<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2014-03-13</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Olivia Bottum</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed text and corrected markup.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B23738">
<STC T="W">G1890</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">[ocm]11294570</BIBNO>
<VID>205033</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1">
<PB REF="1">
<P>THE DOCTRINE OF THE Glorious Trinity, NOT <HI>Explained, but A&s;&s;erted</HI> BY Several Texts, as they are expounded by the ancient Fathers and later Divines.</P>
<P>For the Satisfaction of &s;uch as doubt, the Conviction of &s;uch as deny, and the Con|firmation of &s;uch as believe this My&s;terious Article of the CHRISTIAN FAITH.</P>
<Q><P><GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<BIBL><HI>Ba&s;il. M. adv. Calumn. S. Trin. p. 623.</HI> Edit. Pari&s;iis.</BIBL>
<P><GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<BIBL><HI>Diony&s;. Areop. de Div. Nom. p. 173, 174.</HI> Edit. Lu|tetiae Pari&s;iorum.</BIBL></Q>
<P>By <HI>FRANCIS GREGORY,</HI> D. D. and Rector of <HI>Hambleden</HI> in the County of <HI>Bucks.</HI></P>
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI> Printed for <HI>Walter Kettilby,</HI> at the <HI>Bi&s;hop's-Head</HI> in St. <HI>Paul</HI>'s Church-Yard, 1695.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="dedication">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2" MS="y">
<HEAD>TO THE Reverend, Pious, and Learned Dr. <HI>Richard Bu&s;by,</HI> Prebend of <HI>We&s;tmin&s;ter,</HI> and Chief Ma&s;ter of the ROYAL-SCHOOL there.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Honour'd SIR,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>I Have made bold to prefix Your Name before this little Tract, knowing that it wants &s;ome Great Patronage, and therefore Yours; who are &s;o able to confute them, who
<PB REF="3">oppo&s;e the Truth here a&s;&s;erted; and &s;o willing to countenance &s;uch, as own and would defend it. I was al&s;o ambitious, before You leave the World, to ac|quaint it with my great Obliga|tions to You. If there be here|in any gro&s;s Mi&s;takes, they are mine; if there be any thing of Worth and Learning, I owe it to You; who, in my Minori|ty, were to me, not a Ma&s;ter on|ly, but even as a Father; and, which is a Relation more rare|ly found, a real Friend; for, I was not only protected under, but nouri&s;hed by, Your warm and cheri&s;hing Wing.</P>
<P>Such You were to me, and to Thou&s;ands more; &s;o that I may, within Truth, and without
<PB REF="3">Flattery, tell the World, That there is &s;carce any Man in it, who hath done more Good than You. To You doth the Church of <HI>England</HI> owe great &s;tore of her choice&s;t Divines; and it is no Fault of Yours, that I my &s;elf am none of that happy Number. To You do the Ci|ties and Towns of <HI>England</HI> owe very many of our able&s;t Phy&s;i|cians; and to You doth <HI>We&s;t|min&s;ter-Hall,</HI> both it's Barrs and it's Benches, owe many of our mo&s;t Learned Lawyers. So that Your daily Care, Your un|wearied Indu&s;try, and prudent Conduct, have had a very &s;ig|nal Influence upon every thing, that may prove mo&s;t Advan|tageous to the E&s;tates, Bodies,
<PB REF="4">and Souls of Men: And how can any Per&s;on oblige a Church or Nation more?</P>
<P>And were I not afraid to put Your great Mode&s;ty to the blu&s;h; I think, I might ju&s;tly &s;ay, That more Scholars, well grounded in the Principles of Morality, Piety, and Learning, have been trained up under Your happy Government, than were ever bred by any one Ma&s;ter, in any one School, &s;ince the World begun.</P>
<P>'Tis indeed much to be fea|red, that &s;ome of Your Scho|lars, who have proved debauch|ed and vicious, will, in the Event, fare the wor&s;e for that vertuous Example, and tho&s;e pious In|&s;tructions, which You often
<PB REF="4">gave them; for their Chri&s;tian Education in Your School and Family, will add many Ounces to the Weight of their Crimes, and double their Iniquities. Nor can we wonder, if &s;uch profli|gate Wretches, in&s;tead of re|turning Thanks to their worthy Ma&s;ter, &s;hould now and then drop &s;ome hard and unde&s;erved Speeches concerning him; act|ing too much like tho&s;e ungrate|ful Clouds, which darken the Sun, that rai&s;ed them. But not|with&s;tanding this, the Honour of Your Name, like the Beams of the Sun di&s;&s;ipating and break|ing through &s;uch empty Clouds, doth and will &s;hine as bright as ever.</P>
<PB REF="5">
<P> And now, as I am loath to di&s;plea&s;e You by Publi&s;hing, &s;o am I unwilling to injure the World by concealing Your ex|emplary Acts of Piety to God, and Charity to Men; Your ere|cting a decent Parochial Church for Divine Wor&s;hip; a conve|nient Par&s;onage-Hou&s;e for the Mini&s;ter, and an Alms-Hou&s;e for the Poor; Your frequent &s;end|ing con&s;iderable Supplies to Pri|&s;oners for Debt; Your relie|ving di&s;tre&s;&s;ed Mini&s;ters, turned out of all by the fury of blind Zealots, the Rabble, and Dregs of Mankind. But the&s;e things I only name, leaving them to be illu&s;trated and recorded by &s;ome abler Pen, and tran&s;mitted to Po&s;terity as Great Examples,
<PB REF="5">which all Men mu&s;t commend, but, I fear, few will imitate, at lea&s;t in the &s;ame Degree and Eminence.</P>
<P>'Tis now high time to take my leave; and yet before I do &s;o, I would beg one thing from You, and another thing for You; from You, I would beg a Pardon for this Pre&s;umption; and for You, I would beg that Your Pa&s;&s;age to Heaven may prove as ea&s;ie, as, I know, 'tis &s;afe; that when Your Candle &s;hall grow near the Socket, it may not be extingui&s;hed by a|ny violent Storm, but expire of its &s;elf, and go out only for want of Oil; that every Sand of Your Gla&s;s may run out gently and freely, even without
<PB REF="6">a &s;hake; that You may do no more than quietly fall a&s;leep. So prayeth,</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED><HI>Your Obliged Scholar, Affectionate Friend, and Humble Servant,</HI> Francis Gregory.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="6">
<HEAD>TO THE Chri&s;tian Reader.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Good Reader,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>THis little Tract, here pre|&s;ented to thy view, was ve|ry lately written, and is now publi&s;h|ed, not to gain <HI>Applau&s;e,</HI> for it de&s;erves none; not to gain <HI>Money,</HI> for its Author is not mercenary; but to <HI>do Good,</HI> to <HI>defend</HI> a <HI>Truth,</HI> and a very great one too. Though it be not penned &s;o well, as I do, and thou mai&s;t wi&s;h, yet the <HI>Ju&s;tice</HI> of its Author's <HI>De&s;ign</HI> may &s;ome|what excu&s;e and atone for the <HI>Im|perfections</HI>
<PB REF="7">of the <HI>Work</HI> it &s;elf. And the rather, becau&s;e it may be hoped, that this <HI>attempting</HI> a <HI>weak</HI> Defence, may provoke &s;ome abler Per&s;on to <HI>make</HI> a <HI>&s;trong</HI> one.</P>
<P>We are all commanded,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Jude 1.</NOTE> <HI>To con|tend earne&s;tly for the Faith, which was once delivered to the Saints.</HI> This Faith &s;tands record|ed in our Bibles; this Faith hath the Catholick Church embraced and vigorou&s;ly maintain'd again&s;t all its Oppo&s;ers. And for this Faith mu&s;t we al&s;o contend, though it be with <HI>Blood;</HI> not by <HI>&s;hedding other</HI> Mens; but, if ju&s;t occa&s;ion &s;hould &s;o require, by <HI>lo&s;ing</HI> our <HI>own.</HI> We mu&s;t likewi&s;e contend for this Faith, as well as we can, by &s;trength of <HI>Argument;</HI> but our chief Wea|pon, to be u&s;ed in this Quarrel, is,
<PB REF="7"><HI>The Sword of the Spirt,</HI> and that mu&s;t be fetched and drawn from the <HI>Armoury</HI> of God; for,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Sam. 21.9.</NOTE> <HI>there is none like that.</HI></P>
<P>With this Divine Sword did the great Champions of this Faith in the Four fir&s;t <HI>General Councils</HI> con|tend again&s;t <HI>Arius, Ne&s;torius, Eu|tyches,</HI> and <HI>Macedonius;</HI> with the &s;ame Sword did the <HI>Fathers,</HI> who were famous both for <HI>Piety</HI> and <HI>Learning</HI> both in the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> and <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Churches, contend a|gain&s;t all the <HI>Here&s;ies,</HI> which aro&s;e in their re&s;pective Ages. And of the &s;ame Weapon have we need e|nough in this unhappy Age of ours.</P>
<P>For, we find that Prophecy of St. <HI>Peter</HI>'s fulfilled this Day in <HI>En|gland,</HI> which &s;aith,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">2 Pet. 2.1.</NOTE> <HI>There &s;hall be fal&s;e Teachers among you,
<PB REF="8">who &s;hall privily bring in dam|nable Here&s;ies,</HI> and the only dam|nable Here&s;ie, which he particular|ly names, is this, <HI>even denying the Lord, that bought them.</HI> There are indeed &s;everal ways of denying our Lord; but of them all, I think, the denying of his <HI>Divini|ty</HI> is the <HI>wor&s;t.</HI> For that deni|eth the highe&s;t <HI>Dignity</HI> of his <HI>Per|&s;on,</HI> the Infinite <HI>value</HI> of his <HI>Sati&s;|faction;</HI> and, by a nece&s;&s;ary con&s;e|quence, the <HI>Redemption</HI> of the World by his Blood.</P>
<P>We grant indeed, that if it had been the good Plea&s;ure of God &s;o to do, he might <HI>freely</HI> have forgiven the Sin of Man; but &s;ince, for the <HI>Glory</HI> of his <HI>Ju&s;tice,</HI> he was plea|&s;ed to demand a Satisfaction that might be proportionable to the Infi|nite
<PB REF="8">guilt of Sin, and the Contempt thereby offered to his Infinite Pow|er and Holine&s;s; if our Lord and Surety had been no more, than <HI>A|rius,</HI> and his unhappy Spawn <HI>So|cinus,</HI> allowed him to be, <GAP DESC="foreign">, a mere <HI>naked Man,</HI> &s;tript of Divinity, his Blood, though never &s;o Innocent, must have been too <HI>cheap</HI> a Sacrifice for Sin. But St. <HI>Paul</HI> hath told us, <HI>God hath purcha&s;ed his Church with his own Blood;</HI> i. e. with the Blood of that Sa|cred Per&s;on, who was <HI>God</HI> as well as <HI>Man; Man,</HI> that he might have Blood to &s;hed; and <HI>God,</HI> that his blood might be of &s;uffi|cient value.</P>
<P>Be&s;ides, they, who deny the Di|vinity of our Lord and his Holy
<PB REF="9">Spirit, whom we own and <HI>adore</HI> as <HI>God,</HI> do charge the whole <HI>Chri|&s;tian Church</HI> with <HI>Idolatry;</HI> and if &s;o, if all they are counted Idolaters, who do Religiou&s;ly wor|&s;hip our Lord and his Spirit; this Lord of ours, and this Spirit of his, mu&s;t in the&s;e Men's e&s;teem be reckon'd <HI>Idols.</HI> And what Bla|&s;phemy can be wor&s;e? What more damnable than this?</P>
<P>And yet this Opinion, as bad as it is, among&s;t the croud of other Errors, is now revived among&s;t us, and to the &s;hame of our Nation, the ruine of Souls, and for a puni&s;h|ment of our gro&s;s Irreligion and foul Immoralities, is permitted to grow and &s;pread. Now, to pre|&s;erve my own little Flock from the Infection of this <HI>Pe&s;tilent Here|&s;ie,</HI>
<PB REF="9">I wrote this little Tract; and becau&s;e it may be of &s;ome u&s;e, as well to &s;ome other Per&s;ons, as to tho&s;e of my own Charge; remem|bring the old Rule, <HI>Bonum, qu&ograve; communius, e&ograve; melius,</HI> I was induced to make it publick.</P>
<P>Now, if any, who do already be|lieve the <HI>Doctrine of the Glori|ous Trinity,</HI> &s;hall be more <HI>con|firmed</HI> hereby in their pre&s;ent Faith; if any, who yet waver in their Judgments about this Doctrine, &s;hall hereby be better <HI>&s;atisfied</HI> of its Certainty and Truth; or if any, who yet deny this Doctrine, &s;hall hereby be <HI>convinced</HI> of their Er|ror, and recant it; as I &s;hall <HI>ob|tain</HI> my <HI>End,</HI> &s;o let <HI>God</HI> Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Gho&s;t, have all the <HI>Glory.</HI> Amen.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB REF="10">
<PB N="1" REF="10">
<HEAD>THE DOCTRINE OF THE <HI>Glorious Trinity,</HI> NOT Explained, but A&s;&s;erted.</HEAD>
<P>IT is our great misfortune to live in this unhappy and li|centious Age, wherein the Ancient and <HI>Apo&s;tolical Go|vernment</HI> of the <HI>Church</HI> is reduced almo&s;t to a perfect <HI>Anarchy;</HI> in &s;o much that Men of corrupted Minds have took occa&s;ion from a <HI>gene|ral Liberty,</HI> allowed in favour to tender Con&s;ciences, to vent and &s;pread &s;everal <HI>erroneous Opini|ons,</HI> and &s;ome <HI>damnable Doctrines,</HI>
<PB N="2" REF="11">whereby they have already &s;e|duced, and are very like eternally to ruine, a great Number of ig|norant and too credulous Souls.</P>
<P>'Tis certain that the Here&s;ies of <HI>Arius, Sabellius, Macedonius, Soci|nus,</HI> and their Abetters, are more dangerous, and con&s;equently more to be abhorred, than any of tho&s;e Errors, which are taught by the Roman Church, which are &s;aid, <HI>Fundamentum tangere,</HI> to touch and &s;trike at the Foundation of our Chri&s;tian Faith, and that is bad enough; but the fore-named He|re&s;ies, which deny the Divinity of Chri&s;t and his Holy Spirit, the Trinity of Per&s;ons in the Glorious Godhead, and our Lord's Sati&s;|faction to his Father's Infinite Ju|&s;tice for the &s;in of Man, do <HI>Fun|damentum tollere,</HI> quite &s;ubvert and root up the main Foundati|on of our Faith, and that is a great deal wor&s;e.</P>
<P>The&s;e <HI>Here&s;ies</HI> are ju&s;tly charge|able with &s;ome tincture of <HI>A|thei&s;m;</HI>
<PB N="3" REF="11">for, though the Defenders of them do <HI>acknowledge</HI> a <HI>God,</HI> yet they <HI>contract</HI> and limit the <HI>Deity,</HI> by denying it in the <HI>Second</HI> and <HI>Third Per&s;ons,</HI> in whom it doth as <HI>really</HI> and as <HI>certainly</HI> &s;ub&s;i&s;t, as in the <HI>Fir&s;t.</HI> Now, among&s;t the croud of Hetrodox Opinions, which, &s;ince the late variety of our Civil Revolutions, through the great Indulgence of our Gover|nors, have been broached and &s;pread among&s;t us; the&s;e Pe&s;ti|lent Here&s;ies, long &s;ince very ju&s;t|ly condemned by the Catholick Church, have crept in, and found entertainment among&s;t &s;uch Per|&s;ons, as make, not the Word of God, but humane Rea&s;on, the Ground of their Faith.</P>
<P>The&s;e abominable Here&s;ies be|ing thus revived by Men, who bear and engro&s;s to them&s;elves the Name of <HI>&V;nitarians,</HI> as a mark of di&s;tinction, as if other Men, who own the <HI>Trinity</HI> of <HI>Per&s;ons,</HI> did not al&s;o own the <HI>&V;nity</HI> of
<PB N="4" REF="12"><HI>God;</HI> &s;everal Divines of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> Per&s;ons of <HI>great Pie|ty</HI> and <HI>excellent Parts,</HI> both natu|ral and acquired, have endeavour|ed to <HI>explain</HI> this My&s;terious Do|ctrine of the Trinity, with a de|&s;ign to <HI>acquit</HI> it from tho&s;e Ab&s;ur|dities, Contradictions, and that Impo&s;&s;ibility; with all which it &s;tands unju&s;tly charged by its Op|po&s;ers.</P>
<P>But although the&s;e &s;everal Ex|plications were very piou&s;ly in|tended by their re&s;pective Au|thors; I mean, to render this ab|&s;tru&s;e Doctrine the more intelli|gible and ea&s;ie to the Apprehen|&s;ions of Men, to remove all Scru|ples about it, and to obviate all Exceptions again&s;t it; yet it is too evident, that the&s;e Explications have not yet obtained any happy Succe&s;s; and it is to be feared, that they never will attain that ble&s;&s;ed End, for which they were de&s;igned. For,</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="5" REF="12"> 1. The&s;e Explications of this Doctrine, were they never &s;o con|vincing and &s;atisfactory in them|&s;elves, and to learned Per&s;ons; yet illiterate Men, who are the far greater part of Mankind, and do mo&s;t need the plaine&s;t In&s;tructions, can never receive any benefit from them; for, the&s;e Explications be|ing full of nice di&s;tinctions, and dre&s;&s;ed up in Logical, Metaphy&s;i|cal, and Schola&s;tick Terms; un|learned Men, who are perfect &s;trangers to &s;uch hard Notions, can never under&s;tand them.</P>
<P N="2">2. The&s;e Explications of this Doctrine have not proved con|vincing and &s;atisfactory to tho&s;e learned Men, who have been, and &s;till are its Oppo&s;ers. For, they yet rai&s;e Objections again&s;t it, and &s;till te&s;tifie as great a di&s;like of the&s;e Explications, as of the Do|ctrine it &s;elf intended to be ex|plained. Nay, they are &s;o far from being &s;atisfied, either with the Doctaine or its Explications,
<PB N="6" REF="13">that they have took occa&s;ion from the one to ridicule and &s;coff at both.</P>
<P>For the ble&s;&s;ed Trinity,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Con&s;idera|tions on the Explicati|ons of the Doctrine of the Trinity,</HI> p. 10.11.</NOTE> as its Doctrine &s;tands explained by &s;e|veral Men, is &s;tyled by way of Sarca&s;m and Irri&s;ion, The <HI>Cicero|nian,</HI> the <HI>Carte&s;ian,</HI> the <HI>Platonick,</HI> and the <HI>Peripatetick</HI> Trinity; as if this great Doctrine were found|ed upon, and could be maintain|ed by, not the <HI>Scriptures,</HI> but the <HI>Schools.</HI> I am per&s;uaded, that we had never heard of the&s;e and the like ba&s;e Affronts and Contume|lies again&s;t the Doctrine of the Trinity, had we never heard of &s;uch and &s;uch its Explications.</P>
<P>That late Explication, written by an acute Divine of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> is, as its Author hath very learnedly proved, the very Sentiment of the ancient <HI>Fathers</HI> and <HI>Schoolmen;</HI> and he, that &s;hall attempt to pen a better, hath very good luck, if he do not &s;tumble upon a wor&s;e. And yet as plau&s;i|ble
<PB N="7" REF="13">as that Explication is, as being invented and approved by Men of great Abilities; yet among&s;t our modern <HI>Socinians</HI> it hath but a ve|ry ill Character indeed. It's true, they are &s;o ju&s;t as to commend the Judgment of that eminent Per&s;on, who collected it, telling us, <HI>That it is a true and Oxthodox Explica|tion of what the Church intends to &s;ay;</HI> but as to the Explication it &s;elf, they pre&s;ently brand it with the mo&s;t ignominious Terms, and &s;ay, <HI>That it is a great &V;ntruth, a great piece of Non-&s;en&s;e, neither Ra|tional, nor Intelligible, nor Po&s;&s;i|ble.</HI></P>
<P>A Reproach mo&s;t in&s;ufferable! A Remark mo&s;t &s;hamefully refle|cting, not upon that learned <HI>Di|vine,</HI> who only delivered the Sen&s;e of the Church; but upon the uni|ver&s;ality of tho&s;e ancient <HI>Fathers</HI> and <HI>Schoolmen,</HI> who&s;e Authorities are cited by him; as if Sen&s;e and Rea&s;on, Learning and Divinity, were no where el&s;e to be found,
<PB REF="14">&s;ave only in <HI>Socinus, Crellius, Epi|&s;copius,</HI> and their Abetters.</P>
<P>Since therefore the Event of the&s;e late Explications, how well &s;oever de&s;igned, hath proved no better; I think it may be wi&s;hed, that they had been &s;pared; and the rather, becau&s;e they have not only expo&s;ed this great Doctrine of the ble&s;&s;ed Trinity to the Ob|loquies and Contempt of its pro|fe&s;&s;ed <HI>Adver&s;aries;</HI> but they have occa&s;ion'd hot Di&s;putes, open Con|te&s;ts, and bitter Animo&s;ities, be|twixt &s;ome of its known <HI>Friends.</HI> For, the Explications of this Do|ctrine being very different, &s;ome of our own Divines, even Men of great Abilities and Reputation in the <HI>Church</HI> of <HI>England,</HI> who do perfectly agree in the Truth and Sub&s;tance of this My&s;terious Do|ctrine, do as much di&s;agree in its Explications.</P>
<P>That &s;o it is, we learn from that late and learned Book of <HI>Animad|ver&s;ions,</HI> wherein one Divine hath
<PB N="9" REF="14">e&s;&s;ectually overthrown the <HI>new Hypothe&s;is</HI> of another; and too ju&s;tly charg'd its Author, that in|&s;tead of maintaining the <HI>Trinity</HI> in <HI>&V;nity,</HI> he had, by an unwary Expre&s;&s;ion, opened a gap for <HI>Tri|thei&s;m,</HI> the unhappy Brood of <HI>John Philoponus.</HI> It mu&s;t be confe&s;&s;ed that this Book of <HI>Animadver&s;ions</HI> was framed by a <HI>Rational Head,</HI> and written with a <HI>Golden Pen,</HI> but too deeply dipt in <HI>Vinegar</HI> and <HI>Gall;</HI> a Book, which, I think, had been much more <HI>commendable,</HI> had it been much le&s;s <HI>Satyrical;</HI> at lea&s;t con&s;idering that high Po&s;t, where|in the Per&s;on &s;o treated &s;tands; and that the <HI>Trithei&s;m,</HI> with which he is charged, might be charitably imputed to an <HI>over-&s;ight,</HI> a <GAP DESC="foreign">, the <HI>&s;lip</HI> of an incon&s;iderate Pen, &s;ince 'tis very far from being his avowed <HI>Profe&s;&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P>But, alas! all Men cannot learn that curious Art, which the Epi|grammati&s;t commends, <HI>Parcere per&s;onis, dicere de vitiis,</HI> &s;o to di|&s;tingui&s;h
<PB N="10" REF="15">betwixt <HI>Crimes</HI> and <HI>Per|&s;ons,</HI> &s;o to ab&s;tract the <HI>Fault</HI> from the <HI>Man,</HI> that commits it, as to cen&s;ure the one, yet not expo&s;e the other; at lea&s;t not in the high|e&s;t manner, not &s;o far, as any Man's Envy can provoke, or Wit enable.</P>
<P>Such &s;ad Inconveniencies, and &s;uch deplorable Conte&s;ts have a|ro&s;e from the Endeavours of Men to explain this My&s;terious Do|ctrine, which indeed can never be well explained.</P>
<P>Nor indeed can we wonder that it &s;hould be &s;o; for, 'tis ju&s;t with God to bla&s;t the Attempts of Men, who make bold to peep within that Curtain, which he him&s;elf hath drawn; and to pry into tho&s;e <HI>Arcana,</HI> tho&s;e Matters, which he hath thought fit as yet to conceal from us. That we might direct our wor&s;hip aright, it hath been the good Plea&s;ure of God &s;o far to reveal to us the Doctrine of the Trinity, as to a&s;&s;ure us, <HI>qu&ograve;d &s;it,</HI>
<PB N="11" REF="15">That there are indeed Three Glo|rious Per&s;ons in the Deity to be adored; but, <HI>quomod&ograve; &s;it,</HI> how it &s;hould be &s;o, the Scriptures do not inform us; nor do they allow us, much le&s;s oblige us, curiou&s;ly to enquire into it.</P>
<P>'Tis well &s;aid by one of the <HI>Greek</HI> Fathers, <GAP DESC="foreign">. When God hath revea|led any thing for a certain Truth, which the Rea&s;on of Man cannot readily comply with, if we di|&s;pute the Matter with our &s;elves or others, and demand, as the Virgin <HI>Mary</HI> did, <HI>How can this be?</HI> even &s;uch an Enquiry is a very &s;hrewd Argument, that we believe it not. But although &s;uch and &s;uch revealed Truths may be far above the reach of humane Un|der&s;tandings; yet when we have a clear Revelation for it, our own Rea&s;on doth oblige us to believe every thing to be a Truth, which that God, who cannot Lye, hath di&s;covered as &s;uch, though we
<PB N="12" REF="16">our &s;elves cannot comprehend it.</P>
<P>'Tis that we pretend to in &s;ome other Ca&s;es; for, the Doctrine of the Trinity is not the only Arti|cle of our Chri&s;tian Faith, which tran&s;cends the Apprehen&s;ion of hu|mane Rea&s;on; there are &s;ome o|ther Truths, which confound and puzzle our Under&s;tndings as well as this; and yet we commonly pretend to believe them. The <HI>Creation</HI> of this glorious Fabrick of Heaven and Earth without a|ny praeexi&s;tent Matter, is a thing &s;o contrary to Rea&s;on, that it pa&s;|&s;ed for an undoubted Maxim a|mong&s;t the old Philo&s;ophers, <HI>Ex nihilo, nihil fit,</HI> of nothing, nothing can be made. And as for the <HI>Re|&s;urrection</HI> of the Dead, the Rea|&s;on of Man judged it a thing &s;o ab&s;olutely impo&s;&s;ible, that when St. <HI>Paul</HI> preached it to the learned Men of <HI>Athens,</HI> they called him, <GAP DESC="foreign">, a mere Babler; and as for the Doctrine it &s;elf, the Text
<PB N="13" REF="16">&s;aith, <GAP DESC="foreign">, they mocked, <HI>Maxime ridiculum putantes Re&s;ur|rectionis my&s;terium,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Lorinus;</HI> They thought the My&s;tery of the Re&s;urrection, for &s;uch indeed it is, to be no better than a mo&s;t ridicu|lous Fable.</P>
<P>So did <HI>Cel&s;us</HI> in <HI>Origen,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Origen. contra Cel&s;. l. 5. p. 240. E|dit. Can|tabrig.</NOTE> where he thus demands, <GAP DESC="foreign">; What Body, be|ing once wholly corrupted, is in any capacity to be re&s;tored to its former Con&s;titution? 'Tis that, &s;aith he, which God <GAP DESC="foreign">, neither will do, nor can. And for that rea&s;on he &s;tyles our recour&s;e to God's Omni|potence, <GAP DESC="foreign">, a mo&s;t ab&s;urd Refuge; and &s;o pe|remptorily concludes, That the Doctrine of the Re&s;urrection is, <GAP DESC="foreign">, abominable, and impo&s;&s;ible.</P>
<P>Nor was <HI>Cel&s;us</HI> alone in this Opinion: for it was indeed the general Opinion of the mo&s;t
<PB N="14" REF="17">knowing Men in the Heathen World. <HI>Pliny,</HI> among&s;t other things, which he thought to be beyond the Power of God, men|tions the&s;e Two, <HI>Mortales aeterni|tate donare, vel revocare defunctos,</HI> To keep mortal Men from ever dying, or to revive them being dead. And of the latter <HI>Ae&s;chylus</HI> thus concludes, <GAP DESC="foreign">. Of a Man once dead there is no Re&s;urrection.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Tertul. de Re&s;ur. Carnis.</NOTE> And <HI>Tertullian</HI> tells us, That this Opi|nion, <HI>De una Omnium Philo&s;opho|rum Schola &s;umitur.</HI> Although the Immortality of Man's Soul was granted by many of the old Phi|lo&s;ophers; yet the Re&s;urrection of a dead Body di&s;&s;olved, corrupted, and crumbled into Du&s;t, and that Du&s;t di&s;&s;ipated, &s;cattered, and in|termingled, was generally denied by them all, as being in their Opi|nion an utter Impo&s;&s;ibility.</P>
<P>Now, though the Creation of the World out of Nothing, and I may add, the framing of Man's
<PB N="15" REF="17">Body, &s;o very curiou&s;ly wrought, <HI>ex inhabili materia,</HI> out of an un|toward and unlikely matter, al|together un&s;uitable to &s;uch a Pro|duction, and the Re&s;titution of the &s;ame Body, though quite corrupted, out of the &s;elf-&s;ame Du&s;t, though &s;catter'd and inter|mingled, of which it once con&s;i&s;t|ed; though the&s;e Acts do puzzle the Rea&s;on of all Mankind, and that to &s;uch a degree, as to be thought impracticable, and that by Men of choice Parts, and the mo&s;t approved Under&s;tandings; yet we of the Chri&s;tian Church do acknowledge the Creation, as an Act already done; and the Re&s;urrection, as an Act that cer|tainly will be, as undoubted Arti|cles of our Creed.</P>
<P>Tell me then, How come we to believe the Creation of the World, and the Re&s;urrection of the dead, being things which have &s;eem|ed impo&s;&s;ible to great numbers of other rational and learned Men?
<PB N="16" REF="18">Certain I am, that the Ground of our Faith in both the&s;e Ca&s;es can be nothing el&s;e, &s;ave only the written Word of God: For, we cannot think, without too much Arrogance, that our Under&s;tand|ings in the&s;e later days of the World, are &s;o much improved, as to be able merely by their own na|tural Light to di&s;cover the&s;e Truths, and to baffle all Objections again&s;t them, with &s;tronger Argu|ments, and clearer Evidence, than other Mens Rea&s;on could do in former Ages.</P>
<P>But it hath been the good Plea|&s;ure of God in this la&s;t Age of the World to ble&s;s the Catholick Church with a Divine Revelation, and to tell us clearly, e&s;pecially in his Go&s;pel, That as he created the World in its beginning, &s;o at its end he will rai&s;e the dead; and by virtue of &s;uch Te&s;timonies we mu&s;t think our &s;elves obliged to believe both, even though we cannot re&s;olve all Doubts, nor
<PB N="17" REF="18">an&s;wer all Objections framed a|gain&s;t either. And if &s;o, why &s;hould we not, by virtue of a like Warrant, believe the <HI>Trinity</HI> of Per&s;ons in the <HI>Godhead?</HI> 'Tis certain that <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and the <HI>Pro|phets,</HI> and our Lord's <HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> were all in&s;pired Men; and &s;ince they were &s;o, they are equally credible: Wherefore if we believe <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> when he tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Gen. 1.1.</NOTE> <HI>God crea|ted the Heavens and the Earth;</HI> if we believe St. <HI>Paul,</HI> when he &s;aith, <HI>There &s;hall be a Re&s;urrection both of the Ju&s;t and the &V;nju&s;t;</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Act. 24.15.</NOTE> Why &s;hould we not believe St. <HI>John,</HI> when he tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Joh. 5.7.</NOTE> <HI>There are Three that bear Record in Heaven?</HI> the Authority of which Text &s;hall in due time, and a more proper place, be con&s;idered.</P>
<P>Now, &s;ince a Divine Revelation is enough to &s;ilence all the Objecti|ons of Humane Rea&s;on again&s;t any Truths that are Revealed, the be&s;t, and I think, the only way to confute all the Cavils of our Mo|dern
<PB N="18" REF="19"><HI>Socinians</HI> again&s;t the Doctrine of the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Trinity</HI> is, not to attempt an Explanation of the <HI>manner</HI> how the&s;e glorious Per&s;ons are di&s;tingui&s;hed, but by <HI>Sacred Writ</HI> to prove their <HI>number,</HI> and the <HI>certainty</HI> of their di&s;tinction. And were this once effectually done; were the <HI>&V;nity</HI> of the <HI>Godhead</HI> con&s;i&s;tent with, and &s;ub|&s;i&s;ting in the <HI>Trinity</HI> of <HI>Per&s;ons,</HI> clearly demon&s;trated even to vul|gar Capacities by infallible Texts of Scripture, the <HI>Socinian</HI> Pre|tences of <HI>Impo&s;&s;ibility</HI> mu&s;t cea&s;e for ever. For it is an old Rule and a true one, <HI>Fru&s;tr&agrave; quaeritur de po&s;&s;e, c&ugrave;m con&s;tat de e&s;&s;e;</HI> When once 'tis evident, that any thing certainly is &s;o or &s;o, it were prodigious Folly to enquire any more, whether it might be &s;o. For 'tis another Rule, <HI>Quicquid e&s;t in Actu, fuit in Potentia;</HI> What&s;oe|ver is in pre&s;ent actual Being, mu&s;t needs be granted to have been in a former Capacity to be that which now it is.</P>
<PB N="19" REF="19">
<P> And upon this Con&s;ideration, had tho&s;e worthy Men who have endeavoured to di&s;cover the <HI>man|ner</HI> how the Three Glorious Per|&s;ons in the <HI>Trinity,</HI> though they are but <HI>One God,</HI> do yet &s;tand really di&s;tingui&s;hed from one a|nother; had they, I &s;ay, employ|ed their great Abilities in proving the <HI>certainty</HI> of their Di&s;tinction, they had, I think, more effectu|ally baffled the Oppo&s;ers of this great Doctrine, and thereby done far better Service to the Chri&s;tian Church.</P>
<P>If it be &s;aid, That this Work is happily done already; That the Doctrine of the <HI>Trinity</HI> hath been &s;ufficiently proved by &s;everal learned Men in &s;everal Ages, and &s;o needs no further Proofs: I an|&s;wer, for the &s;ame rea&s;on it needs no new <HI>Explications</HI> neither: For, have not the <HI>Fathers</HI> and <HI>Schoolmen</HI> already explained it as well as any <HI>other Man</HI> can hope to do? But withal, &s;o long as there &s;hall a|ri&s;e
<PB N="20" REF="20">a new <HI>Donatus</HI> or <HI>Pelagius,</HI> there will be need enough of a new St. <HI>Au&s;tin:</HI> If there &s;tart up another <HI>Arius,</HI> there is need enough of another <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> too: So long as there &s;hall be <HI>new Oppo|&s;ers</HI> of our Faith, it &s;hould have <HI>new Defenders.</HI> When <HI>old Here&s;ies</HI> are revived, the <HI>old Arguments</HI> mu&s;t be refre&s;hed, and newly mu&s;ter'd up again&s;t them.</P>
<P>Now, &s;ince this is the pre&s;ent and very unhappy Ca&s;e of the <HI>Church</HI> of <HI>England;</HI> &s;ince old He|re&s;ies, long &s;ince condemned by the Catholick Church, are now crept in among&s;t us, and propa|gated by Men who bear a new Name; who, becau&s;e there can be but <HI>One God,</HI> deny the Po&s;&s;ibi|lity of a <HI>Trinity</HI> of <HI>Per&s;ons,</HI> and charge the Doctrine of it with Contradictions, I &s;hall endeavour, by the Divine A&s;&s;i&s;tance, to make good this Doctrine, as to its <HI>Truth</HI> and <HI>Certainty.</HI></P>
<PB N="21" REF="20">
<P> To this end the u&s;e of <HI>Philo&s;o|phical Arguments</HI> from Humane Di&s;cour&s;e, ordinary <HI>Topicks,</HI> and Logical Conclu&s;ions, &s;ave only &s;uch as are founded in, and drawn from the Word of God, would be vain; for the Rea&s;on of Man of it &s;elf can never afford us any &s;olid Proofs to confirm &s;uch Do|ctrines, the Contents whereof do infinitely tran&s;cend its utmo&s;t Ca|pacity. We find indeed, that Men, who are loath to believe what they cannot comprehend, have employed their Under&s;tandings to find out &s;uch Arguments in oppo|&s;ition to the&s;e my&s;terious Truths, which mere natural Rea&s;on, with|out &s;ome higher Light, doth &s;carce know how to an&s;wer.</P>
<P>Were it my pre&s;ent Bu&s;ine&s;s to prove the <HI>Being</HI> and <HI>Attributes</HI> of God, it were ea&s;ie to produce Arguments from a great variety of Topicks; as from the Creation of the World, from the U&s;efulne&s;s, Beauty, and Order of the Uni|ver&s;e;
<PB N="22" REF="21">from the regular Motions of the Sun, Moon, and Stars; from the con&s;tant Succe&s;&s;ion of Night and Day, Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter; from the univer&s;al Con&s;ent of Nations; from the Faculties of the Ratio|nal Soul; from the &s;ecret Opera|tions of Con&s;cience, and from the Fears and Hopes of dying Men. And &s;ince God is <HI>Ens nece&s;&s;arium,</HI> a nece&s;&s;ary Being, <HI>Primus motor,</HI> the fir&s;t Mover, and original Cau&s;e of all created Beings, we may thence by Di&s;cour&s;e, and the &s;trength of natural Rea&s;on infer his Unity.</P>
<P>But when we are to prove a <HI>Trinity</HI> of <HI>Per&s;ons</HI> in the <HI>Godhead,</HI> there is but one way to do it, and that is by <HI>Divine Revelation,</HI> by the Te&s;timony of that God, who alone doth perfectly know his own Being, what&s;oever is in it, and belongs unto it. True it is, this Doctrine of a <HI>Trinity</HI> in <HI>&V;ni|ty</HI> being fir&s;t revealed in the Scrip|tures,
<PB N="23" REF="21">&s;ome things in <HI>Nature</HI> have been thought to be weak <HI>Em|blems,</HI> and imperfect Re&s;emblan|ces of it. As for in&s;tance; there is in the Sun, Light, Heat, and Influence; Three di&s;tinct things, and yet but One Sun; there is in the Soul of Man an Under|&s;tanding, a Will, and a Memory; the Soul of Man hath a Power of Rea&s;on, Sen&s;e, and Vegetation, Three di&s;tinct Faculties, and yet the Soul is but One. But, alas! the&s;e <HI>Similitudes</HI> are not <HI>Argu|ments;</HI> they are not u&s;ed as <HI>Grounds</HI> of our <HI>Faith,</HI> but only as <HI>Illu&s;trations</HI> to facilitate our Belief, and render it &s;omewhat the ea&s;ier. There is nothing found in na|ture that can demon&s;trate the <HI>certainty</HI> of a <HI>Trinity</HI> in <HI>&V;nity;</HI> but the&s;e faint Re&s;emblances are made u&s;e of to a&s;&s;i&s;t our Rea&s;on, and help our Con|ceptions in apprehending its <HI>Po&s;|&s;ibility.</HI></P>
<PB N="24" REF="22">
<P> Now that this Doctrine of the <HI>Trinity</HI> of Per&s;ons in the <HI>&V;nity</HI> of the Godhead, is not only <HI>po&s;&s;ible,</HI> but certainly <HI>true,</HI> I &s;hall endea|vour to evince again&s;t our Modern <HI>Socinians,</HI> who are the unhappy Spawn of the ancient <HI>Ebionites, Sa|bellians,</HI> and <HI>Arians,</HI> by the Te&s;ti|mony of God, recorded in the Holy Scriptures, as they have been expounded by tho&s;e pious and learned Men, who are de&s;ervedly e&s;teemed the mo&s;t judicious <HI>Cri|ticks,</HI> the able&s;t <HI>Interpreters,</HI> and the choice&s;t <HI>Defenders</HI> of the Ca|tholick Faith.</P>
<P>To prove the certainty of this great Doctrine I &s;hall u&s;e Three &s;orts of Texts. 1. Such Texts as in the Judgment of many learned Men, do import a <HI>Plurality</HI> of Per&s;ons, or more di&s;tinct Sub|&s;i&s;tences than One in the Deity. 2. Such Texts as do re&s;train and limit this Plurality of Per&s;ons to the number of <HI>Three,</HI> no more, no le&s;s. 3. Such Texts, as do
<PB N="25" REF="22">prove <HI>each</HI> of the&s;e <HI>Three</HI> di&s;tinct <HI>Per&s;ons,</HI> &s;ingly con&s;ider'd in his own <HI>Hypo&s;ta&s;is</HI> or <HI>Sub&s;i&s;tence,</HI> to be God; &s;o called, not <HI>Metaphorical|ly,</HI> as our <HI>Socinians</HI> would have it, but in the mo&s;t <HI>proper,</HI> &s;trict, and u&s;ual Sen&s;e of that Notion, as it imports a Being Eternal, Immen&s;e, Omnipotent, Omni&s;cient, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. There are &s;everal Texts, &s;ome of which do very <HI>probably,</HI> and &s;ome very <HI>certainly,</HI> import a <HI>Plurality</HI> of Per&s;ons, or di&s;tinct Sub&s;i&s;tences in the ever-ble&s;&s;ed Godhead.</P>
<P>So do &s;everal judicious Men in|terpret the very fir&s;t Ver&s;e of our Bible, as if it had been the Plea|&s;ure of Almighty God to give his Church a very early Intimati|on of this my&s;terious Doctrine, which was more clearly to be re|vealed in after-Ages. The Text runs thus:
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Gen. 1.1.</NOTE> <HI>In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.</HI> God, &s;o we read it: But 'tis o|therwi&s;e
<PB N="26" REF="23">in the <HI>Hebrew</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> So &s;aith the Original; which be|ing exactly tran&s;lated, mu&s;t be rendred thus: <HI>The Gods created.</HI> But are there more <HI>Gods</HI> than <HI>One,</HI> who had an hand in this great work of Creation? if not, Why is the only Creator here expre&s;|&s;ed by a Noun of the <HI>Plural</HI> num|ber? <HI>Pererius</HI> an&s;wers, That this Expre&s;&s;ion intimates, <HI>Divinarum Per&s;onarum Multitudinem;</HI> So he; and <HI>Mun&s;ter</HI> thus, <HI>In&s;inuatur ab ex|ordio Scripturae in Deo e&s;&s;e &amp; Plu|ralitatem &amp; &V;nitatem:</HI> And &s;o <HI>Fagius,</HI> who delivers it as the O|pinion of many other Divines; for thus he tells us, <HI>No&s;tri hinc colligunt Trinitatis My&s;terium, Tri|nitatem per&s;onarum &egrave; nomine Elohim, &V;nitatem Sub&s;tantiae ex adjuncto verbo &s;ingulari.</HI> From this Text do our Divines collect the My&s;tery of the <HI>Trinity,</HI> from the Noun <HI>Plural</HI> a <HI>di&s;tinction</HI> of Per&s;ons, and from the Verb <HI>&s;ingular</HI> joined with it, the <HI>&V;nity</HI> of E&s;&s;ence.</P>
<PB N="27" REF="23">
<P> From the &s;ame Text doth St. <HI>Augu&s;tine,</HI> that great Luminary of the Chri&s;tian Church, infer the Second Per&s;on in the Trinity: For his Words are the&s;e: <HI>Per&s;onam filii evidenter o&s;tendit;</HI> This Ex|pre&s;&s;ion doth evidently &s;hew the Per&s;on of God the Son: For whereas 'tis &s;aid, <HI>In the beginning God created the Heaven and Earth,</HI> this great Man doth thus demand, <HI>Quem alium Principium intelligen|dum putamus, ni&s;i filium?</HI> Whom el&s;e can we here under&s;tand by this Word <HI>Beginning</HI> but the Son? This Interpretation, which refers not to the <HI>Time,</HI> but to the <HI>Au|thor</HI> of the Creation, is much coun|tenanced by that which is given by the <HI>Targum</HI> of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> which tran&s;lates the fir&s;t Words of the Ver&s;e, not <HI>In Principio,</HI> In the <HI>Beginning,</HI> but <HI>In &s;apientia,</HI> In, or by <HI>Wi&s;dom;</HI> and under that No|tion many Chri&s;tian Writers have a&s;cribed it to our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, the Second Per&s;on in the Trinity;
<PB N="28" REF="24">being, as St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;peaks, <HI>The Wi&s;|dom of God, by whom he made the World.</HI></P>
<P>Accordingly St. <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI> el&s;e|where tells us:
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Aug. de Gen. ad Lit. l. 1. cap. 6.</NOTE> <HI>In ip&s;o exordio in|choatae Creaturae Trinitas in&s;inuatur Creatoris.</HI> In the very fir&s;t menti|on of the Creation there is a fair Intimation of our Creator's Trini|ty; for when <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> &s;aith, <HI>In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth: Intelligimus Patrem in Dei nomine, &amp; in Principii nomine Fi|lium.</HI> By the Word <HI>God,</HI> we un|der&s;tand the <HI>Father;</HI> and by the Word <HI>Beginning,</HI> we under&s;tand the <HI>Son;</HI> and &s;ince the next Ver&s;e mentions the Spirit of God, <HI>Com|pletam commemorationem Trinitatis agno&s;cimus;</HI> We own it as a com|pleat account of the Trinity: So thought this ancient and learned Father.</P>
<P>But there is another Ver&s;e in the &s;ame Chapter, which is, and well may be urged to prove a <HI>Plurality</HI> of Per&s;ons in the Deity;
<PB N="29" REF="24">where <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> brings in God Al|mighty &s;peaking thus,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Gen. 1.26.</NOTE> <HI>Let us make Man.</HI> Great St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> here puts this Que&s;tion,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ba&s;il. M. in Hex. Hom. 9.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">; Is there but <HI>One</HI> &s;ingle Per&s;on here mentioned and concerned in the Creation of Man? Doubtle&s;s there mu&s;t be <HI>Two</HI> at lea&s;t; the Per&s;on <HI>&s;peaking,</HI> and the Per&s;on or Per&s;ons <HI>&s;poke</HI> unto. But the Que&s;tion is, &s;aith <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Athan. Di|al. 3. de Trin. pag. (mihi) 224.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">; To <HI>whom</HI> did God &s;ay, <HI>Let us make Man?</HI> To this Que&s;tion there are Four An|&s;wers given.</P>
<P N="1">1. There is mention made by <HI>Mun&s;ter</HI> of one <HI>Mo&s;es Gerunden&s;is,</HI> who&s;e Opinion it was, that God Almighty &s;pake the&s;e Words, <HI>Let us make Man,</HI> to the <HI>Earth;</HI> as if God and the Earth, as <HI>Co-workers,</HI> made Man betwixt them; the <HI>Earth</HI> his Body, and God his Soul.</P>
<P>St. <HI>Paul</HI> indeed rightly tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 15.47.</NOTE> <HI>The first Man is of the Earth,
<PB N="30" REF="25">Earthy,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, made of the Earth. But though he was made of the Earth, yet he was not made by the Earth: For <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> &s;aith, <HI>The Lord God formed Man of the Du&s;t of the Ground.</HI> The Earth did in|deed contain in it the Materials of <HI>Adam</HI>'s Body, but contributed nothing towards its <HI>Frame:</HI> There was not in the Earth any Active Principle that could enable it to tran&s;mute its own Du&s;t into Fle&s;h, Blood, Bones, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> There was not in the Earth any &s;uch <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;uch a formative Vertue, as could any way tend towards the Compo&s;ure of &s;uch a curious and mo&s;t admirable piece of Work, as the Body of Man mo&s;t certain|ly is; For &s;o intimates the P&s;almi&s;t, where he &s;aith,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s; 139.14.</NOTE> <HI>I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Acu pictus &s;um;</HI> My Body is &s;o curiou&s;ly wrought, as if it were embroidered by the Work of a Needle: And if &s;o, could the dull Earth do this? it could no more <HI>quicken</HI> or <HI>frame
<PB N="31" REF="25">Adam</HI>'s Body, than it can now <HI>re&s;tore</HI> or <HI>revive</HI> its dead.</P>
<P>No; in the Creation of <HI>Adam</HI>'s Body the Earth was wholy <HI>Pa&s;|&s;ive,</HI> as indeed all other Matter is, of which any Arti&s;t makes &s;uch or &s;uch a Ve&s;&s;el; the whole Work was God's, and done by his Al|mighty Power: For, if it were a Miracle in <HI>Egypt</HI> for Du&s;t to be turned into Lice, then certainly for Du&s;t to be turned into the Bo|dy of a Man, of an erect &s;tature, con&s;i&s;ting of various Members, artificially placed in a mo&s;t ex|cellent Order, can be no le&s;s.</P>
<P>Now, if it would be perfect Folly for any Workman to &s;ay to his Materials, <HI>Let us make &s;uch or &s;uch a thing,</HI> What rea&s;on hath a|ny Man to think, that God &s;hould &s;ay to the Earth, <HI>Let us make Man?</HI> 'Tis certain, that God Al|mighty could not want any a&s;|&s;i&s;tance towards the Creation of Man; and 'tis as certain, that if he had needed any help, the Earth
<PB N="32" REF="26">could have yielded him none. So that this fir&s;t Opinion de&s;erves ra|ther to be <HI>exploded</HI> with <HI>Contempt,</HI> as being ridiculous, than to be <HI>confuted</HI> by <HI>Arguments,</HI> as if there were any &s;hew of Rea&s;on and pro|bability in it.</P>
<P N="2">2. The Second Opinion about this matter is this; &s;ome have thought, that when God &s;aid, <HI>Let us make Man,</HI> he &s;pake of and to <HI>Him&s;elf,</HI> according to the pre|&s;ent Cu&s;tom of the <HI>Kings</HI> and Princes of this World; who, to &s;hew their Power, Maje&s;ty, and Di&s;tinction from other Men, are commonly wont to &s;peak of them|&s;elves, though but <HI>&s;ingle</HI> Per&s;ons, in the <HI>Plural</HI> number.</P>
<P>But this Opinion is a meer Conjecture, for which there is no Ground; 'tis indeed a frivolous pretence fir&s;t imagined by &s;uch Per&s;ons as were Enemies to the Divinity of Chri&s;t, and would fain exclude him from being con|cerned in this Text, and con&s;e|quently
<PB N="33" REF="26">from having any Hand in the Creation of Man. 'Tis indeed the u&s;ual Style of <HI>Earthly Kings</HI> and Princes to &s;peak of them&s;elves in the <HI>Plural</HI> number; to &s;ay, <HI>We, &V;s,</HI> and <HI>Our:</HI> But this is not the u&s;ual Style of <HI>Almighty God:</HI> For among&s;t tho&s;e thou&s;ands of Texts, wherein God &s;peaks of him&s;elf, there are but <HI>Five</HI> to be found, wherein he doth not &s;peak in the <HI>Singular</HI> number.</P>
<P>'Tis ob&s;erved, that the Kings of this World, to &s;hew their So|vereign Authority and Dominion over their Subjects, do &s;peak of them&s;elves in the Plural number at no time &s;o much, as when they &s;end forth their <HI>Royal Edicts</HI> and <HI>Proclamations;</HI> their common Style then runs thus, <HI>We Command; 'Tis Our Royal Will and Plea&s;ure.</HI> And certainly if it had been the Plea&s;ure of God to di&s;play his Glory, and to &s;hew his ab&s;olute and univer&s;al Dominion after the &s;ame manner, he would have
<PB N="34" REF="27">done it, when there was mo&s;t occa&s;ion for it; I mean, when he came to pre&s;cribe and proclaim his <HI>Royal Law.</HI> But this he did not do; for <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Exod. 20.1</NOTE> <HI>God &s;pake the&s;e Words and &s;aid;</HI> but what did he &s;ay? And how did he &s;tyle him&s;elf? Why thus, <GAP DESC="foreign"><HI>I am the Lord?</HI> 'Tis not <HI>We,</HI> in the <HI>Plural,</HI> but <HI>I,</HI> in the <HI>&s;ingular</HI> number. And &s;ince God, to &s;hew his Maje&s;ty, did not u&s;e this manner of Speech, when there was the greate&s;t Rea|&s;on for it, we may ea&s;ily think, that he did not u&s;e it to that end, when there was far le&s;s Rea&s;on, if any at all.</P>
<P>But methinks this fond Cavil &s;hould not be &s;o much as pretend|ed to elude another Text, where God &s;peaks after the &s;ame manner; <HI>Behold,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Gen. 3.22.</NOTE> <HI>the Man is become as one of &V;s:</HI> Here again God was plea&s;ed to &s;peak of him&s;elf in the <HI>Plural</HI> number; but why &s;o? 'tis very &s;eldom that he doth it, and why then here? There was now no ex|traordinary
<PB N="35" REF="27">occa&s;ion for him to &s;hew the greatne&s;s of his Maje&s;ty, like the Kings of this World, by a form of Speech, common in|deed to them, but to him very unu&s;ual. No, St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> hath left us another, and a far better ac|count of it than this; for thus he &s;aith,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ba&s;il. M. adver&s;us Eunom. l. 5. p. 132.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">. 'Tis evident, that God doth not here &s;peak of him&s;elf, as of <HI>one</HI> &s;ingle per&s;on only; but he &s;peaks of him&s;elf in the Plural number, for this Rea&s;on, <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. That we might under&s;tand, that together with him&s;elf he reckon'd his Son and his Holy Spirit.</P>
<P>But there is yet another Branch of this Opinion, as if God &s;pake the&s;e Words, <HI>Let &V;s make Man,</HI> not only <HI>of</HI> him&s;elf in the <HI>Plu|ral</HI> number, with a de&s;ign to di&s;play his Glory, but <HI>to</HI> him|&s;elf alone. With this Opinion, St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> in his afore-named Book doth charge the <HI>Jews,</HI> who a&s;&s;er|ted,
<PB N="36" REF="28"><GAP DESC="foreign">, That God did here di&s;cour&s;e in a Soliloquy with him&s;elf alone. This Opinion that learned Man de&s;er|vedly thought to be very ab&s;urd, and &s;uch a Practice to be &s;eldom or never &s;een; for thus he de|mands, <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. What Smith, what Carpenter, what Shoemaker, &s;it|ting alone among&s;t his Tools, and having no other Man to work with him, doth even &s;peak to him&s;elf, and &s;ay, Let <HI>us</HI> make a <HI>Sword,</HI> a <HI>Plow,</HI> a <HI>Shoe?</HI> as that Father there goeth on. And if this Practice be a thing unu&s;al, and would be thought but fooli&s;h among&s;t Men, we cannot without Bla&s;phemy a&s;cribe the &s;ame thing to God. But,</P>
<P N="3">3. The Third Opinion about this Matter is this; namely, That when God &s;aid, <HI>Let &V;s make Man,</HI>
<PB N="37" REF="28">he &s;pake the&s;e Words to his <HI>An|gels;</HI> as if tho&s;e ble&s;&s;ed Spirits had an Hand in our Creati|on.</P>
<P>With this Opinion al&s;o doth great St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> charge the <HI>Jews,</HI> who &s;ay, <GAP DESC="foreign">,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ba&s;il. M. in Hex. Hom. 9.</NOTE> God &s;pake the&s;e Words to <HI>many</HI> Per|&s;ons, even the <HI>Angels</HI> that &s;tood round about him. The &s;ame Opi|nion doth St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> charge them with:
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Chry&s;o&s;to|mus in Gen. 1.26.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">; The <HI>Jews</HI> &s;ay, That God &s;pake the&s;e Words to &s;ome of his <HI>Angels,</HI> or <HI>Archangels.</HI> And why they &s;aid &s;o, St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ba&s;il. M. u|bi &s;upr&aacute;.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">; The <HI>Jews,</HI> de&s;pi&s;ing the Son of God, confer upon his Servants the Dig|nity of being his Fellow-Coun|&s;ellors, and make our Fellow-Servants the Lords of our Creati|on.</P>
<PB N="38" REF="29">
<P> St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> calls this Opinion, <GAP DESC="foreign">, a <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Fiction, and St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> in dete&s;tation of it, breaks out after his Rhetorical manner; <GAP DESC="foreign">; O the madne&s;s! O the great Impu|dence of the&s;e <HI>Jews!</HI> For when God &s;aid, <HI>Let &V;s make Man after our own Image,</HI> 'tis evident, that he &s;pake to &s;ome Per&s;ons, who&s;e I|mage was the &s;elf-&s;ame with his own; but that cannot be &s;aid of <HI>Angels.</HI> For, as St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> demands, <GAP DESC="foreign">; Is the Image of God and Angels One and the &s;ame? No, 'tis St. <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI>'s peremptory A&s;&s;ertion,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 16. cap. 6.</NOTE> <HI>Nefas e&s;t credere ad Imaginem Ange|lorum hominem e&s;&s;e factum, aut ean|dem e&s;&s;e Imaginem Angelorum &amp; Dei;</HI> To believe that Man was made after the Image of Angels; or that the Image of God and Angels is the &s;ame, 'tis no le&s;s than &s;in.</P>
<PB N="39" REF="29">
<P> For the Scriptures do every where a&s;cribe the Creation of Man, not to <HI>Angels,</HI> but to <HI>God</HI> alone; and of him 'tis &s;aid, <HI>He</HI> Created, not <HI>They,</HI> importing God and Angels; but in the &s;in|gular number, <HI>He,</HI> importing none but God: 'Tis &s;aid again, <HI>God created Man,</HI> not in <HI>Their</HI> I|mage, but <HI>his own.</HI></P>
<P>Now, from the Authority of this and other Texts we may &s;afely conclude, That this Speech of God, <HI>Let &V;s make Man after our own Image,</HI> could not be dire|cted to <HI>Angels;</HI> the contrary Opi|nion being, as St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> well &s;tyles it, <GAP DESC="foreign">, the mere <HI>dotage</HI> of the blind and blocki&s;h <HI>Jews.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. The fourth Opinion about this Matter is this, namely, That when God &s;aid, <HI>Let &V;s make Man,</HI> he &s;pake the&s;e Words to his only <HI>Son,</HI> and to his Holy <HI>Spirit.</HI></P>
<P>This was the General Opinion of the ancient <HI>Fathers,</HI> and of the
<PB N="40" REF="30">later and be&s;t Interpreters; &s;o thought <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Athan de Virgin. Tom. 3. p. 1043. Athan. Di|al. 3. de Trin Tom. 2. pag. 224.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, God &s;pake the&s;e Words to his <HI>Son;</HI> and &s;o el&s;ewhere, <GAP DESC="foreign">, God the Father &s;pake thus to God the Son. Of the &s;ame Judgment was <HI>Cyril</HI> of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> who&s;e Ob&s;er|vation is this; God did not &s;ay, <HI>Let &V;s make Man,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cyril. Cat. 10. pag. 84.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, Not according to <HI>My</HI> Image, but ac|cording to <HI>Our</HI> Image; and for that he gives this Rea&s;on, <GAP DESC="foreign">, When God &s;aid, <HI>Let &V;s make Man,</HI> and, ac|cording to <HI>Our</HI> Image, with him|&s;elf he comprehended his <HI>Son,</HI> that it might be made evident, That the Creation of Man was the Workman&s;hip, not only of God the <HI>Father,</HI> but al&s;o of our <HI>Lord Je&s;us</HI> Chri&s;t, he al&s;o being the true God. To the&s;e Te&s;timo|nies
<PB N="41" REF="30">we may add that of St. <HI>Chry|&s;o&s;tom,</HI> who having put this que|&s;tion, <GAP DESC="foreign">; Who is this,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Chry&s;. in Gen. Hom. 8.</NOTE> to whom God &s;aid, <HI>Let &V;s make Man?</HI> return'd this An&s;wer, <GAP DESC="foreign">; and at la&s;t, more plainly thus, <GAP DESC="foreign">, to whom el&s;e did God &s;peak the&s;e Words, but to him who is the Angel of his great Coun&s;el, his wonderful Fellow-Coun&s;ellor, the Potentate, even the only begotten Son of God? And accordingly St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> doth in&s;tance in the Creation of Man, as a proof of this Propo&s;ition,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ba&s;il. M. adver&s;&ugrave;s Eunom. l. 4. p. 89.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, The Operation of the Son and of the Father is one and the &s;ame:</P>
<P>But this Expre&s;&s;ion, <HI>Let &V;s make Man,</HI> mu&s;t not be &s;o applied to God the <HI>Son,</HI> as to exclude God the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> nor did the ancient Fathers ever &s;o intend it; for they take in the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Spirit</HI> too. So doth St <HI>Ba&s;il,</HI> who puts
<PB N="42" REF="31">the Que&s;tion thus, <GAP DESC="foreign">; To whom did God &s;ay, <HI>Let &V;s make Man,</HI> &s;ave only to the <HI>Word,</HI> by whom all things were made, and to the <HI>Spirit?</HI> To the &s;ame purpo&s;e &s;peaks <HI>Atha|na&s;ius,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Athan. Di|al. 3. de Trin. Tom. 2. p. 227.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">. God, together with his <HI>Son</HI> and his Holy <HI>Spirit,</HI> created Man. And &s;o <HI>Gregory Ny&s;&s;en,</HI> who tells us, that when <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> &s;aith, <HI>God made Man in his own Image;</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">; He means God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.</P>
<P>St. <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI> in &s;everal places hath declared him&s;elf to be of the &s;ame Judgment; for, expounding the&s;e Words,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Aug de Civ. dei, l. 16. cap. 6.</NOTE> <HI>Let &V;s make Man,</HI> he &s;aith, <HI>Recte illic intelligitur plu|ralitas Trinitatis.</HI> And again he &s;aith, that God &s;pake of him&s;elf in the <HI>Plural</HI> number,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Aug. de Gen. ad lit. l. 1. cap. 6.</NOTE> <HI>Ad in&s;inu|andum &s;cilicet Trinitatem Per&s;ona|rum,</HI> To give us a fair Intimati|on
<PB N="43" REF="31">of the <HI>Trinity;</HI> for, &s;aith he, &s;ince this Expre&s;&s;ion runs in the <HI>Plural</HI> number; <HI>Non recte diceretur,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Aug. de Trin. l. 12. cap. 6.</NOTE> <HI>&s;i homo ad unius per&s;onae imaginem fi|eret<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">;</HI> This Expre&s;&s;ion could not have been right, had Man been created after the Image of <HI>One</HI> Per&s;on only.</P>
<P>The Te&s;timony of this Text I &s;hall conclude with that Expre&s;&s;ion of <HI>Elias Creten&s;is, Verba illa,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Elias Cre|ten&s;is in Nazian. or. 1. pag. 213.</NOTE> <HI>faciamus hominem, filium cum Patre Creato|rem e&s;&s;e o&s;tendunt;</HI> Tho&s;e Words of God, <HI>Let &V;s make Man,</HI> do &s;hew, that the <HI>Son,</HI> together with the <HI>Father,</HI> was Man's Creator. So that in the Judgment of the&s;e learned Men whom I have cited, this Text doth prove the thing for which I brought it, I mean a <HI>Plu|rality</HI> of Per&s;ons in the ever-ble&s;&s;ed Godhead.</P>
<P>But had the&s;e Authorities been in&s;ufficient, I might have added more; and particularly that of <HI>Tertullian,</HI> who expre&s;ly &s;aith,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Tert. ad|ver&s;us Praxeam. cap. 12.</NOTE> That God Almighty was plea&s;ed
<PB N="44" REF="32">in this Text, <HI>Let &V;s make Man,</HI> to &s;peak of him&s;elf in the <HI>Plural</HI> number; for this rea&s;on, <HI>Quia jam adhaerebat illi filius, &s;ecunda Per&s;ona; &amp; Tertia, Spiritus;</HI> Be|cau&s;e his Son and his Spirit, a Se|cond and a Third Per&s;on, were already, before the Creation of Man, clo&s;ely united to him.</P>
<P>And now from the&s;e and the like Te&s;timonies we may learn what was the Judgment of the an|cient Fathers about the Sen&s;e of this Text, <HI>Let &V;s make Man,</HI> and of the intention of God in it; they did not imagine, that God here, or any where el&s;e, &s;pake of him&s;elf in. the <HI>Plural</HI> number to &s;hew his <HI>Maje&s;ty,</HI> as the Kings of this World are now wont to do: Nor did they think that God &s;pake the&s;e Words to <HI>Him&s;elf</HI> alone, as one <HI>&s;ingle</HI> Per&s;on, or to his <HI>Angels,</HI> who were then about him; the&s;e Opi|nions are only the Dreams of <HI>Jews</HI> and <HI>Hereticks,</HI> who are glad of any pretence to e&s;cape the force of all
<PB N="45" REF="32">&s;uch Texts, which in oppo&s;ition to their great Error, do evince and prove a <HI>Plurality</HI> of Glorious Per&s;ons in the Godhead, of which number this Text is one, if we may rely upon the Judgment of tho&s;e ancient and very learned <HI>Fathers,</HI> who, writing with more Rea&s;on, and le&s;s Prejudice, are much more to be valued than <HI>Jews</HI> or <HI>Socinians.</HI></P>
<P>And &s;ince our <HI>Socinians,</HI> to prove that God is but One, draw an Argument from the Fir&s;t Com|mandment, which runs thus, <HI>Thou &s;halt have no other Gods before me;</HI> Or as it is in our Liturgy, <HI>But me.</HI> Since they from the Pronoun <HI>Me,</HI> being of the <HI>Singular</HI> number, in|fer the Unity of the <HI>Godhead;</HI> why might not the Fathers, as indeed they do, from the Pro|noun <HI>&V;s,</HI> infer the Plurality of <HI>Per&s;ons?</HI></P>
<P>But becau&s;e <HI>Jews</HI> and <HI>Socinians</HI> are not &s;atisfied with the&s;e or a|ny other Texts out of the Old
<PB N="46" REF="33">Te&s;tament, which they interpret another, though far more impro|bable, way; the <HI>Jews,</HI> who quite ca&s;hiere the whole New Te&s;ta|ment, mu&s;t be left under their pre&s;ent Judicial blindne&s;s; but for the conviction of &s;uch as believe the Go&s;pel, and yet que&s;tion this great Doctrine of the Trinity, I &s;hall thence produce a Text or two, which prove a <HI>Plurality</HI> of Per|&s;ons in the Deity, with as clear Evidence as any Words can give.</P>
<P>The Texts which I &s;hall pro|duce, were penned by St. <HI>John;</HI> to who&s;e Go&s;pel I &s;hall at pre&s;ent confine my &s;elf; not for want of other Te&s;timonies, but becau&s;e St. <HI>John</HI> wrote his Go&s;pel purpo&s;e|ly to confirm the <HI>Divinity</HI> of Chri&s;t; and the occa&s;ion of his doing &s;o was this: In the time of his Bani&s;hment and Ab&s;ence from his Flock, certain pe&s;tilent Here|&s;ies were crept into the Church, and particularly that of <HI>Cerinthus</HI>
<PB N="47" REF="33">and <HI>Ebion,</HI> a Man who a&s;&s;erted, That our Lord was conceived and born, as all other Men are; That he had a Man for his Father, as well as a Woman for his Mo|ther; That before his Birth from <HI>Jo&s;eph</HI> and <HI>Mary</HI> he had no being, and con&s;equently that he was not God.</P>
<P>Now, to &s;tifle this damnable Here&s;ie, like a deadly Cockatrice, in the Egg, and to prevent its future growth, St. <HI>John,</HI> as an ancient Author tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Prafat. in ad Aug. ex|po&s;. in Jo|aunis E|vangelium.</NOTE> <HI>Compul|&s;us ab Epi&s;copis A&s;iae de Coaeterna Patri Divinitate Chri&s;ti &s;crip&s;it ad|ver&s;us Haereticos, qui Chri&s;tum ante Mariam fui&s;&s;e negabant.</HI> St. <HI>John</HI> being importuned by the Bi&s;hops of <HI>A&s;ia,</HI> wrote his Go&s;pel again&s;t tho&s;e Hereticks, who denied that Chri&s;t had any being, till he was born of <HI>Mary;</HI> and in this Go&s;pel, to the confu&s;ion of tho&s;e Hereticks, he hath delivered the Doctrine of Chri&s;t's <HI>Divinity,</HI> as being co|eternal with God his Father.</P>
<PB N="48" REF="34">
<P> The like Story is recorded by <HI>Eu&s;ebius,</HI> though with &s;ome diffe|rent Circum&s;tances; for, of St. <HI>John</HI> he &s;peaks thus,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Eu&s;eb. Hi&s;t. Eccle&s;. l. 6. cap. 14.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">; St. <HI>John</HI> well know|ing that the other Evangeli&s;ts, who had wrote before him, had delivered the Hi&s;tory of Chri&s;t, e&s;pecially as it related to his Hu|mane Nature, and the Actions done therein, being &s;o exhorted by his Friends, and moved by the Spirit of God, wrote a Spiritual Go&s;pel; and that, as the &s;ame Hi&s;torian &s;aith el&s;ewhere,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Eu&s;eb Hi&s;t. Eccle&s;. l. 3. cap. 24.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, beginning his Go|&s;pel with the Doctrine of our Lord's Divinity. And why the delivering of this great Doctrine was by the ble&s;&s;ed Spirit of God re&s;erved for St. <HI>John,</HI> and not committed to the other Evange|li&s;ts, the Hi&s;torian hath left us this Account; namely, That the clear
<PB N="49" REF="34">Revelation of our Lord's Divini|ty was left to St. <HI>John,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, as to one that was better, as being what he is called, <GAP DESC="foreign">, Chri&s;t's <HI>bo&s;om</HI> Friend, and more beloved than any of the other Apo&s;tles.</P>
<P>Now, &s;ince this beloved Di&s;ci|ple, by the In&s;piration of God, wrote his Go&s;pel on purpo&s;e to o|verthrow the Here&s;ie of <HI>Ebion</HI> and his Followers, who a&s;&s;erted, That our ble&s;&s;ed Redeemer was but a meer Man, and nothing more; we have all rea&s;on to con|clude, that tho&s;e u&s;ual Texts which are cited out of this Go|&s;pel as pregnant Proofs of our Lord's Divinity, were intended as &s;uch by the Holy <HI>Spirit,</HI> who <HI>dicta|ted,</HI> and by the <HI>Evangeli&s;t</HI> him&s;elf, who wrote them.</P>
<P>The fir&s;t of the&s;e Proofs is con|tained in the very fir&s;t Ver&s;e of this Go&s;pel, which runs thus;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 1.1.</NOTE> <HI>In the beginning was the Word,</HI> and <HI>the Word was with God,</HI> and <HI>the
<PB N="50" REF="35">Word was God;</HI> a Text &s;o expre&s;s, that it cannot be fairly interpreted any other way, nor without much violence wre&s;ted to any other Sen&s;e, &s;ave only that wherein the A&s;&s;ertours of our Lord's <HI>Divine Nature</HI> do generally under&s;tand it.</P>
<P>Why our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour is here called, <GAP DESC="foreign">, the <HI>Word,</HI> I am not now concerned to enquire: And that his Sacred Per&s;on is certainly meant by the <HI>Word,</HI> I need not &s;tand to prove, becau&s;e I think that the <HI>Socinians</HI> them&s;elves do generally grant it. And indeed, con|&s;idering the &s;ub&s;equent Ver&s;es in the Context, they cannot without &s;hame deny it, nor with any &s;hew of Rea&s;on &s;o much as doubt it.</P>
<P>Now, 'tis &s;aid of this Word, <GAP DESC="foreign">, He <HI>was;</HI> 'tis not &s;aid, He was <HI>made,</HI> or <HI>created,</HI> but He <HI>was,</HI> He had a Being, and that <HI>In the beginning</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>from the beginning,</HI> not only the beginning of the <HI>World</HI> and <HI>Time;</HI> for our
<PB N="51" REF="35">Lord was, as <HI>Nonnus</HI> &s;tyles him, <GAP DESC="foreign">, without and before all time, <GAP DESC="foreign">, before all Creatures; as <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr</HI> tells us, cited by <HI>Grotius;</HI> who al&s;o &s;aith, <HI>Mos e&s;t Hebraeus,</HI> &amp;c. The <HI>Hebrews</HI> are wont by this Expre&s;&s;ion to de&s;cribe <HI>Eternity.</HI> And &s;o doth St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> expound it,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Chry&s;o&s;t. in <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">oan. Hom. 3.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">; This Expre&s;|&s;ion, <HI>The Word was,</HI> &s;heweth only his eternal Being.</P>
<P>The Text goeth on, and tells us, <HI>The Word was with God,</HI> where by that known Rule, <GAP DESC="foreign">; we mu&s;t under&s;tand that the <HI>Word was with God in the beginning,</HI> and &s;ince he was, 'tis well ob&s;erved by <HI>Clarius, Ecce Per&s;onarum di&s;tinctio|nem:</HI> Here we may &s;ee the di&s;tin|ction of the Divine Per&s;ons; for, as <HI>Tertullian</HI> rightly argueth,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Tert adv Prax. cap. 21.</NOTE> <HI>In|dubitant&egrave;r alius o&s;tenditur, qui fuc|rit &agrave; Principio, alius apud quem fuit;</HI> without all doubt, he that was with God, is thereby &s;hewed to be
<PB N="52" REF="36">one Per&s;on, and that God, with whom he was, is another; for 'tis not imaginable, that the Evangeli&s;t &s;hould mean that One Per&s;on was with him&s;elf.</P>
<P>And as this Expre&s;&s;ion, <HI>The Word was with God,</HI> doth nece&s;&s;arily imply a <HI>di&s;tinction</HI> of <HI>Per&s;ons,</HI> &s;o doth the next Clau&s;e as nece&s;&s;arily import an <HI>Identity</HI> of <HI>Nature;</HI> for 'tis expre&s;ly &s;aid, <HI>The Word was God;</HI> though a di&s;tinct Per&s;on, yet One and the &s;ame God. And this is yet farther evident from our Lord's own Mouth; for thus he &s;aith,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 10.30.</NOTE> <HI>I and my Father are One.</HI> The&s;e Words, <HI>I and my Father,</HI> do undeniably prove the <HI>di&s;tincti|on</HI> of their <HI>Per&s;ons;</HI> and whereas he &s;aith, <HI>I and my Father are One,</HI> that clearly &s;heweth the <HI>&V;nity</HI> of their <HI>E&s;&s;ence.</HI> 'Tis not &s;aid in the Ma&s;culine Gender, <HI>I and my Father are</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, One Per&s;on; but in the Neuter, <GAP DESC="foreign">, I and my Father are One <HI>thing;</HI> and if that thing be not the <HI>Divine Being,</HI> they cannot
<PB N="53" REF="36">be <HI>One.</HI> For, &s;ince the <HI>Father</HI> is confe&s;&s;ed to be <HI>God,</HI> the <HI>Son</HI> can|not be <HI>One</HI> thing with him, unle&s;s he be <HI>God</HI> too.</P>
<P>And in this Sen&s;e, according to the genuine Con&s;truction of the Words did our Saviour's Hearers rightly under&s;tand this Speech of his; for when our Lord had &s;aid, <HI>I and my Father are One;</HI> the Evangeli&s;t tells us in the very next Ver&s;e, <HI>Then the Jews took up Stones again to &s;tone him,</HI> and gave this Rea&s;on for it; <HI>We &s;tone thee for Bla&s;phemy, becau&s;e thou, being a Man, make&s;t thy &s;elf God.</HI> The <HI>Jews</HI> took his meaning right, and were &s;atisfied, that when he &s;aid, <HI>I and my Father are One,</HI> he made him&s;elf <HI>God;</HI> and indeed &s;o he was, and his Words do &s;o clearly import it, that if he had not been God, for this Speech of his he had de&s;erved to die.</P>
<P>I know that our <HI>Socinians,</HI> to elude the force of the&s;e Words, which make &s;o much again&s;t them, do find them&s;elves concerned to
<PB N="54" REF="37">interpret them another way, as if their meaning were this, <HI>I and my Father are One; i.</HI> &s;ay they, there is, <GAP DESC="foreign">, we are One in <HI>Will</HI> and <HI>Affection.</HI> And indeed &s;o they are; 'tis a great Truth, but withal 'tis &s;uch a Truth, as is not the proper import of this Text: For the Connexion of our Lord's Di&s;cour&s;e in the Context doth naturally lead us to another Interpretation;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 10.28, 29.</NOTE> for, having &s;aid, <HI>No Man &s;hall pluck my Sheep out of my Hand:</HI> And again, <HI>No Man is able to pluck them out of my Father's Hand;</HI> he gave us an Intimation that his Sheep were equally &s;afe in his <HI>Father</HI>'s Hand, and in his <HI>own</HI> too; and then immediately &s;ub|joyned this Rea&s;on for it, <HI>I and my Father are One;</HI> but in what Re&s;pects are they One?
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Chry&s;o&s;t. in Joan. Hom. 61.</NOTE> St. <HI>Chry|&s;o&s;tom</HI> an&s;wers, <GAP DESC="foreign">; They are one in <HI>Power;</HI> and thence he draweth this inference, <GAP DESC="foreign">; If betwixt the Father and the Son
<PB N="55" REF="37">there be an <HI>Identity</HI> of <HI>Power;</HI> 'tis very manife&s;t, that there is an <HI>I|dentity</HI> of <HI>E&s;&s;ence</HI> too.</P>
<P>To the &s;ame purpo&s;e doth <HI>Theophylact</HI> expound this Text,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Theophyl. in locum.</NOTE> <HI>I and my Father are One:</HI> But how are they One? He an&s;wers, <GAP DESC="foreign">; They are one in <HI>Nature, E&s;&s;ence,</HI> and <HI>Power;</HI> and &s;o concludes, That by the&s;e Words our Lord did make him&s;elf to be, <GAP DESC="foreign">, Con&s;ub&s;tantial with God.</P>
<P><HI>Gregory Nazianzen</HI> expounding this Text, <HI>I and my Father are One,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg Naz. Or. 49. pag. 728, 729.</NOTE> refers the Word <HI>One, Ad unita|tem Divinitatis,</HI> to the <HI>&V;nity</HI> of their <HI>Deity;</HI> and the Word <HI>Are,</HI> to the <HI>Plurality</HI> of their <HI>Per&s;ons;</HI> and tells us, That our Lord &s;pake the&s;e Words, <HI>&V;t duarum Per&s;ona|rum vocabula &V;nius Deitatis Maje|&s;tati&s;que demon&s;traret,</HI> that he might demon&s;trate the Names of Two Per&s;ons, his Father and him&s;elf, to be of <HI>One Deity</HI> and Maje&s;ty. And &s;o <HI>Nicetas,</HI> who &s;aith, this
<PB N="56" REF="38">Word,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Nicet. in Naz. Or. 24 pag. 881.</NOTE> <HI>One, E&s;&s;entiae conjunctionem indicat,</HI> declares the Conjunction or Unity of their E&s;&s;ence. And &s;o doth <HI>Gregory Ny&s;&s;en</HI> thus conclude, <GAP DESC="foreign">;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg. Ny&s;|&s;en. con|tra Eunom. Or. 1. p. 7.</NOTE> This Word <HI>One,</HI> compre|hends not the <HI>Father</HI> alone, but the <HI>Son</HI> too.</P>
<P>That Son, who is &s;o clo&s;ely uni|ted to the Father, that he el&s;e|where tells us, <HI>I am in the Father, and the Father in me;</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 10.38</NOTE> Of which Words St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> hath left us this Paraphra&s;e;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Chry&s;o&s;t. in Joan. Hom. 61.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">; I am nothing el&s;e but what the Fa|ther is, yet continuing the Son; the Father is nothing el&s;e, but what I am, yet continuing the Father: Which Expre&s;&s;ion doth clearly import, That there is no difference betwixt the Father and the Son in re&s;pect of Nature and E&s;&s;ence; and yet that there is a Per&s;onal Di&s;tinction between them, ari&s;ing from, and founded
<PB N="57" REF="38">upon their mutual Relations of Paternity and Filiation; the &s;ame Nature being &s;till equally common to both.</P>
<P>So common, that St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ba&s;il. Sel. Orat. 24. pag. 132.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">; When you name the <HI>Father,</HI> you proclaim an <HI>Identity</HI> with the <HI>Son;</HI> and for that Rea&s;on he hath left us this Coun&s;el, <GAP DESC="foreign">; Di|vide not that which is but One. This Coun&s;el our <HI>Socinians</HI> will not follow; for, &s;o far as they can, they divide the <GAP DESC="foreign">, and part the <HI>God</HI> and the <HI>Man.</HI> The&s;e Men are of the &s;ame Stamp with tho&s;e Hereticks of whom the &s;ame St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> doth el&s;ewhere thus complain, <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ba&s;il. Sel. Or. 32. pag. 171.</NOTE> They &s;ee 'tis written, <HI>I and my Father are One;</HI> and what then? He &s;aith, <GAP DESC="foreign">; They hate this Speech, as being the Mother of Truth; &s;uch a Truth, as being entertained, would infallibly &s;tifle tho&s;e Errors,
<PB N="58" REF="39">which are the unhappy Brats of their own corrupted Brains. But though our <HI>Socinians</HI> would fain elude this Text, as their Sire <HI>Ari|us</HI> endeavoured, but in vain, in the fir&s;t <HI>Nicene</HI> Council, who be|ing asked by <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Athan. Di|&s;put. con|tra Arium, p. 116.</NOTE> what our Lord meant, when he &s;aid, <HI>I and my Father are One,</HI> an&s;wered thus, They are <HI>One; i.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">;; he meant, <HI>One</HI> in <HI>Mind</HI> and agreement of <HI>Will</HI> and Operati|on, as if that were all which this Text imports.</P>
<P>And yet this, <GAP DESC="foreign">, and this, <GAP DESC="foreign">, this <HI>Onene&s;s</HI> of <HI>Will</HI> and Operation, doth &s;uppo&s;e and prove an <HI>Onene&s;s</HI> of <HI>Nature</HI> too; &s;o thought St. <HI>Ba&s;il,</HI> who expre&s;ly &s;aith, <GAP DESC="foreign">; If they, <HI>i.</HI> the <HI>Arians</HI> and <HI>Eunomians</HI> &s;ay, That the Father and the Son are one in <HI>Operation,</HI> they mu&s;t needs grant, that they are One in <HI>E&s;&s;ence</HI> too; <HI>i.</HI> That the Father
<PB N="59" REF="39">and the Son are Con&s;ub&s;tantial. Accordingly St. <HI>Cyril</HI> of <HI>Jeru&s;a|lem</HI> explaining the&s;e Words, <HI>I and my Father are One,</HI> tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cyril. Hie|ro&s;. in Ca|tech. 11. p. 99.</NOTE> That they are One in &s;everal re|&s;pects; and the very fir&s;t which he names is this, <GAP DESC="foreign">; They are One as to the <HI>Dig|nity</HI> of their <HI>Deity,</HI> ina&s;much as God begat a God.</P>
<P><HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> likewi&s;e tells us, That our Lord &s;pake the&s;e Words, <HI>I and my Father are One,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Athan. Di|&s;put. con|tra Arium, p. 132.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">; knowing that he did not differ from his Father in point of Sub&s;tance, but was united to him in the Godhead.</P>
<P>The <HI>Latin</HI> Fathers are of the &s;ame Judgment: Accordingly St. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> &s;aith of our Lord and his Father, <HI>Et&s;i Per&s;onis duo,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ambro&s;. in Luc. l. 2. c. 2.</NOTE> <HI>Pote&s;tate unum &s;unt,</HI> Though they are Two in re&s;pect of their Per&s;ons, yet they are but One in re&s;pect of
<PB N="60" REF="40">their Power.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Augu&s;t in Joan. Tract 36. p. 61.</NOTE> St. <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI> al&s;o, who was Contemporary to St. <HI>Ambro&s;e,</HI> and in &s;ome degree his Convert, doth from the&s;e Words, <HI>I and my Father are One,</HI> collect the <HI>Di&s;tin|ction</HI> of their <HI>Per&s;ons,</HI> and the <HI>&V;ni|ty</HI> of their <HI>Godhead,</HI> and doth urge this Text as an Argument both again&s;t the Here&s;ie of <HI>Arius</HI> and <HI>Sabellius;</HI> for thus he writes, <HI>Qu&ograve;d dixit, &V;num, liberat te ab Ario; qu&ograve;d dixit, &s;umus, liberat te &agrave; Sabellio:</HI> Whereas our Lord mentioned him&s;elf and his Father as <HI>One;</HI> this Word <HI>One</HI> is enough to pre&s;erve or free us from the Here&s;ie of <HI>Arius:</HI> And whereas our Lord &s;aid of him&s;elf and his Father, <HI>We Are,</HI> this Word <HI>Are,</HI> is enough to pre&s;erve or free us from the He|re&s;ie of <HI>Sabellius:</HI> For thus he go|eth on, and argueth, <HI>Si unum, er|go non diver&s;um; &s;i &s;umus, ergo &amp; Pater &amp; Filius; &s;umus enim non diceret de uno, &s;ed &amp; unum non di|ceret de diver&s;is;</HI> &s;ince our Lord &s;tyled him&s;elf and his Father <HI>One</HI>
<PB N="61" REF="40">thing, 'tis evident, that they are not <HI>diver&s;e</HI> things; for had they been &s;o, he would not have cal|led them <HI>One:</HI> And &s;ince our Lord &s;aid, <HI>We are,</HI> 'tis evident, that there is both <HI>Father</HI> and <HI>Son;</HI> for our Lord would not have &s;aid, <HI>We are</HI> of <HI>One.</HI> 'Tis plain from this Di&s;cour&s;e of his, that this great Man, St. <HI>Augu&s;tine,</HI> did infer from the&s;e Words the <HI>Divinity</HI> of Chri&s;t, which was denied by <HI>Arius;</HI> and the reality of <HI>di&s;tinct</HI> Per&s;ons in the <HI>Deity,</HI> which was denied by <HI>Sabellius,</HI> who thought them to be mere <HI>Denominations</HI> of <HI>One</HI> and the &s;ame Per&s;on only.</P>
<P>This one Text, <HI>I and my Father are One,</HI> being thought by the an|cient Fathers a full proof of that for which I urged it; namely, the <HI>Divinity</HI> of Chri&s;t, and con&s;equent|ly a <HI>Plurality</HI> of Per&s;ons in the Deity, I need not add any more particular Authorities to confirm it. For, as <HI>Maldonate</HI> ob&s;erves,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Maldona|tus in lo|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">.</NOTE> <HI>Catholici omnes dicunt e&s;&s;entiam &s;ig|nificare:</HI>
<PB N="62" REF="41">All Catholick Writers ex|pounding the&s;e Words, <HI>I and my Father are One,</HI> do agree with one con&s;ent, that our Lord did mean <HI>One E&s;&s;ence,</HI> One Nature, One and the &s;ame God.</P>
<P>Wherefore forbearing the pre|&s;ent mention of any more either Sacred Texts or Humane Authori|ties, I &s;hall conclude this Head of Di&s;cour&s;e, with the Saying of that ancient Author, who&s;oever he were, who doth bear the name of <HI>Diony&s;ius</HI> the <HI>Areopagite,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Dion. Are|op. de Div. nom. pag. 173, 174.</NOTE> and tells us, <GAP DESC="foreign">; There is in the God|head an <HI>&V;nity,</HI> and yet a <HI>Di&s;tin|ction;</HI> an <HI>&V;nity</HI> of <HI>Nature,</HI> and yet a <HI>Di&s;tinction</HI> of <HI>Per&s;ons;</HI> but how it comes to be &s;o, 'tis not po&s;&s;i|ble either to &s;ay, or comprehend.</P>
<P N="2">2. And now having, I think, &s;ufficiently prov'd a <HI>Plurality</HI> of Per&s;ons in the Deity by &s;everal Texts according to that Sen&s;e, wherein the ancient <HI>Fathers</HI> did,
<PB N="63" REF="41">and the generality of later Inter|preters &s;till do, with great rea&s;on, under&s;tand them; my next work mu&s;t be to con&s;ider tho&s;e Texts, which determine and re&s;train this <HI>Plurality</HI> of Per&s;ons to the number of <HI>Three,</HI> no more, no le&s;s. In this ca&s;e, <HI>Tria &s;unt Omnia,</HI> Three are All.</P>
<P>We read what a great re&s;pect <HI>Pythagoras</HI> and his Sect had for their <GAP DESC="foreign">, their <HI>Quaternary number;</HI> &s;uch an e&s;teem had they for it, that <GAP DESC="foreign">, was with them a <HI>Religious Oath.</HI> And as for the <HI>Septenary</HI> Number <HI>Gre|gory Nazianzen</HI> &s;tyles it,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg. Naz. orat. 42. p. 687.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, of all numbers the mo&s;t <HI>my|&s;tical,</HI> and even Contemporary with the World. And yet the <HI>Ternary</HI> number was long before it: And as it is the mo&s;t <HI>ancient,</HI> &s;o is it the mo&s;t <HI>perfect,</HI> not only, <HI>Quia habet Principium,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Corn. &agrave; lap. ex Da|ma&s;c. in l. 5 c. 6. v. 3.</NOTE> <HI>medium &amp; fi|nem,</HI> which is the Rea&s;on commonly given; but <HI>Quia Divinitas in Tri|nitate
<PB N="64" REF="42">e&s;t:</HI> It is the number of the glorious Per&s;ons in the God|head.</P>
<P>And although this number of the Divine Per&s;ons was not of old &s;o clearly revealed to the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Church, as now it is to the <HI>Chri|&s;tian;</HI> yet the <HI>Jews</HI> were not alto|gether left without &s;ome Intima|tions of it.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg. Ny&s;. de Trin. adv. Judae|os, p. 993.</NOTE> <HI>Gregory Ny&s;&s;en</HI> menti|ons &s;everal Texts out of the Old Te&s;tament, and &s;aith, That by them, <HI>Per&s;picu&egrave; &amp; clar&egrave; Sancta Tri|nitas, Patris inquam, &amp; Filii, &amp; Sancti Spiritus, demon&s;trari at&abque; probari pote&s;t,</HI> The Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may be demon&s;trated, and very clearly proved.</P>
<P>But yet we have rea&s;on to be|lieve that tho&s;e Texts of the Old Te&s;tament, which are now urged as Arguments to prove the <HI>Trini|ty,</HI> were not under&s;tood, at lea&s;t not &s;o well, by the ancient <HI>Jews,</HI> as now they are by us. 'Tis u&s;u|ally &s;aid, <HI>Te&s;tamentum Novum ve|latum
<PB N="65" REF="42">e&s;t in Veteri, vetus revela|tum in novo:</HI> The <HI>New Te&s;tament</HI> was <HI>couched</HI> and veiled in the <HI>Old,</HI> and the <HI>Old</HI> is <HI>revealed</HI> and un|folded in the <HI>New; Mo&s;es</HI> and the Prophets are in many things very much explained by our Lord's E|vangeli&s;ts and Apo&s;tles.</P>
<P>And a pregnant In&s;tance of this we have in our pre&s;ent Ca&s;e; whereas the Evangelical Prophet tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">E&s;a. 6.1.</NOTE> <HI>I &s;aw the Lord &s;itting upon a Throne; above it &s;tood the Sera|phims, and cried one to another, Ho|ly, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Ho&s;ts.</HI> From this <GAP DESC="foreign">, this three-fold repetition of the Word <HI>Holy,</HI> do the ancient Fathers and Modern Divines infer the Trinity of Per|&s;ons in the Godhead, and that de|&s;ervedly too.</P>
<P>This was the Opinion of <HI>Atha|na&s;ius,</HI> who writes thus;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Athana&s;. de hum. Chri&s;ti Nat p. 601.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">; When the <HI>Cherubims</HI> glorifie God,
<PB N="66" REF="43">&s;aying Three &s;everal times, <HI>Holy, Holy, Holy,</HI> they glorifie the <HI>Fa|ther,</HI> and the <HI>Son,</HI> and the <HI>Holy Spirit.</HI> And to the &s;ame effect <HI>Gregory Nazianzen</HI> writes thus,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg. Naz. Or. 42. p. 679.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. God is glorified by the&s;e Three Accla|mations of Holine&s;s meeting in one Lord&s;hip and Godhead. 'Tis that which <HI>Oecumenius</HI> delivers more plainly thus,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Oecum. in Apoc. c. 6. com. 8.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">: By this <HI>three-fold Repetition</HI> of Glory and Ho|line&s;s we have rea&s;on to under|&s;tand, That there is a <HI>threefold di|&s;tinction</HI> of &s;ub&s;i&s;tences in the Dei|ty. But there is no Man who &s;peaks more po&s;itively about this matter than St.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Aug. de fi|de ad Pet. Diac. tom. 3. p. 48.</NOTE> <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI> him&s;elf, who ex|pre&s;ly &s;aith, <HI>In eo qu&ograve;d dicitur terti&ograve; Sanctus Per&s;onarum Trinita|tem; in eo ver&ograve; qu&ograve;d dicitur &s;emel, Dominus Deus Sabaoth divinae natu|rae cogno&s;cimus unitatem:</HI> Whereas the <HI>Seraphims</HI> cried <HI>Holy</HI> a <HI>Third</HI>
<PB N="67" REF="43">time, we know thereby the <HI>Trini|ty</HI> of Per&s;ons; and &s;ince they men|tioned <HI>the Lord God of Ho&s;ts</HI> but <HI>once,</HI> we know thereby the <HI>&V;ni|ty</HI> of the Divine Nature.</P>
<P>Now the Que&s;tion is, What moved the&s;e and other learned Men thus to interpret this Pro|phetical Text, and to conclude from it the Doctrine of the <HI>Tri|nity? Cornelius &agrave; Lapide</HI> tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Corn. &agrave; Lap. in lo|cum.</NOTE> <HI>Veteres Rabbini &s;ic exponunt;</HI> the ancient <HI>Jewi&s;h Rabbins</HI> expound it thus; <HI>Sanctus hic e&s;t Pater, Sanctus hic e&s;t Filius, Sanctus hic e&s;t Spiri|tus.</HI> 'Tis here meant, That the Father is Holy, the Son is Holy, and the Spirit is Holy. But our Chri&s;tian Divines were not led to this Expo&s;ition of the Text by the Example of any <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Doctors; for indeed they had a far better Authority for it; I mean, the Authorities of an <HI>Evangeli&s;t</HI> and an <HI>Apo&s;tle,</HI> St. <HI>John,</HI> and St. <HI>Paul.</HI></P>
<PB N="68" REF="44">
<P> When <HI>E&s;aias</HI> was writing this Text and the Context, he tells us, <HI>I &s;aw the Lord &s;itting upon a Throne.</HI> St.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 12.41</NOTE> <HI>John</HI> referring to this Vi&s;ion, &s;aith, <HI>The&s;e things &s;aid E&s;aias, when he &s;aw his Glory, and &s;pake of him.</HI> St. <HI>Paul</HI> al&s;o, referring to the &s;ame Vi&s;ion,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Act 28.29.</NOTE> &s;aith, <HI>Well &s;pake the Holy Gho&s;t by the Prophet E&s;aias.</HI> Now, from the&s;e Texts compared together, great St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> doth, and well might, infer the Doctrine of the <HI>Trinity;</HI> for thus he tells us, <GAP DESC="foreign">;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ba&s;il. M. adver&s;&ugrave;s Eunom. l. 5. p. 115.</NOTE> The <HI>Prophet</HI> in|troduceth the Per&s;on of the <HI>Father,</HI> on whom the <HI>Jews</HI> believed; the <HI>Evangeli&s;t</HI> referring to the &s;ame Scripture, doth undoub|tedly mean the Per&s;on of the <HI>Son,</HI> and St. <HI>Paul,</HI> with the &s;ame Refe|rence, mentions the Per&s;on of the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t;</HI> each of which Per&s;ons is called by this one common
<PB N="69" REF="44">Name, <HI>the Lord of Ho&s;ts,</HI> and was &s;een by the Prophet in that Vi&s;ion of his.</P>
<P>Now, &s;ince this Prophetical Text hath been this way interpreted by &s;ome of the <HI>Jewi&s;h Rabbins,</HI> and certainly is &s;o, and with better Rea&s;on, by many eminent <HI>Wri|ters</HI> of the <HI>Chri&s;tian Church,</HI> who thought this Expo&s;ition to be much countenanced, nay &s;uffici|ently warranted by the Au|thority of St. <HI>John,</HI> and St. <HI>Paul;</HI> St. <HI>John</HI> &s;aying, that the <HI>Prophet &s;pake when he &s;aw his Glory, and &s;pake of him,</HI> undoubtedly mean|ing the Glory and Per&s;on of <HI>Chri&s;t;</HI> St. <HI>Paul</HI> al&s;o &s;aying, <HI>Well &s;pake the Holy Gho&s;t by E&s;aias,</HI> meaning the Words relating to that particular Vi&s;ion: Since 'tis thus, we have rea&s;on to look upon this Text, which contains this <HI>threefold</HI> Ac|clamation of the Seraphims, <HI>Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Ho&s;ts,</HI> to be a pregnant proof of the Holy and Ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Trinity.</HI></P>
<PB N="70" REF="45">
<P> And yet becau&s;e this Prophetical Text hath been thought capable of another Interpretation; and becau&s;e <HI>Calvin</HI> him&s;elf, who was no <HI>Socinian,</HI> doth yet blame tho&s;e Divines, who plead this Text as an Argument to confirm this great Article of our Creed, as if we wanted fairer Proofs to do it. And becau&s;e this my&s;terious point of Faith is &s;o very difficult to Hu|mane Rea&s;on, that &s;ome deny it, and others doubt it; 'tis nece&s;&s;a|ry that &s;uch Evidences &s;hould be produced for it, as may &s;a|tisfie the Minds of impartial, un|prejudiced, and rea&s;onable Men.</P>
<P>But to &s;atisfie the Under&s;tand|ings of Men about this matter, no Arguments can be &s;ufficient, &s;ave only &s;uch as are drawn from un|doubted and clear Divine Revela|tion. And altho' it be a difficult Task to produce any fairer evi|dences to prove the Doctrine of the <HI>Trinity,</HI> than tho&s;e already named out of the <HI>Old Te&s;tament;</HI>
<PB N="71" REF="45">yet we find good Store of them in the <HI>New.</HI> Our Lord him&s;elf by his Evangeli&s;ts and Apo&s;tles hath furni&s;hed us with &s;uch Proofs, as no Man, who dares not offer vi|olence to &s;uch and &s;uch Texts, can ever gain&s;ay. It's true, Men who make the Sacred Scriptures the <HI>Subject</HI> of their <HI>Drollery</HI> rather than the <HI>Grounds</HI> of their <HI>Faith,</HI> and the <HI>Rules</HI> of their <HI>Manners:</HI> Men of corrupted Brains and wanton Wits may, if they plea&s;e, by unwarrantable Di&s;tin|ctions and fal&s;e Interpretations, &s;eemingly elude and enervate the force of the plaine&s;t Texts: But who&s;oever is of a &s;ober, meek, and teachable Spirit, who|&s;oever is not unalterably wedded to his pre&s;ent Opinion, as Men are to their pre&s;ent Wives, whe|ther good or bad, may find in the New Te&s;tament &s;uch evident Proofs of the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Trinity,</HI> as are &s;ufficient to fix and &s;ettle his Judgment in the firm belief of
<PB N="72" REF="46">this great and nece&s;&s;ary Point of Faith.</P>
<P>And if we do indeed believe the whole Go&s;pel to be the infallible Word of that God who cannot lie, grant we mu&s;t, That any one clear and undoubted Te&s;timony of our Evangeli&s;ts or Apo&s;tles were e|nough, though we had no more, to confirm any Article of our Creed, even &s;uch as are the mo&s;t difficult to Humane Rea&s;on; God's <GAP DESC="foreign">, being enough to end all Controver&s;ies, and to &s;ilence all Objections. And upon this Con|&s;ideration I do not think it nece&s;|&s;ary to name <HI>abundance</HI> of Texts, le&s;t by &s;o doing I &s;hould &s;eem to di&s;tru&s;t the force of a <HI>few;</HI> and yet, though one &s;ingle Text might &s;uffice, becau&s;e in other ca&s;es two Witne&s;&s;es are commonly re|quired, I &s;hall make choice of two, and no more, becau&s;e the Evi|dence of each to me doth, and I hope to others will appear &s;o plain, as to be &s;ufficient to do our Work.</P>
<PB N="73" REF="46">
<P> The fir&s;t Text, which I &s;hall u&s;e to prove the Trinity of Glorious Per&s;ons in the Godhead, is that which contains the fir&s;t In&s;tituti|on, and pre&s;cribes the &s;olemn <HI>Form</HI> of <HI>Bapti&s;m,</HI> wherein our Lord gave his Apo&s;tles this Com|mi&s;&s;ion and Command,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 28.19</NOTE> <HI>Go ye and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Gho&s;t.</HI> Here is an expre&s;s mention of <HI>Three</HI> di|&s;tinct Per&s;ons, in who&s;e name all Converts to the Chri&s;tian Faith were to be baptized.</P>
<P>'Tis the Ob&s;ervation of <HI>Maldo|nate,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Maldona|tus in lo|cum.</NOTE> <HI>Ex hoc loco rect&egrave; veteres Au|thores Trinitatis my&s;terium probave|runt;</HI> By this Text did the ancient Authors prove the My&s;tery of the <HI>Trinity,</HI> and that very ju&s;tly too. The Word <HI>Name</HI> in this place &s;eems capable of two Interpreta|tions, and no more: We may, as Expo&s;itors do, under&s;tand by it either, 1&s;t. the <HI>Command,</HI> or 2dly, the <HI>Wor&s;hip</HI> of God; and in both
<PB N="74" REF="47">Sen&s;es it will prove the Truth in hand. For if by this Word <HI>Name,</HI> our Lord means the <HI>War|rant</HI> and <HI>Precept</HI> of God, then the <HI>Three</HI> Per&s;ons here mentioned, <HI>Father, Son,</HI> and <HI>Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> are repre&s;ented to us as Per&s;ons of e|qual <HI>Power</HI> and Authority. But if our Saviour's meaning be, as &s;ome render his Expre&s;&s;ion more &s;uitably to the Original, <HI>Bapti|zing them,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Into the Name, i.</HI> &s;ay our <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> Annotations, <HI>Into the Profe&s;&s;ion of the Service of One God in Three Per&s;ons;</HI> then the <HI>Father, Son,</HI> and <HI>Holy Ghost,</HI> are here plainly recommended to us as equal <HI>Objects</HI> of Divine <HI>Ado|ration,</HI> and con&s;equently each per|&s;on mu&s;t be God.</P>
<P>And accordingly <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Athan. in Epi&s;t. ud Serap. tom. 2. p. 14.</NOTE> to prove the Deity of the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> makes u&s;e of this Text, and tells us, That when our Lord pre&s;cri|bed this Form of Bapti&s;m, <GAP DESC="foreign">, he did found and root
<PB N="75" REF="47">the Catholick Church in the <HI>Tri|nity;</HI> and then to prove that the <HI>Holy Spirit</HI> is God, he adds, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>i.</HI> If the <HI>Spirit</HI> had been a <HI>Creature,</HI> our Lord would never have placed him in the &s;ame <HI>Rank</HI> with the <HI>Father,</HI> le&s;t a Per&s;on of another Nature being added to it, and joined with it the Trinity &s;hould be unlike to its &s;elf.</P>
<P><HI>Gregory Nazianzene</HI> &s;irnamed <GAP DESC="foreign">, the eminent Divine,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg. Naz. Or. 32. p. 52.</NOTE> &s;tyles Bapti&s;m, <GAP DESC="foreign">, The <HI>Abrenuncia|tion</HI> of <HI>Athei&s;m,</HI> and the <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion</HI> of the <HI>Deity,</HI> and the <HI>Deity</HI> &s;ub|&s;i&s;ting in <HI>Three</HI> di&s;tinct Per&s;ons: For the Profe&s;&s;ion of the Trinity was, <GAP DESC="foreign">, One of the main things required in or|der to Bapti&s;m. So doth this great Man intimate, <GAP DESC="foreign">,
<PB N="76" REF="48"><HI>i.</HI> We believe in the <HI>Father, Son,</HI> and <HI>Holy Spirit,</HI> be|ing of one and the &s;ame Sub&s;tance and Glory, in whom al&s;o Bapti&s;m hath its Perfection; and believ|ing thus we are made perfect, <HI>i.</HI> Baptized, knowing that God is <HI>One</HI> in <HI>Sub&s;tance,</HI> and <HI>undivided</HI> in <HI>Wor&s;hip,</HI> yet <HI>Three</HI> in point of <HI>Sub&s;i&s;tence;</HI> according to that of <HI>Syne&s;ius,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Syne&s;. Hymno 4.</NOTE> who makes this addre&s;s to God, <GAP DESC="foreign">, Thou being a <HI>Trinity,</HI> art an <HI>&V;nity</HI> too; Three in One re&s;pect, and One in ano|ther, and that is no Contradi|ction.</P>
<P>And, that the <HI>Three</HI> Per&s;ons mention'd in this Form of Bap|ti&s;m are <HI>One</HI> and the &s;ame God, con&s;tituting a Glorious <HI>Trinity,</HI> is yet further evident from tho&s;e Rea&s;ons,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg. Ny&s;. in Bapti&s;. Chri&s;ti, p. 804.</NOTE> which <HI>Gregory Ny&s;&s;en</HI> hath left us, why our Lord was plea&s;ed to pre&s;cribe the form of Bapti&s;m in
<PB N="77" REF="48">this manner, <HI>Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Gho&s;t:</HI> But why in the Name of the Father? So <HI>Ny&s;&s;en</HI> demands, and an&s;wers thus, <GAP DESC="foreign">, be|cau&s;e the Father is the Original of all things and Per&s;ons: But why in the Name of the Son? he gives this Rea&s;on, <GAP DESC="foreign">, becau&s;e he was the Worker and Author of the Creation: And why in the Name of the Holy Gho&s;t? his Account is this, <GAP DESC="foreign">, becau&s;e it is he that doth fini&s;h and perfect all things; each of which Works doth &s;peak each Per&s;on to be no le&s;s than God.</P>
<P>And from this Form of Bap|ti&s;m doth <HI>Theophylact</HI> take a ju&s;t occa&s;ion to condemn the Here&s;ies both of <HI>Arius</HI> and <HI>Sabellius,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Theophy<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">. in locum.</NOTE> the one denying the <HI>Divinity,</HI> the o|the <HI>Per&s;onalities</HI> of the <HI>Son,</HI> and <HI>Holy Gho&s;t.</HI> For whereas our Lord here mentions not <HI>Names,</HI>
<PB N="78" REF="49">but <HI>Name</HI> in the <HI>Singular</HI> number; thence he concludes again&s;t <HI>Arius,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, The Name of the <HI>Three</HI> is but <HI>One;</HI> and that <HI>One</HI> is the Deity; and therefore the&s;e <HI>Three</HI> are <HI>One</HI> God. And whereas <HI>Sa|bellius</HI> affirmed, That there is but <HI>One</HI> &s;ingle Per&s;on in the Godhead, our Lord here doth expre&s;ly men|tion <HI>Three.</HI></P>
<P>But not to mention the Opini|ons of any more <HI>particular Per&s;ons</HI> touching the Interpretation of this Text; methinks the <HI>whole Ca|tholick Church</HI> hath declared her Judgment about it, by her known Practice in the con&s;tant admini|&s;tration of Bapti&s;m, whereby &s;he hath di&s;covered her Belief, That this Form of Bapti&s;m pre&s;cribed by our Lord, doth contain and prove the Doctrine of the <HI>Trinity.</HI> That Practice of the Ancient Church, which I mean, was their <HI>Trina Immer&s;io,</HI> their Cu&s;tom of dipping every baptized Per&s;on,
<PB N="79" REF="49">except the <HI>Clinici,</HI> or Bed-rid, in or under the Water Three times over. This Practice was thought by &s;ome to be of Apo&s;tolical In|&s;titution, becau&s;e St. <HI>Paul</HI> mentions the Doctrine, <GAP DESC="foreign">,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Heb. 6.2.</NOTE> of <HI>Bapti&s;ms</HI> in the <HI>Plural</HI> number, though no Per&s;on ought to be baptized more than once. But whether this Practice were deri|ved from the Apo&s;tles or not, it was u&s;ed very early in the Primi|tive Church;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Tert. adv. Prax. cap. 27. p. 516.</NOTE> &s;o it was in <HI>Tertul|lian</HI>'s time, who mentions it as their common Cu&s;tom, <HI>Ter mer|gitamur,</HI> We are dipped three times; &s;o he.</P>
<P>Nay, this threefold Dipping was required with the greate&s;t &s;e|verity by the Apo&s;tle's Canons;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Apo&s;t. Ca|non. 50.</NOTE> one of which runs thus; <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. If any Bi|&s;hop or Presbyter in the admini|&s;tration of any one Bapti&s;m &s;hall not u&s;e <HI>Three</HI> Dippings. What
<PB N="80" REF="50">then? <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;aith the <HI>Canon, i.</HI> let him be depo&s;ed. And for this Cu&s;tom I find Two Rea&s;ons given; One by <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> name|ly this,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Athan. quae&s;t. de Parab. Ev. 94. T. 2. p. 345.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, the dipping of the Child in the Font Three times, and his ri&s;ing again out of the Water, repre&s;ents the <HI>death</HI> of Chri&s;t, and his lying in the Grave <HI>Three</HI> days, and his Re&s;urrection upon the <HI>Third;</HI> and that's one Rea&s;on why this treble Immer&s;ion was u&s;ed.</P>
<P>But there is another Rea&s;on gi|ven us, which is to my pre&s;ent purpo&s;e;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Zon. in A|po&s;t. Can. 5</NOTE> <HI>Zonaras,</HI> expounding that <HI>Canon</HI> of the Apo&s;tles which relates to this matter, tells us, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>i.</HI> The <HI>Canon</HI> deter|mines, That Bapti&s;m &s;hall be ad|mini&s;tred
<PB N="81" REF="50">by three dippings; and that he who doth baptize, &s;hould at every dipping pronounce the Name of <HI>One</HI> of the Per&s;ons in the Glorious <HI>Trinity.</HI> A like ac|count we have from <HI>Tertullian</HI> too, who &s;aith,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Tert. ubi &s;upr&acirc;.</NOTE> <HI>Ad &s;ingula nomina in &s;ingulas per&s;onas mergitamur,</HI> We are dipped and baptized into the &s;everal Per&s;ons of the Trinity at the pronunciation of their &s;eve|ral Names. And to this threefold Dipping great St.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ba&s;il. M. de Sp. S.</NOTE> <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> &s;eems to add a threefold Supplication, to each Per&s;on of the Trinity One; for thus he writes, <GAP DESC="foreign">, The great My&s;tery of Bapti&s;m is perfectly performed by <HI>Three Im|mer&s;ions,</HI> and an equal number of <HI>Invocations:</HI> By which he proba|bly means <HI>one</HI> Prayer to the <HI>Fa|ther,</HI> a <HI>Second</HI> to the <HI>Son,</HI> and a <HI>Third</HI> to the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> begging their joynt Ble&s;&s;ings upon their own joynt In&s;titution.</P>
<PB N="82" REF="51">
<P> Now then, &s;ince in this pre&s;cri|bed Form of Bapti&s;m, the <HI>Father, Son,</HI> and <HI>Holy Gho&s;t</HI> are plainly re|pre&s;ented as <HI>Three Per&s;ons</HI> of equal capacity to <HI>in&s;titute</HI> this Sacrament, and to be <HI>wor&s;hipped</HI> by it; &s;ince it is not rea&s;onable to imagine, that our Lord would here have joyned him&s;elf and his Spirit to his Father, as Per&s;ons co-ordinate with him, had they not indeed been his Equals. And &s;ince it hath been the practice of the Ca|tholick Church in the admini&s;tra|tion of this Sacrament, to name and invoke each of the&s;e &s;acred Per&s;ons; we have all rea&s;on to conclude, that this Form of Bap|ti&s;m, <HI>In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> doth indeed contain and prove the Doctrine of the <HI>Trinity,</HI> the <HI>Di&s;tinction</HI> of <HI>Per&s;ons,</HI> and <HI>&V;nity</HI> of <HI>E&s;&s;ence.</HI></P>
<P>And the truth is, were the <HI>Son</HI> and <HI>Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> in who&s;e Name we are baptized, no more than
<PB N="83" REF="51">Creatures, our Lord's Form of Bapti&s;m would not be of much better account than that of <HI>Mar|cion;</HI> who baptized, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>i.</HI> In the Name of the unknown Father of the Univer&s;e, of the Verity, the Mother of all things, and of him who de&s;cend|ed upon Je&s;us. For if to be bap|tized into the Wor&s;hip of Crea|tures, be to be baptized into down|right and gro&s;s Idolatry, whether the In&s;titution were from <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> or <HI>Marcion,</HI> it would make no difference. Nor do I &s;ee how tho&s;e Per&s;ons who will not allow this Form of Bapti&s;m to be a proof of the <HI>Trinity,</HI> can di&s;charge them|&s;elves from Bla&s;phemy again&s;t our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, not only by <HI>de|nying</HI> his <HI>Divinity,</HI> but al&s;o by charging him with the In&s;titution of a new Sacrament in the name and for the Wor&s;hip of Crea|tures: for &s;uch it is, if their Sup|po&s;ition
<PB N="84" REF="52">be true. But if this Text, with &s;ome Men, will not do our Bu&s;ine&s;s, let us yet try ano|ther.</P>
<P N="2">2. The &s;econd and only Text, which I &s;hall yet u&s;e to prove the <HI>Trinity</HI> of Per&s;ons in the <HI>&V;nity</HI> of the Godhead, is that known place of St.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Joh. 5.7.</NOTE> <HI>John,</HI> where he &s;aith, <HI>There are Three that bear Record in Hea|ven:</HI> What <HI>Three?</HI> not <HI>Three An|gels,</HI> for of them there are <HI>Milli|ons;</HI> not <HI>Three</HI> meer <HI>Denominati|ons,</HI> but Three <HI>Per&s;ons,</HI> the <HI>Father,</HI> the <HI>Word, i.e.</HI> the <HI>Son,</HI> and the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> and of them the Text &s;aith, <HI>The&s;e Three are One;</HI> One in the &s;ame Sen&s;e wherein our Lord had &s;aid, <HI>I and my Father are One,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, One <HI>Thing,</HI> One <HI>Being,</HI> and that mu&s;t be the Being of God. For &s;ince the Father is confe&s;&s;ed to be God, the Son cannot be One thing with him unle&s;s he be God too,</P>
<PB N="85" REF="52">
<P> The force of this Text is &s;o unavoidable, that our <HI>Socinians,</HI> not knowing how to elude it, do find them&s;elves con&s;trained to de|ny its <HI>Authority,</HI> and to pretend that it is indeed no part of the <HI>Canon;</HI> to which I an&s;wer,</P>
<P N="1">1. In General, that it hath been the common Cour&s;e of <HI>Hereticks</HI> to di&s;own the <HI>Authority</HI> either of &s;uch whole <HI>Books,</HI> or &s;uch particu|lar <HI>Texts,</HI> as did gall and pinch them, and overthrow tho&s;e er|roneous Opinions, which they had entertained, and were re&s;ol|ved to maintain either through Prejudice or Ignorance, or Shame, to recant. Of &s;uch Men <HI>Irenaeus</HI> thus ob&s;erves,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Iren. adv. Haere&s;. l. 3 c. 2.</NOTE> <HI>C&ugrave;m ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accu&s;ationem conver|tuntur Scripturarum, qua&s;i non recte habeant, ne&abque; &s;int ex Authoritate;</HI> when they are confuted by &s;uch and &s;uch Texts, they blame the Scriptures, as if they were not right nor Authentick. Upon this Score, the <HI>Jews,</HI> being ob&s;tinate
<PB N="86" REF="53">in their Infidelity, deny the <HI>Au|thority</HI> of the whole <HI>New Te&s;ta|ment,</HI> becau&s;e it being compared with <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and the <HI>Prophets,</HI> it doth &s;o evidently prove our <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> whom they di&s;own, to be the pro|mi&s;ed <HI>Me&s;&s;ias.</HI> Upon a like account did the <HI>Ebionites</HI> reject all our Go&s;pels, except that of St. <HI>Mat|thew</HI> only. And <HI>Irenaeus</HI> &s;aith a|gain of <HI>Marcion,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Iren. adv. Haere&s;. l. 1. c. 29.</NOTE> <HI>Evangelium &s;e|cund&ugrave;m Lucam circumcidit, &amp; A|po&s;toli Pauli Epi&s;tolas ab&s;cidit;</HI> He circumci&s;ed St. <HI>Luke</HI>'s <HI>Go&s;pel,</HI> and quite cut off St. <HI>Paul</HI>'s <HI>Epi&s;tles, i.</HI> from the <HI>Canon.</HI> And truly &s;ince our <HI>Socinians</HI> are not a&s;hamed in favour of their own ill Opinion to <HI>corrupt,</HI> invert, and wre&s;t the plain and obvious Sen&s;e and Meaning of St. <HI>John</HI> in the be|ginning of his <HI>Go&s;pel,</HI> we need not wonder, that for the &s;ame Rea&s;on, they &s;hould endeavour to <HI>obliterate,</HI> expunge, and blot out a Pa&s;&s;age of his <HI>Epi&s;tle</HI> too. But,</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="87" REF="53"> 2. We an&s;wer more particular|ly thus; namely, That the Pre|tence which our <HI>Socinians</HI> plead again&s;t the Authority of this Text, is very weak and in&s;ufficient; for 'tis only this; they tell us, That in &s;everal Manu&s;cripts and printed Copies this Text is not found; to which we thus re|ply:</P>
<P N="1">1. By way of Conce&s;&s;ion; we con|fe&s;s with <HI>Calvin, Totum hoc &agrave; quibu&s;|dam omi&s;&s;um fuit;</HI> this whole Ver&s;e by &s;ome hath been omitted. And we believe what <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> tells us, That in one <HI>Greek</HI> Copy he found no more than this, <GAP DESC="foreign">; That there are <HI>Three</HI> that bear Record, the <HI>Spirit,</HI> the <HI>Water,</HI> and the <HI>Blood;</HI> to which St. <HI>Cyril</HI> adds, as <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> cites him, <HI>Hi tres unum &s;unt;</HI> The&s;e <HI>Three</HI> are <HI>One.</HI> The Truth of this we grant. But,</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="88" REF="54"> 2. We an&s;wer, That the Co|pies, wherein this Text is found, as now it &s;tands, are more in number, and of <HI>greater Credit,</HI> if we may believe Tradition, than tho&s;e Copies wherein this Text is either <HI>omitted</HI> or altered.</P>
<P><HI>E&s;tius,</HI> a learned Interpreter of St. <HI>John</HI>'s Epi&s;tle, tells us, and cites an Author for it, That of <HI>Sixteen</HI> ancient <HI>Greek</HI> Copies, which were brought together from <HI>Italy, France,</HI> and <HI>Spain, Seven</HI> wanted this Text, and <HI>Nine</HI> had it. But becau&s;e the di&s;parity betwixt <HI>Seven</HI> and <HI>Nine</HI> is not &s;o very con&s;iderable, he farther tells us, That of a <HI>great number</HI> of Manu&s;cript Copies that were ga|thered together by the Divines of <HI>Lovain,</HI> there were but <HI>Five</HI> where|in this Text was wanting. And an eminent Divine of our own Church, <GAP DESC="foreign">, now with God, being famous as well for his great Piety as for the depth of his Learn|ing, hath left us this Te&s;timony; namely, that this di&s;puted Text,
<PB N="89" REF="54">as it is now read in our Bibles, hath the Authority of <HI>many</HI> an|cient, and <HI>All</HI> printed Copies but <HI>One.</HI></P>
<P>Now, if from the&s;e In&s;tances we may take an E&s;timate of the difference betwixt tho&s;e Copies, which have this Text, and tho&s;e which want it in point of <HI>number;</HI> the <HI>Majority</HI> of Voices will cer|tainly be on our &s;ide, and that doth always carry the Cau&s;e, at lea&s;t where the mo&s;t Te&s;timonies are of <HI>equal,</HI> but much more where they are of greater <HI>Credit</HI> than the <HI>fewe&s;t;</HI> and that is the pre&s;ent Ca&s;e.</P>
<P>For according to the old Rule, <HI>Quod Antiqui&s;&s;imum, Veri&s;&s;imum:</HI> Tho&s;e Copies which are mo&s;t an|cient, are &s;uppo&s;ed to be of the greate&s;t Credit; and tho&s;e <HI>Fa|thers</HI> who lived neare&s;t to the A|po&s;tles times, as they are the more <HI>venerable</HI> for their <HI>Antiquity,</HI> &s;o are they the le&s;s <HI>liable</HI> to any <HI>&s;u|&s;picion</HI> of <HI>Partiality</HI> in their Wri|tings,
<PB N="90" REF="55">much le&s;s of <HI>Fraud</HI> and Forgery, and that in a Ca&s;e which needed none.</P>
<P>Now if our <HI>Socinians</HI> &s;hall ob|ject, that St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> doth not men|tion this Text, when he di&s;putes again&s;t the <HI>Arians;</HI> we an&s;wer, 'Tis very po&s;&s;ible that St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> might have a <HI>corrupt</HI> Copy before him; or if not &s;o, yet having &s;uf|ficiently proved his Doctrine by other Texts, he might &s;ee no <HI>need</HI> of this: but however, tho' St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> u&s;e it not, yet his Con|temporary, St. <HI>Hierom,</HI> owns it, and blames tho&s;e as Infidels who left it out. And &s;urely St. <HI>Hie|rom,</HI> &s;ince he wrote a Book, <HI>De Scriptoribus Eccle&s;ia&s;ticis,</HI> was well acquainted with the Writings of that and former Ages.</P>
<P>But if St. <HI>Hierom</HI> alone be not of gravity enough to be put in the Scales with, and to counter|balance that great Man St. <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> to help to make up weight we &s;hall add to him the Te&s;timony
<PB N="91" REF="55">of St. <HI>Cyprian,</HI> who writes thus,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cypr. de Unit. Ec|cle&s;. p. 181.</NOTE> <HI>Scriptum e&s;t de Patre, &amp; filio, &amp; Spiritu Sancto: Et hi tres unum &s;unt:</HI> It is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: <HI>And the&s;e Three are One.</HI> But where is it &s;o written? certainly in this di&s;pu|ted Text, or no where. Now to make over-weight, and turn the Scales, we &s;hall put in &s;ome Ounces more, I mean the Te&s;timony of <HI>Tertullian,</HI> that very early Author, whom <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> &s;tyles <GAP DESC="foreign">,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Eu&s;eb. Hi&s;t Eccle&s;. l 2. cap. 2.</NOTE> a famous Man; and of the <HI>Roman</HI> Writers the mo&s;t celebrated;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Tert. adv. Praxeam, c. 25. p. 515</NOTE> this <HI>Tertullian</HI> having mentioned the <HI>Father, Son,</HI> and <HI>Holy Spirit,</HI> im|mediately &s;ubjoyns, <HI>Qui tres unum &s;unt,</HI> which <HI>Three</HI> are <HI>One;</HI> and he thus expounds it, <HI>non unus,</HI> They are not <HI>One Per&s;on;</HI> but <HI>&V;num,</HI> One <HI>Thing:</HI> The Word, &s;aith he, referring, <HI>Ad &s;ub&s;tantiae unitatem, non ad numeri &s;ingularita|tem,</HI> To the <HI>&V;nity</HI> of their <HI>Sub|&s;tance,</HI> not to the <HI>Singularity</HI> of
<PB N="92" REF="56"><HI>number.</HI> And from the&s;e in&s;tances 'tis evident, that although St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> doth no where mention this di&s;puted Text. Yet St. <HI>Hierom,</HI> who lived in the &s;ame Age; and St. <HI>Cyprian,</HI> and <HI>Tertullian,</HI> who lived long before St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI>'s time, do; which &s;heweth, that in tho&s;e early Days it was took for a part of the <HI>Canon;</HI> and if &s;o, why &s;hould it not be thought &s;o &s;till?</P>
<P>But further yet, if as to &s;ome <HI>Greek</HI> Writers, our <HI>Socinians</HI> &s;hall object, That <HI>Oecumenius,</HI> who expounds this Epi&s;tle of St. <HI>John,</HI> takes no notice of this di&s;puted Ver&s;e; we thus reply; namely, That <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Athan. Cont. Ari|um Di&s;p. p. 147.</NOTE> who was at lea&s;t as great a <HI>Divine,</HI> and certainly of greater <HI>Antiquity,</HI> not only hath it, but u&s;eth it as a convin|cing <HI>Argument</HI> in his Di&s;putation again&s;t <HI>Arius;</HI> for thus he tells him, <GAP DESC="foreign">, St. <HI>John</HI> &s;aith, <HI>And the&s;e Three are One;</HI> he doth not on|ly name the <HI>Words,</HI> but their
<PB N="93" REF="56"><HI>Writer</HI> too, and peremptorily a&s;|cribes them to St. <HI>John.</HI> And had they not then been general|ly received as St. <HI>John</HI>'s indeed, we cannot imagine but <HI>Arius</HI> then, as our <HI>Socinians</HI> now do, would have denied the <HI>Authority</HI> of that Text which made &s;o much again&s;t him, had it been in tho&s;e Days thought liable to the &s;u&s;picion of being &s;uppo&s;ititious.</P>
<P>And &s;ince this Text in tho&s;e early Days was received by the mo&s;t eminent Divines of the Pri|mitive Church as an undoubted part of the <HI>Canon;</HI> and by them urged again&s;t tho&s;e <HI>Hereticks,</HI> who denied the Doctrine therein con|tained; we have the &s;ame rea&s;on to own it as <HI>Canonical</HI> &s;till; for the omi&s;&s;ion of it in &s;ome Copies, which comparatively are but few, and tho&s;e few far more liable to &s;u&s;picion than the Text it &s;elf, can|not ju&s;tly derogate any thing from its Authority: And the rather, becau&s;e,</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="94" REF="57"> 3. We an&s;wer, that if this Text be left out, and the next Ver&s;e be admitted, as it is in <HI>Oecumenius,</HI> the Connexion of the Apo&s;tle's Di&s;cour&s;e will not be &s;o genuine, &s;o coherent, and con&s;onant with|out this di&s;puted Text as with it.</P>
<P>The next Ver&s;e runs thus; <HI>There are Three that bear witne&s;s in Earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, and the&s;e Three agree in One.</HI> Now in the foregoing Ver&s;e there is a fit <HI>Antithe&s;is</HI> to every Clau&s;e in this, the <HI>Father,</HI> the <HI>Word,</HI> and the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t;</HI> the Three Witne&s;&s;es in the former Ver&s;e &s;tand contra|di&s;tingui&s;hed to the <HI>Spirit,</HI> the <HI>Water,</HI> and the <HI>Blood,</HI> the Three Witne&s;&s;es in this. Again, tho&s;e Words, <HI>in Heaven,</HI> in the former Ver&s;e, &s;tand contradi&s;tingui&s;hed to the Words, <HI>in Earth,</HI> in this; and yet once more tho&s;e Words, <HI>The&s;e Three are One,</HI> in the former Ver&s;e, &s;tand in oppo&s;ition to this Clau&s;e, <HI>The&s;e Three agree in One,</HI> in the &s;ub|&s;equent Ver&s;e. Now if the forego|ing
<PB N="95" REF="57">Ver&s;e were wholy omitted, the following Ver&s;e for want of a fit <GAP DESC="foreign"> an&s;werable to every Member of it, would &s;eem &s;ome|what uncouth: For to what end &s;hould the Apo&s;tle tell us of <HI>Three Witne&s;&s;es in Earth,</HI> had he not, by way of di&s;tinction, already men|tion'd <HI>Three Witne&s;&s;es in Heaven?</HI></P>
<P><HI>Calvin,</HI> who well knew that this di&s;puted Text was not found in &s;everal Copies both Greek and Latin, did yet think fit to receive and interpret it, as a part of St. <HI>John</HI>'s Epi&s;tle; and he hath left us Two Rea&s;ons why he did &s;o, and they are both con&s;iderable: His fir&s;t Rea&s;on is this, <HI>Quia con|textus optim&egrave; fluit, &s;i membrum hoc addatur,</HI> becau&s;e the Context runs be&s;t if this part be added to it. His &s;econd Rea&s;on is this, <HI>Video in optimis &amp; probati&s;&s;imae fidei codici|bus haberi;</HI> becau&s;e, &s;aith he, I &s;ee that this Ver&s;e is found in the be&s;t and mo&s;t approved Copies. by which it appears, that it was
<PB N="96" REF="58">the Opinion of this Judicious Per|&s;on, That this Text, which ren|ders the Series of the Apo&s;tles Di&s;cour&s;e the more agreeable to its &s;elf in its &s;everal parts, being found in Copies of the greate&s;t Credit, &s;hould not be ca&s;hiered, barely becau&s;e in &s;ome Copies it is left out: So he. But to &s;ay no more of this.</P>
<P N="4">4. We an&s;wer, That the Rea&s;on of that difference, which is found betwixt &s;everal Copies, &s;ome <HI>ha|ving</HI> this Text, and &s;ome others <HI>wanting</HI> it, mu&s;t ari&s;e either from <HI>carele&s;ne&s;s,</HI> or from <HI>de&s;ign,</HI> or <HI>Forgery.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. 'Tis very po&s;&s;ible that this Text might be omitted through the meer <HI>Carele&s;ne&s;s</HI> of &s;ome Tran|&s;criber, who&s;e too much ha&s;t might betray him, or who&s;e Eye being oft took off from his Copy, might deceive him. And if this were the Ca&s;e, we cannot wonder that this fir&s;t mi&s;take &s;hould grow and multiply: For if we grant, that any one Copy was made <HI>defective</HI>
<PB N="97" REF="58">merely through the &s;upine <HI>negli|gence</HI> and inadvertency of the Scribe; it mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity fol|low, that all other Copies, faith|fully tran&s;cribed, and derived &s;uc|ce&s;&s;ively from that, mu&s;t be guilty of the &s;ame defect; and what number of &s;uch Copies there may be in the World, who can tell? And if this little part of St. <HI>John</HI>'s Epi&s;tle were indeed omitted merely for want of more <HI>Care</HI> and better Intention either of the <HI>Mind</HI> or the <HI>Eye</HI> of &s;ome Tran&s;cri|ber, who&s;e Pen this Pa&s;&s;age e&s;ca|ped; &s;hall the &s;ame Pa&s;&s;age, being found in other Copies more faith|fully tran&s;cribed, be counted the le&s;s <HI>Authentick?</HI> But,</P>
<P N="2">2. If it will not be allowed, that the fir&s;t omi&s;&s;ion of this Text was occa&s;ioned by the over-&s;ight of &s;ome carele&s;s <HI>Scribe;</HI> then it mu&s;t needs follow, That if this Text be <HI>Canonical,</HI> it mu&s;t be fir&s;t left out by &s;ome <HI>fraudulent De&s;ign;</HI> or if it be not <HI>Canonical,</HI> it mu&s;t at fir&s;t
<PB N="98" REF="59">be put in by down-right <HI>Forgery.</HI></P>
<P>And indeed &s;uch a <HI>fraudulent De&s;ign</HI> is on the one hand imputed to tho&s;e Per&s;ons, who in former Ages denied the <HI>Trinity;</HI> and on the other hand, &s;uch a down-right <HI>For|gery</HI> is imputed to tho&s;e Per&s;ons who in former times did <HI>own</HI> the <HI>Do|ctrine</HI> of the <HI>Trinity,</HI> and did vigo|rou&s;ly defend it. Now the que&s;tion is, whether this imputation of <HI>Fraud</HI> to &s;ome, or of <HI>Forgery</HI> to others, do carry the fairer &s;hew of Rea&s;on, and con&s;equently the greater probabi|lity in it? Methinks this Que&s;tion may be ea&s;ily re&s;olved, and the Re&s;olution of it by all impartial and unprejudiced Per&s;ons may be as ea&s;ily believed. For that the Chri|&s;tians of tho&s;e times, who <HI>profe&s;&s;ed</HI> and maintained the Doctrine of the <HI>Trinity,</HI> &s;hould <HI>forge</HI> this Text, is a Pretence that hath nothing of <HI>Probability</HI> in it: For,</P>
<P N="1">1. Had the learned Men of tho&s;e times <HI>forged</HI> this Text, and in&s;erted it into &s;everal Copies, they might
<PB N="99" REF="59">well have imagined, that the <HI>E|nemies</HI> of their Profe&s;&s;ion, who were <HI>Active</HI> and <HI>Inqui&s;itive</HI> Men, would quickly have <HI>detected</HI> &s;uch a Forgery, as did &s;o much tend to their di&s;advantage; and being once detected, they would have objected it to their eternal &s;hame; a thing which in tho&s;e Days, &s;o far as I yet know, no Man ever did.</P>
<P N="2">2. The learned Men of tho&s;e times had not the lea&s;t <HI>Temptation</HI> to <HI>forge</HI> this Text; for had they done it, they mu&s;t have done it to this end only: namely, to <HI>con|firm</HI> that Doctrine of the <HI>Trinity,</HI> which they a&s;&s;erted: But that Doctrine being already and &s;uffi|ciently e&s;tabli&s;hed by a great va|riety of other Scriptures, and un|an&s;werable Arguments deduced from them, they had no need to <HI>coin</HI> and counterfeit a new Text to help &s;upport it. And is it i|maginable, that Men of eminent Piety, who owned the <HI>Holy Spirit</HI> to be God, and as &s;uch <HI>adored</HI> him,
<PB N="100" REF="60">would make bold to <HI>counterfeit</HI> his Hand, and lay the <HI>Brats</HI> of their own Brains at his Door? Is it ima|ginable, that Men who knew the <HI>danger</HI> of adding any thing to the Word of God, &s;hould add a Text of their <HI>own</HI> Invention to the Sa|cred <HI>Canon,</HI> and impo&s;e it upon the Catholick Church, as if it had Been the immediate Dictate of the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t?</HI> We cannot think it con&s;i&s;tent with the known Piety of the ancient Fathers, that they &s;hould ever coin a <HI>Counterfeit</HI> Text, and then obtrude it upon the World, and make it pa&s;s, as if it bore the <HI>Spirit</HI>'s <HI>Stamp.</HI> Certainly, 'tis no way credible that &s;uch Men &s;hould, upon any <HI>pinch,</HI> commit &s;uch horrid Villainy; but much le&s;s <HI>Gra|tis,</HI> without any <HI>need,</HI> without &s;o much as a <HI>Temptation</HI> to it.</P>
<P>Now, &s;ince the Primitive Chri|&s;tians, who <HI>owned</HI> the Doctrine of the <HI>Trinity,</HI> cannot with any Rea|&s;on, and fairly be charged with the <HI>guilt</HI> of <HI>Forgery,</HI> as if they of
<PB N="101" REF="60">their own motion had &s;urreptiti|ou&s;ly in&s;erted <HI>this Text</HI> into the Sacred <HI>Canon:</HI> Some other Per|&s;ons, more liable to ju&s;t &s;u&s;picion, mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity be charged with <HI>fraudulent</HI> and ill-dealing in leav|ing it out. This fraudulent deal|ing St. <HI>Hierom</HI> imputes, <HI>Infidelibus Tran&s;latoribus,</HI> by whom he means, as Authors judge, tho&s;e <HI>Arian He|reticks,</HI> who had then crept into the <HI>Latin Church:</HI> and in their <HI>La|tin</HI> Tran&s;lations had left out this Ver&s;e, which St. <HI>Hierom</HI> him&s;elf then found in the <HI>Greek</HI> Copies.</P>
<P>And indeed tho' tho&s;e ancient Fathers, who <HI>a&s;&s;erted</HI> the <HI>Trinity,</HI> had no need to <HI>forge,</HI> and add this Text to the <HI>Canon;</HI> yet they who <HI>denied</HI> the <HI>Trinity,</HI> had a very <HI>&s;trong Temptation</HI> to <HI>leave</HI> it out. For this Text is, as <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> &s;tyles it, <HI>Telum, quo maxim&egrave; confici po|terunt Ariani:</HI> And again, <HI>efficax telum adver&s;us Arianos,</HI> An effectu|al Argument again&s;t the <HI>Arians;</HI> and doubtle&s;s &s;o it is again&s;t the
<PB N="102" REF="61"><HI>Arians</HI> and the <HI>Sabellians</HI> too. And, upon that &s;core, <HI>Fulgentius,</HI> as cited by <HI>E&s;tius,</HI> having mentioned this Text, &s;ubjoyns the&s;e Words, <HI>Audiat Sabellius,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Fulg. in libro de Trinitate.</NOTE> <HI>&s;unt, ut audi, tres, &amp; credat e&s;&s;e tres per&s;onas:</HI> And then again. <HI>Audiat &amp; Arius &V;num; &amp; non dicat filium diffe|rentis e&s;&s;e naturae;</HI> Let <HI>Sabellius</HI> hear, that there are <HI>Three that bear Re|cord in Heaven;</HI> and let him be|lieve that they are <HI>Three Per&s;ons;</HI> let <HI>Arius</HI> al&s;o hear, That <HI>The&s;e Three are One,</HI> and let him no more &s;ay,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Fulg. in lib. Repon&s;. ad decem Ob. Aria|norum.</NOTE> That the <HI>Nature</HI> of the <HI>Son</HI> differs from that of the <HI>Fa|ther:</HI> For, as the &s;ame Author &s;aith el&s;ewhere, when St. <HI>John</HI> tells us, <HI>The&s;e Three are One, &V;ni|tatem &s;ub&s;tantiae accipimus;</HI> We take it, that the Apo&s;tle means the <HI>&V;nity</HI> of <HI>Sub&s;tance,</HI> &s;uch a nume|rical <HI>&V;nity</HI> as is peculiar to the&s;e Three Glorious Per&s;ons: For as a learned Interpreter well ob&s;erves,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Jac. Capel|lus in lo|cum.</NOTE> had the Apo&s;tle meant no greater Unity than that of <HI>Kind</HI> or <HI>Con&s;ent,</HI>
<PB N="103" REF="61">he had &s;aid no more of the ble&s;|&s;ed Trinity, than may be truly &s;aid of all the Inhabitants of Hea|ven; for in re&s;pect of &s;uch an Unity all glorified <HI>Saints</HI> and <HI>An|gels</HI> are <HI>One.</HI></P>
<P>But to conclude this Matter; this Text being generally received as a part of the <HI>Canon,</HI> and being expounded as it is, by pious, learn|ed, and judicious Men, both an|cient Fathers, and later Divines, according to the <HI>Analogy</HI> of Faith, and the manife&s;t Sen&s;e of many o|ther Scriptures; the Doctrine of the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Trinity</HI> &s;tands built up|on it, as a firm <HI>Ba&s;is,</HI> and an im|pregnable <HI>Rock:</HI> And methinks in the Judgment of all Men, who are not <HI>wedded</HI> to <HI>Heterodox</HI> Opi|nions, but are willing to <HI>&s;ubmit</HI> to <HI>Truth,</HI> the contrary Doctrines of <HI>Ebion, Sabellius, Photinus, Arius, Socinus,</HI> and other Hereticks, like <HI>Dagon</HI> before the <HI>Ark,</HI> &s;hould fall to the Ground: And indeed eve|ry mode&s;t Man's Under&s;tanding
<PB N="104" REF="62">&s;hould &s;toop and yield up it &s;elf to this Divine Revelation, though it contain &s;uch a Doctrine, as doth exceed the Comprehen&s;ion of Humane Rea&s;on.</P>
<P N="3">3. My third and la&s;t Work is this; namely, to prove the <HI>Deity</HI> of tho&s;e Per&s;ons in the Trinity, which hath been, and &s;till is, &s;o much di&s;puted.</P>
<P>As for that <HI>glorious Being,</HI> whom we call the <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> and Hereticks have thought the <HI>only</HI> Per&s;on in the Godhead, there is no Con|trover&s;ie, unle&s;s it be with per|fect <HI>Athei&s;ts,</HI> who, like other <HI>Mon&s;ters,</HI> the Mi&s;carriages of Na|ture, are but <HI>few,</HI> and tho&s;e few condemned by the common con|&s;ent of all Nations. The di&s;pute of old betwixt the <HI>Fathers</HI> and the <HI>Arians,</HI> and the pre&s;ent di|&s;pute betwixt <HI>us</HI> and our Mo|dern <HI>Socinians,</HI> doth concern the Deity of the <HI>Second</HI> and <HI>Third</HI> Per&s;ons, each of whom we e&s;teem
<PB N="105" REF="62">and religiou&s;ly adore as God, equal with the Father.</P>
<P>To prove the Deity of both the&s;e Per&s;ons, I &s;hall u&s;e Two &s;orts of Texts: Fir&s;t, &s;uch Texts as do plainly and mo&s;t expre&s;ly a&s;cribe to both the&s;e Per&s;ons the <HI>Name</HI> and <HI>Title</HI> of God. 2. Such Texts as do a&s;cribe to both the&s;e Per&s;ons &s;uch <HI>Attributes</HI> and <HI>Works</HI> as are peculiar to God alone. I begin with the Second Per&s;on, whom we commonly call <HI>God</HI> the <HI>Son.</HI> And.</P>
<P N="1">1. There are &s;everal Texts, which do in the mo&s;t plain and expre&s;s Terms a&s;cribe to this ble&s;&s;ed Per&s;on, the <HI>Name</HI> and <HI>Ti|tle</HI> of <HI>God.</HI></P>
<P>The Evangelical Prophet &s;tyles him, the <HI>Mighty God;</HI> and which is much the &s;ame thing,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">E&s;a. 9.6.</NOTE> the <HI>Everla&s;ting Father.</HI> St. <HI>Thomas,</HI> who knew him well, who &s;aw his &s;tupendious Miracles, who heard his incompa|rable Di&s;cour&s;es, and was thorough|ly acquainted with his holy Life
<PB N="106" REF="63">and Conver&s;ation,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 20.28.</NOTE> calls him, <HI>My Lord, and my God.</HI> St. <HI>Paul,</HI> who was an in&s;pired Apo&s;tle, and knew well enough what he &s;aid or wrote, &s;tyles him,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 9.5.</NOTE> <HI>God ble&s;&s;ed for ever.</HI> St. <HI>John,</HI> who lay in his Bo&s;om, who wrote his Go&s;pel purpo&s;ely to prove his Deity,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Joh. 5.20.</NOTE> &s;aith of him, <HI>This is the true God.</HI> The&s;e Texts are &s;o plain, and &s;uch evident proofs of our Lord's Divinity, that our <HI>Socinians,</HI> becau&s;e they cannot fair|ly deny them, endeavour to elude them by a di&s;tinction. According|ly they tell us, that there is a <HI>God</HI> by <HI>Nature,</HI> and there are <HI>Gods</HI> by <HI>Office:</HI> Kings, Princes, and other Supreme Magi&s;trates, who are <HI>Men</HI> by <HI>Nature,</HI> yet in regard of their <HI>Authority,</HI> being the Deputies and Vicegerents of God in governing this lower World do bear his <HI>Name,</HI> and are called <HI>Gods.</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Zetzes in Comment. in He&s;io|dum.</NOTE> The King, &s;aith a learned Man, is, <GAP DESC="foreign">, an <HI>Earthly Jupiter,</HI> a Terre&s;trial Deity: And &s;o the P&s;almi&s;t &s;aith of Magi&s;trates,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;. 81.6.</NOTE> <HI>I have &s;aid, ye are
<PB N="107" REF="63">Gods:</HI> And &s;o God Almighty told <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Exod. 7.1.</NOTE> <HI>I have made thee a God to Pharaoh.</HI> Now, &s;uch a God do our <HI>Socinians</HI> allow our Lord to be, and no more; a <HI>God</HI> by <HI>Office,</HI> a <HI>Metaphorical</HI> or <HI>Equivocal</HI> God; who hath the <HI>Name,</HI> but not the real <HI>Nature</HI> of a <HI>God</HI> indeed.</P>
<P>But how can this con&s;i&s;t with tho&s;e glorious Titles, which St. <HI>Paul</HI> gives our Lord, where he menti|ons,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Tit. 2.13.</NOTE> <HI>The Glorious appearance of the great God and our Saviour Je&s;us Chri&s;t?</HI> That both the&s;e Titles, the <HI>Great God</HI> and <HI>Saviour,</HI> do equally belong to our Lord, and were by the Apo&s;tle intended for him, we have the opinion of con&s;iderable Per&s;ons; and for their being of that judgment they are commend|ed too. 'Tis a Learned Man,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Jo. Pricaeus in Annot. in locum.</NOTE> who &s;aith, <HI>Ben&egrave; faciunt, qui utrumque hic Praedicatum ad idem &s;ubjectum, nempe Chri&s;tum, referunt.</HI> They, who refer both the&s;e Titles, the <HI>Mighty God</HI> and <HI>Saviour,</HI> to Chri&s;t, do well. And &s;o doth <HI>Oecumenius,</HI>
<PB N="108" REF="64"><GAP DESC="foreign">. St. <HI>Paul</HI> doth here manife&s;tly ac|knowledge, that Chri&s;t is the <HI>Great God.</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Oecumen. Theoph. &amp; Chry&s;o&s;t. in locum.</NOTE> So thought <HI>Theophylact</HI> too, who &s;peaks thus to &s;uch as denied our Lord's Divinity; <GAP DESC="foreign">, Let them hear St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aying, that he is <HI>God,</HI> and the <HI>Great God.</HI> Of the &s;ame mind was St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> too; who, taking it for granted, that both the&s;e Titles do indeed belong to our Lord, breaks out into this Ex|pre&s;&s;ion; <GAP DESC="foreign">; Where are they, who &s;ay that the Son is in|feriour to the Father, &s;ince St. <HI>Paul</HI> doth here &s;tyle him, the <HI>Great God?</HI></P>
<P>The &s;ame Interpretation of the&s;e words is given by <HI>Dru&s;ius,</HI> who &s;aith, <HI>Non &s;ol&ugrave;m Deus, &s;ed etiam Deus Magnus vocatur hic Chri&s;tus:</HI> Chri&s;t is here called, not only <HI>God,</HI> but the <HI>Great God.</HI> And &s;o <HI>Corne|lius &agrave; Lapide, Filium hic utrobique intelligi patet:</HI> It is manife&s;t, &s;aith he, that by both the&s;e Titles, the
<PB N="109" REF="64"><HI>Great God</HI> and <HI>Saviour,</HI> the <HI>Son</HI> is under&s;tood. And indeed there is very good rea&s;on for it.</P>
<P>For the Text mentions, <HI>The Glo|rious Appearance of the Great God and Saviour;</HI> which without all controver&s;ie, relates to the <HI>Day</HI> of <HI>Judgment;</HI> wherein, not God the <HI>Father,</HI> but the <HI>Son,</HI> &s;hall vi&s;ibly and gloriou&s;ly appear, and &s;it as Judge. Be&s;ides, the want of an Ar|ticle in the Original before the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Saviour,</HI> is an intimation, that S. <HI>Paul</HI> doth here mean but <HI>one</HI> &s;ingle Per&s;on: For, if by the <HI>Great God,</HI> he had meant the <HI>Father,</HI> as by the <HI>Saviour,</HI> he mu&s;t mean the <HI>Son;</HI> he would, in all probability, have u&s;ed the Article <GAP DESC="foreign">, as a Note of <HI>Di&s;tinction</HI> between them; that being the known and common u&s;e of that Article in other Authors.</P>
<P>Now then, if from the force and Phra&s;e of the Text, and the Authority of the&s;e and other judicious Interpreters, we may conclude, that our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour
<PB N="110" REF="65">is indeed the Per&s;on here called the <HI>Great God;</HI> this glorious Title mu&s;t needs di&s;tingui&s;h him from, and advance him far above, all tho&s;e Per&s;ons, who, by vertue of &s;ome <HI>great Office,</HI> are <HI>Nominal</HI> and <HI>Titular Gods,</HI> and no more.</P>
<P>That any <HI>Prince,</HI> by vertue of his <HI>Office,</HI> was ever &s;tyled, the <HI>Great God,</HI> is more than I do yet know; I read, that &s;ome notorious <HI>Sycophants</HI> have &s;tyled the <HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> of <HI>Rome, Pontifex Maximus,</HI> the <HI>Great|e&s;t</HI> of <HI>Prie&s;ts.</HI> Nay more, <HI>Dominus Deus no&s;ter Papa;</HI> Our <HI>Lord God</HI> the Pope; but not <HI>Magnus Deus,</HI> our <HI>Great</HI> God the Pope. It's true, that Idol of the <HI>Ephe&s;ians</HI> was cal|led, the <HI>Great Godde&s;s Diana:</HI> And that Sorcerer <HI>Simon Magnus,</HI> was &s;tyled by the bewitched <HI>Samari|tans,</HI> the <HI>Great Power of God;</HI> and to him was there a Statue erected at <HI>Rome</HI> with this In&s;cription,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Lorinus in Acti. c. 8. com. 24.</NOTE> <HI>Si|moni Sancto Deo:</HI> To <HI>Simon,</HI> not the <HI>Great,</HI> but the <HI>Holy</HI> God. The King of <HI>Per&s;ia,</HI> and the King of
<PB N="111" REF="65"><HI>A&s;&s;yria,</HI> did, each of them, &s;tyle him&s;elf, <GAP DESC="foreign">, the <HI>Great King,</HI> but the Title of the <HI>Great God,</HI> &s;o far as I know, was never yet given to any mortal Man, &s;ave only <HI>P&s;aphon,</HI> who, to make him|&s;elf <HI>adored</HI> as a <HI>Deity,</HI> &s;ent abroad &s;everal Birds, being fir&s;t taught to Sing, <GAP DESC="foreign">; <HI>P&s;aphon</HI> is a <HI>Great God.</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cael. Rhod. Antiq. Lect. l. 3. c. 5.</NOTE></P>
<P>But <HI>Era&s;mus,</HI> who is ob&s;erved to be too kind to the <HI>Arians,</HI> tells us, that &s;ome Men of their Per&s;wa&s;i|on, being induced, as may be well &s;uppo&s;ed, by this Text; <HI>Chri&s;tum Magnum Deum fatentur, &s;ed verum negant,</HI> do confe&s;s, that <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> is a <HI>Great God,</HI> but deny that he is a <HI>True</HI> one. 'Tis very &s;trange that Men &s;hould be of &s;uch an opinion, con&s;idering what St. <HI>John</HI> &s;aith of our Lord, <HI>This is the True God:</HI> But doth he mean the <HI>Father</HI> or the <HI>Son?</HI> Of that we may judge by his words immediately forego|ing: For, having &s;aid, <HI>We are in him, that is true, even in his Son
<PB N="112" REF="66">Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> he &s;ubjoyns the&s;e words, not a &s;yllable intervening; <HI>This is the True God:</HI> i. e. in common con&s;truction, <HI>This Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> the Per&s;on la&s;t mentioned.</P>
<P>'Tis a Rule in <HI>Grammar,</HI> That when there are <HI>two Antecedents,</HI> the <HI>Relative Hic, This,</HI> doth ge|nerally relate, <HI>ad Po&s;terius &amp; Pro|pius,</HI> to that Antecedent, which is the <HI>latter</HI> and the <HI>nearer</HI> to it. Suppo&s;e we then that there be two Antecedents here in the Context; God the <HI>Father,</HI> one; and <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> the other; the fir&s;t being at a di&s;tance from the Relative, and the &s;econd being contiguous to it, the Relative mu&s;t, accor|ding to the Rule of <HI>Grammar,</HI> and Propriety of Speech, refer to the latter; and then the Apo&s;tle's meaning is, Je&s;us Chri&s;t is the True God.</P>
<P>And this Interpretation of the Text is much confirmed by the words that follow;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 10.28.</NOTE> <HI>This is the True God, and Life Eternal,</HI> i. the
<PB N="113" REF="66">Author and giver of Life Eternal; and who is that, our Lord an&s;wers, <HI>I give unto them Eternal Life:</HI> And again, <HI>I am the Life:</HI> And &s;o St. <HI>John, He that hath the Son,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 11.25.</NOTE> <HI>hath Life:</HI> And to the &s;ame purpo&s;e run many other Texts. Now, &s;ince St. <HI>John</HI> expre&s;ly &s;aith of <HI>One</HI> and the &s;ame Per&s;on,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Joh. 5.12.</NOTE> <HI>This is the True God:</HI> And, <HI>This is the Life Eternal.</HI> And &s;ince by, <HI>This Life Eternal,</HI> he mu&s;t needs, according to many other Scriptures, under|&s;tand our ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Saviour,</HI> who is the Fountain of Life; we have all rea&s;on to believe, that, when he &s;aith, <HI>This is the True God,</HI> he means him too.</P>
<P>But becau&s;e, notwith&s;tanding the&s;e Evidences, our <HI>Socinians</HI> may rai&s;e &s;ome Cavils again&s;t this Inter|pretation, and endeavour, with|out ju&s;t rea&s;on, to divert the&s;e Scriptures to another &s;en&s;e; to prove that our Lord is more than a <HI>God</HI> by <HI>Office,</HI> to the&s;e Texts I &s;hall add two Arguments,</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="114" REF="67"> 1. My fir&s;t Argument is this: That ble&s;&s;ed Per&s;on, who was a God <HI>before</HI> the <HI>Creation,</HI> is more than a <HI>God</HI> by <HI>Office.</HI> But our Saviour is that ble&s;&s;ed Per&s;on, who was a God before the Creation.</P>
<P>The Major Propo&s;ition may be thus explained: Gods by <HI>Office</HI> are &s;o termed only in re&s;pect of that <HI>Authority</HI> and Government, which God Almighty hath by his Providence committed to them. But before the Creation there was no occa&s;ion for, no u&s;e of any &s;uch delegated Power; there were none &s;uch to govern, there were none to be governed; and con&s;equent|ly there could then be no God by Office.</P>
<P>But our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour was a God even then; for, St. <HI>John</HI> &s;aith of him, <HI>the word was God:</HI> But when was he &s;o? the Text an&s;wers; <HI>In the beginning:</HI> which mu&s;t needs import &s;ome &s;pace at lea&s;t before the Creation, becau&s;e it follows,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 1.3.</NOTE> <HI>All things were made by
<PB N="115" REF="67">him;</HI> which mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity &s;up|po&s;e his own <HI>Praeexi&s;tence;</HI> and if our Lord were a God, when there could be no <HI>God</HI> by <HI>Office;</HI> he mu&s;t be God under another Notion, even by <HI>Nature,</HI> and from all Eternity.</P>
<P N="2">2. My Second Argument &s;hall be this, That ble&s;&s;ed Per&s;on, who <HI>now</HI> is, and <HI>will</HI> be a God, when the World &s;hall be at an end, is more than a God by Office. But our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour is, and will be &s;uch a God.</P>
<P>To &s;uch as are <HI>Gods</HI> by <HI>Office,</HI> and no more, God Almighty &s;peaks thus by the P&s;almi&s;t,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;. 81.6.</NOTE> <HI>I have &s;aid ye are Gods, but ye &s;hall die like Men.</HI> And when once they die, their Authority cea&s;eth, their Breath and their Authority, and with it their <HI>God&s;hip,</HI> expire to|gether.</P>
<P>But 'tis not thus with our ble&s;|&s;ed Saviour; for tho' the Offices of his Mediator&s;hip &s;hall one day cea&s;e; yet his Power, Authority,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">I&s;a. 9.7.</NOTE>
<PB N="116" REF="68">and Government &s;hall la&s;t for e|ver; when he &s;hall be no longer King of Nations, he &s;hall &s;till re|main King of Saints. For the Evan|gelical Prophet hath given us this A&s;&s;urance, <HI>Of his Government there &s;hall be no end.</HI> And to him God the Father hath &s;aid,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Heb. 1.8.</NOTE> <HI>Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever:</HI> And him doth St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;tyle, <HI>God ble&s;&s;ed for ever.</HI> And are the&s;e the Cha|racters of <HI>Gods</HI> by <HI>Office?</HI> Doth their Government la&s;t for ever? And are they Gods &s;itting upon a Throne to Eternity? Are they Gods Ble&s;&s;ed without an end? 'Tis well for <HI>Gods</HI> by <HI>Office,</HI> if when they die, and their <HI>God&s;hip</HI> cea&s;eth, they prove &s;o much as <HI>Saints,</HI> and Companions fit to con|ver&s;e with <HI>Angels.</HI> 'Tis our ble&s;|&s;ed Saviour, who is &s;uch a God as ju&s;tly de&s;erves that Character which <HI>Homer</HI> be&s;tows upon tho&s;e fal&s;ly &s;uppo&s;ed Deities, whom he &s;tyles, <GAP DESC="foreign">, 'Tis our Lord who was from Eternity, and
<PB N="117" REF="68">who&s;e Per&s;on and Deity &s;hall exi&s;t for ever. To him we may &s;ay, as the P&s;almi&s;t doth, <HI>From everla&s;ting to everlasting thou art God.</HI></P>
<P>Now the&s;e Texts that I have named, and the&s;e Arguments which I have urged, I think, are &s;uch as our <HI>Socinians</HI> can never fairly an|&s;wer; I conceive them &s;ufficient to confute the pretence of tho&s;e Men, who, becau&s;e they cannot deny that our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour is once and again &s;tyled a God, that they may with &s;ome little colour rob him of his E&s;&s;ential Divinity, do give it out, That he is a <HI>God</HI> by <HI>Office,</HI> as many other Men have been, and no more. But to go on.</P>
<P N="2">2. There are &s;everal Texts which a&s;cribe to our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour &s;uch <HI>Attributes</HI> and &s;uch <HI>Works,</HI> as do plainly prove him <HI>God,</HI> and that in the &s;tricte&s;t and mo&s;t proper Sen&s;e of that Notion, as it im|ports a Being Omnipotent, Om|ni&s;cient,
<PB N="118" REF="69">Omnipre&s;ent, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> From which Attributes, and the Effects of them, we may rai&s;e Arguments enough, and very &s;ufficient, to prove him the <HI>true God.</HI> As for in&s;tance;</P>
<P N="1">1. That ble&s;&s;ed Per&s;on, who is <HI>Omnipotent,</HI> who can by his own Almighty Power do whatever he will, whatever can be done, is the true God. But &s;uch an Om|nipotent Per&s;on is our ble&s;&s;ed Sa|viour.</P>
<P>The utmo&s;t Power of <HI>Men</HI> and <HI>Angels</HI> is &s;o <HI>re&s;trained</HI> and limited, that they cannot do whatever may be done, at lea&s;t by any &s;trength which is their own. But now 'tis otherwi&s;e with God, that God who thus demands, <HI>Is there any thing too hard for me?</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Jer. 32.27.</NOTE> To this Que&s;tion we may an&s;wer in the Words of <HI>Job,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Job 42.2.</NOTE> <HI>I know that thou can&s;t do every thing:</HI> So &s;aith our Lord,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 19.26.</NOTE> <HI>With God all things are po&s;|&s;ible.</HI> What&s;oever is not <HI>contradi|ctory</HI> to <HI>Truth,</HI> what&s;oever is not
<PB N="119" REF="69"><HI>repugnant</HI> to his own <HI>Perfections,</HI> whatever he can <HI>Will,</HI> he can al&s;o do, and he alone.</P>
<P>The Devil indeed can play Tricks, and work lying Wonders, as he did by the Magicians in <HI>Egypt,</HI> and <HI>Simon Magus;</HI> but real Mira|cles he cannot do. Their Demand was rea&s;onable, who put this Que|&s;tion,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 10.21.</NOTE> <HI>Can a Devil open the Eyes of the blind?</HI> 'Tis &s;ure he cannot. We al&s;o read, that <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> and &s;ome of the <HI>Prophets,</HI> and our Lord's <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> did &s;everal real Mi|racles; but yet they could not work them, <HI>when, where</HI> and as <HI>oft</HI> as they plea&s;ed. So complained the Father of a Lunatick Son, <HI>I brought him to thy Di&s;ciples,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 17.16</NOTE> <HI>and they could not cure him.</HI> Doubtle&s;s they did attempt a Cure, but in vain. And the Rea&s;on mu&s;t be this; The Power, whereby they wrought other Miracles, was not their own, and the efficacious ex|erci&s;e of it was lent them upon a Condition, wherein at that time they failed.</P>
<PB N="120" REF="70">
<P> But that our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour was and is a Per&s;on of Omnipotent Power, able at all times, and in all Ca&s;es, to do what&s;oever his Plea&s;ure was, is, or &s;hall be, may be proved by the&s;e Four Argu|ments.</P>
<P N="1">1. The Omnipotent Power of Chri&s;t may be proved by the <HI>Mi|racles</HI> which he wrought in his own Per&s;on whil&s;t he conver&s;ed in this lower World.</P>
<P>What his Miracles were the E|vangeli&s;t tells us, <HI>The blind receive their &s;ight,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 11.5.</NOTE> <HI>and the lame Walk, the Lepers are clean&s;ed, and the Deaf hear, the dead are rai&s;ed up.</HI> The truth of his Miracles was not de|nied by his mo&s;t bitter Enemies: The <HI>Phari&s;ees</HI> them&s;elves who per|&s;ecuted his Per&s;on to the Death, did thus confe&s;s, <HI>This Man doth many Miracles.</HI> And as his Mi|racles were <HI>more</HI> in number, &s;o were they <HI>greater</HI> in their Nature, and in their Circum&s;tances, than had ever been wrought among&s;t
<PB N="121" REF="70">them; for why el&s;e did the ama|zed Multitude cry out,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 9.33.</NOTE> <HI>It was ne|ver &s;o &s;een in I&s;rael?</HI></P>
<P>That his rai&s;ing the dead only by his Word; that his clean&s;ing a Leper only by his Will; that his curing a Centurion's Servant, and a Nobleman's Son at a di&s;tance, no natural means being u&s;ed; that when he had fed Five thou|&s;and Per&s;ons with Five Loaves, and Two Fi&s;hes, the Fragments that were left, &s;hould be a greater Quantity than the whole Bread at fir&s;t; that his curing a blind Man with a Catapla&s;m of Spittle and Clay, a thing more likely to <HI>put</HI> out <HI>&s;eeing Eyes</HI> than to <HI>enlighten blind</HI> ones, I &s;ay, that the&s;e and o|ther Miracles of his &s;hould ever be wrought by the proper Power or Art of any <HI>mere</HI> Man, Is utter|ly impo&s;&s;ible. And &s;o <HI>Nicodemus</HI> rightly judged, when he &s;pake thus to our Lord,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 3.2.</NOTE> <HI>No Man can do the&s;e Miracles which thou do&s;t, ex|cept God be with him.</HI></P>
<PB N="122" REF="71">
<P> And that God was with him indeed, is evident from &s;everal Expre&s;&s;ions. That of our Lord is one;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 8.29.</NOTE> <HI>The Father hath not left me a|lone.</HI> St. <HI>Paul</HI> tells us, that in working Miracles,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Act. 10.38.</NOTE> <HI>God was with him;</HI> and not only <HI>with him,</HI> but <HI>in him</HI> too: So &s;aith the &s;ame Apo&s;tle,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Col. 2.9.</NOTE> <HI>In him dwelleth all the ful|ne&s;s of the God head bodily, i.</HI> &s;aith a learned Interpreter of our own Church,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Davenant. in Col. 2.9.</NOTE> <HI>per unionem Hypo&s;taticam,</HI> by a Per&s;onal Union; an Union &s;o clo&s;e, that our Lord &s;aith el&s;e|where, <HI>The Father is in me, and I in him;</HI> and by rea&s;on of this In|habitation, which, I think, the <HI>Greek</HI> Fathers mean by their <GAP DESC="foreign">,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 10.38, 39.</NOTE> our Saviour &s;aith, <HI>I and my Father are One:</HI> How One? One in <HI>E&s;&s;ence,</HI> and con&s;equently One, as in all other Perfections, &s;o in point of <HI>Power.</HI></P>
<P>They indeed, who unju&s;tly de|ny the Hypo&s;tatical Union of the Divine and Humane Natures in the Per&s;on of Chri&s;t, may by a
<PB N="123" REF="71">ju&s;t Con&s;equence, were their Opi|nion true, affirm that our Lord wrought all his Miracles, not by his own Power; but, as other Men did, by a Power that was on|ly lent him. But &s;ince St. <HI>John</HI> tells us, <HI>The Word was made Fle&s;h;</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 1.14. 1 Tim. 3.16.</NOTE> &s;ince St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aith, <HI>God was manife&s;t in the Fle&s;h;</HI> and the &s;ame Apo|&s;tle in one place &s;tyles our Sa|viour, <HI>God ble&s;&s;ed for ever;</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 9.5. 1 Tim. 2.5.</NOTE> and in another place, <HI>The Man Chri&s;t Je|&s;us.</HI> We mu&s;t either deny the Authority of the&s;e Texts, or el&s;e confe&s;s that our Lord certainly is both God and Man; and that the Miracles which he did whil&s;t he appeared in his Humane Na|ture, were done by the Power of <HI>his own</HI> Divinity, and that pow|er was Omnipotent. For he did &s;uch Miracles, and with &s;uch Cir|cum&s;tances, as could never have been done by any power le&s;s than that Omnipotent one of God, and that Omnipotence was his own.</P>
<PB N="124" REF="72">
<P> The Evangeli&s;t tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mar. 4.39.</NOTE> <HI>He re|buked the Wind,</HI> and <HI>&s;aid unto the Sea, Peace, be &s;till: And there was a great Calm:</HI> His Di&s;ciples being amazed at this, <HI>&s;aid one to another, What manner of Man is this, that even the Wind and the Sea obey him?</HI> He that could do this,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Theoph. in locum.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;aith <HI>Theophylact;</HI> &s;eemed to them to be, and indeed was, more than a Man. For, as our Lord &s;aith,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 3.8.</NOTE> <HI>The Wind bloweth where it li&s;teth;</HI> 'Tis not in the Power of Man to prevent it; no, to have a command over Wind and Water is God's Prerogative; and as &s;uch doth the P&s;almi&s;t men|tion it:
<NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;. 107.29.</NOTE> <HI>He makes the Storm a Calm.</HI> 'Tis mentioned as an Argument of God's Omnipotence:
<NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;. 89.8.</NOTE> <HI>O Lord God of Ho&s;ts, who is a &s;trong Lord like unto thee?</HI> And the very fir&s;t in|&s;tance of God's infinite Power there given is this, <HI>Thou rule&s;t the raging of the Sea; and when the Waves thereof ari&s;e, thou &s;tille&s;t them.</HI> 'Tis an Act of Divine Om|nipotence;
<PB N="125" REF="72">and &s;ince our Saviour did it, 'tis an Evidence of his own Almighty power, and &s;uch a Power mu&s;t needs prove him God.</P>
<P N="2">2. That our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour was a Per&s;on, who had an Omnipo|tent Power of his own, is evi|dent from tho&s;e miraculous Works which were done by his Apo&s;tles, both before his Death, and after his A&s;cen&s;ion.</P>
<P>During the time of our Lord's conver&s;ing in the World, the ge|nerality of Per&s;ons, who wanted help in any kind, making their Applications to his own Per&s;on, we do not find many In&s;tances of miraculous Works done by his A|po&s;tles, whil&s;t he him&s;elf was with them; only when he had &s;ent them abroad, the Evangeli&s;t tells us, That when they were return|ed,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Luk. 9.10.</NOTE> <HI>They told him all that they had done;</HI> many Miracles no doubt, though they are not particularly recorded. The Seventy Di&s;ciples
<PB N="126" REF="73">mention but one,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Luk. 10.17</NOTE> namely this, <HI>E|ven the Devils are &s;ubject to us.</HI> Doubtle&s;s the Devil, who is cal|led <HI>The Prince of this World,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 14.30.</NOTE> and is a very powerful Spirit, is &s;o loath to quit his Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ions, that nothing le&s;s than Omnipotence can eject and turn him out.</P>
<P>But when once our Lord had left the World, and no more im|mediate Addre&s;&s;es could be made to him as a vi&s;ible and pre&s;ent Per|&s;on; they who wanted extraordi|nary help in &s;everal Ca&s;es, betook them&s;elves to his Apo&s;tles, and found that relief from them, which they could not find el&s;ewhere. St. <HI>Luke</HI> tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Act. 2.43.</NOTE> <HI>Many Wonders and Signs were done by the Apo&s;tles:</HI> And a|gain he mentions <HI>&s;pecial Miracles wrought by the hands of Paul:</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Act 19.11.</NOTE> They healed the Sick, cured the Lame, and rai&s;ed the dead; &s;uch migh|ty Works they did, that they were took for <HI>Gods</HI> in the &s;hape of Men.</P>
<PB N="127" REF="73">
<P> Nor indeed can we much won|der that it &s;hould be &s;o; that tho&s;e Per&s;ons &s;hould mi&s;take our Lord's Apo&s;tles for <HI>Gods,</HI> who &s;aw them do &s;uch Works as were far above the Power of <HI>Men.</HI> The Spectators of tho&s;e Miracles &s;aw the In&s;truments who were em|ployed about them, and look|ed no farther, the Hand that did them being invi&s;ible. And who&s;e Hand that was, St. <HI>Luke</HI> informs us; <HI>God wrought &s;pecial Miracles by the Hands of Paul. Paul</HI> was but a Tool, the Workman was God; and not the <HI>Father</HI> only, but the <HI>Son</HI> too; for to him did St. <HI>Peter</HI> aferibe the miraculous Cure of a Man who had been lame from his Infancy, <HI>His Name,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Act. 3.16.</NOTE> <HI>(the Name of Chri&s;t) hath made this man &s;trong,</HI> &amp;c. And that the Apo&s;tles did indeed work their Miracles by our Lord's Authority, is yet more evident from the Cure of <HI>Aeneas,</HI> who had kept his Bed eight years, of which we have this Account;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Act. 9.34.</NOTE> <HI>Peter &s;aid
<PB N="128" REF="74">unto him, Aeneas, ari&s;e, and make thy Bed: And he aro&s;e immediately.</HI> Here was an ea&s;ie, and a very quick Cure indeed; but by whom was it wrought? not by <HI>Peter</HI> him&s;elf, who told his Patient thus, <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t maketh thee whole.</HI> That Power whereby the Apo&s;tles wrought their Miracles, their Lord, who&s;e pre&s;ence went along with them, was plea&s;ed to exert, when any ju&s;t occa&s;ion did &s;o require. Accordingly the Evangeli&s;t tells us, That when he &s;ent them fir&s;t abroad,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 10.1.</NOTE> <HI>He gave them power over unclean Spirits to ca&s;t them out, and to heal all manner of Sickne&s;s,</HI> &amp;c. And certainly, our Lord gave them nothing but that which was his <HI>own;</HI> &s;ince he communicated &s;uch a Power to his Servants, as ena|bled them to be in&s;trumental in working &s;o many mighty Miracles, we mu&s;t conclude, That he had &s;uch a Power, and in a far great|er mea&s;ure, <HI>Originally</HI> in him|&s;elf; even &s;uch an Omnipotent
<PB N="129" REF="74">Power, as &s;till proves him God. But,</P>
<P N="3">3. That our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour is a Per&s;on, who had and &s;till hath an Omnipotent Power, may be &s;trongly proved by the <HI>Re&s;urrecti|on</HI> from the dead; I mean other Men's and his own too.</P>
<P N="1">1. That our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour is a Per&s;on, who had and &s;till hath an Omnipotent Power, may be &s;trongly proved by the Re&s;urrecti|on of other Men from the dead.</P>
<P>There are not many Articles of our Creed, which &s;eem more diffi|cult to Humane Rea&s;on, which have been more impugned, doubt|ed, and denied by Jews and Pa|gans, than that, which concerns the Re&s;urrection of the dead. It hath been thought by &s;ome to be <HI>needle&s;s,</HI> by others to be <HI>in|convenient;</HI> and, which is to my pre&s;ent purpo&s;e, by many it hath been judged <HI>impo&s;&s;ible.</HI> Such an intimation we have from St. <HI>Paul,</HI> who thus argued this Matter with
<PB N="130" REF="75">King <HI>Agrippa;</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Acts 26.8.</NOTE> <HI>Why &s;hould it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God &s;hould rai&s;e the dead?</HI> Hence 'tis evident, that they were of the &s;ame opinion with <HI>Cel&s;us</HI> in <HI>Origen,</HI> who &s;aid of the Re&s;urre|ction, that 'tis a Work, which God, <GAP DESC="foreign">, neither will do, nor can.</P>
<P>And indeed the great difficulty of this Work is evident from that demand of God to his Prophet; <HI>Son of Man,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ezek. 37.3.</NOTE> <HI>can the&s;e dry Bones live?</HI> Is it po&s;&s;ible to revive them? certainly not to Men or Angels; and, for that rea&s;on, they who told the Ruler of the Synagogue, <HI>Thy Daughter is dead,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mar. 5.35.</NOTE> added this withal, <HI>why trouble&s;t thou the Ma|&s;ter any further?</HI> It was their opi|nion, that Chri&s;t him&s;elf in &s;uch a ca&s;e could do no good. Nor had the&s;e Men been at all mi&s;taken, had not our Lord been a far greater Per&s;on, than the Jews did then &s;uppo&s;e him to be; had he had no more Power, than could
<PB N="131" REF="75">belong to the Son of <HI>Mary,</HI> as merely &s;uch; to a dead Per&s;on his pre&s;ence, and his very be&s;t a&s;&s;i&s;tan|ces would have proved but vain.</P>
<P>But we are well a&s;&s;ured that our Lord did revive, not only this dead Woman, but &s;everal dead Men too; and hath engaged him|&s;elf, that he will one day rai&s;e all the re&s;t. For thus he hath told us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 5.25.</NOTE> <HI>The dead &s;hall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear, &s;hall live:</HI> And again,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 6.40.</NOTE> <HI>I will rai&s;e him up at the la&s;t day.</HI> 'Tis men|tioned as an Act of his <HI>own</HI> Power; why el&s;e did he &s;ay,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 11.25.</NOTE> <HI>I am the Re|&s;urrection and the Life?</HI> We can|not doubt, but he, who &s;pake the&s;e Words, and made the&s;e Pro|mi&s;es, knew his <HI>own</HI> Power to per|form them; and that Power mu&s;t be Omnipotent, and this Act of that Omnipotence doth again prove him to be no le&s;s than God. It's true, his Apo&s;tles rai&s;ed the dead, and yet were not Gods: But here's
<PB N="132" REF="76">the difference, they did it by <HI>his</HI> Power, but he by <HI>his</HI> own.</P>
<P N="2">2. That our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour was, and &s;till is, a Per&s;on of an Almighty Power, may be &s;trongly proved by his own Re&s;urrection form the Grave.</P>
<P>That our Lord did indeed ari&s;e from the Grave is an undoubted Article of our Creed; 'tis confirm|ed by the united Te&s;timonies of good Men and glorious Angels; 'tis proved by &s;uch undeniable Arguments, as cannot fail us. The <HI>Truth</HI> of our Lord's Re&s;urrection being granted, all the Que&s;tion is touching the <HI>Authour</HI> of it; whe|ther it were <HI>him&s;elf,</HI> or &s;ome <HI>other</HI> Per&s;on. It may be demanded, whether a Man truly dead, as our Lord was, be in any capacity to revive him&s;elf, to come out of his Grave, and live a &s;econd life: 'Tis that, which no mere Man ever did or can do; and yet our Lord did it.</P>
<PB N="133" REF="76">
<P> <HI>Plutarch</HI> indeed tells us, That <HI>Cleomedes</HI> and <HI>Alcmena</HI> being dead, revived. <HI>Plato</HI> writes, That one <HI>Er,</HI> an <HI>Armenian</HI> Soldier, being &s;lain in a Battel, lay dead in the Field ten days together, and af|terwards being carried home to be buried, <GAP DESC="foreign">, the 12th day he revived and lived again. And <HI>Herodotus</HI> reports,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Herodotus in Melpo|mene. p. 230.</NOTE> That one <HI>Ari|&s;taeus,</HI> being dead and prepared for Burial, his Body vani&s;hed, and af|ter &s;even Years was found <HI>alive</HI> in <HI>Proconne&s;us.</HI> Were any of the&s;e Stories true, the&s;e Per&s;ons mu&s;t be revived by &s;ome <HI>other</HI> Power, whereas our Lord aro&s;e by <HI>his own.</HI></P>
<P>True it is, our Lord is &s;ome|times &s;aid in a <HI>Pa&s;&s;ive</HI> &s;en&s;e, <GAP DESC="foreign">, to be Rai&s;ed; and &s;ometimes in an <HI>Active</HI> &s;en&s;e, <GAP DESC="foreign">, to <HI>ri&s;e</HI> again. But this variety of Expre&s;&s;ion doth not alter the Nature of the thing, nor weaken the Argument which I am drawing from it; for, our Lord's Re&s;urrection in either &s;en&s;e,
<PB N="134" REF="77">is an undeniable proof of his Om|nipotence. When he is &s;aid <HI>Active|ly</HI> to <HI>ri&s;e,</HI> 'tis meant, that &s;o he did by his <HI>own</HI> Power; and when he is &s;aid <HI>Pa&s;&s;ively</HI> to <HI>be</HI> rai&s;ed, 'tis meant, that his <HI>Humane</HI> Nature was rai&s;ed by his <HI>Divine,</HI> that the <HI>God</HI> rai&s;ed the <HI>Man.</HI></P>
<P>Nor is this, <HI>gratis dictum;</HI> 'Tis not &s;aid without a &s;ufficient ground: For, that our Lord did not want a Power able enough to rai&s;e him|&s;elf from the Grave, is evident from that expre&s;&s;ion of his,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 10.18.</NOTE> <HI>I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again.</HI> Certainly, by the taking of his life again, he can mean nothing el&s;e but his Re&s;ur|rection from the dead: For, as <HI>Dru&s;ius</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Animam ponit, qui moritur; a&s;&s;umit, qui re&s;urgit:</HI> He layeth down his life, who dieth; and he re&s;umes his life, who ri&s;eth again: and &s;o to do, our Lord doth here claim a &s;ufficient Power. And &s;urely, &s;ince our Lord did u&s;e this power to rai&s;e <HI>other</HI> dead Per|&s;ons,
<PB N="135" REF="77">he would much more u&s;e it to rai&s;e <HI>him&s;elf;</HI> e&s;pecially con&s;i|dering to what a glorious e&s;tate his Re&s;urrection would and did advance him.</P>
<P>This Power of his to take his life again at his plea&s;ure, is very highly and very ju&s;tly magnified by the Fathers: St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> cal|leth it, <GAP DESC="foreign">, a thing very <HI>&s;trange</HI> and <HI>wonderful: Theophylact</HI> &s;aith, That it proves our Lord to be, <GAP DESC="foreign">, the Sove|reign Lord and Commander both of Death and Life: And St. <HI>Atha|na&s;ius</HI> &s;peaks of it thus;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Athan. contra Ari|anos Or. 4. p. 508. Cypr. de pa&s;&s;. Chri|&s;ti. p. 337.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">: To have a power to rea&s;&s;ume a departed Soul, is by no means the property of Men, but it belongs to, and is an evidence of the power of the Word, <HI>i.</HI> of Chri&s;t. That ble&s;&s;ed Lord of ours, whom St. <HI>Cyprian</HI>
<PB N="136" REF="78">thus be&s;peaks:
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cypria. de pa&s;&s;ione Chri&s;ti. p. 337. Edit. Puri|fuis.</NOTE> <HI>Tu, Domine, qui Pote&s;tativ&egrave; ponis animam, &amp; Po|te&s;tativ&egrave; re&s;umis.</HI> An expre&s;&s;ion, which &s;heweth that our Lord had as much power to <HI>re&s;ume</HI> his life, as he had to <HI>lay</HI> it down; it was wholly at his own choice to die, and it was in his own power to rai&s;e and revive him&s;elf again, e|ven when he plea&s;ed. And as his capacity to die &s;hewed the <HI>Infirmity</HI> of his <HI>Humane</HI> Nature, &s;o his <HI>Abi|lity</HI> to <HI>rai&s;e</HI> him&s;elf proved his <HI>Om|nipotence,</HI> and that Act of Omni|potence did again prove him God. But yet once more:</P>
<P N="4">4. That our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour is a Per&s;on, who had and &s;till hath an Almighty Power, may be yet fur|ther and &s;trongly proved by the works of Creation and Providence.</P>
<P>Works of Creation, and con&s;e|quently of Providence, the Scrip|tures do every where a&s;cribe to <HI>God;</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Gen. 1.1.</NOTE> &s;o <HI>Mo&s;es, God created the Heaven and the Earth;</HI> And &s;o a|gain,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Exod. 20.</NOTE> <HI>The Lord made Heaven and
<PB N="137" REF="78">Earth, the Sea,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">E&s;a. 40.28.</NOTE> <HI>and all that in them is.</HI> 'Tis he, whom the Evangeli|cal Prophet &s;tyles, <HI>The Everla&s;ting God, the Lord, the Creatour of the Ends of the Earth.</HI> And indeed it mu&s;t needs be &s;o; for, &s;ince Cre|ation is, <HI>Productio Entis ex non Ente,</HI> the production of <HI>&s;omething</HI> out of <HI>nothing,</HI> there being a va&s;t di&s;tance betwixt the&s;e two Terms, it mu&s;t be the effect of an Infinite Power, and &s;uch power there is none, &s;ave only that of God.</P>
<P>Now, that our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour did create the World, we are told again and again: St. <HI>John</HI> &s;aith, <HI>All things were made by him,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 1.3.</NOTE> <HI>and without him was nothing made, that was made.</HI> St. <HI>Paul</HI> tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Col. 1.16.</NOTE> <HI>By him were all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are in Earth, vi&s;ible and invi&s;ible.</HI> And again,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Heb. 1.2.</NOTE> <HI>God by him made the Worlds:</HI> But how by him? Not by him, as a <HI>Man,</HI> for then he was not &s;uch: Not by him, as a <HI>Servant,</HI> not as an <HI>In&s;trument;</HI> for, our Lord &s;aith,
<PB N="138" REF="79"><HI>My Father worketh,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 5.17.</NOTE> <HI>and I work.</HI> Here he &s;peaks of him&s;elf, not as a <HI>Tool</HI> in his Father's hand, but as a <HI>Fellow-worker</HI> with him.</P>
<P>But had not our Lord's Power been equal with his Father's, had he been no more than a Creature, he could have had no hand in the work of Creation. St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Aug. de Trin. l. 3. cap. 8. Tom. 3.</NOTE> <HI>Nec malos, &s;ed nec bonos An|gelos fas e&s;t putare Creatores:</HI> 'Tis not lawful to think that evil An|gels, no nor good ones, can be Creators.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bellarm. de effectu Sa|cram. l. 2. cap. 11. p. 156.</NOTE> So thought <HI>Bellarmine, Nullam Creaturam po&s;&s;e In&s;trumen|taliter concurrere ad Creationem.</HI> And before him <HI>Aquinas,</HI> who &s;ets this down as a certain conclu&s;ion,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Aquin. 1. par. qu. 45. Art. 5.</NOTE> <HI>Im|po&s;&s;ibile e&s;t, qu&ograve;d alicui Creaturae conveniat creare, neque virtute pro|pria, neque in&s;trumentalit&egrave;r, &s;ive per Mini&s;terium: i.</HI> 'Tis impo&s;&s;ible for any Creature to create any thing, either by its <HI>own</HI> Power, or as an <HI>In&s;trument</HI> in anothers hand. 'Tis the judgment of the&s;e and other learned Men, that a Creating
<PB N="139" REF="79">Power, through the Incapacity of all Creatures to be the Subjects of it, is ab&s;olutely <HI>incommunica|ble.</HI></P>
<P>And if &s;o, &s;ince we are &s;ure that our Lord had an equal Hand with his Father and his Holy Spirit in creating the Univer&s;e, we mu&s;t conclude, That he hath an equal Power, and that Power being Omnipotent, he is and mu&s;t be God. And that is my fir&s;t Argu|ment to prove him &s;o.</P>
<P N="2">2. That ble&s;&s;ed Per&s;on, who is <HI>Omni&s;cient,</HI> is truly God: But our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour is a Per&s;on that is Omni&s;cient.</P>
<P>'Tis &s;aid of Man in common, <HI>We are but of ye&s;terday,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Job. 8.9.</NOTE> <HI>and know nothing.</HI> we are &s;o far from knowing every thing that com|paratively we know very little or nothing. But as for God, that is truly affirmed of him, which can be affirmed of none be&s;ides,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;. 147.5.</NOTE> <HI>His &V;nder&s;tanding is infinite:</HI> To him St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aith,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Heb. 4.15.</NOTE> <HI>All things are
<PB N="140" REF="80">naked and open;</HI> &s;o they are to him, and to him alone: And yet &s;o they were, are, and ever will be to our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour: So &s;aid St.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 21.17</NOTE> <HI>Peter, Lord, thou knowe&s;t all things:</HI> And &s;o the other Apo&s;tles, <HI>Lord,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 16.30</NOTE> <HI>we are &s;ure that thou knowe&s;t all things,</HI> even &s;uch things as pa&s;s the knowledge of Men and Angels: As, to in&s;tance in Two Particulars.</P>
<P N="1">1. 'Tis certain that our Lord knew the <HI>Hearts,</HI> under&s;tood the <HI>Thoughts,</HI> the &s;ecret Inclinations, and inward Affections of Men.</P>
<P>The Prophet tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Jer. 17.9.</NOTE> <HI>The Heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it?</HI> What Man doth know his Neighbour's Heart? nay, What Man doth perfectly know his own? &s;o to do is the peculiar Preroga|tive of Heaven; &s;o the next Ver&s;e tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;. 139.1, 2</NOTE> <HI>I the Lord &s;earch the Heart;</HI> &s;o the P&s;almi&s;t found it, <HI>O Lord, thou ha&s;t &s;earched me, and known me, thou under&s;tande&s;t my Thought afar off,</HI> i. <HI>antequam &s;it,</HI> even be|fore
<PB N="141" REF="80">I think it. Such a <GAP DESC="foreign">, a Knower of <HI>Hearts</HI> was our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour; for St. <HI>John</HI> tells us, <HI>He knew what was in Man:</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 2.25. Luk. 6.8.</NOTE> And St. <HI>Luke</HI> &s;aith, <HI>He knew their Thoughts.</HI> Nay, it &s;eems very e|vident from the Series of the E|vangelical Hi&s;tory, that our Lord <HI>foreknew</HI> the Inclinations and Thoughts of Men before the Men them&s;elves were acquainted with them. St. <HI>John</HI> tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 6.64.</NOTE> <HI>Je&s;us knew from the beginning who &s;hould betray him,</HI> even before <HI>Judas</HI> had any <HI>thought</HI> of it, or <HI>Temptation</HI> to it. And certainly St. <HI>Peter</HI> had no thought of denying his Lord, when he &s;aid, <HI>That he would ra|ther die than deny him;</HI> and yet our Lord <HI>fore&s;aw</HI> that he would &s;ure|ly do it.</P>
<P>Now the Que&s;tion is, How came our Lord by this <HI>Pre&s;cience</HI> and Fore-knowledge of his? All the Knowledge of Man is either <HI>natural,</HI> or <HI>acquired,</HI> or <HI>infu&s;ed,</HI> and from Divine Revelation. If we
<PB N="142" REF="81">con&s;ider our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour as a meer Man; 'tis certain that all his natural or acquired Knowledge could never enable him to under|&s;tand the Thoughts, and fore&s;ee the Inclinations of Men; and if &s;o, he mu&s;t needs do this, as he was Man, by Divine Revela|tion.</P>
<P>But if our Lord knew the Hearts and Thoughts of other Men by a Divine Revelation, it may be &s;aid, that &s;uch a Knowledge can|not prove him God; for &s;uch a Knowledge hath been found in &s;ome other Per&s;ons, in Prophets and Apo&s;tles, who yet were no more than Men. When <HI>Eli&s;ha</HI> told <HI>Hazael,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">2 Reg. 8.12, 13.</NOTE> <HI>I know the Evil that thou wilt do;</HI> he knew the Heart of <HI>Hazael</HI> better than him&s;elf; for he thus replyed,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Chr. 12.10.</NOTE> <HI>Is thy Servant a Dog, that he &s;hould do this great thing?</HI> And yet he did it. St. <HI>Paul</HI> tells us, that there was in his time <HI>a gift of di&s;cerning Spirits, i.</HI> either of that inward <HI>Sincerity,</HI> or
<PB N="143" REF="81">&s;ecret <HI>Hypocri&s;ie,</HI> that lay hid in the Hearts of Men. Such a di&s;cer|ning of Spirits very probably was found in St. <HI>Peter,</HI> when he attack|ed <HI>Ananias</HI> thus,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Act. 5.3.</NOTE> <HI>Why hath Satan filled thy Heart to lye to the Holy Gho&s;t?</HI> And yet again, <HI>Why ha&s;t thou conceived this thing in thy Heart?</HI> Upon which Words <HI>Lori|nus</HI> makes this Ob&s;ervation,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Lorinus in locum.</NOTE> <HI>Hic deprehenditur Petro communicata divinit&ugrave;s occultarum rerum &s;cientia;</HI> From hence we may perceive that God was plea&s;ed to communicate to St. <HI>Peter</HI> the Knowledge of <HI>&s;e|cret</HI> things: For &s;uch was the Fraud and Hypocri&s;ie of <HI>Ananias,</HI> which could not probably be di&s;|covered to St. <HI>Peter</HI> by any <HI>In|formations</HI> from <HI>Men,</HI> but by <HI>Re|velation</HI> from <HI>God.</HI> Now if we &s;uppo&s;e and take this for a grant|ed Truth, That St. <HI>Peter</HI> knew the <HI>Heart</HI> of <HI>Ananias,</HI> and the di&s;&s;imu|lation that lurked therein, by an immediate <HI>Revelation</HI> from God; yet notwith&s;tanding <HI>Peter</HI> him&s;elf
<PB N="144" REF="82">&s;till remained no more than a mere mortal <HI>Man.</HI> And if &s;o, how can any &s;uch Knowledge, gained by <HI>Revelation,</HI> prove our Saviour to be a God? To which demand I thus reply:</P>
<P N="1">1. That Knowledge which our Saviour had of the <HI>Hearts</HI> of Men, was a great deal <HI>larger,</HI> and much more <HI>exten&s;ive</HI> than that Know|ledge, which any <HI>Prophets</HI> or <HI>A|po&s;tles</HI> ever had. For whereas they under&s;tood the Hearts only of &s;ome very <HI>few</HI> particular Men, and that upon &s;ome <HI>extraordinary</HI> and emer|gent occa&s;ion, worthy of a new Revelation; 'tis expre&s;ly &s;aid of our Lord,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 2.24.</NOTE> <HI>He knew all Men.</HI> Upon which Words <HI>Theophylact</HI> hath this Paraphra&s;e, <GAP DESC="foreign">. Our Lord was not ignorant what were the Thoughts of <HI>every</HI> Mans Heart; and certainly &s;uch an U|niver&s;al Knowledge &s;peaks him more than a Man, for no mere Man ever had it, or can attain it.
<PB N="145" REF="82">St. <HI>Paul</HI> was an in&s;pired Per&s;on, and had abundance of Revelations, and yet he thus profe&s;&s;eth,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Joh. 3.20</NOTE> <HI>We know but in part.</HI> No; who it is that hath an Univer&s;al Knowledge St. <HI>John</HI> tells us, <HI>God is greater than our Hearts, and knoweth All things.</HI> This Omni&s;cience is pecu|liar to God alone; and if &s;o, &s;ince it was found in our ble&s;&s;ed Lord, who knew the Hearts of all Men, which no <HI>Prophet</HI> or <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> e|ver did, he mu&s;t be truly God.</P>
<P N="2">2. That Knowledge which our Saviour had of the <HI>Hearts</HI> and <HI>Thoughts</HI> of Men, differed from that of the <HI>Prophets</HI> and <HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> as in its <HI>Exten&s;ion,</HI> &s;o in re&s;pect of its <HI>Cau&s;e,</HI> Ground, and Principle; they received all this Knowledge by <HI>Revelation,</HI> and by that a|lone, which our Lord did not do; they had all their Know|ledge of Mens Hearts from <HI>ano|ther,</HI> but his he had of and from <HI>him&s;elf.</HI></P>
<PB N="146" REF="83">
<P> The di&s;cerning of Spirits by our Lord's Apo&s;tles, or &s;ome few other Apo&s;tolical Men is call'd a Gift, and who&s;e Gift both that and &s;ome other were, St. <HI>Paul</HI> tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 12.11.</NOTE> <HI>All the&s;e worketh that One and the &s;ame Spirit.</HI> It was by the &s;ecret Illuminations of the ble&s;&s;ed Spi|rit, and nothing el&s;e, that our Lord's Apo&s;tles were enabled to di&s;cern the Hearts of Men; but this was not our Lord's Ca&s;e al|together.</P>
<P>They who denied that our Lord had Two di&s;tinct Wills &s;uitable to the Two di&s;tinct Natures that were united in his Sacred Per&s;on, were branded with the Name of <HI>Mono|thelites,</HI> and condemned as Here|ticks by a Council at <HI>Rome</HI> gathe|red by Pope <HI>Martin</HI> the Fir&s;t in the Year 652, or, as &s;ome &s;ay, 650. And if it be Here&s;ie to deny a di&s;tinction of <HI>Will</HI> in our Savi|our's Per&s;on, it mu&s;t be rea&s;ona|ble to allow a like di&s;tinction of <HI>&V;nder&s;tanding</HI> too. As he was
<PB N="147" REF="83">God, his Under&s;tanding was <HI>Infinite:</HI> For, as <HI>Aquinas</HI> tells us, with God, <HI>E&s;&s;e &amp; Intelligere idem &s;unt;</HI> His <HI>E&s;&s;ence</HI> and his <HI>&V;nder&s;tanding</HI> are one and the &s;ame thing; &s;o that the One be|ing infinite, the other mu&s;t be &s;o too.</P>
<P>But our Lord's <HI>Humane</HI> Under|&s;tanding was capable of &s;everal <HI>degrees</HI> and mea&s;ures of Know|ledge. Accordingly the Evange|li&s;t tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Luk. 2.52.</NOTE> <HI>Je&s;us encrea&s;ed in Wi&s;|dom and Stature.</HI> As his <HI>Body</HI> grew in <HI>Age</HI> and <HI>Stature,</HI> &s;o his <HI>&V;nder|&s;tanding</HI> encrea&s;ed in <HI>Knowledge.</HI> And we cannot doubt, but all that Knowledge, which might any way be u&s;eful to him in the di&s;patch of that great Work for which he came, was by his <HI>own Deity</HI> communicated to his <HI>Manhood.</HI> One part of his Work was to in&s;truct the World by his Doctrine and Example; but the mo&s;t con&s;iderable part of his Bu&s;i|ne&s;s was to die. But le&s;t he might
<PB N="148" REF="84">have been &s;urprized with Death before his time, and thereby &s;ome other parts of his Work might have been left undone; it was convenient for him to under|&s;tand the Hearts, Intentions, and De&s;igns of his Enemies, who &s;ought to kill him; and this he knew, con&s;idered as Man, by <HI>Revelation.</HI></P>
<P>And, by the way, the Rea&s;on why our Lord's <HI>Humane</HI> Under|&s;tanding was kept in ignorance touching the Day and Hour of the la&s;t Judgment, might well be this; namely, becau&s;e God Almighty did not &s;ee it <HI>conve|nient,</HI> but rather <HI>prejudicial,</HI> that the World &s;hould be taught that Le&s;&s;on; and, upon that Score, our Lord, who in his Humane Nature was the <HI>Teach|er,</HI> had no need, as &s;uch, to know it.</P>
<P>But, that our Lord knew the hearts of Men by another &s;ort of Knowledge, be&s;ides that by Re|velation,
<PB N="149" REF="84">&s;eems evident from that expre&s;&s;ion of the Evangeli&s;t,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 6.61.</NOTE> <HI>Je&s;us knew in him&s;elf;</HI> not by the hear|ing of his Ear, not by any Infor|mation from other Men, no nor meerly by any Revelation from Heaven; but <GAP DESC="foreign">; <HI>In and by him&s;elf. Nemine indicante,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Maldonate;</HI> he knew the matter without any Intimations given him by any other hand. And from this Knowledge of his may we ju&s;tly infer our Lord's Divinity; and to a&s;&s;ure us of it did he at this time take occa&s;ion to manife&s;t his own Omni&s;cience; &s;o &s;aith <HI>Theophylact,</HI> who tells us, that our Lord &s;pake &s;ome words there mention'd in the Context;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Theophyl. in Joan. 6.61.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, being willing to &s;hew that there is nothing in the hearts of Men concealed from him, as being <HI>God.</HI> But,</P>
<P N="2">2. 'Tis certain that our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour fore&s;aw the future <HI>Actions</HI> of Men, and infallibly foreknew
<PB N="150" REF="85">the future <HI>Events</HI> and I&s;&s;ues of things; even &s;uch Events, as de|pended upon Cau&s;es, that were not <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> but <HI>contingent</HI> only.</P>
<P>Indeed, where Cau&s;es are <HI>Na|tural</HI> and <HI>Nece&s;&s;ary,</HI> fixed and de|termined, <HI>ad unum.</HI> What their <HI>Effects</HI> yet <HI>to come,</HI> will certainly be, judicious and learned Men can ea&s;ily fore&s;ee. The Change, in|crea&s;e, full, and wane of the Moon, the Eclip&s;es of the Sun and the Moon, the ri&s;ing and &s;etting of both at &s;uch or &s;uch an hour de|pending upon &s;uch Cau&s;es, as can|not be interrupted by any Acci|dent, are certainly foreknown by our skilfull Mathematicians. But where Cau&s;es are <HI>Contingent,</HI> &s;uch as may be &s;u&s;pended or cro&s;&s;ed in their Operations; where <HI>Agents</HI> are <HI>free, ad utramlibet partem,</HI> it being at their own <HI>choice</HI> to act or not to act thus or thus; what will be, or not be, is to the wi&s;e&s;t of Men altogether uncertain.</P>
<PB N="151" REF="85">
<P> Such a <HI>Pre&s;cience</HI> as <HI>this of future Events</HI> is the peculiar Prerogative of God, and thereby, as by an Infal|lible Character, doth the Prophet di&s;tingui&s;h the true God from fal&s;e ones:
<NOTE PLACE="marg">E&s;a. 41.22.</NOTE> <HI>Let them &s;hew us what &s;hall happen, and declare us things to come; &s;hew the things that are to come here|after, that we may know that ye are Gods.</HI> This Text imports the truth of that, which <HI>Tertullian</HI> long &s;ince a&s;&s;erted;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Tert. in Apolog. cap. 20. p. 18.</NOTE> <HI>Te&s;timonium Divinitatis veritas divinationis;</HI> The true <HI>Pre|diction</HI> of things to come, is a Te|&s;timony of <HI>Divinity.</HI> By this very Argument was God Almighty plea&s;ed to evidence the truth of his own Deity; <HI>Behold,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">E&s;a. 42.9.</NOTE> <HI>the former things are come to pa&s;s, and new things do I declare; before they &s;pring forth, I tell you of them.</HI> 'Tis an Argument of his <HI>Omni&s;cience,</HI> and that is no where to be found, but in a God.</P>
<P>And the ground thereof is thus given us by <HI>Aquinas;</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Aqu. 1. Par. qu. 14. Art. 12.</NOTE> <HI>Contingentia infallibilit&egrave;r a Deo cogno&s;cuntur, in
<PB N="152" REF="86">quantum &s;ubduntur Divino con&s;pectui &s;ecund&ugrave;m &s;uam Prae&s;entialitatem:</HI> Future Contingencies are infallibly known to God, fora&s;much as they are pre&s;ent to him, and within his view.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Eju&s;dem qu. Art. 9.</NOTE> And again he tells us, <HI>Quae|cunque po&s;&s;unt per Creaturam fieri, vel cogitari, vel dici; &amp; etiam quaecunque ip&s;e facere pote&s;t, omnia cogno&s;cit Deus, etiam&s;i Actu non &s;int:</HI> What&s;oever things can be done, thought, or &s;aid by any Crea|ture; what&s;oever things God him|&s;elf can do, though they are not yet in <HI>Actual</HI> being, God knoweth them all, <HI>Scientia Vi&s;ionis,</HI> by im|mediate <HI>Vi&s;ion</HI> and <HI>Intuition.</HI> To the &s;ame purpo&s;e &s;peaks <HI>Bellarmine,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bellarm. de grat. &amp; lib. Arb. l. 4 cap. 13.</NOTE> <HI>Deus intelligit res omnes, quae quo|quo modo e&s;&s;e po&s;&s;unt:</HI> All things, whether in <HI>pre&s;ent Exi&s;tence,</HI> or but in a <HI>Po&s;&s;ibility</HI> of future Be|ing, are certainly known to God.</P>
<P>And &s;uch a Knowledge was there found in our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, who well knew, not only the <HI>pre&s;ent Thoughts</HI> of Men, but their <HI>future
<PB N="153" REF="86">Actions</HI> too; the Trea&s;on of <HI>Judas,</HI> the time when, the place where, the Per&s;ons by whom, and the manner how he &s;hould &s;uffer, and when he &s;hould ri&s;e again; all this he knew beforehand, and foretold his Apo&s;tles. That all his Di&s;ciples &s;hould for&s;ake him, that <HI>Peter</HI> &s;hould three times deny him; he was aware, and gave them war|ning of it.</P>
<P>The&s;e and many other Te&s;timo|nies of our Saviour's foreknow|ledge of things to come, have our Evangeli&s;ts left us upon Record; &s;o that we may confidently make the &s;ame Addre&s;s, and &s;ay toour Redeemer, as St. <HI>Peter</HI> did, <HI>Lord, thou knowe&s;t All things;</HI> and if &s;o, he that is Omni&s;cient, is and mu&s;t be God. It's true, the <HI>Sun</HI> is cal|led <HI>Oculus Mundi,</HI> the <HI>Eye</HI> of the World; and it is &s;aid, <GAP DESC="foreign">, To &s;ee and hear all things: And for that Rea|&s;on, as well as &s;ome other, it was thought and adored as if it had
<PB N="154" REF="87">been a God that knew, <GAP DESC="foreign">, Things pa&s;t, pre&s;ent, and to come. They who had entertained &s;uch thoughts of the <HI>Sun,</HI> may be ju&s;tly blamed for their gro&s;s <HI>Ignorance;</HI> but up|on their Suppo&s;ition, they are ex|cu&s;able for their <HI>Adoration.</HI> For that Being which hath <GAP DESC="foreign">, an All-&s;eeing Eye, an In|finite and omni&s;cient Under&s;tand|ing, is God; and as &s;uch mu&s;t be wor&s;hipped.</P>
<P>And the truth is, the grand Rea&s;on, why our Lord thought fit to foretell &s;o many <HI>future E|vents,</HI> which depended upon <HI>free Agents,</HI> and meerly <HI>contingent Cau&s;es,</HI> was to declare his own Omni&s;cience, and thereby to prove him&s;elf to be, what indeed he was. To this end he told his Di&s;ciples thus,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 13.19.</NOTE> <HI>Now I tell you before it come, that when it is come to pa&s;s, ye may believe that I am he:</HI> What <HI>He</HI> doth he mean? What <HI>He</HI> could certainly foretell &s;o many things
<PB N="155" REF="87">to come? not a mere Man &s;ure;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Jam. 4.14.</NOTE> for, as St. <HI>James</HI> &s;aith, <HI>We know not what &s;hall be on the morrow:</HI> But then what means our Lord, when he &s;aith, <HI>That ye may believe that I am he? Maldonate</HI> well an&s;wers thus, <HI>&V;t credatis me verum e&s;&s;e Chri|&s;tum, non &s;imulatum; verum Deum, qui res omnes, antequam eveniunt, per&s;pectas habeo, quod proprium e&s;t Divinitatis;</HI> That ye may believe that I am not a <HI>Counterfeit</HI> Me&s;&s;i|as, but the <HI>True</HI> One; yea, and the <HI>True</HI> God too, who clearly do fore&s;ee all things to come; and that's a Perfection <HI>proper</HI> and pe|culiar to a Deity.</P>
<P>But if after all this our <HI>Socini|ans</HI> &s;hall plead again, that our Lord fore&s;aw <HI>future Events,</HI> as <HI>Prophets</HI> and <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> did, by <HI>Revelation</HI> on|ly: I an&s;wer this is <HI>Gratis dictum,</HI> &s;aid indeed, but can never be proyed. But &s;ince it is proved by many other Arguments, which cannot be fairly an&s;wered, that our Lord is truly God, as well as
<PB N="156" REF="88">truly Man; we mu&s;t conclude, That as he knew things to come by <HI>Revelation,</HI> con&s;idered as <HI>Man;</HI> even &s;o, con&s;idered as <HI>God,</HI> he knew all things, <HI>Intuitiv&egrave;,</HI> by his own immediate In&s;pection, and Intuition. But,</P>
<P N="3">3. My Third and la&s;t Argu|ment to prove our Lord's Divi|nity &s;hall be this; That ble&s;&s;ed Per&s;on, who is <HI>Omnipre&s;ent,</HI> Im|men&s;e, and Infinite, is truly God. But our Lord is &s;uch a Per|&s;on.</P>
<P>There is no Creature capable of being &s;o; for all created <HI>Spi|rits</HI> are in &s;ome one certain place, <HI>definitiv&egrave;,</HI> they are determined and limited; and all Corporeal Beings are in one certain place, <HI>Circum|&s;criptiv&egrave;,</HI> they are bounded and circum&s;cribed; 'tis the Prerogative of God alone to be <HI>every where at once.</HI> For, as his <HI>Eternity</HI> is <HI>co|exi&s;tent</HI> with all Succe&s;&s;ions of <HI>Time,</HI> &s;o is his <HI>Immen&s;ity commen|&s;urate</HI> with all di&s;tances of places,
<PB N="157" REF="88">wherein he is <HI>Repletiv&egrave;, per E&s;&s;en|tiam, Potentiam, &amp; Prae&s;entiam,</HI> by his E&s;&s;ence, Power, and Pre|&s;ence, as the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> &s;peak.</P>
<P>And the certainty of this Di|vine <HI>&V;biquity</HI> we may learn from that demand of God mentioned by the Prophet,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Jer. 23.24</NOTE> <HI>Can any hide him|&s;elf in &s;ecret places, that I &s;hall not &s;ee him, &s;aith the Lord? Do not I fill Heaven and Earth, &s;aith the Lord?</HI> This Que&s;tion the <HI>P&s;almi&s;t</HI> thus re&s;olves,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;. 139.8.</NOTE> <HI>If I a&s;cend up into Heaven, thou art there; if I make my Bed in Hell, behold thou art there,</HI> &amp;c. by the&s;e and &s;ome o|ther Expre&s;&s;ions doth the <HI>P&s;al|mi&s;t</HI> a&s;&s;ert God's Omnipre&s;ence; and that's a thing,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Aquin. 1. par. qu 8. Art. 4.</NOTE> <HI>Quod Divini|tatis proprium e&s;t.</HI> Peculiar to a <HI>Deity:</HI> So &s;peaks St. <HI>Ambro&s;e,</HI> cited by <HI>Aquinas.</HI></P>
<P>And thus it was with our ble&s;|&s;ed Saviour, even whil&s;t he con|ver&s;ed here below; for though his <HI>Humane Nature</HI> then was, and &s;till is, contrary to the Opinion
<PB N="158" REF="89">of the <HI>&V;biquitaries</HI> and the <HI>Ro|man Church,</HI> confined to, and con|tained in <HI>one</HI> certain place; yet his <HI>whole</HI> Per&s;on never was, never will be &s;o. See that Speech of his to <HI>Nathanael,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 1.48.</NOTE> <HI>I &s;aw thee under the Fig-tree:</HI> How &s;o? Surely not with his bodily Eyes; for our Lord was then pre&s;ent in one place, and <HI>Nathanael</HI> at too great a di&s;tance in another; and yet &s;aith our Lord, <HI>I &s;aw thee,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;aith <HI>Theophylact;</HI> though our Lord, as to his Hu|mane Nature, was remote from <HI>Philip</HI> and <HI>Nathanael,</HI> yet he <HI>&s;aw</HI> their <HI>Per&s;ons,</HI> and <HI>heard</HI> their <HI>Di&s;|cour&s;es,</HI> and thereby he did, <GAP DESC="foreign">, He gave them an early intimation of his own <HI>Divinity,</HI> and that by his <HI>Om|nipre&s;ence,</HI> and <HI>Omni&s;cience.</HI></P>
<P>And this Truth receives a farther and undeniable Confirmation by that Speech of Chri&s;t to <HI>Nicode|mus;</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 3.13.</NOTE> <HI>No Man hath a&s;cended up to Heaven, but he that came down
<PB N="159" REF="89">from Heaven, even the Son of Man, which is in Heaven.</HI> 'Tis a &s;trange thing that any Man who believes the&s;e Words of Chri&s;t, which do &s;o clearly import his <HI>Omnipre&s;ence,</HI> &s;hould deny, or doubt of his <HI>Di|vinity;</HI> for he was now di&s;cour|&s;ing with <HI>Nicodemus</HI> here on <HI>Earth;</HI> and yet he calls him&s;elf the Son of Man, <GAP DESC="foreign"> which <HI>is,</HI> now <HI>is,</HI> in Hea|ven. But how &s;o? not as <HI>Man:</HI> for 'tis impo&s;&s;ible for any Man, as &s;uch, to be at the &s;ame time on <HI>Earth,</HI> and in <HI>Heaven</HI> too. No, we mu&s;t grant that he was, as <HI>The|ophylact</HI> words it, on <HI>Earth,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, in regard of his <HI>Corporeal</HI> Pre&s;ence; but in <HI>Heaven,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, in re&s;pect of his <HI>Divinity;</HI> on Earth as <HI>Man;</HI> in Heaven as <HI>God.</HI></P>
<P>There is yet one Text more, which I &s;hall u&s;e to prove the &s;ame Truth; I mean that Promi&s;e which our Lord gave his Apo&s;tles imme|diately before his A&s;cen&s;ion up to Heaven; <HI>Loe,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 28.20</NOTE> <HI>I am with you al|way,
<PB N="160" REF="90">even to the end of the World:</HI> But how could that be? He was now removing his <HI>Humane</HI> Nature up to <HI>Heaven;</HI> his Apo&s;tles by his Command were to go into <HI>all</HI> the World, and to preach the Go&s;pel, one in this Kingdom, and another in that: And &s;ince our Lord him|&s;elf was to be in Heaven, and his Apo&s;tles were to be &s;eparated, di&s;per&s;ed, and &s;cattered abroad throughout the whole Earth, how could this Promi&s;e be made good, <HI>I am with you,</HI> with <HI>every</HI> one of you, and that <HI>alway,</HI> at <HI>all Times,</HI> and in <HI>all Places?</HI> Certainly this Promi&s;e could not have been per|formed, were not our Lord <HI>Omni|pre&s;ent,</HI> and he that is &s;o, is and mu&s;t be truly God.</P>
<P>And thus by the&s;e Three Attri|butes, <HI>Omnipotence, Omni&s;cience,</HI> and <HI>Omnipre&s;ence,</HI> which the Scrip|tures do a&s;cribe to our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, and which are <HI>peculiar</HI> to <HI>God</HI> alone, I have endeavour|ed to confirm the certainty of his
<PB N="161" REF="90"><HI>Divinity;</HI> which I might have pro|ved by &s;ome other Arguments, had I not thought it needle&s;s; for he that will not be convin|ced by the&s;e, will be convinced by none.</P>
<P N="3">3. My Third and la&s;t Work is to prove the Divinity of the ble&s;&s;ed Spirit, who is the Third Per&s;on in the Glorious God|head.</P>
<P>What various Opinions have been entertained about this ble&s;|&s;ed Spirit, we learn from &s;everal Authors:
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg. Naz. Or. 37. p. 595.</NOTE> <HI>Gregory Nazianzen</HI> tells us, <GAP DESC="foreign">. So &s;peaks St. <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Aug. de ver. Dom. Ser. 11. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">. 10. p. 9.</NOTE> <HI>Sadducaei Spiri|tum Sanctum negabant,</HI> The <HI>Saddu|ces</HI> did utterly deny, that there is any &s;uch being as the Spirit. And what do the <HI>Sabellians</HI> le&s;s? For of them St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Spiritum pror&s;us ita negant, ut ip&s;um Deum negent Trinitatem e&s;&s;e, &s;ed tantum|modo e&s;&s;e Deum Patrem a&s;&s;everant,
<PB N="162" REF="91">&amp; ip&s;um aliquando vocari filium, a|liquando vocari Spiritum Sanctum;</HI> They do &s;o far deny the Spirit, as to deny the <HI>Trinity,</HI> affirming, that the <HI>Father</HI> alone is God; and that <HI>He it is</HI> who is &s;ometimes called the <HI>Son,</HI> and &s;ometimes the <HI>Spirit,</HI> as if they were not di&s;tinct <HI>Per|&s;ons,</HI> but only different <HI>Names.</HI></P>
<P>St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> tells us again, That the <HI>Arians, Eunomians,</HI> and <HI>Ma|cedonians,</HI> allow the <HI>Spirit</HI> to be a <HI>Per&s;on;</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ba&s;il. M. adv. Eu|nom. l. 2. p. 76. Ba&s;il. M. de Sp. S. cap. 19. p. 194.</NOTE> but, <HI>Non Creatorem, &s;ed Creaturam,</HI> not the <HI>Creator,</HI> but a <HI>Creature,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. So <HI>Eu|nomius</HI> in St. <HI>Ba&s;il,</HI> &s;tyles him; as if he were created by our Lord; and as being &s;uch, that Heretick looked upon him,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Huetius O|rigen. l. 2. c. 13.</NOTE> as the &s;ame Fa|ther writes, <GAP DESC="foreign">, as an <HI>In&s;trument,</HI> a <HI>Subject,</HI> of the &s;ame rank with other Creatures, and our <HI>Fellow-&s;ervant.</HI> And a|mong&s;t many other Errors with which <HI>Origen</HI> &s;tands charged, this is one; namely, that he &s;tyled the
<PB N="163" REF="91">Son and the Spirit, <GAP DESC="foreign">, Mini&s;tring Creatures. Again&s;t the Men of this Opinion <HI>Gregory Nazi|anzen</HI> doth thus declaim,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Naz. Or. 44. p. 709.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">. They who <HI>degrade</HI> the Holy Spirit of God, and make him but a <HI>Creature,</HI> are Bla&s;phe|mers, evil Servants, and of all e|vil ones the wor&s;t.</P>
<P>But be&s;ides the&s;e bolder Here|ticks, there were &s;ome others, who did not think the <HI>Holy Spirit</HI> to be a mere <HI>Creature,</HI> but,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Naz. Or. 37. p. 595.</NOTE> as <HI>Na|zianzen</HI> tells us, <GAP DESC="foreign">, the <HI>Vertue</HI> and Efficacy and operative Power of God. But &s;ome there were yet more kind, who allowed to the Spirit &s;ome <HI>Share</HI> of the <HI>Divine Nature,</HI> and thought him a <HI>God;</HI> but, as <HI>Gregory Ny&s;&s;en</HI> &s;aith,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg. Ny&s;. adv. Eu|nom. p. 63.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, not equal to the Son. There is yet another &s;ort of Men, of whom <HI>Nazianzen</HI> &s;aith,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Naz. Or. 37. p. 595.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, They do neither <HI>di&s;honour</HI> the Spirit, nor <HI>adore</HI> him,
<PB N="164" REF="92">as being uncertain, whether he be a Creature or a God.</P>
<P>The&s;e ill Opinions being once rai&s;ed, were much advanced by the Writings of <HI>Origen,</HI> being a Per&s;on of great Learning and Reputation; of whom 'tis &s;aid, <HI>&V;bi bene, nemo melius; ubi male, nemo pejus;</HI> When he wrote <HI>well,</HI> no Man wrote <HI>better;</HI> but when <HI>ill,</HI> no Man <HI>wor&s;e.</HI> Nay, the&s;e ill Opinions do &s;till receive &s;ome Countenance from the Writings of &s;uch Men as were <HI>Orthodox</HI> in their Judgments, but too <HI>unwary</HI> in &s;ome Expre&s;&s;ions. 'Tis well known that <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> was the prime Defender of the Truth, pro|fe&s;&s;ed by the <HI>Nicene</HI> Council a|gain&s;t the <HI>Arians;</HI> and yet even he hath left &s;ome Lines behind him, which are interpreted and do &s;eem to favour that Opinion, which he him&s;elf condemned; for, &s;peaking of our Lord and his Holy Spirit,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Athana&s;. adv. Aria|nor Or. 2. p. 357.</NOTE> he &s;aith that our Lord &s;hewed him&s;elf to be, <GAP DESC="foreign">,
<PB N="165" REF="92">No way <HI>inferiour</HI> to the Spi|rit, but <HI>greater</HI> than He, and equal to him. This Expre&s;&s;ion &s;eems incon&s;i&s;tent with it &s;elf, and repug|nant to the Judgment of this great Man, who wrote it. And truly he mu&s;t be a very candid and favourable Interpreter, who will excu&s;e great St.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ba&s;il. M. adv. Eun. l. 3. p. 78.</NOTE> <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> for &s;ay|ing thus, <GAP DESC="foreign">. Nor do I think that Expre&s;&s;ion of <HI>Tertullian,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Tertul. adv. Prax|can, p. 558.</NOTE> if well weighed, to be ju&s;tifiable, wherein the ble&s;&s;ed Spirit of God is &s;tyled, <HI>Tertius Maje&s;tatis gradus:</HI> As if there were any Inequality, <GAP DESC="foreign">, higher and lower degrees in tho&s;e e&s;&s;ential Excel|lencies, which are in&s;eparable from each of tho&s;e Three glorious Per|&s;ons,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Nazianz. Or. 20. p. 365.</NOTE> of whom <HI>Nazianzen</HI> doth thus affirm, <GAP DESC="foreign">, The Spirit is of the &s;elf-&s;ame Sub&s;tance, and of <HI>equal</HI> Honour with the Father
<PB N="166" REF="93">and the Son. The &s;ame thing in|timates <HI>Diony&s;ius</HI> the <HI>Areopagite,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Diony. Ar. de div. nom. p. 167.</NOTE> or he who bears that Name: <GAP DESC="foreign">; The Scripture doth a&s;cribe to the Divine <HI>Spirit</HI> whatever e&s;&s;ential Perfections do belong either to the <HI>Father</HI> or to the <HI>Son,</HI> their natural Excellencies being equal. And that the ble&s;|&s;ed Spirit is truly God, equal with the Father and the Son, I &s;hall now endeavour to prove by the&s;e fol|lowing Arguments.</P>
<P N="1">1. That the ble&s;&s;ed Spirit is tru|ly God, hath been in all Ages the general Belief and common Profe&s;&s;ion of the mo&s;t Pious, Learned, and Judicious Per&s;ons, who were as conver&s;ant in, and as well acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, which are the only Rules and Grounds of Divine Faith, as any mortal Man can e|ver hope to be.</P>
<P>To prove the Being of a God again&s;t our Modern Athei&s;ts, one
<PB N="167" REF="93">Argument commonly u&s;ed, is drawn from the general con&s;ent of Nations; and to prove that this ble&s;&s;ed Spirit is that God, we may rai&s;e an Argument from the general con&s;ent of the Catholick Church. Our common Belief, that there is a God, ari&s;eth from the Di&s;cour&s;es and Inferences of Hu|mane Rea&s;on, concluding the ne|ce&s;&s;ity of &s;uch a Divine Being from the vi&s;ible Works of Crea|tion and Providence; and our common belief, That the ble&s;&s;ed Spirit is God, doth ari&s;e from the Te&s;timony of tho&s;e Sacred Ora|cles, which being well under&s;tood, and rightly apprehended by the Rea&s;on of Man, are infallible, and cannot fail us. And as we do not doubt the <HI>Being</HI> of a God, be|cau&s;e &s;ome <HI>Athei&s;ts,</HI> contrary to the united Sentiments of all Man|kind be&s;ides, have denied it; &s;o nei|ther &s;hould we doubt the <HI>Divini|ty</HI> of the ble&s;&s;ed Spirit, becau&s;e &s;ome <HI>Hereticks,</HI> contrary to the
<PB N="168" REF="94">joynt Suffrages of the Univer&s;al Church, have made bold to op|po&s;e it.</P>
<P>What hath been, and &s;till is, the belief of the Catholick Church concerning the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Spirit,</HI> we learn from tho&s;e &s;everal <HI>Creeds</HI> and Publick Confe&s;&s;ions of Faith, which have been, and &s;till are, generally received and owned, as &s;hort A|bridgments of all tho&s;e Doctrines of Faith, which are delivered more largely in the Holy Scriptures, and are nece&s;&s;ary to Man's Salvation. The fir&s;t of the&s;e <HI>Creeds</HI> is that, which bears the Name of our Lord's <HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> as being compiled either by <HI>them&s;elves</HI> before their di&s;per|&s;ion, or el&s;e collected out of their <HI>Writings,</HI> to be a &s;tanding Rule of Faith, by other Apo&s;tolical Men, who were their Immediate Suc|ce&s;&s;ors.</P>
<P>This mo&s;t Ancient <HI>Creed,</HI> as to the ble&s;&s;ed Spirit, &s;aith no more than this; <GAP DESC="foreign">; <HI>I believe in the Holy Gho&s;t:</HI>
<PB N="169" REF="94">and with this Article &s;ome Creeds ended, but none did omit it; no not that,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Socrat. Hi&s;t. Eccl. l. 1. c. 26.</NOTE> which <HI>Arius</HI> him&s;elf de|livered to that famous Emperour <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> the Great, and that with this &s;olemn Prote&s;tation; <GAP DESC="foreign">. We have recei|ved this Faith from the Holy Go|&s;pels, our Lord &s;aying to his Di|&s;ciples, <HI>Go, teach all Nations,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 28.19.</NOTE> <HI>bap|tizing them in the Name of the Fa|ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Gho&s;t.</HI> If we do not thus believe, if we do not truly acknow|ledge the <HI>Father,</HI> the <HI>Son,</HI> and the <HI>Holy Spirit,</HI> as the whole Catho|lick
<PB N="170" REF="95">Church, and the Scriptures, to which we a&s;&s;ent in all things, do teach us, God is our Judge at pre&s;ent, and will be &s;o, when the great Day comes. This Pro|te&s;tation of <HI>Arius</HI> and his Friend <HI>Euzoius</HI> was &s;o Solemn, that <HI>So|zomen</HI> &s;aith,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Sozom. Hi&s;t. Eccl. l. 2. c. 27.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">; he &s;ware an Oath, That without any <HI>Equi|vocation</HI> he did heartily believe all the Articles contained in that <HI>Creed,</HI> whereof that, which relates to the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Spirit</HI> was one.</P>
<P>And certainly this general pro|fe&s;&s;ion of Faith in the <HI>Holy Spirit,</HI> contained in the <HI>Apo&s;tles Creed,</HI> is an undeniable Evidence, that the whole <HI>Catholick Church</HI> did &s;uppo&s;e and verily believe him to be <HI>truly God,</HI> Equal to the <HI>Father</HI> and the <HI>Son.</HI> True it is, were not the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Spirit</HI> truly God, the be|lief of all Mankind could not make him &s;o; but &s;uch a Faith is a &s;trong Argument, that all they, who be|lieve in him, do judge and con|clude, that he certainly is a <HI>God</HI>
<PB N="171" REF="95">indeed. So argued that great Divine <HI>Gregory Nazianzen,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Nazianz. Orat. 37. pag. 596.</NOTE> who menti|oning this ble&s;&s;ed Spirit, writes thus: <GAP DESC="foreign">; If the <HI>Spirit</HI> be a <HI>Crea|ture,</HI> how come we to <HI>believe</HI> in him? <GAP DESC="foreign">, To be thus believed on, is a thing pecu|liar unto God. So that the pro|fe&s;&s;ion of this Article, as it is bare|ly &s;et down in the Apo&s;tles Creed, <HI>I believe in the Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> with|out any further Illu&s;trations, was thought enough to &s;hew the belief of the <HI>Catholick Church,</HI> that this ble&s;&s;ed Spirit is really <HI>God.</HI> For when we &s;ay, <HI>We believe in the Ho|ly Gho&s;t,</HI> we do it, <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;aith <HI>Epiphanius,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Epiphan. Haer. 74.</NOTE> we profe&s;s our Faith in the <HI>Holy Spirit</HI> to &s;hew our belief that he is <HI>One God,</HI> one and the &s;ame Individual Sub&s;tance with the <HI>Father</HI> and the <HI>Son.</HI></P>
<P>And that this was the known Faith of the <HI>Catholick Church,</HI> and whence they received it, we learn
<PB N="164" REF="96">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="165" REF="96">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="166" REF="97">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="167" REF="97">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="168" REF="98">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="169" REF="98">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="170" REF="99">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="171" REF="99">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="172" REF="100">from <HI>Irenaeus,</HI> who&s;e words are the&s;e;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Iren. adv. Haeres. l. 1. cap. 2.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. The Church, though di|&s;per&s;ed throughout the World, re|ceived from the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> and their Di&s;ciples their Faith in <HI>One God</HI> the <HI>Father,</HI> and in <HI>One Chri&s;t,</HI> and in the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t;</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. who by the Prophets preached and foretold the whole <HI>Oeconomy</HI> of the Go&s;pel.</P>
<P>Which words being added to the <HI>Apostles Creed,</HI> I mean to that particular Article which relates to the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Spirit,</HI> do infallibly prove his <HI>Divinity.</HI> And for this very end, 'tis thought, that one Clau&s;e like this of <HI>Irenaeus,</HI> and &s;ome o|ther, in oppo&s;ition to the <HI>Here&s;ie</HI> of <HI>Macedonius,</HI> were added to the <HI>Nicene Creed</HI> by the &s;econd <HI>General Council,</HI> gathered by <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> at
<PB N="173" REF="100"><HI>Con&s;tantinople;</HI> where (though &s;ome think it was done by the <HI>Nicene Council</HI> it &s;elf) this Article of the <HI>Apo&s;tles Creed</HI> was thus enlarged:
<NOTE PLACE="marg">U&s;&s;erius Archiep. Armach. de Symbolis.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">; I be|lieve in the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> the <HI>Lord</HI> and giver of Life, who proceedeth from the <HI>Father,</HI> who together with the <HI>Father</HI> and the <HI>Son</HI> is <HI>wor|&s;hipped</HI> and glorified, who &s;pake by the Prophets. Of this Creed thus enlarged in this and other Articles, <HI>Epiphanius,</HI> cited by the late learn|ed <HI>Archbi&s;hop &V;&s;her,</HI> gives this high Commendation; <GAP DESC="foreign">; The Doctrines of Faith contained in this Creed were delivered by the Holy Apo&s;tles.</P>
<P>And the&s;e enlargements were not added to the <HI>Apo&s;tles Creed,</HI> as if that had been judged <HI>in&s;ufficient;</HI> but it was thought fit to <HI>explain,
<PB N="174" REF="101">amplifie,</HI> and illu&s;trate tho&s;e Arti|cles e&s;pecially, which relate to the Per&s;on of our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, and his Holy Spirit; our Lord's Divi|nity being denied by the <HI>Arians,</HI> and the Deity of the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t</HI> being as &s;tiffly oppo&s;ed by the <HI>Ma|cedonians.</HI> Of the&s;e later, <GAP DESC="foreign">,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Epiphan. Har. 74. Sect. 1.</NOTE> <HI>Epiphanius</HI> writes thus; <GAP DESC="foreign">. The &s;ame thing is te&s;tified by <HI>So|crates</HI> of <HI>Macedonius</HI> him&s;elf;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Socra Hi&s;t. Eccle&s;. l. 2. cap. 45. p. 159.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">. He and his followers refu&s;ed to num|ber and reckon the Holy <HI>Spirit</HI> with the <HI>Father</HI> and the <HI>Son; Eum e&s;&s;e Creaturam dicentes,</HI> &s;aying that he is a <HI>Creature.</HI> So writes St. <HI>Au&s;tin.</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Augu&s;t. de Haere&s;. Tom. 6. pag. 6.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">; They thought him to be, as to the Divine Nature, a perfect Stran|ger.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Concil. Con&s;tanti. Can. 1.</NOTE> So &s;aith the &s;econd General <HI>Council</HI> of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> as <HI>Bal&s;a|mon</HI> expounds it. And by this
<PB N="175" REF="101">Council was <HI>Macedonius</HI> and his followers branded with the name of <HI>Semi-Arians,</HI> and accordingly <HI>Anathematized</HI> as <HI>Hereticks.</HI></P>
<P>And certainly tho&s;e &s;evere Cen|&s;ures, which were pa&s;&s;ed by the Go|vernours of the Primitive Church again&s;t all tho&s;e who denied the <HI>Divinity</HI> of the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> are undeniable Evidences, that they them&s;elves did own it as a ne|ce&s;&s;ary and undoubted Article of the Chri&s;tian Faith. And this Faith of theirs they did not only <HI>pro|fe&s;s</HI> in <HI>Words,</HI> but they did <HI>&s;econd</HI> and confirm it by their <HI>Practice</HI> too. For, in their Solemn Acts of Religi|ous Wor&s;hip, Doxologies, and Sup|plications they were wont to make their humble Addre&s;&s;es, as well to the <HI>Holy Spirit,</HI> as to the <HI>Father</HI> and the <HI>Son.</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Nazianz. Or. 44. p. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">09.</NOTE> So did <HI>Gregory Nazian|zene,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">; Let the Spirit be pre|&s;ent
<PB N="176" REF="102">with me, and grant me as great a faculty to &s;peak, as I can wi&s;h; but if not &s;o, yet as much as &s;utes the occa&s;ion. And thus he prayeth el&s;ewhere to the whole Trinity,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Nazianz. Carm. 5. p. 72.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">; But thou, O <HI>Father,</HI> and thou, O <HI>Word</HI> of the Father, and thou, O Glorious <HI>Spirit,</HI> for&s;ake me not. Thus al&s;o prayed St. <HI>Cy|prian</HI> to the <HI>Spirit</HI> alone by name,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cypr. de Sp. Sancto, p. 345.</NOTE> <HI>Ade&s;to, Sancte Spiritus, &amp; Paracle|&s;im tuam expectantibus illabere cae|lit&ugrave;s, Sanctifica Templum corporis no&s;tri, &amp;c.</HI> Be pre&s;ent, O Holy <HI>Spi|rit,</HI> and from Heaven in&s;pire and influence tho&s;e, who wait for thy Con&s;olation, Sanctifie the Temple of our Body, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>Nor did the Primitive Chri&s;ti|ans direct their <HI>Petitions</HI> only, but al&s;o their <HI>Doxologies</HI> and Thanks|givings to the Holy <HI>Spirit</HI> as well as to the <HI>Father</HI> and the <HI>Son;</HI> there is one cited by St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> out of <HI>Diony&s;ius Alexandrinus,</HI> which runs
<PB N="177" REF="102">thus;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ba&s;il. de Sp. Sancto, cap. 29. p. 218.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">: To God the <HI>Father,</HI> and the <HI>Son</HI> our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, with the Holy <HI>Spirit,</HI> be Glory and Dominion for ever and ever, <HI>Amen.</HI> This <HI>Doxology</HI> St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> &s;tyles,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ba&s;il. cap. eodem. p. 220.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, and &s;peaks of it thus, <GAP DESC="foreign">; Never were they thought to be guilty of Impiety, who &s;aid, We prai&s;e the <HI>Father,</HI> and the <HI>Son,</HI> and the Holy <HI>Spirit</HI> of God.</P>
<P>Now then, if the Ancient Fa|thers, who were Men of great A|bilities, &s;ignal Indu&s;try, and exem|plary Piety; who &s;earched the Scriptures to the utmo&s;t of their power, and in &s;o doing earne&s;tly begged and doubtle&s;s found the a&s;&s;i&s;tances of Heaven; if &s;uch Men as the&s;e, after their devout Petiti|ons and &s;tricte&s;t &s;crutiny into &s;uch
<PB N="178" REF="103">and &s;uch Texts, found cau&s;e to believe the <HI>Divinity</HI> of the <HI>Holy Spirit,</HI> and did accordingly per|form <HI>Religious Services</HI> to him, methinks their <HI>Faith</HI> and <HI>Practice</HI> &s;hould be a very great Induce|ment to us to believe his <HI>Godhead.</HI></P>
<P>For, 'tis not rea&s;onable to think, that the Divine Providence &s;hould permit &s;uch great numbers of the mo&s;t learned and pious Men, who were the Pillars of the Catholick Church, to lie under &s;uch a gro&s;s Mi&s;take in a matter of &s;uch great Importance, as mu&s;t needs lead them&s;elves into an Idolatrous Wor|&s;hip, and by their Example and Writings tran&s;mit the &s;ame to all &s;ucceeding Ages. 'Tis a Suppo&s;i|tion, I think, not reconcilable to &s;everal Promi&s;es; our Lord told his Apo&s;tles,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 16.13.</NOTE> <HI>The Spirit of truth will guide you into all truth.</HI> And if it be &s;uppo&s;ed that this Promi&s;e was <HI>Per&s;onal,</HI> and concern'd none but the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> only; yet there is another, which relates to the
<PB N="179" REF="103">Church in general; for, &s;aith our Lord,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 16.18.</NOTE> <HI>The Gates of Hell &s;hall not prevail again&s;t it:</HI> nay, there is a Promi&s;e, which reacheth <HI>every</HI> good Man in particular;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 7.17.</NOTE> <HI>If any Man will do his Will, he &s;hall know of the Doctrine, whether it be of God:</HI> The&s;e and the like Promi&s;es be|ing con&s;idered as to their <HI>Matter,</HI> and acknowledged as to their <HI>Truth,</HI> 'tis not imaginable, that the Divine Providence and Good|ne&s;s &s;hould permit the <HI>Catholick Church,</HI> and the choice&s;t Members of it, and that from Age to Age, to lie under &s;o great a Mi&s;take, as to believe the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Spirit</HI> to be truly God, and to <HI>wor&s;hip</HI> him as &s;uch, if he were not &s;o in|deed.</P>
<P>I conclude this Argument with the Te&s;timony of <HI>Hildebert,</HI> Arch|bi&s;hop of <HI>Tours,</HI> and an excel|lent Poet, who, in a very ele|gant <HI>Hymn</HI> touching the glorious Trinity, writes thus concerning the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Spirit.</HI></P>
<Q><PB N="180" REF="104">
<L><HI>Paracletus increatus, ne&abque; factus ne&abque; natus,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Patri compar filio&abque; &s;ic procedit ab utro&abque;</HI></L>
<L><HI>Ne &s;it minor Pote&s;tate, vel di&s;cretus qualitate:</HI></L>
<L><HI>Quanti Illi, tantus i&s;te; Quales Illi, Talis I&s;te;</HI></L>
<L><HI>Ex quo Illi, tantus i&s;te; &s;emper Illi, &s;emper I&s;te;</HI></L>
<L><HI>Qui&s;&abque; trium plenus Deus; non tres tamen Dii, &s;ed Deus.</HI></L></Q>
<P N="2">2. My &s;econd Argument to prove the Divinity of the Holy Spirit &s;hall be this: That ble&s;&s;ed Per&s;on, who doth <HI>regenerate,</HI> quic|ken, revive, and &s;anctifie the Soul of Man, is God. But the Holy Spirit is that ble&s;&s;ed Per&s;on, who doth regenerate, quicken, revive, and &s;anctifie the Soul of Man.</P>
<P>St. <HI>Paul</HI> told his Converts at <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Eph. 2.1.</NOTE> <HI>Ye were dead in Sins and Tre&s;pa&s;&s;es;</HI> That by Nature is the common Ca&s;e of all Mankind;
<PB N="181" REF="104">and for that Rea&s;on our Lord hath &s;aid, <HI>ye mu&s;t be born again:</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 3.7.</NOTE> But, as <HI>Nicodemus</HI> replied, <HI>How can a Man be born again?</HI> Certain|ly 'tis a Work which requires an Almighty Power, it mu&s;t be the Work of an Omnipotent God. True it is, St. <HI>Paul</HI> told his Con|verts at <HI>Corinth,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 4.15.</NOTE> <HI>I have begotten you through the Go&s;pel:</HI> I, as an <HI>In&s;tru|ment,</HI> in and by the u&s;e of the Go&s;pel as the <HI>Means,</HI> but &s;till the <HI>Principal Agent</HI> in this great Work, without whom <HI>Paul</HI> and the Go|&s;pel could have done no good, was <HI>God.</HI> So he told the Saints at <HI>E|phe&s;us; And you hath he quickned,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Eph. 2.1.</NOTE> <HI>who were dead in Sins:</HI> Not <HI>I,</HI> not the <HI>Go&s;pel,</HI> but <HI>He, i.</HI> God. So St. <HI>James,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Jam. 1.18.</NOTE> <HI>Of his own Will he begat us.</HI> And for this Rea&s;on, the regenerate Per&s;on is &s;aid to be <HI>born of God,</HI> a Child, a Son, an Heir of God.</P>
<P>And as every good Man's new Birth or Regeneration is a&s;cribed to <HI>God,</HI> &s;o more particularly is it
<PB N="182" REF="105">a&s;cribed to the <HI>Spirit;</HI> he that is &s;aid to be <HI>born of God</HI> in one place, is &s;aid to be born of the Spirit in another; &s;o &s;peaks our ble&s;&s;ed Sa|viour,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 3.5, 6.</NOTE> <HI>Except a Man be born of Water and of the Spirit,</HI> &amp;c. And again,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 6.63.</NOTE> <HI>That which is born of the Spirit, is Spirit.</HI> And yet again, <HI>It is the Spirit that quickneth.</HI> So Intimates St. <HI>Paul,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 6.11</NOTE> <HI>Ye are &s;anctified by the Spirit of our God.</HI> And &s;o again.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Tit. 3.5.</NOTE> <HI>He &s;aved us by the wa&s;hing of Regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Gho&s;t.</HI> Such Texts as the&s;e gave ju&s;t occa&s;ion to <HI>Gregory Ny&s;&s;en</HI> to &s;ay of the Scripture,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg. Ny&s;. adv. Eu|nom. Or. 1 p. 60.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">. It doth in ex|pre&s;s Words te&s;tifie, That the Re|generation of the Children of God is the proper Work of the Holy <HI>Spirit;</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cyril. Hie|ro&s;ol. in Catech. 16. p. 176.</NOTE> whom St. <HI>Cyril</HI> upon the &s;ame account &s;tyles <GAP DESC="foreign">, the Sanctifier of all God's Elect; and then he adds, <GAP DESC="foreign">, 'Tis the <HI>Spirit</HI> which
<PB N="183" REF="105">illuminates all Righteous Men's Souls.</P>
<P>Now from this Supernatural Work of Man's Regeneration we may ju&s;tly inferr the <HI>Divinity</HI> of the <HI>Holy Spirit,</HI> and conclude, as <HI>Gregory Ny&s;&s;en</HI> doth,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg. Ny&s;. adv. Eu|nom. Or. 1. p. 59.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">. They who have received the Privilege of being made the Children of God, do, by their very being &s;o, te|&s;tifie the <HI>Divinity</HI> of his <HI>Spirit.</HI> For &s;ince Man's Regeneration is the undoubted Work of <HI>God,</HI> and yet the proper Work of the <HI>Spirit;</HI> it mu&s;t follow by an undeniable Con&s;equence, that the Spirit is God indeed.</P>
<P N="3">3. My third Argument to prove the Divinity of the Holy Spi|rit &s;hall be this: If the Scrip|tures be the Word of God, then is the Holy Spirit God. But the Scriptures certainly are the Word of God.</P>
<PB N="184" REF="106">
<P> The Divinity of the Holy Scrip|tures, did our <HI>Socinians</HI> deny the Authority of the <HI>whole</HI> Bible, as they do that of &s;ome <HI>particular</HI> Texts, might be proved from a great variety of proper <HI>Topicks.</HI> The punctual <HI>accompli&s;hment</HI> of its <HI>Prophecies,</HI> &s;uch as foretold <HI>future Contingencies</HI> at the greate&s;t di&s;tances of time; even &s;uch E|vents as were exceedingly <HI>impro|bable;</HI> nay &s;ome Events as were, according to the common cour&s;e of Nature, utterly <HI>impo&s;&s;ible:</HI> Such were our Lord's Birth from a Vir|gin, and his Re&s;urrection from the dead. Be&s;ides, the incompa|rable Excellence of Scripture <HI>Pre|cepts</HI> far tran&s;cending the choice&s;t Rules of the be&s;t ancient Mora|li&s;ts; the &s;tupendious <HI>Miracles,</HI> which were often wrought by our Lord him&s;elf, by his Prophets and Apo&s;tles, purpo&s;ely to confirm their Doctrine; the undaunted <HI>Courage</HI> and matchle&s;s <HI>Patience</HI> of the <HI>Martyrs,</HI> who &s;uffered the
<PB N="185" REF="106">greate&s;t Tortures which Men or Devils could invent, for the Pro|fe&s;&s;ion, and in the defence of Scripture-Truths; it's wonderful <HI>Pre&s;ervation</HI> from Age to Age a|gain&s;t the <HI>Swords</HI> of powerful <HI>Ty|rants,</HI> and the <HI>Pens</HI> of &s;ubtle <HI>He|reticks;</HI> its mighty <HI>Effects</HI> and In|fluence upon the mo&s;t ob&s;tinate Hearts of Men; each of the&s;e, to|gether with the con&s;tant <HI>Traditi|on</HI> of the <HI>Catholick Church,</HI> and the frequent <HI>Te&s;timonies</HI> of the Scrip|ture it &s;elf, might be managed as an Argument to confirm its Divine Authority.</P>
<P>But there is one Argument more, which alone would be &s;uf|ficient; and this it is: The Scrip|ture cannot proceed from <HI>Men</HI> or <HI>Angels,</HI> whether good or bad; for as to <HI>religious</HI> Men, and <HI>Holy</HI> Angels, it were utterly incon&s;i|&s;tent with their Goodne&s;s to forge and counterfeit &s;uch and &s;uch Records, and then to father them upon God, and impo&s;e them up|on
<PB N="186" REF="107">the World, as the Oracles of Heaven: And as for <HI>wicked</HI> Men and wicked Angels, the Scrip|tures cannot with any &s;hew of Rea&s;on be imputed unto them, becau&s;e they cro&s;s their de&s;igns, contradict their Inclinations, for|bid what they love, command what they hate, condemn their Practices, and &s;entence their Per&s;ons to everla&s;ting Flames. Now, if the Scriptures came not from <HI>Men</HI> or <HI>Angels,</HI> they mu&s;t come from <HI>God;</HI> for no other Author of them can po&s;&s;ibly be imagi|ned.</P>
<P>Now, if the Scriptures be, as mo&s;t certainly they are, the <HI>Word</HI> of <HI>God,</HI> then may we thence in|fallibly conclude, that the Holy <HI>Spirit</HI> is <HI>God,</HI> becau&s;e to him, as their immediate and undoubted <HI>Author,</HI> the Scriptures are once and again entituled. St. <HI>Luke</HI> tells us, <HI>God &s;pake by the Mouth of his holy Prophets:</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Luk. 1.70.</NOTE> And St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aith, <HI>All Scripture is given by In&s;piration of</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">2 Tim. 3.16.</NOTE>
<PB N="187" REF="107"><HI>God;</HI> but was it by the In&s;piration of God the <HI>Father,</HI> or God the <HI>Son?</HI> St. <HI>Paul</HI> an&s;wers,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Act. 28.25.</NOTE> <HI>Well &s;pake the Holy Gho&s;t by E&s;aias the Pro|phet.</HI> And again,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">2 Pet. 1.21.</NOTE> <HI>Holy Men &s;pake as they were moved by the Holy Gho&s;t.</HI> So St. <HI>Peter.</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ba&s;il M. de Sp. Sancto, c. 21. p. 198.</NOTE> And hence St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> &s;aith, That the Apo&s;tle &s;tyles the Scripture, <GAP DESC="foreign">, In&s;pired of <HI>God,</HI> becau&s;e it was written by the In&s;piration of the <HI>Holy Spirit;</HI> and hence <HI>Irenae|us</HI> concludes the <HI>Perfection</HI> of the Scriptures; for thus he writes,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Iren. adv. Haere&s;. l. 2. c. 47.</NOTE> <HI>Scripturae quidem perfectae &s;unt, quippe &agrave; Spiritu Dei dictae;</HI> the Scriptures are perfect indeed, becau&s;e dictated by the <HI>Spirit</HI> of God. So then, &s;ince the Scrip|tures are the <HI>Word</HI> of <HI>God,</HI> and withall the <HI>Word</HI> of the <HI>Spirit,</HI> this Con&s;equence is undeniable; namely, That this ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Spirit,</HI> being the immediate Author of the Holy Scriptures, is and mu&s;t be God.</P>
<P N="4"><PB N="188" REF="108"> 4. My fourth Argument, and the la&s;t which I &s;hall or need u&s;e, to prove the Godhead of the Holy Spirit, &s;hall be this: If our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, in re&s;pect of his <HI>Humane Nature,</HI> be indeed the <HI>Son</HI> of <HI>God,</HI> then is the Holy <HI>Spirit</HI> God. But mo&s;t certain it is, that our ble&s;&s;ed Sa|viour, in re&s;pect of his Hu|mane Nature, is indeed the Son of God.</P>
<P>I do not read of any one Per|&s;on throughout the whole Go|&s;pel, that ever called our ble&s;|&s;ed Saviour <HI>Son of Man,</HI> but he was plea&s;ed frequently &s;o to &s;tyle him&s;elf; nay he &s;tyles him&s;elf <HI>the Son,</HI> not <GAP DESC="foreign">, but in the <HI>Ma&s;culine</HI> Gender, <GAP DESC="foreign">, a Title, from which &s;ome <HI>Here|ticks</HI> took occa&s;ion to &s;ay, That <HI>Jo&s;eph</HI> was, not his <HI>&s;uppo&s;ed,</HI> but his <HI>real</HI> Father. But, the truth is, that as our Lord, in re&s;pect of his Divinity, was <GAP DESC="foreign">, with|out a <HI>Mother;</HI> &s;o in re&s;pect of
<PB N="189" REF="108">his <HI>Humanity,</HI> he was, as to Men, <GAP DESC="foreign">, without a Father. And yet notwith&s;tanding this, he might well be called <HI>The Son of Man,</HI> as he was the Son, <HI>i.</HI> one of the <HI>Po&s;terity</HI> of <HI>David</HI> and <HI>Abraham,</HI> who were <HI>Men,</HI> and from whom his Virgin <HI>Mother</HI> was lineally de|&s;cended.</P>
<P>But as our Lord did frequent|ly call him&s;elf, <HI>The Son of Man,</HI> &s;o did he many times &s;tyle him|&s;elf, <HI>The Son of God</HI> too. And the Son of God he was and is, in re&s;pect of his <HI>Deity,</HI> by an e|ternal and nece&s;&s;ary <HI>Generation;</HI> and, in re&s;pect of his <HI>Humanity,</HI> by a voluntary and miraculous <HI>Conception</HI> and <HI>Birth,</HI> in the fulne&s;s of time. His Son&s;hip to God by an eternal Genera|tion our <HI>Socinians</HI> will not grant; but his Son&s;hip to God in re|gard of his wonderful <HI>Incarna|tion,</HI> I think, they do not deny.</P>
<PB N="190" REF="109">
<P> Now, if it be granted, as indeed it ought to be, that our Lord is indeed the <HI>Son</HI> of <HI>God</HI> in re&s;pect of his <HI>Humane Nature,</HI> it mu&s;t al|&s;o be granted, that the Holy <HI>Spi|rit</HI> is <HI>God;</HI> for to him, as its un|doubted <HI>Author,</HI> is the Humane Nature of Chri&s;t a&s;cribed. When <HI>Jo&s;eph</HI> was minded to put away his Wife, as being then with Child,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 1.20.</NOTE> but not by him, an <HI>Angel</HI> was &s;ent to tell him thus, <HI>That which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Gho&s;t:</HI> And that it &s;hould be &s;o, the Angel <HI>Gabriel,</HI> &s;tyled <HI>Angelus Mi&s;ericordiae,</HI> The Angel of <HI>Mercy,</HI> had foretold his Mother before her Conception; <HI>The Holy Ghost &s;hall come upon Thee, and the Power of the Highe&s;t &s;hall over&s;hadow Thee:</HI> And what then?
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Luk. 1.35.</NOTE> <HI>Therefore al&s;o that Holy thing which &s;hall be born of thee, &s;hall be called the Son of God.</HI> From hence it is evident, that our Lord, as <HI>Man,</HI> is the <HI>Son</HI> of <HI>God,</HI> be|cau&s;e
<PB N="191" REF="109">his whole Humane Nature was framed by the Invi&s;ible Power and operation of the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t;</HI> who, for that very rea&s;on, if the Angel's Inference have any thing of Truth and Pertinence in it, is and mu&s;t be acknowledged God.</P>
<P>And thus have I endeavoured to prove the <HI>Deity</HI> of the <HI>Holy Spirit</HI> by four Arguments; Fir&s;t, by the general belief of the Ca|tholick Church, con&s;i&s;ting of &s;uch great numbers of pious and lear|ned Men, &s;o well acquainted with the word of God, and &s;o well qualified for the a&s;&s;i&s;tances of Hea|ven, that we cannot piou&s;ly or charitably imagine, that after all their indefatigable indu&s;try in &s;earching the Scriptures, and their dayly Petitions to God for the Illuminations of his Holy Spirit, they &s;hould &s;till be mi&s;taken from Age to Age in &s;uch an Important Article of our Creed. Secondly, By the work of Grace or Rege|neration;
<PB N="192" REF="110">by vertue whereof eve|ry Sanctified Soul is &s;aid to be born of God, becau&s;e born of the Spirit. Thirdly, By the Di|vine Authority of the Holy Scrip|ture, which is therefore the word of God, becau&s;e it was dictated to the Prophets, Evangeli&s;ts, and Apo&s;tles, by the Immediate In|&s;pirations of the Holy Gho&s;t. Fourthly, By our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour's being the Son of God in re&s;pect of his Manhood; his Soul being immediately created, and his Bo|dy miraculou&s;ly framed of his Mothers Sub&s;tance, being fir&s;t per|fectly Sanctified by the powerful Operation of the Holy Spirit.</P>
<P>But to elude all Arguments drawn from tho&s;e Divine <HI>Opera|tions,</HI> which the Scriptures attri|bute to the <HI>Holy Spirit,</HI> and where|by we prove his <HI>Deity;</HI> our <HI>Soci|nians</HI> affirm that he is no <HI>Per&s;on:</HI> So thought <HI>Socinus</HI> him&s;elf, who made bold to &s;ay, <HI>Credo me &s;atis
<PB N="193" REF="110">o&s;tendi&s;&s;e Spiritum Sanctum non e&s;&s;e Per&s;onam,</HI> I believe that I have &s;ufficiently &s;hewed that the Holy Spirit is not a Per&s;on; but what is he then? <HI>Virtus Dei vel effica|cia,</HI> He is the <HI>Vertue,</HI> Power, or Efficacy of God, and no more: &s;o He.</P>
<P>To this Heretical Opinion of <HI>Socinus</HI> we might oppo&s;e the &s;oun|der judgments and va&s;t numbers of learned Men.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Nazianz. Or. 32. p. 520.</NOTE> <HI>Nazianzen</HI> &s;peak|ing of God, &s;aith that he is <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>One</HI> in <HI>Sub&s;tance,</HI> but <HI>Three</HI> in <HI>Per|&s;ons.</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ny&s;&s;en. in Bapt. Chri|&s;ti, p. 804.</NOTE> <HI>Gregory Ny&s;&s;en</HI> &s;tyles Bap|ti&s;m, <GAP DESC="foreign">, The My&s;tery of the <HI>Three</HI> Holy <HI>Per&s;ons. Theophylact</HI> men|tioning the In&s;titution and Form of Bapti&s;m, &s;aith, <GAP DESC="foreign">, Our Lord made mention of <HI>Three Per&s;ons:</HI> And as to the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Spirit</HI> in parti|cular,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cyr. Hier. Cat. 16. p. 176.</NOTE> St. <HI>Cyril</HI> proves him to be a Per&s;on thus, <GAP DESC="foreign">,
<PB N="194" REF="111">He lives, and is an <HI>Intelligent</HI> Being.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Elias Cret. in Naz. Or. 1. p. 83.</NOTE> And, to name no more, <HI>Elias Creten&s;is</HI> writes thus of the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t, Spiritus e&s;t E&s;&s;entia, quae per &s;e in peculiari Hypo&s;ta&s;i con&s;ideratur,</HI> The Spirit is an E&s;|&s;ence, con&s;idered in a <HI>Sub&s;i&s;tence</HI> peculiar to him&s;elf.</P>
<P>The&s;e and a multitude of other learned Men, found &s;ufficient rea|&s;on to believe the <HI>Per&s;onality</HI> of the Holy <HI>Spirit</HI> by the con&s;ide|ration of &s;everal <HI>Actions,</HI> which are clearly a&s;cribed unto him, e|ven &s;uch <HI>Actions,</HI> as are <HI>proper</HI> and peculiar to <HI>Per&s;ons</HI> only. 'Tis evident that the Spirit is &s;aid to re|prove, to teach, to guide, to quicken, to &s;anctifie, to di&s;tribute Gifts and Graces in what mea&s;ure and to whom he plea&s;eth; the&s;e and o|ther Actions with &s;ome di&s;po&s;iti|ons too, a&s;cribed to the Spirit, &s;ince they cannot belong to <HI>Qua|lities,</HI> do abundantly evince his <HI>Per&s;onality.</HI></P>
<PB N="195" REF="111">
<P> But that &s;uch <HI>Per&s;onal Actions,</HI> a&s;cribed to the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Spirit,</HI> do indeed prove him to be a <HI>Per&s;on,</HI> our <HI>Socinians</HI> will not grant; for, &s;ay they, and truly too, Per&s;onal Actions, in other ca&s;es, and in o|ther Texts, are clearly a&s;cribed to <HI>things,</HI> which are not <HI>Per&s;ons. Solomon</HI> tells us,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Prov. 1.20</NOTE> <HI>Wi&s;dom crieth without, &s;he uttereth her voice in the Streets.</HI> To cry and utter a voice is a <HI>Per&s;onal</HI> Action, and yet 'tis here a&s;cribed to <HI>Wi&s;dom,</HI> which is no <HI>Per&s;on:</HI> St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aith of Charity, <HI>It beareth all things,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 13.7.</NOTE> <HI>believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.</HI> The&s;e and o|ther Actions, which are proper to <HI>Per&s;ons,</HI> are attributed to <HI>Charity,</HI> which is no more than a Gracious <HI>di&s;po&s;ition,</HI> quality, or habit. And indeed 'tis u&s;ual in all &s;orts of Authors to a&s;cribe tho&s;e Actions, whether good or bad, which any Per&s;on doth, to tho&s;e inward <HI>Principles,</HI> by vertue whereof he
<PB N="188" REF="112">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="189" REF="112">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="190" REF="113">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="191" REF="113">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="192" REF="114">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="193" REF="114">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="194" REF="115">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="195" REF="115">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="196" REF="116">doth them. And &s;uch a <HI>Meto|nymy</HI> or <HI>Pro&s;opopoeia,</HI> do our <HI>Soci|nians</HI> urge to enervate tho&s;e Ar|guments, which are drawn from the Divine <HI>operations</HI> of the Holy Spirit, to prove his Deity.</P>
<P>That &s;uch Actions are clearly a&s;cribed to the <HI>Spirit,</HI> as are pe|culiar to <HI>God</HI> alone, our <HI>Socini|ans</HI> cannot deny, and from &s;uch Actions, being <HI>Per&s;onally</HI> his, the Fathers do ju&s;tly conclude his <HI>God head.</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Athan. in dial. adv. Maced. p. 272.</NOTE> So <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, where there is the &s;elf-&s;ame <HI>Operation,</HI> there is the &s;elf-&s;ame <HI>Nature</HI> too. And &s;o <HI>Gregory Ny&s;&s;en,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg. Ny&s;|&s;en. de Trin. p. 445.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, The <HI>Identity</HI> of <HI>O|peration</HI> betwixt the <HI>Father, Son,</HI> and <HI>Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> doth manife&s;tly &s;hew the <HI>Identity</HI> of their <HI>Na|ture.</HI></P>
<P>Now, becau&s;e the force of this Argument cannot be e&s;caped by
<PB N="197" REF="116">a downright <HI>denial,</HI> our <HI>Socinians</HI> found them&s;elves concerned to think of &s;ome <HI>Eva&s;ion,</HI> and fixed upon this; they tell us, that tho&s;e Divine Actions, which are <HI>fign|ratively</HI> a&s;cribed to the <HI>Spirit,</HI> were <HI>really</HI> done by <HI>God</HI> the <HI>Fa|ther;</HI> for, &s;ay they, the <HI>Spirit</HI> is nothing el&s;e, but <GAP DESC="foreign">, the working and effectual <HI>Power</HI> of <HI>God;</HI> and to this <HI>Spirit</HI> &s;uch and &s;uch works are a&s;cribed. Not that this Spirit is a <HI>Per&s;on</HI> &s;ub&s;i&s;ting in and operating of him&s;elf, but by a <HI>Metonymy</HI> or <HI>Pro&s;opopoeia,</HI> becau&s;e he is the <HI>Power,</HI> by which God the <HI>Father</HI> doth the works.</P>
<P>But this &s;lender pretence of our <HI>Socinians</HI> is clearly over|thrown and utterly baffled by the Pen of a late and very lear|ned <HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> of our own Church,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Pear&s;onus in Expo&s;it. Symboli Apo&s;tol.</NOTE> who, to the &s;atisfaction of all &s;o|ber Men, and to the &s;hame of the&s;e <GAP DESC="foreign">, hath unan&s;werably demon&s;trated, that there are &s;e|veral
<PB N="198" REF="117">Actions a&s;cribed to the ble&s;|&s;ed <HI>Spirit,</HI> which can never be a&s;cribed to God the <HI>Father.</HI> The Spirit is &s;aid <HI>to make Interce&s;&s;ion for us,</HI> but that the <HI>Father</HI> cannot be &s;aid to do; for, with whom can he be thought to Intercede? Again, the Spirit is &s;aid to be <HI>&s;ent</HI> by the <HI>Father</HI> and the <HI>Son;</HI> but the <HI>Father</HI> him&s;elf cannot be &s;aid to be <HI>&s;ent,</HI> and to come as being &s;ent, as the Spirit doth; for, who &s;hould <HI>&s;end</HI> him? Yet once more, our Lord &s;aith of the Spirit, <HI>He &s;hall not &s;peak of him|&s;elf, but what&s;oever he &s;hall hear, that &s;hall he &s;peak.</HI> This cannot be &s;aid of God the <HI>Father;</HI> for, whatever he <HI>&s;peaks,</HI> whatever he <HI>doth,</HI> he <HI>&s;peaks</HI> and <HI>doth</HI> of him|&s;elf.</P>
<P>Since therefore &s;uch and &s;uch Actions are a&s;cribed to the <HI>Spi|rit,</HI> which cannot be attributed to God the <HI>Father;</HI> this pre|tence of a <HI>Pro&s;opopoeia</HI> is altogether
<PB N="199" REF="117">in&s;ufficient; becau&s;e the <HI>Spirit,</HI> con&s;idered, as our <HI>Socinians</HI> re|pre&s;ent him, namely and only as a <HI>powerful quality</HI> or Energy, by which God the <HI>Father</HI> Acts, cannot be thought to do &s;uch Actions, as are by no means ap|plicable to God the <HI>Father.</HI></P>
<P>And as tho&s;e Operations, which cannot be imputed to God the <HI>Father,</HI> do prove the <HI>Spirit,</HI> which doth them, to be a <HI>Per&s;on</HI> di&s;tinct from the Father; &s;o his Glorious <HI>Attributes</HI> and many Divine <HI>Ope|rations,</HI> do prove him to be a <HI>Per&s;on Equal</HI> to the <HI>Father.</HI> For, that he is <HI>Coeternal</HI> with him, is a truth warranted by &s;everal Texts, and accordingly te&s;tified by <HI>Gre|gory Nazianzen,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Nazianz. Or. 44. p. 711.</NOTE> who writes of him thus; <GAP DESC="foreign">, The <HI>Holy Spirit</HI> alway was, is, and will be, without beginning, with|out
<PB N="200" REF="118">end, Co-ordinate and reckon|ed in the &s;ame rank with the <HI>Father</HI> and <HI>Son.</HI> That he is Om|nipotent, the &s;ame Father te&s;tifieth by vertue of &s;everal Texts, and doth thus evince it;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Nazianz. Or. 44. p. 714.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, The <HI>Spirit</HI> had a joynt hand with the <HI>Son</HI> in the works of <HI>Creation,</HI> and will have in the work of the <HI>Re&s;urrection</HI> too. St.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cyprian de SP. S. p. 346.</NOTE> <HI>Cyprian</HI> &s;aith of him, <HI>Solo nutu perficit omnia; quod dicit, facit; quod jubet, implet; regit, componit, con&s;ummat,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Iren. adv. Haer. l. 1. c. 19.</NOTE> <HI>perficit.</HI> And <HI>Irenaeus</HI> thus, <HI>Deus per verbum &amp; Spiri|tum &s;uum omnia faciens, di&s;ponens, &amp; gubernans.</HI> All which Expre&s;|&s;ions do import the Spirit's Intere&s;t and Almighty Power in creating, pre&s;erving, ordering, and gover|ning the World.</P>
<P>And by the&s;e and &s;ome other Divine Attributes and Operations was St.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cyril. Hie|ro&s;ol. Cat. 4. p. 30.</NOTE> <HI>Cyril</HI> induced to &s;ay, <GAP DESC="foreign">
<PB N="201" REF="118">The <HI>Spirit,</HI> with the <HI>Father</HI> and the <HI>Son,</HI> is honoured with that Glory, which ju&s;tly belongs to the God-head. And &s;o <HI>Nazianzen,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Nazianz. Orat. 32. pag. 520.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">. We believe on the <HI>Father, Son,</HI> and <HI>Holy Spi|rit,</HI> as being of the <HI>&s;ame E&s;&s;ence,</HI> Sub&s;tance, and Glory.</P>
<P>And here I may take occa&s;ion to an&s;wer that &s;awcy Que&s;tion, which was once propounded by a <HI>Macedo|nian</HI> Heretick;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Naz. Or. 37. p. 599.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">; Who ever wor&s;hipped the Spi|rit? Who among&s;t the Ancients? Who of the <HI>Neotericks?</HI> Who e|ver prayed to him? Where is it written, that we ought &s;o to do? To this bold Demand I an&s;wer, That for our wor&s;hipping the <HI>Holy Spirit</HI> we have both Commands and Examples.</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="202" REF="119"> 1. For our wor&s;hipping the <HI>Holy Spirit</HI> we have <HI>Commands;</HI> for be&s;ides our Lord's Injuncti|on requiring us to be <HI>Baptized</HI> into the <HI>Name,</HI> the <HI>Faith,</HI> the <HI>Re|ligion</HI> and <HI>Service</HI> of the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t;</HI> every Text which com|mands us to wor&s;hip <HI>God,</HI> com|mands us to wor&s;hip the <HI>Spirit</HI> too. For, as <HI>Nazianzen</HI> well determines this matter, <GAP DESC="foreign">. The Adoration of <HI>One God</HI> is the Adoration of the <HI>Three Per&s;ons,</HI> becau&s;e they are of the <HI>&s;ame Honour,</HI> Dignity, and God|head. And whenever we pray to God without a particular Application to this or that par|ticular Per&s;on, we pray to them <HI>all,</HI> as being <HI>one</HI> and the &s;ame God undivided.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="203" REF="119"> 2. For our wor&s;hipping the Ho|ly Spirit we have Examples; and &s;uch Examples as de&s;erve and re|quire our Imitation.</P>
<P>That of St. <HI>Paul</HI> is one, who thus concludes one of his Epi&s;tles, <HI>The Grace of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">2 Cor. 13.14.</NOTE> <HI>and the Love of God, and the Com|munion of the Holy Gho&s;t, be with you all. Amen.</HI> That the&s;e Words are a <HI>Prayer,</HI> I think no Man will deny: As &s;uch doth <HI>Theophylact</HI> and <HI>Oecumenius</HI> own it; and St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> expre&s;ly &s;aith of St. <HI>Paul,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. He doth here end his Di&s;cour&s;e with a <HI>Prayer.</HI> And if it be a <HI>Prayer,</HI> to <HI>whom</HI> doth St. <HI>Paul</HI> di|rect it? either to no body, or el&s;e to the whole <HI>Trinity</HI> in Con|junction. For, as <HI>Grotius</HI> ob&s;erves, <HI>Sunt hic, ut &amp; in Bapti&s;mo, apert&egrave; nomina,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. The whole <HI>Trinity</HI> is here expre&s;ly named, as it al&s;o is in the Form of Bapti&s;m;
<PB N="204" REF="120">&s;o that if St. <HI>Paul</HI> doth here pray at all, he prayeth to the <HI>Father,</HI> to the <HI>Son,</HI> and to the <HI>Ho|ly Gho&s;t</HI> too.</P>
<P>And &s;ince St. <HI>Paul</HI> did direct his humble Petitions for Spiritual Ble&s;&s;ings to none but God; we may from this Reque&s;t of his ve|ry ju&s;tly infer the Doctrine of the <HI>Trinity:</HI> So thought &s;everal Interpreters of this Text:
<NOTE PLACE="marg">E&s;tius in locum.</NOTE> <HI>Hoc lo|co di&s;tincte nobis in&s;inuantur tres in Divinis Per&s;onae:</HI> So one: And thus another;
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Corn. &agrave; lap. in locum.</NOTE> <HI>Notant hic &s;ignifi|cari Sancti&s;&s;imam Trinitatem</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>con&s;ub&s;tantialem, eam &s;cilicet eju&s;dem e&s;&s;e naturae, potentiae, opera|tionis,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Gre. Thau|mat. in Exp. Sym|boli, p. 101.</NOTE> &amp;c. And from this place doth <HI>Gregory Thaumaturgus</HI> draw an Argument, <HI>Qu&ograve;d venerabilis e&s;t Sancta Trinitas non &s;eparata, nec a|lienata.</HI> Hence al&s;o doth St. <HI>Chry|&s;o&s;tom,</HI> and after him <HI>Theophylact,</HI> break out into this Expre&s;&s;ion, <GAP DESC="foreign">; Where now are they who &s;light
<PB N="205" REF="120">the <HI>Spirit,</HI> as if he were not <HI>God,</HI> &s;ince St. <HI>Paul</HI> him&s;elf doth here addre&s;s his &s;olemn Petition as well to the <HI>Holy Spirit,</HI> as to the <HI>Father</HI> and the <HI>Son.</HI></P>
<P>And after the Example of this great Apo&s;tle, and in a firm Be|lief, That the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Spirit</HI> is <HI>God,</HI> have many pious and ju|dicious Men made their Religious Addre&s;&s;es to him; particular In|&s;tances I have already named; as that of <HI>Nazianzen,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. And a|gain, <GAP DESC="foreign">. And that of St. <HI>Cyprian, Ad|e&s;to, Sancte Spiritus,</HI> &amp;c. Nor did <HI>particular</HI> Per&s;ons only thus invo|cate the <HI>Holy Spirit</HI> in their <HI>pri|vate Devotions;</HI> but <HI>whole Congre|gations</HI> did &s;o in their <HI>publick Supplications</HI> too; &s;uch a Prayer I find in that <HI>Liturgy,</HI> which is a|&s;cribed to St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Chry&s;o&s;t. Liturg. tom. 6. p. 986</NOTE> and is extant among&s;t his Works, where|in God Almighty is petitioned
<PB N="206" REF="121">thus, <GAP DESC="foreign">. Grant thy Mer|cies to thy Servants, who call on thy Name, even the Name of the <HI>Father,</HI> and of the <HI>Son,</HI> and of the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t.</HI> And as the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t</HI> was thus particu|larly mentioned in their Publick <HI>Supplications;</HI> &s;o was he as parti|cularly named in their Publick <HI>Thanksgivings</HI> too: So I find it in that <HI>Doxology,</HI> which is re|peated over and over: <GAP DESC="foreign">. It is meet and ju&s;t to adore the <HI>Father,</HI> the <HI>Son,</HI> and the <HI>Holy Spirit,</HI> that Trinity of Per&s;ons, which is <HI>Con&s;ub&s;tantial</HI> and Indivi&s;ible. To this I may add that <HI>Euchari&s;tical</HI> Appendix to the <HI>Te Deum,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">U&s;&s;erius de Symbolis, p. 2.</NOTE> cited by our late very learned <HI>Archbi&s;hop</HI> of <HI>Armagh, Te Patrem adoramus aeter|num,
<PB N="207" REF="121">te &s;empiternum Filium invo|camus, Te&abque; Spiritum Sanctum con|fitemur; Tibi uni Deo in Trinitate debitas laudes &amp; gratias referimus;</HI> We adore Thee the <HI>Father</HI> eter|nal; We invoke Thee the <HI>Son</HI> everla&s;ting; We acknowledge Thee the <HI>Holy Spirit;</HI> To Thee, <HI>One</HI> God in <HI>Trinity,</HI> we return tho&s;e Prai&s;es and Thanks which are due.</P>
<P>And now I could heartily wi&s;h that all our <HI>Socinians</HI> would &s;e|riou&s;ly con&s;ider, but not corrupt tho&s;e Texts which do clearly a&s;|&s;ert the <HI>Divinity</HI> of our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour and his <HI>Holy Spirit;</HI> &s;uch Texts as do mo&s;t expre&s;ly give the <HI>Title</HI> of God to them <HI>both;</HI> &s;uch Texts as do plainly a&s;cribe to them both &s;uch <HI>Attributes</HI> and <HI>Operations,</HI> as no <HI>Creature</HI> can be capable of; I wi&s;h they would con&s;ider the Example of St. <HI>Paul,</HI> and the con&s;tant Practice of the <HI>Catholick Church</HI> in making their
<PB N="208" REF="122"><HI>Religious</HI> Addre&s;&s;es to them both in their Publick <HI>Supplications</HI> and <HI>Thanksgivings;</HI> That they would no longer reject the Doctrine of the <HI>Trinity,</HI> which is &s;o clearly re|vealed, barely becau&s;e their own narrow Under&s;tandings are no more able to comprehend it, than a little Spoon is to contain the Water of the whole Ocean. That they may quit and repent of their Heretical Opinion, le&s;t they run them&s;elves into that <HI>Bla&s;phemy</HI> which, through final Impenitence, will certainly prove irremi&s;&s;ible. I &s;hall conclude this Di&s;cour&s;e with that Prayer which I find in the <HI>Liturgy</HI> a&s;cribed to St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Chry&s;o&s;t. Lit. Edit. Eton. p. 999.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">. Lord, grant to us, that we may with <HI>one Mouth,</HI> and <HI>one Heart</HI> glorifie and
<PB N="209" REF="122">prai&s;e thy mo&s;t Honourable and Magnificent Name, that of the <HI>Father, Son,</HI> and <HI>Holy Spirit:</HI> And let every good Man &s;ay <HI>Amen;</HI> that we may all do it, and that for ever and ever.</P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="publisher's advertisement">
<PB REF="123">
<HEAD><HI>Books lately Printed for</HI> Walter Kettilby, <HI>at the Bi&s;hop's Head in St.</HI> Paul's Church-Yard.</HEAD>
<P N="1">1. A Treati&s;e, relating to the Wor|&s;hip of God; divided into Six Sections: Concerning 1&s;t. The Nature of Divine Wor&s;hip. 2. The peculiar Object of Wor&s;hip. 3. The true Wor|&s;hippers of God. 4. A&s;&s;i&s;tance requi&s;ite to Wor&s;hip. 5. The Place of Wor&s;hip. 6. The Solemn time of Wor&s;hip. By <HI>John Templer,</HI> D. D.</P>
<P N="2">2. A Defence of revealed Religion; in Six Sermons, upon <HI>Romans</HI> 1.16. Wherein it is clearly and plainly &s;hewn, That no Man can po&s;&s;ibly have any real Ground or Rea&s;on to be a&s;hamed of Chri&s;tianity. By <HI>Henry Halliwell,</HI> M. A. and Vicar of <HI>Cowfold</HI> in <HI>Su&s;&s;ex.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. Mi&s;cellanies; in Five E&s;&s;ays: 1. Upon the Office of a Chaplain. 2. Upon Pride. 3. Upon Cloaths. 4. Upon Dealing. 5. Upon General Kindne&s;s: The four la&s;t by way of Dialogue. By <HI>Jeremy Colkliers,</HI> A. M.</P>
<P N="4"><PB REF="123"> 4. My&s;teries in Religion Vindicated: or, The Filiation, Deity, and Satis|faction of our Saviour, a&s;&s;erted again&s;t <HI>Socinians,</HI> and others: With Occa&s;ional Reflections on &s;everal late Pamphlets. By <HI>Luke Milbourn,</HI> a Presbyter of the Church of <HI>England.</HI></P>
<P N="5">5. A Di&s;cour&s;e concerning the Na|ture of Man, both in his Natural and Political Capacity; both as he is a Rati|onal Creature, and Member of a civil Society: With an Examination of &s;ome of Mr. <HI>Hobb</HI>'s Opinions relating thereunto. By <HI>Ja. Lowde,</HI> Rector of <HI>Settrington</HI> in <HI>York-&s;hire,</HI> &s;ome time Fel|low of <HI>Clare-Hall</HI> in <HI>Cambridge.</HI></P>
<P N="6">6. Apparatus ad Theologiam, in u|&s;um Academiarum: 1. Generalis: 2. Specialis. Autore <HI>Stephano Penton,</HI> Recto|re de <HI>Glympton, Oxon.</HI></P>
<P N="7">7. Guardian's In&s;truction; or, The Gentleman's Romance. Written for the Diver&s;ion and Service of the Gentry.</P>
<P N="8">8. New In&s;tructions to the Guardian; &s;hewing that the la&s;t Remedy to pre|vent the Ruin, advance the Intere&s;t, and recover the Honour of this Nation. 1. A more &s;erious and &s;trict Education of the Nobility and Gentry: 2. To breed up all their younger Sons to &s;ome
<PB REF="124">Calling and Employment: 3. More of them to Holy Orders. With a method of In&s;titution from Three Years of Age, to Twenty-one.</P>
<P N="9">9. Bi&s;hop <HI>Overal</HI>'s Convocation Book 1606, concerning the Govern|ment of God's Catholick Church, and the Kingdoms of the whole World. 4^o.</P>
<P N="10">10. In&s;titutiones Grammaticae, Anglo Saxonicae, &amp; mae&s;o-Gothicae. Auctore <HI>Georgio Hic&s;io,</HI> Eccle&s;iae Anglicanae, Presbytero. 4^o.</P>
<P N="11">11. <HI>Chr. Wa&s;ii</HI> Senarius, &s;ive de Legi|bus &amp; Licentia veterum Poetarum. 4^o.</P>
<P N="12">12. Mi&s;nae pars Ordinis primi Tera|im titul. &s;eptem. Latin&egrave; vertit &amp; Com|mentario illu&s;travit <HI>Gulielmus Gui&s;inus,</HI> Accedit Mo&s;is Maimoradis praefatio, <HI>Edvardo Pocokio</HI> interprete. 4^o.</P>
<P N="13">13. <HI>Joannis Antiocheni,</HI> Cognomento Mallalae, Hi&s;t. Chronica, &egrave; MS. Biblio|thecae Bodleianae. Praemittitur Di&s;&s;er|tatio de Authore. Per <HI>Humph. Hodium,</HI> D. D. 8^o.</P>
<PB REF="124">
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
