A treatise of the Holy Trinunity [sic]. In two parts. The first, asserting the deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, in the unity of essence with God the father. The second, in defence of the former, containeth answers to the chiefest objections made against this doctrine. By Isaac Marlow.

CHAP. VII.

Containeth some Explications of the Holy Trinunity.

FIrst, Of the essential Being of God.

God is one single, infinite, eternal, im∣mense, perfect, spiritual Being, no Com∣pound, for Compounds must be either fi∣nite or infinite; not of Finites, for Finites are imperfect, temporal and mensurable, and so cannot make one infinite perfect Being; not of Infinites, for more than one infinite Being cannot subsist, for one infinite Immensity cannot admit of ano∣ther infinite Immensity, nor is infinite Perfection exclusive, but comprehensive of all Perfection.

Hence it is that we must not imagine God to have any shape, because an Infi∣nite Being cannot be any ways limited or subscribed. Deut. 4.12, 15. John 4.24. Deut. 33.27. Psal. 147.5. Psal. 90.2.

Secondly, Of a Divine Person.

Mr. Chynel in his Divine Trinunity, Page 96. describes a Divine Person.

A

Divine Person is a spiritual and infinite Subsistent, related indeed to these o∣ther uncreated Persons, which subsist in the same Divine Nature with it, but distinguished from those co-essential Persons, by its peculiar manner of Sub∣sistence, Order of subsisting, singular Relation and incommunicable Proper∣ty.

Thirdly, Of the Divine Person of the Father.

The Divine Person of the Father is unbegotten, and subsists of himself in the Divine Essence, and hath the Divine Na∣ture of none.

Fourthly, Of the Divine Person of the Son.

The Divine Person of the Son is natu∣rally and necessarily begotten of the Fa∣ther, by eternal Generation, for he is E∣ternal, as hath been shewed, and is of the Father, John 5.26. by eternal Genera∣tion, and he subsists in the unbegotten Nature of God; for the Father did not beget the Divine Nature of the Son, but the Son is begotten in the Divine Nature.

Fifthly, Of the Divine Person of the Spirit.

The Divine Person of the Spirit hath his Subsistence, naturally and necessarily both from the Father and the Son, by eternal Spiration or Emanation, Job 33.4. and therefore the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Christ, who breathed on his Di∣sciples, and bid them receive the Holy Ghost, to shew that the Spirit was breath∣ed forth by him as well as from the Fa∣ther, John 20.22. John 15.26. 1 Pet. 1.11. 2 Pet. 1.21. not from the Father alone, or the Son alone, for then he might be said to be the Son of the Father, or of the Son, but by the Father and the Son, and not being separated or divided from either, he subsists in the same Na∣ture, and is co-essential with them both.

Sixthly, Of the Unity of the Holy Tri∣nity.

The Divine Nature is common to all three Subsistencies, and the whole Divine Nature is the Substance of every Person which distinctly subsists in it; and all its essential Properties pertain unto each of them, and the Divine Nature, because it

is infinite in Perfection, it contains all re∣lative as well as absolute Perfections.

Seventhly, Of the Distinction between the Divine Nature and the Persons.

I shall cite Mr. Chynel in his Divine Trinunity; Page 105, &c.

First, The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, do all three really, positively, truly, subsist in the Divine Essence; and yet these three Subsistencies, and the Divine Essence, do not make four, no nor two things really distinct; even as Entity, Truth, Goodness, and Unity, do not make four things really distinct, as you heard but now, but are one real thing, and no more.

Secondly, Ens is not compounded of Entity, and its three Affections; nor is God compounded of the Godhead, and three Subsistencies; nor is any one Person compounded of the Divine Na∣ture and Subsistence.

Thirdly, As Truth is not Goodness, nor Goodness Truth, nor either of them Unity, and yet all three are En∣tity: So the Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father, nor is either of them the Holy Ghost, and yet all three

are God; for they are all three but one God, subsisting with all absolute and rela∣tive Perfection, as hath been shewed.

Fourthly, Every one of the three Affections of Ens, doth connote Enti∣ty: every one of the three Subsisten∣cies doth connote the Godhead, the Divine Nature, as hath been proved at large.

Fifthly, Not any one of the three Affections of Ens, doth, nor do all three together, superadd a new Enti∣ty; not any one of the three Subsisten∣cies doth, nor do all three together superadd a new Deity, a new Divine Nature, or Godhead: for Ens is one; Ens est trinum, non triplex, trinum & unum, Ens trin-unum, Deus est trinus, non triplex, trinus & unus, Deus trin∣unus; this instance doth in some Mea∣sure resemble the Mystery of the Trin∣unity.

Sixthly, No Affection of Ens can be really separated from Ens, nor can one of the Divine Persons be separated from the Divine Nature, or the Di∣vine Nature from any one of the Di∣vine Persons, or any one of the Per∣sons from either of the other two.

Seventhly, All the Affections of Ens are distinguished, but none divided: all the three Subsistencies are distinguish∣ed, but they cannot be divided.

Eighthly, Truth and Goodness, which are two of the Affections of Ens, are distinguished by their peculiar and several Relations; Truth hath Rela∣tion to the Understanding, and Good∣ness to the Will: The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are known to be distin∣guished by their several and peculiar Relations; and if it be not unreasona∣ble to say, that there is in Entity three Affections, and two Relations in Ente simplissimo, without any Compo∣sition in, or Multiplication of the Entity, why should it seem unreasona∣ble, or at least why should it seem in∣credible, that there are three Subsisten∣cies, and several Relations in the God∣head without any Composition in, or Mul∣tiplication of the Godhead?

Ninthly, One Affection, nay all the Affections in abstracto, do but inade∣quately represent Ens, unless you take notice of the Entity it self, as well as the three Affections. One single Sub∣sistence, nay all three Subsistencies in

abstracto, do but inadequately repre∣sent God, unless you take notice of the Godhead in which they subsist; and therefore this precisive Abstraction of the Subsistencies from the Divine Nature, is but an inadequate Conceit of God, as hath been demonstrated above in this very Chapter; for we must not dream of a Trinity of Modes, but assert and be∣lieve the glorious and co-essential Trini∣ty. The Father is truly God, that God who is the only true God; but the Father alone doth not adequately re∣present God to us, as he is described in the Holy Scriptures.

It is true that the Divine Essence is by the Subsistence of the Father, ade∣quately the Father; but as God is repre∣sented by that Divine Subsistence only, he is not Deus Trinunus, he is not the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; The Father alone, is not all these three Wit∣nesses who are one God. And therefore the acute Socinians, with their precise Abstractions, do but suggest an inade∣quate Conceit of God: That only true God, whom we worship, doth not subsist only in the Person of the Father. We worship God, subsisting with all abso∣lute

and relative Perfection in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; for these three are that one God, who is the only true God blessed for ever. This is the ade∣quate Representation of God in the Scrip∣tures of Truth. And we are resolved to regulate all our Metaphysical Noti∣ons by the Holy Scriptures, that we may make the highest of Sciences to acknowledg the Supremacy of that Di∣vine Science which is no where to be learnt but in the Word of God; for the purest Reason must be elevated by the Word and Spirit of God, for the discovery of this Mystery.

Tenthly; These Affections of Ens represent the manner of that Being, which Ens hath as it is transcendently considered; and the three Divine Sub∣sistencies do represent that manner of Being, which God hath as he is most transcendently considered, namely as subsisting, after the most glorious Man∣ner, with all absolute and relative Per∣fection.

It is the manner of a transcendent Entity to be one, and true, and good, and it is the manner of God's Being, to be one God in three Subsistencies; these three

are one single God, there is no Com∣position, or Multiplication imaginable, in this single and infinite Being.

When I read this Similitude, and con∣ceived the Light it gave into this Mystery, I thought it worth my time to convey it un∣to others out of this learned Author; and I doubt not, but (if well considered) these rare Distinctions of the Divine Na∣ture, and the Persons, will be profitable. For as the Author saith,

When Divine Revelation hath gone before, and we have built upon that as the Ground∣work and Foundation, by a serious Faith, these Metaphysical Notions may be subservient helps in a subordinate way. And if there might be so great Simplicity or Singleness in a created and finite Entity, notwithstanding there are three Affections, and two Relations which do affect that Entity; it seemeth to me somewhat easy to be∣lieve that there are three Subsistencies in one infinite Godhead, without any Compo∣sition in, or Multiplication of the single Godhead.

Estwick in his Confutation of Biddle's Confession of Faith, Pag. 17. doth give (among other Resemblances of the Dei∣ty)

an instance of the Soul and its Fa∣culties, saying,

If they are (as Scotus and his Followers, Zanchius and Scali∣ger, and others do maintain) one thing, for then there is not a real Com∣position betwixt the Soul and the Fa∣culties of it.

Memory in the Soul is the beginning of the Knowledg begotten in it, and so it represents the Father. By Intel∣ligence is represented the Son, because he is as Knowledg begotten of his Father. By Memory, and the Will, is represented the Holy Ghost.

(This is some over-sight in the Author, or Er∣ror in the Printer: for it should be thus,)

Of Memory and Intelligence proceeds the Will, which represents the Holy Spirit,

(and so it agrees with what follows;)

because he is alone pro∣duced of the Father and the Son; these are distinct, yet one in Essence. Au∣gust. lib. 15. de Trinitate, cap. 20. Radu. pag. 2. Controv. 13. Art. 2. This Comparison (saith he) I confess is too short, for neither are the Facul∣ties of the Soul Persons, nor doth there appear in them such a strange and wonderful manner of Production, as in

the glorious Persons of the Blessed Trinity: This doth our Faith with Admiration apprehend, which our Knowledg cannot attain unto.

To conclude (saith he) the Pre∣misses shew that this great Mystery is not against Reason, though it be above Reason, &c.

Eighthly; Of the Union of the Na∣ture of God, and of Man, in one Per∣son.

Of this I shall cite Estwick in his Confutation of Biddle's Confession of Faith, pag. 115.

Suppose an Apple-Tree grow up, into which the Branch of another Tree is ingrafted, which makes not the Tree to be of a com∣pound or middle Nature, but causing the Branch, which being set into the Ground, might have proved an intire Tree of it self, to pertain to the Uni∣ty of the Tree into which it is im∣planted, and yet retains its own Na∣ture, and bears its own Fruit; and as you may truly say, this Harvy-Tree is a Pippin-Tree, and this Pippin-Tree is a Harvy-Tree; and conse∣quently this Harvy-Tree beareth Pip∣pins,

and this Pippin-Tree brings forth Harvies. So may we say of the Person of Christ, consisting of the Na∣tures of God and Man: The Son of God, who was a compleat and per∣fect Person, hath added to it the hu∣mane Nature in the Unity of the same Person; as the Divine Nature of our Saviour, notwithstanding the Per∣sonal Union, is not capable of any hu∣mane Imperfections, no more is the hu∣mane Nature (in that respect a finite Creature) capable of any Divine and infinite Perfection; the weakness and infirmity of Man was not swallowed up in the Majesty of God, nor was God's Majesty in the least diminished really by the Assumption of Man. The Union of the Word, in regard of the Persons subsistence, graciously bestowed on the humane Nature, is not finite, nor the hu∣mane Nature infinite: and as the fore∣named Tree is but one, and yet has two different Natures in it, and beareth two kinds of Fruits; so the Holy Son of God is but one Person, and yet hath two different Natures, and by them performeth the distinct Operations pertaining to either of them.