Conclusions concerning the eternal generation.

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

You see this Mystery of the unbegot∣ten Father, and the only begotten Son is held forth to men and Angels in order to worship that their worship may be direct∣ed to Jesus Christ as the Son of the living God, and to God the Father, as the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ. God declared this truth after a glorious manner from heaven, that it might be more diligently consider∣ed.*And lo a voice from heaven,*saying, this is my beloved Son Matth. 3. 17. when he was bapt•zed: and the like we read of when he was transfigured in the presence of the Disciples in the holy Mount. And the Apostle doth take notice of these so∣lemne declarations from heaven, and layes them down as Fundamentals of the Chri∣stian Religion, 2 Pet. 1. from the 16. verse to the twentieth. All the glorious Miracles wrought by our Saviour, Iohn 5. 36 and his resurrection from the Dead bear witnesse to this fundamental truth, that Christ is the first begotten, and the only begotten Son of the living God; be pleased to compare, Acts.Page  193 13. 32, 33. with Romans 1. 4. and it will be evident that he was not made, but onely declared to be the Son of God at the time of his Resurrection.

2. The Father did beget his Son from [ II] all eternity before his works of old; I (saith the Son who is the wisdome of the Father) was set up frome everlasting, when as the highest part of the dust of the earth was not made, when he prepared the heavens I was there, &c. Prov. 8. from 21 verse to the 31. his goings forth were of old from the dayes of eternity, Micah 5. 2. Iohn 1. 1. 2, 3. he was with God, he was God, before the beginning he had glory with his Father before the world was, Iohn 17. 5. Relataf simul sunt.

3. The Father did beget his Son in the [ III] unity of the Godhead; the Scripture speaks expressely that Christ is thegProper or Naturall Son of God; he spared not his own Son, or his Proper Sonne; Rom. 8. 32. God is the Father of Christ, his own Father, Iohn 5. 18. the Iewes did well understand the importance and force of that expression, for say they, in that he said God is his own Father, he hath made himself equall with God; and therefore that Phrase doth import that he is the Na∣turall and Coessentiall Son of God, else he Page  194 could not be Coequall with his Father, Iohn 5 18. Philip. 2. 6. All those Texts which prove that Christ is God, and that there is but one God, do prove that Christ is the Na∣turall and Coessentiall Son of God. God hath but one Coessentiall Son, to whom he hath given to have life in himself, Iohn 5. 26. because the Divine Nature, which is life it self is communicated to the Son by this eternall and ineffable generation. It is proper to living creatures to communicate their nature by generation in their low and imperfect way; but the great God who is not subject to imperfection, doth after the most glorious and perfect man∣ner beget a Son in the unity of his own living Essence, who is therefore called the Son of the living God, that is the Natu∣rall and Coessentiall Son of God, who hath the same Divine Life, Nature, Essence with the Father; and therefore Peter is so highly commended for confessing that Christ is the Son of the living God; Bles∣sed art thou, saith our Saviour for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven; upon this fun∣damentall truth, Christ hath built the Chri∣stian Church as on a Rock, Matth. 16. 16. 17, 18. He who hath life in himself is the Naturall and Coessentiall Son of the living God: he hath the same Will, Power, Na∣ture, Essence, Life with his Father, Iohn 5. Page  195 18, 26. Iohnh16. 15. Iohn 10. 30. 1 Iohn 5. 7. The same single and infinite Essence is in Father, Son and Holy Ghost; the whole undivided and indivisible Essence of God dwels in the Son in its fulnesse and infinite perfection. Coloss. 2. 9.

4. The Father did beget his Son with∣out [ IV] change ori motion after a most glori∣ous and wonderfull manner; there can be no change, motion, or succession in this e∣ternall and most perfect generation. The Essence of God is spirituall, Iohn 4. 24. and therefore the Son is not begotten of the Fathers seed, or any materiall substance, because God is a single and pure Act, who doth beget a Son within himself Essentially one with himself and therefore his Sonne doth not subsist out of himself, John 14. 10. Iohn 10. 30. for an infinite nature cannot be poured forth beyond it self. There can be no essentiall change in the Son by this generation, because the generation is eter∣nall, and the nature which is communicated by generation is unchangable; the Father did unchangably beget his Son, and his Son is unchangably begotten, there is no shadow of changing or turning either in the Father of lights, or the Son of righteousnesse, be∣cause Page  196 they are one and the same unchang∣able Jehovah, Iames 1. 17 Malach. 3. 6. They are tookcarnall and base who make an unworthy and odious comparison between the material generation of a weak man, and this more then spirituall and supernaturall ge∣neration. The eternall and unchangable Fa∣ther doth beget an eternall and unchang∣able Son according to the perfection of his eternall, unchangable, infinite nature. The Father doth beget his Son naturally, and therefore in a way agreeable to his un∣changable Nature; if the Son were not necessarily begotten, his being would not be necessary, and then his Essence would not be divine.

[ V] V. Jesus Christ is truly and properly the onely-begotten Son of God, and there∣fore the only Naturall Son of God.* Jesus Christ is called the Son of David according Page  197 to his humane nature: but the Lord of Da∣vid, and the Son of the living God accor∣ding to his divine nature, as appeares by our Saviours discourse with the Pharisees, Matth. 22. from the 41. verse to the 46. And the Jewes sought to kill Christ be∣cause he called God his proper Father, as appears by the originall text; for our En∣glish translation doth omit that most ob∣servable Emphasis; the words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Iohn 5. 18. and Christ is called Gods proper Son; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rom. 8. 32. and the Apostle gives the reason why he is called the proper Son of God in a more excellent way then the most glorious Angel is the Son of God, because Christ is begotten by the Father, but the Angles were only created by him; observe the words of the Apostle, For unto which of the An∣gels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee; so that the proper reason why he is called the proper Son of God, is, because he is begotten of God; there is the most excellent reason why Christ is said to obtain a more excel∣lent name then Angels: Christ was begot∣ten in the unity of the Godhead, and ther∣fore he alone is properly the Son of God with a supereminent excellency. The Angels are not such excellent sons as Christ is.

Page  198
• 1. Because Christ is begotten of God, v. 5.
• 2. Worshipped by Angels with divine honour, worshipped as God, v. 6.
• 3. He hath the Throne, Scepter, King∣dom of God, v. 8.
• 4. He hath the soveraign and proper Title of God, v. 8.
• 5. The Attributes of God, eternity, v, 8, 10, •1, 12.
• 6. He sits at the right hand of God, v. 13.

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

From the•e proper and excellent rea∣sons we infer that Christ is the only proper or naturall Son of God,** because he is the Page  199only-begotten Son of God.* We, saith Iohn, beheld his glory As of the only begotten Son of God. The word [As] is not assimi∣lative, but declarative, and demonstrative in that place, for it doth declare to us that the glory of Christ is agreeable to his di∣vine nature, he being the only naturall Son of God, because he is the only begotten Son of God; just as if when we see a King sitting in his Royall robes on his Throne, with a Crowne on his head and a Scepter in his hand, we should say now we see him as a King, that is, now he is like himselfe. his state is agreeable to his Majesty; even so was the glory of Christ which the Apo∣stles beheld agreeable to the majesty of the only begotten Son of God, Iohn 1. 14. and therfore the word [As] was not insert∣ed tanquam terminus diminuens to diminish the glory of the only begoten Son of God; for the word [As] is left out in the▪ 18. verse of this very chapter, The only begot∣ten Son which is in the bosome of the Fa∣ther, Iohn 1 v. 18. The Scripture doth a∣bound with several expressions to the same purpose. But we are specially to observe that the only begotten Son of God is propoun∣ded to us as the object of saving Faith, and therefore this point ought to be diligently studied and considered by us. For so God lo∣ved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever beleeves in him should Page  200 not perish but have everlasting life, John 3. 16. The Socinians observing how much it concernes us to stand stedfast, and not yeeld one whit of ground in this point, have tryed their wit to deceive and seduce us, and therefore they object.*

Isaac is called the only Son of Abra∣ham, Gen. 22. 2. 12.

To this we answer without any great study,* That Isaac was the only Son which Abraham had by Sarah: he was the onely begotten Son of the Promise; though Isma∣el was the son of Abraham by Hagar, the bond-woman, in an unworthy and disho∣nourable way;* and therefore this example will not serve the turn, we reject it, for its impertin•ncy and dissimilitude. Christ is the only begotten Son of God, he is Ab∣solutely and Simply considered his only be∣gotten Son, and not only in some respect as Isaac was the only son of Abraham Christ (as Gregory Nazianzen said) is truly the Son of God, he alone is the Son, and the only Son of the Father, and his son in an only or singular way, and he is the son only, he is not the Father also, or the holy Ghost Jesus Christ is the proper Naturall true son of God, begotten by the Father without a mother in the unity of the Godhead, from all eternity, equall to the Father, one and the same God with the Father, as the Scri∣pture sets it forth; and therefore we con∣clude that he is simply and absolutely the Page  201 only begotten Son of God, a more excel∣lent son then all the other sons of God, not only more excellent in degree, for gradus non mutat speciem; but a super-excellent son, who doth differ from all his other sons, plusquam genere aut specie, because he is one God with the Father. Iesus Christ is truly the Son of God, because he is the true God, 1 Iohn 5. 20. begotten of the Father, Heb, 1 5. begotten without a mother, Hebr. 7. 3. begotten from the dayes of eternity, Micah. 5. 2. a son equal to his Father, who begot him, Iohn 5. 18. Phil. 2. 6. The Son of God, Matth. 16. 16. the first begotten, and the only begotten Son of God, the naturall and proper Son of God; for he is as the Father is, God by nature, Gal. 4. 8. and therefore naturally, necessarily, eternally begotten of the Father in the unity of the Godhead; and there∣fore there is more then a graduall, nay more then a specificall or genericall diffe∣rence between this and all other sonnes of God; we see by all these various expressi∣ons, and by those divine and glorious Attri∣butes which are ascribed to Christ in Scri∣pture, that God hath wonderfully decla∣red his love to us in sending his only be∣gotten to redeeme us according to that of the Apostle, 1 Iohn 4. 9. In this was ma∣nifest the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the Page  202 world that we might live through him. When our Saviour called God his Father, the Iewes did very well understand that he meant it in a proper and peculiar sense, and therefore told him that he did make himself equall with God, Iohn 5. 17. 18. and that being but a man he made himself God, Iohn 10. 33. And though the Jewes accused him of blasphemy, and endeavoured to stone him as they pretended for his blasphemy, yet our Saviour doth not excuse his speech, or say he meant it in a Metaphoricall sense, but doth defend it by many arguments both in the fifth and in the tenth chapters of Saint Iohn, though he did thereby endanger his life; he saith he is equall to the Father, nay one with the Fa∣ther, Iohn 5. 18. Iohn 10. 30. and when the High Priest asked him whether he was the Son of the blessed, Mark 14. 61. our Saviour answers; I am: there's a punctuall and po∣sitive affirmation of it, v. 62, 63. and you may easily know in what sense the High Priest meant it, by his renting of his clothes, and condemning our Saviour to death for blasphemy, v. 64. And yet our Saviour did not endeavour to allay their heat and rage with any retractation; he would not say that he spake Metaphorical∣ly, for he spake properly, he meant that he was the proper and naturall Son of God, who had the same nature and power with Page  203 the Father, and therefore was able to do, and actually did the same works with his Father. And the Iewes did understand him so, and therefore urged the Law against him, and condemned him to death for blasphemy, Iohn 19. 7. The Iews answered him, We have a Law, and by our Law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. Mark the reason, because he made himself the Son of God; If our Saviour had not meant that he was the proper and na∣turall Son of God, a Son equall to the Fa∣ther, & one God with the Father, the Iews would not have accused him of blasphemy.

Moreover the Iewes do generally hold that those words of the second Psalme,*This day have I begotten thee, are meant of the Messiah, as Rabbi Salomon doth ac∣knowledge in his commentary upon the place. Whatsoever saith he is sung in this Psalme, our Masters have interpreted of King Messiah; but (saith he) and he whis∣pers it as a secret) in regard of the sound of the words, and for the refutation of Hereticks (for so the Iew calls us Christi∣ans) we think fit to expound it of David himself. Here's a Iew would faine conceal a confessed truth from Christians, and there are some others it seems that would con∣ceal this malitious concealment, for these Page  204 words are expunged out of the great He∣brew Bibles set forth at Basil, but they are to be found in the Hebrew Bibles set forth with the Commentaries of the Rabbins at Venice by Bombergius, or else I had not in∣sisted upon the words; I hope the detect∣ing of this fraud may be very usefull, but I must hasten to some other arguments.

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

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

1. That the Prophet did foretell two particulars.

First, that a Virgin should bear a Son.

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

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

3. The Socinians put a Fallacy upon us by assigning that to be the Cause which is not the true Cause,* [he shall be called] that is declared and acknowledged to be the Son of God. This Declaration or manifestati∣on of the Son of God in the flesh was tem∣porall, 1 Tim. 3. 16. but his generation was eternall, Micah 5. 2. The Son of God was sent, manifested, incarnate, in the fulnesse of time, Gal. 4. 4. but he was the Son of God before his Incarnation, and therefore his Incarnation is not the cause of his divinePage  207 sonship, the effect cannot be before the cause, but the divine sonship of Christ was before the world was. The Holy Ghost is never called the Father of Christ, and he could not be the principle of the subsistence or the Word, and therefore not the Cause of this divine sonship. The Apostle states the point, and puts it past all dispute, Rom. 1. 3, 4. Christ was made of the seed of Da∣vid according to the flesh, but determined and declared to be the Son of God with pow∣er according to the spirit of holinesse by the resurrection from the dead; from whence it followes directly that Christ is not pro∣perly the Son of God according to the flesh, but is in that consideration rather to be called the Son of David as we observed a∣bove, because Christ came of David as con∣cerning the flesh; but the eternall Son of God, is God blessed for ever, Rom. 9. 5. When the Jewes said that our Saviour blasphem∣ed, because he made himself God, John 10, 33. Christ askes them whether they did accuse him of blasphemy, because he said he was the son of God? v. 36. whereby he declared that he was the Son of God ac∣cording to his person which is truly divine; beleeve (saith he) that the Father is in me and I in him, v. 38. The force of his an∣swer is evident: I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and therefore I am a divine person; I am the Son of God, and therefore Page  208 the divine nature is communicated to my per∣son, I am begotten in the unity of the God. head, I am in the Father, and therefore if it be no blasphemy for me to say that I am the Son of God, it is no blasphemy at all to say that I am God, because the divine nature is communitated to the naturall and proper Son of God; there's the proper reason why Christ is called the Son of God, because the divine nature was communicated to him by an eternal generation.

[ II] II. The second cause assigned by the So∣cinians why Christ is called the Son of God,* is the sanctification of Christ, for which they cite Iohn 10. 35, 36. Behold say they the second cause of this divine sonship plainly set forth unto us, Christ hath ob∣tained an excellent portion of the Spirit, he is sanctified and sent with a divine pow∣er into the world to save mankind.

To which we answer, that here is the same fallacy obtruded again, because 1. Christ was the Son of God before he was sent into the world. 2. God did not give the spirit by measure to him, Iohn 3. 34. 3. Christ proves in that tenth chapter of Iohn, that he is one with his Father in power, and therefore in nature, as appears

1. Because he doth the same works that his Father doth, v. 37.

2. Because he is in his Father, and his Father in him, v. 38.

Page  209 3. Because he is the Naturall Son of God, and therefore might truly call him∣self God, v. 33. 36.

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

III. The third Cause which they assigne of this divine sonship,* is the speciall love of the Father to this excellent Son, Matth. 3. 17.

To this we answer, that God did not make Christ his Son because he loved him, but he loves him because he is his Son, a Son equall to himself, one with himself, the expresse Image of his person, the illustri∣ous brightnesse of his glory. That very place which they cite makes much against Page  210 them: God doth from heaven own Christ for his proper and naturall Son in that very place, Matth. 3. 17. God said not so to the best of Angels, Hebr. 1. 4. 5 To which of the Angels said he at any time,*Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee? that one place is sufficient to discover the fraud of the Socinians in this point.

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

To which we answer,* that Christ was the Naturall and Proper Son of God be∣fore his Resurrection, only he was declared to be the Son of God by his Resurrection, according to that of the Apostle, Rom. 1. v. 4. Declared to be the Son of God with pow∣er according to the spirit of holinesse, (that is his divine nature) by the resurrection from the dead. Christ was not made but declared to be the Son of God by his Resurrection. His divine sonship lay hid under the forme of a servant before; only they who had spi∣rituall Page  211 eyes did discern it, Iohn 1. 14. we have seen, and beheld the glory of the only begotten Son of God. Moreover it is ob∣servable that the Apostle endeavours to make the mystery of Christs divine son∣ship manifest in the thirteenth of the Acts, not simply by his Resurrection, but by the manner of his Resurrection, and the state whereunto he was raised.

1. For the manner, he was raised by his own Almighty and most glorious power in an irresistible way; he did offer violence to all the forces of death and powers of the grave, because it was not possible that he should be holden of them, Acts •. 24. when he came to declare himself to be the Son of God with power, Rom. 1. 4.

2 For the state whereunto he was rai∣sed, he did not rise to return to the grave a∣gain, as Lazarus did, but he raised himself to an immortall life. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, Acts 13. 34. Rom. 6. 9.

Now, God by raising Christ after such a manner, to such a state, did declare him to be his only begotten Son, of whom Da∣vid speaks in the second Psalm, and there∣fore it was evident by the Resurrection of Christ, that God had fulfilled his promise by sending his only begotten Son to be a Saviour unto Israel, that we might have Page  212 forgivenesse of sins and all sure mercies by him who died for our sins, and rose a∣gain for our justification; this is the scope of the Apostles discourse in the thirteenth of the Acts from the 23 verse to the 39· The second Psalm is cited here by Accom∣modation to make good a remote and Im∣plicite consequence; as those words, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, &c. are cited to prove a resurrection by an Implicit con∣sequence, Matth. 22. 31, 32. Thou art my Son, mine owne proper Son, whom I own for my only begotten Son by raising thee to a never dying life.

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

I cannot but admire that the acute Soci∣nians should cite every place where the second Psalm is named, to prove that there are so many severall causes of the divine sonship of Christ; but I do more admire that they should cite this Text of all the rest; for if their fifth argument have any force in it, doth overthrow and disprove their four first arguments. If Christ was Page  213 not begotten before his exaltation to glo∣ry, then he was not the Son of God before his exaltation; for surely these men of rea∣son, will easily grant that the effect cannot be before its proper and complete cause was in its causall actuality, or actuall causality.

The words of God in the second Psalm are so often repeated, to teach us to keep our eye constantly fixed upon the divine sonship of Christ when ever we discourse of his conception, birth, resurrection, trans∣figuration, exaltation to glory, and con∣clude that the self-same person who was begotten of God from the dayes of eter∣nity took our flesh, dyed for our sins, and rose for our justification; for this is that great and fundamentall truth which runs quite thorow the Gospel, That the Son of Mary who did and suffered all for us, is the proper, the naturall Son of God, the only and All-sufficient Saviour of his people from their sins. We must not part with this truth, for this is all our salvation.

It was very proper for the Apostle to speak of his divine sonship when ever he spake of him as a Mediatour, as a Priest, &c. because he could not have undertaken or gone thorow with any such office unlesse he had been the Naturall and Proper Son of God e∣quall to God; and therefore we do readily grant, that the divine offices of Christ do de∣clare and make manifest the divine sonship, Page  214 and nature of Iesus Christ, and this truth is most evident from the connexion of the seven and eight verses of the second Psalm.

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

In the next place I am to prove the e∣ternall procession of the Holy Ghost, whereby I shall make the distinction of the Persons more cleare and evident, and ther∣fore I hasten to the discussing of that my∣sterious, but usefull point.

The Holy Spirit is not called a spirit be∣cause of his spirituall nature only,* for the same spirituall nature is common to all the three blessed Persons; but he is called a Spirit upon a special and peculiar reason because he is breathed forth by the Father and the Son. The Holy Ghost is called the Spirit which is of God, 1 Cor. 2. 1•. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Spirit who proceedeth from the Father is sent by the Son from the father, Iohn 15. 26. The Greek Church acknowledges that the Spirit doth proceed from the Father by the Son. All things that the Father hath are mine, saith our Saviour, Iohn 16. 15. But the Spirit did receive all from the Father, and Christ Page  215 and his Father are essentially one Iohn 10. 30. the Spirit is said to receive of the Son, and to glorifie the Son, John 16. 14. Whatsoe∣ver things the Father doth, the Son doth; and as the Son can do nothing without the Father, so the Father can do nothing with∣out the Son; not that there is a defect of pow∣er in either, but an unity of power and nature in both▪* The divine nature of both the Fa¦ther and the Son was communicated to the Spirit by this eternall spiration, and there∣fore he is sent by both, and he receives of both, and he glorifies both, and he is the Spi∣rit of both the Father and the Son. He is called the Spirit of the Father, Matth. 10. 20 because he proceedeth from the Father Iohn 15. 26. and he is called the Spirit of the Son of God, Gal. 4. 6. the Spirit of Christ, Rom. 8. 9. the Spirit of Jesus Christ Phil. 1. 19. the Spirit of Christ, 1 Pet. 1. 11. because he receives of Christ, is sent from Christ, is breathed forth by Christ; the Fa∣ther and the Son breath forth the subsistence of the Spirit with one and the same spirati on. When Christ breathed upon his Dis∣ciples, he said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, to shew that he had power to dispose of the Spirit, who did from all eternity breath Page  216 forth the Spirit. The Holy Ghost was breathed forth necessarily by both; I say, necessarily, because eternally there was a double and eternall necessity of it both in respect of the persons breathing, and the person breathed. The spirit was not breath∣ed forth as a creature, but as a divine per∣son, a person of the Godhead; he was breath∣ed forth by Procession, and subsists in the unity of the Godhead; he proceeds from both, and yet in both; for one divine person cannot subsist out of another, but all three subsist in the same undivided and infinite nature.

But the Socinians tell us that the Holy Ghost is nothing else but the power and vertue of God the Father.*

To which we answer. That the Spirit is the natural vertue of the Father no more then he is the naturall vertue of the Son, or of himself; for the vertue of God is the es∣sence of God; the Holy Ghost is his own essence, and all three persons have one and the same essence; The Holy Ghost who proceedeth from the Father, is called the Power of the Father, Luke 1. 35. because Page  217the spirit works as he proceeds in order; the Father works in the Son and by the Spirit. But the Spirit who proceeds from the Fa∣ther is distinguished from the Father; the Spirit did not breath forth himself, or proceed from himself. The H. Ghost doth not speak of himself, John 16. 13. but the Father speaks of himself, because he is of himself, he is begotten of none, pro∣ceeds from none of the divine persons, is sent by none of them. The holy Ghost doth receive of Christ, is sent by Christ; therefore the Holy Ghost is not the Fa∣ther, but clearly distinguished from him, Iohn 16. 14, 15. Iohn 15. 26. Iohn 14. 16, 17, Matth. 3. 16, 17. Matth. 28. 19. 2 Cor. 13. 14. and in diverse other places. The Father and the Spirit are personally di∣stinguished, but they are essentially one, 1 Iohn 5. 7. they are one in Power, Nature, Will, and yet are three Persons, three Witnesses who deliver one and the same divine testimony;*The testimony of the Ho∣ly Ghost is as divine as the testimony of God the Father. The Witnesse of God is greater, verse 9. must refer to the Witnesse of the Father, Word and Spirit, verse 7. though the testimony of the Father be specially insisted on in the following words; for all the three Witnesses in heaven give one and the same testimony, and that testimony is di∣vine. The H. Ghost is the Spirit of God, and Page  218the Spirit which is of God,* the Spirit of E∣lohim, Gen. 1. 2. the Spirit of Jehovah, Isa. 11. 2. the Spirit which is Jehovah and the God of Israel, as hath been proved at large in the fourth chapter from the 31. page to the fortieth. The distinction be∣tween the Father and the Spirit will be more evident when we come to treat of the personall properties; The Socinians are so confounded in this point,* that they are forced to acknowledge that the Holy Ghost is no Accidentall vertue, no finite sub∣stance, no creature, but the uncreated and substantiall vertue or power of God, because whatsoever is in God, is the substance of God; as Eniedinus confesses. And Smal∣cius acknowledges that it may be granted that the Holy Ghost is God, because what∣soever is naturally in God may be called God. But I shall prove that the Holy Ghost is not only God, but a person of the God∣head distinct from the Father and the Son. Jesus Christ is called the Power of God, 1 Cor. 1. 24. and the Holy Ghost the Pow∣er of God, Luke 1. 35, Luke 24, 49. The Son is a distinct Person from the Father; and the Holy Ghost is as the Ancients used to call him, the Personall vertue or Power of the Father proceeding from the Father, by whom he doth declare and put forth his power;* and therefore the Spirit is said to work and distrioute all gifts and graces as he will; Father, Son and Holy Ghost have Page  219 one and the same Will and Power; still we must bottome upon that truth, These three are one, 1 John 5. 7. That this Pro∣cession of the Holy Ghost is mysterious, and for the manner of it unsearchable we do readily grant; and therefore I shall not presume to define after what manner the Holy Ghost is breathed forth from the Fa∣ther and the Son; but we are sure that it cannot be any corporeall procession. The Ancients did constantly distinguish be∣tween Procession and Generation; but the eternall generation of Christ being spiri∣tuall,* the procession of the Spirit must needs be spirituall; for the Spirit is not only Essentially a Spirit as the Father, and God the Son are, but he is Personally a Spi∣rit. The more perfect and spirituall this procession is, the more evident it is that the Spirit was breathed forth in the unity of the Godhead. They who say the Son doth proceed from the Father▪ use that terme [Proceed] in a generall and very large signification:* but then they say that the Son did proceed by Generation, the Spirit by Spiration thereby endeavouring to distinguish the manner of proceeding. 2. They say the Son did proceed from the Father alone,* and therefore is aid to be sent by the Father only; but the Holy Ghost did proceed from the Father and the Son both, and therefore is said to be Page  220 sent by the Son as well as the Father, Luke 24. 49. Iohn 15. 26. Iohn 14. 26. Iohn 16. 14. but Christ is sent by the Father only, because he is of the Father only, and was not begotten of the Spirit; and the Fa∣ther is not sent by any because he is of him∣self; hereby they endeavour to distinguish the Principle of these Divine processions. 3. The Son did proceed as the second per∣son,* the holy Ghost as the third person of the Godhead, and hereby they endeavour to distinguish the order of these divine processions. We know this divine pro∣cession is

• 1. Spirituall.
• 2. Eternall, because divine.
• 3. Immutable; this procession is not a change of the Spirit from not being to be∣ing,* or from an imperfect being to a more perfect being. We know that procession cannot be a motion from one place to an∣other, for the Spirit is omnipresent, fills all places, and therefore cannot change its place. 4. Necessary. The Father and Son did from all eternity breath forth the Spi∣rit in the unity of the Godhead, not by a∣ny alienation of the Godhead from them∣selves, but by an unspeakable communica∣tion of the same divine Nature to a third person of the Godhead; And this commu∣nication is naturall, and therefore necessa∣ry it is, but not Involuntary; the Father Page  221 and Son did not breath forth the Spirit by any Coaction or Compulsion:* and yet we cannot say that the Father and the Son did Arbitrarily or freely breath forth the Spi∣rit as all three persons did create the world; for they did create the world with such li∣berty and freedome as that they might not have created it; but they did Natural∣ly and necessarily breath forth the Spirit, and could not but breath him forth: this inward and personall Act is Naturall; such is the perfection of the Godhead that it must needs be communicated to all three persons; and such is the coessentiall unity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, as that all three do necessarily and naturally sub∣sist in the self-same entire and infinite Godhead. True it is, that the will of God is the Nature of God, but nature is a more comprehensive Word, and therefore ac∣cording to our manner of apprehension and in strictnesse of speech, it is more pro¦per to say that the Father and the Son did breath forth the Spirit by the perfection of their Nature, then to say they breathed him forth of their own will, or by some Ar∣bitrary Decree; for then it will follow that there might have been but two persons of, Page  222 and in the Godhead, that the holy Spirit doth exist and subsist Contingently, and by consequent that the Spirit is no person of the Godhead. The acute Samosatenian whom learned Iunius confutes, desired to know whether the Holy Ghost was produced by an action of the Will;

Iunius answers;*If you oppose the will of God to the nature of God, we cannot say that the Spirit doth proceed from the Father and the Son by their will but by their na∣ture, because the Father, Son and Spirit are Coessentiall; for as the Father did be∣get his Naturall Son by his Nature, so do the Father and the Son breath forth the co∣essentiall Spirit by their nature; nor is it safe to say, saith Iunius, that the nature of the Father doth breath forth the Spirit by an action of his will, but rather according to that manner (the infinite distance being observed between what is humane and di∣vine) after which the will doth proceed in man: and this saith he is but a weak re∣semblance Page  223 of the Schools, which we are not bound to defend. For the Nature of God is pure, single, infinite, and therefore we must not follow those resemblances too farre which are grounded upon the distinction of the understanding and the will in creatures, because even that point is very disputable, and the most single and perfect nature of God doth infinitely transcend the perfection of Angels. I be∣leeve you are, as I am, willing to get out of the dark. But enough of that, for we read that the Saints are begotten by the will of God, Iames 1. 18. But we must not conceive that Christ is begotten, or the Spirit breathed forth after the same man∣ner as we are regenerated: the Spirit is breathed forth in a Connaturall and Coes∣sentiall way in the unity of the single and entire Godhead; but we are regenerated by the graces of God.

The spirit doth proceed equally from the Father and the Son; for the unity of the divine nature, and equality of divine per∣sons cannot be maintained if that princi∣ple be denyed. Peter Lombard and his ad∣herents did mince the point with a very dangerous distinction: that the Spirit doth proceed principally from the Father, and lesse principally from the Son. But it is clear & evident that the Holy Ghost being a Coessential person hath the self-same di∣vine Page  224 nature and essence entirely commu∣nicated unto him which is in the Father and the Son, without any Alienation of it from them, or Multiplication of it in him; and therefore the Spirit doth not proceed from the Father and Son as they stand in Relative opposition, but as they are essenti∣ally and naturally one; and therefore the Spirit did proceed from both equally, aequè primò ac per se, as we use to say. The Spi∣rit doth receive from Christ, Iohn 16. 14, 15. but the Spirit being God could not receive any thing but subsistence from the Father or the Son. The Spirit doth glo∣rifie the Son, Iohn 16. 14. no otherwise then the Son as God doth glorifie the Fa∣ther: because the Son did receive his sub∣sistence from the Father as the Spirit re∣ceives his subsistence from the Father and the Son.

We must carefully distinguish 1. Be∣tween the generation of the Son, and pro∣cession of the holy Spirit, though as we have shewen above, the Son doth proceed, if you take that word in a general notion. The most exact Criticks wil not take upon them to distinguish between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Yet because we want words to expresse our selves, the reverend Do∣ctors of the Church thought fit to appro∣priate Procession to the Holy Ghost for distinction sake; and the Scripture saith Page  225 that Christ is the only begotten Son of God; God the Father is never called the Father of the H. Ghost; nor is the H. Ghost called the Son of God. Moreover, the Schoolmen have given advantage to the e∣nemies of the Trinity by discoursing of Di∣vine Processions at large in a generall noti∣on; and for these reasons I did endeavorto distinguish the Procession of the Son from the Spirit in this Chapter, in respect of the Manner, Principle, and order of Procession.

2. We must carefully distinguish be∣tween the Eternall Procession of the Spi∣rit, and the Temporal Mission of the Spi∣rit; but the Natural and Eternal Proces∣sion of the Spirit may be evinced by the Temporal Mission of the Spirit. The Greek Church doth acknowledge, 1. that the Ho∣ly Ghost is God; and 2. that he is one and the same God with the Father and the Son; and from hence we infer,

1. That the Son did not send the Spirit by way of Command as if he were greater then the Spirit.

2. That the Son did not send the Spirit by way of Counsel and Advice, as if he were wiser then the Spirit; and therefore the only reason why he did Temporally send him, is, because the Spirit did Natu∣rally and Eternally proceed from him, and receive his glorious subsistence of him. I might discourse more largely upon this Page  226 subject;* but I consider what Athanasius, Damascen, and divers other reverend Di∣vines who did long study these mysterious points, have after many perplexed debates acknowledged. The Son (say they) was begotten▪ and the Spirit proceeded; this we are sure of, because it is written; if you en∣quire after the manner how the one was begotten, and how the other did proceed, we answer that the Son was begotten▪ and the Spirit did proceed eternally, unchange∣ably, unspeakably.

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

Finally, the Personall actions and pro∣perties of these three declare them to be di∣stinct Page  227 persons; therefore it is easie to con∣clude that Father, Son and H. Ghost are three distinct persons, and yet one and the same God.

That the Spirit is a person of the God∣head, hath been proved in the fourth chap∣ter of this Book; That he is a distinct per∣son from the Father and the Son, is most clear by that which hath been said both in that chapter and in this▪ and all those places might be heaped up which prove the personal appearance of the Spirit, when he did assume the shape of a Dove, and ap∣peared as in Tongues of fire,* his teaching, leading, acting, ruling, comforting, distri∣buting of gifts and the like, together with the several phrases of him in Scripture, and frequent joyning him with the Father and Son as their equall in power and authority in bestowing all spiritual and eternall bles∣sings do evince the same. The notes of distinction Another, even the Spirit; These three, &c. The change of the gender in relative Articles, which must necessarily be referred to the Spi•it, is very considera∣ble. But I have said more then enough up∣on this point, and therefore proceed to make the distinction of these three uncrea∣ted [ V] persons yet more evident.

V. These uncreated persons are suffici∣ently distinguished by their Order.* The Scripture doth most commonly place the Father first in order, the Son second, the Page  228 Holy Ghost third, when all three are named; and by the inward and personall actions (which have been mentioned) it doth appear, that, this is the Naturall Or∣der of these uncreated Persons; for the Son cannot be placed in Order before the Fa∣ther, because he is naturally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost cannot be placed in order before the Son, because he doth naturally proceed from the Son:* this is the proper and natural order. Basil the great in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 complains that some in his time did place the Son in order before the Father, and the Holy Ghost before the Son, that they might gain some advantage by that device. Basil tels them that he had received order from the Lord to Baptize in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost, and therefore was re∣solved to preserve that order 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 inviolable, notwithstanding any de∣vices or attempts for to prevent it. When the Witnesses in Heaven are reckoned up in a businesse of the highest consequence, they are reckoned in this very order▪ 1 Iohn 5. 7. The Father, the Word, and the Spi∣rit. But it is confessed that sometimes it is most agreeable to the scope and purpose of the Holy Ghost to place the Son before the Father▪ as appears 2 Cor. 13. 13. Gal. 1. 1. and hence it is likewise, that the Ho∣ly Spirit is sometimes placed before the Page  229 Son, as Revel. 1. 4, 5. and sometimes be∣fore the Father and the Son, 1 Cor. 12 4, 5, 6. But the natural order doth not over∣throw either the equality or coeterni∣ty of the Persons, nor doth that order of Enumeration which is pro instituto, over∣throw the natural order, and both do suf∣ficiently prove the distinction of the three uncreated Persons.

VI. The Divine Persons are sufficiently distinguished by their Personal Properties; The property of the Father is to subsist of himself,* that is, to receive subsistence or subsisting life from none but himself. I shall not enter into that sad dispute whe∣ther this Personal Property be Absolute or Relative? whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not import something as*Positive and abso∣lute as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? It is pleaded that the selfe subsistence of the Father is not his Father∣hood: and that that rule is beyond dispute, Habere subsistentiam à se non dicit respe∣ctum ad Aliud, vel Al•um; And therefore I humbly offer it to the consideration of the learned, whether that self subsistence whereby the first person is d•stinguished from the Son and the Spirit be Absolute, or Rela∣tive? I will not take upon me to deter∣mine any thing in so deep a point, or suf∣fer my reason to wax wild and wanton in discoursing of so great a mystery: and ther∣fore though there be something hinted Page  230 which may amount to a videtur quod sic in the behalf of the lesse common opinion in the 142▪ age of this book: and it is clear that all three Persons are nothing else but the Godhead considered with all abso∣lute and Relative perfection, yet I con∣ceive it safest to wave that point, and con∣clude with that learned divine, Nos fidelem ignorantiae professionem temerariae assertio∣ni praeferendam judicamus. Whether then this self-subsistence be Absolute or Rela∣tive, it is enough for our present purpose to prove that the first Person of the God∣head is distinguished by his self-subsistence from the blessed Son and holy Spirit. The self-subsistence of the Father is Incommu∣nicable, It is proper and peculiar to the first Person to have subsistence from none but himselfe▪ and to be the first Personal Prin∣ciple which gives subsistence to the other two coessentiall and coequall persons. The Son receives subsistence from the Father, the Spirit receives subsistence from the Fa∣ther and the Son, as hath been proved a∣bove; and therefore this self-subsistence doth make a very remarkable, and undeni∣able difference between the Father and the two other uncreated Persons.

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

Page  231 But the consequence is absurd, for they do not distinguish between the Essence of God & the peculiar subsistences, in the God∣head. The Essence of God is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. and is one and the same in all, and every one of the uncreated Persons: it is (if I may so speak) a self-essence and essence it selfe a self-Deity, because every one of the Persons is truly, properly, essentially God, God himselfe; and therefore if the Es∣sence of the Father be a self-Deity, so is the Essence of the Son and Spirit. The Divine Essence of the Son is not begotten, caused, produced any more then the Essence of the Fa∣ther; the subsistence of the Son is begotten, but not caused; the Divine Essence is com∣municated to the Son, but it is not begotton by the Father; for the Father doth commu∣nicate that selfe same Divine and entire Es∣sence, which is in himselfe, by begetting the personal subsistence of the Son in the Unity of the Godhead from the dayes of eterni∣ty. Christ is not God by grace, but by nature; and the Will of the Father did not precede and produce the Godhead in Christ, but accompany and approve the naturall communication of the Godhead to Christ, even as his Will doth approve his own na∣tural and eternal goodnesse; and therefore Christ is both his natural Son,* as hath been proved, and the Son of his love, Coloss. 1. 13. Genebrardus was too blame to fall foule Page  232 upon Calvin and Beza, and other reform∣ed Writers whom he condemns as guilty of a new Heresie called Autotheanisme, be∣cause they said that Christ was God of him∣self, but he was not the Son of himself. Calvin and Beza did not deny that the Godhead was from all eternity communicated to the Son by the Father; onely they say,

1. That the Godhead which is communica∣ted is in it self, of it self truly, properly, es∣sentially Divine; because the selfe-same Godhead is in the Father and Son whole and entire in both.

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

3▪ Because the Godhead which is com∣municated,* is not caused, produced, created by the Father, as Valentinus Gentilis dreamt. And therefore Genebrardus, Canisius, Gif∣ford, Stapleton, Faber Fevardentius, and the rest are extremely mistaken, when they say that Calvin and Beza deny that the Father did beget his Son in the unity of his own divine essence; For the meaning of Calvin was plainly this, The Son hath the selfe-same divine nature with the Father, they are Coessential: one and the same God who is the only true God, God of himselfe, not God by participation, or cre∣ation, but God by nature and essence; for Page  233Calvin speaks in opposition to Valentinus Gentilis, who denyes the Son and Spirit to be coessentiall with the Father, but saith the Father did essentiate the Son with another manner of essence then his owne divine es∣sence, namely with a created and produced essence. Gentilis saith, the Father onely is truly God, because he only hath an in∣created Godhead, and the Son hath not the self-same Godhead with the Father.

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

They who are taken with Platonical raptures may read Dionysius, Plato's corri∣vall; Maximus Pachymerius and the rest, will give them some light therein. Atha∣nasius, Basil, Epiphanius, Nazianzen, Da∣mascen, speak the same thing either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; to whom I might adde Iustin Martyr, Anastasius and Cyrill; as for Origen, I know his writings have been extremely corrupted by the ini∣quity of his Antagonists, and yet there are many things that are excellent in him, which I am in charity obliged to conceive to be his genuine and proper judgement, and to impute many of his errors to the fraud, ignorance, or malice of such as made too bold with his Works, or else to a kind of liberty of speaking, which good wits are not free from, when they have no ad∣versary in sight who is like to call them to an account for their irregular phrases. Bel∣larmine is as modest,* as we could expect such a sophister to be; only he did not take notice of the controversie between Calvin and Gentilis; but we will pardon that error; for we know the Cardinal was not at lea∣sure, and therefore did many times passe sentence upon the Protestants for expedi∣tion sake before he had heard their cause. Gregory de Valentia is very ingenuous in Page  235 this point,* and makes a fair Apology for the Autotheans. If any desire to take a shorter cut, I shall refer them to three most eminent Divines who have studyed this point exactly, and are very criticall both in state of the question, and their phrases, Chamier, Gomarus and Voetius; and now, I crave leave to proceed without beg∣ing pardon for this necessary digression, because I hope it may be very useful to learned men.

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

1. The Godhead without any commu∣nication of it to him from any other uncre∣ated Person.

2. To have subsistence from, and of him∣selfe as he is the first Person, and the first personall Principle of giving subsisting life unto the other two Coessentiall Persons. For the first uncreated Person cannot re∣ceive subsistence from any person, because he is the first person in order, though all three be equall in respect of dignity and du∣ration; there can be no person in order be∣fore the first Person to communicate his God∣head, or give personall subsistence to him either by generation or spiration, and this must needs be a Characteristicall and di∣stinctive property which declares the subsi∣stence of the Father to be incommunicable. Page  236 For though all three uncreated persons do subsist in the Godhead,* yet self-subsistence is proper to the Father; the Father alone is the first personall principle of subsisting life; the Father is distinguished from the Son, because the Father is unbegotten, and because he did beget the Son; the Father is distinguished from the Spirit, because he did breath forth the Spirit. But I have said enough of that when I treated above of the inward and personall actions. I need not take notice of their nice exception who say the Father is not his owne Father, and therefore cannot be said to be begot∣ten of himself, or to have subsistence from himselfe; yet because some take advantage thereby to censure the reverend Doctours of the Church,* I shall stop the Criticks mouths with one Criticisme out of Hesy∣chius and Suidas, To be begotten of ones self (saith Hesychius) is to be begotten of none. God is said to be begotten of himself because he is unbegotten; & Suidas concurs, and doth either transcribe or subscribe. No man ever dreamt that the Father did beget either his Godhead, or his own personall subsistence: for the Godhead were no Godhead if it were begotten; & we know the Father is not his own Father though Synesius and some such Poeticall wits who meant well have adven∣tured upon such dangerous expressions.* It doth imply a contradiction that any thing Page  237 should be the cause of it self, or its own effect, for the cause is before the effect,* and nothing can be before and after it self; and there is a friendly opposition between cor∣relates; the Father cannot be his own Son. But notwithstanding all that hath been al∣leaged by these Criticall disputants, still it holds good that the Godhead was not com∣municated to God the Father by any person created or uncreated, and the first person did not receive his personall subsistence from any other person by generation, spiration, or any other way. But I must not dwell upon this Argument. [ VII]

VII. The uncreated persons are suffici∣ently distinguished by their personall and inward relations;* but we must not con∣ceive that there are as many Persons in the Godhead, as there are Relations; for the Father is related to the Son and to the Spi∣rit;* and the Son is related to the Father and to the Spirit; and the Spirit is related to the Father and the Son. But there is a friendly opposition evidenced by some Re∣lations which do help together with the Actions, Order and Properties above men∣tioned to demonstrate some kind of di∣stinction between the Persons; The Son as he is a Son, is Relatively opposed to the Fa∣ther who begat him; and so the Spirit as pro∣ceeding by spiration is Relatively opposed to the Father and the Son who did both Page  238 joyne in breathing forth the holy Spirit; Relations distinguish as proper, and oppo∣site.

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

1. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are [ I] not Essentially distinguished: for Christ and his Father are one,* John 10. 30. and all three are Essentially one, 1 John 5. 7. The Synod of Calcedon determined, that Christ was Coessentiall with his Father ac∣cording to his Divinity, and Coessential with Page  239 us according to his Humanity; but the na∣turall Union between us and Christ doth only prove a specifical unity; but Christ and his Father have one and the self-same Divine and undivided Essence. He must acknowledge more gods, who holds that the Son and Spirit have another or different kind of Godhead from the Father.* The Arrians did divide the Nature of the Tri∣nity, and the Sabellians did confound their Persons; but Christians acknowledge and maintain that there are three Persons, and but one single divine nature in the blessed Trinity; only the second person did assume the nature of man that he might heale our nature, and save our persons.

2. These three Divine Persons are not distinguished realiter separabiliter: That is, they are not so distinguished,* as that they can be divided or separated one from another, as created Persons and [ II] Things may.* These three Coessentiall per∣sons are omnipresent, they do all three sub∣sist in the self-same omnipresent nature; nay, they do all three subsist in one another, without any contraction, commixtion, or con∣fusion, as hath been proved at large in the 161, 162. and the following pages of this Book. These Coessentiall subsiste•ts can∣not be separated, or divided any more then their indivisible and infinite Essence can be divided or multiplyed.

Page  240 3 These three uncreated Persons are truly distinguished; this proposition is fully proved already in this very chapter:* I know it will be expected by some, that I should say that these three Persons are di∣stinguished Really; but I shall humbly desire them to consider, that some have by that expression taken occasion to exercise their wanton wits in cavelling against this deep and glorious mystery to the great preju∣dice of this weighty truth. If they be re∣ally distinguished, say some, then they dif∣fer essentially, or tanquam res & res, then they may be separated, say others, then there are three Gods, say a third. It is too well known what sport Atheists have made upon this advantage; and truly it is much at one whether men do professe themselves Atheists or Tritheites; for he who doth be∣leeve that there are three Gods, may when he pleases, beleeve that there is no God at all.

Vorstius presses those that call the di∣stinction between the Persons Reall after this manner;* If the three persons be really distinguished, then they are tres Res, three reall things; for the multiplication of per∣sons is reall, and therefore the Son being really distinct from the Father, and the Spi∣rit from both, they must needs have three essences really distinct. And if they are tres Res, then either three substances, or three Page  241Accidents;* but the Reformed Divines can∣not saith Vorstius grant, that they are three accidents, because they deny that there is any accident in God;* and if they be three substances, then there are saith he three Gods. Valentinus Gentilis and some Ministers of Transylvania reason much after the same manner. I know not whether Master Fry did ever read any of their writings, but sure I am he hath conversed with some of that perswasion, or else, his carnall reason is of neer kin to theirs.

For upon this very ground Mr. Fry doth adventure to explode three distinct persons or subsistencies out of his Creed,* but he will ne∣ver be able to explode them out of the God∣head: he may sooner explode himself out of the number of Christians; for if he take away the Divine Person of Christ, he takes away the foundation of christianity. But having shew∣ed him his danger, I desire to satisfie his reason, awaken his Faith, & settle his Con∣science in this weighty point:* if he will deny his carnall reason, and not require Page  240〈1 page duplicate〉Page  241〈1 page duplicate〉Page  243 any example, to illustrate a mystery above reason, and beyond example: Master Fry will tell us news indeed, if he can make it good, That any Ministers or Members of the Church of God in England do make Ie∣sus Christ a distinct God from God the Fa∣ther.*

2. He may do well to publish those rea∣sons,* which move him and the others he speaks of, to be of that opinion.

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

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

Page  243His onely answer ought to be, I doe be∣leeve that these three are three Subsistents in the same single and infinite Godhead, Phil. 2. 6. Joh. 10. 30. 1 Joh. 5. 7. Heb 1. 3.

Vorstius, Valentinus Gentilis, the Tran∣sylvanians require some more curious an∣swer; but I shall be as plaine, and as briefe as the weight and depth of this Mystery will permit me to be; I remember that Aristotle saith,*He doth make a truth suffici∣ently plaine, who brings such proofes as the point in question will beare.

Now it is most evident that supernaturall Mysteries cannot be expounded according to the rules of Art.*

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

Page  244 If you aske others,* they will say that these three are one Being, but they are three proper and peculiar manners of being subsisting in the same God-head. They have one essentiall subsistence say o∣thers, but they have three Incommunicable manners of subsisting. Some expresse it thus, these three are Really distinct, but not Essentially; Modally, but not separably; Truly, but Relatively; Formally, and yet but Personally. Others that meane the same thing, say they are distinguished Se∣cundum esse Personale, non secundum esse Quidditativum.

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

2. They do not mean separably.

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

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

Some do adventure to call this distincti∣on naturall,* but that is a very dangerous expression, it must not passe without some favourable graines of allowance, nor can it then passe unlesse it be seasoned with some graines of Salt, and be mollified with some faire and Orthodox Interpretation. By na∣turall distinction, they meane Relative, because say they the relations which are between these uncreated persons are not onely real, but naturall also. The Relation between God the Father and his owne na∣turall Son is a naturall relation, grounded upon a naturall and personall act•on; namely, the eternall generation of the Son. The Greek Fathers speake much of the Familiar and proper Emphasis of this naturall Relation between the Father and the Son.

Page  246 By naturall distinction then they do not meane an essentiall distinction, as if the three uncreated persons did differ in na∣ture; but naturall, in that sound and Or∣thodox sense recited above.

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

From what hath been said, it is evident that these three uncreated Persons are tru∣ly distinguished, but they cannot be divi∣ded; and it is not so safe to expresse the di∣stinction of uncreated Persons by Termes of Art; They who say the distinction is Na∣turall,*Reall, Absolute, or Relative, do de∣ny that the distinction is Essentiall, or that the Persons are separable. They who speak most tenderly, say it is Modall, Formall, Personall. They who say it is Naturall in respect of Personall Relations and Naturall Actions, confesse that it is Supernaturall and Mysterious, because the Unity of the Godhead is unquestionable; the Trinity of Persons subsisting in that Godhead admira∣ble; both put together undeniable and inex∣plicable, and yet most necessarily and high∣ly credible.

They who say the Persons are Formally distinct, do mean that they are truly di∣stinct; they do not conceive that the distin∣ction Page  248 of the uncreated Persons is grounded upon a meer fiction of reason, or upon the weaknesse of our apprehension, as if we did conceive one Person to be three Per∣sons, because he is called by three names, as Praxeas, Sabellius, and some others dreamt. Nor do they beleeve that this di∣stinction of these three uncreated Persons is only grounded upon the phrase of Scrip∣ture: but they do acknowledge that there is a true and proper, not an improper and figurative distinction between these uncre∣ated Persons; nay, they all confesse that this true and proper distinction is an Eter∣nall distinction; it was from, and it will last to all eternity, and therefore is not groun∣ded only upon some offices and externall dispensations which have respect unto the creature.