting. Upon the occasion of knowing the place where Christ should be born, the Matt. 2.4, 5, 6. Evangelist saith, how all the Chief Priests and Scribes quoted this very place to Herod; so that as certainly as he was to be born and was actually born there, as certainly his goings forth have been from of old from Everlasting; this Prophecy was made seve­ral hundreds of years before his Birth, yet at that very time he was said to have gone forth from of old; what is to be understood by this, from of old, he [Page 143]there explains it thus, from everlasting; the Hebrew word signifieth from the Days of Eternity, whence we may surely conclude that the Person spoken of in that place, namely, the Lord Jesus hath been, and is from Eternity; here two goings or comings forth, be ex­pressed, one passed, from of old, from everlasting, the other to come, out of thee Bethlehem shall he come forth, &c. Daniel calls him the antient of days, which is the very same Name in ver. 13. of the same Chap­ter given the True God of Israel, whether taken Es­sentially or Personally, whereby is denominated the true everlasting God. Now out of the New Testa­ment, on my way, I shall take notice of the place where he is called Colos. 1.15. the first born of every creature, which (as the Adversaries would have it) doth not include him amongst the Creatures, rather it declares him not to be a Creature, if he was not made with the Creatures in time, then he was before all Crea­tures were made that is from Eternity; for he that was before all Creatures is not created, so he was first born, because born before any Creature was, far from being a Creature, he is the Creatour; for he created all things as anon we shall have occasion to shew.

Before I go on this, I must say how Socinus's un­happy Design and great Mistake is to interpret Scri­pture meerly by Criticisms upon the words, without any regard to the scope of the place, or the analogy of Faith, thus he searches into all the Senses that they are possibly capable of, till he can find one, though never so forced to serve the Opinion he is prepossessed of, and before hand, though never so contrary to the plain and natural Sense of the place. In the Preface to his Explication of the first of John's Gospel, he owns, not wihtout Vanity, how his Interpretation is, new, quorum verus sensus, &c. the true Sense of which words, saith he, seems to have been hid from all the Expositors that ever were extant; how proud­ly is this to applaud himself, as if he alone had known God's mind, as if the Spirit of God had not assisted, but departed from all Good and Learned Men for [Page 144]1500 years after Christ, this is an over-affected singu­larity of his, to turn all into Allegories, such shifts to defend a Cause, do declare it to be bad, for 'tis only to preserve it from sinking,; and if once a Man hath leave to suppose what he pleases, then he may prove what he will; of this, now I shall give but one In­stance, if by the word beginning which we read in John 1.1. we must as he doth, contrary to all parti­culars of the Text, and the scope of the Evangelist, understand the beginning of the Gospel; then accor­ding to this way of explaining, by the word begin­ning which we read in Gen. 1.1. we may understand not the beginning or Creation of the World, but of the beginning of the Mosaical Dispensation, and so the Creation of Heaven and Earth to be the Institu­tion of the Jewish Religion, and so several other things of the same Nature; this misinterpretation of Holy Scripture is very injurious to't and dangerous, for after such Notions and Fancies, no Error, though never so absurd, can want one pretence or other to set up a­gainst the scope of Texts and Anology of Faith.

But now we must go on, Joh. 1.1. In the beginning was the word, saith St. John, in that beginning the Word was with God, and in the same beginning the same Word was God, it being granted that Christ is signified by the name Word, that the Word is God; the Eternity of Christ may easily and naturally be understood by the Word Beginning, it appears how the Evangelist's De­sign is to assert the Divinity of Christ, wherewith he abruptly begins his Gospel under that name he speaks of him in the fourteen former Verses of his first Chap­ter, and then mentions it no more; he saith nothing of his Birth nor of any Circumstance of its Time, Place or Person, but barely when, where, what he was, and what he did; this is plain enough, if some Men of perverse Judgment had not thorough vain De­ceit and Cavils, gone about to darken and wrest that Truth. By this beginning of time, is here, as in o­ther parts of Scripture, when spoken without limita­tion, understood the beginning of the World, it having here, as I observed before, the same Signification, as [Page 145]in the first Verse of the Book of Genesis, in the begin­ning God created, &c. and that this is the meaning of this place, it appears out of the second and third Ver­ses; in the second is repeated what is said in the first, the same was in the beginning with God; upon what oc­casion was he then with God? Certainly, about the Work of Creation. for ver. 3. it is said, All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made; and what I say is the meaning of the word Beginning, I can make it appear out of Scip­ture, and that what they say, to reduce it only to the beginning of the Gospel, is a false gloss of theirs put upon the Words to pervert the Sense; Prov. 8.23. the Son of God speaking of himself under the Name of Wisdom, saith, I was from the beginning; the meaning of the Word is there well expressed in two several ways, though but to one and the same end, I was in the be­ginning or ever the earth was, where it is very plain that the word Beginning is understood before the Earth was, and in the first part of the same, 'tis said, I was set up from everlasting; then by the word Be­ginning is meaned from Everlasting for indeed before the beginning of the World, it was Eternity; this I am sure doth not agree with the false gloss of the be­ginning of the Gospel.

No more do the following; our Saviour speaking of Adam and Eve, saith, Matth. 19.4, 8. He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female; and some­what lower, John 8.44. from the beginning it was not so; and our Evangelist saith, he, the Devil, was a murtherer from the beginning. Furthermore, Heb. 1.10. Thou Lord in the beginning hath laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thine hands; and else­where, where Christ is spoken of, 1 Joh. 2.13. ye have known him that is from the beginning; and in the same Epistle, chap. 3.8. the devil sinneth from the beginning. Now I ask, Are these Texts with others I could produce, to be understood of the beginning of the Gospel, or of the World? Nay, the Gospel is not of so late a Date as they would have it to be, for if we may be­lieve Gal. 3.8. Paul, it was preached unto Abraham; that [Page 146]Word which in time was made Flesh was in the be­ginning when the World was made, so not to be un­derstood when he took our Human Nature, seeing he was long before, even before Abraham, and to take it of the beginning of the Gospel, as they do, the Sense must be this, in the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ was, altogether unbe­coming the Wisdom of the Spirit of God; 'tis said in the Praeter-Tense was with God, not hath been, the word was hath its weight to shew that he began not to be in the beginning, but that he was already, and shall continue to Eternity without ceasing or interrup­tion according to the place before quoted, this day have I begotten thee; this Day of Eternity, for with God there is no Time nor Succession; it cannot be said of our Saviour's Birth, which happened so long after, but there the Holy Ghost pointed to Eternity, which is ever present; that in that Psalm, Eternity is meaned, the subject Matter doth demonstrate, for the Question is about him in whom we must put our Trust and Confidence which ought to be Jerem. 17.5. in God alone, now God's Duration is no Time but Eternity, which is an intire and continual perfect possession of an endless Life or an Infiniteness not successive but per­manent, wherein three things are to be consider'd, First, no Beginning; Secondly, it hath no End; Thirdly, ad­mits of no Continuation, 'tis free from any Succession; the two former are agreed on, but the third they Dispute; but as God and Eternity are the same, for nothing in God but what is God himself, so God were not whole, for that Eternity is not whole, which is subject to a continual Succession; Fourthly, God were divisible as is a continual Succession, which hath se­veral Parts; and Fifthly, it would admit access and recess, as doth every Succession: This I set down as necessary to understand what Eternity which we now speak of is.

Now again to our Text, in the beginning. I say, that though it had been before instead of in, their perverse­ness in going about to make Scripture subservient to their ill Opinions and Designs, and not to make it the [Page 147]Rule thereof, as they ought to do, in endea­vouring to find out the true meaning of it; yet still they would have endeavoured to pervert the true Sense; but what is here said in, is the Description made of God's Eternity, expressed by the word be­fore, Isa. 43.13. yea before the day was, I am he; the Gospel is the Luke 2.10. good tidings of great joy of Christ's the Lord be­ing come; and what could the Evangelist have done better than to set in the very front and beginning of his Gospel, how when Christ was announced, that he had been, as indeed he was at the time of the first Promise made of the Messiah when the Gospel was preached and declared to our first Parents, Gen. 3.15. the seed of the woman shall bruise the Serpent's head.

If by the word Beginning is to be understood the Time when the Gospel was preached, it makes the thing very doubtful Matthew begins it from the Birth of Christ, Luke from the Conception of St. John Baptist, and Mark from the time when John began to preach, Paul from Christ's first preaching, and Peter from the Day of Pentecost, when the Spirit cam [...] up­on the Apostles, so that it would be very uncertain which of these Beginnings is meaned by the Evange­list, for there is nothing in the Text to determine it, every one of these is attended with some incongruity as to say that Christ was when he was born, or when he preached, or that he was fifty Days after his Re­surrection, I can find no proper or good Sense in any of these, nor in the other which they declare for, and 'tis that, when John began to preach, which was on the thirtieth of his Age or thereabouts, and between him and Christ, there was but six Months difference, which being so inconsiderable, what need then why the Evangelist should say Christ was, when he was past twenty nine? And when there was no ground to doubt of it, doth this become the Wisdom of the Apostle inspired by the Holy Ghost? Is it fit to say and cry out as John did, I am sent to prepare the way for the coming of one that is already come, Joh. 1.26. that standeth among you whom you know not, and whom he doth point at when he saith, ver. 29. this is the lamb of God [Page 148]which taketh away the sins of the world; to speak thus, Doth it become one who hath the right use of his Rea­son? Besides, it cannot be supposed the time when John began first to preach here to be understood, for he saith, the Word or Christ was before he mention­eth any thing of John's Being or Preaching, for he speaks of him but in Verse 6th. but in the very first he saith the word was, he could not say John had prea­ched before he had said he was; but this needeth no longer being insisted upon.

Another Text we make use of, is this, Joh. 1.15. he that comes after me is preferred before me, for he was before me; this precedency may not be understood literally of the Birth and Manhood of Christ, for John was born before him, wherefore it must be upon a nobler Account, he pre-existed before John, so he had ano­ther Being, which not being Human nor Angelical, must need be Divine, according to which he was in the beginning of the World, which concludeth for Eter­nity; this Priority they interpret of Dignity, not of Time, we do not deny that in Gifts and Office Christ was much beyond John, and suppose we should un­derstand the Words preferred before me, of a Dig­nity, what will they say to the following Words for he was before me? according to their Sense, the mean­ing will be this, he is preferred before me, for he was preferred before me, which is to prove the same by the same; when will they give over destroying the Analogy of Faith, tearing Scripture in pieces, and pulling it over head and Ears to serve their Turn, and their Ends? If we consider Christ only as a Man, John as to that time had the priority of Gifts, for as he was conceived before the Body of Christ was; so Luke 1.15. he was filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb; as to his Office he exercised it before Christ did his, for he went not about it till after he had been baptized by John, after which he was forty Days in the Wilderness tempted of the Devil, and he began his Ministry, Matt. 4.12. after he heard that John was cast into prison; wherefore this before me, must be taken in some other Sense than relating to Gifts and Office; [Page 149]for this would not sufficiently commend God's great Love towards us, if only he had endued his Son with excellent Qualities, as doth perfectly his not sparing but delivering him up to be put to Death for us, his own Son whom in four places the John 1.14, 18. chap. 3.16, 18. Evangelist calls God's only begotten Son; it is to be taken notice of, that John doth not say he is preferred before me, because he is, but because he was before me; Why should he make use of the Preterimperfect-Tense but to denote the time when Christ was preferred before him; so that he was before John, when he was made so eminently Excellent; his Office was put upon him when thirty Years old, but he had long before been endued with those heavenly Qualities which he was invested with, and there was never a part of Christ's Life, wherein that Son of God was not more Excellent than John; so his Office could not be the Cause of his being so highly preferred above John.

The next Verse makes the matter plainer, of his fulness have we all received and grace for grace, where­in John doth attribute unto Christ a priority of Cause as of Dignity, for he thereby owneth that whatsoever Excellency is in him and others, is derived from the Fulness of Christ as the Stream is from the Spring; the Fulness was in Christ first, and thence John and o­thers received it; wherefore he is said to be before John, as the Head-Fountain is before that which flows out of it; How then could that be, that John and every one else he meaned, when he said, we all, had received of Christ's Fulness and Grace for Grace, be­fore he had taught, baptised with the Holy Ghost, or done any Miracle? This is explained in the next Verse, for the Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ; the Lord being the sole Dispenser of Grace and of Truth; no wonder if we all for the present and in time past, received all we have out of his Fulness; now this Fulness is not only in one but in all kinds, Colos. 1.19. for it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; not excepted the Fulness of the Godhead: chap. 2.9. for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. But how can this [Page 150]agree with their Opinions? For if Grace and Truth hath not been bestowed by Christ till after he had preached and revealed it; How could John Baptist and others before they heard Christ preach, receive it? if Christ was a meer Man, he could not communi­cate Grace before he was born, to those that were before him; wherefore he must need have some other Way and Capacity to do't, namely according to his Divinity, which Truth if unreasonable Men would but own and give God Glory, and not wander a­gainst Scripture after their own Fancies and Imagi­nations; this would set all things at Right here; be­cause like a drowning Man, they are content to lay hold upon any thing that lays in their way; out of the thirtieth Verse, they object that John calls him a Man, we never denied Christ to be a Man in which respect he was after John, but we also own him to be the Word God according to which he was before him: We read of Angels under Man's shape by Abraham and Lot received into their House they were both Angels and Men, but under a different No­tion, not Angels as Men, otherwise all Men would be Angels, not Men as Angels, for thus all Angels would be Men; wherefore they were Angels in one respect, and Men in another. Somewhat after this manner, John calls our blessed Saviour, sometimes God and sometimes Man, that is now after one Na­ture, then after the other, for the Person of the Lord Jesus is both God and Man.

To prove Christ's Eternity, we make use of a third place in the same Gospel, John 8.58. Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was I am; the words are very plain, upon the occasion of Christ's saying, that Abraham rejoyced to see his day, which the Jews interpreting of a real Vision, they objected an apparent Contradiction, thou art not fifty years old and hast thou seen Abraham? for they inferred that if Abraham had seen his days, then he had seen Abraham, who lived so long before, and so they look'd upon't as an impossible thing; but he confirms what he had said with these words, before Abraham was I am; they fell into a Rage, and took [Page 151]up Stones to cast at him; for they had a right Notion of what he aimed at in his Discourse, namely, to raise himself above all the Men in the World; amongst them they lookt upon Abraham, whom they boasted to call their Father, to be the Chief, and they believed none under God was greater than he; wherefore after he had said, if a man keep my saying, he shall never see death; they grew mad against him, and presently said, Abraham is dead, so are the Prophets, and so asked him, Whom makest thou thy self? they conclu­ded it could be no less than God, whereby it appears how all along they had a true apprehension of his meaning, though they were enraged at it, and could not hear it. It is a wonder to see how Socinians go about to corrupt and tear this Text all to pieces with their vain Sophistry; indeed the place is so close upon them, that they will leave nothing unattempted to wrest it; the Question is about Christ's Age, the Jews would measure it by what appears of him, and as he is a Man, in which respect he denieth not what in their Sense they say about his Age, but he will lead them farther, and make them look higher, and consider him for what he was, as he had said to them from the beginning, namely, the Son of God sent by the Fa­ther to save the World. To that purpose upon this occasion he mentions that his appearing unto Abraham in the plain of Mamre, for 'tis said, the Lord appeared, Gen. 18.1, 2. and Abraham knew him among the two Angels in the shape of Men, by his addressing himself to him, pay­ing the respect of bowing himself towards the Ground, and calling him my Lord; this Visit under the Figure of a Man, whereby he gave him earnest and assurance, how he would dwell among Men, when of his Seed he would be made Flesh; this, I say, was a notable means whereby Abraham saw his Day and rejoyced, the Day of that Visit he saw with the Eye of his Body, and the Day of his Incarnation, with the Eye of Faith, which our Saviour in this present Text of John lays not upon the Promise of his coming, but upon his pre­existence unto his Incarnation.

Now contrary to this scope of the place, Socinians do forge this to be the meaning according to a tran­sposition [Page 152]they make of the Words, I before Abra­ham be made, say to you that I am, that is, Christ, not considering that Abraham was long before, and dead as the Jews said, but then they go farther, with his being made, they understand Father of many Na­tions. I shall say but very few words as to the Gram­matical Construction; for indeed the Matter and true Meaning, is plainly this, I was, existed and had a Being before Abraham was born, but was renders the Sense when be or is doth alter it, because it be­ing spoken of Abraham, doth relate to time past, and not to come. Gen. 17. [...]. Abram had his Name changed into that of Abraham, signifying a Father of Nations, a Thousand and several Hundreds of Years before Christ; yet they would have him to be such, only after the coming of our Saviour into the World, as if he had not been so before; when Paul calls him the Father of us all believers. They rise a Difficulty also about the word I am instead of I was, which is an usual Enallage in Scripture, when the present time is used for the praeterit or past, and here there is a Reason for it, which is this, that the present Tense is more proper than the praeterit, to represent God's perma­nent Being; besides that, the Evangelist useth the pre­sent, least Christ should seem to speak of a non-per­petual, of a discontinued and interrupted Being and Existence, by reason of the several Opinions a­bout him, as if he was John Baptist raised from the dead, Elijah, Jeremiah, or some other. Now the use of the present Tense was very proper to remove all Grounds of entertaining such Thoughts, and to signify a constant, permanent and unchangeable Being; in Scripture we have Instances of this, how when God is described, the Verb I am in the present Tense, an­swers together to the Verb of the praeterit, as Psal. 90.2. and Prov. 8.24, 25. this doth most properly express an uninterrupted and immutable Being, which passeth not away; such is God's, such also is Christ's, fully and unquestionably described in all Tenses, which is much to our present purpose; Heb. 13.8, Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to day, and for ever. Abraham rejoyced at that Day when he invited and entertain'd in his House [Page 153]the Son of God under the shape of a Man; for tho' there were three, one of them he called my Lord and chiefly addressed himself to him, Gen. 18. who promised of himself, and in his own Name to give him a Son by Sarah; shall I hide said the Lord, from Abraham that thing which I do, and afterwards communed with him; surely Abraham was glad to see this day. But when our Saviour saith, before Abraham was, I am, he intended thereby to give himself some preference before Abraham; the Name, I am, which on this oc­casion he makes use of, is observable, for it doth re­late to that Name which God gave himself when he sent Moses into Egypt, Exod 3.14. Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I am hath sent me; which Name is proper to God, whereunto in the New Testament answers that of Alpha and Omega, Rev. 18.11. and 12.13. which the Lord Jesus attributes unto himself; and if he created the World that is made of nothing as by God's Grace, we shall prove in its place, Heb. 1.12. he must need have been before Abraham, and as he made, so he shall destroy or change it, whether as to the Substance, or only as to the Quality, 'tis not material to our purpose; but whilst Heavens and Earth shall wax old and be chang'd, 'tis said of him, but thou art the same and thy years shall not fail; by these different Expressions, one and the same thing, namely, his absolutely unchang­able and eternal Existence is intended, which being joyn'd with his other Attributes for our good, may prevent all the Fears, and answer all the Doubts of those that trust in him.

But let us take notice of the Injury which unwor­thily they attempt to put upon Christ, as if he were only in Jest, and to trick the Jews with not answer­ing the thing in question, which is about the time when Christ was, whether or not before Abraham? What he was? Whether something more Excellent and more Antient than a Man? The Jews Objection was very specious, How could one whom they look'd upon a meer Man, not fifty Years old, have seen Abraham? Well, our Saviour answers directly to the Point, that he was before Abraham, but Soci­nians with their wicked Sophistry would unworthi­ly [Page 154]make him shuffle the matter, for instead of making him to answer how it could be that within such a vast distance of time he and Abraham could have seen one another, they bring him only as mentioning the time when he was speaking to them to this purpose, before Abram be Abraham, that is, the Father of many Nations, I say unto you, I am the Christ; this quibbling Trick I would think they learned of Papists, (though I take Socinians capable to forge as bad as any Papists) who in the case of the Malefactor upon the Cross with altering a Comma, do quite alter the Sense; our Saviour thus speaking to him, verily I say unto thee, Luk. 23.43. to day thou shalt be with me in para­dise; but to settle their Purgatory instead of, to day thou shalt be, &c. they would have it, I say unto thee to day. I would find to know what a cause Christ hath given them to pass such a Judgment upon him, who ever used to answer to the purpose, to the Words and Mind of those whom he discoursed with? What could in so serious a Matter, and of so high a Concern­ment as this is, to make him alter his method and differ from himself, when his main Design, was all along to make himself truly known for what he was; yet here as much as in them lays, they make him say nothing to the purpose of the Jew's Question and Objection; as they attempt to rob him of his Divi­nity, so they would of that Heavenly Wisdom, Gentle­ness and Readiness to do good which ever appeared in his whole Carriage; here not only they make him not to speak pertinently to the Question, but also they so mangle his answer, that Men cannot tell what to make of it; Is the Etymology or Derivation of Abraham's Name to any purpose here? The Jews look'd upon it as very absurd that Christ so young should have been in Abraham's time; the Lord doth plainly and to the purpose answer, before Abra­ham was, I am, and with this very strong Assevera­tion by him used only in Matters of the highest Con­cernment, Verily, verily, I say unto you, not once but twice, Verily; now we know him to be Rev. 3.14. Amen, Amen, the true and faithful witness.

Their Brains are fruitful in idle Inventions, for up­on [Page 155]this place they say one thing more wherein Armi­nians joyn with them: How this before Abraham was I am, is to be understood of a Divine Constitu­tion or Pre-ordination, that is in the fore-sight and fore-knowledge of God, Christ was before Abraham, but not really so in Existence; but Christ here saith not he was fore-ordained, but that he was and ex­isted, I am; we deny not Christ to have been fore-ordained, for 1 Pet. 1.20. Peter, saith, he was, but we deny that to be the Ground of his Divinity, or that in this place Christ saith so, when the Question is about his Deity; being pre-ordained of God is no Prerogative of Christ, for it is Rom. 8.29. common to all believers; Is it not ridiculous for one to say he is older than others, because he was fore-ordained of God before they were born? This I shall conclude with one thing more I must say to it, how our Saviour in this place saith clearly and positive­ly before Abraham, was I am; the Jews understood how thereby he made himself to have been before Abraham, which could not be upon that account of his human Birth, our Saviour doth not go about to shew they were mistaken, which if it had been, the Evangelist would have spoken of; on the contrary, he did run the hazard of being stoned; and indeed, he not only is before Abraham, but also Colos. 1.17. before all things, and Persons, Adam not excepted.

One place more I shall speak of, and then shall have done with this Head; I am Rev. 1.8. Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, which was, and which is to come; the Almighty. As before Alpha there is no other Letter in the Green Al­phabet, which Language the Book is written in; so before the Son of God there is nothing, and as of all things that are, Christ existed the first, so he shall exist the last, and herein the Metaphor doth exactly fit, and is explained by the following words, the beginning and the ending, which though v. 4. be spoken of the Father, yet it hinders not, but is here attributed unto the Son, neither is there any thing in the whole Verse, but what is adapted to the Son as well as to the Father; as to the Name Lord, How often is the Son in the [Page 156]New Testament called by that Name? As to the ex­pressions which is, which was, and which is to come, taken out of the Isa. 44.6. Prophet, which are the explana­tion of the word Jehovah, they belong to Christ, as we have before proved the Name doth, and so doth the Thing, for in a place already quoted, the Signification is applied to the Lord Jesus, Christ the same yesterday, to day, and for ever; he that is named Alpha, the begin­ning, and the first, and which is, may well be called he which was; and he who is called Omega, the end and the last, may also be well called he that is to come which is properly and in a special manner spoken of Christ, as it appears out of this Heb. 10.37. yet a little while and he that shall come, will come; and this is spoken of him in Rev. 17. and 3.11. and 16.15. and 22.7, 12, 20. several places of this Book. Besides that, in this whole Chapter the Apostle's Design is to de­scribe the Son not the Father, as it doth appear by the foregoing and following Verses, so 'tis not likely he would in this v. 8. describe the Father only, and see­ing in this first Chapter, he was to dispose the seven Churches to receive the Epistles by the Son to be di­rected to them, with that Submission and awful Re­verence as became them; so to prepare their Spirits, it was a due Course to make an ample and glorious Description of the Son; for the Father doth not im­mediatly in his Person shew himself to or speak with Men, but the Son doth, therefore there is a kind of Necessity that he should make his own Description; seeing therefore how the Words and the Things of the Description do belong to Christ; why should not we say that the Description is adapted for him? This In­terpretation of ours is natural with the words and scope of the place, it neither altereth, taketh away, or addeth thereunto, as their Interpretation doth, with wresting, forcing and restraining it to the Person of the Father, when the Son absolutely without any li­mitation or restriction calls himself Alpha and Omega, beginning and ending, first and last; but it seems they would teach the Spirit of God how to speak: though nothing can be said more fully and plainly than this is, he doth not say only [...] am, but joyns [Page 157]the Person [...] I, so when in the several Epistles Rev. 2.7.17.26. to him that overcometh, he promises, to give to eat of the tree of life, and of the hidden manna, Chap. 2.5.12.21. the white stone, and the new name, with power over the nations, &c. and Chap. 22.17. the water of life freely to him that is thirsty; he doth not send them to the Father, but offer­eth it himself as to the John 4.10. Woman of Samaria; nay, in his state of Humiliation he calls Men Chap. 7.37, 38. to come to him­self; much more after his exaltation and glorisi­tion.

But to conclude this, Matt. 11.28. and at the same time shew how this is simply spoken of Christ, not only in this 8 verse, but also in the 11 and 17, it appears out of the 12 and 13, where he turned to see the voice that spake with him; and in the midst of the seven Candleiticks, he saw one like unto the Son of Man, this could not be the Father, and if any doubt should remain, 'tis cleared ver. 17, 18. for St. John having known him, fell at his Feet, he said not as the Angel, see thou do not, but he said to him, fear not, I am he that liveth and was dead, which cannot be spoken of the Father who never died; and these words, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end are spoken Rev. 21.6. again, and all the general Words spoken asunder in this Book, are toge­ther repeated, I am Alpha and Omega, Chap. 22.13. the beginning and the end, the first and the last; and here as they be­gan, so they will end; for they will own Christ to be the first, because say they, he is the first that shewed Men the way of Salvation; But did not the Prophets and John Baptist, before Christ was manifested and preached the Gospel, shew Men the way of Salvation? Which way did Patriarchs, Prophets and Miartyrs go to Heaven, and could be saved if they had not known the way to Salvation, before Christ began to preach the Gospel? And were not after his Ascension many things conducing to the way of Salvation, declared by his Apostles? If he be the first, only because he first taught Men the way to Glory and Immortality, he be­ing the last as well as the first, must also be the last to enter into it, which how false it is, let the Enemies themselves be the Judges.

There is one thing more material to prove the Eter­nity [Page 158]of Christ, which I must not omit for as what I have said proves him to have been before Abraham and other Patriarchs, so what remains will shew him to have been before the World it self, the words are plain. 1 John 17.5. And now O Father glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world began. Our blessed Saviour never spoke to Men any thing but the Truth, much more to his Father, but most of all upon this occasion when he was about leaving the World and going to him; there is a Glory which Christ desired should be made known to all, namely, that of the Gospel, which is called the glorious Gospel; and this Glory of Christ was effected in the Preaching thereof all the World over. Paul alone published it Rom. 15.19. from Jerusalem into Illyricum; the Gospel certainly tended to the Glory of God, the Father's Mercy being highly revealed there­in, and of this he saith, I have glorified thee on the earth, and as he had glorified the Father, making known his Name and Glory unto Men, which before had never been done to that degree, this work which the Father had given him to do, being over, he now speaks for himself; and now O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self: To be glorified with God, is to be glorified with the same Glory which he hath in Hea­ven with God, in the Bosom and at the Right Hand of the [...]ather, with an equal Majesty and Honour with the Father, served by innumerable Legions of Angels, which is a Glory unknown to the World; this is a Glory which the Son of God had before the World was: This Stile of Scripture, before the World was, signifies Eternity; for there was nothing created before the World, seeing in the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, and every thing therein contain­ed; but John saith not, in the beginning the Word was made or began to be, but was had his being, consequently eternal, for beyond the beginning of the World there is nothing but Eternity; time began at the Creation. I say if Christ had a Glory with the Father before the World was, then Christ was before the World, for a Glory he could not have, except he had a Being, but here Christ says he had a Glory [Page 159]with the Father before the World was, and we be­lieve he speaks Truth; therefore Christ was before the World; this cannot be understood of Human Na­ture, which he took only in time, long after the World was created, therefore it must be spoken of a Divine Nature; for before the Creation of the World there was nothing but God.

Notwithstanding this positive Truth, they give our blessed Saviour the lye, and say he had no real Glory before the World was, but only by a Decree and Ap­pointment, he was ordained to have a Glory: Good Lord! When will this People let the Son of God have his own? They go about to rob him wholly or in part of every thing he hath. Christ says not, the Glory which thou didst decree or ordain for me, but which I had, was in possession of, and enjoyed. To have a title to and be in possession of a thing are two very different things; we defie them even to give any in­stance how to have, absolutely taken, signifies to be appointed to have; if after this rate Men allow their Fancies such a latitude as to forge new and unusual Significations to the words of Christ, we can be sure of nothing. Whensoever any one is absolutely said to have a thing, it implys him to be at the same time, for he that is not can have nothing; 'tis true, we are said 2 Cor. 5.1. Heb. 10.34. to have a building of God, an house not made with hands. eternal, in the heavens, and to have in hea­ven a better and an induring substance: Believers are indeed said to have such things, but when are they said so? certainly not before the World was, nor be­fore they were themselves, but after they are. What is said also 2 Tim. 1.9. of the grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, makes nothing against us, 'tis one thing to have something given us, and another actually to have it, the first is the act of the Giver, the second of the Receiver, we have not now really that which is given us, till after we received it, one may have a Place in Reversion which may be he shall never have; Lands may be given me by a Will which I cannot be laid to have till I am actually in possession thereof, as it never was heard of, that any [Page 160]one gave any thing before he was, so none can re­ceive any thing before he is; besides in the Text now in question 'tis not simply said, that Grace was given us, but given us in Christ Jesus; now this Grace is so given us in Christ, that he must have it before he can communicate it unto us; so then we cannot be said to have a thing when we have it not, though we be appointed to have it: These two things are different: Who may say that Paul was an Apo­stle of Jesus Christ, had Faith in Christ, Charity and brotherly Love when he was an Unbeliever, Contra ra­tionem ne­mo sobrius cont. scrip­turam ne­mo Chri­stianus, cont. Ec­clesiam nemo pa­cificus. a Blas­phemer and Persecuter. To Socinians we may ap­ply this Saying, No Man may be called sober that is against Reason, nor Christian that is against Scripture, nor peaceable that is against the Church; for they speak against Reason, Scripture, and the general Consent of the Church.

If their Exposition be true, Christ might and would have said, Glorifie me with the Glory which thou hast decreed for me before the World was; then he had said nothing but what every Believer may say, how that before the World was God fore-ordained them to the Glory which they shall enjoy at the last day; so might every one else say, before the World was I was fore-ordained to have Wife, Children, Lands, Offices, &c. nay, according to their opinion, at the same time when Christ asked that Glory he had it, if to be appointed thereunto be to have it, and if he had it, why should he ask for it? If Christ had said nothing but this, And now, O Father, glorifie thou me with thine own self, it had suffi­ciently declared the Sense of our Adversaries, with­out saying any thing of the Glory which he had with him; so with thine own self, they explain to be in Heaven, as if he had said, in thy House; but if that had been Christ's intention, he would have said, Glorifie me in Heaven; but since he expresses him­self otherwise, and makes mention of the Glory which he had with the Father before the World was, if we can believe he well knew what he would have, and was able to express his Thoughts, then we must say he had very good cause for all he said.

Now we shall proceed to some other of his Attri­butes: Christ's Omnisci- he knows all things, Omniscience and perfect Knowledg and Wisdom Rom. 16.27. which belongs to God a­lone, whereby God in a divine manner understands himself and every thing else, doth also belong to the Son, who saith to the exclusion of all Creatures, Mat. 11.27. No man knows the Son but the Father, neither knows any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. And Rev. 19.12. no man knoweth his name but himself; thus he hath a perfect knowledg of his Deity and of every thing else, even of the most contingent, whereby the true God is distinguished from all and every Creature; this also belonged to the Lord Jesus, as he sometimes foretold his Disciples, and in the case Mat. 21.2. of the Ass and Colt, and Luk. 22.10, 13. of pre­paring the Passover, and to Peter John 21 19. the manner of his Death, and all the Prophets being acted by his Spirit, foretold things to come, that holy Spirit Ch. 16.13, 14. shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you, and Rev. 13.10. the testimo­ny of Jesus is the spirit of prophesie: And to make this the more excellent and conspicuous, he attri­butes unto himself that which no body will deny to belong unto God alone, Psal 7 9. and 26.2. & 1 Sam. 16.7 The righteous God tryeth the heart and reins, the Heart is unsearchable to any but to God alone, Thou, even thou only, saith Solomon 1 Kings 8, 39., knowest the hearts of all the children of men; but Christ doth attribute it to himself Rev. 2.23, I am, he which searcheth the reins and hearts, and John 2.24, 25. he knoweth all men, and what was in man, and needed not that any [...] should testifie of man, for, Mat. 9 4 he knew the thoughts of the Scribes, and [...]. 12.25. the thoughts of the Pharisees; [...] ^‖ be knew the desires of his disciples; withal ^⁂ he [...] from the beginning who they were that believed not: and who should betray him, he knew all things that should come upon him, and in few words, he know all things.

Christ is present every where, Christ's Omnip [...]e­sence. which argueth his Immensity and Infiniteness, which elsewhere I have spoken of; whereunto I may add, how though ab­sent [Page 154]in the Body he saw Joh. 1.48 49. Nathanael under the Fig­tree, whereupon he call'd him the Son of God, the King of Israel, a Title which Scripture gives the only true God; and also he affirmeth this when he saith, Chap. 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; by the Son of Man he meaneth himself, who, if we must believe, was in Heaven when to Nicode­mus he spoke these words upon Earth, which cannot be understood of his Humanity which he assumed in the Virgin's Womb, but of his Divinity, which a­lone is infinite. But here they take exception, and say, that by to be in Heaven is meaned only to know and understand heavenly things according to Paul's saying Phil. 3.20. and Ephes. 2.6., Our conversation is in Heaven: The Con­versation of pious Men in Heaven, is said in oppo­sition to worldly mindedness, when they were said to be quickned in Christ, and as expressed, to fit toge­ther in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, they say, not to be in Heaven, but in and with Christ in heavenly things, Colos. 3.3. Our life is hid with Christ in God: We do not intend to prove the Divinity of Christ bare­ly, because one who is upon Earth is said upon any account to be in Heaven, but out of this, that Christ is said not only to be descended from Heaven, and is again to go up, and out of this, that though he be come down from Heaven, he is still there, whence we may well conclude for his Omnipresence. Now to descend from Heaven upon Earth, and to ascend from Earth to Heaven, are spoken of Christ only as to his Person, and thereby is meaned his coming up­on Earth: There is such another place Eph. 4.9. to the same purpose about ascending and descending. This we must say, that whilst Christ in his human Nature was on Earth, with his divine he filled the Heavens: Elsewhere he explains it as to places, Mat. 18.20. and 28.20. Christ's Almighty­ness. Where two or three are gathered in my name there I am: As to time, For I am with you always unto the end of the world.

The Lord Jesus is also almighty: Omnipotency, which is an infinite Power incommunicable to any Creature, for all are uncapable of it, Christ applyes it [Page 155]to himself, when he saith Rev. 1.8., he is the Almighty. I have already shewed how every thing in that Verse Christ speaks of himself, only I shall add how the same Name is given him in several other places of the Book, We give thee thanks, Ch. 11.17. O Lord God Almigh­ty, which art, and was, and art to come, which are the same Expressions used in that v. 8. and what is the reason of the Thanksgiving, 'tis in the latter end of this same Verse, Because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned, so who is here said to reign? The Lord God Almighty; but to reign be­long to Kings, and if we go back to v. 15. this we shall find, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, who is called Ch. 19.16. Vers. 6. King of Kings, and Lord of Lords; and if we go back to v. 6. we may hear Alleluia, the reason is, for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth; and in another place we read of the song of the lamb. which I sup­pose no Man doubts to be the Lord Jesus, and what is the Song? Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty: He is the Almighty God, and certainly we have as many Evidences of his Omnipotency as there be Miracles wrought by him: And if God the Father be Almighty, as they will not deny him to be, the Son must also be Almighty, John 5.19. for whatsoever things the father doth, these also doth the son likewise.

Unchangeableness belongs to the true essential God, Christ's Immuta­bility. but thou art the same, saith the Psalmist, 102.27. and Christ is unchangeable in his Words and Promi­ses, Matt. 24 35. Heaven and earth pass away, but my words shall not pass away; for 2 Cor. 1.20. All the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen; and Rev. 19.11. He is called faith­ful and true.

Other Names and Attributes there are in Scripture, which though not incommunicable, yet are so emi­nently spoken of the Divinity, that they are almost equivalent to it; so that they be fixed in God as their Spring, and in the Creature but detivatively and as it were a small Drop in comparison with the vast Ocean; and these being attributed unto Christ by way of Excellency, do not only illustrate, but also [Page 156]prove his Divinity: I shall speak but few words a­bout them; the first is the highest, which indeed I find in Scripture never to be spoken of Men in the superlative degree: This is spoken of Christ in the place where it is said Gen. 14.18, 19, 20., Melchizedec was the Priest of the most high God, equivalent to the word high­est, and in the two following Verses 'tis repeated, so that no less than thrice the Name most high is set down, which I conceive to be not without cause, and may be in relation to the most holy and blessed Tri­nity. Well, this Name is attributed unto the Lord Jesus, as what Zacharias said of his Son John Luke 1.76., And thou child shalt be called the Prophet of the highest, for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to pre­pare his ways: So the Attribute is given to the Per­son therein spoken of, which no Man may question to be the Lord Jesus: This was given him by the Multitude, and approved by him upon his entrance into Jerusa [...]em, for they cryed, saying Mat. 21.9. Hosanna to the son of David, Hosanna in the highest; and though as I said, this be simply proper to God, and 1 Tim. 6.15. be­longing only to him, yet being joyned with the Name of God, is attributed unto Christ Acts 16., These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew un­to us the way of salvation; Servant of Christ is a Ti­tle which Paul doth usually take upon him. Who this Most High God is, we read in the next Verse, Jesus Christ, in whose Name he commanded the Spirit to go out, which he did the same hour. The word the blessed with an Article, doth, as I have had occasion to shew, signifie the same as God; and 'tis said of the Son of God Psal. 72 17., All nations shall call him blessed, and the Multitude, in the fore-quoted place called him so, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; and in that noted place the Apostle joyneth both blessed and God, and gives him Rom. 9.5, who is over all God blessed for ever: Paul saith not, Let him be in a way of Wish and Desire, nor he shall be, as if then the thing was not, but only to come, but he saith, He is God blessed for ever, thereby meaning his Being and Nature. In Scripture Isai. 14. Psal. 71.23. the Name of [Page 157] holy one is given to the only true God whom Israel doth worship. This also is spoken of Christ Psal. 16.10., Thou wilt not suffer thine holy one to see corruption; and Peter Acts 2.27. and 3.14. doth certainly declare those words to have been spoken of Christ. The Angel said to Mary, Luke 1.35. Therefore also that holy thing, or holy one, for it was a Person, which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God; before he was born Holiness was his Attribute; and 'tis Rom. 1.4 according to the spirit of holiness that he was declared to be Son of God with power; he not only is holy, but also Holiness it self in the abstract: To him sitting upon a Throne the Seraphims Isai. 6.1, 2, 3. cryed Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory, which is by John Joh. 12.41. applyed unto Christ, These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory and spake of him; and Rev. 4.8., The four beasts [...]est not day and night, saying, holy, holy, holy Lord, God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come; which last is in S. John's stile a Description of the first, these words spoken to him who sits upon the Throne, and I hope none will deny Christ is sit­ting upon the Throne, as absolutely expressed in se­veral places of this Book: So Daniel Dan. 9.24. called him The most holy.

Other Names and Titles Scripture doth appro­priate unto Christ, which are all strong Demon­strations of what he is, namely, the natural Son of God; which I only shall name; for indeed it would be almost an endless Work to insist upon all Testimo­nies of Scripture upon the matter: He is then King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Rev. 17.14. and 19.16. King and Lord of glory; Psal. 24.7, 10. compared with 1 Cor. 2.8. Lord of David, Psal. 110. with Matth. 22.44. where 'tis observable, how the same Name given to the Lord spoken [...]f, is also given to the Lord spoken to, as equally belonging to both, [...], and in this sense he is in several places of Scripture called one Lord, 1 Cor. 8.6. and Lord of all, Acts 10.36. because all things were made by him, John 1.3. So the Lord and Saviour, because there is no Salvation in any other, Acts 4.12. Let special [Page 158]notice be taken of Psal. 68. where speaking of Christ according to Paul's interpretation, Ephes, 4.8. he a­mong other high and great Names, is called the Lord God, the God of our salvation, and such more, which certainly do belong only to the true essential God. In Scripture the Names of Lord, God, King, absolute­ly taken, or with the distinction of Israel, are attribu­ted to one and the same Subject, namely, to the true living God, as Isai. 44.6. Zephan. 3.15. com­pared with John 1.49. attributed to Christ. We al­ready have demonstrated how the Names of God and Lord are proper to him; so is that of King simply taken, as we have it in the Description made of Christ's Kingdom by the Psalmist Psal. 45.1, 6., I speak of the things which I have made, touching the king; where in several Verses mention is made of his Glory and Majesty of his Throne, of his Scepter and Kingdom, and is called God, most mighty Lord; Christ to Pilate owned himself to be King, in the Inscription upon the Cross, he was called King of the Jews, which is equivalent to that of King of Israel; and thus it is interpreted by his Enemies, Mark 15.32. though in derision, Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, and for all their jest he was so in earnest, not only in relation to his oecumenical, but upon the account of his natural Kingdom; for essentially he is King of the whole Earth, he is the King that is set upon the holy hill of Sion, Rev. 17.14. and 19.16. whose dominion is from one sea unto another, who hath the heathen for his inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for his possession. The Lamb, that is, Christ, is Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

The Prophet upon a solemn occasion calls him a King, Rejoyce greatly, Zech. 9.9. O daughter of Sion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold thy king comes unto thee, he is just, and having salvation, &c. to be compared with Isai. 62.11. and this was literally fulfilled at the time when our blessed Saviour did solemnly enter into Jerusalem, upon which occasion Matthew doth quote the Prophets words: This I press the more, because the Adversaries would have none to be true God but he who is the God and King of Israel.

We know, how to do great things is attributed un­to God: Thus after the return from Captivity the Hea­then said, The Lord hath done great things for them, Psal. 126.2, 3. and they owned it themselves, The Lord hath done great things for us; which great things are also called Won­ders, Thou art the God that dost wonders: Nay, he a­lone, Ps. 77.14. that is, the Lord God of Israel, doth Wonders; for saith David, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, Ps. 72.18. who only doth wondrous things: Wherefore since the Lord Jesus hath done the Wonders which the Lord God of Israel doth and can do, upon the Evidence of these words, it followeth that he is the Lord God of Israel; for this same in the New Testament is spoken of Christ by himself, under the Name of God subjectively, when he had out of the Man driven a Legion of Devils, he commanded him to return to his own House, Luke 8.39 and shew how great things God had done unto him; in the latter end of the Verse the Evangelist giveth an account how the Man obeyed, in these words, And he went his way, and published through the whole city, how great things Jesus had done unto him; so him who had done these great things unto the Man our blessed Saviour speaking of himself, called God, and the Evangelist Jesus, ma­king use of the very same words, How great things God, Jesus, had done unto him; whence it appears, that Jesus is the God that doth great things, that is, the great God, chief and primary God, to speak in their Language, though there be no other true God: Also that the Lord Christ is the God that doth Wonders, as spoken of the true God in the fore-quoted Psalm; for saith Peter Acts 2.22., Jesus was approved of God among you, by miracles, won­ders, and signs.

But to conclude this Head, hence it appears, how those Attributes of God which he hath declared to make us distinctly conceive the Diversity of his Perfe­ctions and Operations, are all applicable and do belong to his Son Jesus Christ, and to none else but him: they without any difference do enjoy the Possession of all things, all mine are thine, and all thine are mine, John 17.10. saith our Saviour to the Father; both have the same infinite Nature and unresistible Power; The Lord God, saith the [Page 160]Psalmist, Ps. 104.3. Acts 1.9. Rev. 1.7. maketh the clouds his chariot, and the Lord Jesus did so, for he went up in a Cloud, and he cometh and will so at the last day come with clouds: in that place where the Prophet foretelleth the coming of Christ, Zech. 14.9. In that day, saith he, the Lord shall be king over all the earth, there shall be one Lord, and his name one, which compared with Ephes. 4.5. and Rev. 11.15. doth shew Christ therein to be meaned, Colos. 2.10 who is the head of all principality and power, as well as of his Church; and hereupon what is said in the Book of Genesis is obser­vable, Ch. 4.26. Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord; that was the beginning of the Church which was for­med in Seth's Family; and this Paul seems to point at, when he saith, Rom. 10.13. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved, which relates to the Christian Church from the Name of Christ, which Name began first in Antioch, Acts 11.26. then Men began to call upon the Name of God Redeemer Jesus Christ. The Church is God's House, for so the Jewish Church, whereof Moses was part, is called by the Apostle; now this Church was built by the Lord Jesus, and thereupon he gives our Saviour that high Preference before Moses, Heb. 3.2, 3, 4. that he who first built the House must be before the House, and before Moses, and the reason is, that he that built all things is God; but the Son of God built not only that Church, but all things besides; so he existed before Moses, and before the Foundation of that Church, yea, before the Foundation of the World too; as under the Name of Wisdom he saith in the place which several times we have occasion to mention, Prov. 8.30. then, that is, be­fore the earth was, I was with him, God, as one brought up with him, and I was dayly his delight, rejoycing al­ways before him; as a Son brought up in his Fathers Bosom, of the same Essence, not upon the account of Adoption; a natural Son is opposed to him that is adop­ted or not begotten of his Fathers Substance; 'tis as of a Forreigner that may be called a naturalized, but not a natural Englishman, admitted to the Rights of an Englishman, but never an Englishman born.

CHAP. VIII. Works proper to God belong to Christ.

WE now proceed to another argument drawn from the Works. Seeing Christ hath done those things which none but the true Es­sential God can do, he must be the true Essen­tial God. This kind of Argument is very strong; for our Blessed Saviour doth often use it as a demonstration of what he was, and a proof of his Divinity, which was the same question be­tween him and the Jews, as is now between us and the Socinians, who, though they impiously deny him to be true God by Nature, yet must own him to be a very rational Man, for indeed his works made him equal with the Father, there­fore he saith, My Father worketh hitherto, John 5.17, 19.33.34, 36. and I work, and to the end they should not mistake his meaning, as if the Father did work as God and he only as Man, to shew there was no dis­parity between his Father's works and his own, he affirmeth, That whatsoever the Father doth, that also doth the Son likewise: and though John was a great man among them, and had born witness to the Truth, how he was the Son of God; wherein by the by, more and more to shew who he was, and that he wanted no such evidences, as being far above them, he declared, But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye may be saved. He said it only out of compassion, and to condescend to their weakness, for he had a more considerable Evidence; I have, saith he, greater witness than [Page 162]that of John, and what's that? the works which the father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me that the father hath sent me. And upon all occasions he doth appeal to these works, John 10.32, 37, 38. Many good works have I shewed you from my father, for which of those works do ye stone me. And a few verses lower he offereth to be judged by his works, If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: And to shew how all this tended to prove his Divinity, he saith, at the latter end of the verse; That ye may know and believe that the father is in me, and I in him. And even when he was alone with his Disciples, after he had eaten the Passeover, he taketh notice how their not believing his works, was a sign that they hated both him and the fa­ther: And those very works which thorough hardness of heart and unbelief, they would not be convinced by, should at last be evidences to condemn them: John 15.22, 24. For, if I had not come and spoken unto them, they had had no sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin: and, If I had not done among them the works which no other man did, they had not had sin. O the works of Christ, though sometimes they are not attended with a convincing, shall at last have both a convincing and condemning power against those who refuse to own him to be one with the Father, and the Fa­ther to be in him, and he in the Father equally with him God blessed for ever.

Now these works are of several kinds, attri­buted to Christ, first in general, what things so ever the Father doth, Joh. [...].19. these also doth the Son likewise: This is absolutely and simp­ly said, without any limitation and restriction whatsoever, and of whatsoever nature they be, and this he doth without any let or opposition to hinder him, according to the working where­by he is able to subdue all things unto himself, all things without exception: Phil. 3.21. Then divine [Page 163]works are in particular attributed to the Son as Election, for the Elect at the last day to be gathered from the four Winds, Matth. 24 31. from one end of Heaven to the other, are called his Elect, and Election is an act immanent, so are also the acts transient which are of two sorts. First of Na­ture. Secondly of Grace. Of Nature it is double, either Creation, or Providence which is Pre­servation.

Creation is an incommunicable work of God, the power whereof he never imparted to any Creature, but 'tis proper to Christ, who hath been declared the Son of God with power in those works that are truly divine and proper only to God, as Creation is. Isal. 44.24. Job 9.6, 7, 8. &c. I am the Lord that maketh all things by my self, which Job testi­fieth in several particulars; and this is given as a characteristical mark, to distinguish the true God from all false Gods, Jer. 10.11. The Gods that have not made the Heavens and the Earth, they shall pe­rish from the Earth, and from under the Heavens. But that very same distinguishing character, is by the Apostles attributed unto the Lord Je­sus, All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. John. 1.3. This is asserted, first by an universal absolute Affirmative, All things were made by him; then by an universal absolute Negative, vers. 10 Without him was not any thing made that was made: According to all rules, nothing can be more positively and clearly exprest than this is, all things, even the world that knew him not, and what other worlds there are, Heb. 11.3. for the worlds were framed by the word of God; in which place the name word is the same as by St. John is used to signifie the Son of God, who is also called, the Power of God, and the Wisdom of God; 1 Cor. 1.24. Psal. [...]36.5. Colos. 1.16. and by his Power and Wisdom made the Heavens, yea, and all things visible and invisible; under which two heads are comprehended all things whatsoever, Bodies and Spirits, such as Angels, and to shew [Page 164]an harmony between the Old and New Testaments, in that as well as in this about the work of Creation, the name word is made use of, Psal. 33.6. for by the word of the Lord were the Hea­vens made, and to shew how all the three Per­sons of the Holy Trinity had a hand in't, 'tis added, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth: Gen. 1. This relates to the [...] dixit, God said, and it was so, and the name Word is by St. John interpreted to be the true God even personally: Now as in Genesis and in the Psalm, God made all by his Word, so in John, all things were made by the word, and as in the Psalm 'tis expresly said, Psal. 33.6. by the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, in a literal not allegorical Sence; why should it not, in John be understood of the natural, created, and not of spiritual things? Since he speaks of things in the Creation long before, not of things to be made hereafter at the preaching of the Go­spel; so that of Gen. 1. and Psal. 33. with John 1. are three Texts parallel relating to the same thing. Now the same manner of expression deuoteth the same thing: The word used in the Creation was not Corporal, because before there was any Creature, but spiritual, and so God, and that word was not directed to An­gels but to things themselves, for God called them by his word, that they should be, where­unto answereth that of the Apostle, [...]om. 4.17. God calleth these things that be not as though they were: And by that very word the Angels were made as every other Creature was, not as by an Instrument; for the particle by is not a sign of an Instrument, but of an order in the Crea­tion. Rev. 19.13. To our purpose, notable is that place, his name is called the word of God, which makes it appear that the name word of God is appro­priated to and appliable to none but him as a Person; if the name belongs to him, then also the thing, as indeed every where in Scripture, [Page 165]the Word, Father and Holy Ghost are distinguish­ed one from another, so John calls him the Word, before he was made flesh, and before the Creation. Herein we may observe Socinians to be worse than A [...]ians, who own­ed Christ to have been from the time of the Creation, when they would have him to have been only from that of his Birth: But he was in the form of God, before he took upon him the form a Servant, he existed before, Phil. 2.6, 7. as indeed before his Incarnation he governed his people, was with them in the Wilderness, gave them meat and drink, for he was the Manna and the Rock out of which they had Water; he was the Angel whom God promised to send be­fore them, and before his being made flesh he reconciled, regenerated, preserved and interced­ed for his people: if this be true, as certain­ly it is according to Scripture, why should he not have been in the beginning of the Creation, and have had a hand in it? For there is the same rea­son for all these; if he existed but one year before his Incarnation, then we may conclude for a hun­dred, and thousands, and so to Eternity, upon the same ground on which he existed before he was man; it could not be according to his hu­manity, for no man can be said to be before he is, but in a different respect from that where­by he is: nothing can resolve this difficulty, or reduce this impossibility into an act, but own­ing him as he is, the Eternal Son of God, who when all things are said to be made and crea­ted, is himself said to be begotten.

Notwithstanding the clearness of this Truth, they use all means to darken it; first, against the 1. and 3. v. all things were mad [...] by him, in the beginning say they of the state of the Go­pel, but nothing more false, if we [...]sider e­very word, and the scope of the [...] was in the beginning, simply said without [...] re­lation to this or that, but absolu [...] [...] be­ginning [Page 166]of all things; then the Evangelist will have us to look higher, when he addeth, the word was with God: And if Christ was in the begin­ning of the Gospel, then he was in the beginning of the world, for as I observed before the Gospel was preached in the beginning of the world, and immediately after the Fall, the Messiah was promised: but as the design of St. John is to assert Christ's divinity, he doth it by degrees, as first In the beginning was the Word, then He was with God: and so to go higher, he saith, He was God: and to shew it farther, he comes to the effect, namely, the Creation of the world, All things were made by him, &c. Secondly, they would darken v. 10. the world was made by him, whereby they understand the world to come; but they forge ambiguities where there is no cause for it, here is the world with the Ar­ticle [...] without any Epithet, and thus it is usually taken for the work of Creation, and they ought to give a reason why in this place the word world should have a rare and unusual signification? and why the Evangelist should bring in ambiguous terms in a thing which he designeth to make plain and clear. Neither are there instances that the name world signifies an age, or a world to come, which is as ab­surd as if one would say this world signifieth this Life; and suppose, world meaneth life to come, as to enjoy it, and to be in Heaven denote the same, it would follow that Christ made Hea­ven, which is part of the work of Creation: If the Evangelist, by the world was made by him, had meant only a new Creation, or renewing of the old, he would have added something to shew it is not to be understood of the old Crea­tion, but there is nothing to that purpose; on the contrary he could not more plainly have said that the World spoken of, is the same as was made by the word: So the Apostle saith positively and absolutely, The world was made by him, but [Page 167]they say it was not made by him, but only re­newed; in this sence they would have these Texts to be understood, He lighteth every man that cometh into the world, and he is Saviour of the world; but as every man is not inlightened and saved by him, for the world knew him not, it must be understood, say they, that he doth what he can to save and renew the world; but they ought to know there is a great diffe­rence between giving Christ the title of Savi­our of the world, and saying He renewed the world, saved and enlightned every man in the world: after this manner, we might say, John Baptist, Paul and every Apostle renewed the world, in as much as they desired and labou­red after that it might be so, yet it would not sound well to say the world was made by John and the Apostles, which must be inferred from thence, if to make the world be only to do what one can to have it renewed: The world was made by him, expresseth two things, the Thing an [...] the Cause; the Thing, the world was made; the Cause, by the Word: and if the first proposition be true, so is the second. Now an effect is visibly seen out of this asserti­on, the world was made.

Another text to prove the Creation of the World by Christ is this: The first born of every Creature. Colos. [...] 15, 16. For by him were all things created that are in Hea­ven; and that are in earth, visible, and invisi­ble, whether they be thrones, or domi [...]ons, or principalities, or powers: [...]ll things were crea­ted by him and for him. This place is clear and full, whence we draw this, he who is the first born of every Creature is in time before every Creature, not that he should thereby be reck­oned among the Creatures, only he therein is [...] a metaphore d [...]noted to be first of all, that in [...] things he may [...] the preeminence, and not [...] accounted of the same kind with others, for [...] not first created but first born: Ye [...] [...] [Page 168]the first born as to be the only begotten; and he may also be called a Creature according to the Flesh, and as he is a man, but not accord­ing to the Spirit: The reason given why Christ is so called, 'tis this, for by him were all things created, which shews plainly that Christ is not a Creature, but the Author of all Creatures, so that he is their Father rather than their Brother, and he by whom all things are created must needs be in time and dignity before all, and he is called the image of the invisible God, not for publishing and preaching the Go­spel for that the Apostles had common with him, but because the Son is so like the Father, that he who seeth the Son seeth the Father, and he is the image of the Father, not as he is the Son of Man, but as he is the Son of God. Neither must this be restrained to Angels and Men, because those two kinds do not contain every Creature, and certainly if it be granted that every rational Creature was made by him, we may easily conclude of all the rest, the more be­cause 'tis universally expressed of every Creature: The sixteenth verse doth explain and much en­large upon the foregoing, and doth first universal­ly and absolutely affirm the whole work of Crea­tion to be the work of Christ, then makes a distribution, as things in Heaven and in Earth, of what nature, rank and degree soever, and this mention of things in Heaven and of things in Earth here expressed, sheweth how the Apo­stles intention is to speak of the first Creati­on and not of the second; this last or renova­tion doth not comprehend all things that are in Earth, but the first doth. Wherefore this last is not spoken of in this place, and tho elsewhere the word Creation be understood of the new and Spiritual Creation, Ephes. 3.9. it doth not follow it must be so here; for there it is spoken of the revelation and predication of the Gospel, which cannot be proved to be here the scope of [Page 169]the place where is to be seen not only the word to Create or Creation, but also the things created, are expressed as clearly as may be. Furthermore, it cannot be denyed, but by in­visible things, as Thrones, Dominions, &c. are meant Angels which were created with or before the World, that is very long before Christ his appearing in the Flesh; but I find no where in Scripture, that since the first Creation they were renewed or created again: The good An­gels needed it not, for they were never defiled, the bad ones are not, for they continue as bad and wicked as ever; so 'tis very strange that amongst the Creatures renewed by Christ, they reckon the Devils themsēlves, and who besides them could ever have thought that in Scrip­ture the bare word Creature, signifies a new Creature; to Create, to Create a New? This is not at all the stile of the word of God, where­in we believe the Apostles spoke with a de­sign to be understood, and not to clog their Writings with Ambiguities, to cause doubts and difficulties: for on the contrary, here he makes things as intelligible as can be to re­move scruples, as when he saith, all things that are in Heaven were by him Created, for fear there should be some doubt about it, he explains it with the words visible and invisible, for in the Heavens are visible things, as Sun, Moon, Stars, and also invisible as Angels.

Now there is no doubt but the Apostle in that commendation he gives of Christ, aimeth chiefly to shew his Dignity and Excellency, as being first born of every Creature; but the Socinians go about robbing him of that Prerogative, for 'tis spoken generally of every Creature without excepti­on; but say they, not so, only of every new Creature; yet the Lord doth excel above e­very Creature good or bad, high or low, and is Lord over all. If they say Christ is the first born of every Creature, only as it is a new Crea­ture; [Page 170]then it must be said the Apostle is to blame for omiting the word new, though so ne­cessary to understand his meaning, which is no better than as much as in them lies, to ridicule the Apostles word, how he is the first born of every Creature, in as much as every Creature is subject to his Dominion, for every thing is subjected to him thus far, as God hath sub­jected every thing unto him. But seeing they own Christ to be in time before every new crea­tures, what shall they say of some who be­fore his birth of the Virgin, were new Crea­tures seeing 'tis he that made them all. If thus under the New Testament, we must conclude it to have been so under the Old, for they could not be such, except they were so made by him. Now as the Apostle begins this verse, so he endeth it, by him were all things created, and all things were created by him; that is to con­firm this Truth beyond all ground of doubt­ing of it, in the same verse, he doth twice set it down, and in the same words with a most important addition last of all, that as all things were created by, so for him, not as means and a medium, but as an efficient and final cause, to him, Psal. 136.5. saith the Psalmist, that by wisdom made the Heavens; 'tis not said in, but by wis­dom as a Person and efficient Cause; for as such is the Son of God represented under the name of Wisdom, Prov. 8. where the Attri­butes therein mentioned belong to a person, the work of creating the Heavens is a distin­guishing Character of the true God by nature, from false Gods Idols, Psal. 96.5. all the Gods of the nati­ons are Idols, but the Lord made the heavens: And Christ is the power of God, 1. Cor. 1.24. and the wisdom of God, by whom the world was created. Let this be added to prove this truth, God by his Son made also the Worlds, Heb. 1.2.10. and this Text being joyned with the two foregoing doth afford this Con­clusion, he by whom God made the world, by [Page 11]whom he made all things, and by whom he made the worlds, certainly was before the world, before all things, and before the worlds; now God by his Son Jesus Christ made the world, all things and the worlds, therefore his Son Jesus Christ was before the world, be­fore all things and before the worlds, and so Eternal: The words of this place are as plain, absolute and extensive as of the others, and be­cause some sophistical distinction of the word world might happen to be invented; therefore to prevent it, he saith worlds in the plural, thereby to cut off the ground of any distin­ction as of this world, and that world, and it seems to leave no place for the distinction by Socinians of the old and of the new world: the original word is [...], ages, wherein are contained all times and temporal things, where­in the world and all things in it are comprehend­ed. But here as in other places they must bring in their own imaginations, for they will have only the new, not the old world to be un­derstood, though the Apostle speaking absolutely, leaves no ground for such notions, and to ca­vil, they say, that to Make, and to Create, are different things, contrary to the stile of Scri­pture, which saith, Acts 14.15. Chap. 17.24, 26. in six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth, which is certainly the same as created, so, God made Heaven and Earth, and the Sea, and all things that are therein: And God that made the world and all things therein. Again, and hath made of one blood all Na­tions of Men, &c. So he is a great stranger to Scripture, who denies to Make the World and to Create the World not to be the same; so, see­ing this shift cannot hold they betake themselves to another, which is, that God made the world by Christ, as a [...] instrumental cause; but that sort of men will go about overturning Heaven and Earth, rather than to depart from their dam­nable opinions, for what can they ground up­on [Page 172]this instrumentality of Christ? For the pre­position by signifieth no such thing, as it appears out of the following places: Gal. 1.1. Eph. 1.1.1 Cor. 1.9. Rom. 11.36. Heb. 2.10. Paul an Apostle, not of men, nor by men, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father: And Paul an Apostle of Jesus, by the will of God. Also God is faithful by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Je­sus Christ our Lord. Elsewhere, for of him and through or by him, and to him are all things. Furthermore, for it became him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, &c. No sign in these or many more places, of the word by signifying any instrumental Cause, God by whom are all things, Colos. 1.17. never made the world by and instrument, but by his word: who not on­ly in Dignity but also in nature and time, is before all things.

The adversaries cannot upon any rational grounds prove that the Apostle meant the world to come, but we want no good reasons to shew how the Creation of the world is to be understood: for first, 'tis neither the idi­om of the Jews, nor the stile of Scripture by the world to understand the future, for out of these words of verse 10. And thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, Heb. 1.10. out of Psal. 102.25. and the heavens are the work of thine hands. I see no cause why the Creation of the world, should not be understood rather than the be­ginning of the Gospel; the ancient earth ra­ther than the new one, and the old Heavens rather than the new: The more because when the Apostle intends to speak of the world to come, he plainly saith it when he speaks of those that have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come. Chap. 6.5. Chap. 2.5. So he doth, when he saith unto the Angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come. So when he hath a mind to say a thing he well knows how to express it. Moreover, if he had said in the present, he males, not in the praeter tense, he might have left [Page 173]some thing more of liberty thereby to under­stand the future, for speaking in the time past he shews how he doth speak of those ages which the praeter tense doth fit better than the future. Furthermore, the worlds or ages in the plural is more proper for ancient times than for that which is to come, for this world hath had several ages, and shall continue to have till the last day; but after that, the world to come shall last for ever, and be all Eternity without end: And when Scripture doth by the name world signifie the future, not only it doth add a di­stinction, as whosoever shall for Christ's sake leave all, Mark 10.29, 30. Luke 18.30. shall in the world to come have life everlasting. But also, ever speaketh in the sin­gular number, the reason is because this world hath several ages, and that which is to come shall have but one: Besides, I must say how the Apostle understands the world which God al­ready had made, and not that which he was to make by his Son, that which was made had a being, but that which was to be made had none, so we must conclude he spoke of things that were, and not of that which was not.

Now that the Lord Jesus, as principal and efficient cause made the world, and so that the word beginning is to be understood of the Crea­tion, it appears out of this, Heb. 1.1, 2. God who at sun­dry times, and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son, which our Saviour represented before, by the parable of the Vineyard and the Husbandmen: Ma [...]. [...]1.33. This Son he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom he made the worlds; Angels are called only God's Ministers, but Christ is called the Son, the first begotten, not made, upon which account the Author of the Epistle affirms, the Son rea [...]l [...] and truly to be God, and proves it out of Psal. 45.6, 7. Thy throne O God is for ever and ever: And this the Apostle still speaking of the same, [Page 174]proves by his having created the world: v. 10. Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the sound, dation of the earth: Observe how the word be­ginning is meant of the Creation of the world, which is attributed to the Son; 'tis added, and the heavens are the works of thine hands, which must necessarily be understood in a literal sence of the Creation of the world, and not of the new Creation of things by the Gospel out of what follows, v. 11. They shall perish, &c. and be changed, &c. This shall be the fate of the natural world, which cannot be said of the work of Regeneration or new Creation, The word was in the beginning, 1 Joh. 1.1. which is the same with from the beginning, as expressed by the same Apostle; that is, of the time of the Creation when things began to be made, that is, from Eternity; by these phrases before the world was, and before the Foundation of the world, the first born of every Creature, that is, before any thing was created, Col. 1.15, 16. as appears by the reason given in the next words; For by him were all things created, &c. For he could not be before himself, and had created himself, which is absurd: In the place 'tis explained, he is before all things in time or dignity, because the maker is always in time before the thing which he made.

This head we shall conclude with the follow­ing Text: 1 Cor. 8.6. But to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him: and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Here the Apostle upon the occasi­on of eating things offered unto Idols, saith, that an Idol is nothing in the world, though it be called God, as many things are called Gods and Lords, yet in reallity are not so, the names of God and Lord do properly belong only to the true God, whom he here opposeth to things falsely so called: As for us, we own but one God, and one Lord, whom he gives proper at­tributes unto; the one God is the Father, of [Page 175]whom are all things, and we in him, the one Lord is Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him, for as all things are of him, of whom all things are made, so all things are by him, by whom they are made; so then as all things are by Christ, he must be before all, not only in dignity, but also in time. Out of this Text, we learn first, that as there being but one Lord, even Jesus Christ, doth not exclude God the Father from being Lord, so there being but one God even the [...] doth not exclude the Lord Jesus from being God also, and the Apostle not only affirms that it is so, but withall, he sheweth how it is, by means of the prepositions of and by here used, all things are of God the Father by the Lord Jesus Christ, all things have the same Principle and Cause, but somewhat in a different manner, all things are of the Father but by the Son, which in the work of making all things, sheweth a sort of distribution thereof in the way of it, and such a kind of subordination, if I may so call it, between the two persons, as if neither of them was precisely the adequate cause of all things, but the person of one God, by the per­son of one Lord, and the person of one Lord, of the person of one God, for if all the same things were not of one God by one Lord, but some of one God, others of one Lord, then the strength of the words of and by, with the Or­der and Coherence between one Lord and one God, would fall, and so the assertion of one God, would be false, because there would be two equally first and immediate principles of all things, than which nothing can be more con­trary to Scripture and reason, for the one God is he who is the Supreme Cause, not of some­things only, but of all, and the one Lord is he by whom not only some, but all things were; and what all these things are, it doth appear out of all the Texts, I upon this point have [Page 176]made use of, being compared together, which can make the thing plain enough to any unbias­sed and unprejudiced man: If here Christ be excluded from being God, by the same reason shall the Father be excluded from being Lord.

But it seems nothing in the world can stop the boundless impiety of men, who with their re­strictions will, as far as they can, confine the Spirit of God within their own Sence: for upon the Text they say by all things we are to understand only those which belong to the Church of Christ and to Christianity as such, which is a meer invention of Socinus's Brain, and not of Christ or of his Apostles: However rather than to be mute, something he will say; that the word all can have no relation to those things that were before him, that is, before he was born of the Virgin, wherein he goes up­on his wrong principle, as if he was not at all before he was born of Mary, for though we own that according to the flesh, Christ was not properly before he was born of her, yet ac­cording to the Spirit he was, as accordingly hath been sufficiently demonstrated; and as to that Spiritual and Divine Being of his, all things were made by him, and he was Lord over all: But this Dominion of Christ he is endeavouring to reduce, not only within the time of our Saviour's being born of the Virgin, but also within that of his Resurrection: But therein he makes a confusion between Christ's purchased and his natural Dominions, which ought well to be distinguished, the first was indeed after his death and resurrection grounded upon our redemption, as formerly the special Right and Dominion of God over the people of Israel, was entailed upon his ha­ving delivered them out of the Egyptian bondage, but tho he had not delivered them, yet still he had been their Lord upon another and more anci­ent account; thus before Christ redeemed us [Page 177]by his death, he had a natural Dominion over all things, he was our Lord because we were the work of his hands, before he was our Lord by a special purchase, for before he humbled himself, and took upon him the form of a Ser­vant, he was in the form of God, Son of, and equal with God, 'tis said indeed, Rom. 14.9. that Christ both died and rose that he might be Lord both of the dead and living, because there the question is about his acquired Dominion; but in this place both are spoken of, for Christ is opposed unto Idols, upon the account of both his Do­minions, of which both, the ground is contain­ed in the words, by whom are all things, and all things are said to be by him, not because he is Lord, but rather he is Lord because all things are by him: He is Lord of all. Acts 10.36.

The Apostle saith absolutely, and without re­striction, of whom and by whom are all things, yet they would have it reduced only to Chri­stians as such, Because 'tis said to us, but 'tis not said of whom or by whom we have all things, or all things are ours, but barely and generally of whom and by whom are all things, without any particular relation to Christians, but this would follow that if according to the several rela­tions we stand in, we should have some things of one and others of another, namely such as creatures, such as men, and such as Christians, we would divide the supreme cause, so that there should not be only one but many, thus not only one God and one Lord, but many, quite contrary to what the Apostle saith: Besides that if such a restriction be put upon the words, one Lord by whom are all things, the same must be layed upon the former, one God of whom are all things whereby they shall presume upon the Father as well as upon the Son, for there is the same reason for both, so that both ought either ge­nerally or particularly to be taken, which how presumptuous an attempt this is, let any impar­tial man judge.

Not only the work of Creation, but also that of divine Providence that is preservation and governing of the world, is attributed un­to Christ; Colos. 1.1 [...]. this is of two kinds, Ordinary, and Miraculous: the first spoken of, when 'tis said and by him all things consist, for in the foregoing verse, having said, by him were all things crea­ted, in this he addeth, by him all things consist, for he not only created, but also preserveth all things, and as 'tis said else where, all things are upheld by the word of his power, Heb 1.3. in which place, as in the foregoing is shewed how he who made the world doth also preserve the same, the two go together, and be inseparable, and in the preservation of this world and works of Nature by him created, he together with the Father, John. 5.17. doth work hitherto: Thus spiritual creatures are preserved in their Individuum, and corporeal in their Species, he gives Food, raiment, and other necessaries unto all, disposes of Times and Seasons, causes his Sun to shine, sends rain, &c. without which concourse of his, the world would soon come to an end, and this is a kind of a second Creation. The exercising of a mi­raculous Providence, is a kind of work which ma­nifest's Christ to be the true Essential God, for such things are beyond and above the power of nature, and a property of the true Lord God of Israel, who only doth wonderous things, and this our Saviour did shew upon some extraordinary occasions in matters of nature, Psal. 72.18. and also of grace: As to the first, when he changed water into wine, rebuked the wind and the Sea, gave the blind sight, made the lame to walk, Matth. 9.33. John. 9. [...]2. curing diseases, healing distem­pers, virtue daily issuing out of him, which made people wonder and admire, because such things, had never been so seen in Israel, nor since the world began, and to say that a great Prophet is risen up among us, and that God hath visited his people and the Gospels are filled up with such miracles which he did in all kinds, and of what nature soever were [Page 179]their infirmities and diseases he cured them all, and as Peter said, was approved of God by miracles, Acts. 2.22. wonders and signs: And in this virtue and power of his own, he gave others power to do the like: But they whom he gave that power to, exercised it not in their or any others but in his name, Matth. 10, 1. Mark. 16.17, 18. Luke. 10.9. to shew how the power of working miracles was only in and from him: in my name they shall cast out devils, speak with new tongues, &c. And work miracles by my power and authority.

Thus the seventy disciples being again returned with joy, said, Luke 10.17. Lord even the devils are subject un­to us thorough thy name: Thus Peter having heal­ed the lame man, said to the people which ran greatly wondering, why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness, Acts. 3.12.16. we had made this man to walk, men being so apt to look upon and fix on second causes and instru­ments, he first goes about to remove those thoughts out of their heads, he directs them to the cause of the miracle, Christ's name thorough faith in his name hath made this man strong, which in the next Chapter before the high Priest and Councel, they solemnly declared, Chap. 4, 10. be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified; by him doth this man stand here before you whole: And in another place, he said, to a certain man, Aeneas, Chap. 9.34. Jesus Christ maketh thee whole: Hereby I shew Christ to have been the spring of miracles, which were done in his name, as before he wrought them himself in his own name, whereby his divinity is evidenced: The disciples could not at all times work mira­cles but Christ could, Lord, said the man, if thou wilt thou canst mare me clean, Matth. 8, 2. John 5.21. and he quickneth whom he will; so he answereth the man, I will, be thou clean and immediately he was cleansed: One thing more must be observed upon this, how Christ did miracles for his own glory, which is not lawfull to say of any man, be [...]ase it be­longeth [Page 180]to God alone, Prov. 16.4. to make all things for himself: Thus of the Lord Jesus after his first miracle 'tis said, John. 2.11. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory: Thus he said himself, that the sickness of Lazarus was y ^eor the glory of God, John. 11.4. Chap. 9.3. that the son of God might be glorified thereby. And so was the man's being born blind, that the works of God should be made manifest in him; that is, that in giving him his sight, he might therein be glorified.

As amongst miracles, raising one from the dead, is the most conspicuous, so therein at se­veral times the Lord Jesus highly manifested his own divine power, but in none so much as when he raised himself, for when he by himself had purged our sins, Heb. 1.3. John. 10.18. he not only rose again from the dead, but also, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high. No man, said he, taketh away my life from me: but I lay it down of my self: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. I see so much of Majesty in those words, and they are spoken with so much assurance, that there­in I perceive the character of his divine Power and Nature, I joyn them together, for I take them to be inseparable, here is the triumph of the Son of God, Colos. 2.14, 15. when not only, he hath blot­ted out the hand writing of ordinances, that was against us, and nailed it to his Cross, but also having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it, for all his euemies and ours received their mortal wound, and laid dead under his Cross, the works of the devil, 1 John 3.8. Hos. 13.14. 1 Cor. 15.54, 55, 56, &c. that is sin he destroyed, and invisibly Satan was crucified with him, O death he was thy plagues, O grave he was thy destruction, he conquered them all, and there­by death which is the last enemy, is by his re­surrection, swallowed up in victory. After his re­surrection, Peter asserted it to be impossible, it should have been otherwise, or that he should [Page 181]be holden of death: Whence Paul exalteth the exceeding greatness of the mighty power of God, Acts. 2.14. Ephes. 1.19, 20. Rom. 1.4: which was wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, which same efficacy, is elsewhere attributed to the spirit of holiness, that is, to the divinity in the Son distinguished from his huma­nity, all which agreeth with what our Saviour had foretold of the temple of his body, John. 2.19.21. de­stroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up again, understood of the temple of his body, he rose not to be, but because he was God; thus much as to matters of Nature.

But Christ doth also works of Grace, all un­derstood under the name of redemption, which hath two parts, impetration or purchase and appli­cation, through his active and passive obedience he hath fullfilled the Law for us, and redeem­ed us from the Wrath of God, and the Curse of the Law, having fully satisfied his Justice, and reconciled us unto him, he hath obtained the pardon of our sins, by a sufficient attonement he made for the same, through his Death and sufferings. He by the mouth of the Prophet, shews what he is at the coming out of his Grave, Victorious, as coming from Bozrah in his glo­rious and red apparrel, Isa. 63.1, 3. I that speak in righte­ousness, mighty to save, I have troden the wine press alone, and of the people there was none with me: No Angel or any other Creature was joyn­ed with him in that work, so that with his own arm he hath gotten himself the Victory: As to the applieation of that purchased redemption, it com­eth from him in every part thereof, as Vocati­on, Adoption, Justification, Sanctification, which contain spiritual life, and every other grace, and at last Glorification, which in Scripture are all attributed to the Lord Jesus: all but the last are wrought in us by the ministery of the word, which ministery himself instituted, Ephes 4.8, 11. by sending Ministers he doth continue it, and with his blessing doth promote, and according to his [Page 182]promise will do so to the end of the world: Resurrection from death is followed with e­ternal life, John. 6.54. 1 John. 5.20. both attributed to Christ, who is called the true God and eternal life; for not only he give life, but also he is life, nay, e­ternal life; for whosoever hath him, is sure of eternal life.

As to the great work of our effectual Calling and Conversion, that we may answer the call, he first openeth our understanding, Luke. 24.45. Acts. 16.14. as he open­ed the understanding of his disciples, that they might understand the Scriptures: After he open­eth our hearts, as he did the heart of Lydia, that she attended unto the things which are spoken by his Servants; he also bestoweth all other means of grace upon us, Acts. 5.31. Chap. 11.18. 2 Cor. 7.10. Heb. 12.2. as repentance, for he is a Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Is­rael, such as is called repentance unto life, and unto salvation, without which we cannot be sa­ved: Faith also is his gift so intirely, that he is called the Author and finisher of our Faith; from him comes the beginning, progress and perfecting of it, this made his disciples aske him, Lord increase our faith; Luke 17.5. John. 1.16. what Love, Charity, Meekness, Humility, Temperance, Sobriety, Goodness, Joy, Peace, &c. are in us? Of his fullness have we received it all. 1 Cor. 1.30. Moreover, he is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctifi­cation, and redemption: In few words, he is our all in all, Psal. 87.7. John 15.26. and in him are all our springs, he gives the Holy Ghost, ruleth, governeth and preserveth his Church: These few things more I must add, how it is clear out of Scripture, that he is true and eternal God, who is the au­thor of Salvation and eternal Life, for this the Lord, the King of Israel attributes to himself, to be his redeemer, [...]a. 44.6, Chap. 45.15.17.21. and 43. [...]. the Saviour of Israel, by whom Israel shall be saved with an everlasting salvation; no God else besides him, a just God and a Saviour, all this undisputably spoken of the true essential God. Now Christ is the [Page 183]King of Israel, John 1.49. Matth. 1.21. 1 John 1.7. Heb. 12.24. Chap 9.15, 16. Gal. 3.15. that saveth his people from their sins, and his blood cleanseth us from all sin; he is the mediator of the new Covenant, of the new Testament, being himself the Testator, which the Apostle denyeth to be a man's Covenant; these several places I quoted, to shew how un­der the Old Testament, the true Eternal God de­lighted to call himself, the God, the Saviour and the Redeemer of his people, which being one of the works proper to God, and not on­ly being attributed, but in a special and singu­lar manner, being applied to Christ, who is no better known by any name, than that of Savi­viour of the world, and in him, Luke 1.4 [...]. Acts 4.12. Res. 1.7. as in her God and Saviour, the spirit of Mary rejoyced, be­cause there is no salvation in any other; for he is the Lord our God, by whom the Lord doth save us: This I say, to me doth evidence how he who under the New Testament is by his proper name called Saviour, or Jesus, must be if not the same person, at least of the same na­ture with him who under the Old was pleased at several times to call himself the Saviour and Redeemer of his people.

But now being upon the divine works of grace, proper to the Lord Jesus, I must not o­mit one highly considerable, and most singu­larly proper to God; which is to forgive sins, which our blessed Lord appropriated unto him­self, Luke 7.48. Mark 2.5. when he said to the woman, thy sins are forgiven, and to the man sick of the Palse, Son thy sins be forgiven thee; whereat the Jews were so startled and offended, as presently to say, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only: In that thing they were in the right, to say that none but God can forgive sins, but in the other they were in the wrong, not to believe Christ to be God; if they had, all had been set at rights, and their prejudice removed, wherefore to convince them, how they were in an error, and that he had not taken upon [Page 184]him as a man to pardon sins, but as God, he presently proved his divinity by a miracle, and cured the man; he who of himself could work a miracle, had certainly power on earth to forgive sins: And as he is a Prince and Saviour, so he hath right to give forgiveness of sins, Acts 5.31. certain­ly he declares himself true essential God, when by his authority he forgives sins, and giveth others power in his name to declare the same, as he did. Now if to what hath been said, we add, that he is the resurrection, and the life, John 20.23. John 11.25. Chap. 5.26. v. 21. Chap. 6.39.40. Phil. 3.20.21. and that he that believeth in him, though he were dead, yet shall he live, seeing he hath life in himself, and quickeneth whom he will, al­so all the Father hath given him, and every one that believeth in him, he will raise up at the last day, wherefore our Conversation is in Heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, According to the working where­by he is able to subdue all things unto himself. All these and many more, which for brevity's sake we omit, are sufficient evidence to convince any in whom the God of this world hath hot blinded their minds, that Christ is the eternal Son of God, of the same nature; but to unbe­lievers he saith, if you will not believe me, at least believe me for the works sake, John 5.36.1 for the works I do, bear witness of me, but alas, all men have not faith, for faith is a gift of God.

CHAP. IX. Worship proper and due to the true God, belongs to Christ.

NOW Christ appropriateth to himself all these and many more works that belong only to the true God, to the end that all men knowing him to be one with the Father, may honour the Son even as they honour the Fa­ther, whereby he demonstrates himself to be God, for divine honour belongs to none else, for thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. We must love, honour and worship one person of the God-head as well as the other, as we love God in the person of the Father, so we must love God in the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, for if any man loves not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be an A­thema, 1 Cor. 16.22. Maran-atha: He who loveth not the Son loveth not the Father, and he who loves not the Holy Ghost, loveth not the Father nor the Son: Here I bring, in point of worship, the instance of love, because without it no true worship. We ought not to worship God otherwise than he hath declared in his word, he that woship­eth not God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, doth not worship God as he ought, 'tis not e­nough to worship God as God essentially, but also he must be in the three persons, for all three are the object of worship, or else our Religion is vain; and we are to look not only to the object, but also to the order of worship, the Father through the Son, John 16. and by the Son to go to the Father, and so by the means of the Holy Ghost we go to both, for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, Rom. [...].26. 1 Cor. 12.3. but the spirit help­eth our infirmities and maketh intercession for us. Neither can one say that Jesus is the Lord, but [Page 186]by the Holy Ghost. And in giving glory to God, 'tis not enough to glorifie him, except it be in the three persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost: And the consideration of this Mistery of one God in three persons, which ought to be our guide in worshiping that eternal and infinite Being, ought to teach us modesty and humili­ty, which is so essential in our serving God, to adore the incomprehensibility of these high things, the Majesty of God, and the Mistery of his Son's being made Flesh, and be made sen­sible of our weakness, and then endeavour to bring into captivity every thought to the obedi­ence of Christ: 2 Cor. 10.5. Here I cannot forbear inserting the words of two eminent Doctors of the Pri­mitive Church. Ambros. de fid. ad gratian. lib. 1. cap. 5. Mihi impossibile est, saith one, generationis scire secretum, mens deficit, voxsi­let, non mea tantum sed & Angelorum licet scire quod natus fit, non licet discutere quomodo natus sit; illud negare mihi non licet, hoc quaerere metus. 'Tis impossible for me to know the secret of that Generation, my understanding faileth me, my mouth is stopt, 'tis lawful not only for me but also for Angels to know He is born, but 'tis not lawful to enquire how he is born, that I cannot deny, but I am afraid to search into this. The other saith, filium esse a deo patre immortali genitum novi, sed quemadmodum ignoro, spiritum ex co procedere scio, Chrisost. hom. de in­comprehens. dei natura. sed quemadmodum nescio; I know the Son to be begotten of the immortal Father, but in what manner I cannot tell, I know the Holy Ghost to proceed from him, but how, I know not. These being just come into my thoughts, though they exactly are not belonging to the present part of our dis­course, yet being much to the purpose of the whole, I here have set them down: Indeed in things of that nature men ought to yield an obe­dience of Faith, and believe unity of Nature and Trinity of Persons, for numero deus impare gau­det, so we must worship one God in three persons.

Our present purpose is to prove Christ to be true Essential Eternal God, because the same worship due, only to the true Eternal God is rend­red unto him, as anon we shall by the grace of God make it appear: But now somethings must be premised, which can contribute towards the better understanding of the point; first Christ's enemies are not agreed in this particular, one Va­lentinus Gentilis, by us named in the beginning of this Discourse and some others do flatly deny Christ this Divine Worship, because they dis­own him essentially to be God, and no divine worship is to be rendred to the Creature, which to do is Idolatry; but Socinus said, he is to be worshiped, but with such restrictions as such a worship is all most no better than none at all: They would have him to be worshiped only after his resurrection, and that the resurection was the standing sign, and true reason why one, whom God raised from the dead should be worshiped; but if this be true, then the Son of the Widow of Sarepta, of the Shunamite, 1 Kings 17.22. 2 Kings 4.34. &c. Chap. 13.21. and of the dead man that having touched the bones of Elisha was revived, under the Old Testament, and the Son of the Woman of Naim, and the daughter of Jairus, Lazarus, Dorcas and Eu­tichus under the New, are to be worshiped ac­cording to this rule of theirs. Wherefore some other cause than this must be assigned why Christ must be worshiped? they say he ought to be so as he is Mediator: we own that Christ Mediator is to be worshiped, but that honour belongs to him in relation to his Deity, for when God bringeth in the first born into the world, Heb. 1.6. he saith and let all the Angels of God worship him, he is called first begotten, not in relation to his huma­nity, for many were Children of God before his Birth, but in respect to his eternal generation: He is to be adored by Angels, though he be not their Mediator; when we adore Christ as Me­diator, 'tis not in relation to his Office abstracted [Page 188]from his Deity, but as he is true God: In this sence the Lamb that was slain is wor­thy to receive (as he did by the Angels, Rev. 5.12. the Beasts and the Elders) honour and glory and blessing, because in his humane nature dwelleth all the fullness of the God-head bodily. Colos. 2.9. The Ark was not worshiped, but God in the Ark, as, not the Bush, but God in the Bush, not the ground which Moses stood upon, but God in that place sancti­fied by his special presence; and so in several o­ther places of the Old Testament: Indeed Christ is to be worshiped, Phil. 2.7. though in the form of a Ser­vant, and made a little lower than the Angels, though not as a Servant, or as lower than the Angels, by which all, God would have him to be adored for no other cause, but for his divine nature, V. 6. the form of God, whereby he shall re­mained equal with the Father in his state of hu­miliation: As Angels are commanded to worship Christ, so is the Church, under the name of his Spouse, Psal. 45.11. worship thou him.

As Christ is not God, upon the account of any Office and Dignity, so he is not to be worshiped by reason of any Office and Dignity, here that which is cause for one, is cause for the other, no Office can make any one God, who is not so, so none ought to be adored, but because he is God, that is, of the same nature and substance, and not by communication of divine Power, Dig­nity or Office, for to give the Creature that which is due only to the Creator, is meer Idolatry, which the Apostle fathereth upon the Galatians, Gal. 4.8. when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no Gods, which they might have excused thus: Though we did so to those that were not such by nature, yet they were Gods by Office, Dignity and Power, but the Apostle, as I said before, blameth them for doing so unto those which by nature are not Gods: Wherefore religious worship is due only to such as is God by nature, seeing then divine [Page 189]worship is due to Christ, as by and by I hope to prove, it implies that Christ is God by his nature; and certainly where the name of God and Son of God is absolutely attributed as it is to Christ, it designs Nature more than Office or Dignity, so that the word Lord so often, and specially in the New Testament attributed un­to Christ, signifies in the strict sense, the infi­nite and independent Dominion of the Lord Je­sus over all, his being from the Father is by ge­neration, not in relation to his Essence, but to his person, not absolutely, but relatively as he is Son, and if he be begotten, it necessarily fol­lows to be of the Essence or Nature of the Fa­ther, which also shews the Eternity of that Ge­neration: These things I here repeat, because when once that perswasion of Christ's being true Essential God is once setled in our minds, then without any scruple or difficulty, we may wor­ship him, else men are at a stand, under fear of worshiping the Creature instead of the Crea­tor, who is God blessed for ever.

Before we prove that Christ is and ought to be worshiped with a religious worship, for we speak of no other, we intend to shew how the true essential God is alone to be worshiped, and though to that effect several arguments might be drawn out of Scripture, we shall in order there­unto examine only two, one is this, Isa. 42.8. I am the Lord, that is my name, and my glory will I not give to another. This is a solemn declaration of the unchangeable God of Truth, who having given that same glory unto Christ must infallibly conclude Christ to be the same Lord Jehovah with him, Chap. 48.11. here the name and the glory of God do signifie the same, for sometimes in Scripture, the Name of God signifies his Nature, when es­sentially taken, and the Attributes of the per­son when personally taken, never to be under­stood barely of a name; when we love, fear and serve God, 'tis not the Letters, or a sound in the [Page 190]Air, but either the nature or some of the per­sons of the Trinity. But the truth of this here asserted, that the name and glory of God signifie the same, Isai. 42.8. compa­red with Exod. 33.18, 19. is elsewhere confirmed positively and absolutely, how his glory, God will not give to another, whosoever he be. But as Socinus doth not use to take the words of God, as, and in the sense he saith them, so here he would make God speak otherwise than he doth, for he never wants his limitations, and therewith he limiteth the holy One the God of Israel: God, saith he, doth not say, I will not give my glory to another, that is, de­pendent upon, and subordinate unto me, such he makes the Lord Jesus, but to graven Ima­ges: But do not Images of God, of Christ, of Angels, Apostles, depend upon and are subordi­nate to God as to the Matter, the form or making of them, the designs of men and all up­on the will of God? Surely they do, for every Creature whatsoever is subordinate to, and de­pends upon his Maker, and suppose God would chuse one Creature, as may be an Angel, or any Man or Woman, and heap all the Treasures of his Glory upon such a one, which he yet declares he will not do, yet according to them he might do't, and not act against his solemn protestation that he will not do't, after this no Creature, as a Creature can differ from God, for they make God say he doth not intend to exclude any other wholly dependant upon, and subordinate to him, as is every Creature whatsoever, thus after this, the Effect shall be the same with the Cause, because it depends upon it, this new significa­tion of the word another, deserved well to have been confirmed by some example: in that other place already mentioned, which confirmeth this, there is no mention of Images or any thing else, barely, I will not give my glory unto another, which leaves no ground to Cavil about Images: Thus they would make the strength of these [Page 191]words of God to vanish away, and be resolved into this, God will not give his Glory to Images, but will give it to Angels and Men, even to Satan and Antichrist the worst of them.

Then by the word to give, they understand only to permit, so if he giveth Money, Bread, Cloaths, &c. he only permitteth, if to the word give, leave had been joyned, they might have pretended to something, though there had been no sense; thus with their altering the sense of words, they would overthrow the use of lan­guages, and so coin one of their own, which none but themselves shall understand, and by those means teach all that went before, to speak; then here according to their interpretation, contrary to what God declareth, he will per­mit or give graven Images something of his glory, if they do not believe it themselves, others who did worship those Images will, for they thought God had communicated to them something of his glory, or else would not have look't upon them as worthy to be Religiously worshiped. But to come to the thing, since God in this place denyeth the permission for any one to have his glory, much more doth he deny to give it himself to another, and if from the be­ginning of the world he hath suffered the De­vil to usurpe Divine Honour to himself, and several Nations religiously to worship Images, as 'tis known he hath, yet to neither he gave that glory of his, and out of this appeareth the true sence of the Text, that he will, not permit, for he hath permitted, but, not give his glory, which he hath never given: V. 6, 7, But to come to the scope of the place, 'tis this, God said it, when he spoke of Christ, as it appears by the two foregoing and following verses, which may be perused, therein he is spoken of in such a way, and to him are such things attributed as belong not to one of a different nature, but to him that is [Page 192]one and the same with him; what is added about graven Images is to condemn Idolatry, and to take away all manner of excuse from Idolaters, not only in those times when all Nations were Idolaters and also that abominable sin was gotten in the Land of Judah, but in relation to other Countries after the coming in the flesh of the Son of God.

The other Text of Scripture is this, Matth. 4.10. Deuter. 6.13. thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve: Which our Saviour quoted out of ano­ther place, hence the Conclusion for the essen­tial divinity of Christ is clear, he that is reli­giously to be worshiped is the true God, but Christ is religiously to be worshiped, therefore he is the true God, no command can be more positive, absolute and plain than this, to wor­ship the Lord thy God, that is, the God of Israel, for the words were directed to Israel, whom Jews and Socinians do allow to be the only true God, the latter part of the verse doth contain a general Negative, him only shalt thou serve, the word only, gives the exclusion to any thing else or person whatsoever, to say as they do, to wor­ship and serve him as God of himself, will not serve their turn, for they say God the Father is only such, but Christ is a made God, and by Grace, by this God of himself, they mean the first Author of all things, but did they ever hear of a second Author of all things? Is there a first Creator and a Second one? Wherefore this restri­ction is idle and superfluous, whereby all man­ner of Idolatry may be excused, for both the Heathens, and the Jewish Idolaters worshiped many things, which they never took to be the first Authors and Causes of all, the Devil him­self desired not to be worshiped by Christ as if he had been the Author of all things, for he owned the power and glory of the Kingdome of the world were delivered unto him. Luke 4.5, 6. But if the Lord thy God is only to be worshiped and served, [Page 193]and Christ be not that Lord God, why should he be adored? O! say they, when we adore Christ, we adore in him the Father that hath given him so much glory and power, by the same reason the Jews might have worshiped Mo­ses, who was so full of glory when he came down from the Mountain, that they could not behold his face. If they had a right notion of Christ's person it would be well to say, that he that ho­noureth the Son, doth also honour the Father; but according to their impious opinion they a­dore a Man of a quite different nature from the Father, the Father is God by Nature, the Son by Grace; the Father is from Eternity, the Son only since the fullness of time; one Creator, the other Creature; one the Highest, the other Sub­ordinate; one God, the other Man, and both to be adored; such a Son, as doth differ from his Fa­ther more than any other Son in the world doth from his: whereby they quite overthrow God's nature, and confound the Creator with the Crea­ture: Let Christ be owned either to be true God, or no God at all, for there is no middle between these two: We know God made Men, but now we find, Men, Socinians, as well as Papists, take upon them to make Gods; and worship them as such, whether Wafer or Meta­phorical, 'tis all one, as long as they will not own them to be such by nature. To talk of a Secondary and Subordinate God is a meer contradictio in ad­jecto, a perfect nonsence; the Jews would not de­ny him to be what he was, being convinced by his works, when Christ cometh will he do more mira­cles than these which this man hath done, [...] 7.31. Whence they concluded, This is of a [...] that prophet that should come into the world, John 6.14. Therefore they would come and take him by force to make him a King, v. 15. and at another time, They that were in the ship worshipped him, saying, of a truth thou art the Son of God. Matth. 14.33. Yet for all this, they still retained a preju­dice, [Page 194] Shall Christ come out of Galilee: John 7.41. Is not this Jesus the Son of Joseph, whose Father and Mother we know? chap. 6.42. Is not this the Car­penters Son? is not his Mother called Mary; and his brethren James and Joses, Simon and Judas? Matth. 13.55. Thus Socinians cannot deny him to be God but must have him a made God. Doth this hold any proportion, or is there any reason in the case? To come off with this, the Heresiarch saith, that the commandment of worshiping God alone, doth properly relate to the time under the Old Testament, a wide Door open to let in Idolatry, 1 John 5.21. but certainly that precept doth oblige Christians, as much as ever it did the Jews, and I think that of all moral Commandments, none belongeth to the times of the Gospel, more than that of worshiping God alone, and we are as much bound to avoid all Idolatry as ever they were: They say when this precept was given, they mean in the time of Moses, then Christ was not, but when it was made use of by Christ, Christ was, and also endued with Divine Power and Authority, though they say the contrary, for before he was tempted in the Wilderness, he had been haptized, and proclaimed from Heaven the Son of God, the Spirit had descended upon him, and when he returned from Jordan he was full of the Holy Ghost. Luke 4.1. He was God worthy of divine worship, when he made use of that Text against the Tempter. Two frivolous things more they say; first, the word only, is not joyned to wor­ship, but to serve, as if a religious worship was not meant by this last, as well as by the first; though it had been joyned with the former, they had never wanted a pretence to Cavil; but if in the thing there be any difference, Acts 10.25, 26. I think 'tis more binding with to serve than to worship, for to serve may seem of a larger extent than to wor­ship. The other Cavil is, we are forbidden to worship others, that is, say they, after our own Fancy and Pleasure; but Christ you are com­manded [Page 195]to worship, but here is no ground for such an interpretation, for 'tis simply said to worship and serve only the Lord thy God, we own that here not only the thing, but also the manner of it was forbidden, but here is nothing to shew by what authority and name we are to worship others, only the thing, to do't, is for­bidden.

To the proofs I have given to shew how God alone is to be worshiped, I now shall by the grace of God joyn some examples out of the New Te­stament, to confirm it with a demonstration of the practise: The first is that of Peter, Act. 10.25, 26. whom Cornelius the Centurion met, and fell down at his feet and worshiped him, but he, though he had excellent gifts, and great authority by his office, yet he refused it, and this he gave for a reason, I my self also am a man, that is, such a thing is not to be offered any man, yet we must not believe Cornelius to have been so besotted as to have taken him for God, but he thought he might do so to such an extraordinary man: Chap. 14.13, 14, 1 [...]. Paul and Barnabas seeing how the people of Lystra would have done Sacrifice, they presently rent their cloaths, running and crying, Sirs, why do you do these things? Their reason was, we are also men; Rev. 19.10. hence we conclude how no man ought to be worshiped. Now we shall speak of Angels John, a person of no mean gifts, fell at the An­gels feet, who was a Minister of God and of Christ, to worship him, surely he took him not to be God, for he could not but know the contrary, but may be, he thought he might pay him that re­spect, but whatsoever he thought, he did amiss, therefore the Angel highly rejected it, when he said, see thou do it not, Chap. 2 [...].9. and gave his rea­son for't, for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren, that have the testimony of Jesus, and not satisfied with this, directed him to the object of worship and adoration, worship God; and this not only once but twice, for it happened a second time.

We have demonstrated how the true God is a­lone to be worshiped, now we must shew how Christ is religiously to be worshiped, and con­sequently he is the true God; which last expres­sions, now when I remember, put me in mind of that excellent place, wherein he is called the true God, which, but in few words, I will take notice of, 1 John 5.20. we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ: this is the true God and oter­nal Life: The Relative this, is refered to Je­sus Christ, not only as the nearest, but also as the Subject Orationis, spoken of, besides that with St. John, 'tis usual by Eternal Life to sig­nifie the Lord Jesus, and here the true God and Eternal Life are spoken of one and the same Sub­ject: Now when the Lord is here called true God, it cannot be said metaphorically, or im­properly, but as to his nature, the reason it this, none is ever called, the true God, spe­cially with the Article, but in relation to his Essence.

Now to prove that the religious worship be­longing to the only true God, is appropriated to christ, we have several places out of Scripture, some do it in general, and others in the par­ticulars, whereof there are several branclies: Of the first Order is this, let all the Angels of God worship him, quoted out of the Psalm: Upon these two unshaken pillars, Heb. 1.6. Psal. 37.7. I mean, the testimonies of a Prophet and of an Apostle, stand these two great Truths, First, how the person whom the Angels here called God's for so the Apostle doth explain the word, are com­manded to worship, is the true Essential God: or, to make use of the name which the Adver­saries do commonly bring in, namely the God of Israel; Secondly, that the person to be wor­shiped by Angels, is the Lord Jesus Christ; the first assertion is the Prophet's, the second is the Apostle's, out of which both we may surely con­clude how the Lord Jesus is the true Essential [Page 197]God of Israel: To examine well this, we shall first begin with the words of the Original, that is, the Psalm, whence they are drawn, and afterwards the Application made of them in the Gospel.

To remove the weight of this argument which lie's so heavy upon them, and finding they cannot deny the Application to belong to Christ, the Adversaries would not have the words to be un­derstood of the true God of Israel; but certain­ly they ought to be related to him that is nam­ed in the next verse but one before, namely the Lord of the whole earth, for indeed, in this Psalm wherein is described the Majesty of God's King­dom, no other person is spoken of, but that God whose Kingdom it is. Now that the God of the whole Earth is Jehovah, the God of Israel, it appears out of Scripture wherein the attribute of Lord of the whole Earth is given to the true God by nature; amongst others take these few, Josh 3.11. Zechar. 14, and 6, 5. Behold the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord of all the earth, passeth over before you into Jordan: And these are the two anointed ones that stand by the Lord of the whole earth: Again, these are the four spirits of the Heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth. Micah. 4.12. The very same expression is found in another Prophet. I will consecrate their gain unto the Lord, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth. I shall add that conside­rable place where the Prophet for the comfort of the Gentiles prophesied of what a large extent their Church should be, and speaks of their delive­rance, heaping several glorious titles upon him that was to be the Author thereof, which no doubt had a relation to the Messiah, who was to effect it. Among other names therein given, that of God of the whole earth is one, Isa. 3 [...]. [...]. For thy maker is thine husband, the Lord of hosts is his name, and thy redeemer the holy one of Israel, the God of the whole [...]arth shall he be casted, all these glorious names belong to one and the same: [Page 198]I need not to shew that the Prophecies about the deliverance, and calling of the Gentiles do relate to Christ, Psal. 2.8. who was to have the heathen for his in­heritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for his possession. And this Title of Lord of the whole earth, is by the Psalmist in another place rendred by a great King over all the earth, Psal. 47.2.7. and the King of all the earth, all to signifie tho same thing and per­son, the Kingdom of Christ the Messiah. I think this is enough to prove how the God of Israel and the Lord of the whole Earth is the same; as Israel made a part of the Earth, so he that was God of the whole Earth, must need be the God of Israel; so 'tis the same in this Text, for no where in Scripture that title is given to any but the true God: Yet they are so obstinate in their opinions, that Socinus himself, who though he will not have Christ to be the King of Israel, yet being forced by the strength of this reason, he seems content that the Lord Jesus should be here called the Lord of the whole Earth, but if the argument should lie upon this, he would want no Cavils to elude the force of it; for that wretch is so damnably bent against the glory and honour of our Saviour, that in what­soever he writes about him, Acts 8.23. there appears a gall of bitterness, as well as the bond of iniquity, with a slight and contempt of his person, the Man, that Man, this Man, Man in every case, and all this to lose no occasion of robbing him of his Divinity; 2 Kings 49.27. and Isai. 3.28. this calls to my mind God's words, a­gainst Sennacherib, another great Blasphemer, which by the Lord, might have been applied to Socinus: I know thy abode, and thy going out and thy coming in, and thy rage against me. And let all his Sectators remember what the A­postle saith, Jud. 14.15. behold the Lord cometh to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them, of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners [Page 199]have spoken against him, that is Christ, when he cometh to judge the world.

Another thing here to be taken notice of, is this, that in verse 5. where the Lord Jehovah is called the Lord of the whole Earth, it must be spoken of one and the same person, for if they had been two different, the copulative particle and, had not been omitted after the words, Psal. 37.5. the hills melted like wax at the presence of the Lord, there should have been, and, at the presence of the Lord of the whole Earth, the first words of the verse, do sufficiently denote the Lord of the whole Earth, to be the God of Israel, Jehovah named just before, at whose presence only, and of none else, the hills melted like wax, hereunto answereth that place; psal. 11.7. tremble thou earth at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob, whereby the interpretation of this now in hand is confirmed, and the God of Jacob is put instead of the Lord of the whole earth, in both which places, the repetition of the word, Presence, is very Emphatical, which joyned with what I observed before, and with the words, the scope and the thing it self do all together fully shew, here is but one person spoken of, which is confirmed more and more, because in what fol­lows, the Prophet speaks but of one as in the singular number, vers. 6.7, 8. as thus the Heavens declare his righteousness, and the people see his glory, and worship him all ye Gods: Also because of thy judgments, whereby it appears 'tis spoken of one and not of two; but rather than to yield, they will sooner give Christ whom otherwise they would rob of any thing he hath but his humane nature, which they cannot do, because they must have an Historical Faith, or else may be they would, and reduce him to nothing. I say, they chuse rather to give Christ that title and exclude God Jehovah from being the Lord of the whole earth, than to own Christ to be Jehovah, so what they do, is not out of kind­ness, [Page 200]they only give him that which they think the least, to rob him of what they account to be the chief, though indeed it be the same. Again, the words of verse 7. do farther confirm this, Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of Idols, therefore worship him all ye Gods. For who is opposed to graven Images and Idols, but he that is by nature the true God? And who is religiously to be wor­shiped, but the true God Jehovah? And who but he who is the God of Gods, is to be adored by all Gods? vers. 9. This is confirmed out of verse 9. Thou Lord art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all Gods. The first part con­tained a proper attribute of the true God, name­ly, the highest or most high God, for saith, David, Psal. 33.18. that men may know that thou whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth. Is not this the same as to be Lord over all the earth? So that both to be Jehovah and Lord over all the earth are attributed only to one, and if he be the only most high upon the earth, none but he, is Lord over all the earth. The latter part of the verse doth af­ford a reason and a very good one, why all Gods and Angels ought to worship him, because he is for exalted above all Gods: No less than six times he is in this Psalm called Jehovah, which cannot well be denied to be the same with God of Israel.

One thing more I shall say as to this Psalm, which with the foregoing and following, contain an exhortation to all Creatures, with and without life, to sing and rejoyce before the Lord, and why? for he cometh, he cometh to judge the earth, he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth: which none that hath any sence can deny to be a Pro­phesie of Christ's coming to judge the world, which he speaks of himself: When the Son of man, shall come in his glory, Matth. 25.31. and all the holy Angels [Page 201]with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. Then indeed, in that divine and glorious State, being attended and worshiped by all mil­lions of Angels, he shall reign, fill with joy the hearts of his people, and perform the other things contained in this Psalm. He that is to do all this, if we believe the Psalmist, is the Lord Jehovah, and the Lord Jesus Christ, if we must give faith to the Apostle.

Now we must draw nearer to the words of the Apostle, who is to be believed as well as the Prophet, preferably to Socinians, who being not able to deny it, own that Angels ought to wor­ship Christ: One would think they at last would yield to the Truth, and give glory to God; Phil. 2.7, 8, &c. but no such thing, for they say, they may worship him as a man, and not upon the considerati­on of any divinity in him, only upon the ac­count of his Humiliation and Obedience unto Death, even the Death of the Cross, upon which account he was highly exalted. But pray, whence doth arise the value and merit of that Humiliation and Obedience, but from the divi­nity of the person, which underwent it: If he had been a meer man, it had been no very great matter, no more than what many more could have done: A King's only Son, sacrifices himself for the safety of a whole Kingdom, some among the ordinary people might have done the like, but that which raiseth the merit of the thing, is, not his being a man, for any man else therein is equal with him, but 'tis the Royal Blood run­ning in the Veins of the young Prince, which doth make the act so meritorious, and so consi­derable; so if I may continue a lame compari­son, so defectuous, to represent what I have a mind, the Blood which our Saviour shed upon the Cross doth not receive its unexpressible value for coming out of the Veins of a Man, but because it is the blood of God, wherewith he hath purcha­sed his Church. Acts 20.28. Neither was the Obedience [Page 202]yielded by our Saviour, belonging only to his Humane Nature, which may be due and necessa­ry from one in nature and quality inferiour to another, but it was also an undue and meerly voluntary obedience, which may be rendred by an Equal, and some times by a Superiour, as we read when Joshua said, Josn. 10.12, 13. Sun stand thou still up­on Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valey of Ajalon, so the Sun stood; he was obeyed, but there is in it more than this, the Sun of himself could not stand nor alter or stop his Course; a Superiour power to do't was required; and indeed we find that in the beginning of the verse, 'tis said, then spook Joshua unto the Lord in the day when, &c. Sun, stand thou still; so, let it be spoken with that awful reverence and to an infinite Majesty, in some kind we may see how in this case the Superiour was pleased to obey the In­feriour; so we may say, a sort of obedience may belong to Divine Nature, as when God com­manded the World should be created, and it was performed by his Son; of this nature is Christ's obedience, as spoken of by the Apostle concerning Christ, Phil. 2.6, 7, 8. who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, he hum­bled himself. This was a voluntary obedience, for he was not humbled, but humbled himself, he was not made, but made himself of no reputation, thus the obedience is valued according to the digni­ty of the person which obeyeth: To be in the form of God is to be God, for, forma dat esse rei, the form is the nature of the thing, and makes it to be what it is.

But what this man granted before, he is now willing to take away, when he would have this worship not to be terminated in Christ, but from him to pass unto God, so this is but a relative worship. Thus Papists say, they worship images; but they are mistaken, for though God hath exal­ted him, it doth not follow that Adoration should be only Transitory and not fixed; So God hath [Page 203]exalted the Kings of the Earth, but the Civil Worship or respect rendered unto the King is rendred unto a Man, but not in the capacity of a Man, but is terminated in him as he is a King, so when Christ Man is adored, he is not so under the notion of Man, but as he is God of the same nature with the Father, and that he is in the Father and the Father in him; the Father may well be worshiped in him and he in the Father, but making them, as they do, to be of different na­tures, I see no cause why they may not be wor­shiped asunder one from another, which yet doth but rend and divide the object of our worship, with this new, as they call it, way of worship to adore God in a Man. But they must say what they understand by him, for both the Prophet and the Apostle make use of the word, Is it one or a different person named by them? if the same, then Christ is the one God; if not the same, then the Apostle hath not well ex­plained the Prophet: If in the Psalm, Christ be not spoken of, but only the God of Israel, of a nature altogether different; then in the Epistle the words are made use of to no purpose, for therein the design is to prove how Christ must be worshiped by all Angels: Now he doth not answer his purpose, when to prove one who is not the God Israel ought to be adored, he brings a Text which commands the Angels to adore him only who is the God of Israel, a great disparagement indeed, not only to the Author of the Epistle, but to the Spirit of God which di­rected him; he saith, in that worship exhibited unto Christ, the Lord Jesus represents the person of God the Father, how? as an Actor upon the Stage doth represent a King? After this rate Christ with all the worship given him, would be (without blasphemy let it be spoken) but a Stage God. If to reign doth signifie the Kingdom of Christ, why shall not also the name Jehovah who reigneth, belong to his person? [Page 204]If he hath the thing, why should he not have the name also, Christs Kingdom is therein described, Jehovah is the King, why should not Christ be Jehovah? which if he be, it must be properly, for Christ nor no one else was e­ver figuratively called Jehovah, and the King­dom of Christ under the name of God is de­scribed; then if Christ be not God Jehovah, then 'tis Jehovah that indeed doth represent Christ, so he must be the Type of Christ, thus they unavoidably run into absurdities; but in very deed Christ doth not act the part of the Father, but his own: He doth act the part of three persons upon the account of his three se­veral offices, of a Prophet, of a Priest, and of a King, he therein exerciseth his own office and not that of the Father, he doth what belongeth to him and not to others, Joh. 17.10. and as all things the Father hath, are his; so the Kingdom, Throne, Scepter, Power, Majesty, Ministry and Subjects are all his; if he received the Kingdom from the Father, he received it as only begotten Son and Heir of all things, not as of anothers but as his own, wherefore he doth not reign as a Servant or a Minister of the Farther, so then, when he reigneth, he doth not represent the Father's person but his own, not as his Vicar or Lieutenant, but as God equal with him. The first part of the verse, Matth. 1.20. Luke 2.9, 13. Matth. 28.2, 5. and again when he bringeth in the first be­gotten into the world, sheweth how at his first coming into the world he was worshiped and ser­ved by Angels for his Conception, Birth and Resurrection were published by Angels, and then it demonstrates there are two persons, one that bringeth, the other that is brought in; the one is the Father, the other the Son; the first com­manding the last to be adored, for he saith not worship me, but him: There is an Emphasis in the word first begotten, simply spoken, to be un­derstood of every Creature; Col. 1.15. for 'tis very just he should be worshiped by Angels as his Crea­tures; [Page 205]and indeed in Scripture I cannot find any truth more clearly and fully proved than this is, he was worshiped not only by Angels but also by Devils, Mark 5.6, 7. the Legion in the Body of the man possessed.

But as we proved the Lord Jesus ought to be worshiped by Angels, so we now must shew he ought to be by men; and the place is this, That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father, he that honoureth not the Son, John 5.23. honoureth not the Father that sent him. To understand the place well, we must go up higher, and take notice how from verse 17. to 23. our Saviour speaks of his equality with the Father (as well understood by the Jews) in his Nature and Power, with making a parallel between the Father and himself, the more because he useth not a pronoun relative, but possessive, not the Father, but my Father; my father worketh hither­to and I work, not the Father that is a Common Father as God is to all, but my Father, in a most special and true manner, who hath communica­ted his nature unto me: Now that equality with the Father, he on another account doth insist upon, but he doth not in the least go about to shew that he made not himself equal with the Father, which certainly he would have done, if it had not been true and only a mistake in them, and thereby he could have calmed their rage: on the contrary he speaks to confirm this equality of his with the Father, upon the ac­count of his divine power, manifested in his works, one whereof upon occasion was the re­storing the impotent Man that had the infirmity for 38 years, to the use of his Limbs and perfect Health, which none could deny to have been done by a divine Power: Now none but God can have a power equal with God, for God's power is infinite, but that of any Creature is finite, and so there is no equality between finite and in­finite, this equality of Power and Working is [Page 206]here clearly demonstrated, For what things soever the Father doth, these also doth the Son likewise: That is, the Father doth nothing but what the Son doth also; and this he instanceth in the case of raising the dead, which none but a Divine and Infinite Power can Effect, For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will: That is, with­out exception he can do what he will, now 'tis an Attribute of God, Psal. 115.3. and 135.6. to do what it pleaseth him in Heaven, in Earth, and in the Sea. Because the Jews believed not our Saviour to be more than a Man, he in the exercise of his Propheti­cal Office, went often about, both in his Dis­courses and Works, to insinuate into them that he was God, and in this place he presses it much upon them, both by what I already said, and by what he addeth in v. 22. The Father judgeth no man: but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, and the end which in so doing, the Father, and he in declaring it, proposed unto themselves, is this, that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father, as the Son in Nature and Power is equal with the Father, so he ought equally to be honoured or worshiped as the Fa­ther is, and this Divine Honour is so equally due to both, that he which honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, for the Father cannot and will not be honoured, that is, worshiped without him, for honour rendred unto God is the same as religious worship: The Son must be honoured in the same nature, manner and degree as the Father is.

One would think this to be plain and clear enough beyond all exception, yet they Cavil thus, the word as doth not import an equal honour, but only a likeness, and this they go about to confirm out of two places, the first, is every man that hath this hope in him, 1 Joh. 3.3. 1 Pet. 1.15. purifieth himself, even as he is pure, the other is, but as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in [Page 207]all manner of conversation: We answer first in the Text of Peter, the word as is not sicut, [...], but secundum [...], 'tis a Preposition not an Adverb; The word as doth not always signi­fie a similitude, but some times is a Particle of Causality thus in the Gospel [...], Joh. 1.14 the glory as of the only begotten, That is, because he is the only begotten of the Father: So in ano­ther place, 2 Cor. 3.18. We all are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the same spirit of the Lord. Sometimes the word like signifies equa­lity; 2 Pet. 1.1 thus, the like precious faith, not only of simi­litude, but of the same nature equally precious.

In the two objected places, and in our Text, there are indeed duties expressed but different, in that of John here, 'tis in relati­on to God, in the others as to our selves, the first doth regard the worship of God, the other holiness in our selves; in our Text a parity and equality is implied, which is not in the others, the difference of the sense is grounded upon two things; First, of the scope of the spirit of God in those places; Secondly, of the Analogy of Faith: To know the scope of the Text we now are upon, one must go back to verse 18. the cause of the Jews hatred and seeking to kill our Saviour, was because he made himself equal with God, which he to shew they had no cause to take exceptions against it, as we said before, proves it by an equality of power, in raising the Dead, and of judging the world. As to this last he goeth further, for he saith the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judg­ment unto him; but what doth all this aim at? The scope is, to the end that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Fa­ther, God the Father will have all men to ho­nour his Son, as they honour him, without any difference, because his Son is equal with him, and this affirmative is strengthned with a negative, for he that honoureth not the Son, Josn 14.1. honoureth not [Page 208]the Father, so that to honour one is to honour the other, and one cannot well honour the Father, except he equally honoureth the Son: this is the true sense of the place. We ought to ho­nour the Son in the same sense and manner as we must believe in him, that is, as much and as well as we are to believe in the Father, that is, to put our whole trust and confidence in the Son as in the Father, so all the honour both in quan­tity and quality, which we render to the Father must be given to the Son.

Now as to the Analogy of Faith, that is, that this sense doth not contradict, but well agree with other Scriptures, it appears out of this: the Great Commandment and Duty of Man, is, as our Saviour saith, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, Matth. 22.37. Mark 10.27. with all thy heart, and with all thy Soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: None but the true God the God of Israel is so to be lov­ed, obeyed and honoured: And is not our Blessed Saviour thus to be beloved and honoured? Love is the true Ground of honour: We ought to love Christ before all things that are near and dear unto us: Matth. 10.37, 38, 39. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me, and he that loveth son or daughter more than me [...] is not worthy of me, he that findeth his life shall lose it, and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. Luke 14.26. Nay, If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren yea and his own life, he cannot be my disciple: Is not this the manner of love which God requireth of us, and doth not this lay upon us a duty to love Christ, with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind, and with all our strength, thus this honour is proper for, and ought equally to be rendered to the Father and to the Son, for all men ought to honour the Son as they honour the Father: I hope the sense we give the Text is sufficiently proved, how all men without distinction or exceptionare bound [Page 209]to honour the Son as they honour the Father, and the manner is by our Saviour prescribed, in spirit and truth. Joh. 4.24.

Now I must shew how the Texts they bring against us cannot admit of the sense which ours doth, because 'tis contrary to the Scope of the Apostles and to the Analogy of Faith: First, to the scope, for the end of both Apostles, 1 Thes. 4.7. Luk. 1.74, 75. Psal. 93.5. Heb. 11.6. Heb. 12.14. is to exhort Christians to study and labour after Pu­rity and Holiness, which they are called unto: All that are adopted Children ought to walk in holiness, because holiness becomes the house of God, and as without faith 'tis impossible to please God, so without holiness no man shall see the Lord. This great and necessary duty, I say, the two Apostles in these Texts, do exhort men to strive and labour after, not as to attain to such a perfection of holiness as is in God, which is im­possible for any Man; for all that we can desire, is that we may be partakers of his holiness, Heb. 12.10. Mat. 5.48. and receive some degrees of it. In the same sense is to be understood that other place, Be ye there­fore perfect, as your father which is in heaven is perfect; a duty we ought to study after, because as much as we can we must be conformable unto God.

Secondly, Such an interpretation would de­stroy the Analogy of Faith, as contrary to the truth set down in other places of Scripture: For though holiness be a communicable Attri­bute of God, yet there cannot be so much as thought to be an equality between Purity and Holiness in God, and those small portions he is graciously pleased to impart unto us. Holiness is Essentially, and Originatively in God; nay, Holiness is God infinitely and most simply holy, and we are naturally unclean, transgressors from the Womb, conceived in Sin, brought forth in Iniquity, wallowing in our own Blood, till God be pleased to wash and cleanse us, to derive from himself, and by his holy spirit to work [Page 210]some small degree of holiness in us; God is most holy, Luke 6.36. thrice Holy: In the same sense, we are commanded to be merciful, as our Father also is merciful, that is, as far as God will be pleased to enable us: we ought to follow and imitate that Pattern, but not pretend or hope to arrive to the perfection of it, which, in both Mercy and Holiness, were no less than Blasphemy; wherefore such interpretations God's word doth abhor; and in that place St. John saith not, Every man that hath this hope hath purified in the Praetertense, but in the Present purifieth him­self, to shew how he doth but aim at it and by degrees: And St. Peter in the 16. v. explains the sense of the foregoing verse, because it is writ­ten, saith he, be ye holy, for I am holy, he shews no equality or parity of holiness. The word as, which he used before, he now renders by for, as a motive and a cause, why we ought to be holy? Because God is holy.

To what I said before, I shall now add at last how the word as doth in other places denote an equality, as the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father, John 10.15. which in the Greek word is taken for to love; he equally knows and loves the Father, with an Eternal and perfect Love, as the Father knoweth and loveth him: The words [...] and [...], when spoken of the Father and the Son, denote an equality, not a similitude; as the Father hath life in himself, so hath the Son life in himself [...] in the Ori­ginal: Now to understand the foregoing places of an equality, Chap 5. 26. is not contrary to other Scrip­tures, nor to the Analogy of Faith, but doth tend to the glory of both Father and Son; for the rule is most true in the Text now in que­stion, he that honoureth not the Son, honour­eth not the Father that sent him; but he that honoureth the Son, honoureth the Father also, which is a natural inference out of the place. But that people who pretend to honour the Fa­ther, [Page 211]have taken a quite contrary way to do't, which is dishonouring the Son, Joh. 8.49. as he said to the Jews, I honour my Father, and ye dishonour me, with robbing him, if they could, of his divine Nature and Attributes, when 'tis most true that he that honoureth not the Son, Chap. 5.23. Chap. 12. We are baptized in Christ's name. honoureth not the Father, and the Father beareth witness from Hea­ven that he is glorified in the Son.

Having thus proved in general that divine wor­ship belongs to Christ, we must now come to the places which demonstrate it in the particulars: As first, we are baptized in his name: Baptism is a di­vine ordinance, whereby being admitted to be members of Christ's mystical body, we take an Oath of Allegiance to him, whereby we own him to be our God and Redeemer, this is the seal of the Covenant. Now no Covenant is in force till it be passed the Seal; this Seal in Baptism is not only instituted by Christ, but also administred in his name and authority, whereby it doth appear that this is his Right, which Right of his, Matth. 28.19. he would make use of when he commanded all Nations to be baptized in his name. None but God can institute Sacraments, for none but he can bestow the grace therein represented; none but the Lord of the House hath right to make Laws in his House; now the Church is God's House, and seeing the preaching of the Word, and administration of both Sacraments therein, is done by Christ's authority and in his name, he is thereby not only owned, but also worship­ed as God and Lord of it, wherefore the Church is called Christ's own house. Heb. 3.6. I find indeed there was a subordination between God and Moses, this being but a Servant, but the same subordi­nation between God and Moses was between the Son of God and Moses, as is now of all Ministers of the Gospel under Christ, Mal. 3. [...]. for he is the Lord of the Temple, who by the Prophet was foretold should come to his Temple: how [Page 212]the Temple is the place for Adoration, and the Lord of the Temple is to be adored, and the worship proper for God is due to him. We are equally baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost; for in the words of the Institution and form of Administration, there is no other difference but of order, the names are jointly used, without any sign of distincti­on, as to Nature or Power, all three are there­in called upon, there being in them an equal Ma­jesty and Authority. I read how in the heaven­ly Jerusalem, Rev. 21.22. the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the Temple of it, yet but one Temple, as they are but one God.

But that men were in the practice, as by the institution they ought to be, baptized in the name of Christ, it appears out of what Peter said to the new Converts, be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, Acts 2.38. where we see he takes notice only of Jesus Christ, not to exclude either Father or Holy Ghost, but strongly to insinuate into their minds and hearts, how Christ was their God, Lord and Saviour, which to Preach and perswade was his great end, and this he would have them to make open pro­fession of in their being baptized in his name, whereby he shews the necessity and comprehen­siveness of Christ's name used in the administra­tion of that holy Sacrament, and the end there­of is for the remission of sins, that is to obtain pardon of sins, yea, and to receive the gift of the holy ghost. So when the Centurion's family was baptized, Acts 10.43. chap. 19.5. 1 Cor. 1.13. 'tis said only they were baptized in the name of the Lord. The name signifies the authority of the Lord, which in this case Paul was so much concerned for upon the occasion of the contentions that were among the Corinthians, which makes him so sharply expostulate with them, were ye baptized in the name of Paul? This point must needs be one of the highest im­portance in our Religion, seeing, he is so earnest­ly [Page 213]concerned as to say, I thank God I baptized none of you, &c. and he gives his reason for't, lest any should say, I baptized in my name. Whence we may conclude that to baptize in the name of Christ is one of the most fundamental points of Christian Religion, and I think it a rule and practice highly commendable in those Churches where in baptism, the word name is prefixed before every one of the three persons thus, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, distinctly pronounced, to prevent the abuse of some wretched Socinians, which by rea­son of the affinity which in some Languages, the words name and none or not, have, do confound them, and to baptize in the name of the Father, not of the Son, not of the Holy Ghost: Then it is Essential in baptism to have it administred in the name of the Son, as well as of the Father, wherefore John who by reason of this office is called Baptist, did it, not in his own name, on the contrary declared himself but a Minister when he pointed at Christ and said, I indeed baptize you with water, but he that comes after me and is mighter than I, he shall baptize you with the holy ghost and with fire; as if he had said, his Servant can administer only the outward sign, but the thing and grace signified, he alone can give. Hence I conclude that Christ in our be­ing baptized in his name, is by us therein wor­shiped as our God equally with the Father: Here they make a difficulty, because 'tis said the Fathers were baptized unto Moses in the Cloud, but that signifieth not to be baptized in the name and authority of Moses, but to be settled in the faith to be given to Gods word spoken by the Ministery of Moses, Exod. 14.31. Joh. 5.45, 46. so they are said to have believed the Lord and his Servant Moses: Thus our Saviour saith, Moses in whom ye trust and believe; so they have Moses and the Prophets, that is, the Law and Doctrine [Page 214]of Moses: When God saith a thing, tho but once, we ought to believe him, as if he had confirmed it many times, because in some places things are said which seemed to have been left out in others.

Another particular is, we hope and trust in Christ, Matth. 12.21. We hope in Christ. Isa. 11.10. Rom. 15.12. Ephs. 1.12, 13. 1 Cor. 15.19. in his name; and in his name shall the gentiles trust, as it had been Prophesied of long before, in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people, to it shall the Gentiles seck, hope and trust in him for mercy. As 'tis by St. Paul explained, in him shall the gentiles trust; among others such were the Ephesians, for saith the Apostle to them, That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first tru­sted in Christ; if we must believe the same A­postle not only in this life, but also in another to come, we must and do hope in Christ, or else we are of all men most miserable, that is, we cannot he happy except we hope in Christ, for indeed that hope is the ground of all our Com­forts, and in that hope whereby we manifest our dependency upon him, we own him to be he from whom we expect all manner of help and re­lief in our necessities, for in him are all our Springs, we hope in him for all, and from him we expect all manner of good, and therein we worship him as the Author and Fountain of all the good we receive and hope for: now to trust in him is not only our duty, but also our blessed­ness and happiness; Psal. 2.12. for blessed are all they that put their trust in him, which is spoken of Christ the Messiah: Now if he was a meer man, far from being Blessed, they would be Cursed, for a dread­ful Curse is thundred against any that trusteth in man, Thus saith the Lord, cursed be the man that trusteth in man, Jerem. 17.6. and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord. These three several expressions signifie the same, and go together, for to depend upon the Arm of Flesh for Wisdom, Strength and Help, is to must in Man, and whosoever trusteth in Man, [Page 215]his heart departeth from the Lord; it is incompa­tible to trust in God and in Man, and the heart is not to be divided, one of the two it must ad­here to, for to both it is impossible: Wherefore in this same place, as we see a Curse against Man-Trusters, so there is a blessing for those who trust in God; verse 7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is. Here again we meet with detestable Socinus and his jug­glings; God, saith, he proclaimeth a Curse against Man that trusteth in Man, not in every Man, or upon every account, but against him that trusteth in Man not appointed by God to give help and relief, that is, which is not endued with divine gifts: but if to be endued with di­vine gifts, had been a sufficient ground to secure men from this Curse, then we might have trusted in Moses, Elias, Daniel, &c. persons endued with divine and extraordinary gifts; but God here makes it a general rule which admitteth of no exception, for he simply saith in man: it is a most abominable presumption for a man so often to attempt to make the spirit of God to speak in his own Language, but suppose there be a man appointed of God to help, yet we are not to trust in him, for though a man hath divine Gifts and Power, yet ceaseth not to be, but still remains a man, and if God speaketh truth, who­ever trusteth in man departeth from God: though we should happen to know a man endued with divine power, and appointed of God to the end he should help us, yet we might not trust in him, which if we do, we become liable altogether to this Sentence of the Curse of God.

In the third place we do and must believe in him, which not to do is sin, We believe in Christ. Joh. 16.8, 9. 1 Joh. 3.23. Chap. 5.1, 5, 10. yet such an one as the Holy Ghost reproveth the world for: It is our duty, for there is a precept for it, and this is his commandment, that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, which is a sign we are born of God, and whereby we overcome [Page 216]the world, and have the witness in our selves, for this end God sent him into the world, 1 Joh. 3.16, 17, 18, 36. that we should believe in him, that we should not be condemned nor perish, but be saved and have everlasting life, now to believe is to do the work of God, for this is the work of God that ye be­lieve on him whom he hath sent: Chap. 6.29. all our hope for glory is grounded upon the promise which is not perfectly made sure to us, till it be sealed; now the Seal is the Holy Spirit of Promise which is the earnest of our inheritance, untill the re­demption of the purchased possession, but we cannot be sealed in Christ with the spirit till we have believed, Eph. 1.13, 14. for so saith the Apostle, in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed, &c. after and not before. No man is the true proper object of our faith, for to believe in one, is to put in him his whole trust and confidence, which we may not in any meer man whatsoever, so though we believe in Christ, except we believe him to be God, our faith is vain, and not true. This makes the Apostle write his Epistles, to whom? and unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God, Joh. 5 13. but for what end doth he write those things? that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God, reduplicative, as he is Son of God, true natural Son of God, by whom all things were created, in him ought our faith to be ter­minated, for if he was only a medium and not the Object of it, then we should believe in him only Ministerially, not Principally, but in Faith there is no subordination, for 'tis a Theological Virtue which as it comes only from God, so it hath God alone for its object; it cannot have two such different and infinitely distant Objects as are the Creator and the Creature: To believe in Christ, was the chief thing which the Apo­stles ever exhorted men to do: For indeed 'tis the whole end and substance of the Gospel, but not as an imperfect Christ, a meer man, but as the true Son of God, of the same nature, this thing [Page 217]he always commanded men to do, namely to be­lieve in him; about the time of his leaving this world, he charged his Disciples to do't, where­by they should find a present remedy and com­fort to those troubles of heart that might hap­pen to befall them; this he doth with a great Emphasis, he doth not barely say, believe in me, Joh. 17.1. but he goes higher, to shew what manner of Faith they ought to repose in him: Ye believe in God believe also in me, have in me the same Faith as you have in God, if here the word God be taken for the person of the Father, the Lord Je­sus maketh himself equal with him, seeing he will have us to believe in him no less than in the Father, if the word God be Essentially taken, then he doth affirm himself to be God while he attributes unto himself the same faith which all Believers have and repose in God alone, for this fiducial honour God doth not communicate to another; no other reason can be assigned why the Son would have us to believe in him as in the Father, but because in Nature, Power and Ho­nour he is equal with the Father, and consequent­ly the primary object of Faith, that in matter of worship he owned himself such, it doth clear­ly appear in some instances, the first of the man in the Gospel, whose eyes he had opened, whom our Saviour far from forbidding him to worship him, he encouraged to it, not under the notion of Son of Man, but of Son of God, for he asked, dost thou believe on the Son of God? Chap. 9.35, 36, 37, 38. The man an­swered, who is he, Lord? Christ replied, thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee, and the man said, Lord, I believe; and he worshiped him: If he had not been the true Son of [...]od by nature, I maintain this had been Ido­latry, which he was no savourer to: The other instance is of Thomas, who for calling Christ my Lord and my God, in the Sense he did, af­ter his conviction that he was actually raised from the dead, had spoken blasphemy in case he [Page 218]had not truly been Lord and God, which far from being reproved for it, what our Saviour after said unto him, and the manner how he said it import an approbation of what Thomas had said and done, and at another time all the Disciples together did perform the same, for they came and held him by the feet, Matth. 28.9. Luke 24.52. Act. 10.43. Luke 24.47. We pray to Christ. and wor­shiped him: In few words, whosoever believeth on Christ shall have remission of his sins, and he commanded his Disciples, that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations.

Now we come to the fourth part of that re­ligious worship which is due and paid unto him: Namely Prayer, this floweth from the forego­ing, for every Prayer should be made in Faith, according to what the Apostle saith, Rom. 10.10. how shall they call on him in whom they have not believed. That to call upon and pray to God is a duty by men to be performed, is expressed in Scripture, the omission whereof is look't upon as a most heinous sin, deserving the heaviest judgments, see what character is given of those who neglect it. The workers of iniquity have not called upon God. Psal. 53.4.'Tis such a sin as deserveth no less than the wrath of God. Pour out thy wrath upon the Kingdoms that have not called upon thy name. And as for me, Psal. 79.6. saith David in another place, and all that truely fear God with him, I give my self unto prayer: Psal. 109.4. So that the best commendation under the Old and New Testaments, that can be gi­ven of a man, is what the Lord said to Ananias of Paul, Acts 9.11. Behold he prayeth, and how good a success Cornclius his prayers were crowned with­all, the Angel declared it unto him, thy prayers are come up for a memorial before God. Chap. 10.4. And it would prove a long work for one to demon­strate the necessity and excellency of that duty, which, I may say, doth in some respect include every other thing which men owe God, and hence we may conclude what a transcendent [Page 219]Eminency there is in Christ, no less than his divi­nity, seeing he is the proper object of a duty to be rendered to the only true God: Unto the Lord Jesus as his due, it is ascribed in the two branches thereof, namely Prayer and Praise, by Prayer we ask of Christ or of God through Christ the things we want, and by Praise or Thanksgiving we return him thanks for what we received, Call upon me in time of trouble, Psal. 50.15. I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorifie me, wherein both parts are contained, how many Prayers doth that chosen Vessel Paul put up to God and to Christ? and how often in his Epistles doth he give thanks.

With us Prayer and Adoration differ not for­maly only as to the Manner, Order and like Cir­cumstances; but are the same in Nature, diver­sified only according to occasion; but still remain­ing the same as to the Essence, Eyes, Hands, and Hearts, not being lifted up upon any thing un­der Heaven, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of the Father: Socinians do thus distin­guish between Adoration and Invocation, the first signifieth only a reverent bowing to any one, the last includeth a religious suing for help, that is to be performed even by all Angels, as being commanded and necessary; but this only by men voluntarily, yet lawful and expedient, the ground of the first in Christ, is Majesty, as Power is of the last: Thus they always clip one thing or other of his Prerogatives, as if Men and Angels were not equally bound to a­dore and worship him, for where we find, let all the Angels of God worship him, there 'tis also written, let all men honour the Son e­ven as they honour the Father, and men are as well commanded to act their part as Angels are to do theirs. The word [...] in the original, to worship, is in the New Testament no where used, but for the Religious Worship due to God alone, and when 'tis mentioned as [Page 220]done unto any but God, it is remembred as their Idolatry, as Rev. 13.12, 15. or to forbid it; as chap. 19.10. and 22.9. So the worship which God commanded Angels to render his Son, is Religious by Virtue of his Authority which alone can make [...] worship Religious. Christ at his very first coming into the world, and not only after his Assension, was a fit object of a­doration.

Now out of Scripture we prove how Christ was called upon and prayed to, Acts 7.59. they stoned Ste­phen, calling upon God and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit. He calls him Lord and God, he was not the only one that called upon him, though the circumstance of his being a dying, when no help in men, makes it very conside­rable: many others called upon him, for this description is made of Christians and Believers, Acts 9.13.14. that they called upon him: Thus Ananias, Lord he hath authority, Saul, from the chief Priests to bind all that call on thy name, all that made a profession of the Gospel. Most of his Epi­stles Paul begins with wishing Grace, Peace and Mercy, not only from God the Father, but also from the Lord Jesus Christ, and often the same Epistles he concludeth thus: the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, which is no­thing else but to call upon him for Favour and Mercy; for whosoever wisheth any one Grace and Peace from Christ, thereby prayeth to Christ to bestow grace and favour upon such an one; 2 Cor. 12.8, 9. and in plain and clear terms he called up­on and prayed to Christ; For this thing I be­sought the Lord thrice, and he said unto me, my grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect in weakness: This is to speak as God doth, not only Paul called upon the Lord Jesus, but saith there were some in every place that call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, 1 Cor. 1.2. to whom all as to the Church in Corinth he directed his Epistle: And no wonder if they [Page 221]who are desirous of their spiritual wellfare, do call upon the name of the Lord, for he is so rich unto all that call upon him, that he hath entailed Salvation upon the performance of that duty, which I speak not as of my self, Rom. 10.12, 13. Acts 2.21. but two Apostles will be bound for it; For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be sa­ved; saith one. And it shall come to pass that whoso­ever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, saith another: Joel. 2.32. and both have a Pro­phet for security of what they say. Now Prayer is a religious duty to be directed to none but to God; all this is example: But the reason is this, he without whom we cannot call upon the Fa­ther, must also be called upon, but the Father we cannot call upon without Christ, John 14.6. because none can come unto the Father but by him, and he is the way: But here is a command besides; Chap. 16.24. hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name, ask and ye shall receive. There is a place in Scripture where three parts of worship due to Christ, Acts 22.16. are contained: and now, saith Ananias unto Paul, why tarriest thou, be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord, in all three is the name of the Lord, the first and last are plain, but Faith is mean't by washing away sins, which are washed when forgiven, now our sins are forgiven when we are justified through faith in Christ, Chap. 26.18. or when we are sanctified by faith that is in him.

Against this 'tis argued out of the Preface of the Lord's Prayer, our Father, that there 'tis spoken of the Father exclusively to the Son: But in that place as in several others, the word Father is not taken Personally, but Essentially, exclusively not to Son and Holy Ghost, but to Idols and Creatures; the word Father is here taken for God, as 'tis when said, one God and Father of all, and Abba-Father: Ephes. 4.6. Rom. 8.15. Also the Father of Spirits: The words our Father are often taken for our God and Lord: In those pla­ces [Page 222]the word Father is said relatively not to the Son, Heb. 12.9. Matth. 10.21, 29. Luke 30.32. John 14.13. Chap. 3.13 but to men whose Father God is. The things in the Lord's Prayer asked and prayed for, are asked of the Son as well as of the Father, as the coming of his Kingdom, the forgiveness of our Sins, whence saith our Lord, Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that I will do: And the words, which are in Heaven, do be­long to the Son as to the Father, and the Holy Ghost too, as appeareth out of Psal. 139.7, 8. and Matth. 3.16. Nay as we said before, the Son is called the everlasting Father: And if we consider the Etymology of the word, which in the Original signifieth, to preserve all things, we shall find he is a Father indeed, by whom all things are upheld and preserved, which the Ho­ly Spirit within us beareth witness unto, when our heart laying under the sense of some trouble or mercy, doth on a sudden by means of an E­jaculatory Prayer, either in thoughts, words or both, poure it self before him, begging for help or giving thanks, breaking out upon occa­sion into these or the like expressions, Lord Je­sus have pity on me, or, Lord Jesus make me thankful.

Thus I, through the grace of God, have un­der those several heads brought in proofs for our blessed Lord and Saviour's divinity: of many more which Scripture affords, I shall take notice but of few, wherein he is properly and truly called God, which to assert is the main drift of the word, as it is the foundation of the whole Go­spel; for it was absolutely necessary he should be God by nature, or else any man might have preached, taught, prayed, given good example, and made intercession as well as Christ, and if he came into the world and dyed only to teach us good doctrine and give us good exam­ple, he had done for us no more than the Apo­stles and Martyrs, who taught good doctrine and gave good example, so might as well be [Page 223]called our Mediators and Saviours. If this had, as they say, been the whole work of the Mediator, our redemption had been no hard mat­ter to be performed: But I say that his threefold office of Mediatorship, Prophecy, Kingship, and Priesthood, demonstrate him to be true Essential God, for none of the three could perfectly have been performed but by a God himself: As to the Prophetical, to enlighten the understanding, and effectually to turn the heart; as to the Regal, to defend Believers against the Power of Satan; and as to the Priestly to obtain forgiveness of Sins, favour of God and glory, none of these could be obtained, but by him who is infinite as in Power so in Nature, there is an infinite distance between God who is infinite and every finite Creature, no proportion between Infinite and Finite. Scripture owneth nothing but God to be higher than Angels; now Christ is higher and above all Angels. Besides, that the neces­sity of satisfaction to be given to Divine Justice doth argue a necessity for Christ to be God, for the satisfaction could not have been adequate, as it ought to be, except he was God, and this divinity in him, doth prove the plurality of persons in the God-head, which is the whole of the difficulty alledged against the most holy Trinity. Certainly the great design of the A­postles and others, was to preach Christ to be truely and really God, Son of God whereby their Ministry was exalted, this was the foun­dation they were to build upon: Acts 8.37. The Eunuch must make this Confession, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, before he could be bap­tized, so did every one else being converted to the Faith, this in our Religion is the first thing to be known and preached, thus Paul, after his Conversion, Chap. 9.20. the first thing he did, was to preach that Christ is the Son of God, for that was the great question; the Jews denyed him not to be Man, Son of Man, but he went about to con­vince [Page 224]them how also he was God, Son of God, and he was by Nature God, as certainly as by nature he was Man: Wherefore he would raise the thoughts of the Corinthians from the considera­tion of Christ's humanity to that of his Deity, when he saith, 2 Cor. 5.16. though we have known Christ af­ter the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more after the flesh, but according to the spirit, not in the humane but in the divine nature: ac­cording to which he is called by the glorious names of the holy one, Act. 3.14, 15. 1 Cor. 2.8. and the just, the prince of life, and the Lord of glory, our Blessed Sa­viour, who when he was in the world had so often declared himself to be the Son of God in a proper sense, after his Ascension, when he had a full possession of that glory, as it were to con­firm from Heaven what he had declared upon Earth, in the Revelation he made to that disci­ple of his, who doth so eminently bear witness of his divinity, 1 Joh. 4.14, 15. when he saith, we have seen and do testifie, that the Father sent the Son to be the Sa­viour of the world; and whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God, and not otherwise; I say, on that occasion, the Lord Jesus from Heaven proclaims himself to be Son of God in the letter to the Angel of the Church in Thiatira, with this glorious description, Rev. 2.18. com­pared with chap. 1.14, 15. These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet like unto fine brass. Tho his enemies would not hear him upon earth, during the time of his humiliation, when through his Passive Obedience he was about performing the first part of his Priestly Office, to satisfie divine Justice, and make expiation for our sins, I think now they should when he speaks from Heaven whence he exercises his Royal Office: I know well enough how what I say about his satis­fying Divine Justice through his death, doth not affect his enemies, who deny he hath given satisfaction for us, but what can his intercessi­on [Page 225]on in Heaven which is the second part of his Priesthood be grounded upon, but his own merits, through his Sufferings and Death, he thereby hath payed our Debts, and by vertue of that payment, he asks we should be released: but that point I intend not to meddle with in this place.

In the New Testament, the name Saviour is as proper to him as that of Christ, as indeed that of Jesus, the same with Saviour, was given him by the Angel; and by St. Paul, the name Saviour is often joyned with that of God, Tit. 1.3. according to the com­mandment of God our Saviour, both names be­long to one and the same person, as truly, re­ally, and actually God, as he is Saviour, and in another place all these names God, Saviour, and Lord are given to Jesus Christ, by the command­ment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Tim. 1.1. As he is Jesus Christ, so as certainly he is God, Lord and Saviour, not only his Offices but also his divine Nature is therein contained, and in the same Chapter he calls him the Blessed God, ver. 11 as in another place, God Blessed for ever. That Christ is thereby meant it appears by his saying, the glorious Gospel of the Blessed God. Now 'tis in several places called the Gospel of Christ, wherefore in almost every Epistle of his, he cal­leth himself an Apostle of Jesus Christ, Mark 1.1. Rom. 1.16 1 Cor. 9.12 18. Gal. 1.7. Rom. 8.9. sent by him to preach the Gospel. So elsewhere, he saith, if so be that the spirit of God dwell in you, now if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his. That which in the beginning of the verse, Paul calls the spirit of God in the latter end he calls the Spirit of Christ, whereby he makes God and Christ to be but one and the same person.

Under another Head our Blessed Saviour doth in many places afford us an argument for his divinity, consisting in a certain divine manner of speaking with Authority, not as subordinate or delegate, but original in him as the Head [Page 226]and Spring, not as by Favour and Courtesie derived upon him, but out of his own natural Right, which is above what any Man ever did or could pretend to; as when in his Sermon up­on the Mount, he reformeth the abuses crept in against the Law, wherein he asserteth his Le­gislative Power at several times, Matth. 5.20, 22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44. Chap. 7.29. but I say unto you: And the people that heard him could take notice how he taught them as one having authority; and not as the Scribes. And he said unto his Disci­ples when he sent them, recive ye the holy ghost, whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted, and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained, and to Peter, Feed my Sheep: go and teach all Na­tions. All these are words of Command. Fur­ther let us observe how no Man's Will is absolute­ly the rule of another's: one Man's Will is free and independent from that of another; no Man is bound absolutely to follow the will of another, because every Man's Will is fallible, and so may led us into errour, but the will of God alone is infal­lible, and so alone to be followed; wherefore in our Prayer simply we say, thy will be done, and when Man's Will is to be obeyed, 'tis relatively and only in conformity to that of God. But Christ's Will is the Law, without Dispute or Exception, thus when he calls those that are hea­vy laden, Matth. 11.27, 28. he positively saith, I will give you rest, having in the foregoing verse affirmed how none knoweth the Father, but he to whom the Son will reveal him: Thus when he cured the Le­per, he said, I will, be thou clean; so he saith, The Son quickeneth whom he will, and him that be­lieveth on me I will raise up at the last day. Joh. 6.40, 44. Herein is his own Power set forth. So 'tis when speak­ing with the Samaritan Woman, that the wa­ter he will give shall be in him that receives it a Well of water springing up into everlasting life: and in that other place, If any man thirst let him come unto me and drink. He doth not say, I will pray the Father, that he may have everlast­ing [Page 227]life, or that out of his belly may flow rivers of living water, but let him come to me, and without going for this farther to any, he shall certainly drink and be satisfied, for that I will do for him; this is to speak like Lord, Master and God. But it may be said, Men he may speak to after that rate, being so graciously ex­alted above them all: well but I will go higher and say something more than hath been hitherto: when the Lord Jesus speaks to the Father, Joh. 17.24. he sometimes saith, I will, as in the Prayer which before his leaving the World in the capacity of Mediator, he puts up to him for the Elect, Fa­ther, I will that they also whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am to behold my glory, thus according to his own will he disposeth of Glory: Did any Man meerly such, ever speak to God in that way? Elijah and John Baptist were the two most fervent Men in spirit that we read of in Scripture, but can we ever find any thing like this, that ever they did or said? No, none but God the Son can be so familiar with God the Father, and we must believe that he well knew both God the Father and himself when he spake thus, & except he had been sure he might, he would not have done it; but it had been as a most unsuf­ferable Presumption, nay Blasphemy in any Man to have said so, we must conclude he was more than a Man, and that he thus spoke upon ano­ther account, even upon the same he had said before, I and the Father are one, and had made himself equal with God.

We read how our Saviour took on him, Heb. 2.16. not the nature of Angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham, the reduplication, took not, and took denotes the voluntary Act of a person who made a choice, which he had not been in a capacity to do, except he had praeexisted before he took the Seed of Abraham, so that before he was made of the Seed of Abraham, he must need have had ano­ther Being, and before he was made he must re­ally [Page 228]have been God, he could not have been an Angel, because he took not upon him the nature of Angels. Again, our Saviour saith, I ascend un­to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God; why not to our Father, as he said, when he taught them to pray for themselves? For if they had been brethren upon the same bottom of Grace, though in different degrees, he would have spoken of him as of their com­mon Father, but speaking disjunctively and in different numbers, seeing he said, and did no­thing without good cause, there must be a par­ticular reason for it, which is naturally and ea­sily insinuated to be this, That God was their Father and His, not upon a common, one and the same, but upon a much different account their Father by Grace, and his by Nature. Fur­thermore, Christ so often speaketh of his be­ing sent by the Father, as I seek not my own will, John 5.3 & 6 38. Chap. 7.16. Mark 9.37. but the will of him that sent me, I came down from Heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me; my Doctrine in not mine, but his that sent me; he that re­ceiveth me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me; he that believeth in me, believeth not in me, but in him that sent me; all this to conde­scend to the Hypotheses of the Jews, and the opinion they had of him; namely, that he was a meer man, but seeing he was not come of him­self, but was sent by the Father, he thereby would intimate unto them how they ought to look upon him to be more than a man, since he had a being before he was born amongst them, and was sent by the Father, whereby they all un­derstood well enough how he meant, and so cal­led himself the Son of God; This Argument did his Apostles after his ascension, so strongly and so often prosecute, to prove him to be the true, proper and natural Son of God: Thus we see that as the first Person the Father is in relation to the second the Son, called [...], so al­so [Page 229]the second Person is called [...], Joh. 5.18. Rom. 8.32. proper or own Son, as the other is proper and own Fa­ther: and to shew this is not a Physical, but Su­perphysical, or Supernatural Generation, not a partial communication of corporeal Substance, but a spiritual one of an indivisible Essence, therefore 'tis called wisdom and understanding, Prov. 8.1. Joh. 1.14. Col. 1.15. Heb. 1.6. and the word: So this second Person is called the image of the first, of the same Essence and Essen­tial perfection; in relation to this eternal gene­ration, called not only the first born of every Creature, so no Creature himself, but also abso­lutely the first born: And he being also called the only begotten, it sheweth that to him alone doth belong the generation we speak of; he is the on­ly begotten of the Substance of the Father, and the first begotten, not as if the Father be­gat any after, but because he begat none before: He is also called the Image and the Brightness of his Fathers Glory, because the glory of the Fa­ther is expressed in the Son.

Another weighty Text about this matter is of the same Apostle who saith Looking for that bles­sed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Tit. 2.13. Not only God, but the great God, the Infinite Being; that is, of Infinite Nature and Power, for as life when attributed to God signifieth Immorta­lity, Wealth and Riches all Sufficiency, Age, Eternity, and Strength Omnipotency, so doth greatness Immensity. This Text all Expositors whether Greek or Latin, Ambrosius excepted did unanimously quote as formal and clear a­gainst Arrians. The word Epiphany or glorious appearing, is in no place of the New Testament attributed to any but to the Son, and this glory is not in respect of Christ, for he hath it already, but in relation to the manifestation thereof un­to us. These expressions the great God and our Saviour is referred not to two persons, but only to one, as that wherein 'tis said, Ephes. 1.3. the God [Page 230]and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the idiom of the Greek Tongue, seeing here is but one article, [...], the great God and Saviour, it doth clearly demonstrate it to be spoken only of one person, for both pre­dicates are referred to the same Subject, as we have it so in other places; as first, by the com­mandment of God our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Tim. 1.1. the same person Jesus Christ, is our Lord, Saviour and God, who verse 11. is called the Blessed God, Tim. 1.3. & 3.4. so he is called God our Saviour. Now here the same person is spoken of, as in these other places, so he that is our Saviour the proper title of the Lord Jesus, is the great God: Besides that as I already observed what is said of his glorious appearing gives a true Character of his person, for thereby is meant his coming to judge the world at the last day, and that this glorious appearing is meant of Jesus Christ, 'tis clearly demonstrated out of 2 Thes. 2.8.1 Tim. 6.14. and 2 Tim. 4.1, 8. To what I have said already, how the Apostle by the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, speaks only of one person. I shall add, that this is the stile of Scripture in other Texts as well as in this; as for instance, this, To the ac­knowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, Celos. 2.2 and of Christ, after their way of inter­preting, here the Father is one person, and God another; so the Father is not God no more than Christ, and the Father must differ from God as much as Christ doth from the Father: So here three different persons must be asserted Take notice how in this place the copulative par­ticle and, which they would have to denote different things or persons is here after the word God, and in the other, after the great God, so that I see no reason, if in that of Titus the great God and Saviour Jesus Christ be different persons, why in this, God and the Father should not be so too? This and many other difficulties might [Page 231]easily be removed if men would but give God glory to the acknowledgment of the truth, how Christ is the great God and Saviour, and the Father is God, which name in this place to the Colos. is taken essentially, but the per­sons of Father and Son are named, to the end that the hearts of Believers might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding to the ac­knowledgment of the mystery: For all these are the words of the Text, for certainly 'tis a mat­ter of unspeakable comfort when we are to come to God, whereof the Father is the Spring and first Person, to hear Christ the Mediator nam­ed, thorough whom in our approaches to the Throne of Grace we hope to obtain Mercy and find Grace to help in time of need.

These deduced out of Scriptures and the rea­sons thereupon grounded, to avoid Prolixity I have only pointed at, though they might ad­mit of great enlargements: Some thing more there is remaining, which must not be omitted, as being very material, I mean the Texts where­in our Saviour speaks of his coming down from and going up again to Heaven; whereupon we must observe how the coming or sending of God's own Son, doth not signifie any local motion from Heaven to Earth, but a manifestation of him in the flesh: God sent his own Son out of his Bosom, without our Counsel, we desired it not, we inquired not after it, much less deserved it.

I must not omit to take notice of a false infe­rence they make out of the Text quoted just be­fore, wherein our Saviour is called the first born of every Creature, whence they would conclude him to be a Creature when the true inference is this, that he was born before any thing was crea­ted, seeing he was the Creator of all, which is the reason given in the next verse, why he calls him the first born of every Creature: For by him were all things created that are in heaven [Page 232]and that are in carth. And which is more, at the later end of the verse, all things were created by him, and for him. He created all things for himself, which may not be said of any Creature, for if he were a Creature, he had been before himself: And if we desire a farther explanation we have it in the following verse, heb. 1.2.6. and he is before all things. And if we compare this place with another, we shall find a sweet harmony, in both, he is called God's Son, Col. 1.13. yea his dear Son in the first, in both Crea­tour or maker of the World, saith the last, by whom also God made the worlds. As to Creation so as to preservation, for one saith, by him all things consist; and the other, by him all things are up­held, and the phrase in the Colossians, the first born of every Creature, is in the Epistle to the Heb. interpreted by this, appointed heir of all things, That is, to be Lord of every Creature or whole Creation; the first born is the Heir and Lord: The Elder Brother or First Born is loco parentis, Heb. 12.13. as a Father, and so in the same Epistle, behold I and the children which God hath given me: Now the reason is clear, and the conse­quence obvious, Christ is before all things, be­cause all things were created by him, upon which account he calls himself the beginning of the Crea­tion of God, That is the efficient cause, which expressions are both joyned together, as being of the same importance, the beginning and first born from the dead; Rev. 3.14 Col. 1.13. that is the efficient cause of the Resurection from the Dead: These two places out of Colos. and Heb. ought to be lookt upon as parallel one with another. Now by the Son of Gods or the word's making the worlds, we have an eminent Testimony of his Eternal Godhead and Power, for saith the Apostle, he that made all things is God. Heb. 3.4. So since all things were made by the Son, he must be God: Here I must take notice of their cavil against the place, where it is said God made the world by his Son, they would have [...], by whom, to be taken for [Page 233] [...], for whom, as if God had made them for his Son, for his sake, which is a down-right corruption of the Text, [...] is not with an ac­cusative, to signifie propter, but in the Genitive, which never denoteth a final but always an effi­cient cause: In the New Testament [...] by, is used about 600 times with a Genitive Cafe, and in no one may be rendred propter, for, and so cannot be here; and suppose it could, yet it would be against the constant use of the word, for which some particular reason ought to be given why such a sence should be admitted, for which there is none in this place; it also must be taken notice of, how the case is not the same, where Things as where Persons are spoken of.

What now I am by the grace of God enter­ing upon, is to shew how our Blessed Saviour had a real being, before he was conceived in the Womb of the Virgin, and my reasons shall be drawn out of the 6. chap. of St. John's Go­spel, where the matter conducing to our purpose, is spoken of at large, [...]r Christ doth in several places thereof, speak of his being come from Heaven, and shall begin with the last verse, wherein he discourseth upon the point, because it will by degrees lead us back to the rest, Joh. 6.6. What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? which words he spoke of himself, to remove the offence which what he said about the eating of his flesh and drink­ing of his blood had given many of his disciples, for he saith, his words are not literally or cor­porally but spiritually to be understood, for he was to leave the Earth, and go up into Heaven where he was before, out of which words we may easily conclude how Christ was in Heaven before he was upon earth, this seems to be clear.

But however they will not agree to it, Vers. 32.33, 38, 50.51. Ver. 41.42. first they cavil about the place, saying that by where [Page 234]he was before, Heaven is not meant, when in this very chapter no less than five times, he saith he came down from Heaven, which the Jews took special notice of and murmured at: which truth our Saviour had before declared to Nico­demns, and No man hath ascended up to Heaven but he that came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man, Joh. 3.13. which is in Heaven; so that although in this verse, the word Heaven be not named, yet is so plainly described, that there is not the least ground left for any one to doubt of it, ei­ther for his Disciples or others, for what need of his naming again, that which he named so ma­ny times before. There is a Text parallel with this, Joh. 16.28. which doth explain it. I came forth from the father, and am come into the world; again I leave the world and go to the Father. To say he shall ascend up where he was before, and to return to the place whence he came, is it not the same? and had he not declared at several times that his Father is in Heaven? And if any doubt should remain, 'tis wholly cleared by the execution, and when the thing was fulfilled at his ascension, for, while they beheld, he was taken up, Acts 1.9. and a cloud received him out of their sight.

But this not serving their turn, but by these Texts being pincht to the quick, to hold out they take another way, which is figuratively to explain the words where he was before, and wrest their proper signification into a Meta­phor, that is, Christ in his mind and thoughts conversed in Heaven, being taken up in Medi­tation with those heavenly mysteries that are there; which were so present unto him, that although he was upon Earth, yet he might be said to be in Heaven; this indeed is a way of pervert­ing the sense of Scriptures, but not a fair one: But if so, our Saviour would have spoken in the present is, and not in time past was, for as they say, he continually was taken up with such [Page 235]thoughts; if continually, then not discontinued when at that time he discoursed with them: But the word before, doth import a relative opposi­tion between the time wherein our Saviour was in Heaven, and that when he spoke upon Earth, besides that actually and really he was upon Earth when they make him to have been in Heaven, meer­ly in Thoughts and Meditation, which holds no proportion between his being in Heaven and upon Earth, so then Christ was really in Heaven, before he came down upon Earth; and as he really and actually ascended up into it, so he really and actually descended from thence upon Earth, here are two terms a quo and ad quem, as he could not go up to Heaven but from the Earth, so he could not come down upon the Earth but from Heaven: and is there the least ground in the whole Chapter to think Christ's intention was to entertain them with his having been in Heaven in Idea and Meditation? when his design was to shew, how, what he had said of being the Author of Resurrection and Life, and the manner of it by means of eating his flesh was a thing not to give them offence, nor impossible: Considering what he was, originally from Hea­ven, therefore not to be considered as a meer man, but such a one as was far more divine and power­full than any man.

They finding this will not do, yet to dispute the ground as long as they can, they forged in a Dream, for otherwise it cannot be, a very strange adventure; that Christ was in Heaven before he was upon Earth, seemeth undeniable; therefore because they dare not give him the lye, they would mince the matter thus; how Christ between his Birth and Death, and be­fore he preached went up into Heaven, where for a while he remained to be better instructed by the Father, in the things which he was to teach mankind, after which he came down again; but there is not the least ground but only fancy for [Page 236]it: The Evangelists do give us an account of most passages of Christ's Life, and how could they all four have forgotten this which is one of the most important that might have befallen him in that kind. The Evangelists Matthew and Luke, in their four first Chapters, relate many things belonging to that time, as not only his birth, but also his Circumcision on the eighth day, and his being carryed to the Temple to be presented to the Lord, received by Simeon, spoken of by Anna a Prophetess, adored by the Wise Men, carryed into Egypt, his return to Nazareth, his being found in the Temple sitting in the midst of the Doctors, asking them que­stions; his being subject to Joseph and Mary; baptized of John; tempted in the Wilderness, &c. and not one word about this pretended ascension. How came it that he was not missed by any? This they would to have been in imitation of Moses, whom God called up to the Mount: That it was so with Moses, we read in the word, but nothing like it of our Saviour: And when God is silent our mouth should be stopped, and nothing allowed to fancy or ima­gination: besides when Moses was called up, the people had publick notice given them of it, and by God's command, he took Aaron's Sons and Seventy of the Elders, all the people saw the glory of God upon the Mount; and when Mo­ses came back, all Israel saw him with his face shining, none of which things can be said of this pretended Ascension of christ's, whereof there are no witnesses, not so much as any of his Disciples, as he had in his Trassiguration, which three E­vangelists give an exact account of. Which though important, yet not so considerable as this which could not be performed without a great Mira­cle whether he had been carryed up only in Soul, for then his Soul had been separated from the Body, so death must have followed, or whether in Body and Soul, the Body could not [Page 237]have been sustain'd in the Air without a Miracle: And during that time, where were his Disciples? This certainly should have made a great Gap in the History of his Life; which we cannot per­ceive in any of the Evangelists, no, nor in those that have written his Life, from his Birth to his Death, Resurrection, and Ascension. St. Luke saith of the Gospel he had written, how he had made a Treatise of all that Jesus begun both to do and to teach: Yet not a word of this, Acts 1.1. as in­deed there was no necessity for Christ to go up to Know, as they say, his Father's Will, which might have been communicated unto him, as to Moses, John Baptist, without going up to Heaven, in case he had not known it; but he knew it be­fore: At his Baptism the Heavens were opened unto him; the Father had highly owned him; the Holy Ghost was descended upon him, so that he return'd from, Jordan full of the Holy Ghost; Luke 4.1. wherefore there was no need of his going, and so the Cause ceasing, so must the Effect; so that al­so it had been preposterous, after what happen'd in his Baptism, for him to have gone up into Hea­ven upon such an Errand: Besides that, we are assured he enter'd but once into the holy place, Heb. 9.12. Hereby we see how, if we were willing to take it, that sort of Men would be ready to put upon us every Suggestion of theirs for an Argument, every Argument for a Law, yea, and every Dream for a Revelation. Tho' our Saviour here calls himself Son of Man, and not Son of God, it doth not in the least prejudice what we say; for if he had call'd himself Son of God, it had been a begging of the Question, for they would not own him to be such: And this sheweth the better the Oneness of the Person, when there is a Communication of the Idioms, when in the Per­son, that which is proper to one Nature is spo­ken of the other. Christ, according to the Flesh, was never in Heaven before his Ascension, but according to the Spirit, that is his Divine Na­ture, [Page 238]he was. Here our blessed Saviour calling himself Son of Man, may allude to, with intent to make Men take notice of what is spoken of himself by the Prophet; Dan. 7.13, 14. I saw in the night Visi­ons; and behold, one like the Son of Man came with the Clouds of Heaven, and came to the an­cient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, &c. This is an exact Pro­phecy of his Ascension.

One thing more they have to say, and 'tis the Example of Paul's having been caught up to the third Heaven; but must it, from what hath hap­pen'd to Paul, 2 Cor. 12.2. follow, that the same must needs have befaln the Lord Jesus? That indeed we read of Paul, therefore we ought to believe; but of Christ we read no such thing: Yet for all that we never read that either Paul was from Heaven, or came down, as we read it of Christ very often. Paul speaks of that with the greatest modesty in the World, for fear he should seem to exalt himself; but our Lord, without any ambiguity or fear that Men would think, he takes too much upon himself, doth speak loud, highly declares and often proclaims himself to be the Son of God, equal with him, sent by the Father, descended from Heaven, where he is again to return, &c. This he owned openly, and when he had said to the man sick of the Palsie, Thy sins are forgiven thee, some of the Scribes having, said within themselves, This man bla­sphemeth. Christ called evil these Thoughts of theirs; Mat. 9.4. Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

Another place in this same Chapter already mention'd, Joh. 6.38. and to our purpose, is this: I came down from Heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. The words, taken in their natural signification, are plain enough, and admit of no difficulty. Christ speaks of [Page 239]himself; what Heaven is we know 'tis as his na­tural place, whence he came down into a state of Humiliation, in taking upon him our human Nature; the End of his coming down was to do his Father's Will, not his; tho' we must not think that when he did his Father's Will, he acted any thing against his own, for whatsoever he did and suffer'd was voluntarily, as he had said long before by the Prophet, I delight to do thy will: Psal. 40.5, 6, 7. Sacrifice and Offering thou didst not desire. Then said I, Lo, I come. And when the Will of his Father was executed, and the Work he gave him to do finish'd, he went back, if we may so say, home again, into Heaven. The Difficulty then lies not in the words, but about the sence: Christ, who spoke the words, is true; tho' every sence that is attempted to be given to the words be not true, yet a true sence there is. He makes men­tion of his Person, and of his Flesh; his Person is that which came down from Heaven; his Flesh is that which was formed in the Virgins Womb, that indeed did not come from Heaven; how­ever he speaks of his Flesh and Blood to intimate his Death, and that Life which he promiseth to those that eat his Flesh: He procureth it in two ways, by Merit or Impetration, and by Efficacy or Application: The Merit by his Death consists in the Dignity of the Person which suffer'd it; the Application and Efficacy, in the Spirit which is in the Person. By the Opposition he makes between himself and the Manna, he suffi­ciently declares, that he really came down from Heaven.

The Adversaries would have the coming down from Heaven to signifie no more than to proceed from God, which to confirm they make use of some Texts, as when our Saviour asked the Chief Priests, whence was the Baptism of John, Matth. 21.25. was it from Heaven, or of Men? Thus every good and perfect Gift is said to be from above, and to come down from the Father of light. Again, [Page 240] This Wisdom descendeth not from above. Thus John saith, Jam. 1.17. & 3.15. Rev. 21.2. he saw the new Jerusalem coming down from God out of Heaven: But none of these places is to the purpose, for they are about Things, and the Question is about Persons: Scri­pture makes no dissiculty to say, that Things whereof God is immediate Author come down from Heaven, there being no danger to say so, but it never saith it of Persons. In the Word of God, none besides Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and Angels, none, tho' never created or born, in so eminent a manner, is said to be come down from Heaven; neither Adam, nor Eve, nor Isaac the Son of a Special promise, and whose Birth, con­sidering the age of Abraham and of sarah, was very extraordinary. But that Christ came down from Heaven in a manner different from what is expressed in those places, it appeareth out of the fore-quoted place, What and if ye shall see the Son ascend up where he was before? whereby is implied, that he was in Heaven before he came down from it; which he confirmeth in that other place, No Man hath ascended up to Heaven but he that came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man, which is in Heaven; whereof the sence is made known by the design of Christ, who speak­ing to Nicodemus about being born again and Regeneration, saith, If I have told you earthly things, and of such as are done in earth, which by your own experience you may see and know, yet ye believe me not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things, that is, such as are or be done in Heaven, which ye neither can know of your selves nor by any one else? but by me, for I have been in Heaven, and none else? Besides that, if what the Adversaries say in their sence were true, it would follow, that Christ is said to be come down from Heaven either in relation to his Per­son or to his Office. As to the first, it cannot well be said, I mean as to his miraculous Conception, or else the same might have been said of John [Page 241]Baptist, who only by a Divine Power was born of an old and barren Mother, an Angel having foretold his Birth, and given his Name before­hand; yet he, far from saying he came or descen­ded from Heaven, speaks quite the contrary of himself, when he affirms this of Christ, John 3.31. He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is tarthly, and speaketh of the earth; he that cometh from Heaven is above all. And fur­ther; Christ may not be said to be come down from I seaven upon the account of his miraculous Conception; no, neither by reason of his being born without the help of Man; for this may al­so be said of Adam, born not only without the help of Man, but of Woman also, yet for all that, he is never said to be come down from Heaven, on the contrary he is said to be of the Earth, in opposition to Christ; 1 Cor. 15.47. The first man is of the earth, ca [...]thy; the second man is the Lord, from Heaven. As to the Office of Christ, it is certainly from Heaven in that sence, but it followeth not that because the Office is, the Per­son must be so; for neither [...], whose Baptism was from Heaven, nor none of the Prophets or Apostles, were ever said to be descended from Heaven. Now; according to this Opinion of theirs, Christ would have had no Advantage over the Manna, which was every day miraculously created and rained upon the People; yet our Sa­viour takes this Preference over the Manna, John 4.31, 33. that he was come down from Heaven, the Manna not so. Why doth our Lord deny that Manna was come down from Heaven, but that himself was the Bread of God, which came down from Hea­ven?

Our Lord's words, I came down from Heaven to do the will of him that sent me, do certainly contain more than barely, I am created by the wonderful Counsel and Power of God; herein he speaks as would an Embassador sent by his Prince, wherefore the words imply, first, that [Page 242] Christ was in Heaven; 2dly. That he was sent from thence; 3dly, To do the Will and perform the Work of him that sent him. And if it had not been in this sence, the Jews would not have murmur'd as they did; as indeed there had been no cause for it: And we do not in the least per­ceive he goes about to shew they were mista­ken to give his words such as sence, but on the contrary he goeth on to confirm what he had said, according to the sence they gave it, and that without any ambiguity, but plainly and downright, tho' he knew he thereby did run in­to a great danger, Matth. 13.55, 56, & John 6.42. for the Jews did not know how to reconcile what they knew of him: Is not this the Carpenter's Son? Is not his Mother called Mary, and his Brothers, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? and his Sisters, are they not all with us? How then can he say I am de­scended from Heaven? To have his Extraction from thence, and be equal with God, this made them look upon him as a Blasphemer, who, ac­cording to their Laws, was to be stoned: They allow'd him to be a very extraordinary man, who had done such things as had never been done be­fore among them; but to hear him say he was come down from Heaven, as his natural place, that they could not endure: Yet we must take it to be true, since neither he nor the Evangelist ever denied it.

They were so pleased with the Miracle of the five Barley Loaves and two small Fishes, that they would have taken him by force, and made him a King; and after he was gone, they could not be at rest till they again had found him out, and then he said, they follow'd him only out of love to their Belly, because they had eaten and were filled; whereupon out of his earnest desire for their good, he takes occasion to exhort them, to mind not that Meat that perisheth, but that which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man, said he, shall give unto you: And then he [Page 243]presseth the Argument, and shews how he, and none else can give it; and in order to't, declareth first who he is, namely, the Son of God, whom he calleth his Father four times, then addeth, V. 40.44, 45, 45. he is from God, afterwards he attributes unto him­self a quickening Power, and to give everlasting Life, for he doth not say, he that believeth in God, but on me; neither doth he say God. V. 47. but I will raise him up at the last day. Could the Fa­ther have more highly and stately spoken of him­self, V. 40. or assumed a greater Power than he doth? whereby we see, this he saith to draw Men, not to the Father, but to himself, as the Spring of Eternal Life, whereby he insinuates himself to be such a one as is far more potent and excellent than Man, upon which account he is truly and properly said to be come down from Heaven, or else he had not answerd the Jews Objection to the purpose: Which 'tis very unworthy for any one to say.

This matter we shall conclude with one Argu­ment more out of these words: I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: John 16.28. again I leave the world, and go to the Father. Where is the Father? In Heaven. Where is the World? On Earth. So then Christ was with the Father in Heaven before he was in the World on Earth. This last Text I joyn with the two foregoing, be­ing to the same purpose, because a threefold Knot is not easily untied. The words are so clear, V. 29. that thereupon his Disciples said, Lo, now speakest thou plainly. 'Tis to be wish'd every one was of their opinion, as there is cause for it: V. 30. By this we believe (said they) that thou camest forth from God. This they said themselves, and the Lord saith so of them, They have known surely that I came out from thee, and that thou didst send me: But neither Socinus, nor none of his Kidney, can say and prove that they believed not there was a Divine Nature in Christ: They explain the words, I came forth from the Father, only to sig­nifie [Page 244]that Christ was a Man sent from God upon some special Errand, just as he sent his Disciples into the World, 1 Joh. 4.1 or as false Prophets are said to be gone into the world. We know the Faith of his Apostles was weak, but true, and was encreased by degrees; they sometimes doubted of things, as may be Christ's Resurrection, but this doth not argue that there was no Faith in them, for there was, tho' staggering and imperfect, which our Saviour strengthened and themselves were sensible of, when they said unto him, Lord, in­crease our Faith; which we read so actually effe­cted in Thomas, who more than any one else doubted of this Resurrection, that at last he gave an authentick Testimony of his Faith concerning it when he called him, my Lord, and my God; and before that time, Peter, in their name, had given eminent evidence of their Faith about him, when he said, John 6.68, 69. Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hest the words of eternal life: and we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. After so solemn a Declaration, how dare any man say his Disciples did not believe any thing of Divine Nature in him? As to his Disci­ples, he sent them into the World, but he dwelt upon Earth, but his Father sent him upon Earth when himself was in Heaven: And this we may say, that as the Disciples were with Christ be­fore he sent them, so he was with the Father be­fore he sent him. As to the false Prophets, they were gone out into the World, but whence? Out of the Charch; John 2.15. of whom 'tis said before, They went out from us, but they were not of us.

One thing more I shall observe upon this Text, that if Christ really ascended up into Heaven, as he did unquestionably after his Resurrection, so he really descended from thence before his Incarnation; and if he descended, then he was before he descended; this, as said just before, his Disciples believed literally, not in a Metaphor or Figure; and that they well understood his mean­ing, [Page 245]our Saviour confirms, when he saith, v. 31, Do ye now believe, and what? That I came from the Father, and must return to him; and that I know all thing, which none but God can. Here I must give a general and necessary Warn­ing against Socinian far-fetch'd, and false glosses. Indeed, if admittance be given to all their Alle­gories, there can be no room left for literal and proper sence: So the deliverance out of Egypt, possession of Canaan, carrying into Captivity, shall not be Matters of Fact, and we may doubt whether there was ever a Noah, a Flood, or an Ark, such men as Aaron, Moses, Joshua, for 'tis possible to turn all these into Allegories. We know in Scripture there are some, but to turn every thing into't is a great Abuse: When a Text expresses plainly a literal sence, we must not trou­ble our heads to screw it up into an Allegory; nor when the Discourse is doctrinal, and the words in it usual, proper, and suited to the things intended to be expressed, this indeed is what Peter calls a resting the Scriptures to their own destruction.

The later part of the Verse doth explain the first, for the words signifie Christ's Ascension in­to Heaven; they were spoken upon the occasion of Christ's instructing, encouraging, and dispo­sing his Disciples to that Separation which was suddenly to happen by his Death; after which, tho' he shewed himself alive by many infallible Proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speak­ing of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, yet he conversed not with them in the same manner as before his Passion. Acts 1.2 Now this occasion which they were spoken upon, sheweth how he discoursed about leaving the World, going to his Father, and ascending into Heaven, which reaily and visibly happen'd forty days af­ter his Resurrection. By these Expressions, which were familiar with him, of going up or ascending to the Father, he signified the same [Page 246]thing; and tho' the Father doth fill up Heaven, which is his Throne, and Earth his Footstool, yet in Scripture he is said to sit and dwell in Hea­ven, as in his home; Joh. 14.2. wherefore our Saviour calls Heaven his Father's House. Now, as this later part of the verse signifieth Christ's Ascension from the Earth to the Father, so the first signi­fieth his coming down from Heaven upon Earth. Again, the Opposition which is seen between both parts, as, I came forth from the Father, with, and go to the Father; and, I am come into the World, with, again I leave the World; do shew, that if to come from the Father doth de­note to be sent from Heaven to Earth by the Father; so to go to the Father signifieth the con­trary to that, namely, to go from Earth up to Heaven to the Father. Christ leaving the World, is gone to the Father; and going to the Father, he hath left the World: wherefore to go to the Father, and leave the World, are the same. So likewise, Christ coming forth from the Father, came into the World, and coming into the World, he came forth from the Father: And these two kinds of Expressions signifie the same thing; Chap. 13.3. and as he was come from God, so he went to God.

This coming from the Father, and coming into the World, do imply, first, a sending, as the Lord declareth it; John 8.42. I proceeded forth, and came from God: neither came I of my self, but he sent me. And then something posterior to the Mission, and as it were belonging to the execution there­of, for if one should ask, Wherefore came Christ into the World? it would be well answer'd to say, Because the Father sent him: So that he who is sent, must come from him that sent him, to the place whereunto he is sent. Then the words, I came from the Father, must be under­stood of the execution of the sending, rather than the sending itself. It is a wrong sence gi­ven, as to apply them to a divine production; I [Page 247]came from the Father, that is, I am miraculously produced by the Father: This Exposition doth confound things that are different, for none can be sent before he hath a Being, but that's produ­ced which hath no Being; Production is before Sending: Thus the words must signifie, that Christ return'd to the place whence he came, and ascended into that whence he descended be­fore. This he went about to inculcate into the Mind of the Jews, in the opposition he makes of his Origin with theirs; Ye are from benedth, V. 23. I am from above: ye are of this world, I am not of this world, but from the Father, not from Earth, but from Heaven: He was not in the World by a natural necessity, but voluntarily, and by a determined counsel, he came into't as Embassador from his Father, to reveal unto Men the Doctrin and Means of Salvation, and for Judgment; Chap. 9.39. For judgment am I come into this world; and all the while he was here, even very betimes, he mind­ed what he came about: Unto his Mother, after she found him in the Temple, and asking him, Why hast thou thus dealt with us? he answer'd, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? Luke 2.48, 49. So that he continued upon Earth till that was over, before which time he would not go back; John 17.4. but before his departure he declar'd, I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do; whereupon he returned back to his Father, from whom he was come before, leaving Earth, a place so dis­proportionate and inferiour to Heaven, whence he had his extraction, and consequently unwor­thy to contain him any longer: This Reason he gives his Disciples, whose Heart, upon his decla­ring he was about leaving of them, had been fill'd with Sorrow, how it was not just he should al­ways be among those that had used him so un­worthily; and withal, it was expedient for them that he should go away, or else the Comforter, Chap. 16. [...], 7. [Page 248]who was to be with them after his departure, would not come.

After all that hither to hath been said, may not I ask concerning the method and carriage of the Adversaries. Is it fair, about these fundamental points, to turn the whole Scripture into an Alle­gory, and make, the Spirit of God never to speak properly? to force upon and wrest out of the Word of God such Sences and Expositions as are contrary to the scope of the Spirit, to the Deigns of the holy Writers, and to the Analogy of Faith; and if this cannot serve the turn, to screw up and work their B [...]ing, how to contrive and forge an imaginary After son of Christ into Heaven, about the [...] of his Ministry, and consequently a ceasing [...]wn from thence after it; yet at the same time deny that true and real descending of [...]is upon Earth, which is so much and so often as­sorted in Scripture; which is as good as to say, Tho' Truth and Scripture do not bear it, yet we I now how to supply it of our own: Flectere si nequco saperos, Ae eroma movebo.

Now, to strengthen what I have said to prove our Lords Divinity, before I proceed to answer Objecting, I shall add what followeth upon the forementioned Head of the Angel in the Old Testament, I mean, the increated Angel, whose Person in appearance is Man, in office Angel, in nature God, the second Person of the most holy Trinity. I shall somewhat insist upon a most notable place, and much to our purpose, though I already said something about it, for I can not willing to lay aside a strong and very useful wea­pon because I made use of it before, for when once it hath been try'd, we are the surer of, and may better depend upon it. On the occasion of the abominable Idolatry of the golden Calf, God refused to go up with the People, but being ap­peased by Moses, promised to send an Angel be­fore them, which Moses and the People were ful­ly [Page 249]satisfied with. Who and what this Angel was, Chap. 23.20, 21, 22. we have it in the Book of Exodus, with the End for which he was to go before, namely, to guide them; and 'tis thus expressed: Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. But hear the Charge he gives them concerning this Angel; Beware of him, and obey his voice: provoke him not, for he will not pardon your trans­gressions: for my name is in him. Such terms doth the God of Israel use when he speaks, of himself. Two things here we must observe; first, what is here spoken belongs only to the true essential God of Israel; the second is, the Angel or Per­son here spoken of, is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, out of which Premises we may well conclude, he is the true God of Israel.

The Caution here given to take heed, have a care and beware of him, as if he had said, take heed to thy self in thy Carriage before him; this, I say, joyned with the Command to obey his Voice, is very remarkable: The absolute Obe­dience which God requires them to yield unto the Angel, is due to God alone, and is never re­lated to the Creature, only to himself, for his Voice is God's Voice, and when he speaketh, God speaketh, as the words of v. 22. do intimate; If thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies. The Angels Voice, and all that God speaketh, is the fa [...]e, and upon their obedience to his Voice depended the performance of the Promises. The Lord never so expresly charged any People or Person not to provoke any created Angel or Man as here he doth, Provoke him not, offend and dis­please him not; why? For he will not pardon your Transgressions, Rebellions or Sins in Scripture Phrase, for Sin is the transgression of the law. So then, to disobey and to provoke this Angel, is to sin; and this very same Angel hath right and power, if he will, to pardon Sin, which none [Page 250]but the true God hath power to take upon him to do, and 'tis Blasphemy for any Creature whatsoever to pretend to't. Another great and unanswerable reason is, For my Name is in him; a more excellent Name than any of the An­gels do enjoy: Heb. 1.4. The Name is that appellation by which one thing is distinctly known from ano­ther; so Gods Name signifieth God himself, as to call upon Gods name, Gen. 4.26. Exod. 33.19. 2 Chron. 7.20. 'tis his Titles, God, Je­hovah, Elohim, Lord. I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee, said God to Moses, compa­red with Chap. 34.3, 6. in the former Verse 'tis called, to proclaim the name of the Lord, and in the later, to proclaim the Lord, the Lord. And in Scripture Phrase the Name of the Lord is ta­ken for God himself, that is, all in him, Majesty, Almightiness, Psal. 29.2. & 33.21. & 34.3. & 61.5. This house, saith God, which I have san­ctified for my name, for my self, my honour and worship: So here, when God saith of that Angel, my name is in him, he meaneth his Nature, Titles, Attributes, Authority, Power, and Glory. In a word, I my self am in him; which afterwards was well interpreted by the Lord Jesus, The Fa­ther is in me, and I in the Father: Now this by the God of Israel being attributed unto ano­ther, it must be to another himself, for his Name is his Glory, and he hath solemnly declared, my glory will I not give to another. Isa. 42.8. Exod. 3.2.

The Angel spoken of in this place is, as alrea­dy observed, the same as before had appeared unto Moses in a flame of Fire, out of the midst of a Bush, who, v. 4, is called Lord and God; who out of the same place called unto and requi­red of him divine Honour; Draw not nigh hi­ther, but put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. And if any doubt should remain, 'tis cleared v. 6, Moreover be, the same Angel, said, I am the God of thy Father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. This very same [Page 251]Angel or Person, upon the Peoples entring into the Land of Promise, under the shape of a Man ap­peared unto Joshua, under the name of Captain of the host of the Lord, and in the posture, for it was with a drawn Sword, Josh. 5.13, 14, 15. to execute his Office of General, as God had promised, to bring them into the place he had prepared, for then the People were just entering upon the Siege of Jericho, and this same Angel or Son of God, under the shape of a Man, exacted of Joshua the same Wor­ship as he before had required of Moses; and of him afterwards Joshua said to the People, He is a holy God, he is a jealous God: Josh. 24.19. he will not for­give your transgressions, nor your sins. These last words are the same which God said to Moses in the fore-quoted place, and so belong to one and the same.

Now, I say, this Angel, who appeared unto Moses out of the Bush, who through the Wil­derness went before the People into the Land of Promise, and appeared unto Joshua, is the Son of God, the second Person of the most holy Trinity, the same who afterwards took on him our human Nature, and was born of the Virgin Mary; and, among other reasons, this I take to be a very good one, Acts 7.30, 35. because Stephen the first Martyr for this glorious Cause, and a good In­terpreter of the place, makes mention of the Angel of the Lord, which appeared unto Moses, and this Moses God sent to be a ruler and a deli­verer by the hands or power of the Angel which appeared to him in the bush. Moses was the Mi­nister or Servant, Heb. 3.6. but Christ, as a Son over his own house, saith the Apostle. So things were done by the power of the Angel. Moses was in the Church in the Wilderness, but the Angel was with him: Stephen's mentioning the Church and the Angel, doth relate to Christ our Lord, the Son of God, who is the only Head thereof, and by whose Directions Moses took care of it, as al­so Moses spoke of him under the name of a Pro­phet [Page 252]whom God would raise up unto them: Acts 3.22, 23. and It shall come to pass, that every soul which will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from among the people, saith Peter. And tho' from the begin­ning the Son of God was not made Flesh, yet as Head of the Church he took care of his People, exercis'd his Mediatorship, and administred his spiritual Kingdom of Grace, which the bringing out of Egypt, and introducing into Canaan was a Figure of; and we may easily perceive the sweet harmony between the Old and New Testa­ments, about Christ's governing his Church un­der both, as to Names as well as to Things, for he is called Captain of the Lord's Host, as in the fore-quoted place; and God is a man of war, and Lord of hosts is one of God's Titles, not only 1 Sam. 1.1, but in a hundred places more: So Christ is in the New Testament called the Cap­tain of our salvation, Exod 15.3 Heb. 2.10. to be compleated in Heaven, whereof the Promised Land was a Type.

This Angel the People were commanded to take care not to provoke him, yet they did. In this case the Question may be put to our Socinian Rabshakehs, which in another, God did concern­ing Sennacherib, 2 Kin. 19.22. Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? and the same Answer return'd, Even against the holy one of Israel. So here, if it be asked, Whom did the Children of Israel provoke, tempt, and limit in the Wilderness? the Psalmist will say, Psal. [...]8.40, 41, 56. God, the holy one of Israel, and the most high God: compared with Psal. 95. c. And if of St. paul we ask, Whom did the People tempt in the Wilderness? he will an­swer, They tempted Christ; 1 Cor. 10 9. compa­red with Heb. 3.9, for there he speaks of Christ as Son of God: it may not be understood that Christ was tempted after he was born of the Virgin Mary, tho' after his Baptism he was, by the Devil in the Wilderness; which indeed may point at the Temptation by the People in the Wilderdess, which we read of in the old Testa­ment. [Page 253]However, I say, that Temptation after the coming out of Egypt, which was so long be­fore he was born, cannot be meaned of any thing after his Birth; yet, if Scripture saith truth, Christ was by the People tempted in the Wil­derness, the same Person, tho' not in the same Nature which he took afterwards. Now, the Person of the Word, in his divine nature, existed before he was made Flesh, or else how was it possible it should be tempted at that time? So I can see nothing to the contrary, but that we may well conclude the Lord Jesus, Son of God, to be the Angel that went before them, whom they were forbidden to provoke, and the most high God, the holy one of Israel, whom they tempted and provoked; he is called the Angel of God's Presence, or of God's Face, for the Lord said to Moses, Mypresence shall go: Exod 33.14. It donoteth a distinct Person in the Godhead, from him whose Angel and whose Face he is. We must under­stand, where the Angel was, God was present, because that same Angel and Person was God; and what in v. [...] is named Presence, in v. 18 'tis called Glory, to be compared with what John saith, And we beheld his glory, Chap. 1.14. as the glory of the only begotten of the Father. He also is called, the Angel of the Covenant, for 'tis plain how the Co­venant of Grace between God and man is ground­ed only in Christ, and none else; Isa 63.9. for Scripture saith, in him we are chosen and adopted, and only by him we shall be saved.

This Truth, that the Angel who went before the People was the true God, the Spirit of God hath judged so important and necessary to be known, that at several times and in many places he declared it. Among others, the following is very considerable, if we mind time, place, and the very words compared together; I send an Angel before thee, saith the Lord; Psal. 68.7, 8. and David, O God, when thou wentest before thy people, when thou didst march through the wilderness; compa­red [Page 254]with that before quoted of the Church in the Wilderness: and the same who went before the People, is by the Psalmist in the same place called God, the God of Israel, of whom, v. 18, 'tis said, Thou hast ascended on high: thou hast led capti­vity captive, &c. for here is certainly a Prophe­cy of Christ's Ascension, as to that purpose this place is quoted by St. Paul, Ephes. 4.8, 9, 10. for indeed here men­tion is made of the Figure and Type, namely, the Ark; as we see in the words of v. 1, & 2, taken out of Numb. 10.35, when the Ark was setting forward, and of the Antitype, the truth and body of the Type, Jesus Christ; and upon good ground, namely, that of Ephes. 4, many are of opinion, that this is a triumphant Psalm of our Saviour's Resurrection and Ascension into Hea­ven; for David, who was a Prophet, as a King, and knew himself in some things to be a Type of the Messiah, among things relating to his King­dom, used to mix and comprehend some belong­ing to Christ, which is the chief scope of the Psalm: So Jah, Jehovah, God and Lord, are to be understood of the Angel or Christ; for, as a little before we observed the Deliverance out of Egypt, leading through the Wilderness, and bringing into the Land of Promise, was a Fi­gure of the great Salvation of God's People, and of the deliverance of the Church, which is the proper work committed unto the Son of God the Lord Jesus, as King, Head, and Preserver of it. When David speaks of ascending, he acts not the Part of an Historian, but of a Prophet, and this is of an Ascension joyned with a Tri­umph, and leading of Captives, which doth not belong to that of Sinai: Neither do we read any where that God ascended into Heaven from Si­nai; but Christ having obtained victory over Death, the Grave, and all his and our Enemies, went up to Heaven; which cannot be said of the Ark: But the Ascension here spoken of, as Paul to the Ephesians doth interpret it, relateth to [Page 255]him who descended first into the lower parts of the earth, that is, to Christ, who ascended far above all Heavens, that he might fit all things, if we may take an Apostle's Interpretation of a Pro­phet; and it was Christ's or the Son of God's Voice that shook the Earth or Mount Sinai, as we may read it, Heb. 12.26.

Before I leave this matter, to what I said upon another Text, which is much to our purpose a­bout this Angel, concerning Jacob, I shall farther add, how the same person that appeared unto him was in the shape of a man; There wrestled a man with him, Gen. 32.24. 2ly, That same when Jacob was about blessing Joseph's Children, Gen. 48.16. he called an Angel. The 3d thing is, That he is expresly said to be God Lord of Hosts, by Hosea, for the Prophet speaking of Jacob, said, He had power with God, upon the occasion of his wrestle­ing, and added, Yea, he had power over the An­gel, and prevailed; he wept and made supplication unto him; he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us, even the Lord God of hosts: the Lord is his memorial, Hos. 12.3, 4, 5. So hence it appears how the Person who at Bethel appear­ed to him, when he fled from the Face of his Brother Esau, Gen. 28.13, compared with Chap. 35.1, and wrestled with him, when coming from Lanban he had passed over the Ford Jabbock; that same, I say, was God, the Angel, and the Lord of Hosts. This happened when Jacob and his Fa­mily were going into Canaan, whereof the pos­session had been promised him and his Posterity; upon the very borders he is met by his Adversary his Brother Esau, who had a pretence to that In­heritance, and therefore came against him with a power which of himself he was not able to re­sist, which made him afraid, as we read v. 11, wherefore upon such a tryal, to strengthen his Faith, and make him lay hold the faster on the Promise, 2 Cor. 1.20. he in whom all the promises are yea and [Page 256]Amen, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, appeared unto him in the shape of a man, because in his Seed were the Promises made; but this man in appearance, was God in effect and nature, there­fore Jacob did solemnly pray to him for his Blessing in the time of the wrestling, and would not rest till he had blessed him, which he ob­tained v. 29, and in remembrance of this, Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, because he had seen God face to face. This solemn meet­ing with much Comfort and Thankfulness Ja­cob remembred when he blessed Joseph and his two Sons, in these most remarkable words, God, before whom my Fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the Lads. The God of his Fathers the God that sed him all his life-time, and the Angel which redeemed him from all evil, is but one and the same: And the Name Redeemer is proper to Christ, the second Person of the holy Trinity. All these are irrefragable Truths, which Socinians can effectually say nothing a­gainst, tho' out of the Rabbis or Jewish Doctors Writings they have been screwing up whatso­ever they thought might serve their turn; thus they were not ashamed to borrow Weapons from Christs sworn Enemies.

But before I leave off this Point about Angels, whether the Creator or created ones, for the glory of the Son of God, I must say how, tho' these be called Sons of God, mighty in Power, and excellent in created Glory, yet when com­pared with God, Job 15.15. & 4.18. Isa. 6.3. John 12.40. 'tis said, they are not pure in his sight, and he chargeth them with folly, and they cover their faces at the brightness of his glory, as not being able nor worthy to look upon t. And that place about Divine Glory, as I already ob­served, we know to belong to our Saviour, who is called Lord and King of Glory, because [Page 257]all Glory is in and from him, as its true Spring and proper Center; Psal. 24, compared with 1 Cor. 2.8. Hence it is that at his coming into the World all Angels were commanded to wor­ship him, which was performed in their atten­dance on his Birth, proclamation of his Nativi­ty, and celebrating the Glory of God on that account, and afterwards declaring his Resurre­ction, and confirming his Ascension, even mini­string unto him after the Temptation, and when he was in his Agony: And whilst Angels are called God's Ministers, who ought to worship Christ the Son as their Maker, Ʋnto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; to shew that there is as much and as great a difference between the Son and Angels as there is between God and Angels, between the Crea­tor and the Creature; for indeed, in that same place the Heavens are said to be the work of his hands; so no comparison to be made between the Son and Angels, the noblest of all Creatures. The Name Elohim, absolutely used, is never in Scripture given to any singular Angel or Man, which is the same as [...] with the Article by the Apostle given the Son; so he is denoted by that Name as the true God by Nature:; And this same hath a Kingdom, signified by the Royal Marks of a Scepter and a Throne, whereunto Eternity is annexed, for 'tis for ever and ever, whereby its duration or lasting is expressed; so is his manner of administration with righteous­ness, His scepter is a scepter of righteousness; and, to shew his preparation for that admini­stration of his, 'tis said, He loved righteousness and hated iniquity. Now the Throne is not for the Servants, but for the Son, because the King­dom thereby denoted is not theirs but his, who indeed is graciously pleased to promise his Apo­stles, that at the last day they shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel; that is, they shall participate only at the last day with [Page 258]him in his Kingly Power, Mat. 19.28. and in some degree be made partakers of his Glory, with an Interest in his Kingdom, which he is pleased to give them: in the mean time the Throne is not theirs, but his.

Here I must take notice how, for preventing many Errors, rash and false Opinions, 'tis to be wished men would follow the Apostles Practise in this place, who abounding in quotations, gives us a Rule and an Example to do so, for with comparing Scriptures one with another, we come to be acquainted with God's Mind and Will in them, for by what is spoken of Angels in one place, and of the Son in another, we are taught what to believe of him and of them: They who follow not this Rule, are apt to frame in their Heads hasty, wrong, and false notions about God's Mind, especially in the matters we are now upon. And what is it that gives the Throne of the Lord Jesus Unchange­ableness and Eternity, but his divine Nature? The words of the Psalmist, whence the Apostle draws his Argument, do not belong to Solomon, for the words, O God, do not relate to him, nor these, Thy throne is for ever and ever, for he reigned but forty years; nor to his Successors, who went off the Stage at or about the time of the Babylonian Captivity. We know how in some things Solomon was a Type of Christ, but it doth not follow that every thing relating to the Antitype should belong unto the Type, for 'tis enough for the Type so to represent and sha­dow out the Lord Jesus, that what the Prophet would teach concerning him should be spoken of the Type, whereby he was represented; for the Antitype is what the Spirit of God ever chiefly aimed at: So, tho the Type and Antitype agreed in some things, in others there was a vast difference between them. But, that in this place the Apostle doth interpret those words of the Son of God Jesus Christ, it appears out of [Page 259] v. 8, but unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, &c. And 'tis in that Party but vain and idle words, to go about to perswade us, that the Apostle did not say what he said, and which is written for our instruction: And with us they should take notice how it is said, When he bring­eth in his first-born into the world, let all the An­gels of God worship him; before he was set upon his Throne after his Ascension: So the Com­mand was antecedent to that Session of his up­on the Throne in Heaven. And this sitting at the right hand of God, puts me in mind now to add something to what I said upon that Text, and it is this, how we and our Adversa­ries ought to consider the usefulness and impor­tance of that Testimony, Psal. 110.1. The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand; for the confir­mation of the Dignity and Authority of Christ the Messiah is evidenced by the frequent quo­tations of it in the New Testament, as by our Saviour himself, Matth. 22.42; by Peter, in Acts 2.34, 35; and by Paul, in 1 Cor. 55.28. And Heb. 1.13, David was the Pen-man of the Psalm, not about himself, for him whom he there­in doth treat of, he calls my Lord; as indeed, the things therein spoken of belong not to him. God did never swear unto David, that he should be a Priest for ever after the order of Melchise­dek; and the Jews knew well how David had nothing to do with the Priesthood, as being not of the Tribe of Levi, but of Judah. We read, That David was a King and a Prophet, Jeremiah a Priest and a Prophet; but the three Offices, Prophet, Priest, and King, never met in one Person, but in the Lord Jesus.

CHAP. X. Objections Answer'd.

THough now and then, on our way, we refu­ted some of their Cavils, yet now we must, by the Grace of God, come to the last part but one of our Discourse, hear what they say against these Divine Truths, and answer their chief Objecti­ons against the most holy Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, his eternal Generation, &c. As, first, They would have this Doctrin of the Trinity to be contrary to Reason, Because it gives Turks and Jews an aversion against the Christian Re­ligion: But it must not be concluded, that a Doctrin is contrary to Reason, because some men, by reason of the corruption of their Na­ture, do not receive it. When the Gospel was preached by our blessed Saviour, and by his Apo­stles, many refused to receive and believe it, though it was very good, and not contrary to Reason: They that are Servants to their car­nal Reason, do not receive that which is above it; and in this matter there are other Causes of the blindness and hatred of Jews and Turks. Hereticks ought to be ashamed to joyn with Infidels, to overthrow a Doctrin which in all Ages hath by general Consent been lookt up­on as the Foundation of our Religion. In four things they would have it to be contrary to Reason; the first, One is not Three, yet, say they, we affirm God to be One, yet Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be God, and yet the [Page 261]Person of the Son not to be that of the Father, nor of the Holy Ghost. The second, A thing is or is not: But, say they, you say the Paterni­ty or Fatherhood really to be the same with the Essence, and the Essence really with the Filia­tion; therefore the Paternity is the same with the Filiation or Sonship, and is not the same. Thirdly, By the Rule of the Tertium, the things that are the same in another, or in a third, are the same among themselves. Fourthly, 'Tis con­trary to the Principle of the expository Syllo­gism, which is this; The Essence is the Father, the Essence is the Son, therefore the Father is the Son. In these four things, say they, your Doctrin is contrary to Reason.

In answer to this, First, in general we say, that such things as gainsay the Principles of true Reason are contrary to it, but not those which exceed and are far above Reason. Now things objected against by Antitrinitarians do neither fight against nor contradict Reason, on­ly are above it; then these Principles or Rules are ill applied, because they compare God, the Author of Nature, with natural things. Now we answer in particular, as to the First Axiom, It is not overthrown, inasmuch as there is no opposition according to the same thing; nothing that is one, as it is one, and in the same respect may be called three, but God is one in Nature and three in Persons; the manner of subsisting doth distinguish the Persons, but multiplieth not the Essence. In the Second there is no Con­tradiction, for the Paternity and Filiation are distinguished among themselves in one way, and from the Essence in another; it is only a modal distinction between Paternity and Filiation, the least degree of distinction is between the thing and the manner of it, between the Essence and the Paternity or Filiation, wherefore Essence, Paternity and Filiation are distinct, but not dif­ferent things: We never said 'tis the same, but [Page 262]'tis of the same, and because they are of the same, they differ not as thing and thing. And if the Adversaries would argue thus, the Father is the same with the Essence, the Essence is the same with the Son, therefore the Father is the same with the Son, they would thereby conclude nothing against us; for we affirm the Father and Son not at all to differ as to the Essence: but the self-being of the Essence doth not conclude for the self-being of the Person; wherefore we say it is and it is not in a different respect, upon a different account. As to the Third, the Pater­nity and the Filiation are not the same with the Essence, but Father and Son have the same Es­sence. Now their Rule doth not here fit their Purpose; for, if they say Pa [...]ity and Filiation are the same with or in the Essence, it is incon­gruous; for Paternity and Filiation are modes or manners of the thing, that is, in the Essence are not the same with the Essence, because the thing and manner of it are not altogether the same: But if they say Father and Son are the same in uno tortio in [...] third, we agree they are the same in this third, the Essence, though not altogether. As to the Fourth, they are mistaken, for this is no expository Syllogism, for in that way of a [...] ­guing the middle term must be singular and in­communicable: But here the term Essence is not simply, but instead of an universal, and is com­municable; so then the strength of the major Proposition lies in this, Some who is or hath di­vine Essence, is the Father; Some that hath divine Essence, is the Son: Ergo, if it be universally construed, the proposition is false, as thus, Every one that hath the divine Essence is the Father; or else they are meer particulars: Besides that there are four terms, for in the major the word Es­sence is un [...]erstood in relation to an active gene­ration; in the minor, to a passive. They would forge Contradictions where are none at all, and the ground of their Error is, that they would [Page 263]judge of an infinite Nature by a finite one, when the reason of both is very different: here the infinite Essence is individual, because infinite, communicable without being multiplied in many persons.

To the same purpose they object in another manner; God is One, therefore cannot be Three: so there is none but the Father. The Answer is easie, and we already have said something to it; that which is one cannot be two or three in the same respect, it cannot be one and many in the same sense: What Christ says, John. 10.30. I and my Father are one, is most true; so that One is related to the Nature, and I and Father to the Persons; so then God is one as to the Nature, and three as to the Persons. Seeing the Nature or Godhead cannot be multiplied, it follows, that the Persons and Subsistences only are multiplied. They say farther, A simple Essence cannot be of three Persons, otherwise it will be divided or multi­plied: But though this be true of finite, it is not so of an infinite Essence; neither doth it follow, that because the Essence is common to three Persons, it may be common to more, for it were contrary to divine Revelation, which only mentioneth one Father, one Son, and one Holy ghost; the Father God, the Son God, the Holy Ghost God, yet not three Gods, but only one God. Neither doth it follow, that because divine Essence is common to three Persons, there­fore every Person shall be common, and because the Persons are not common, therefore the Na­ture must not be. This is the cause of their Mistake, that they do not mind the distinction of the Person from the Essence; for tho they differ not really, yet rationally they be distin­guished: It doth follow to say, if the Essence be common to three Persons, therefore the Persons are common, no more than to say, if Abel hath his Nature from Adam, and is a Man, therefore he hath his Posterity, and is a Father from him. [Page 264]The things, say they, that are separately num­bered are not one in number and essence; but the Father and the Son are separately numbered, and are by themselves called one, as one God, one Mediator, one God and Father, one Lord; wherefore Father and Son are not one only God or one Essence. But I say, Numeration doth not import a distinction of Essence; for in finite things Essences being multiplied, they are recko­ned individual, not in relation to the Essence, but to the Persons; that which is numbered is one, neither is it one without the Essence, yet for all that it is not one essentially, or by his own Essence separated from any other whatso­ever: so then, when the Father and Son are num­bered, they are not so essentially, but personal­ly; also they are the same in number and essence, (contrary to what is objected) whereof one is said to be with the other, as the word was with God, for in God to be one with another, is only an hypostatical or personal distinction; for as to be one with another doth import a distincti­on, so the same Evangelist sheweth the Essence of both to be but one and the same, when he addeth, the word was God.

Furthermore they argue thus; The Father and the Son are really distinguished, for the Fa­ther is absolutely God, that is the divine Es­sence; for, say they, the words Father and God are synonimous, or the same, because the word God is explained by the word Father, 1 Thes. 1.3. therefore the Essence of the Son is distinct from that of the Father. Our Answer is, Tho' the Persons of the Father and of the Son be really distinct, it doth not follow that their Essences are so, as if the Essence of one was not that of another, see­ing the names of Father and Son are relatives, which indeed signifie different Persons in the same Nature, but rationally distinguished from the same. If Father and Essence be synonimous, what remaineth for the Son besides a shadow of [Page 265]the Deity? For as the Paternity and Innascibi­lity, or not being begotten, which are proper only to the Father, are incommunicable, that Essence, if it be the same thing as is the Fa­ther, cannot be communicated unto the Son: It doth not follow neither that the Names God and Father are the same, because the first is some­times used for the last, seeing it is attributed unto the Father, in his Person to constitute the Deity, by reason of the Spring, and in the com­parison and order of Persons, and not because the Person of the Father is in no wise distinguish­ed from the divine Essence. Paul doth congra­tulate with the Thessalonians, for their Work of Faith, Labour of Love, and Patience of Hope; and because their Hope was in the Coming of the Lord Jesus, these three he referreth in God, whom he calls Father, because he already had made mention of the Mediator: But if the Names God and Father be the same, by reason that Paul had to the word God joyned Father, by way of explication, Tit. 2.13. 2 Pet. 1.2. then the Names Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ are also the same, because two Apostles explain the name of Christ by that of God our Saviour. Besides, the Argument is faulty, for it hath four terms: to the end that both Propositions be true, in the major the Person of the Father, in the minor his Essence, are to be understood. To this Ar­gument answereth another, The eternal Father is not the Son, whom John calls the Word, but the Essence of the Divinity, or that one God of Israel, is the eternal Father of the only begotten Son, therefore the Essence, or the God of Israel, is not the Son called the Word: The major is false, for to have it true the sence ought to be this; That Essence, or that God, which is the Father is not the Son, that is, the Person of the Fa­ther is not the Person of the Son. This farther they say, The Essence and one God are convertible, but according to us, in the Unity of God there is [Page 266]Trinity, therefore in the Essence there is also Trinity. But we say, God, who is one in Nature, is three in Persons; so in that onely Essence there is a Trinity, that is, wholly and indivisibly sub­sisteth in three Persons; there are not three Es­sences: The minor Proposition must be under­stood of a Trinity of Persons, and not of Es­sences.

I observed before how they quarrel much with several expressions used in this matter, as Trinity, Essence, Person, &c. which are neither prophane nor unworthy of God, seeing in Scripture there are words which answer to them; Rom. 1.20 Col. 2.9. Phil. 2.6. 2 Pet. 1.4. as, [...] and [...], both signifying Godhead, and [...], the Form of God, and [...], Divine Nature. Also the word [...], which in Latin is translated sometimes Substance, sometimes Essence, sheweth the quiddity or nature of the thing. As for the word Person, Clastical Authors, as well as Di­vines, in this holy Mystery, take it for a ratio­nal Subsistence, or Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; however out of these they take matter of Argu­ment against us, for they say thus; The Doctrin of God ought to be taught according to Scri­pture, but those Names are not to be found therein, therefore not to be used. I answer the major Proposition, with a distinction; If they mean it of the sence of Scripture, we own we ought not to depart from it; but if of the letter and bare words, we deny it, for in the Church is the gift of Prophecy, and of explain­ing the word: And whereas Hereticks are apt to wrest the sence, and under variety of words to involve and disguise the Truth, it is some­times necessary to make use of new words to hit and refute their false glosses and interpretations, in defence of the Truth. As to the minor, about the several words we say Scripture speaks of one God, whence cometh Oneness or Ʋnity, and Divinity is attributed to three, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; hence is Trinity. Jah and Jeho­vah [Page 267]signifie [...], him that is; so from Esse we derive Essence: all which words we are not Au­thors of, but received them from the Primitive Church, which by a publick consent used them almost from the Apostles time to these, which they reject when themselves would bring in bar­barian words to signifie their erroneous notions, as, God Essentiating and Essentiated, Apostolical God, Emphatical and articulated, God Author, and God Executor, and the like. Thus they make themselves really guilty of such things as unreasonably they would charge us with: They must needs have a very great opinion of their own abilities, seeing they would make us for­bear the expressions used by the Church for so many Ages, and impose their new-fangled words upon the World: 'Tis in them a blasphemous Impiety, and a damnable Slander, to charge us with bringing in new Gods under such words as are made use of to explain Scripture; and they know well enough our meaning thereof, as we so often explained it: these different words do not change the sense, so may not be called errone­ous; and tho' sometimes there be Variety in words and expressions, the sense still remaineth the same, so we do not consider them as Popish or Antichristian Forgeries. Indeed they make a ridiculous Objection, Jehovah the Essentiator Father, is of the masculine Gender, but Essence is of the feminine, therefore not to be used. But to say something to the purpose, they must prove, that in the nature of things, according to the Rules of Grammar, there is a difference of Sex: Of the like nature is this, no abstract Name signifieth a Substance; but Trinity is an abstract Name, therefore, &c. But the first pro­position is false; for when we call Deity or Di­vine Nature, we understand a Substance, seeing in God all things are Substance and no Accident: So by the word Trinity we understand three Persons really subsisting. 2 Sam. 23. We find David's [Page 268]mighty Men of Valour to be distinguished by three and three. But as to their exception against the fore-named words, once for all I say to them, Tho' every Truth asserted be not in Scripture, in so many Letters, yet if it be therein implied, and by a good and necessary consequence thence derived, 'tis to be esteemed the Word of God as if expressed, because in it contained. Thus Preaching is the Word of God, because deduced out of it, not as to the words, but as to the sense: hence it is that Prea­ching produces the effects attributed to the the Word, as to quicken, convert, regenerate, and sanctifie, when sometimes in a whole Ser­mon few Sentences are repeated word by word. And in several places of the New Testament the Evangelists and Apostles do quote out of the Old, not in the very words, but accoding to the sense and scope of the place: upon such a ground our Translators do render the word Hypostasis by that of Person; and so 'twas a­mong the Primitive Church; which word we find used in the New Testament only four times, thrice in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Chap. 1.3, Chap. 3.14, Chap. 11.1, and 2 Cor. 9.4. yet every where in a different sense.

Some few words more I shall add, to answer some other Objections; in order thereunto, I say, In the Deity there is an Essence which is but one; in that Essence do subsist three Persons really distinguished one from another, but only modally from the Essence, which doth not make any fourth thing in the Godhead. As there is but one Essence, so these three Persons are but one God, which Name God is spoken not only of the Essence, but also of every one of the three Persons, Ʋnity in relation to the Nature, and Trinity in respect to the Persons. One Essence there is, without which there is no God, but the three Persons are this one God in Essence, who subsist in that Essence, Father, Son, and [Page 269]Holy Ghost. The Adversaries are in an Error when they think there is no real difference, ex­cept there be some difference in number and Es­sence; they would have a Thing and a Sub­stance to be the same, when that which differeth by reason of the definition from another, doth also really differ from it: God in one number and essence, admitteth of no renting or division, and they are not three bare Names; the Es­sence doth not, as the Genus, contain three Spe­cies, but it doth subsist in three Persons, in which all and in every one is the same Nature and Godhead: To own three Essences, were to assert three Gods; and we say that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as to the Nature, are of them­selves, tho' not as to the Personality, for on this last account we own the Son to be from the Father, and the Holy Ghost from both. I say again, how the Essence maketh no fourth thing in the Godhead, as if the three Persons were de­rived from it as from a thing pre-existing, or as if it being common to the three, was really di­stinguished from the three; these we never said, but are against: The Essence is wholly and en­tirely common to every Person; these Persons do not proceed from the Essence, but we say, they from all Eternity subsist in the Essence: and tho' we own a distinction between Essence and Persons, yet they are not as a thing abstracted from the Essence.

The great difficulty arising about this, is in the case of the Incarnation, which is justly cal­led, The wisdom of God in a mystery, 1 Cor. 2.7. even the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world unto our glory. The Son was incarnated or made Flesh, took upon him our human Nature; now the Father and Holy Ghost having the same Essence with the Son, how were not they both incarnated? We know the Person and not the Nature was incarnated, but how the Nature, which is wholly in the Son, as wholly in the Fa­ther [Page 270]and in the Holy Ghost, was not made Flesh, 'tis a Mystery that passeth all understanding: This is one of the secret things that belong to God, which we must never attempt to pry into; this is a Mystery which most humbly and with an awful reverence we ought to adore and be­lieve, without any farther enquiry into it; be­cause God hath revealed it, it is so, namely, that the Son, not the Father, nor the Holy Ghost, was made Flesh. In Religion there are several other things which we do simply believe, tho it be im­possible for our Reason to comprehend them, as, the Infiniteness, Immensity, and Eternity of God, whereof the former is every where, with­in and without, the greatest and least things: So is that union of both Natures in one Person in­comprehensible. Thus that which is spoken of the divine Essence may be attributed to the three Persons, but to be understood of things which of themselves are competent to the na­ture of the Creatour, Almightiness, Eternity, and such-like Attributes; but not so in the things which belong to the Essence only upon the ac­count of one Person, for such things belong on­ly to that Person for whose sake they are spoken of the Essence, as the Incarnation of the Son, the Voice of the Father from Heaven, and the appearing of the Holy Ghost under the shape of a Dove. We know how the Works ad extra, or outward, are undivided and common to the three Persons, always excepting that wherein they destroy the proper Attributes of the Per­sons: Thus the Son and Holy Ghost, not the Fa­ther, are sent; the Son, not the Father nor Ho­ly Ghost, was made Flesh, tho' the Father and Holy Ghost had a hand in the Incarnation, for the Angel said, Luk. 1.35. The power of the highest shall over­shadow thee, and the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee: Prov. 9.1. Rev. 21.3. and Wisdom, whereby the Son is represen­ted, hath builded her House, otherwise called the Tabernacle of God. So then the work of the [Page 271]Incarnation is common to the three Persons, but in the effect is terminatively only in the Son.

When the Apostle speaks of the Mystery of our Salvation in the adorable and incomprehensi­ble Incarnation of the Son of God, or his taking [...]ur human Nature, he saith, 1 Pet. 1.12 Exod. 25.20.22. which things the Angels desire to look into, alluding to the two Cherubims on the Mercy Seat, towards which their Faces were, as desirous to see into't. In th Tabernacle was the Ark, and above upon the Art was the Mercy Seat, as the most holy part of he whole, for there God met with Moses, and from thence he communed with him, all which was disposed according to God's own ap­pointment, for the Mercy Seat was a Type of Jesus Christ, in whom and by whom alone God doth neet and commune with Men in the way of Mercy: and as the Ceremonial Law was as a School-master, to bring us to Christ, as to him that was the end of the Law, so all Figures and Prophecies aimed at him. After God had sent all his Servants, and he would have no more Burnt-offerings and Sacrifices, then he sent his only Son to offer up himself a Sacrifice unto him for Sin. This most holy and blessed Son, by the Mouth of the Prophet David long be­fore his coming, said, Lo, I come to do thy will, Psal. 40.6, 7. Heb. 10.7, 9. O God: He knew the Will of God, and decla­red he would come to do't. The words contain a particular emphasis, different from any thing of that nature express'd in Scripture. When the Prophets foretold Josiah's Birth, 1 Kin. 13 2. Isa. 44. & 45. and Cyrus's Empire, they are not introduced as saying any thing themselves, only one was to be born, the other to be holden and supported, because at that time they were not. But here the Son of God speaks as one who then was in being, and as a person who delighted to execute his Father's Will, as he effectually did, both actively and passively, and this he declared when come, Joh. 6.38. I came down from Heaven not to do mine own will, [Page 272]but the will of him that sent me: and when upon the approach of the Hour wherein that Will was to be, Joh. 12.27. his Soul was troubled, he said, For this cause came I unto this hour; and when the bitter Cup, which caused in him some Horror, was put into his hand, Luk. 22.42. he said, Not my will. but thine be done. Let these words in the Evangelists, with those in the Psalm, be compared, an [...] there will appear such a divine harmony, as wi [...] convince they both came out of the same Pers [...] only with this difference, that in the Psalmis seen a steddy resolution, such as became a divine Person, and in the Gospel something of human Frailty; the reason is, because the first is ex­pressed by a Prophet inspired by his Spirit and the last by himself, in the days of his Flesh: However coming is meant of a Person who pre­existed before that coming, and in the time of the Prophecy: And the circumstances o [...] God's having no more pleasure in Sacrifices and Burnt-offerings, and his saying, Lo, I come, which pre­ceeded his coming, do demonstrate in him a Choice and Resolution, which is the act of a Person; as the quoted place out of St. Peter's doth denote Christs coming into the World to be such a Mystery as the Angels, so excellent and knowing Creatures desire to know and look into. But I return to my Answer to their Ob­jections.

These things being seriously considered, will afford matter enough to answer and refute the Cavils of the Enemies to this Truth: Before I proceed farther in answering some more Ob­jections of theirs, I think it will not be amiss for me, because they make a scandalous Ex­ception against that common place of the Apo­stle, which proves the most holy Trinity, There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Fa­ther, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. To add something more to what in the beginning I said about it; They say it is wanting in some Greek [Page 273]Copies, and in the Syriack, but through the Fraud of the Arrians, as saith Jerome, and Eras­mus, Praefat. in Epist. Can. whom Socinians would seem to appeal un­to, confesseth it to be in the most ancient Ma­nuscripts of Brittany, Spain, and Rhodes; and it is clear, out of the Connexion of the Text, V. 4, 5, 6. that it cannot be taken away without making a palpable breach and interruption of the sense, for he hath just before spoken of God the Fa­ther, of Christ, and of the Spirit; and to agree with what he saith v. 8, there are three that bear witness in Earth, there must also be three that bear record in Heaven; there must be Witnesses in Heaven, as there are in Earth; the three in Earth agree in one; the three in Heaven are one: We read it quoted by Ad Theoph. lib. 1. & in disp. con­tra A [...]rium in Conc. Nic. Athanasius, so doth Contra Varima­dum. Idacius, so Contra Arrian. Fulgentius; also it is quo­ted before the times of Athanasius, in the Contro­versie against the Arrians, by De Ʋnit. Eccles. Cyprian, and al­so by Tertullian, Ignatius, &c. This Text doth so well agree with that of the Evangelist, to baptize all Nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which it doth allude un­to, that none may doubt but it was suggested by the same Spirit; and the name word particu­lar to St. John doth sufficiently witness, how those lines, together with the rest, came out of his Pen; Non unus, sed unum, saith one of the fore-quoted Fathers, Not one Person, sed unum, &c. one Nature; not only the unity of Testimony, as they are three distinct Witnesses, not only the unity of Consent and Will, but also of Nature, as, I and the Father are one; Joh 10.30 which the Jews understood very well, for there­upon they accused him of Blasphemy, and took up Stones to have cast at him; the reason they give for't is this; Because thou being a man, V. 33. makest thy self God. In few words, we can­not be baptized in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, except the names of these three, equal in Authority, Dignity, and Essence, be [Page 274]called upon on our behalf; and, as I observed before, 'tis unlawful to be baptized in the name of any man: The Israelites were baptized by the Wor [...] or Ministry, or, as the Syriack hath it, in the Hand of Moses, but not in his Name.

Before we leave off these Objections against the most adorable Trinity, for the better un­derstanding of the matter, I shall speak some few words more, for indeed the point is of so high a concernment, and affords such a plenty and variety of Discourse, that we can never say enough of what is to be known in the case: Tho', as we said, they be the same in Essence, yet they differ, first, in personal Names, as Fa­ther, Son, and Holy Ghost: Secondly, in their Order, Father first as the Spring, then Son, thirdly, Holy Ghost. Thirdly, In their manner of Operation; the Father doth act of himself, the Son from the Father, and the Holy Ghost from both: Gal. 4.4. John 14.26. & 15.26. so the Son is sent by the Father, the Holy Ghost from both Father and Son, but we never read the Father was sent. So there is a difference in the outward Works, for tho' they be common to the three Persons, yet Creation is properly attributed to the Father, Redempti­on to the Son, and Sanctification to the Holy Ghost: Thus these three Persons have every one their personal unity, in number they are di­stinguish'd, yet are but one God in number, of Essential and natural unity; wherefore in God are not three Beings, three Infinites, or three Things.

Yet they object, the names of Trinity, Per­sonality, and Essence were not heard of before the Apostles time, nor the Doctrin of the Trini­ty. I answer to the first, that tho' the Names were not, yet the Things were, and Words are to signifie Things; that there is one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as it appears out of the places quoted to prove the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost, which here [Page 275]I need not to repeat; and if the things be true, why should Men dispute about words which do not in the least prejudice the Analogy of Faith, on the contrary do explain and confirm it? As to the Second, I say, that the Doctrin of the Trinity was mentioned of old, as I proved it already out of several places of Scripture, the Question is not about the Father, but the Son, concerning whom is the clear Testimony of Psal. 2, whose coming as Jehovah, and God of Israel, for the Prophet speaks to Israel when he calls him your God, was foretold, Behold, Isa. 35 4 5. Mat. 11.4, 5. Psal. 51.10, 11. your God will come with vengeance; even God with a recompence, he will come and save you: which is applied unto Christ. Of the Holy Ghost mention is made by David, and in other pla­ces, but that which under the Old Testament was under a Vail, is clearly revealed under the New, for the Persons are plainly named, and their number expressed, as in the places already made use of, not only in the Baptism of our Sa­viour, but in his Commission given his Apostles to baptize, &c. which, as I shewed, is unlawful to be done in any man's name: As there is truth in Jesus, so this is the truth of his Gospel, which also hath, in conformity thereunto, been the sense of the general Orthodox Councils, and of the Doctors of the Primitive Church; however this must be said, that tho' this Mystery of the holy Trinity be expressed in Scripture, yet 'tis such a one as exceedeth our understanding and capacity.

Again they say, In most places of Scripture 'tis said there is but one God, and that this God is the Father of Jesus Christ. I answer, The Name God, when properly spoken, and of the true God, is taken either essentially for Divine Nature, or personalty for some of the Persons: when taken in the first sense, it doth not ex­clude but include the Persons, only it is set down in opposition to Idols and false Gods, which by [Page 276]Nature are not Gods; the things absolutely spo­ken of the Oneness of God do not at all preju­dice the Persons which are that onely God: hence it is that not only the Father, but also Son and Holy Ghost are called God. In this Essential sense are taken the places they quote out of the Old and New Testament; as for instance, Mark 2.7. Luk. 5.21. that of Mark and of Luke, which a­mong others they make use of, Who can forgive sins but God only? The word God belongs to the Essence, yet that power doth belong to the Son as to the Father, for there Christ assumeth it to himself; which same power is also attribu­ted unto the Holy Ghost; Receive ye the Holy Ghost; John 20.21, 22. whosoever sins ye remit, they are remit­ted unto them. When the word God is to be un­derstood personally, then there is a note of di­stinction joyned, to know what Person is spo­ken of, whether Father, Son, or Holy Ghost. What we say of the word God, the same we affirm of the name Father; which doth not al­ways signifie the first Person, but also the Na­ture and three Persons. Thus when God is said to be Father of all, and in the Lord's Prayer we call him Our Father, when we cry Abba Father, &c. in all Texts of that nature, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are understood. As to the Particle besides me, sometimes used, it excepts nothing within, tho' every thing without the Deity, or that hath not the Divine Nature.

But one of the Arguments which most of all they ground themselves upon is this; Joh. 17.3. And this is eternal life, to know thee the only true God, and whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ. They would have Christ to be excluded from being the only true God, which they restrain only to the Father; but herein they are much mistaken, for the word alone, or onely, which they lay the stress upon, doth not belong to the Subject thee, but to the Predicate; not to thee, but to true God; not to that which goes before, but to [Page 277]that which followeth after: 'Tis not said to know only thee to be, but know thee to be the only true God. This we may look upon as one of their usual pieces of Sophistry: our Sa­viour makes it appear, that this is the true God whom Scriptures mention, namely, the Father who sent, and the Son that was sent; for the true sense of the place we cannot have a better Interpreter of than the Evangelist himself; 1 John 5.20. here the true God and eternal Life are joyned in the same; the same that is eternal Life is also the true God, onely eternal Life, and onely true God. Now Christ is called true God and eter­nal Life; His Son Jesus Christ, John 10.28. this is the true God and eternal life: And if here we consider eternal Life as the Gift of the onely true God, doth not Scripture say in several places how eternal Life is the gift of Christ? Let of many this one serve for all, I give unto them, his Sheep, eternal life: If the Son was not that onely true God, why should he joyn himself with the Fa­ther? And whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ, to know thee, and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ, to be the only true God. This is the true order of the words, whereof the true sense is resolved into this, The Father is the onely true God, and not the onely or Father alone is the true God. The words in the original are not thus; [...], to know thee only the true God; but thus, [...], to know thee the only true God: where any one may see how the Par­ticle [...] doth not belong to the Pronoun thee, but to the true God; and tho' the Particle was removed, yet thereby Christ would not be ex­cluded, for the true God is said, as I already observed, not in opposition to Christ, but to false Gods; according to the stile of Scripture, the word alone or onely doth not always give a general exclusion, as we see it under the Old Testament, when Jacob said unto Reuben, My [Page 278]Son shall not go down with you, Gen. 42.38. for his brother is dead, and he is left alone; he meaneth by the Mothers side, and not by the Father's, for all the rest were his Brethren: And in the New, in the Transfiguration, Luk. 9.36. 'tis said, And when the voice was past Jesus was left alone: Certainly Peter, James, and John were not excluded, for they were with him, but Moses and Elias. In the same sense are taken Martha's words to our Saviour, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? Luk. 10.40 only meant of Mary, and not of the Servants of the House. And to the matter now in hand, let it be known that Scripture never saith the Father only is the true God, tho' it says the Father is the only true God; so is the Son, and so is the Holy Ghost: Here Christ would not deny himself the honour of being the true God, which in other places he attributes unto himself, for the two words, alone and true, go with God, not with thee; and his meaning is, how true eter­nal Life consists in this, Gal. 4.8. 1 Thes. 1.9. 1 Cor. 8.6. that men may detest Idols and false Gods, and be converted to thee, O Father, who art the only true God by nature, which Idols are not. Thus when the name One Lord is given the Son, 'tis not to exclude the Father, who also is Lord; and the name Spirit given the third Person doth not exclude Father or Son, who also are Spirit: so this Text doth admit of the same construction as this, when Paul saith, 1 Cor. 9.6. I only, and Barnabas, have we not power to forbear working? where it is plain, that Barnabas, far from being excluded, is joyn­ed and included in the same power with Paul: And here the thing requireth it, seeing eternal Life is made to consist in the knowledge of Christ, as of the Father, wherefore both are equally said to be the true God.

Those men who pretend to know better than God himself what becomes his glory, are very apt to lay hold upon any thing like to favour [Page 279]their notions; wherefore because 'tis said, God hath appointed his Son heir of all things, Heb. 1.2. John 5.22. and hath committed all judgment unto him, with other things to the same purpose, they with the Jews do therewith entangle themselves, and form this Argument: It cannot consist with the Majesty of the God of Israel, of the most high God, to be appointed Heir by any one, but God hath appointed his Son Heir of all things, therefore his Son is not the God of Israel, nor the most high God. In answer to this Objecti­on, I say, first, that the Person of the God of Israel, &c. is not the Person of his Father, but the same Dignity, Nature and Authority he hath, as already demonstrated, common with the Father: he is not made Heir of all things in reference to his Nature, for he is such of him­self by his own right and inheritance, not by favour, but in relation to his Office of Media­tor; in which sense he is not only God, but God and Man, and upon this account is all Judg­ment committed unto him by the Father, but otherwise he is the God of Israel, and the most high. But, secondly, this Argument contains two branches, which before I have spoken about, yet to what hath already been said this I shall add, to the first part, That the Son of God, the Lord Jesus, above 3400 years before his being manifested in the Flesh, Numb. 24.17. Micah 5.2. Luk. 2.32. John 1.49. Acts 5.31. was called the Star of Jacob, and the Scepter of Israel, and long after the ruler in Israel; after his birth, the glory of Israel; and after his Baptism, the King of Israel, which in that sense and place is as good as God of Israel; as indeed in the same Verse he is cal­led the Son of God, that is, of the God of Is­rael; a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repen­tance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

As to the other part, That he is not the most high God, we must in the first place take notice how they set up a high God, that is, Christ; and a most high God, the Father, which is by such a [Page 280]comparative difference to make two Gods; and they would have the Son of the highest not to be highest himself, as to Essence and Power: The word most high or highest is an Hebraism, for in that Language God is called Helion, [...]. that is, Supreme; whence the Greeks borrowed the Name they call the Sun by, because the chief of all Stars and Planets in the Firmament. But to shew the falshood of their Assertion, that the Son is not the most high God, let us consider the following things: The Angel said to the Virgin, He shall be great, Luk. 1.32. upon every account, and ab­solutely so, according to the Character long be­fore given of him by the Prophet, and Son of the highest, that is, of the true God; v. 35, compared with v. 76: Isa. 9.6. and so according to that Divine Nature the highest himself, it ought to be observed how the word of the Angel, he shall be called the Son of the Highest, is the same as used by the Prophet, His name shall be called wonderful Counsellor, the mighty God, &c. As in the Prophet, by being called is understood, [...]e shall really be: so it must be in the Evangelist, he shall be manifested, owned, and really be. Thus Zecharias said of John, And thou child shalt be called, really and truly be the Prophet of the highest: and when he spoke thus he was filled with the Holy Ghost, and pro­phecy'd, v. 67, as Elizabeth was when she said of the blessed Virgin, Whence is this to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me? v. 41, 43. How could he, according to the flesh, be her Lord before he was born? In the second place, seeing I already proved Jesus Christ to be Jehovah, it necessarily follows, he is the most high God, Psal. 33.18 for he whose name alone is Jehovah, is the most high over all the earth. Also I proved him to be he whom the People provoked in the Wilderness; and Scripture calls him the most high, whom they provoked in the wilderness. The proper Son of God is God, [Page 281]the Son of the Highest is the Highest: And the words of Psal. 107.11, Psal. 78.17, 56. do belong to the People in the Wilderness, who rebelled against the word of God, and contemned the counsel of the most high. They would make use against us of that place where when Melchisedes blessed Abra­ham God is called the most high God, whereby they would confine that Title only to the Per­son of the Father, which before I refute, I must by the by take notice how the word most high is thrice mentioned in three Verses, Gen. 14.18, 19, 20. to shew how the Blessing upon Abraham was the Work of the three Persons in the Godhead, as all three meet in the Conception of Christ, in the blessed Virgin's Womb, and in his Baptism. The same high God, in whose name Melchise­dec blessed Abraham, is the same who called Abraham, received him into favour, and at that time had given him Victory over four Kings, as it appears out of the place. Now, that most high God who called Abraham is the same as made a Covenant with him, who after­wards commanded him to sacrifice his Son to himself; who is that same Angel, as before we have taken notice of, who is called the Lord himself, and upon that occasion said to him, Gen. 22. By my self have I sworn, saith the Lord, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed. Now the Apostle teaches that not only the Father, but also the Son, is Author of that Covenant, when he saith, The Testament, or Covenant, Heb. 9.16: was confirmed by the death of the Testator: And I would have them to tell me, who besides Christ hath with his Death and Blood sealed and confirmed that Co­venant; certainly none but that God that was manifest in the flesh, Act. 20 28. that same God who hath purchased his Church with his own blood: So that Melchisedec, by the name of most high, meant the Son as well as the Father, who can­not be separated; for, as Scriptures bear wit­ness, [Page 282]the Son is always in the Father; there­fore every where in the Word of God, the name most high is spoken of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which with that of God of Gods and Lord of Lords is essentially taken, and ex­cludes indeed Creatures, but never Son and Holy Ghost, whom it doth truly and properly belong to.

Now we are come to the Objections that are directly against the Divinity of the Person of Christ, which must be answered; and in order to it we must here premise something which before we gave a hint of, how the word God is taken in two senses, first, properly, then meta­phorically, and the name God doth properly sig­nifie the true God. Now he is the only true God, who essentially and by nature is such, for every thing is called true by its nature, as true Man, true Gold, true Silver, &c. as said before, from the nature of Man, of Gold, and of Silver, so that if only it be like a Man, and like Gold, then 'tis neither true Man nor true Gold, for simile non est idem, the thing like is not the same. If the true God be he that hath Gods Nature and Essence, certainly he is the high and inde­pendent God, seeing Divine Essence is in itself Chief and Independent. Now secondly and im­properly, or metaphorically, are they called Gods that in something are like God by parti­cipation and likeness, as Moses was to Pharaoh, so Angels and Men; but these metaphorical Gods may not be called true God, nor worshipt as such: that which is somewhat like a thing may never be called the same thing. Thus I do premise in opposition to Socinus's Notion, how in Scripture the word God is taken for the high God, independent from any other, and for him who by the chief God is in some manner made partaker of the Divinity. In the first sense God is God the Father, called one; in the second is Christ, and some other Men; he, [Page 283]because of his Sanctification, and being sent in­to the World, where Christ, as he would have it, doth not affirm himself to be God, but with dependency, that is, a titular, a made and coin­ed God, as by vertue of that Sanctification and Mission: when that very Sanctification and sending into the World shew him to be true God, Joh 10.36 for in the place is meant that Sanctifica­tion which preceded his coming into the World, for the Father sanctified first, and then sent him, which belonged to him, not as a Man, but had it before he was Man, and before he came in­to the World; for he saith, first he was sancti­fied by the Father, and then afterwards sent in­to the World; that is, he became Man; for before he was made flesh he had been sanctified by the Father, that is, appointed and constitu­ted Mediator and Head of the Church, but Mediator he could not be, except he were true eternal God: As to his being sent into the World, that also sheweth, that his Being is not of this World, but from above, from Heaven, whence he was sent into the World from the Bosom of the Father; which argueth him to be above Man, and to have had a Being before he was made Man, for he was the Son of God; in Heaven he was not Man, but was made so upon Earth. We speak of the rising of the Sun, which hath a Being before he riseth on our He­misphere, but only at such a time he appeareth unto us, like the Star that guided the Wise­men to the place where he was born; and of Christ it is said, Thou hast the dew of thy youth from the womb of the morning. As to what Soci­nus saith, That Christ is said to be God, but not that onely God, we answer, how Christ is not upon every account said to be God, but only he is said to be such a God as true divine Wor­ship is due unto, who alone is to be worshipped and served, as he saith: Mat. 4.10. So he is no other but the onely God in Scripture, called the true God.

They object the place where the Holy Ghost saith, 1 Cor. 8.6. But to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things; who is distinguished from Christ, who is one Lord, by whom are all things: But the Adversaries Prejudice makes, that they either will not or cannot see how in the place St. Paul doth not separate one God from Christ, nor one Lord from the Father, for his scope is to teach us Christians, how there are not many Gods nor many Lords, but only one God and one Lord: Now if the Father was one God and one Lord separately from Christ, then there would be two Gods and two Lords, which wholly overturns the Apostle's design; so that of necessity we must say the Father and Christ are one God and one Lord, consequent­ly that God and the Lord are the same, for there is no doubt but that God is the Lord, and he who by Divine Reason is Lord, and opposed to Idols, as 'tis the true sense of the place, he also for certain must needs be God: So then when Paul saith that onely God to be the Father, he also owns him to be the onely Lord; and when he saith the one Lord is Christ, he owns him to be one God; and as he excludeth not the Father from being Lord, so he excludeth not Christ from being God. 'Tis a weak notion grounded upon these Par­ticles of whom and by whom are all things, for both the same in Scripture are attributed to God, Rom. 11.36. Of him, and through him, and to him are all things: so there is in them nothing to exclude Christ from being God, for both be­long to Father and Christ, only one is chiefly attributed to one, the other chiefly to the other. 'Tis an Error in the Adversaries to say the words by whom to signifie a second Cause, seeing that very same Particle is elsewhere attributed unto God, which in the same place we must also be­lieve to be attributed unto Christ, seeing the Apostle's mind is to shew there is only one God [Page 285]and one Lord: But in Socinus's sense there would be two Gods, and two Lords, one, of whom are all things; the other, by whom are all things; tho' the same Apostle doth without any such Particles absolutely affirm, There is one Lord, one God and Father of all: Ephes. 4 5, 6. where­fore Men must conceive no Mystery to be in those Particles, to make a distinction between God and Lord; one and the same Nature or Person is certainly God and Lord. Thus Da­vid saith, Psal. 85.8. I will hear what God the Lord will speak. And if two be so, one is no prejudice to the other. Hence I conclude, how no stress is to be laid upon these Particles of and by, as if there were two different Natures and Princi­ples; as also in another place already quoted, they would upon the Particle and, where 'tis said, To know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, where they would have the copulative Particle to joyn different Natures and Persons to exclude him from being the true God: but after this manner of interpreting, the words God and Father must import two different Sub­jects and Natures; so that God shall be one, and Father the other; for 'tis said, Gal. 1.4. according to the will of God and our Father; which contradicts their Opinion of one onely God, namely, the Father; but in that place the words God and Father are essentially taken for Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one only God.

Farther they argue thus; If Christ be the Son of that onely God, he is not the onely God himself, or else he would be his own Son; but he is not his own Son, therefore he is not the onely God. But I answer, the Son is distin­guished from that one God, not as to the Na­ture, but as to the Person, for the Essence can­not be distinguish'd, because the Son hath not part of the Nature, but wholly, together with the Father, the Person must be distinguish'd, [Page 286]for he is not Son of himself, but of another, tho' he be God of himself. Hence followeth, that as to the Nature the Son is that one God, not as to the Person, seeing in Nature it doth agree, but must be distinguish'd as to the Per­son.

Another Objection is this; If Christ be the Son of that only God, then that one is not God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but only the Father, so that onely God is not in three Per­sons. We answer, When Christ is called the Son of one God, one God is there taken for the Person of the Father, or as it subsisteth in the Person of the Father, for Christ is the Son only of God the Father; but when Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are said to be one God, then one God is taken essentially. They need not say, where are one and three there are four, as if the Essence and three Persons were four things really distinct. But we answer, Where are one Being and three Beings, there indeed are four, but not where are one Being and three manners of being. This may be illustra­ted by an Example of Metaphysick, where is one Ens or Being, and three as properties or qualities unum, verum, and bonum, one must not conclude there are four, but unum, verum, bonum to be simply one Being: Wherefore see­ing in this most simple Essence the Persons are Subsistences, or Manners of subsisting, it follows that three Persons and one Nature do not make four in God. As to the Rule of the tertium, which I have taken notice of before, it faileth here, because the Essence is communicable, for Divine Nature being infinite, is so.

Now we come to some Objections relating to the Son of God's eternal generation; The Father alone, say they, is not begotten, but the Son and Holy Ghost are begotten and made, so cannot be the true God. We know how [Page 287]the relative Property of the Father is to beget, of the Son to be begotten, and of the Holy Ghost to proceed, so the word God is attribu­ted to Son and Holy Ghost; that the Son is cal­led only begotten, because he is the natural Son and the first born as Mediator, because he hath many Brethren; he is called the brightness of the Father's glory, to shew that as from a light­ful Body proceeds Light, so the Son as natural­ly comes from the Father: and 'tis one thing to be called [...], the Image of God, Col. 1.15. Heb. 1.3. and ano­ther [...], the express Image of the Father, but Christ is called both. He who is called the Image of God, is thereby distinguish'd from God, but he which is called the Character of the Father, is distinguish'd from the Father, not from God; wherefore we say Christ, as Media­tor, may be and is called the Image of God. But this comes short of what is intended, to express the eternal generation of the Son of God; tho' our Adversaries would have that Filiation to be grounded upon his Mediator­ship. These few things, which may have a place in our Discourse, being premised, I now direct­ly answer the Objection: To be begotten is to be understood, as becomes God; to be begotten in God, doth not imply to have a beginning, or to be made in time. Secondly, they say, Divine Nature admitteth of no renting or division, wherefore nothing doth proceed that is diffe­rent in number from it. I answer, There is no Comparison between the Finite and Infinite Essence, for this last is communicated to the Persons without multiplication, separation, or division. Thirdly, they go on, That which is begotten hath a beginning. I answer; 'Tis true in the Creatures, but not in God. Fourthly, Nothing, say they, is wanting in the Father, so it is superfluous to give him a Son. I an­swer; The Father is perfect, therefore he hath a Son, God's fecundity makes the Persons, but [Page 288]borroweth nothing from without. 5thly, What­soever cometh from unity to plurality cannot be perfect, except the substance be multiplied. I answer; God doth not come nor go, with God there is no terminus a quo, not ad quem, no place from which and to which, but God is always God, is not divided, but begets indi­visibly. 6thly, If the Son be from the Fa­ther, it followeth that all the Father hath is divided, because it passeth into the Son; so the Father hath given the Son part of himself, and so the Son hath deprived the Father of some­thing. The Answer is, The Son is not asunder from the Father, for the Essence is the same: There is no renting, the Father with giving loseth nothing, but retains all, the Nature is whole in the Father, and whole in the Son, as one Candle lighteth another without any dimu­nition of its own light. 7thly, They say, a man hath no Son before he hath begotten. I answer, Nor God neither; but this I must say, 'tis a gross mistake to draw Consequences from hu­man things to divine, which is to measure God by Men: God always begetteth, as the Sun doth produce its brightness. 8thly, If God begets, 'tis either according to his Nature or to his Will; not the first, for then he would beget without consideration; if according to his Will, then the Father's Will was before the generati­on of the Son. I answer; He begets according to his Nature, and that freely. 9thly, If the Son be born he had a beginning, so is not from Eternity. I answer; The Father is eternal, the Son eternal, and the Generation eternal: in things created, to beget, is indeed to produce that which is not; but in divine and uncreated 'tis otherwise. 10thly, A spiritual Nature doth not beget. We say, a Spirit created doth not, but the Creator exceedeth the Reason of the Spiritual Creature. 11thly, If the Father hath begotten the Word, either he hath begotten [Page 289]Himself, or another, but neither of these, there­fore He hath not begotten; Himself He hath not begotten as granted, nor another neither, because there is no other God, and so not be­gotten at all. I answer the word, he hath be­gotten, alium non aliud, another Person, but not another thing; He hath begotten another, who is God, but not another God. 12ly, If God hath begotten the Word, either the whole Divine Essence hath begotten, or only the Fa­ther's Person; if the Essence, then it hath be­gotten Himself, or another; both which be ab­surd, if the Father's Person hath begotten, ei­ther he is the only true God, or else the word is not that Son of the only true God, where­fore the Father hath not begotten the Son from Eternity: We answer, the Father hath of Himself begotten from Eternity, there is no necessity for the Father only, to be the true God, 'tis enough he is the only true God, there­fore the Son is the Son of the only true God, not of two Persons, but of the Father.

These Objections which I have set down in short, and answer'd as briefly, I look not up­on as material, because not taken out of the word of God, the only Judge of those Contro­versies, but herein they shew how they affect Sophistry, to impose upon some sort of People; but however, some Advantage we get by it, for out of all these it appears, how this true Hea­venly Doctrine is not contrary to the Princi­ples of Reason. They have three or four Cavils or Questions more, which, by the Grace of God, we shall answer in few words: First, Whether the Father begat the Son when he was already a Son, or before he was the Son? I answer, the Father is Eternal, the Son Eter­nal, and begotten from all Eternity, which hath no Parts; the Father could no more be without the Son, than the Sun without Light, or Light without Brightness: Their 2d Questie [Page 290]on is, Whether the Father, after the Genera­tion of the Son, hath begotten any other, be­cause he is called the only Begotten; if he hath Begotten none other, then he hath lost the Power of Begetting: But I answer, that Gene­ration is without time, always perfect, not successive, without beginning or end. The 3d is, the Father hath begotten, either unwilling or willing; if unwilling, then he hath suffer'd something which he would not; if willing, then his Will was before the Generation of the Son; I say, part of this Argument was answered a lit­tle before, whereunto I shall add: The Will of God was indeed before all Creatures, for he hath done whatsoever he pleased; Psal. 115.3. but 'tis not so of the Son, for of him we read in Scripture, he was, and is with the Father; so the Son is no Creature, neither is he made by the Will as Creatures are; he is born of the Father, and is Co-eternal with the Person of the Father; the Father's Will is in Him; for in HIm he wil­leth, and by Him He doth all things: In those things which proceeded from Nature, there is no Fore-counsel or Predeliberation; yet the Fa­ther hath not begotten, being unwilling; for He begat with a Will, not Antecedent, but Concomitant; thus the Father's Person is, not because He was willing to be, but because He is, and willeth not Himself not to be; so the Son is not born against the Father's Will, neither doth the Fathers Will go before His Generation. A 4th presumptuous and unbecoming this adora­ble Mystery, Vain and Sophistical Cavil of theirs is this, Did the Father cease to beget? If so, that Discontinuation hath the beginning of the Son. The Answer is this, The Substance and Genera­tion of God are without, and above time, and Divine Nature is not depriv'd of a begetting faculty, because 'tis without time; 'tis an Im­piety to say the Father discontinued, for then thereby would be introduced three Parts and [Page 291]Spaces, before, now, and after, it were a Change, which God is uncapable of, He is above those things which import a Duration; Fire pro­duces Heat, yet is not heated by that Heat; it shall never cease to heat, and the heat is ever perfect: But these Comparisons out of natural things, are very defective to represent those high and incomprehensible Mysteries.

Out of these I leave the Reader to consider the manner of Spirit, which that People are acted by; how familiar, how bold, how sawcy they would be with God: These holy things lay before them as Pearls before Swine; they speak of, and handle them as they would in Schools the meanest Subjects of all, only to try their Wits, which therein are very Prophane, and to make a Shew of their Parts, when Men, that have a true Sense of Piety, instead of going about to play with, and ridicule them, will ever think and speak of them with a Religious Fear, and Awful Reverence: There is a danger for those, who dare to approach to God with a strange Fire, only to think on't, should make Men fear and tremble. However, let them wander and blaspheme never so much concerning that Eter­nal Generation; the [...] that the thing is, Scripture hath reveal'd it, but the [...]: the man­ner how, it hath not, neither could we compre­hend or express it, however it hath declar'd as much as is convenient and necessary for us to know. Solomon, whose glorious Kingdom was a Figure of that of Christ, and his Renowned Wisdom was a Type and a Shadow of that of the Son of God, who alludeth to it when he saith, that the Queen of the South came to hear the Wisdom of Solomon, Matth. 12.22. Prov. 3. and behold a greater than Solomon is here. That King, I lay, in that Chapter, already mention'd more than once, hath under the name of Wisdom, made a nota­ble mention of Christ, the Wisdom of the Fa­ther, the Wisdom he therein speaks of, is not [Page 292]an Attribute of God, or a quality of Wisdom, infused into, and inherent in Man, but is a Per­son, self-subsisting; for he is said to cry, to call and invite Men to come; which Actions are pro­per for Persons, and not for things; and to this place of Solomon doth John regard and [...]llude, when he saith, in the beginning was the word; the Meaning of which Word, beginning, is by that King at large explain'd in that place. And when the question was put, who Christ was, Peter in his Confession saith, not Moses nor Elias, nor none of the Prophets, nor John Bap­tist, the greatest among them that were born of Women, but the Son of the living God, by an Eternal Generation, whereunto belongs what our Saviour saith of himself; As the Father hath Life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have Life in himself; John 5.26. here as the Father hath Life in himself, so the Son hath it in the same man­ner that is in himself, that he may properly be as the Father, Ch. 6.57. the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: Socinians would have him to be the Son of God in their Sense, after his Resurrection; but after it, he can be the Son of God no more than David was more the Son of Jesse, after he came to be King; but Christ being the Son of God, he by his Resurrection declared his Deity, which he had before; for as St. Paul saith, was declared to be, not made, the Son of God by the Resurrection from the Dead.

They continue Sophistically to argue thus: Divine Essence is the Father, Divine Essence is the Son; therefore the Son is the Father; after the fame manner they say, the Father is the true God, but the Son is not the Father, wherefore the Son is not the true God; and again, the true God is the Father of Christ, but the Three Persons are not the Father of Christ, therefore the Three Persons are not the true God: But these and the like must not be reckon'd among the Expositorious, and Categorical Syllogisms, [Page 293]because these Terms, Divine Essence, and True God, are not incommunicable, but common to the Three Persons, consequently they conclude no more than do particular Affirmatives; for in a true Syllogism, according to the Rules, the major Proposition is not to be particular nor equivalent to it; for from such a Proposition, when any thing communicable to more, is the subject of it, and is restrained unto one Particu­lar, out of it nothing can be concluded; and this Proposition being made particular, the terms of the Subject or Predicate are supposed to be Reciprocal, as if God and the Father be the same, which is false; we grant the Father to be the only true God, so we say of the Son; but thence it doth not follow, that the Son is the Father; for in saying the Father is the true God, we do not relate to his Paternity, in re­spect to his Son, but to his Being and Nature, as the Scripture never said, that the Father only is the true God, so we do not say, that he that is the true God is the Father only; but to af­firm, that because each Person is God, there­fore one Person must be another, is just without giving any reason at all to dis-believe what God hath declar'd. The Father, say they, is the only true God; but the Particle alone, or only is restrictive of the Predicate, not of the Sub­ject; for Son and Holy Ghost are the same God, the Person is not formally Person by the Es­sence, but by the manner of having that Es­sence, and thus there are Three Persons of the same Essence; as to the Generation we do not say that the Father hath sometimes begotten, and sometimes not, nor that the Generative Fa­culty is an Attribute of that Nature, but a per­sonal Propriety of the first Person; who in a pe­culiar manner hath the Essence; wherefore tis no wonder if the other Persons have it not.

But we must proceed upon other Objections of theirs; they say, every where Scripture di­stinguisheth Father and Son one from another and never confounds them together; for it teaches that there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him, and one Holy Ghost, by whom we cry Abba Father; they are distinguished by the Manifestation of the Trinity in the Lord's Bap­tism, and in the form of Baptism, &c. We an­swer, They are Names Relatives, which assert the Distinction of Persons; but because they are distinct Persons, it doth not follow that there is not one and the same Essence of the three Persons, and that they are not one only God, Father, Maker and Preserver of all; and out of the Texts they produce, they cannot make out what they intend; how the Father and the Son are never contain'd together under the Name of God; for the Persons are distin­guish'd where Scripture speaketh Relatively of God, and doth oppose or compare them, or de­scribe their Proprieties. Further they object, they have distinct Essences, whose workings are distinct, but Father's and Son's workings are distinct, therefore their Essences are so: But we say, the major Preposition is to be un­derstood of Operations ad extra, or outward; for if whilst one doth work; the other ceaseth, then the Essences are distinct, but as to the in­ward workings there is no distinction or diffe­rence of Essences; far from it, that the Gene­ration of the Son, and the Procession of the Holy Ghost, do confirm the unity of Essence; for by the Generation, one and the same whole Essence of the Father is communicated unto the Son, and by this same reason there is but one and the Essence of both: Now the Minor Pro­position speaketh of inward Operations, and this Omonimy or Ambiguity of Terms brings in [Page 295]four Termini in the Argument, contrary to Rules; but if one and the same kind of Opera­tions be understood, then one of the Propositi­ons is false; the major is understood of those, ad imra, the minor of those ad extra, and in the case of the Incarnation, there are two terms to be consider'd; a quo from whom, and ad quem to or in whom, tho' as thus it be termi­natively in the Son, yet a quo, or originatively, it is the work of the whole Trinity.

Another Argument of theirs is this, the Es­sence unbegotten and begetting is not the same with the Essence begotten and not begetting, but the Essence of the Father is unbegotten, yet hath begotten the Son, but the Son's is begotten yet nor begetting, therefore the Essence of the Father is not the same with that of the Son: This Argument is borrow'd from the Arrians, whereof the minor Preposition is false; namely, that the Essence of the Son is begotten, the Names begotten, or not begotten, do not belong to the Essence, but shew an Hypostati­cal or Personal Difference: Should the Essence beget, it would either beget it self; and so should be begotten of it self, so it would make many different Essences of the Godhead, whence would follow many Gods. Moreover, as in natural things, not the Essence but the composi­tum doth beget, so in divine things the Person begets, and is begotten, which yet is not a vain Relation, seeing it is not constituted without the Essence. Now, if it were true, that the Divine Essence doth beget, one could say, either the Son doth beget, or deny the Son to have the Divine Essence. Again, They say, Two or three distinct Persons have so many distinct Essences, for the distinction of Essences doth follow that of Persons; so then Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, being three di­stinct Persons, they have three distinct Essen­ces; but the first Preposition is true, only in na­tural, [Page 296]not in Divine things; besides, they are in a mistake, when they think there is no real Di­stinction, except the things do differ in an Es­sential Number, when there are several things that differ in the thing and definition, which yet in Essence and Number are but one: Here by the by, I say, the words like and likeness, when a Comparison is made between the Per­sons, is not convenient to be used, but equal and equality, which indeed containeth a like­ness, but something above: Another thing I shall add here, how some things are properly spoken of the Essence, which also are properly spoken of the Persons, for 'tis properly said of the Essence and of the Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that they are Spirit and Ho­ly; for the word Spirit is spoken of as com­mon and essential, John 4.24. God is a Spirit; properly and personally of the Son, Christ declared to be the Son of God, according to the Spirit of Holiness, Rom. 1.4. Heb. 9.14. [...]Pet. 3 18. and who thorough the Eternal Spirit offereth himself; and elsewhere, Christ was put to death in the flesh, but quickned in the spirit. So of the Father and Holy Ghost; also to be holy is an Attribute of the Essence, yet in par­ticular and properly in Scripture, attributed to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost: Upon this Matter one thing more I shall take notice of, how Adjectives in the Plu­ral may be attributed to God, by reason of the Number of Persons, and Substantives in the Sin­gular, only upon account of the Essence.

Further they object, Christ hath a Father, who is the God of Christ, but the Father hath no God call'd his, therefore Father and Son are distinguished in Essence, the major they prove out of our Saviour's Word, I ascend un­to my Father, and to your Father, unto my God, and to your God, and my God my God why hast thou forsaken me? I answer, Christ hath a common Father and God with us, in as much [Page 297]as the word was made Flesh, and dwelt among us and in as much as the Man Jesus Christ is Mediator, between God and Man, yet so, as in his Mediatorship he is true Man, so he is true God: This Discourse being intended for his Brethren, he begins with the Profession he makes to own them as his Brothers, Go to my Brethren; all which to be understood of the Nature, which the Brotherhood doth relate to; and tho' the Father continueth such in re­lation to what the Son was, when the Word was with God, yet in the Birth and Incarna­tion the Father remaineth what he was; God is the Father of all Flesh, but not in the same manner and sense as he is the Father of the word; in Scripture 'tis declared in what sense, and on what side they are Brethren to the only begotten Son of God, Colos. 1.18. I will declare thy Name unto my Brethren, but he said before, I am a Worm, and no Man; Psal. 22.6. Christ is by the Apostle call'd the First-born amongst many Brethren, also because the First-born from the Dead. Fur­thermore they say, if Christ, when he speaketh of God, stould mean also himself, he would include himself in the mention he makes of God, but he doth not, but maketh a difference be­tween himself and God, whom he calls the true God; so in the Apostolical Writings, God and Christ are spoken of asunder, which pla­ces I quote in the Margin, c. John 3.16. and 17.3. d. Rom. 16.23. 1 Tim. 6.13, 14, 15, 16. 1 Cor. 15.24. Col. 1.3. Eph. 4.5. 1 Thes. 1.2, 3, 9, 10. to shew we omit none of them: So, say they, he not joyning himself with God, sheweth he is not the same with God; thus the name God absolutely ta­ken, belongeth only to the Father: I answer, the name of God is taken either personally, namely, as he begets, and as he is begotten; and thus the Son is distinguished from the Fa­ther, and upon this account the Apostle speaks of them separately, Christ is distinguished from God, both in Person and Office, not in the Godhead or Essence, or else the name is ab­solutely, [Page 298]simply, Rom. 8.31, 32. 1 Tim. 1.1. 1 John 5.20. Joh. 14.1. and essentially taken, when the Question is about the Godhead; then as to the Deity, the Son is not distinguished from the Father, as when Christ saith, there is none good but God, he doth not exclude himself from being good, 'tis as if he had said unto the Man, if thou believest me to be good, for so thou callest me, thou must also believe me to be God, for none is good but God; and this was to have the Man to look upon him to be God: Again, When our Saviour saith, Ʋnto God all things are possible, and that God is able out of Stones to rise Children unto Abraham, when the Apostles in their Salutations name first God, and our Father, and then the Lord Jesus Christ; 'tis no good Consequence to say that the Son is not of the same Nature with the Father, for the Name of God is therein attributed unto the Father, as the Spring, and first in order of the Deity, then the Son is proposed as Medi­atour, to lead us unto God, for we are led by Christ unto the Father to worship and adore him together with the Father; for he saith, Ye believe in God, believe also in me, thereby shewing we ought to render unto him the same things we render to the Father; where­fore in several places we read how when the Name Father is added, yet that of God is imme­diately put before; when generally something is taught, which belongeth to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, then having named the Father, the Mediatour is mention'd, to breed in us Hope and Comfort; thus the same Apostle opposeth one God to Idols, where Christ is not exclud­ed; for immediately in the same Verse he de­clareth who that one God is, namely, the Fa­ther of whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, 1 Cor. 8.6. Ephes. 4.5, 6. and we by him; thus in another place he saith, there is one God, as there is one Bap­tism, Christ, in whose Name we are baptized, [Page 299]is not excluded from that oneness of Godhead; Joh. 14.6. and because he would come to the Mediatour, he very fitly nameth the Father, to whom, as the Head of the Deity, there is no approach without the Mediator; so by the Name Father is represented God, essentially offended by Man­kind, and by the Son and Christ that Person of the adorable Trinity, who hath undertaken to make our Peace, and reconcile us unto God, he is the way, the truth, and the life, and none can come to the father but by him: So when we read the word God, we must not separate the Father nor the Son, because the Divinity of the Father, and of the Son, is but one and the same.

Moreover they object the Father is [...] God of himself, hath all of himself, and acts of himself, but the Son is not God of himself, he is from the Father, himself he saith he came from the Father, and the Father sent him; to this I answer, They go upou a wrong Princi­ple for they would have this to be of one self, or of another, to import a different Essence or Nature, for even in created things, that which is begotten is ever of the same Nature with that which hath begotten; but by reason of Imperfection these are one only in Species; but God, the Father, and the Son, may not be said to be one in Species or Kind, because thus they would make two Gods: What they add how in Divine things, he that begetteth, and he that is begotten, are not one, either in Essence or Species, because Men and Angels are called Sons of God, which are not one with God, either in Nature or Kind, is very frivo­lous; for 'tis certain they are call'd Sons of God upon a very different account from that on which Christ is so call'd: None is ever call'd God's own and proper Son, only begotten, come from the Bosom of the Father; for unto which of the Angels, or Men, said he at any time thou [Page 300]art my Son, Heb. 1.5. this day have I begotten thee; and again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son. Moreover, they are mistaken, to think that to be of another, is to be of a diffe­rent and inferiour Nature; indeed, he who re­ceiveth not all, but out of favour only part of what another hath, may be said to be inferiour to him of whom he receiveth, but he not so who hath all that another hath; not by favour, but by Nature and Generation: They are far­ther much mistaken, when they deny Christ, simply and absolutely to be God of himself; for he must need be [...], who is [...]. That is a being or Es­sence of himself, Life of himself, Holy of him­self, Power of himself, is good of himself, Light of himself, Truth of himself, Wisdom of himself, Righteousness of himself, Perfect of himself, and Glory of himself, which all are Attributes of the Deity, and to whom they be­long: So doth also Divine Nature; all which Attributes were by the antient Orthodox Doctors of the Church, and after them by the eminent Instruments of Reformation, owned to be the Right and Property of the Son of God, grounding themselves upon the Autho­rity of Scripture in several Places, especially that of 1 John 5.20. by me already quoted; we are in him that is true, even in his son Jesus Christ: This is the true God, and eternal life.

If we look upon the Son of God, as he is from Eternity begotten of the Father, and as he is the second Person, on such an account we own the Son to be from the Father, seeing he is true Son; but if we consider him as God, he is altogether self God, and God of himself; for the Divinity is wholly unbegotten, and of her self, knoweth of no beginning, and needs not to borrow of others what it hath of it self; [Page 301]and if to the Son one would attribute a Begot­ten, and formed Essence, this is from the Fa­ther to make a second God. Lastly, Many of the Places which the Adversaries do heap up, do speak of Christ's Office of Mediator, which they improperly misapply to his Divine Nature, for though Christ's Humane Nature hath no Personality, but is upheld by the Divine Per­son, yet that upholding doth not confound the Natures, otherwise Passion and Death might be attributed to Divine Nature. On this Matter they form other Arguments, grounded upon false Suppositions, as sometimes they would have Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to be three Spirits, and the words unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding to be Essential Differences; when to speak of three Spirits in the God­head, is as good as to say there are three Gods, 1 Cor. 8.4. whilst Scripture saith there is none other God but one, who hath his Being from himself, and from none else, for we must say of every God so called, which is not such by Nature, Hosea 8.6. what the Prophet saith of the Calf of Samaria; the workman made it, therefore it is not God; and 'tis a right Consequence, for nothing can be God that is made by another: So then to talk of three Spirits in the Godhead, is to set up three Gods; for God, as our Saviour saith, absolutely is a Spirit; and when we say Spirit, we un­derstand his Nature, for a Spirit is a Spiritual Substance and being; thus, they go on still up­on their Suppositions, they would have the words unbegotten, begotten and proceeding, to be essen­tial Differences, and not personal as they are, so other times they would have the Son, because he is of the Father, not to be one God with the Father, who existeth of himself, and so not to be the one true God, because he hath a Being from another, but we must distinguish between the being of Essence, and that of the Person, the first the Son hath of it self, and the second of the Father.

They farther object, he that is Mediator with the God of Israel, is not the God of Israel himself; for if it were so, three Absurdities say they would follow; the first, God would be inferiour to himself; 2dly, God would pray to himself; 3dly, the Party offended shall be Mediatour with himself; but to the first we answer, Tho' God be Mediator, it followeth not he is inferiour to himself; for tho' upon the account of the Office, he that is a Media­tor be inferiour to him whom he intercedeth with, yet he is not thereby inferiour in Na­ture; for even among Men one Equal doth in­tercede with his Equals. As to the second, the Son prayeth to God for us, according to his Humane Nature, tho' we exclude not the Di­vine from interceding, for it belongs to it, in as much as it is the Eternal Will of the Son that the Father would, by reason of his Sacri­fice, receive us into Favour, the Prayers and Submission belong to Humane Nature, but the Divine maketh them effectual, both Natures being united in one Person. The Divine was united with the Humane mediately in the Person of the Son; but the same Person was immediately united to Humane Nature. As to the third it were absurd indeed, if the Party offended was Mediator when there is but one Person offended; but where several Persons are offended, there is no Absurdity, if by their common Consent one of those offended Persons offereth satisfaction for the Offender, and to reconcile, and in this Case it could not be o­therwise; for it was required that the Recon­ciler should be God; and 'tis but a Cavil to say that he, with whom the Son is not Media­tor, could not be reconciled, and that the Son was not Mediator with himself, or with the Holy Ghost, but only with the Father; for first, not only he is reconciled and appeased by the Mediator, with whom the Son performeth [Page 303]the Office of Mediator, but also they that are joyn'd, and about it agreed with him; wherefore, seeing in every thing, the Will of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be agreed, it followeth, that through the Merit and Satisfaction of the Media­tor, the Father being fully satisfied, the Son and Holy Ghost are so too. I add as to the second, it is not absurd as they think, that the Son should be Mediator with himself, for the Son of God doth the Office of Mediator in both Capacities; for, as God being one with the Father, he receiveth us into Favour; and as he is Mediator according to both Natures, so as he is God, manifested in the Flesh, by rea­son of his Merit and Satisfaction, we are re­ceived into favour; and although this being received into favour be common to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, yet the Mediator is said to intercede for us with the Father, who is con­sider'd as the Spring of all Divine Counsels and Operations; who being willing that the Son should satisfie for our Sins, and that by ver­tue of that satisfaction, our Sins should be for­given, it is not possible for the Son to will and do otherwise; to this purpose makes what the Apostle saith about our being reconciled to God by Jesus Christ, and what the Evangelist wri­teth, he that hath my commandments, 2 Cor. 5.18, 19, 20, 21, and keep­eth them, he it is that loveth me; and he that lov­eth me, shall be loved of my father, and I will love him, and manifest my self unto him; John 14.21, 23. to the same effect doth tend what is said in another place of Christ, who, when he had by himself purged our Sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high: So then the Son is appeased, Heb. 3.3. and forgiveth our sins, receiveth us into fa­vour, and giveth us Eternal Life, upon the ac­count of his own satisfaction. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost do the same, by reason of the satisfaction given by the Son: In the mean while, in relation to the Son, who for [Page 304]his own sake receiveth us, tis call'd his Will, in relation to the Father, 'tis call'd Mediation or Intercession; therein the Will of the Son, in order of the Person and Divine Working, doth follow the Will of the Father. Hence it ap­peareth, how they do ill, to confound the Di­vine Nature of Christ under his Office of Me­diator, as such; according to his Humane Na­ture, he pray'd to the Father, and taught us a form of Prayer, that we should call upon the Father through the Mediator, yet he thereby never intended to exclude or deprive himself of his own Due or Right, there is no Con­tradiction to worship the Father in the Face, and thorough the Intercession of the Mediator, for we worship the Father not in his Person only, but of the whole Nature; and Christ in John 5.22. as in the form of Baptism, proposeth himself to be worshipped; for Adoration is not confined in the Person of the Father only.

They say, If the Father be greater than Christ, then he is not God equal with the Father; but Christ saith, John 14.28. the father is greater than I: Therefore, is not God equal with the Father? in this place Christ speaketh not of his Divine Nature, but of his Office; the Father doth send, and the Son is sent; and though he be less as to his Humanity, he is equal in relation to his Divinity. Wherefore, I answer, Christ is less than his Father in respect to his Humane Nature, which he assumed with the Infirmity thereof, Sin excepted; for he was hungry, weary, sorrowful, and the like, and we read he wept, tho' never that he laughed; but before that Assumption of the Flesh, he had a Being of another Nature, which can be no other but Divine, as it appeareth of what Scripture saith, sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, Heb. 10.5. but a body hath thou prepared me. He certainly need have had a Being before this natural Body was prepared for him; me then [Page 305]he was a Person before the Body. This Infe­riority must be understood of his Person, in that voluntary humiliation of his in his state of exinanition, yet this his being inferiour to the Father in respect of his Humanity, doth not at all take away the equality between him and the Father, in relation to his divine Nature, for he is the Word, Son of God; tho' when he was made Flesh, he was made that which he was not before with assuming human and mor­tal Nature, yet he still remained that which he was before, namely, God blessed for ever; there was no addition, diminution, or altera­tion in his divine Nature, but continued the same Person of the most holy Trinity, begotten of the Father from all Eternity. Christ is less than the Father, in respect to his Office of Me­diatour: We are in Covenant with God, not upon our account, but upon that of C [...]st, who is thus become the Head of all Men that are in covenant with God; and in relation to this, he is called the Mediatour of the New Testament: Heb. 9.15. wherefore we must observe how in Scripture the Lord Jesus is said to be made Lord and Ch [...]ist, Acts 2.36. but never said to be made God; which things are very different, for by Nature God is Lor [...], but Christ by Will and Appointment, in re­spect of his Personal Dominion, and of the Oeconomical Kingdom belonging to his Media­torship; He is God absolutely, but Lord and Christ relatively unto us, God essentially and Christ accidentally: In this last sense he was anointed with that Oyl and Gifts of the Holy Ghost, for in the other sense he wanted no such thing; he was not anointed simply as God, but as Christ a Prophet, a Priest and a King, for our sake, and for our good: And all places in Scripture wherein the Father is said to be grea­ter than Christ, to be the Head of Christ, to have made Christ Lord, to have exalted and anointed him, and the like, ought to be ta [...]en [Page 306]in this sense, that is, in regard of his human Na­ture and Mediatorship, and not as to the divine, for when this is spoken of our Saviour, himself saith, I and my Father are one, John 10.30. there is no dif­ference either in Nature or Power. After this manner also is to be understood that place, John 5.22, 27. wherein the Father is said to have commit­ted all judgment unto the Son, and given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man: which hath a relation to his Office of Mediatorship in the Government of the Church, and Judgment over the Enemies there­of: His essential Kingdom he hath of himself, but this dispensatory one from the Father, not because he is the Son of God, but because he is the Son of Man: which reason tends to breed in us Comfort and Assurance, in that we are to be judged by a Man, one who having taken our Nature, with its Infirmities, Sin excepted, will compassionate us, for he was tempted as we are; and in human Judgments 'tis a Privilege to be [...]ry'd by his Peers and Equals, that is of the same [...]ank and condition with us. In this sense ought also to be taken the place where it is said, The Son also shall be subject unto him that put all things ander him, 1 Cor. 15.28. and deliver up the Kingdom into his hands, the Kingdom of ruling, governing, and preserving of the Church: This giving or dell­vering up of the Kingdom is no sign of inequa­lity, for as the Son is to give it up to the Father, so the Father gave it up to him without any diminution of his Power; neither shall the Son receive any diminution of his, he shall deliver it in a perfect Oeconomical administration, ha­ving overcome all Enemies, and brought all his Elect to be crowned with Glory; so there will be no more to do, no need of being a King in that respect. By the words, Then shall the Son himself be subicel, is to be understood the ac­count he is to give of his administration there­of; and this is a kind of subjection which shall [Page 307]be swallowed up in that perfect Happiness where­in God will be all in all, no more Enemies to fight, no more need of a Mediator.

But for their last gasp they reserve a frivo­lous and insignificant Exception; for some of them say, our Arguments are not coherent, sometimes we plead for Unity, at other times for a Trinity; but we form our Arguments according to the nature of the Matters, and the Principles of those whom we do dispute against. Against the Gentiles and Heathens we prove, That there is but one true God; against the Jews, That besides God the Father, there is also another Person, namely, the Son of God, who is also true God: We are to deal against several Adversaries to this truth, Arrians, Sa­bellians, Samosatenians, Socinians, Tritheists, &c. and accordingly we frame our Arguments sui­tably with the Principles of those whom we dispute against. If I deal against Gentiles, my Arguments must not be drawn out of Scripture, which they receive not, but from natural Rea­son, and out of the Writings of their Philoso­phers and other Authors, as St. Paul did in Athens, Acts 17.28: So if against Samaritans, I must argue only out of the Pentatench or five Books of Moses: If against Jews, only out of the Old Testament, because they own not the New; and so of the rest.

This is the substance of what they say in op­position to these Heavenly Truths, which to compass they are not ashamed to wrest Scri­ptures, to force upon them a sense contrary to the Design of the Spirit of God, and to the Analogy of Faith; and in order to form a de­testable System, whereby they do what they can to overthrow the whole foundation of our holy Religion, not only they for many Years rack'd their own Brains to extract all the Poy­son which Satan could infuse and [...] [...]own na­tural Corruption suggest, but also called for [Page 308]Help upon the most infamous and abominable Hereticks that ever were in the Christian World, and out of all made a Quintessence of all that erroneously, impiously, or blasphemously can be forg'd or said against the Divine Na­ture, Attributes, Persons, and Grace of God: Yet not wholly trusting to this, they have set up a Diana, a God-Idol of their own, even their own natural Reason, that where abusing Scripture cannot serve the turn, their unreasonable Ima­ginations may do't, wherein they seem to scorn being guided by the Word of God, where it doth not answer their Ends; but divine things must not be measured by our shallow Capaci­ty. And if we believe Scripture to be the Word of God, then we must receive that which God teaches us therein; and we must not to the prejudice of this be guided by our own Reason, which in such matters is but an ignis fatuus, a false and deceitful Guide, that will lead us to Rocks and Precipices; that only must be our Rule which God hath revealed in his Word. For an Instance; Will not Human Reason suggest, that if our Saviour, instead of poor Fishermen, unlearned, and of no account in the World, had called the Josephs of Ari­mathea, the Nicodemus, and men of good parts and of quality in the World, the Gospel would hove gotten more ground and been more spread abroad in the World; yet this is contrary to God's Method, who hath hidden these things from the wise and prudent, Mat. 11.25.26. 1 Cor. 1.26, 27, 28, 29, and revealed them unto Babes, who hath chosen and called the foolish the weak and base things of the world to confound the wise and the mighty: And why so? first, because so it seemed good in his sight; secondly, to the end that no flesh should glory in his presence: Joh. 7.48. This confirmed by Experience, for Have any of the Rulers or of the Pharisees be­lieved on him? So then to insist on this reason is no less than to arraign the Wisdom of God, [Page 309]which no Man may or ought to do. Farther, some things there are taught by Philosophy of the Soul of the World, of several things there­in, and of Man's Soul, which to human Under­standing appear to have no Truth in them; yet in those things, if upon the account of the Learning and Wit of those great Men, we have a kind of esteem and reverence for their Opinions, much more ought we to have a re­verence for the Truth contained in God's Word, and received by so many great and good Chri­stians, and suffer'd for by them in all Ages, for never was any Divine Truth more universally, and in all places and times, received, notwith­standing the opposition of some wicked men, than the Mystery of the most holy Trinity.

As indeed not only the Offering and Preach­ing, but also the whole Application of Salva­tion to be obtained in this and another Life, do depend upon the truth of the holy Trinity, be­cause everywhere the Father works by his Son, and this with the Father by the Holy Ghost, which if we believe not, we cannot have ei­ther the use or comfort of things relating to Salvation; but God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit, 1 Cor. 2.10, 12. and we have received the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 'Tis then our Duty and Comfort to know the Father in the Son, and both through the Holy Ghost, for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God: as Christ saith, none knoweth the Father but the Son, and to whom the Son will reveal him, so John testifies, that he that hath not the Son hath not the Father; and Paul, Mat. 11.27 1 Joh. 2.23. Eph. 2.12. that those that are without Christ are also without Hope, and without God in the world: 'Tis said indeed how God at sundry times, and in several manners, spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets, but the knowledge of him, and of Salvation, then was in the dark till the [Page 310]last days, when he spoke unto Men by his Son: When we hear of the salvation which God sent into the World, then at the same time the Son and Holy Ghost are mention'd, because without them there is none. Among several other places in Scripture, wherein this great work is spoken of, and wherein we find the three Persons men­tion'd, that is remarkable wherein the Apostle joyneth them together; Heb. 10.29. Of how much sorer pu­nishment suppose ye shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the Covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the spirit of grace? All three are concerned, so they were before salvation was actually effected, long before when all was un­der Types and Figures, 1 Pet. 1.11, 12 compared with 2 Pet. 1.21. for by the spirit of Christ the Prophets prophesied of old: so now in this great business the Son hath his part, and the Holy Ghost his also. As much as God hath been pleased to reveal unto us about this adorable Mystery, we must study and enquire after, but no farther; where God is silent we must be so too; and we ought to curb our Curiosity and Presumption, and not to stretch our Brains to find out Proofs out of Comparisons with Sun, Soul, Rainbow, Trees, Triangle, &c. which are all lame and defective. This I speak as to us who believe that high and incomprehensible Mystery upon God's Word, wherein he hath revealed it unto us; for as to the abominable wretches, which out of Hell are broken loofe against it, and not only make a Jest of and de­spise and hate it, we must leave them to God, if peradventure he will give them repentance, 2 Tim. 2. [...]. to the acknowledging of the Truth.

As to our blessed Saviour, whom they go about to rob of that Glory and Honour which Scripture declares do belong to him, and which therein he assumeth unto himself, and whom they would make a meer Man, a Creature, and [Page 311]if I dare speak it without blasphemy, an imagi­nary and a mock God, acting the part of a God as an Actor doth upon a stage that of a Prince, when he is not such. In Scripture the Names of God absolutely attributed to none but unto the true God; and that also in so many places of Scripture, whereof many we already quoted, and others not: We have given instances of all the incommunicable Names of Divine Nature appropriated unto him; also we made it appear how all Attributes proper to the true God, and never communicated to the Creature, do belong to Christ, as do all divine works truly such; why then should not all own him to be true God by Nature, seeing essential Attri­butes are inseparable from the Essence? The Oneness of which Essence with the Father he doth attribute unto himself, explaining in what sense he calleth God his Father, not by Adopti­on or Grace, or meerly by reason of his assum­ption of our human Nature, John 10.30, 38. or by vertue of any Office and Dignity, but because of his eternal Generation and Co-essentiality with the Father, in which sense he saith, I and the Father are one; Chap. 1.14 & 3.16. Rom. 8.3, 32. Mar. 14.33. and upon the account of this oneness of Na­ture he saith, The Father is in me, and I in him. And this eternal Generation in one Essence is denoted in Scripture, when called only begot­ten of the Father, Gods own and proper Son, the true Son of God, yea, such a Son as is Heir of all things, and in opposition to Angels, as the Son is to the Servants; which Sonship and Generation is more clearly expressed when he is called the Brightness and express Image of the Father's Person, because in him, through that eternal Generation, is expressed the whole Person and Glory of the Father; for which Image of God he is called the First-born of eve­ry Creature, that is, begotten before there was any Creature, and so from Eternity; as in the Form and Nature of God, to be equal with [Page 312]God, who otherwise hath not, and owneth none equal to himself. 2 Sam. 7.1 [...].

In these high and divine matters Men must not presume beyond what is written and re­vealed in Gods Word, nor wrest the Delign of the Spirit of God, or force an unusual and con­trary sense to the words of the Text, but we ought to keep our selves within the bounds of that holy reverence which becomes us in the contemplation of the Majesty of God. In these very things Hierom, as said before, was very cautions about acknowledging three Hypostases in the Deity, because he thought the word to denote substance. When God was upon with­drawing the Spirit of Prophecy from among his People, Chap. 4.4. he, by Mal [...]c [...]y, the last of the Prophets, commands them to remember the law of Moses his servant: So now, when the Apo­stles, immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost, ceased so long since, men should wholly acqui­esce to the sound Doctrine which those Ser­vants of his Son Jesus, left for our use and in­struction, wherein we learn how God hath re­vealed himself, and communicated his own infi­nite fulness unto his Creatures, in all of them, immediately by his own Son, first, in the crea­tion of all things; secondly, in their providen­tial disposal and rule; thirdly, in the revelati­on of his Will and Ordinances; fourthly, in the communication of his Spirit and Grace, in none of which is the Person of the Father other­wise represented unto us than in and by the Per­son of the Son, for the whole end of the Gospel is, 2 Cor. 4.6. 1 Tim 6.10. 1 [...]o [...]n 4.12. to give knowledge of the glory of God in the [...] of Jesus Christ, that is, the glory of the [...] visible God, whom no man hath seen. Now in that forenamed Prophecy of Malachy, the same Chapter, and two last Verses, the coming of the [...], which had often been prophesied of be­fore, is again promised, yea, of the Lord him­self, who then was and had been from all Eter­nity, [Page 313]but was to come only at such a time, which is called the great and dreadful day of the Lord, for against the appearing, and long before, of that Sun of Righteousness, all those Stars the Prophets were to disappear, one only excepted, like the Morning-star before the rising of the Sun; Behold, I will send you Elijah the Prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: By whom the Lord Jesus is meant, as John Baptist is by Elijah, so called because he came in the spirit and power of Elias, for both were endow'd with a fervency of Spi­rit, which made them spare neither Kings nor People: And the Evangelist makes use of the words of the Prophet, He shall turn the hearts of the Fathers to the Children, Luke 1.17, com­pared with Matt. 11.14, Mark 9.11, 12, 13. That same Lord, whose coming with such Con­comitants, as great and dreadful, was Jehovah himself, the God of Israel, whose words, tho' in his state of humiliation, were so conspicuous, glorious, and great, as he in one particular said himself to the man out of whom he had cast a Legion of Devils, Return to thine own house, Luk. 8.39. and shew what great things God hath done unto thee: And the Evangelist, who in the beginning of the Verse relateth Christ's words to the man, doth in the latter end of the same declare what the man did; And he went his way, and published throughout the whole City how great things Jesus had done unto him; he did it in the same words, how great things, only instead of God he said Jesus, so that Jesus was the God that had done great things unto him. This was in the Land of Judah, where no other God but the true God of Israel was own'd and worship­ped; so the Lord Jesus was that same God, whom the Father from Heaven calls his Son, which is the Name mentioned, Phil. 2.9. that is above eve­ry name, and this name, more excellent than any given the Angels, Heb. 1.4. he hath obtained by inheri­tance, [Page 314]not by favour, according to what saith the Apostle, for the name by him designed is that of Son of God, Thou art my Son, with the exegetical adjunct of his generation, This day have I begotten thee; Acts 13.33. which words Paul doth apply to the Lord Jesus: This day of Eternity, after the manner of time spoken in relation to God, with whom are no parts of time, as with Men, past, present, and to come: With God are not days, but only one day, which had no beginning, and shall have no end: It was never said to any Angel personally upon his own ac­count, Thou art the Son of God, much less with the reason of the appellation, This day have I begotten thee: so in that place the Apo­stle doth not speak of the general Name of a Son, but of the particular appropriation there­of unto the Lord Jesus, upon his own account. When the Apostle saith, he is the first-born, the thing it self is not meant of being the first be­gotten, but the Dignity and Privilege that at­tended it. Psal. 89.27 Thus God saith of David, I will make him my first-born, explained in the later part of the Verse, higher than the Kings of the carth. Thus among Men one may say, I will make such a one my First-born, or my Heir; which is the Privilege attending the Birth­right. This is Christs Title by Nature and not by Office; anointing was a Ceremony used to make and declare a King, but that anointing made him not a Man, for he was so before: So the Lord Jesus was God before he was Christ.

CHAP. XI. Some Animadversions upon a Book called, Christianity not Myste­rious.

WHAT I said somewhat before concerning Reason, puts me in mind of a thing I promised about the middle of my Discourse, namely, to take notice of a Book with the Title of Christianity not mysterious; wherein the Au­thor undertakes to shew, there is nothing in the Gospel, or in our Religion, against or above Reason: And tho' I have hardly any room left, yet to be as good as my word, I must briefly say something to it.

We agree with him against all human Autho­rity, contrary to the Word, and own Scripture to be the only competent Judge, and allow of our Reason, as long as it draweth out of that Spring, and not otherwise. Let us be sincere, and avoid Ambiguities, there is true and sound Reason, whereof the Word of God is the right and standing infallible Rule, for the Will of God is the measure of all Truth and Equity, and our Reason, to be Reason indeed, must be guided by that, or else it doth deviate from the Rule. There is also that which is called Rea­son, but is not really so, meerly human, subject to Error, a meer Chimera and Fancy of Man's shallow Brains, according to this natural Reason Men willing thereby to judge of spiritual things, [Page 316]to speak in Paul's words, professing themselves to be wise, become sools; far from being rational, are unreasonable, and have forfeited their rea­son; for Scripture opposeth human Reason to divine, Man's Wisdom to God's, as may be seen in the places quoted in the margin, 1 Cor. 1.18, 19, to 30. & Chap. 2.4, 5, 6, 13, 14. Jam. 3.15. which I desire the Reader to peruse, and a little lower I shall have occasion to mention. And another Apostle speaks of this human Wisdom or Rea­son (for the rational man is the wise man) in opposition to the divine with a witness, when he saith, This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish; but true Wis­dom the Lord giveth; Prov. 2.6. Jam. 1.5. and If any lack wisdom, let him ask of God.

We do not destroy our Reason when we sub­mit and make it subordinate to Scripture, for human must depend upon divine Reason, or else 'tis blasphemously to deny there is more of and better Reason in God than in Man; so we must own there is in God more of good Rea­son than in us: wherefore Reason is not inde­pendently to be lodged in our weak Brains, but in the Wisdom of God, in his Word. Thus our Reason is not to be the Rule of Faith, for 'tis so apt to fail, to be misled and imposed upon; but the Spirit of God speaking in Scripture, and to our Spirits, is not so, we are said to be the Epistle of God, 1 Cor. 3.3. written not with Ink, or any human and natural thing, but with the Spirit of the living God. It is strange, that whilst this man doth so much plead for Reason he is so un­reasonable in some things he saith; as, par. 4.5. that after he hath justly taken away an infallible Authority, from a Council or a Pope, that is, from a collective Body and a company of Men, yet he would lodge it in every single man, in his shallow Brain, mine, and any ones else. We own, 'tis every man's Duty and Concern to enquire and exercise his Reason about Faith and Religion, but to make either depend upon his [Page 317]Reason, is to build upon the Sand, to make the infallible depend upon the fallible, and confound matters of Faith with those of Fact.

But to the end we may know what we speak of, 'tis necessary to say something about Reason, the thing most excellent in Man, for he thereby is made to differ from meerly sensitive and ve­getable Creatures, and it gives him a denomi­nation, for from Reason he is called reasonable, from his noblest part reasonable Soul, which, as School-men say, is Man's forma informans, and makes him to be what he is. Now Reason is seated in the Understanding, which is the su­periour part of the Soul, and the Judgment-seat of all things offered to her consideration, there to be examined, whether true or false, which is the Object of the Operation of the Understand­ing, as Good or Evil is that of the determination of the Will. But how these Objects come into the Mind, Intellect, or Understanding, which are the same, this is the usual order about it, which God hath setled in Nature: First, The Objects that are outward are offered to the Organ of the Sense, as may be the Eye of see­ing, the Ear of hearing, &c. which communi­cates it to the Sense, whence they pass into the Imagination, and thence are convey'd into the Mind, which is the Receiver and Looking-glass of all Forms; for, as the Hand is called the In­strument of Instruments, so is the Intellect the Form of Forms, and can understand all things intelligible, by means of the Brain, the Organ of it.

Tho' upon the present occasion this matter ought to be handled more Theologically than Philosophically, however something must be said in relation to this: as the Organs of Sense, for instance that of Seeing, receive Objects, either by emission or intromission of visual beams, a Dispute in Philosophy, not proper here to be meddled with, but 'tis certain it receives them; [Page 318]so doth the Understanding Objects conveyed in­to it, whether by means of intelligible or inten­tional Species, 'tis not to our purpose, no more than whether they be there objectively or sub­jectively as an Ens rationis, or real, as are Scien­ces. But this must be known, that in Man are the Intellect, a Faculty of the Soul; Science, an Habit of that Faculty, and Knowledge, an Act proceeding from the Faculty through the Habit. The working of the Understanding is done suc­cessively, and through many Acts, which some Philosophers reckon to be eight in number, that may well be reduced under three; the first is, the receiving and apprehending of the Ob­jects; the second is, the working of the Mind to reduce into order, and dispose those Objects into a good form, and this is properly [...] or [...], Reason; the third is, [...], a ratiocinative Discourse, or a working and moti­on of the Mind from one to another, whence ariseth the right Understanding, and as it were the Decree and Sentence about the thing. This is the natural order in these matters: Now hence let us conclude some things.

Reason is Knowledge upon true grounds, and herein we must see how far we may trust our Reason; according to the Rule in Philosophy, Nihil cadit sub intellectu quod non fucrit prius sub sensu; ‘Nothing comes under the Intellect but what before hath been under the Sense.’ And since the Organs are often deceived by the Objects, the Senses by the Organs, the Imagi­nation by Senses, it is a rational consequence to say, that the Mind may also thereby happen to be imposed upon from the very first step. In the case of Seeing three things are necessary, the thing that seeth, the thing seen, and the medium or help, without which no seeing; the Eye is the seer, but if blind it cannot see, nei­ther can it see except there be something to be seen; then the medium is the light which helps [Page 319]us to see, for in the dark, Objects cannot be discerned; also there ought to be a proportio­nable distance between Organ and Object; a Man cannot from the Street see a Pin upon the top of a Steeple, because it is too remote: Our Mind is the Eye of the Soul, and tho' Reason feated in it hath Objects offered, it cannot rightly judge without the medium, even about natural things, else how could there among Men, who all have a rational Soul, be so many different and contrary Judgments about the same things? The reason of our Mind must be grounded upon the reason of the thing, which is that whereby the thing is so: We say, why is it day? The reason is good, because the Sun is up, for that is the cause of the day: so that Certainty is not grounded upon the clearness of our perceiving, as upon the mainness of the Evidence confirmed by a continual Experience. Now natural Reason is fitted for natural Things, but for supernatural it must be super­naturally endowed: And besides Ideas, a due temper and application of the Mind are requi­red. But about divine things, besides what is in us, there ought to be a Rule in them, which is Revelation; this is the medium or middle between Eye and Object, without which in spi­ritual things we can see nothing till the Lord openeth our Eyes. When an Army of Syrians had compassed Dothan, to take Elisha, his Ser­vant seeing so many Horses and Chariots, was afraid, till at the Prayer of the Prophet the Lord opened the Eyes of the young man, 2 Kings 6.15, 16, 17. then and not before, he saw the mountain full of Lor­ses and chariots of fire round about Elisha. These Heavenly Armies cannot be seen by a meer na­tural Eye, it must be enlightned from above: As we cannot know a thing of which we have no Idea, so we must have a true one, to make a right Judgment of it, or else we go upon a wrong bottom, and it still remains a Mystery to [Page 320]us. The true Notion we ought to have of a Mystery is this, namely, something that is hid­den from our Knowledge and above our Rea­son: see what a false Idea a learned and rational man, a Master of Israel, Nicodemus, had of Regeneration, as we shall see somewhat lower; it was a very necessary and truly rational thing to believe in Christ, Joh. 7.48. yet Have any of the Ru­bers and Pharisees believed on him? Those men in their way wanted not Reason; God, saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 1.27. hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. The greatest commendation of Mans Reason is, to call it Wisdom; yet it is confounded about spiritual things: for this very thing our Saviour rejoy­ced in spirit, and gave his Father Thanks for revealing the Mysteries of salvation unto Babes, which the wise and prudent of the World could not understand for want of this Revelation, Luke 10.21. Wherefore when God will have his People to know him, he saith not, their Reason and Mind shall know me, but I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the Lord, Jer. 15.7. This Knowledge is not an effect of their Reason, but the Gift of God. The right Judgment of a thing doth sometimes depend upon so many different circumstances, that a mistake in one of them doth much alter the thing, and so pervert the Judgment; be­sides that, our Understanding being often di­sturbed through Passion and Prejudice, it there­by lyeth under great mistakes: If so in natu­ral and temporal things, how much more in spiritual and eternal, wherein the dispropor­tion between the Understanding and Object is infinitely greater! Yet that sort of People make no difference in reasoning about the Word of God and human Writings, with them it is all one to judge of God or of Men, and their Reason they make the Judge of both: This is to set up a Tribunal, which God will never [Page 321]allow of, to inquire after, and examine his ways and works, Job 33.13. when he giveth no account of any of his Matters; that is, he is not bound, tho' sometimes out of his gracious Condescen­sion, he be pleased to do't. But once for all, I must warn those Men, who so much dote up­on their own reason, to have a care, lest that very same, thorough a just Judgment of God, doth to them as to others, prove fatal; for they glory too much in it. Absalom's Hair was his Pride, and it became his Halter; Jezebel de­lighted in painting her Face, which, as she thought, made her full of Charms; but a while after it was washed off with her own Blood: Herod's Robes were glorious when he sat upon his Throne to make a Speech to the People, but very soon after they were full of Worms, whereby he was eaten up. They who trust to, and glory in their Reason, have cause to fear some such end or other will befall them: But we rely on the word of God, and depend upon the Gospel, as it is a promise of Grace, and must endeavour to conform to it, as it is the rule of Life.

All he saith, Sect. 2. and Chap 1. doth not concern us, who hold the Doctrines of the Gos­pel not to be contrary to true and sound Rea­son; in his Philosophical Notions he consounds himself that is in the whole first-Section, and 4th Chapter thereof.

As to his Ideas, or Evidences, Experience, which is a good reason, though not always, for it falls sometimes, sheweth how every Man hath not the same Idea or Notion of this or that thing, and that which is Evidence to one, is not to another; then he goeth upon a false Supposition, as if the Devil; thorough his Sug­geitions, and the Corruptions of our Heare, did not sometimes darken our Light, deceive our Mind, pervert our Judgment, and over-rule our Affections; 'tis so in worldly things, much [Page 322]more in Spiritual; thus, thorough their vain Sophistry, they would set up this Reason as an independant and infallible Judge in Man, and so overthrow whatsoever Scripture in so many places declareth of the Blindness, Darkness, and Ignorance of our Understanding, and of the Perverseness, Corruption, and Stubbornness of our Heart.

The Texts he quoteth, Pag. 47, 48. are true and good, but he should go further, and own Christ to be true God, not only in his Works, but also in his Nature; he sometimes hath some good and true things like Grains, to make Chaff Currant, thus, Pag. 49, 50. he condemns those that say the New-Testament to be writ­ten without any Order or Scope, but only as Matters came into the Heads of the Apostles, which is a Socinian Tenet, yet he there seems to be against it.

The Physical Impotency to understand the Mysteries of Religion, is not absolute, but 'tis all one as if it was so, without the Help of Grace, as a blind Man cannot see, a dumb speak, a dead Man perform any Vital Action, as of him­self, but if God pleases he shall be restored to his Sight, Speech and Life. There is a moral Impotency to understand Matters and Myste­ries of Religion; we have a Mind, but dark, blind, and ignorant; can a blind Man see, tho he hath Eyes? a deaf hear, tho he hath Ears? a dumb speak, tho he hath a Tongue, a dead Man act, tho he hath Organs, as Hands and Feet; no, if he had but a Dead-Palsie: Men, by Revelations, are not endued with new Fa­culties, but these old Faculties are enabled to act, which they could not before; God gives a new Heart, a new Spirit, new Thoughts, new Affections.

His Discourse of Sect. 3. Chap. 2. is all out of the Purpose; the things he speaks of are Natu­ral, and unnecessary, as how Rain is formed in [Page 323]the Air, but Matters of Religion are Spiritual and necessary; Matters of Election, manner of Conversion, without a revelation in the Word, are incomprehensible, as our Saviour saith to Nicodemus, in point of Regeneration, The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, John 3.8. but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the spirit, observe the blockish­ness of a Doctor, and Master of Israel, in Spiritual things; Can a Man enter the second time into his mothers womb, and be born? v. 4. Where was his reason all this while? several such things we read of the Disciples, whereof I shall give but one Instance about the Resur­rection, Mark 9.10. They questioned one with another what the rising from the dead should mean? Nay, they were in that gross Ignorance, till after our Saviour's Resurrection; Joh. 20.9. yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead; wherefore he upbraided them with their unbe­lief, Mark 16.14. and hardness of heart; and indeed they were no better, till he opened their understand­ing, Luke 24.45. that they might understand the Scriptures.

In his Page 81. his Conclusion is false, that neither God nor his Attributes, nor Eternity, are Mysteries to us: But certainly the smite cannot know the Infinite, but as much, and in such a degree, as the Infinite is pleased to com­municate himself; as no Day light but what the Sun doth communicate, and that more or less, according as 'tis done, in a dark Room one sees only proportionably to the Light that's brought in, so in a Spiritual Light and Life 'tis only as God is pleased to reveal, and as Man is capable to receive; the word alone is a dead Letter, but the Spirit doth quicken it, as it was in the Apostles; the word they had heard from Christ was quickned by the Holy Ghost when he came upon them, which in them caused a wonderful Alteration, and made them quire [Page 324]another sort of Men: Divine things cannot be comprehended for want of an Adequate No­tion, there is to be a Proportion between the Knower and the thing known, so our Reason, without Revelation apply'd by the Inward Teaching of the Spirit, can no more know the Nature of God and his Attributes, than a lit­tle Bottle hold in all the Water of the Sea. To know things, we must know their Essence and Nature; as to God, we, by the Light of Nature, may know there is one, but what he is, must be reveal'd; and 'tis usual, when we speak of any thing, to have a Definition or De­scription of it: What is a Man? a rational Animal? What is God? an infinite Being, de­scrib'd by his Attributes, Almighty, Eternal, Independent, &c. Concerning the Infiniteness, and some other Attribute of God's, David owneth his Ignorance, when he saith, Such know­ledge is too wonderful for me, Psa. 139.6. it is high, I can­not attain to it: And no wonder, seeing in the same Psalm he so much admires the formation of his Body in the Womb, when he saith, he was fearfully and wonderfully made. v. 14, 15, 16. If any one pretends he can know more than the Prophet David, let him speak and stretch his Reason further than he could; his Son Solomon was of the same Mind, both as to Bodily and Spi­ritual things, when he saith, As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: Prov. 11.5. even so thou knowest not the works of God, who makes all: These times of Ignorance are over now, say Socinians, we have Men, more knowing and wiser than David and Solomon: But, if it be so of the formation of our natu­ral Body, how much more of the work of Re­generation within us, which our Saviour, as said before, compared to the blowing of the Wind; that such things are, we know and feel, but understand not the manner: Thus we know [Page 325]that Gold, Silver, and other Metals, are form'd under Ground; for we draw them out of the Earth's Bowels; but the manner and how they are formed we cannot tell, so these are hidden, secret and mysterious things unto us, much more are supernatural.

He goeth upon a Mistake, as if we thought Matters of Religion to be Mysteries after the Revelation, which makes them cease to be My­steries, which they were before: so 'tis in him labour in vain, Pag. 91. When a Prophecy is fulfill'd it ceaseth to be a Prophecy, and be­comes a History. The strength of his Argu­ment lays herein, that those things once re­vealed are no longer Mysteries. But we must know how some things are wholly revealed, and others but in part; it is true, we must yield an Obedience of Faith, that the thing is so, as that the Son of God was made Man, that there are three Persons in the Godhead, God having revealed it, we are fully perswa­ded it is so; but the manner and how, we are in the dark about, it is incomprehensible by, and unconceivable to us; and beyond the power of our Nature to know it, yet as much as is necessary, tis revealed; here I cannot avoid ta­king notice how the Man unworthily compares the Mysteries of our holy Religion, with the Tricks and Cheats of the Heathens, Page 99. and what? If what in their false Worship they called Mysteries, there were Cheats, as we own, doth it follow it must be so in our Religi­on? Theirs was Idolatry and Superstition, but ours is Holy and Divine, then after this Rule, because they had false Gods, we must have none at all, and so must be as bad as they; the Devil, who is God's Ape, and in imitation of God's Church, hath set up a Synagogue for himself, hath his Drudges and Bondslaves to serve him, must not God's People adore him? and because there is a false Worship, must there be no true [Page 326]one? Thus for Men, who so much pretend to Reason; 'tis a very unreasonable Inference to say, that because the Heathens in their Mat­ters of Idolatry had Tricks, which they call'd Mysteries, therefore the Mysteries of our Ho­ly Religion must be Cheats and Tricks: Such comparisons are odious, and unworthy to be used by any who call themselves Christians.

Then, if Mystery does relate sometimes to the Matter, and sometimes to the Manner, cer­tain Points of our Religion, as the Trinity, E­ternal Generation of the Son, Procession of the Holy Ghost, were a Mystery before they were reveal'd, it follows, That the Revelation was necessary to make them known unto us, and that it was not in the Power of our Reason to know them without Revelation, so they were above it; and thus, tho' the thing be re-reveal'd, so that we must believe it, yet still there are some things that be unreveal'd, and above our Capacity. He would have every thing after the Revelation to cease to be a Mystery in Religion; but as I said, some things are not wholly reveal'd, because [...] full Reve­lation is not necessary to our Salvation, and within this Limitation is to be understood what St. Paul saith, Act. 20.27. how he had not shunned to declare, unto the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, all the counsel of God, that is as much as 'twas necessary for them to know; for cer­tainly he was not acquainted with all the Counsels of God. What the Author saith, Pag. 108. is false; for the Mysteries of the Kingdom of God were incomprehensible, ex­cept by means of a Divine Revelation, so that none understood them but they to whom God revealed them, and those whom they were not reveal'd unto, could not know, much less com­prehend them; therefore they in themselves were above the Capacity of those who needed a Revelation to understand them, and of those [Page 327]who understood them not for want of a Revela­tion, yet some had their Reason, but to no pur­pose; a Divine Mystery is such a Secret, as all the wits of Men cannot of themselves find out 'tis the glory of God to conceal a thing. Prov. 25.2. The Doctor's Dialogue between the Doctor and his Parishioner, P. 113, 114. is but an insipid thing.

We do not say every thing in our Religi­on is a Mystery, but only some things are as the manner of the Lord Jesus's Union with the Members of his Mystical Body, which the Apostle calls a great mystery: Certainly the whole Matter of Salvation before it was reveal'd, was a Mystery, but still some things therein remain a Mystery; for alas! what a vast dif­ference there is between that we know, and that which we are ignorant of; for saith the Apo­stle, Now we see thorough a glass darkly, and we know but in part, 1 Cor. 13.9, 10, 12. but when that which is perfect is come, then we shall see face to face, then shall I know, even as I am known. They brag of Reason, which with them is commonly So­phistry, which Paul exhorteth to beware of; The true reason is that which is grounded up­on and consonant with God's word, Colos. 2.8 the true Rule of it; but our Reason is naturally per­verted, unsound, misled, over-ruled by Sence, Lust and Passion. I must take notice of some­thing the Man saith, which I cannot avoid cal­ling by the name of Impudence, among other places in his Pag. 130. of the first Edition, the Orthodox he calleth Ignorant and Perverse Men, Cavillers and Deceivers, which are his own and Gangs proper Attribute. 4 [...]o. Modo, Proprium Propriissimum. [...].

These Huffs and Hectoring Champions, for Reason against Faith and Revelation, are like those whom the Prophet speaks of, that walk in the light of their own sire, and in the sparks that they have kindled. But saith God, Isa. 50.1 [...] This shall ye have of mine hand ye shall lie down in sorrow; [Page 328]for that very same thing, Socinians will believe of God no more than the Works of Nature, and their Reason will teach them, but we must know more, or else our Reason must be sub­ject to, and depend upon Creatures, even in those things, which do far exceed Sense and Reason; thus also they make their Reason the standing Rule of their Faith, yet Scripture calling Faith the Gift of God, doth thereby imply it, not to be grounded upon Humane Reason or any thing in Man; we know Reason to depend upon the Information of Sense; so what we hear, feel, smell and taste, we reasonably be­lieve to be; and our Senses being convinced, our Reason is easily perswaded; now this O­pinion of theirs makes our Religion to depend upon Senses, not upon Faith; thus against Scri­pture it must be said we live and walk by Sight and Sence, and not by Faith; so what our blessed Saviour said to Thomas, were in vain, John. 20.29. Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed; for indeed Faith is a sted­fast and firm Perswasion of what God hath promised, be it almost unpossible to be thought by Humane Reason: But the Socinian doth as good as say, what he hath not seen he will not believe, which Infidelity of his might as well extend it self to the sensible and visible World, as to the Invisible, and that which is to come, which all his Reason cannot see; thus he might not believe there are such Cities as Constantinople and Rome, because he hath not seen them; for what Revelation is in Religion and Spiritual Things, that same Relation is in Temporal and Worldly; thus he will not believe that Asia produceth very delicious Fruit, Africa Mon­sters, the Sea, Whales, because he hath not been an Eye-witness: After this rate he must not believe the former Ages of the World, nor take any thing upon the relation of others, much less must he believe the Spiritual World, [Page 329]which is of another Condition and Nature, nor the Influences of Heaven; which being not sensible, do exceed his Reason.

They profess not to believe the Mysteries in Religion, because their Reason cannot under­stand them, but there are such things as we cannot comprehend, yet must believe them, even for that same reason that we cannot com­prehend them; Infiniteness is an essential At­tribute of God, yet that Infiniteness which is God infinite, is every way incomprehensible to me, and my very Reason and Philosophy must acquiesce unto this; for the very Hea­thens would erect an Altar to the unknown, Act. 17.23. or incomprehensible God, whom them worshipped: In Humane and Civil Things Reason is the guide, which God hath given Man for his Di­rection, even in those that relate to his Salva­tion, but in a subordinate way to Religion, which as as far above Reason, as Heaven is a­bove the Earth, 'tis not contrary to, but serv­eth to enlighten and sanctifie it, after which Reason is of a great Use, for then it can out of Scripture draw Inferences and Conclusions; but if Reason be the standing Rule of Faith, whereby we are saved, what will become of so many in the World, who are quite depriv'd of the Use of Reason? Is there no way out of Bedlam into Heaven? or is there no Salvation for those who have no natural Reason to ground Faith upon? Again, if we should know no more of God than natural Reason can sug­gest, that Knowledge would be confined with­in very narrow bounds, we believe a Trinity of Persons in an Unity of the Godhead, be­cause God himself hath revealed it; and what­soever is in God, is Infinite and Incomprehen­sible, in all these Matters, without the Light of Revelation, tho' with the whole help of Reason, to speak in the Prophet's Words, Ise. 59.10. We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as [Page 330]if we had no eyes: we stumble at noon-day as in the night; for indeed our own Light is but Darkness: But Socinians will admit of no such things in God, because their Reason can­not conceive it, but their Reason is natural, and the Revelation thereof supernatural; their Reason is finite, and the Godhead infinite: Can a Quart-Bottle hold all the Water of the Sea, or the Blind see the Sun? That People begin with undermining God's Altar, no doubt with an Intent to pull it down if they can, and so to set up an Idol of their own, that is, their Reason against Revelation or Scripture, and thus to go a whoring after their own Inventions, without any Measure and Bounds; all our Understanding and Reason, in Religious Matters, should be guided by Re­velation; for saith David, Psal. 119.1 9. Give me understand­ing according to thy word, not according to my Reason, except that word be a Lamp unto our Feet, and a Light unto our Path, we are sure to go astray, and deviate from the Rule, and miss the Mark; hence spring those seeming Contradictions, which arise from the shallow ness of Man's Brains, and not from the Repug­nancy of things, which sometimes makes them fight against the Man in the Moon, as their fancy suggests to them to go out of the Road, so by Attempts to explain things, they entan­gle them the more; and so what themselves call Strength of Wit and Reason, others up­on better Grounds look upon't as effects of a distemper'd Imagination, for they think to have engrossed and monopolized to themselves all Wit and Learning; as for us, about these Controversies we follow the Method of Ao­pollor, who shew'd not by the strength of his own Reason, Act. 1 [...].28. but by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ, and thereby mightily convinced the Jews, for he was mighty in Scriptures.

Socinians would seem to refer themselves to be judged by Scripture and Reason, as Papists by Scripture and Tradition; but the reason of one, as the Tradition of the other, is a devourer; for Reason of one side, as Tradi­tion on the other, do swallow up Scripture; which, tho' first named, is with them last minded, and signifieth least, as indeed they both would make of it a stalking Horse, and subservient, one to his Tradition, and the other to his Reason; and these would set up for the only Rational Men in the World, and whatsoever doth no come up to them, they hastily call Nonsense and Contradiction, after which Rate the Holy Spirit of God in Scrip­ture is liable to their Censure, and shall be as he is by some of them, charged with Con­tradiction, yet we know Truth doth not gain­say it self, the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Truth; his word, the word of Truth, for so saith he who is Truth it self. These Imagi­nary Contradictions arise not out of the things themselves, but out of the Perverseness of Man's Heart, and Blindness of their Judgment, which as the Apostle says, prompts them to wrest Scrip­ture unto their own Destruction, 2 Pet. 3.16. such are not the learned and steady in the Truth, as some Men in the World account themselves to be, but the unlearned and unstable, as the Apo­stle calls them, so we may in the Prophet's Words, say, they are not valiant for the truth. Jerem. 9.3. There is a great Difference between gross Con­tradictions to our Reason, and barely being above it, that is, not having any distinct Con­ception of the Nature of things in a clear Idea, which is a full and evident Perception of it.

Of two contrary Propositions, if one be true, the other must necessarily be false, according to the rule of Contraries, but no such thing as this is to be found in any part of Scripture, consequently we may conclude how the great [Page 332]Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation therein contain'd are true, not to be cavilled at by Humane Reason; for what is infinite is above our Comprehension, no Duration without Suc­cession, which is not to be found in an infinite and Eternal Being, that existeth of himself, yet that Eternity we cannot understand, only by parts of time, as past, present, and to come, which imply Duration and Succession, the rea­son is, because it exceeds our Capacity. The way to obviate and prevent any seeming Con­tradictions in Scripture, is first to observe the Analogy of Faith; in some places, God, to condescend to our weak Capacity, doth attri­bute unto himself Humane Passions, as Anger, Wrath, Fury, to repent, and Members of Man's Body; as the Eye, Hand, Arm, &c. yet there­upon we must not say, God is subject to our Passions, like the Antropopathites, or hath a Bo­dy like the Antropomorphites, because we are taught in Scripture God is a Spirit and unchange­able; so the second thing to be observ'd is the Scope of the place, of many Instances, I shall bring but this, the blind and dumb both spake and saw, Matth. 12.22. Here is a seeming Con­tradiction; if the Blind sees, then he is not blind; if the Dumb speaks, he is not dumb; but let the Scope of the place be consulted, and it will set things at right, and therein we find how a Man, blind and deaf, was miraculously cur'd by our Saviour, so that he who before was blind and deaf, both spake and saw, having recover'd his Sight and Hearing.

What he saith, Page 138, doth not belong to us, for we are not for an implicite Faith, we are not against, but searching into, and examin­ing the Grounds of our Religion, but withal say, all that Examination will signifie nothing, except it be given us from above to understand, therefore 'tis beyond our Reason: Our Reli­gion is not of Works, but of Faith; which [Page 333]this Opinion of theirs about Reason, destroy­eth: Faith is a strong Perswasion, grounded and built not upon Reason, but upon God's gracious and special Promise, infused into us by the Holy Ghost; wherefore, in several places of Scripture 'tis called the immediate Gift of God; for though Faith comes by the Word, yet the Application thereof, wherein it doth chiefly consist, is the immediate and effectual working of the Spirit. The several Objections as brought in by him, Page 142, 143, 45, 46, have but little in them, as I could easily demonstrate, if I had but time and room enough, I shall take notice of what he saith about the latter end of Page 146. Now Rea­son is from God as well as Revelation, but he must know that Reason is corrupt, but Reve­lation not so, when Reason was whole, yet it deviated, but Revelation is always the same; the Light of Reason thorough Sin is become Darkness, and a Guide, that hath and doth com­monly, if not constantly, err. Here he would give us a sound reason, which is so no more than a sound Nature, Pag. 148.

How often doth God in the Old-Testament, and Christ in the New, complain, that People could not hear and understand what was said to them? and what he saith to them in the last quoted Page, how slowly must the Gospel have moved at the beginning, if those that were to preach it had been obliged to qualifie themselves, is insignificant, 'tis known they were immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost and Heaven qualified them, not they themselves; for if Humane Reason be fallible in natural, much more in super-natural things.

There are many dark and mysterious Pas­sages of God's Providence, which our Reason nor any Humane thing can understand, where­of Scripture affords many Instances, and of these we may say as of a Watch, the several [Page 334]pieces of which being asunder, seem to be in­significant; but put them together in their due place, they are of good use, and commend the Art of the Maker, when he hath shewed us what it is good for, which before we could not know of our selves. Thus one or few acts of divine Providence are Mysteries to us, which we cannot dive into, nor understand, till God hath manifested them to us: What would all the Humane Reason in the World say of the Command which Abraham received, to sacrifice his own Son; in all appearance it was a mur­ther, and a barbarous and unnatural one too, for a Father to destroy his own Son, God's Will, to try his Faith and Obedience, was a Secret. As Job's Afflictions for a trial of his Patience, and to make him in Ages to come an Example of it. Joseph's being cast in Prison for so good an Act, as to refuse committing Adul­tery with his Master's Wife, would puzzle the Brains and Reason of any Man who believes God to be just and pure; if by the several things, which the same wife Providence brought to pass, God had not made his design known, which David saith was to try him, Ps. 105.19. the word of the Lord tried him: So God's command, to the Prophet Hosea, to take unto him a Wife of Whoredoms, when the Lord is a most ho­ly God: That the Son of God, who is just, harmless, undefiled, separate from Sinners, should by Blasphemers be accused of, condem­ned, and executed for Blasphemy, and this by the determinate Counsel and fore-knowledge of God, is that which doth transcend the poor, weak, frail Understanding of Man, tho' never so much screwed up, or his Reason put to the rack: I am sure David a Prophet, as well as a King, speaks of himself to that purpose about the Prosperity of the Wicked in this World; so foolish was I, Psal. 73.22, 16, 17. and ignorant, I was as a beast before thee; and when I thought to know this, it [Page 335]was too painful for me, too hard for me to un­derstand, until I went into the sanctuary of God. No Humane Reason, only Divine Revelation, could make it intelligible; Whoso is wise, and will observe those things, even they shall under­stand the loving kindness of the Lord; that is, Psal. 107.43. from 40. the Wisdom from above, not the Humane, can teach us to understand God's Gracious Dis­pensations, especially in the wise Government of his Church, which to Humane Reason is passed understanding, as concerning God's Works and Thoughts, of which David saith, O Lord how great are thy works, and thy thoughts are very deep: which, if we may believe him, Ps. 92 5, 6. a bruitish man knows not, neither doth a fool un­derstand this. With Admiration and Excla­mation he saith it, and so deep, that Humane Reason cannot fathom it without Revelation; Heavenly Light maketh some know and under­stand, but the Bruitish, the Fool and Wicked doth not, and cannot, for want of this Divine Grace; and when they would find to measure Divine Mysteries with the Line of this Reason, then they become Fools; so to them these things still continue to be Mysteries. This Author is one of those whom the Prophet speaks of, Psal. 64.5. They encourage themselves in an evil matter; for at first he concealed his Name, whether out of Fear or Modesty he knows best, but now in his second Edition he pulled off the Vizzard, and hath his Name at length, how he came by that Encouragement, deserves, as I think, to be inquired into by those that are more than I, immediately concerned.

I agree with him when he speaks the Truth as thus, how the Converted Jews would still retain some of the Levitical Ceremonies, as may be seen, Act. 15. and therein might hap­pen to be too much Compliance, as with the Gentiles, who brought in some of the Heathenish Rites, and that Remisness in some, afterwards [Page 336]made those things a part of Christianity it self; thus they degenerated from the Simpli­city of the Gospel, by means of self and world­ly ends: Hence we see how from Page 165, till 172, he takes Advantage upon account of Ceremonies, and such foolish or selffish Priestcraft as he calls it. But after all, do this Socinian People think to monopolize to themselves, and be sole Masters of all good Sense and Reason; surely others among the Antients, and now, are as rational as they, why should not their Wisdom and Reason, seeing they make it to be natural, differ from Wisdom and Reason, that is Spi­ritual? From hence I am sure St. Panl makes not only a difference, but also a great Oppo­sition between them; for saith he, We speak not in the words of humane wisdom, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, and God hath revealed them, that is, the Doctrines of the Gospel unto us by his Spirit; and as 'tis not the Wis­dom or Reason of Man (which the same Apo­stle in the same Epistle, Ch. 3.19. calls foolish­ness with God) but the wisdom of God in a my­stery, even the hidden wisdom, 1 Cor. the whole Ch. &c. And where this Spirit of God is not pleased to teach the Truth of the Gospel, that remains hidden, all the Reason in the World cannot under­stand it; 2 Cor. 4.33. and we know it is hid to some, to them that are lost; among whom are some of the most learned and wise in the World, endued with as much Natural Reason, and great Parts, as any of our Adversaries; yet this natural Reason cannot comprehend it; I go farther, and say, that some of these things of God remain still Mysteries; and if not wholly yet in part, are hidden, even to those who have the Spirit of God, because, by rea­son of the weakness of their Nature, they are not capable, and 'tis above their reach to un­derstand it; first, as to God's Nature, to us it is incomprehensible, because infinite; behold [Page 337]the heaven, 1 Kings 8.27. Com­par'd with Job 11.7, 8, 9. and heaven of heavens cannot con­tain thee, nor Reason comprehend: So in his Attributes, his greatness is unsearchable, and his understanding is infinite; so are his Works both of Power and Providence, Wisdom, Mer­cy and Justice, far above the reach of Humane Reason, as to be seen in Job, in the Psalms, and other parts of Scripture, and let one Text of Job serve for all; great things doth he, God, Psal. 145.3. Ps. 147.5. Job 37.5. which we cannot comprehend; and to apply this to our present purpose, we own that the Do­ctrines of the Gospel, necessary to be known, both as to the Substance, and to the Declara­tion, are clear and perspicuous, but still there are some, as to the Difficulties, which learned Men and Doctors do study to understand, which they can never rightly do, without a special Assistance of the Spirit of God; for 'tis he, and he alone, that can lead us into all Truth; for if of our selves we cannot understand the plainest, much less the hardest; wherefore, to the end we may know the Truths of God, we must be taught them of God; now, as all Promises are Yea and Amen in Jesus Christ, so are all and every Truth of the Gospel in him; which to understand, we must be taught by him, and by the Holy Ghost; Eph. 4.21. 2 Cor. 3.6. for the letter alone killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

It is very strange, yet true, that Socinians will trust and depend upon their own Rea­son, notwithstanding the Advice of wise Solo­mon given them long ago, Lean not unto thine own understanding, Prov. 3.5. which is the Seat and Center of Reason; for if Men have any thing of Reason, there it lays, as to natural things, but as to su­pernatural, it is derived out of Scriptures, whereupon our Holy Religion is grounded; therein is nothing useless and needless, yet still something is mysterious, either as to Matter, or in the Manner wherein it is spoken; and 'tis this which God hath given us for our con­tinual [Page 338]Exercise in this World, therefore he re­quireth we should inquire into [...]t with all pos­sible Diligence and utmost Endeavours; and they who fall into that course, do, and will, by Experience, upon frequent reading of the Word, daily find new Lights, new Discove­ries, and new cause of Admiration, which tho­rough Grace from above, are the Fruits of their Obedience and Industry; as there is no­thing unnecessary, superfluous and useless, and that for all sorts of Christians, whether weak or strong, so the the right consideration of the Matter, the Words, Order, Contexture, the Design of the Holy Ghost in them, do in­struct us of and guide us in our Duty towards God, whereof the parts are various, large, great and wonderful; upon this account, saith David, Ps. 119.96. Thy commandment is exceeding broad, because it contains the whole Revelation of God unto us, which is full of infinite Wisdom in the whole Frame and Order of it; and as the Revelation in the Word is from God, so is the Understanding of that Revelation; that is the reasn why Men should not, as some do, perplex themselves, to find out the Grounds and Suitableness of some things in the New-Testament, with others in the Old, when they should know how 'tis not in their Power to know the heighth, depth, length and breadth of God's Infinite Wisdom therein contained, when, may be, the Holy Ghost aimeth at such things as they cannot dive into, who by de­grees openeth Man's Eyes more and more, to know things necessary for them; for as the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 3.2. He feeds us first with milk, then with meat, when we are able, and strong enough to bear it; for, as another Apostle saith, New­born Babes desire the sincere milk of the word, 1 Pet. 2.2. that they may grow thereby; and thus, till we come unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. Eph. 4.13. And those Men, who in these things [Page 339]rely upon the Strength of their own Reason; I may well compare to these little Babes, who being not able to feed themselves, lay Hand into their Milk, wherewith they do not feed, but only slubber themselves; or to that Child that would not have the Nurse to hold him, tho' he wants strength of himself to go; if the Hand that bears him up doth but hold off, then he is gone, and sure to fall: So 'tis of a­ny one that trusteth to his Understanding, and leaneth upon his own Reason; 'tis a bruised Reed that will go into his Hand, and pierce it: Wherefore God's sends us to the law, Isa. 8.20. and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them; for their Light doth come from the word, yet not all at once, but by degrees, and in their se­veral Kinds; all which, as the Apostle saith, worketh that one and the self-same spirit, 1 Cor. 12. divid­ing to every man severally as he will: and let us know never so much out of Scripture, there is still more to be learned: Ought not this to convince Men, that it doth contain Mysteries? The Apostle directs us to think soberly, Rom. 12.3. not to allow our Fancy and curious Speculations to go beyond the bounds of a becoming Sobriety in things above us, which Scripture doth both command and commend and is very much sui­table unto right Reason: Now the rule of that Sobriety is positively, fully, and unalterably given thus, Secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those which are revealed unto us, Deur. 29.2 [...]. and to our children. In those things Divine Revelation must be the measure and rule of our Knowledge, the contrary is an effect of Pride, Vanity, and Presumptuousness for­bidden in Scripture, not to [...] above that which is written; which if M [...]n obey, 1 Cor. 4.6. it will bring them to Certainty and Truth, whereof the contrary leads them into all kinds of Error.

But to conclude this, for I must no longer insist upon't, as I never intended fully to an­swer it, only to take notice of it on my way; as to the point of Reason, see how foolish in these things Man is, and how confounded his [...]eason, by the Example of Peter, an Elect of God, a Disciple dear unto Christ: The Lord Jesus comes to him to wash his Feet, but he presently said, John 13.5, 6, 7. Thou shalt never wash my feet; but our Saviour answering, If I wash thee not, thou host no part in me. Peter soon goes to another Extream; first, he would not have Christ to wash him at all, but now he would be washed every where, not only the feet, but also hand and head too; but our Saviour shews him Reason, why he ought to suffer himself to be guided, and not to take upon him to direct his Lord and Master in what he was to do, he that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet. Now the cause of this wandring and error of Peter, is expressed, v. 7. namely, his Ignorance, What I do thou knowest not now? Where was his Reason at that time? For cer­tainly he was unreasonable to be of a different Mind from his Saviour, and till he submitted unto his Will; the like we may say about these things unto those who fancy themselves so rational, and would set up their blind and lame Reason for a competent Judge; Reason is always striving, and always at a loss; all our Reason hath to do is to be guided by Scrip­ture, and to own it to be the infallible word of God; all beyond this is the work of Faith; for Christ is an object not to be known na­turally, or by natural Reason, and the obliga­tion to know Christ, and believe in him, springs and ariseth only from a positive Command, su­peradded unto the Law of Nature: If St. Paul speaks Truth, Col. 1.27. Christ in us is a mystery, consi­dering the manner whereby he is in us, there­fore the Image of the new Man in us is called [Page 341]the hidden and inner Man, 1 Pet. 3.4. which in the fol­lowing Verse is explained of Christ's dwelling in us by faith; and elsewhere the same Apostle calls Union and Relation between Christ and the Church, a great Mystery, Eph. 5.32. which our Reason cannot comprehend without a Revelation: This made David say, Psal. 119.169. O Lord give me under­standing according to thy word, and not accor­ding to my Reason, or natural Capacity; and, blessed is he whom thou teachest out of thy law; Psa. 94.12 not out of his shallow Brains. Our blessed Sa­viour's saying, he that eateth my flesh, Joh. 6.16. and drinketh my blood, contains Doctrines, not ob­vious to Reason; that eating and drinking with Christ's dwelling in us is so true, that we may not doubt of it; for the word saith it, but how, and the manner of it, as well as our dwelling in Christ, and he in us, is above Rea­son to understand, wherefore Scripture hath revealed it to be by Faith; but that People will believe nothing but what they can give Rea­son for, when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Colossians, the Gospel and Doctrine of Salvati­on were certainly revealed, yet still he calls it a Mystery, the mystery of God, Col. 2.2, 3. and of the Father, and of Christ, and in the following Verse he gives an instance of it, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. That thing is so, he gives it as Matter of Faith by us to be believed; but how it is, and how all these Treasures are hid in him, 'tis for us a my­sterious thing.