SECT. I. Of the Means by which God is known to Men.

THE Means to know God are twofold; first, External: Secondly, Internal.

The External Means are the five Senses, in­forming the Judgment and Understanding, by and from the Works and Word of God: for there is no rational Man, but hears, sees, tastes, smells, and feels, sufficiently to inform and convince him that there is a God, (yea a great and glorious one, the first Cause of all things.)

1. From his Works. Rom. 1.19, 20. Be­cause that which may be known of God is mani­fest in them: for the invisible things of him from the Creation of the World are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal Power and Godhead.

But 2. The Imprint of God's Image on the Creature (even the wonderful Power, Wisdom and Skill which he hath shewed in forming it, and providing for it) whereby our Understanding is informed of him through the five Senses, is but a rough Draught of his Shadow, in comparison of the more ample Discove [...]y we have of him in his Word; by which further and clearer Discovery our Understanding are informed through the Senses of hearing it, and seeing it to read it.

All this Knowledg attained by means of our Senses is e [...]t [...]rnal or outward; and tho necessary, yet is not of it self a saving Knowledg of God, but h [...]th its Residence in the Hea [...].

That it is necessary is evident: for if we do not know there is a God, or know the true God by some infallible Demonstrations, we can never regularly, no nor indeed at all, serve God, except blindly, like the Athenians, who worshipped they knew not what (or the Ʋnknown God:) And tho we may all in some sense say so of our selves, in as much as none can find out the Almighty to perfection; yet of such a Knowledg of God as in and by his Word and Works he ordinarily discovers of himself, we ought not to be ignorant: which what it is, and what it is not, shall be my endeavours anon to shew. And a­gain, that this Knowledg alone is not saving, appears, because thousands there be who have and can discourse very well of God a­gainst Atheistical Notions, who yet never­theless remain destitute of true saving Faith and Communion with him: therefore altho the external Knowledg of God be good, yea a necessary thing in its place; yet it is not saving, except sanctified and joined with the internal Knowledg of God.

Which is the second thing, or kind of Knowledg I am to speak to; and that is that mentioned and intended Mat. 11.27. All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. This Knowledg properly dwells in the Heart, and is attained by the Exercise of saving [Page 9] Faith wrought by the Spirit of Christ; it flows from an inward spiritual Communion the Soul hath with God, through the Me­diator, by which the humble Soul sees the Almighty passing by, blotting out, and par­doning its Sins, and ready and willing to pour into its Bosom all necessary good things of all kinds; from whence are nourished Hope, Peace, Joy, and Love.

This Knowledg is saving, and it is as soon attained by Persons of weak and mean Judg­ment that sincerely seek it, as by any what­soever, as appears in Mat. 11.25. where Christ thanks his Father in that he had hid those things from the Wise and Prudent, and had revealed them unto Babes.

SECT. II. Concerning God most High, what he is.

IN this Section you have a Description of God most High, respecting his Essence, Being, or Substance, and his Essential Pro­perties: and first, in the Negative; Second­ly in the Affirmative: and that first, accord­ing to plain Texes of Scripture; secondly, according to several Authors. In which Dis­course are included these following useful Par­ticulars, viz.

First, How far the contending Parties are agreed. Secondly, wherein they differ; the Case and the Controversy betwixt them fair­ly propounded, examined, opened, and ex­plained. In which are these things following observable.

1. That those things concerning the Know­ledg of the most High, wherein they are agreed, are very plain from Scripture and Reason; but the controversal pa [...]t very ob­scure, not only to Reason and the Unlearned, but also to the Understandings of the most Profound and Learned.

2. That the things wherein they are agreed are plainly in words at length declared, both in the Old and New Testament, as matters to be owned and believed; and therefore abso­lutely necessary to Salvation; But the con­troversal; part is not pressed as a thing to be understood, or necessary to be believed by the Worshippers of this God: In the Old Testament hardly any Footsteps of it appear; and 'tis asserted only by and from consequen­ces from the new Testament.

3. That both Orthodox and Hereticks (so called) are agreed in all the Essentials and necessary parts of Truth, respecting the Knowledg of the most High God, harmoni­ously and unanimously owning and teaching the same things of his Essence and essential Properties: The Hereticks (so esteemed) owning and worshipping the same God, and no other, that made Heaven and Earth, and appeared to Abraham, Gen. 17.1. not de­nying but firmly owning all and whole, and every part of the same Essence, and all and every essential Property thereof, according as the above-named Orthodox do.

4. That the great Controversy and Diffe­rence concerning God betwixt the above­mentioned Parties is not essential, but only circumstantial, viz. about the manner or Mode of its. subsisting, and not about the Divine Essence it self.

As touching the Knowledg of God, I shall treat first negatively: He is not any graven Image, or Device of Man's Hands, Acts 17.29. nor no Man; because Man is mortal, but God cedureth for ever, Psal. 136.13. nor no Angel; first, because they are made; secondly, are Messengers, Heb. 1.7, 14. But he is without beginning, and above all, there­fore not created nor sent.

But Secondly, In the affirmative, God is a Spirit or Spiritual Substance, John 4.24. Not a created Spirit, as the Angels; but an infinite, independent, intire, invisible Es­sence; the first Cause of, and soveraign high­est Power over all things: Infinite, incom­prehensible, unsearchable in Glory, in Pow­er, in Strength, in Wisdom, in Knowledg, in Justice, in Love, in Mercy, in Bounty, in Goodness, in Purity, in Compassion, in E­ternity, [Page 10] in Truth and Perfection.

These are the essential and inseparable Properties of the Divine Essence or Being of God most High, the immediate Object of Di­vine Worship.

There may be, and Scripture shews there are some who in a subordinate manner bear the name of God, because he allows it them as ruling from and under him; and therefore as Viceroys or chief Magistrates under God in their places, they bear, tho less properly, the name of God (to give an instance or two in the room of many) of this kind or sort are Angels, of whom Paul speaks, 1 Cor. 8.15. where he saith, There he that are called Gods in Heaven; who surely could not be false Gods, for they could not get to Heaven; therefore Angels through the Excellency of their work obtain that honourable Name; and so do men, John 10.35. But to pass this; only he that hath th [...]se essential Pro­perties, is God most High: on which Pro­perties I'll inlarge a little. If he be invi­sible, then it is not safe for me to form any shape of him in my Apprehensions, any o­therwise than a Glorious, unwordable Being. If he be independent, then he stays only on himself, and all things stay on him. If he be infinite in Power and Perfection, then he is a single uncompounded Essence, only one in Number and Being: For it is morally impos­sible that there should be two infinite Beings; for if one be infinite, the other cannot: and it is alike impossible that there should be two most Highs; for if they are equal, nei­ther of them both can say that he is the most High, because there is another as high as he. Also it alike argues Imperfection; for if one Most High be sufficient, then ano­ther is needless; and where there is more than needs, it is Imperfection. Again, if one most High of himself be not sufficient with­out another, that argues Imperfection. There­fore they that worship the true and most High God, must and ought to conceive of him as a single impartible Being or Essence; one in Power, in Will, in Thought, in Know­ledg, and in all things belonging to his Es­sence. And so hath God directed us to con­ceive of him in his Word; Deut. 6.4. Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord. Isa. 44.6. Besides me there is no God. Mark 12.32. There is one God, and there is none other but he. 1 Cor. 8.6. But to us there is but One God: There is none other God but one. Ephes. 4.6. There is One God and Father of all, who is above all.

Thus far am I come safely, no body hav­ing any thing to contradict or gainsay: (that is, no body that owns the true God) But on all hands we are agreed about the Eternal Essence and Divine Properties.

These things as undeniable, all Christian Men believe, the Scripture proves, and God's Works manifest. This Description is neces­sary for me to understand, in order to direct me how to place and exercise my Faith in God aright, how to pay my Duties and Worship to him, and consequently to my Salvation.

But now I am arrived at the Borders of the Controversy betwixt the Trinitarians and the Ʋnitarians, the Athanasians and nick­nam'd Arians.

But to pass my Task, 'tis requisite to give yet a further Description of this One most High God; which following Description is said to be drawn from Scripture conse­quences, but is much more plainly set down in words at length in other Au­thors.

1. I shall first cite the Athanasian Creed on this Subject: The Catholick Faith is this, That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance.

2. The Nicene Creed says thus: I believe in One God the Father, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and in­visible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God; begotten of the Father before all Worlds; God of God, Light of Light; very God of very God, be­gotten not made; of one Substance with the Father, by whom all things were made: And in the Holy Spirit, the quickening Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, and in like manner is adored and glorified with the Father and the Son, and who spake by the Prophets.

[Page 11]3. Next I shall cite the first of the 39 Ar­ticles of the Church of England; There is but One living and true God, &c. and in Unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one Substance, Power and Eternity.

4. Next I shall cite Mr. Joseph Wright in his Book intitul'd, Brief Animadversions on five Articles, pag. 2. So that we did then, and do hold that there is One only true and living God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all three of the very same Divine Nature and Being. And in the same Book, pag. 3. lin. 28. When we say these three are one, we did, and now believe that the Father, Word (or Son) and Holy Spirit, are all three of the same Divine Nature and Being from ever­lasting to everlasting, the Creator and Go­vernor of all things, One only true and living God, in three distinct and undivided Divine Persons: Thus far Mr. Wright.

5. Next I shall cite Dr. Owen in his Book intituled, The Doctrine of the Trinity vindicat­ed, printed An. 1669, pag. 29. In the Decla­ration of this Doctrine unto the edification of the Church, there is contained a further explanation of the things before asserted, as proposed, directed, and in themselves the Object of our Faith; namely, how God is one in respect of Nature, Substance, Essence, Godhead, or Divine Being: How being Fa­ther, Son, and Holy Ghost, he subsisteth in these three distinct Persons. And Pag. 112. The distinction which the Scripture reveals between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is that whereby they are three Persons distinctly sub­sisting in the same Divine Essence or Being. Now a Divine Person is nothing else, but a Divine Person upon the account of an espe­cial Property subsisting in an especial man­ner: as in the Person of the Father there is the Divine Essence or Being, with its Property of begetting the Son, subsisting in an especial manner in the Father; and because this Person hath the whole Divine Nature, all the essential Properties of that Nature are in that Person. Page 122. See­ing here that the name of God supplies the place of a Species, tho it be singular abso­lutely, as it respects the Divine Nature, which is absolutely singular and One, and can­not be multiplied; yet in respect of commu­nication it is otherwise, it is communicated unto more.

6. I shall cite next Mr. John Preston in his Book intitul'd, Life eternal, or a Treatise of the Knowledg of the Divine Essence, fourth Edi­tion, printed 1034, page 48, 49. If there be two things in God, then there is Multi­plication: now all Multiplication ariseth from some Imperfection, from some want and de­fect: for if one would serve, two would be needless; if one Medicine would cure, two would be unnecessary; so in all things else. So that the reas [...]n of Multiplication is, be­cause one will not serve the turn: Therefore God being all-sufficient, it is not needful, yea it cannot be, that a breaking in two should be admitted in him, and consequently he must be most simple, without all composition, a pure and entire Essence, full of himself, and nothing besides. And a little further thus: Wheresoever there is any composi­tion, there must be two or three things; so that there may be a Division; they are separable, tho not separated: But where Division is, there may be a Dissolution, and so Destruction, though it never be. But of God we cannot say that this may be, and con­sequently there cannot be two things in him: but what he is, he is One most simple, most pure, and most entire Being, without all Composition and Multiplication. If God be not simple, there must be parts of which he is compounded; but in God blessed for ever there are no parts, because then there should be Imperfection, for every part is imperfect. I shall cite one Author more, and then make some use of the whole.

7. Mr. Thomas Monk in his notable Book of the Trinity, intituled, A Cure for the canker­ing Error, Pag. 55. has these words: Not to the end it should make a Multitude of Gods, or divide the Essence, but to distinguish the Persons, because tho there be one Per­son of the Father, another Person of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost, yet the Father is not another thing, or another God distinct from the Son and the Holy Ghost; neither is the Son another thing, or another God distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost; neither is the Holy Ghost [Page 14] another thing, or another God distinct from the Father and the Son; because the Nature of God is but one and indivisible; although the Father be one, the Son another, and the Holy Ghost another: and therefore they are not of divers natures, of another and divers Substance, not conjoined or knit to­gether in one Substance (as Men which have one common Essence) not only of the like Substance, but of one and the same Sub­stance; have the same Essence, the same Eternity, the same Will, the same Opera­tion, &c. And page 57. 'Qu. Be there any parts or kinds in God? Answ. None at all, because he is a most simple Essence; which doth admit no Composition or Division, and simply and in every respect of Unity one.

Having given you this Description of the Most High God, both from the Holy Scrip­tures, and those Authors; I shall now come to make that use of it, which at first I pro­mised and intended; and that is, to shew, that there is no essential, but only a circum­stantial difference in the Apprehensions of the Parties before named, concerning the Most High God, and the Description here given of Him. Only note, that that which concerns the difference about the Son and Holy Ghost, will be here spoken unto but occasionally and in short, because I shall treat more largely, distinctly, and directly of them in their proper place: Whereas I am now precisely treating of the Most High God.

But to the end that a plain Discovery of the Difference concerning the Most High (which hath made such a Noise and Confusion in the World in many Ages, and in our times) may appear, I shall state the Sum of the case in this one short Question.

Whether the most Glorious, Eternal, Intire, Ʋncompounded, Ʋndivided, Ʋndividable Essence of the one Most High God, do (at the same time, and at all times from Eternity to Eternity) subsist all and whole both in one Person, and also in like m [...]nner in three Persons, or all, and whole only in one Person?

Our dividing Brethren are for the first part of this Question, and our accu [...]d Brethren are for the latter part thereof.

That this is the Sum of the Difference, and that this Diff [...]rence is only Ci [...]cumstantial, is now my business to make appear; which I shall endeavour to do, partly from the former Description and Quotations, partly from the natural force of our Opinions, and partly from further Quotations.

But in the first place, give me leave to treat a little in the Negative. Let us first observe where the difference is not: The Que­stion controverted is not whether or no any of the Idols of Israel of old, or any of the Multitude of the Aegyptian Gods, or antient Heathen Deities formerly worshipped by them, or the false Deities worshipped by Infidels in foreign Parts now; I say, the Question is not whether any of these be the true God or no. Neither is the Question whether the glorious Essence or Godhead, which the Scripture says is in Heaven, whether He alone, and only He, be the Most High God, and that we ought to pay our duty to none but Him, and such as He shall delegate under him: for these things are owned on all hands. Neither is it at all questioned on either hand whether there be above one Most High God, or whether his Essence be infinite, eternal, independent, all Wisdom, Power, Greatness, Holiness, Justice, Love, Mercy, Knowledg, Bounty, Goodness, Truth, Perfection. Nay, in all the Essential Properties of the Divine Nature which Holy Scripture and Reason do teach, there is still a joint Consent and Agreement on all hands. Where then is the difference, as to cause so loud a noise of Heresy! Heresy! these Men deny the Foundation of all Christian Religion and Worship; nay deny the true God!

Why let us consider a little, since there is an agreement about, and in all the essential Properties of the true God, and an Agreement which Essence is the true God. Is there any known material difference about the Essence it self? the matter of it let us examine.

No, we find none here neither: for that it is an intire, uncompounded, impartible, un­dividable, one Substance, or Essence, those supposed Hereticks say, and so say we. Let us look over the Quotations already cited: First, says Athanasius's Creed, not dividing the Substance. 2. The Nicene Creed says, One Substance. 3. The first of the 39 Articles says, one living and true God, without Body, Parts or Passions, of One Substance. 4. Mr. [Page 15] Wright says, that all three are in the same Divine Nature, and being in three distinct and undivided Divine Persons; and on that account grants that the Father is the only true God. 5. Dr. Owen says, God is One in re­spect of his Nature, Substance, Essence, Godhead, or Divine Being: and further says, that the name of God is a singular abso­lutely, as it respects the Divine Nature; which is absolutely s [...]ngular and One, and cannot be multiplied. 6. Mr. Preston says that God being Allsufficient, it is not needful, yea it cannot be that a breaking in two should be admitted in him, and consequently he must be most simple without all composition, a pure and intire Essence, full of himself and no­thing besides: And a little further says, con­sequently there cannot be two things in him, but what he is he is One most simple, most pure, and most intire being, without all Composi­tion and Multiplication: and further he says there are no parts in him. Lastly, Mr. Monk says, That the Persons, tho distinct amongst themselves, yet are not differing things one from another, because the nature of God is but One and indivisible; and further says, they are not conjoined or knit together in one Substance, as Men which have one com­mon Essence: They are not only of the like Substance, but of one and the same Substance, have the same Essence, &c. And in answer to the Question, Are there any Parts or Kinds in God? answers, none at all; because he is a most simple Essence, which doth admit of no Composition or Division, and simple, and in every respect of Unity One.

Thus you see, having summed up the Evidence, as says the Foreman, so they say all, they are all agreed in their Verdict; both Orthodox, and Hereticks (so called) are thus far in all respects jointly and fully a­g [...]eed as with one Voice, to publish that their apprehension of the one true God re­specting his Essence, is an undivided, undi­vidable, intirely one Substance, not subsisting or possible to be subsisting in parts, or hav­ing any Parts in him. And so says the Scrip­ture, God is a Spirit, not Spirits.

And indeed this Doctrine of the Ʋnity of the Divine Essence we must maintain, or else we do nothing: for if once we admit of several parts in that Essence, we may as well admit (and there seems a necessity that it should be) so many several Spirits, and indeed so many Most High Gods; which can be called one only by consent and agree­ment, or at most one in kind.

But the Doctrine of Plurality of Gods most High is repugnant to Reason, refuted by Scripture, and abhorred by Mahometans.

Besides, if you divide Essence in your thoughts, then you must divide the Essential Properties, such as Mercy, Justice, Wisdom, Bounty, and the rest; I say, you must di­vide them into as many parts as you divide the Essence in your thoughts: As for ex­ample: Suppose you divide it into three parts; then you must suppose in your mind three Attributes of Justice, three of Mercy, three of Wisdom, and so of all the rest; or else you must imagine some of the At­tributes in one part, and some in another: as thus, Justice and Power in one, Mercy and Wisdom in another, Truth and Bounty in another, and so of the rest: or else you must imagine that some of the parts have none of the Attributes, and that will be Blas­phemy and N [...]nsense; since I think all will con­fess that nothing can be essentially God most High, but that which is or hath all the Divine Essential Properties. And so go which way to work you will, if you admit of Parts, you confound the Substance, as Athanasius says. But enough of this. We are unani­mously agreed in the Unity and Undivided­ness of the Divine Essence. Well, thus far are we come, looking for the difference, but finding none. Why where is it? What is become of it? that great difference that hath troubled the World and Church so many hundred years, and set good men together by the ears To [...]th and Nail, occasion'd a great Volume of hard, bitter, sharp, biting Words against each other? and yet you see we are all agreed about the main Matter, Substance, or Essence of the most High; nay and in all the essential Properties of him too: And yet can there be any material dif­ference about him notwithstanding? that's strange! how can this thing be?

Why yes, yet there is a difference: but whether a material one or no, must be left to my considering Reader to judg. It is not whether this Divine undivided Essence, a­bout which, and all its essential Properties, we are fully agreed; whether, I say, it sub­sist in one Divine Person: For this is also jointly agreed on all hands, as I shall present­ly shew: But it is this, Whether it subsist only in One Divine Person, or both in One, and also in like manner in Three. The Ortho­dox is for the latter, the Heretick affirms the former.

Thus near are we come, and I doubt not anon to shew you that we are yet nearer than all this. But first I'll demonstrate this: tho first of all we must treat of the word Person, what in this Controversy is understood by it: And because I am a little at a loss to explain the thing, I will therefore give you Dr. Owen and Mr. Monk's Description. First, Dr. Owen, if you look back to the first Quo­tations of him: Now (says he) a Divine Person is nothing else but a Divine Person upon the account of an especial Property of subsisting in an especial manner. Second­ly, Dr. Hall, as I find him quoted by Mr. Monk, Page 46. of his Cure for the cankering Error, hath these Words: We may think here of one Substance in three Subsistences, one Essence in three Relations, one Jehovah begetting, begotten, proceeding, Father, Son, Spirit: yet so as the Son is no other thing from the Father, but another Person; or the Spirit from the Son. Also Mr. Monk, in his 63 page, propounds this Que­stion, How doth the word Essence differ from the word Person in God? his answer is, Essence is the Nature, which is not more belonging to one, and less to another of the three Persons, but common to them all, yea one and the same, and cannot be divided; and is all in each one of them, not without them, subsisting by it self, to wit, the very Deity it self. And therefore the essential Properties which be in them are one in number, of one nature. Now Person is the subsisting in the Divine Na­ture, or the nature of God; which having relation to others, is distinguished by some incommunicable Properties: for in­deed the Persons are only distinguished, not severed: as indeed three men are in­deed separated, tho they be one in kind. The Reason is, because the Essence of God is infinite and impartible, and therefore it is all in every Person, which are not se­vered one from another, but only distin­guished amongst themselves. But as for the Essence of Angels and Men it is finite and partible, so that it is not all in every single Person, but part in one, and part in another. One Passage he hath in page 39. Fourthly, All the Attributes whether relative, negative, or positive, or if any other, in that they proceed from the Essence, are true of every Person, because the whole Essence is in every Person: The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal, because the whole Essence is in every one of them.

I need not cite any more, because so far as I am able to distinguish, Dr. Owen, Dr. Hall, and Mr. Monk have spoken the general sense of all that have writ on this Subject. And now having shewed you the Description that these men give, if I can tread right in this narrow Path, I will try to give you, ac­cording to the best of my judgment, the sense of what they mean by the word Person or Persons in the Divine Essence.

First then, I do suppose by Person here is not intended a distinct separate Being from the Essence, or from one another; nor yet a distinct spiritual Substance: for this were to divide the Substance into three distinct divided Persons. Neither must it be sup­posed that Person hath a distinct Mind or Will from the Essence or the other Persons, for that will necess [...]rily imply three or four Minds and Wills in the Most High, which would be absurd. Neither must the Person have any one part of the Divine Essence pe­culiar to it self, for that would divide the Es­sence into parts, and the Divine Properties also, and so bring all into confusion, as hath been shewn: therefore Person must be sup­posed to be something not at all separated from any part of the Essence, or of the other Persons: Therefore, says Mr. Monk, Essence [Page 17] is the nature which is not more belonging to one, and less to another of the three Persons, but common to them all, yea one and the same, and cannot be divided, and is all in each one of them; and there­fore concludes, that the essential Properties which be in them are one in number, that is, that the essential Property of Love, and the essential Property of Mercy, and the essential Property of Justice, and all the rest, are all and whole in one Person, and all and whole in another. And therefore elsewhere says, That all the Attributes (both relative, negative, and positive, or any other) of the Divine Es­sence, are true of every Person, because the whole Essence is in every Person. So that in short the thing is this, that a Person separate from Essence is nothing, but is only the whole undivided Essence, subsisting in a certain manner or mode; that is, in one manner in the Father, in another manner or mode in the Son, and in another manner in the Holy Ghost: that is, not three distinct intelligent Beings, but only one infinite intire distinct intelligent Being, subsisting in three undivided inseparable Manners or Modes.

And this is the general sense, so far as I was ever able to discern, of all the Authors that ever I read on this Subject.

But if this be the Knot of the Controver­sy about the most High God, perhaps some will say it is dark: I say, perhaps so too; very like it may be so, else what's the matter, think you, that so many Men who have long been loving Friends and good Men, yet by this Controversy have had their Eyes so blinded, that they could not see one another with an Eye of Charity? And what else should be the reason that in the Churches where it hath been controverted, there hath oftentimes arose such a Mist and thick Dark­ness, that many could not see their Seats at the Lord's Table? And if any shall ask me the meaning of the matter, I must answer with Mr. Monk page 43. That the perfect manner how one person is in another is in­comprehensible and unutterable in this Life.

And for my own part, I shall much ra­ther chuse to admire the matter than to illustrate my explanation; and I will add with Mr. Monk in the aforesaid page, to be wise above what is written, is not Wisdom, but perilous Sin and Folly.

And it will not out of my Head, but that it had been much better for every body to have left off at the Description of the most High, even there where we on all hands were so well agreed, rather than to have run further for a plainer Description till we have almost lost our selves.

And now a word by the way to my B [...]e­thren, who for distinction sake I call of the Athanasian Perswasion. Many, or most of you are not ignorant of the bitter Words and Deportment that have dropt from the Tongues and Pens of many against their Brethren, because of their differing Apprehensions a­bout the most High God: and now thus far are we come, scanning the difference, and it remains in this narrow Corner; for all are agreed that that Glorious Eternal Being, whose Throne is in the Heavens, or the Hea­vens is his Throne, whom the Heaven and Heaven of Heavens cannot contain, whose Presence fills Heaven and Earth, even that this Glorious Being or Essence, and he only, from everlasting to everlasting is the one and only most High God, the Original of all Power, Authority, Wisdom, Life, Light, Knowledg, Nature, Perfection, Goodness, Bounty, Mercy, Justice, Love, Action, and Being. And further, you are all agreed that this very Essence is an impartible, uncompound­ed Essence: So that our differing Brethren own the same most High, the same Essence for Number, Nature, and Kind, owning all and whole of the Divine Essence and essential Properties, as full in all respects as we our selves, not abating one of them, no nor any part of one of them, worshipping it with the same, and as much Adoration and Respect as we our selves, owning the very same Sub­stance and no other: So that the difference is not about Substance, Matter, or Properties; but only about a certain Manner or Mode of subsisting: yea yet further, both agreeing that whatever is God most High, whether Es­sence or Property, tho improper to distin­guish it, is all and whole in the Person of the [Page 18] Father. This none of us all dare deny: for then we shall throw down our own Opinion, Root and Branch. Nay further, it is joint­ly agreed b [...] [...] that whatsoever is God most High, whether Essence, Attribute, or Per­son, it is all in every one, and consequently in the Father: See Mr. Monk pag. 38. Be­cause a Person signifies both the Essence and its Relative Property, all the Persons having one and the same Essence, it followeth that in respect of the Essence one person is in another. Thus all amounts to thus much: You say that Essence, and all that we pro­perly call God, and worship, is in the Per­son of the Father, and so say they: only you require them to confess that the Essence subsisteth not only thus, but also in two other distinct Manners or Modes: This is all. And truly methinks it looks like a very hard case, that our Brethren should own the whole Essence with all its Royal and Essential Proper­ties, and likewise own all his mighty Works of old, and now, whereby he hath made himself known, and likewise reverence and honour it as highly as our selves; and yet we must exclude them Communion at the Table of the Lord, only and meerly for a Circumstance, that is, a differing Manner or Mode of subsisting; which yet also is so dark and dubious, that not one of us durst once touch it with our Pe [...] to explain it. Shall we then be so positive, so highly con­ceited of our own Judgments in so intricate, so mysterious a Matter, which yet at most is but a Circumstance, (viz. a Mode or Manner of subsisting) not any part of the thing it self, the Essence it self? Shall we censure, condemn, and stigmatize our good Brethren, every way else as able for Parts, Knowledg, Purity of Manners, and zealous for God and his Ways as our selves? Shall we repre­sent them Denyers of the true God, Broach­ers of Heresies, nay damnable Heresies? Surely no: Be it far from us; lest it be thought that an evil Mind hath had dominion over us: more especially, since admitting their Sentiments to be in this case circumstantially erroneous (for a Heresy I will not allow it) yet it hinders not at all, or is no Impediment to our paying Adoration or Worship to the most High, as I shall come to shew in the next Section. But first let me observe unto you that all those things respecting the Es­sence and essential Properties wherein we and all our Brethren are agreed, both Scripture and Reason in all plainness teaches: But this controversal part concerning the treble Man­ner or Mode of the subsisting of the Divine Essence, is neither taught by Reason, nor found in, or is Scripture-Language; I say, it is not Scripture-Language, but only drawn from some Inferences and Consequences of and from the holy Scripture. I say, when we have only Consequences to foot upon in a case of this nature and difficulty, still it calls for the more Moderation and Tender­ness towards persons of differing Apprehen­sions in such a tender point, who withal are as orthodox in the main every way as our selves. But now I come to the next point.

SECT. III. Concerning the manner how we ought to pay our Worship and Adoration to this one most High God.

IN the creating of this I shall include and resolve this following Question: Whe­ther it be the declared Pleasure of the Al­mi [...]hty that his Subjects should pay their Ado [...]ation to the Matter subsisting, or the [...]r o [...] su [...]sisting?

[...] [...]ully thus: Whether it be the [...] [...]sure of the Almighty that his Subiects should pay their Adoration unto him with and under the Conception and Ap­pellation of One Supream Soveraign single Substance, unseparable in Essence and Di­vine Properties, subsisting in one Person? Or, whether it be his pleasure it should be paid unto him under the notion and appel­lation of a single Essence subsisting in [Page 19] three distinct Manners, Modes, or Persons?

In the resolving of this Question I shall premise this by the way: That the Order, Manner, or Mode of paying our Ad [...]ration, and our Conceptions of the Object of Wor­ship in the Act of Worship ought not to be regulated by our Conceptions, but to be decided merely by the Directi [...]n and Rule God is pleased to give us about it in his Word. For it is not what we think fit, but what he sa [...] is most proper, and our Duty: And there­f [...]re I take this f [...]r granted, that the H [...]ly Scr [...]ptures are our only whole sufficient Rule to [...]uide us in all points of Faith and go [...]d Manners respecting Salvation, to guide us in the understanding of the Object and Act of Worship, and in our conception of the Ob­ject in the Act thereof.

And for want of keeping close to this Rule, so many Innovations and Instit [...]tion [...] have been introduced; people thinking still to mend things by bringing it nearer to their own Conceptions, have often made it worse in not heeding the Standard.

These things p [...]emised, I shall give my Answer to the Question, and do say, that to me it doth not a [...]pear that it is the pleasure of God that Worship should be paid unto him under the appellati [...]n, and with the c [...]n­ception of a single Essence subsisting b [...]th in one and three distinct Manners, Modes, or Persons.

But rather that it is his declared Will that his Subjects should pay their Adoration to him under, and with the conception and appellation of one supream Soveraign and singular Substance, insepar [...]ble in Essence and Divine Properties, subsist [...]ng in one Divine Pers [...]n and Spirit. And for this I will give my Reasons.

First, as hath been hinted, I take it for granted that let the Doctrine of three Per­sons in one Essence be as clear as the Sun, yet with wha [...] conceptions we must worship must be c [...]nf [...]ble t [...] God's Word: B [...]t now to the Reasons. My first Reason i [...], notwithstanding the various Appellatio [...] which God chose in f [...]rmer Dispensations to make himself kno [...]n to his S [...]bjects by as the Object of th [...] W [...]rship, tho they did plainly discover the Unity of h [...]s E [...]s [...]nce, and also his essential Properties, yet I re­member not one Discovery of him as a single Essence in a threefold subs [...]st [...]n [...], or one Es­sence and three P [...]rs [...]n [...]. And there seems no such discovery under the [...] Dispens [...] ­tion. Which will app [...]r, [...]irs [...], [...] take notice how he dis [...]over [...] hims [...] in gen [...]ral, both at first to Adam; se [...]ndly to N [...] be­fore and also after the F [...]ood, and hi [...] [...] forth the Law to the Generations [...] Flood; also to Abraham, I [...], Jac [...], M [...], and to I [...]rael in general; and in partic [...]lar in giving sorth his Law. N [...]w o [...] s [...]rv [...] [...] [...]ral to all such as he make [...] discovery of himself as the Object of their Worship, he ma [...]s use of such Denominations [...] ar [...] of the [...]ngu­lar number, as I, M [...], M [...], [...] Min [...]; and not we, or ours. Li [...]ewise w [...]n [...]y [...]f [...] did mention this sacred M [...] in p [...], their Worship, they made [...] such E [...] ­pressions, as shewed it was th [...]ir S [...]nt [...]m [...]nt that they conceived of him as one intire O [...] ­ject, and not one and three; [...]s Thee, Th [...] Thou, [...]r Thine; not Ye, You, Y [...]r, [...] Yours: which shews that [...]hateve [...] th [...] [...] ­lieved of different Pe [...]s [...]ns in that one sin [...] Essence, or an one intire Substance in a [...] ­fold Manner or Mode of subsisting ( [...] yet no where appears that they, or any o [...] t [...] before-named did) but if so, a [...] a [...] resai [...], yet it appears they th [...]ught it th [...]ir Duty t [...] give Appellations to denominate, and con­sequently to conceive of the Obiect o [...] t [...]ir Worship as a single one in one Person, [...]r in­telligent Being, without thinking it so ma­terial to take notice of Name, of [...] of a threefold manner of subsistin [...], [...] [...]n [...]le Essence both in one and three, in t [...]e A [...]t of Worship; which yet sure, were th [...]s s [...] ma­terial and essential a part of right [...]rshi [...], (as now supposed) methin [...]s it [...] [...] have appeared, if not in all, yet a [...] l [...]st in [...] of the many Instanc [...]s we have in Scri [...]ture, of Persons expre [...]si [...] th [...]mselves in t [...] [...] of Worship and Adoration.

[...]t [...]w to return [...] t [...]e [...]irst, t [...] [...]t, Gods dis [...]v [...]ring hi [...] to man: In th [...] first place to avoid an Obj [...]t [...], o [...]er [...]e, I am not spea [...]ing of what i [...] said [...]hen [...]d [Page 20] speaks concerning making Man, or going down to see the Builders of Babel; for this is fo­reign to my present business (which is not now to dispute pro or con, either to prove or deny the Doctrine of three Persons in one Essence) but my particular Business is to shew how God hath discovered himself to Man. There­fore let none cry out and say, you have forgot the word Ʋs in the forenamed places: For, first, whether it be there pr [...]cisely demon­strated three undivided Persons in one in­telligent Being, the Dissenters from Athana­sius's Creed will not be wanting to bring Rea­sons to the contrary, which (as aforesaid) is not now my business to take notice of. But, secondly, observe if they do, yet these are Words spoken in Heaven, which no mortal Man did ever h [...]ar, n [...]r w [...]re they directed to man, but spoken in the Heav [...]nly Mansions by him who perfectly knows and understands himself. But that which I insist upon is, that always when God directs his Speech to Man, or Men, disc [...]vering himself to them as the Object of their Worship, he the [...] speaks in the singular number. Now this I take for granted, because I think it will not [...]e denied that the Manner or Mode of God [...] describing of himsel [...] [...] Man, as the Object of their Worship, o [...]ght to be the Directi­ons of our Conceptions [...]f him in the Act of Worship: And that this is not plural, but singular, will appear in the particular Exa­mination of the above-hinted Instances.

1. To begin with Adam, Gen. 3.11. Hast thou eaten of the T [...]ee, where [...]f I command­ [...]d that thou shouldst not eat? and ver. 15. I will put enmity, &c. Then to Noah, Gen. 6.13. And God said unt [...] Noah, The end of all Flesh is come before M E, and behold I will destroy them: ver. 17. Behold I, even I do bring a Flood of Waters. Ver. 18. But with thee will I establish my Covenant.

2. The like, or the same Expressions you have, Chap. 7. at ver. 1, 4. and Chap. 9. In the Deed, Contract, or Covenant, whereby God makes himself kn [...]wn to, and with the new World after the Deluge, we find him thus expressing himself, ver. 3. The green Herb have I given you. Ver. 5. Your Blood of your lives will I require, at the hand of every Beast will I require it; and at the hand of every Man's Brother will I require it. Ver. 9. And I, even I establish my Covenant with you. Ver. 11. And I will establish my Covenant with you. Ver. 13. I do set my Bow in the Cloud. Ver. 15. And I will remember my Covenant which is between Me and you, and every living Crea­ture of all Flesh; and the Waters shall no more become a Flood to destroy all Flesh. Ob­serve, the Covenant made with all Flesh, was under the notion of a single Being, and not a threefold subsisting.

Now touching God's discovering and de­scribing himself to Abraham the first time, Gen. 12.1, 2, 3. Get thee into a Land that I shall shew thee; and I will make of thee a great Nation: And I will bless thee, and I will bless them that bless thee. The second time of appearance, ver. 7. And the Lord appear­ed unto Abram, and said, Ʋnto thy Seed will I give this Land. The third time of ap­pearance, Chap. 13.15, 16. Fourth time of appearance, Chap. 15.1. The word of the Lord came unto Abraham in a Vision saying, Fear not, I am thy Shield. Likewise ver. 7, 14, 18. and Chap. 17.1, 2. at the making the Covenant the Lord appeared unto Abra­ham and s [...]id, I am the Almighty God, walk b [...]fore Me, and be thou perfect; and I will make My Covenant between Me and thee. But not to mention any more of Abraham, which we might, let it suffice that at every appear­ance recorded it was never with a plural De­nomination.

Next, for Isaac, Chap. 26.2, 3, 4, [...]. And the Lord appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the Land which I shall tell thee of, sojourn in this Land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee, and unto thy Seed I will give all these Countries; and I will pe [...]form the Oath which I sware unto Abra­ham thy Father; and I will make thy Seed to multiply. Because that Abraham obeyed my Voic [...], and kept my Charge, my Command­ments, my Statutes, and my Laws.

Next, for Jacob, Chap. 28. vers. 13, 15. And behold, the Lord stood above it, and said, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy Father, and the God of Isaac; the Land whereon thou lyest, to thee will I give it. And behold, I am [Page 21] with thee, and will keep thee in all places whi­ther thou goest, and will bring thee again into this Land: for I will not leave thee until I have done that which I have spoken.

Next we come to Moses, Exodus 3. ver. 6. Moreover he said, I am the God of thy Father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And in ver. 13, 14, 15. the most High is particularly desired by Moses upon an emergent occasion to discover himself, that he and Israel might know how to conceive of him aright. And God gives him particular di­rection what to say: And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the Children of Is­rael, and shall say unto them, The God of your Fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM that I AM; and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the Children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the Children of Israel, The Lord God of your Fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all Generations.

Now surely if the conception of a Trinity of Persons in God were so absolutely neces­sary in the Act of Worship as is now taught, who can but suppose that the Almighty, e­specially being so particularly desired to de­clare himself, and that also in order, and to the end that Israel might put their trust, and act faith in him aright; who can think, I say, but that the Almighty would have m [...]de a plain discovery thereof in this place? On the other side; tho God do here make himself known by such Names or Memorials as suf­ficiently discover the Oneness of his Being, and also his essential Properties, both Mer­cy, Goodness, Wisdom, Truth, Love, Bounty, Justice, and the rest, which were all discovered to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whose God he here declares himself to be; yet what Man not prepossessed can ever ima­gine that God intended, or Israel could by this Description of God, conceive of him as a threef [...]ld subsistence?

And to the end that you may see the scope of this Description in others Opinions as well as my own, I will quote two Authors: first, Mr. Monk in the Book forecited, page 25. I AM, that is (saith he) I am the only true God, truly subsisting, and not only through the opinion of Men as Id [...]ls are: I am he that hath an everlasting Be­ing, unchangeably subsisting of it self, not depending upon others, infinite, most simple, the Author and Cause of the being of all things: not a borrowed, changeable, fi­nite, dependent, and compound Being, &c. as all the Creatures have: Of this mine Essence will I give thee the highest, most express and general name of all, [He that is.]

Secondly, I shall quote Mr. Preston in his forecited Book, page 96. As if he should say, if yet they cannot understand what this name is, it is the same that I was known by to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob: what I was to them, the same will I be to you. I was known to them by my Word, and by my Works, and by my Mi­racles; and the same shall you find me: it is that God which hath sent me unto you [this is my name.] Which Words are to be referred not only to the latter Words, but to the former, I AM THAT I AM. Thus far Mr. Preston. And thus you see here is nothing perceived in this Dis­covery of a Trinity of Persons in others Opi­nions, or our own Reason.

The next discovery of himself we find in Exod. 6.23. And God spake unto Moses, and said, I am the Lord: And I appeared unto A­braham, and unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my Name JEHOVAH w [...]s I n [...]t known t [...] them. Here I note two things: first, that God doth plainly here declare how he taught and di­rected Abraham, Is [...]ac, and Jacob to act Faith in, and conceive of him, viz. as a God Al­mighty, All-powerful, All-sufficient, All-wise, &c. But he mentions not in the least his subsisting in a Trinity. S [...]condly, I ob­serve that God doth here m [...]ke a m [...]re f [...]ll, copious, profound and [...]am [...]le Di [...]c [...]very of himself to his Subjects than at any time heretofore, by giving them his Name JE­HOVAH, being the clearest and most proper name of his Being and undivided es­sential [Page 22] inseparable Properties: which sa­cred Name the Jews deservedly and greatly rever [...]nce; ins [...]much that the Author of the Book, intituled, Th [...] Father's Spectacles to behold his Child, saith in his 110. page, the Je [...]s hold it n [...]t [...] to use the name JE­HOVAH at all, but by the Pri [...]st [...] in the S [...]nct [...]y only, and that but once a year. And [...]iting [...]le [...]' [...] Exp [...]s [...]r, s [...], JEHO­VAH [...] nev [...]r prono [...]ed [...] the Je [...] on pain of Dea [...], only by the Priest in the San­ct [...] [...]an [...]torum, and that on the day of Ex­p [...]i [...]n, be [...] bu [...] once a year. And yet notwithstanding thi [...] further Di [...]covery, and their great Reverence to the Name, I do not understand that I [...]ael did thereby c [...]ncei [...] a distinction of Pe [...]s [...]ns in that one Essence h [...]ld forth thereby. And I perce [...]ve the Author (my Respected F [...]iend) last cited in his [...] and 10 [...] page, when he paraphrases on the word (tho he be a Disciple of the [...]i [...]ene Creed) yet notes not a distinction of Per [...]ns d [...]rectly and properly flowing, as the genuine sense of this Word: But that properly and di­rectly it imports and expresses the Divine Be­ing with all the essential Properties. And the most that I can remember I ever read in any Author treating of this Word, a­mounted to no more but this, viz. That this sacred Name of the most High, was the di­rect and proper Name of the Divine Essence, and all its inseparable Properties, tho not ex­cluding, yet not declaring, discovering or revealing it [...]nd [...]r a threefold personal su [...]sisting.

But further; when God discovers himself as the only Object of the [...]r Worship, prefixed in the fore fr nt of hi [...] Holy Law, Exodus 2.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [...]. First, he declares him­self by hi [...] name; I am the Lord thy God: Secondly, [...] his Works; Which hath br [...]ught thee [...]ut [...]f the [...]nd of Egy [...]t. In the first Verse is the Attr [...]te [...]f hi [...] [...], and Se­verity a [...]nst [...]i [...]: I the [...] t [...] [...] jeal [...]us G [...], [...]ting the [...]i [...]ty, [...]c. The [...]th Verse [...]tai [...] the Att [...]i [...]te of hi [...] Love: She [...]ng M [...]c [...] u [...]t [...] th [...] [...] th [...]t love m [...]. The Re [...]d [...] [...] [...]r [...] ­perties were man [...]f [...]s [...]d in the W [...] [...]rst mentioned, viz. b [...]n [...]in [...] them [...] where his Patience, [...] Pity, [...] Wisdo [...], his Power were eminently shewn.

Methinks, as aforesaid, if it had been the will of God that Israel his peculiar Peo­ple should have worshipped him with the C [...]nception of a Trinity in the Act of Adora­t [...]on, that then he would, in this place especial­ly, have discovered something thereof, since he is here more amply discovering his Will and their Duty than at any time heretofore. And yet here appears no such thing; but ra­ther still the Object of Worship is discovered under the notion of a single Being, I am the Lord. And this with his Works and At­tributes, appears to be all the Description of him.

Then again, at M [...]ses his repeating that which our Saviour calls the first and great Commandment, containing the principal part of Duty and Worship to this sacred Object, the [...]r [...]face runs thus, Deut. 6.4. He [...] O Isr [...]el, the L [...]rd our God is One Lord.

Here i [...]deed it is reaso [...]able to conclude that God [...]tended his Subjects should wor­ship him under the notion, appellation, and c [...]nce [...]tion of One. But who can think that by this he intended to teach them to do it under the notion and appellation of three?

Lastly, as touching God's discovering of himself under the somer Dispensation: Tho I confess when the words Holy One are used, they do not always particularly respect the most High, yet whenever they are used in holy Writ, as most proper, so they are al­ways used to signify a single Person. Now tho I shall not cite the particulars being too large, yet I promise to any that shall seri­ously desire it, thi [...]ty several places in the Old Testament, where he is denominated the H [...]ly One; and I can be better than my word. And on the other side, I challenge any body to shew me one place where he calls himself, or is called the Holy Three: and if so, it is a strong presumption at least, that he [...]uld be worshipped under the notion of a h [...]ly One, or sin [...]l [...] Pers [...]n.

[...]d thus having [...] over some of the most prin [...] places wh [...]e God hath discovered [...] to his Su [...]je [...]s, and c [...]llected them t [...]t [...]r, I conceive any indiff [...]ent Person, l [...]ing [...]st seriously [...] [...]h [...], will con­clude [Page 23] that any person having no other grounds to conceive a Trinity of persons in this one Essence than what arises from those Descrip­tions; it is not likely he should be induced by those Passages to conceive a Trinity of Persons in this one Essence and Object.

Not th [...]t I hereby (as aforesaid) deny the thing it self, viz. the Doctrine of three Persons; but shew that it is not likely that the Almighty doth require a particular Con­ception of three Persons in the act of Wor­ship, but only one; since he hath left the notion of three so very dark, as indeed not discernable, in those very places where he discovers himself as the Object of Ado­ration: And hath chosen such Epithets to declare himself generally and univer­sally, as properly do infer a single Essence not revealed, as subsisting in three Somewhats, Manners, Modes, or Persons.

And further, it is observable that the holy Scriptures speaking of, and holding forth the One most High, do often repeat the Uni­ty of his single undivided Essence, as also the Greatness of his Power, his Wisdom, and the Residue of his Essential Properties: they are sound in multitudes of places in Scrip­ture, as if Persons could never enough be told, and made sensible of those things, wherein all Parties are agreed; and as if they could never have too powerful conceptions of it in the Act of Worship. Methinks therefore it is strange, that so especial a point, as this is thought to be, should be left so dark and obscure, even to that degree that a man without any other help than those Scriptures of the Old Testament (of which now I speak) which speak directly of the most High as the Object to be worshipped; I say, may almost (if not altogether) as soon conceive in his mind three hundred distinct Persons in this Essence as conceive three. What f [...]llows hence then but that that Person w [...]ich sincerely worships the most High, [...] of him as subsisting in one undi­ [...]d [...]ssence, in one Person, as we on all [...]nd [...] b [...]lie [...]e him to do, and worships him with such Sentiments as he in conscience thinks th [...]se plain Passages before recited do [...]turally hold f [...]rth; what hinders, I say, but that we may think that he worships the most High aright, and according to the Scrip­ture, altho he distinguishes not the Manners or Modes of his sub [...]sting? which indeed in it self is something hard to the unle [...]rned at least, to distinguish in their thou [...]hts t [...]e [...] distinct persons, and not also at the same time to conceive three real substantial distinct Beings or Substances.

I therefore humbly, conceive that those that think they ought, and find they can in the act of Worship distinguish the Persons, and not at the same time divide in their thoughts the Substance, I say let them do s [...]: and they that think themselves not obliged, and think they cannot well make this distinction in their thoughts, my opinion is, let them alone to serve God after the old fashion that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob served God in: And not for so small a matter [...]e stigmatized as A­theists, Denyers of the true God, Her [...]ticks, and such other infamous Characters, cor­rupting good Manners.

But in the next place: having shewn in the foregoing Discourse how God hath ma­nifested himself, I now in the second place come to shew how, or in what manner the aforesaid Adam, Abraham, Ja [...] b, Moses, and Israel, did conceive of the most H [...]h when they addressed themselves unto him: which appears not to respect his sub [...]sting, but his Essence and essential Properties, which yet further con [...]irms it, that either they were ignorant of a [...]hreefold subsisting, or else did not think it expedient or necessary to contain it in their c nceptions as a necessary part of, and in Divine Worship: This in ge­neral will appear, in that they always used such Exp [...]essi [...]ns as belong to the singular number, as thee, thy, th [...]n, or thine; which shew that they did not directly pay their respects to distinct Person, but t [...] one [...]nc [...] without distinction; since [...]e n [...]r read that they made use of y [...], y [...], y [...], or yours.

But to make it more [...]lain, we will examine the particular Instances. First, Adam, Gen. 3.10, 11. he said, I heard thy V [...]ice, and the W [...]man whom thou gavest me, &c. Next Abraham, Gen. 15.2. And [...]raham [Page 24] [...]d, Lord God, what wilt thou give me? Chap. 17.18. O that Ismael might live before Thee! And when he would make his Servant swear by the True God, Chap. 24.3. he did not distinguish him as one in three, but says he, I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of Heaven, and the God of the Earth! Also when the Servant several times in this Chapter di­rects his Prayer to this God, he doth not di­stinguish him personally in three; but says, O Lord God of my Master Abraham, I pray thee send me good speed. Then for Jacob, when he tells his Father Laban how his Substance came to be increased, Gen. 31.42. he doth not say the God subsisting in three Persons, but says he, the God of my Father, the God of A­braham, &c. and Chap. 32.10. I am not worthy of the Mercies, and all the Truth which Thou hast shewed me. Ver. 11. Deliver me I pray thee. And thou saidst, I will surely do thee good. In short, in several places he di­stinguishes him verbatim as God discovered himself to Abraham, viz. God Almighty, but not one word of God in three Persons. Next Moses, Exodus 5.23. For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in Thy Name, he hath done evil to this People. Neither hast Thou delivered thy People at all. Chap. 15.1. Then sang Moses and the Children of Israel this Song unto the Lord: He hath triumphed gloriously, the Horse and his Rider hath He thrown into the Sea. And in this Song you have the Terms, he, thee, thy, thou, thine, him, repeated no less than 35 times, and yet neither you, yours, they or them once mention­ed, respecting the most High. Thus have I briefly run over the sum of the most remark­able Instances of persons paying their Devo­tions to the most High in the Old Testament; and I might have instanced David, Solomon, Daniel, and many others, yea down to Zecha­riah's days: and it appears as if they were all agreed to conceive of, and acknowledg an undivided, single Essence, and its Properties. But no Footsteps do appear of their di­stinguishing the Essence in three persons in their Conceptions. And if the Israelites ever had any such conception of God, methinks it should not be lost; and if not lost, it is strange Josephus should not mention it, since he gives an account of things as far back as Mo­ses, even from the beginning; and often speaks of God and his essential Properties, descri­bing the true Object of the Jews Worship, and yet always speaks of him as one in Ʋnity of Essence, but hints not a word of divers Persons. And as Josephus then, so the Jews now acknowledg no such thing, as Mr. Monk says page 70. he says the Doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to the Blindness of the Jews, who do affirm an Essence altogether without distinction. Now, I say, 'tis strange if this were understood amongst them (especially as so material a thing as is now sup­posed) that then both the Jews now (who yet profess the true God, and are zealous of the Mosaical Law) and Josephus so long ago, should yet be ignorant of so remarkable a matter.

In the next place, I come to the New Te­stament, to see whether we may judg it the Will of God that we should worship and adore his Essence, as subsisting in one Person, or in three: And first I will consider the Apostle Stephen, what he says of the most High, Acts 7.2. he calls him, the God of Glory; and ver. 32. he cites and describes the antient Description without enlarging, viz. I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And ver. 48. The most High dwells not in Temples made with Hands. Herein is a discovery of God's Greatness, but no distinguishing his Persons. And remarkable it is that Paul about to instruct the ignorant Athenians in the knowledg of the true God, as the Object of their Worship, Acts 17.23, 24, 25. first lets them know that they ig­norantly worshipped the unknown God, and that him he would declare unto them: And accordingly says, God that made the World, and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of Heaven and Earth, dwells not in Temples made with mens hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all Life, and Breath, and all things. Herein the Apostle very notably sets forth his most glorious Attributes, and invisible Being, by his creating and preserv­ing of all things: But says not one word of the distinction of Persons. Now if t [...]e Knowledg of this were so necessary to be [Page 25] known in order to Salvation as is imagined; Paul had no less need to instruct these ignorant Athe­nians therein, as much as in the Knowledg of the Essential Properties and Power. Next we will consider Eph. 4.6. There is One God and Father of all, who is above all. Here you see a plain disco­very of the Ʋnity of the Godhead, and his Supre­macy, but the Description of Persons is still want­ing. To this I will add 1 Cor. 8.6. But to us there is but One God, the Father of all things. Here again the Object of Worship is described as the first Cause and Foundation of all things (of whom are all things.) 2. The Inseparableness and Oneness of his Being is asserted (but One God.) 3. He is so far from directing us to fix our Conceptions on him, as distinguished into three Persons, that he solely centers him in One, even as subsisting in the Father. Now what rational Man can conclude from hence, but that we are to conceive of the Object of Worship as intirely subsisting in, and to be called by the Appellation of the Father, and so to be worshipped? That is, in plainness, that we are to conceive that all that we believe to be God most High, whether Essence, Attributes, or Per­sons, whatever we may think of its various sub­sisting in our selves, yet it is to be adored and distinguished by the Person of the Father; where we all say that 'tis all and whole.

But further, I shall add the Authority of him who cannot err. John 4.22, 23, 24. Ye worship ye know not what: We know what we worship; for Sal­vation is of the Jews.—But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true Worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him, must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.

From this pertinent place I note as follows; First, That it contains a Discourse of our Saviour directly concerning Worship: 1. Blaming and de­scribing the ignorant false Worshippers; Ye, the Samaritans, worship ye know not what. 2. Describ­ing the true Worshippers: 1. By the manner how, in Spirit and in Truth. 2. The Matter or Object what; and that described two ways: 1st. His Essence, a Spirit: 2dly. The Person who, viz. the Father; the true Worshippers shall worship the Father. Further, from this Text I observe; 1. They can­not be true Worshippers that worship they know not what. 2. They that worship the Father as the proper Object of Divine Worship, are not such as worship they know not what, but such as know what they worship. 3. They that worship the Father, conceiving of him, as containing the glorious inseparable Essence or Spirit, being wor­thy above all things to be worshipped; these I say are not the false, but the true Worshippers of God; and provided they perform their Worship spiritually, shall be accepted by him, because he seeks such to worship him. 4. That it is the Will of God, and Direction of Christ, that of all the Persons believed to be in the Deity, God the Father is to be conceived as the most proper Per­son for us to direct our highest Adoration to. 5. That he that conceives that the Godhead, and all its essential Properties, subsist in the Father as the proper Object of Divine Worship, con­ceives not amiss; because, according to Christ's Rule, he is a true Worshipper. 6. That we may lawfully have Communion with any such Per­sons, if that be all their fault, because they are true Worshippers, and with better we cannot well join. 7. I observe that when Christ de­scribes the Object of our Worship, he is so far from distinguishing or teaching us to distinguish the Persons in that Object, that he contains all un­der the denomination of one only Person, even the Father.

Next I shall cite the Instruction of our Lord, expresly injoining us to pay Adoration to God the Father, and acknowledg all to be his. Mat. 6.9. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy Name; thy Kingdom come; thy Will be done in Earth as 'tis in Heaven, &c. —for thine is the Power and the Glory for ever. Amen. From this I observe: 1. That it is the Will of God, as declared by Christ, that the order we should observe in our Con­ceptions of God Almighty, and in pouring out our Desires to him, is positively and directly to pray to God the Father, as the proper Appellation and Object of our Prayers. 2. That he that prays to God the Father, prays in that respect aright, and to the true God. 3. That it appears not that in our Prayers we are injoined to distinguish the Persons, if we regard and eye by Faith the Being or Essence we worship: 1. Because, if such a thing as distinguishing the Persons in Prayer were a Duty, or material, our Saviour would have inserted it in his Directory, since he here gives an account of all the material Points of Prayer. 2. Because on the contrary he ex­presly injoins us to direct our Desires (not to three, but) to one Person, even the Father; withal teaching us to use such Expressions as are most proper to a single Person, viz. three times [Page 26] thy, and once thine. 4. I observe that our Lord directs us to render and ascribe such Excellency, full Power, Soveraignty, Protection, Sacredness, Bounty, Clemency, Glory to the Father, as are only proper to be given to the whole and only Godhead; which still shews that the proper glori­ous Object of Divine Worship is the whole God­head, as truly subsisting all and whole in the Per­son of the Father, and under that Appellation to be worship'd. And as I have hitherto treated of positive Directions in this case, I shall briefly cite some Examples of Christ and his Apostles, as our Pattern to follow, whereby it may further appear most agreeable to Scripture to worship one Person. First, Christ's Example, Mat. 11.25. I thank thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth. Here he pays the duty of Thankfulness to the Father, and owns him as supreme Soveraign. Mark 14.36. And he said, Abba, Father: all things are possible to thee, take away this Cup from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. Next I shall cite the Apostles: Rom. 8.15. Ye have re­ceived the Spirit of Adoption, whereby ye cry, Abba, Father. Rom. 15.6. That ye may with one Mind —glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Gal. 4.6. God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your Hearts, crying, Abba, Father. The next Instance shall be the Adoration of Paul to this single Person; Eph. 3.14. For this cause I bow my Knee to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Jam. 3.9. Therewith bless we God, even the Father. 1 Pet. 1.17. And if ye call on the Father, &c. And indeed it were tedious to cite all those Texts that give Testimony to this thing. These Gleanings are set down, that ye might believe that the pro­per Object of Divine Worship is the one most High God, as truly subsisting all and whole in the Person of the Father: And believing it, that ye might direct your Adoration to him accordingly, and also have Charity towards all those who have no other material fault but worshipping the Fa­ther as the proper Object. Nay, methinks there is no Point of Divinity in the Holy Scriptures more clear than this thing, as any indifferent Eye may see: 'tis not a thing drawn from doubtful Consequences; but plainly revealed, often repeated, and never contradicted, but confirmed by the universal Practice of the Prophets and Primitive Saints, and also by Christ and the Apostles; namely, That the most High is to be worshipped as a single impartible Essence, in one single Person, without the Worshippers being obliged at the same time to distinguish three distinct Subsistings and Deno­minations.

And on the other side, there is not one Instance to be given where any Man is recorded in the word of God, our only Rule and Guide, to adore the most High God under the apprehension of one Es­sence in three Persons; that is, I mean, did direct his Prayers or Thanks to three Persons. And here I must take occasion moderately to check some of my worthy and beloved Brethren, useful in the Ministry, who a little heated with an inordinate Zeal for the Doctrine of three Persons in the God­head, fearing they may prejudice the Doctrine it self by yielding too much to its opposite, do on the other side as much overshoot the Mark, and form their Petitions quite beyond all Scripture-In­junction and Example. And tho no Examples, nor any thing like them can be given, yet they must conclude their Prayers, To thee, O Lord, Father, Son, and holy Spirit, three Persons, one eternal God, be Honour, Glory, Praise, &c. What shall one think of this, but that those Men think if they should not direct and form their Prayers to the Almighty better than Abraham, Jacob, Moses, the Prophets of old, and Christ and his Apostles did, their Prayers would be very defective, and not accomplished as they ought? Truly, to be zealous in a good thing is commendable; and that's a good thing for which we have Precept or Pattern: but for this there is neither. Now when we take the liberty to add to Divine Worship, however agreeable to our Opinions, and however well-meaning our Intentions may be, yet if our Device want Authority from sacred Record, we mar in­stead of mending: for as there is a time for every Purpose, so is there a Rule for every Practice. God is the God of Order, and the supreme Giver of a Rule in all Institutions and Worship: and when beyond the express Rule, we shall foist in any Formality in Duty, we cast Dishonour on them of old, to wit, the Prophets and Apostles, yea Christ and God himself, as if he had been short in giving sufficient Rules, or Christ and his Fol­lowers short in understanding him. And thus in­deavouring to mend, Formality, beyond Rule, or express Precept or Example, has (as I hinted be­fore) occasioned all or most of the Innovations in Institutions and Forms of Divine Worship: As for example, because Christ saith, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of God, and drink his Blood, ye have no Life in you; therefore as if persons were bound to take more care for their Children than God himself directed, for many Ages they gave them the Lord's Supper, tho they had no express Scripture for it. Likewise because the Apostle [Page 27] says, Make melody to the Lord, and rejoice; and again I say, rejoice, and the like; therefore with­out rule some have invented Organs, as proper to heighten Rejoycings. Likewise because the Scripture saith, Confess your Faults one to another; therefore the Roman Church hath invented Auri­cular Confession. And truly tho I would be spar­ing in comparisons, yet I would have all my Bre­thren see that it is dangerous to add Devices of our own; and that it is hardly sufficient, because the Scripture says, There are three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; that therefore we must say in our Prayers, Father, Son, and Holy Spi­rit, three Persons, and one eternal God; when we have no precedent that ever any did so, who yet knew how to pray as well as we, having the first Fruits of the Spirit. And, as I said before, were the distinction of Persons in that one Essence as plainly discovered by Scripture and Reason, as the Oneness of that Godhead is (which yet I must confess it hardly is) yet the manner of our Con­ceptions and our Expressions to, and Appellations of the Object of Worship in the Act of Worship, must depend upon God's Will, and Christ's Di­rection, and not our own Device.

And now, according to my promise, concerning the Knowledg of the most High, and paying Wor­ship to him, I hope I have convincingly shewn the joint Agreement on all hands among the Par­ties above-mentioned, and that at most there is but a circumstantial difference between them; and no material one seems to be in their thoughts either concerning God or Worship unto him, both be­lieving in the very same God that created the Heavens and Earth, the very same Essence all and whole, the very same that was and is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the same God and no other that is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, the very same God that Christ directs us to call Father, owning all his essential Properties, Power, and Prerogatives, each believing him to subsist all and whole in the person of the Father, and under that Appellation most proper to be wor­shipped; only there is a little difference about this threefold manner of subsisting, a thing (as has bin shewn) that God and Christ have at least been sparing in declaring at any time, when he made discovery of himself in all Ages. And therefore I hope the Belief of it not to be look'd upon so binding, or the ignorance of it so damning, as to be the Test of Communion.

And now, according to my promise, I shall come to speak of the second Person of the Trini­ty, viz. the Christ of God.

Sect. I. Shewing that we are all agreed about the Person of Christ, who he is.

GReat have been the Mistakes of many about the Person of the Messias. There seem to be in all Nations such Sparks of Light as inform them they have need of some one to be their Friend to appease Divine Wrath, and speak to the most High for them; to which purpose the Jews adhe­red to one Benchochab in the Reign of Adrian, who pretended to be the Messias, but came to nothing. Likewise in 1666, they followed one Sebastius Sevi: And after that one More pretending to be Christ, who both came to nothing. And they now look for a Messias to come, tho not Jesus of Na­zareth. The Persians rely on Haly, the Turks on Mahomet; and the Quakers say it is something within, viz. a Spirit, or spiritual Substance. And [Page 28] there shall yet come (especially in the last times) many Pretenders, calling themselves Christs, which shall be found Liars.

But our Brethren and we all agree that he and no other, that was born of Mary, called Jesus of Nazareth, nailed to the Cross by the order of Pon­tius Pilat, in the days of Tiberius Cesar; that he, I say, was, and is the Christ of God, the Saviour of the World. And why we should cry out upon one another, that such a one denies the true Christ, and believes in another Christ, I see no Reason, since we all agree that that one Person, born of Mary, was, and is the true Christ. 'Tis true, their Sentiments and ours may not be alike about his Sub­stance, in his preexisting before his Incarnation: but as that is a Mystery hard for the Ignorant to understand, and Men of the greatest Parts com­monly lose themselves in it; so I do not find the Apostles press it as material to be believed in, and understood: their main design seemed to be to prove, that he was the same Person the Prophets spake of; and to open the Power and Efficacy of his Death and Sufferings; but were very spa­ring in talking of his preexisting; which yet if it had been necessary to Salvation, it seems to me they would have opened it as well as other Points. But supposing our Brethren mistaken in their Conceptions concerning Christ, what he was be­fore his Incarnation; yet have they the same Re­spect and Love for his Person as we have, believe him to be the very Christ of God as much as we, believe his Death to be available, and look upon him to be as sufficient a Saviour as we do; and since they pitch on the very same Person that we do, I cannot think that they believe in a false, or another Christ.

Sect. II. Concerning the Offices of Christ, shewing also that we are therein agreed.

HIS Name Jesus signifies a Saviour, and Christ is in English, Anointed; so that this Person we speak of, is the Anointed of God to save Mankind: His principal Office is to mediate between the most High offended, and the Lump of Men offending, 1 Tim. 2.5. Now concerning his Mediatorship, our Brethren and we agree, both believing that he is truly Man, having the Actions and Passions of Men, as eating, drinking, sleeping, &c. And that he had a reasonable Soul; that he is to be ac­counted our Prophet, Priest, and King; that his Death and Bloodshed is sufficient to ransom the World; that there is no Remission of Sins without him; that he now fits at the right hand of the most High; that he shall one day judg the Quick and Dead; that he has now all Authority in Heaven and Earth; that he is the true Son of God; that he is above the Angels; that his Flesh is the true Heavenly Bread; that whosoever eats thereof shall live for ever; that his Blood recei­ved by Faith is Drink indeed; that he bare our Sins in his own Body on the Tree. In these things touching the Person and Offices of Christ, and in other material Points of like nature, there is an Agreement; and why there should be such a falling out, I cannot guess, unless thro Pride we will have all Men see as we see, and in such things as seem not to be preached by the Apostles as ne­cessary.

Sect. III. Treating on, and answering this Question: Whether or no we are required, in order to our right believing in, and worshipping of the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, to worship him as the most High God?

BEfore I come directly to answer this Question, I shall first speak of the Worship and Adora­tion due to him, as he is the Christ of God, and in that Capacity (to be sure) subordinate and subject to the Father. Now I think it is on all hands al­lowed, that Glory and Honour is to be given to Christ, as he is the Mediator. And the Reason why all Glory, and such Honour is to be given to him, is, because all Power in Heaven and in Earth is given to him, Mat. 28.19. Now I observe that Divine Honour is never to be given to the most High because of a Power given him; for the most High gives all things, but no Power or Authority can be given to him; he has it all originally in him­self. Now the Power here spoken of, was a Power given unto him; therefore he had it not as most High, but as Christ, a confessed Subject, and re­ceived it of the Father.

Moreover, it is said, John 5.22, 23. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all Judgment unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. And vers. 26. For as the Father hath Life in himself, so hath he given unto the Son to have Life in himself. From hence I note, that there is an Honour to be given to Christ, as to one [Page 29] invested with Power by and from another; and that God the Father hath given and bestowed on him Power and Judgment, part­ly on purpose that Men should pay him this Honour.

And tho Comparisons, as we use to say, will not run on all four; yet for Illustration sake I will instance the Case of Joseph: Pha­raoh was King, yet says he to Joseph, Gen. 41.40. Thou shalt be over my House; and according unto thy Word shall all my People be ruled: see I have set thee over all the Land of Aegypt; and they cried before him, Bow the Knee. A Badg of Homage and Honour very probably given to the King when he rode a­mongst the People.

Here you see, tho Pharaoh were King, yet the Execution of the Power, and the Ho­nour of the Government is given unto Jo­seph. So altho the Father, or the Most High, be he that hath Authority originally, yet the Honour of it, and the execution of it in Heaven and in Earth is given unto the Son, and he shall keep it and execute it until he hath subdued all his Enemies, and then shall deliver it up to God, even the Father: 1 Cor. 15.24, 25, 26, 27, 28. Now about this Honour and Power there is no Controversy that I know of, every one of either Party granting that Christ hath not this Power and Honour, as he is essentially God most High, because then he could not receive it, nor yet e­ver deliver it up again, as in all plainness he is said to do. And this kind of Advancement, and Power, and Prerogative is intended, Ephes. 1.20, 21, 22. where it is said, God hath set him far above all Principalities, and Powers, and Might, and Dominion, and every Name that is named, not only in this World, but also in that which is to come; and hath put all things under his Feet. The like is men­tioned and intended, Phil. 2.9, 10, 11. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a Name which is above every Name: That at the Name of Jesus every Knee should bow, of things in Heaven, and things in Earth, and things under the Earth; and that every Tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father. The like also is intended Heb. 2.5, 6, 7, 8, 9. and in many other places is this kind of Dig­nity spoken of. But, as aforesaid, this mat­ter is not controverted; but the Knot of the Question is, Whether over and above this Honour, which is to be given unto him as Christ, and a principal Officer and Represen­tative of the most High; I say, whether over and above this Honour we are not bound to worship him as the most High himself: that is, not as one deserving Honour and O­bedience because of Dignity and Power given him, but as one deserving and requiring it, having originally all Power and Dignity dwel­ling essentially in him, and he the only su­pream Giver of it to others.

To this weighty Question, with all Modesty and Submission to better Judgments (from whom, if occasion be, I expect Information) I humbly answer, No; that such Worship is not formally to be paid to the Person of Christ as he is the Christ of God.

Mistake me not; let none suppose that I hereby deny the Person of Christ to be essen­tially God: But I say, allowing that, yet it follows not from thence that we are to pay our Devotion to Christ as to the most High.

My Reasons for it are as follows: First, Because when the Apostles preached and discovered him unto the World, they seem to discover and preach no such Belief and Practice.

And first, for Peter's first Sermon to the Multitude, Act. 2. which caused the Planta­tion of the first Christian Church: he preach­es Salvation through the name of Christ, vers. 21. he let them know that Jesus of Naza­reth was no Impostor, but a man approved of God by Miracles, Wonders, and Signs, ver. 22. he speaks of his Death and Sufferings, ver. 23. his Resurrection, v. 24. his Exaltati­on, ver. 33. and v. 36. concludes, Know as­suredly that God hath made the same Jesus whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ.

Here you see Peter omits no material thing: he speaks of his Merits; They that call on him shall be saved: his Death, Resur­rection, Exaltation, receiving Empire and Honour; God hath made him Lord: but not one word of his being essentially God, and so on that account the Object of Divine [Page 30] Worship; which yet, had it been so mate­rial a Point as is now thought, did deserve as much to be preached as any of the other. Likewise in his second Sermon Acts 3. he preaches Christ from Vers. 13. to the end; yet not one word of his being essentially the most High. The like i [...] to be observed in the fourth Chapter. Man [...] places I might run over, but for brevity sake I shall on­ly take notice of two more: one is where Peter i [...] sent to tell Cornelius what he ought to believe and do, Acts 10. v [...]rs. 36. he lets Cornelius know that Jesus wa [...] Lord, as before he told the Jews, God had [...]ade him both Lord and Christ: He t [...]ls him that God had sent the Message of Peace by him, he tells him he was the Anointed of God; he tells him he was a Miracle-Worker, which shewed that God was with him: he tells him of his Death and Resurrection: he testifies him to be the same the Prophets prophesied of to come: he preaches Remission of Sins through Faith in his Name: he declares him to be ordained Judg of Quick and Dead; but not one word that he is to be worship­ped as essentially God Most High; which had it been a point of Faith, would surely have been told Cornelius and the Gentiles. Likewise when Paul informs the ignorant Athenians, Acts 17.31. after he had de­scribed the true God, he describes Christ distinct from God as the ordained Judg of the World, but speaks not of his Godhead.

My second Reason is, Because as he is Christ he is distinguished from God, and an Officer un­der him: and therefore so as he is Christ to be believed in, saying of himself, his Father is greater than he, and than all, the Scriptures that direct us in our Faith in Christ, direct us to understand his Office; but seem to be silent concerning his Essence: Neither doth Christ any where require us to worship him as the most High; but we are to pray, to give thanks, and perform our Homage to the most High through Jesus Christ, as the new and living way consecrated for us.

But thirdly, nothing is Christ but what is anointed, (for Christ in plain English signifies anointed.) Now the Divine Essence was not anointed nor incarnate; for who should a­noint it, unless we will say the Divine Essence anointed the Divine Essence with the Divine Essence? Some will say that that is absurd; and verily except we have a mind to fall in­to the contradictory ridiculous Opinion of the Quakers, I think we can plead at most for no more than this, viz. that the second Person of the Trinity was incarnate and a­nointed, and not the Divine Essence it self: And if ye will not believe me, believe Mr. Tho. Monck, in his Cure for the cankering Error, pag. 98. where he tells you, we al­ways distinguish betwixt the Essence of the Son and the Person; saying, the Essence is one with the Father, but not his Person: Therefore we say his Person was begotten, not his Essence; and we also say his Person took Flesh of the Virgin Mary, not his Essence; and therefore it was the Person of the Son that was born of her, not the Father, nor the Spirit; for tho the Essence of the three be one, yet the Persons be distinct: and pag. 114. he reckons up the Absurdities will else follow, viz. that the Father was he that took Man's Nature upon him, was tempted of the Devil, suf­fered Hunger and Thirst, was buffeted and scourged of the Jews, and put to death by wicked hands; is greater than himself, sent himself into the World: he gave himself a Seat at his own Right Hand; he is the ex­press Image of himself, &c. and many o­ther Absurdities he reckons up; these may suffice.

Now I humbly conceive Divine Homage and Adoration is to be given to the Essence of the most High, and not to a particular man­ner of its subsisting; to wit, to a Person, which yet is all which is or was anointed (ac­cording to Mr. Monck's Opinion.)

But then I know it will be said that each Person, and so the second Person, contains in it all the Essence. Let it be so, I will allow that in the Person of Christ dwelt all the Fulness of the Godhead bodily, according to Col. 2.9. But then it must also be allowed that the Essence dwelt there as something di­stinct from the Anointed, and not as the A­nointed it self: It must also be allowed that the most High dwelt in Christ incognito, as some great Princes appear in foreign Courts [Page 31] and Places incognito, that is, tho they are personally present, yet they decline to re­ceive those Royal and Princely Honours due to their Character; receiving them only or chiefly in their Palace Royal. So tho the Almighty dwell in the Person of Christ, yet we are not taught to say, our Father who art in the Person of Christ, but our Father who art in Heaven; which Expression he desires we should use while the Person of Christ was on Earth. And we have before shewn that we are to worship the Divine Essence, as sub­sisting all and whole in the Person of the Fa­ther; neither are we any where commanded or directed to say, our Son who art in Heaven, or our Spirit who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy Name; but only our Father.

And since the Divine Essence seems not to desire us to worship him under the Denomi­nation, or in the Person of the Son, I think it safest for us to worship him as truly and wholly subsisting in the Person of the Fa­ther, and under that Denomination.

Besides, the Names of Son and Spirit, howsoever with respect of Essence they are believed to be God; yet I say these Names seem to distinguish them from God, and do denote them as Officers under God. Therefore it is said the Father is greater than I, and than all: the Son knows not the Day and Hour of Judgment, but the Father only.

Likewise the Spirit when he comes, he shall not speak of himself; but what he hears that shall he speak.

From the whole I conclude, that the Christ of God ought in our Faith concerning him to be distinguished from God himself; and that whatever may be said of the Divine Essence dwelling in Christ, yet nothing was Christ but what was anointed; and that only the Person was anointed, or was incarnate, according to Mr. Monck's Opinion.

And further, that whatever Divine Essence dwelt in Christ, or was Christ; yet the proper place to pay Adoration to it, is in the Person of the Father, and that he that wor­ships the Father, worships all the Divine Essence under the proper Name and Appel­lation under which it should be worshipped, to wit that of the Father.

These things considered, I see no reason why we should so stigmatize our Brethren, because they worship the most High under the proper Name and Person that they ought; and do not use improper Names to do it by, as our Son who art in Heaven, or our Christ who art in Heaven, or our Spirit who art in Heaven; since those Names or Persons, whatsoever their Essence be, do not require us to worship the most High in them; but to understand and improve the Knowledg of their Office; and remember that that Person who was nailed to the Cross, who cried out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? was the Mediator betwixt God and us, the very Christ, the anointed, who did never require his Disciples to worship him as the most High.

SECT. IV. Treating particularly of his Human Nature.

AS touching the Contention about the human Nature of Christ, strange it is to me, (and would have been stranger, had I not once dipped my Fingers in the same folly) that Men so well agreeing in the main substantial Points of the Faith of Christ, should yet notwithstanding so teaze one ano­ther about a Circumstance so dark as this is: They all believe that his Body was the true Son, and sent of God, that he was a real Man, that he was a sufficient Sacrifice and Saviour: But all this will not satisfy them, except they know what he was made of; yet the Scripture leaves it so, that if we make any determination, we must bring the plain Words to our meaning; for as it is said, he [Page 32] was made of the Seed of David accord­ing to the Flesh, it is also as expresly said, the Word was made Flesh, John 1.14. And Solomon the wisest of Men, and the greatest Searcher into Nature's Secrets that ever was, says, Who do know how the Bones do grow in the Womb of her that is with Child? speaking of an ordinary Concep­tion.

If an ordinary Conception be so dark then, much more this Conception of our Lord, which was beyond, and contrary to the Course of Nature: Therefore to make the Ignorance thereof so damning, and the cer­tain Knowledg of it the Test of Communion, seems to savour of Presumption; and it is something pleasant to see old grave men discoursing so seriously and learnedly how far any Woman contributes towards any Child conceived in her; a thing so intricate, that the most famous Philosophers have been at Daggers Draw about it: and when any man hath thought his Thought about it, he may be right, and he may be wrong, because we are all left without light to travel in those Paths.

For my part I intend not to follow them in this Discourse or Controversy, the whole appearing to me, and to many others, to be needless; since tho it must be granted that somebody is, and must needs be mistaken, and under Misapprehensions in the case, yet the Mistakes are not so pernicious to lead the mistaken to question whether this be the true Messias, promised to Adam, and all along prophesied of by the Prophets; but they, whoever they be, are very confident, as well as the other, that this is the true Christ; therefore pray why all this stir? this Jehu-like driving seems not to savour much of a true Christian Spirit. But I shall conclude this Section with a Comparison for illustra­tion of my meaning, which I have here­tofore frequently made use of, sometimes with good success, in Discourses of this kind.

We will imagine two Persons, A and B, Servants to C, do grow refractory, and run away from C, and deservedly in their rambles are taken by the Enemy, and made Slaves of in a foreign Land, help themselves they cannot; but C hearing, and well understanding their Misfortune and Misery, notwithstanding their former Ingratitude, yet pities them, and sends by a trusty hand a sufficient Ransom to redeem them, and obtain their Liberty.

The Ransom arrives, and they are accord­ingly redeemed, and presently embark to go home to C; as they sail homeward, (they be­ing, as well they may be, much affected with their Liberty) they are often discoursing con­cerning their Ransom, they both agree, and question not that it was none of their Deserts, but the free Love and Bounty of C was the cause of the Ransom's being sent; neither do they question in the least whether or no it be come, or being come, whether it be suf­ficient; for in all this they are satisfied: But in their Discourse it happens this Question is dropt; that is Whether the Ransom was Gold or Silver? A thinks he hath sufficient Reasons to believe it was Silver; and B thinks he hath as sound Reasons to believe it was Gold: they terribly inforce their Arguments on both sides, and possibly neither of them both certainly know the truth of the matter, or have any infallible or certain Rule to know, yet they are both very confident; one says, he is sure he is in the right, and he is sure the other is in the wrong. And so after they have vexed and teaz'd one another more than enough, the Contention at last arises so high, that A will stay no longer in the same Ship with B, but will leave him, and sail in some other Ship; nay stay, says B, do not leave me, since I love you, and we are agreed in the main things, and do find, thanks be to C, that the Ransom was sufficient; and why should we part about this Circumstance, especially since we were both Partners in Slavery and Misery, and were both made happy and set at liberty by this one Ransom? and since we are both Strangers in this Coun­try, neither is there any in the Ship speak the same Language that we do, let us en­joy the Comfort of each others Society, and be helpful one to another in Advice and Discourse; who knows, being amongst Strangers and Enemies, how we may need each others help? and consider how com­fortable [Page 33] it will be for us, that have been lo­ving Friends and Companions and Fellow-Country-men, to talk together in our own Language, while those Barbarians gabble in an unknown Tongue, and barbarous Language? Therefore pray do not leave me, but tarry with me. Ay says A, if you'l say as I say, and think as I think, that the Ransom was Silver, I'll tarry with you then, and all shall be well; but if you will not say so, I am resolved I'll be gone, I'll keep you company no longer, nor I'll regard nor take no more account of you than of one of those Stran­gers and Infidels from whence you come; nay you are full out as bad as they, or rather the worst of the two; you deserve, if you had your Desert, to be cursed out of my Com­pany.

Says B, these are hard Words, and so much the harder coming from one I so much esteem, and for so small an occa­sion: Howbeit, I am not by any of your Ar­guments convinced that you are right; I cannot say as you say, I think still the Ran­som was Gold; nevertheless, tho I think you are mistaken, I can and will bear with you, pray shake hands, and be Friends, and bear with me; pray don't leave me, our parting will be very pernicious and uncom­fortable, and those Barbarians in the Ship will take n [...]tice of it, and check us with it, and every body will wonder at it; and which is worst, C that sent the Ransom, and did us so much good, will know of it, and be ve­ry much offended with us: therefore pray be perswaded to tar [...]y with me. No not I, says A, I am resolved I'll be gone, and I'll print some Papers, and expose you, and I'll put a Bear's Skin upon you; and if I can, I'll make all them in the Ship believe that you are a Bear inde [...]d, and all the Dogs in the Ship sha [...]l bark [...] you, that you shall have but little Comfort or Peace in your Voyage; and so in the mind I am in, I'll never come at you more, or bid you God speed, and so adieu.

Away flings A in a great Heat, down sits B, fetching a deep Sigh, and becomes ex­ceeding melancholy, that he must sail a­lone. Now every body will be ready to think that this was a very untoward, scurvy, simple Trick of A, for so slight an occasion to deal so with B, and leave him, thereby exposing both himself and B to the odd Censure and Derision of the By-standers. Yet what do some wise Men do less than the same thing?

While both Parties in this Controversy were running from God, and taken captive under Sin and Wrath, and were unable to help themselves, God saw and pitied their Condition, and freely sends his Son to ran­som and redeem them to the glorious Li­berty of the Sons of God; he accord­ingly offers his Body, and redeems them from Sin and Wrath; they both without doubting do agree that contrary to their Deserts God freely sent his Son, and that Jesus of Nazareth was he, and that he was a sufficient Ransom. But at the same time the Question is dropt, what was that Body made of? says one Party, all that died on the Cross to redeem us was originally a Creature of the Earth, of the Dust of the Ground: No, says some of the other Par­ties, that which died for our Sins, tho it were a real and true natural Man, yet ori­ginally was not of the Dust of the Ground, nor a part of the polluted fallen Lump, but of a more noble Extract, to wit, the Lord from Heaven: And amongst other things, it is said they think so for this reason; because if the most High could honourably with respect to his Justice, take any part of the fallen Lump, and sanctify it, and ac­cept of it without any Mediator or Sacri­fice offered for it; nay so accept of it not ony in its own behalf, but also as a Ransom satisfactory for all the rest of that Lump; then it will follow that there was no absolute necessity for the satisfaction of Justice that there should be any Mediator at all, since it appears that a part of that fallen Lump was accepted without any Mediator at all; but I'll not meddle with the Controversy. In the mean time the other Party represented by A in our Similitude, say, except you say as we say, and think as we think, that that which died was of the Earth, we will leave you, and reject you as Hereticks: No says the [Page 34] other Party represented by B, not so, we are your Brethren, we love you, pray don't part from us, we live in the love of Christ; we own the same Person to be Christ that you do; we believe him to be as sufficient a Ransom as you do; we believe him to be the Son of God as well as you, only we think in this matter you are mistaken; yet we are willing to bear with you, and em­brace you. If you leave us, God will be offended, good men grieved, young Con­verts staggered, and the World will laugh at us, and scoff us. No, says the other Party represented by A, we will leave you, say what you will, you deserve no Charity nor Indulgence, you ought to be excommunicated, if you had your due: We will expose you in printed Papers; we will perswade every body, if we can, that you are Bugbears: we say you are no Christians; you hold such Heresies as are sufficient to corrupt all the Churches, and to root the Christian Religion out of the World: You are worse than the Papist, and as bad as Atheists; nay you do deny the true God, and the Lord that bought you; you will bring on your selves swift Destruction; and therefore we will purge our selves of you, and so adieu.

Lamentable it is, and to be bewailed, that they who should strive together for the Faith of the Gospel, should strive to wound their Brethrens Reputation, representing them as the worst of Men: surely brotherly Compassion, and brotherly Communion, with a friendly and charitable Bearing, would be to the Gospel much more adorning, in our selves much more becoming, and to our Brethren much more edifying. Let us live in the Love of God, and keep pure the Do­ctrines of Christ, leaving those Mysteries till we shall know as we are known. There is one thing more I had almost slipt: some will say our Brethren own Christ to be the Son of God; but that signifies little, so long as they do not tell us how he is the Son of God. To which I answer, That it is unjust to condemn them for what we our selves are guilty of: for there is none of us all, while we tell them of Eternal Generation, that dare once open our Mouths to tell them how it is. And while they say Eternal Ge­neration is against Reason, we say it is above Reason, and cannot be comprehended by Rea­son. 'Tis true we tell them by the Pen of Mr. Monk, pag. 72. That the Person begets, and is begotten, but the Essence neither be­getteth, nor is begotten; and pag. 98. we say his Person was begotten, not his Essence. But some will say we have no Scripture says so; and do what we can, yet some young Converts, ignorant Persons, and those of mean apprehension, tho they may be honest-hearted Men and Women, yet in this case are so dull of hearing, that they [...]l hardly ever understand it.

But enough of this. I shall now in the next place come to treat of the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Holy Trinity.