CHAP. I. Of the name and definition of Faith; the meaning of the Phrase, in Deum credere; the Exposition of it vindicated against all exceptions.

HAving thus vindicated the Authority of the common Creed, and intimated the design and project of this present work: I now proceed unto the Explication of it, and every branch and Article therein contained, as they lie in order: beginning first of all with that which testifieth our Faith and belief in him, which is the first of all beginnings. A Iove principium, was the rule of old; and a more excellent Rule then that who can teach us now? But first, as a Praecognitum unto all the rest, I must insist upon the nature and interpretation of the first word of it, which hath a special influence and operation over the whole body of the Formula, and giveth denomination to it. For from the Latine Credo, comes the name of Creed; from the first English word, which is I be­lieve, we call the whole the Articles of our belief; and so the verb [...], comes from the Greek word [...], which in the Ecclesiastical notion of it, we interpret Faith. So that in whatsoever language we behold the same, the [Page 2] the word is verbum operativum, as the Lawyers cal it Coke in Calvins case. a word which hath rela­tion unto every Article, to every branch and member of the whole Compositum; as, I believe in God the Father Almighty, I believe in Iesus Christ his only Son, I be­lieve that Iesus was conceived of the holy Ghost, I believe that he was born of the Vir­gin Mary, I believe that he suffered under Pontus Pilate; & sic de caeteris. And first for the quid nominis, of the word [...], it signifieth to assent, or to joyn cre­dit or belief to such things as are laid before us. As, [...], in the old Poet Phocylides, Phocylid. sentent. that is to say, give no credit to the talk of the common people, who are unconstant and uncertain in their words and actions. Derived it is from the word [...], which we render faith; and that from [...] the praeterpluperfect tense of the passive [...], which signifieth to be perswaded, to be taught, to be induced to give assent unto such propositions as are made unto us. Thus is the word used by the great Apostle, [...], &c. Rom. 8.38. For I am perswaded that neither life nor death, &c. shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Iesus our Lord. And again, [...], &c. Philip. 1.6. Being confident of this very thing, (Persuasum habens hoc ipsum, as Beza very properly doth translate the word) That he which hath begun a good work in you, will perform it till the day of Iesus Christ. So that the word [...] which we render faith, being hence derived, may not unfitly be construed a perswasion, or a firm assent, persuasionem seu firmam assensionem, Valla in Annotat. in N. Test. as the learned Valla hath observed; and then the verb [...] being brought from thence, will signifie in the true and proper notion of it, I am perswaded verily of the truth of that which so many godly and religious men have related to me, and give as full and firm an assent unto it, as if I had been present when the deed was done. Thus also for the Latine word Fides, the Etymo­logie thereof is drawn from fio, from the doing or performance of those things which are said or promised. Fides enim dicitur (saith Cicero) eo quod fiat quod dictum est. And therefore faith, or fides, call it which you will, as it relates unto the promises of God, is defined by Zanchius, to be firma & certa persuasio de promissionibus dei Zanch. de Natura Dei. c. 3., a strong and confident perswasion that God will graciously fulfil those promises which he hath pleased to make unto us. And therefore I shall fix upon that definition of the thing it self, which I finde amongst the Antient Schoolmen, affirming it to be a firm assent to super­natural truths revealed. Which definition lest it should fare the worse for the Authors sake, is backed and seconded by so many learned men both of the Protestant and Reformed Churches, as may well serve to set it free from all further cavils: For thus Melanchthon for the Protestant or Lutheran Churches, Fides est assensus omni verbo Dei nobis tradito Melancht. in Exam. Artic. de Iustificatione.. Faith saith, he, is an assent to the veracity or [...]ruth of the whole Word of God delivered to us. And so saith Vrsin for the Doctors of the French or Calvinian party, defining it al­most in the self same words, Vrsin. in Exposit. prae­cept. 1. to be Vera persuasio qua assentimur omni verbo Dei nobis tradit [...]o. With these agree Chemnitius in Evan. Concil. Trident. cap. de Iustificatione. Pet. Martyr, ad Rom. 3. v. 12. Polanus Partit. Theolog. lib. 2. pag. 368. besides divers others. Which being the true and proper definition of be­lief, or faith, according to the natural meaning of the word both in Greek and Latine: I may conclude from hence without further trouble, that to believe (according as the word here stands in the front of the Creed) is on­ly to be verily perswaded of the truth of all those points and articles which are deli­vered in the same; and to give a firm assent unto them, agreeable unto the mea­sure of our understanding.

Faith thus defined, differeth not only from experience, knowledge, and opi­nion, all which do come within the compass of Assents, in general; but from all other things whatsoever, which come within the compass of our belief. When we assent unto the truth of such things, or matters as are discernible by sense, we may call it perception or experience: as when a man assents to this proposition, that ice is cold, or that fire is hot, because he feels it to be so by his outward senses. If our assent be weak, unsetled, or [Page 3] grounded only upon probabilities, we then call it opinion: in matters of which nature men are for the most part left at liberty, their understandings being neither convinced by the power of a superior truth, nor setled and confirmed by demonstrative proofs. This though it be an assent, is no firm assent; and therefore nothing less then Faith. If our assent be grounded on demonstra­tive proofs, and built upon the knowledge of natural causes, it is then tearmed Science, or knowledge, properly so called: for, Scire est per causas scire Arist. in lib. Demonstrat., said the great Philosopher. But he that gives assent unto any truth, only because of the authority of the man that speaks it, neither ex­amining his proofs, nor searching into the probabilty or possibility of the thing related: that man, in true propriety of speech, is said to believe: and to believe (we know) is the act of faith. Thus it is said of the Samaritans, that many of them believed on him for the saying of the woman which testified (thus of him, viz.) He told me all that ever I did Joh. 4.39.41, & 42.: but more believed because of his own words when they had heard him speak, and observed his doctrine. And yet not every truth believed on the speakers credit, is the proper object of belief, or faith, according as we use the word in the Schools of Christ, but only su­pernatural truths, such truths as our depraved nature could not reach unto, without revelation from above: by consequence not the authority of every speaker, but only of such holy men of God, who spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost 2 Pet. 1.21., is the foundation of this faith, which we here define. I give belief unto the Histories of Xenophon, Thucydides, Polybius, and Corn. Tacitus; because I hold a good opinion of the men that writ them. And I believe that Edward the Black Prince wonne the battel of Crecie, being then but 18 years of age, and that King Henry the fifth subdued the greatest part of France within five or six years, because I finde it so related, without contradiction, both by our English Chroniclers, and the French Historians. But I rely on no humane authority, how great soever it be, for a rule of Faith: which as it hath truths only supernatural for the object of it; so have those truths, or the revelation rather of those truths, no other Author then the Spirit of God. So then faith is a firm assent, which makes it differ from opinion, which may be called an assent also, but weak and wavering. It is a firm assent to truths; for to believe in lyes is not faith but folly. A brand or character set on those by Almighty God, who seeing they would not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved; have been, and are given over unto strong delusions, and to believe in lyes, that they should be damned 2 Thes. 2▪ 10, 11, 12.. 'Tis an assent to truths revealed, not grounded on demonstrative proofs, or the disquisition of natural causes, or the experiment of sense; but only on the authority of him who reveals it to us: which differenceth it most clearly both from experience and from knowledge, which have surer grounds: And finally it is a firm assent to truth supernatural, and supernaturally revealed; which makes it differ from that credit or belief, (call it which you will) which commonly we ascribe and give to humane authorities: which being but humane must needs be fallible, and therefore no fit ground for our faith to rest on, according to the notion of that word in the Church of Christ. For though both knowledge and experience rest on surer grounds, as to the satisfaction of the understanding, to which a demon­stration is of more authority then an ipse dixit; that being a convincing ar­gument which commands assent, this but artificiosum argumentum, as Logici­ans call it: yet are the grounds of faith less fallible, then those of any other Art or Science whatsoever it be, because they are communicated to us by the Spirit of God, qui nec fallere nec falli potest, who being infallible in himself will most infallibly lead unto all those truths, the knowledge of the which is either necessary or expedient for us.

'Tis true, St. Paul lays down another definition, or description rather, of be­lief, or faith; which he defines to be Substantiam rerum sperandarum, argument. non apparentium Heb. 11.1., that is to say, The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen: Which definition or description we will first explain; and then de­clare, [Page 4] to what acception of the word Faith, it relates especially. Now the first thing to be considered in this definition, is the word [...], which the Vulgar Latine rendreth by Substantia? Beza more like a Paraphrast, Illud quod facit ut extent quae sperantur. Which being so obscure as to need a Commentary, he helps our understanding with a marginal note, and cals it su [...]si [...]tentiam rerum quae sperantur, Beza in Heb. c. 11. v. 1. which is the true meaning of the word in its natural sense. For faith is therefore called the subsistence (or the existence, as the word is sometimes translated) of things hoped for, because it makes those things which are yet in hope, and are no otherwise ours then in expectation, sub­sistere in corde nostro quasi ante oculos corporis Haymo in Heb. c. 11. v. 1., to subsist or exist no l [...]ss really in our hearts, or souls, then if we saw them present with our bodily eyes. And this he doth illustrate by the Resurrection, which is not past already 2 Tim. 2.18. as some Hereticks taught, nor come as yet, as to the accomplishment and performance of it: and yet faith makes it to subsist or exist in the minde of a Christian, ac si prae oculis eam habeamus Haymo in Heb. c. 11. v. 1., as if we were already possessed thereof. The word hath other senses in the holy Scripture, as in the third chapter of this Epistle to the Hebrews, where we finde [...], initium substan­tiae, as the Vulgar reads it, principium illud quo sustentamur, as more truly Beza, Heb. 3.14. The beginning of our confidence, say our last Translators: where that which in the Greek is called [...], is Englished confidence, according as we finde it also Psal. 39. where that which by the Septu [...]gint is translated [...], ( [...]) is in our English rendred hope; Surely my hope is even in thee. vers. 7. Budaeus that most learned Critick in the Greek tongue, will, have it signifie courage, or praesentiam animi, Budaeus in Comment. Gr. Linguae. deriving it from the verb [...] which signifies to sustain or endure a shock; in which regard that Sou [...] ­dier is called miles [...], who stands his ground, and will not turn his back unto his adversary. And in this sense we finde it also in St. Pauls Epistle unto those of Corinth, twice meeting with [...] 2 Cor. 9.4. & 11.17., an unmoved constancy in boasting, or praefidentem gloriationem, as Beza ren­ders it, that is to say, a glorying that will not shrink, or be put out of countenance. Which also very well agrees with the nature of faith, and serves most fitly to express the full vigour of it, by which a man is made as­sured and confident in all times of danger, and scorns to give ground, or to turn his back, though Principalities and powers, and all the rulers of the darkness of this present world Ephes. 6.12. were armed against him. The second thing to be observed in this definition, or description rather, which the Apostle hath laid down in the place aforesaid, is the word [...] the evidence of things not seen, as the English reads, Beza translates it, quod demonstrat; the Vulgar La­tine, Argumentum: and both these say the same though in divers words. Ar­guere dicebant antiqui ostendere, a quo venit argumentum, quasi ostensio. The old Grammarians, saith Haimo, used the word Argue in that sense which we use the word to declare and shew Haymo in Heb. 11. v. 1.. And, Argumentum proprie ratio est, qua quis rei dubiae facit fidem; an argument, saith he, is the proof or evidence whereby a doubtful matter is confirmed and ratified. And then the meaning of St. Paul will be briefly this, Fides est ea credere quae non videntur Id. ibid., faith makes us to be­lieve such things as we never saw, and are not subject to our senses: the minde being so convicted with the evidence of divine authority, as to submit it self or to give assent to every thing which is delivered in the holy Scriptures, even touching the invisible things of Almighty God,Rev. 1.20. as the Apostle cals them in the first to the Romans. But then we must observe withall, that this is not a proper definition of faith it self, according to the rules of Art, & the true cha­racter and nature of a definition: but rather a description of the fruits and effects of faith, in that it represents those things which are yet in hope, as if they were possessed already; and doth so clearly look into things invisible, as if they were before our eyes. And this, saith Beza on the place, Beza in Heb. c. 11. v. 1. Excellens fidei descriptio ab effectu est, quod res adbuc in spepositas repraesentet, & invisibilia veluti ocu­lis subjiciat. So then, we may define Belief or Faith, as before we did, [Page 5] St. Pauls description notwithstanding, to be a firm assent to supernatural truths revealed: which doth most fully manifest the true nature of faith, and no way crosseth that which St. Paul delivereth. For that faith represents the things hoped for, and is the evidence or proof of things not seen; is an effect or consequent of that firm assent to supernatural truths revealed, which worketh both that evidence and existence in us. It follows thereupon, as we before said, that to believe, according as the word here stands in the front of the Creed, is only to be verily perswaded of the truth of those points and Articles as are delivered in the same, and to give a firm assent unto them, according to the measure of our understanding.

This being thus stated and determined, we now proceed unto the explication of the first Article, I believe in God the Father Almighty: that is to say, I be­lieve that there is one Immoratal and Eternal Spirit, of great both Majesty and Power, which we call God; and that this God is the Father Almighty, the Father both of Iesus Christ and of all mankinde, who as a Father hath not only brought us into the world, but hath provided us of all things necessary both for body and soul, protecting us by his mighty power, and governing us and our affairs by his infinite wisdom. This is the sum of that which is to be conceived of this present Article of our belief in God the Father Almighty. I know the Schoolmen do distinguish very frequently between Credere Deum, Cre­dere Deo, & Credere in Deum: the first whereof they make to be a general belief of the beeing of God, that is to say, that God is, that there is a God; the second an affiance or relying on the veracity or truth of that which he hath pleased to impart to us in the holy Scriptures; the last (which is the phrase here used) a confidence which we have in his grace and goodness, a casting of our selves entirely into his mercy and protection. For thus the Master of the Sentences, lib. 3. distinct. 23. cap. illud est; & Thomas Aquinas, 2.2. qu. 2. Ant. 2. ad 1. & 4. the Author of the Ordinary Gloss. Rom. 4.5. Durandus in Rationale divin. cap. de Sym­bol. and indeed who not? And I know also that this nicety is generally fa­thered on Augustine, who indeed makes a signal difference between credere Deo, & credere in Deum. Credere in Deumuti (que) plus est quam credere Deo August. in Psalm. 77. to believe in God, is more, saith he, then to believe that which the Lord hath spoken. Of which he gives this instance in another place, Nam & daemones credebant ei, at non credebant in eum Id. in Io­han. tract. 29.; for the Devils do believe what God saith unto them, who cannot for all that be said to believe in God. And finally he concludeth, or the Schoolmen from him, that when we say, I believe in God, we do not only say, I believe God is, or I give credit to his words, but me ipsum amare, & cre­dendo in eum ire, & membris ejus incorporari Compend. Theol. lib. 5. c. 21., by believing to love him, by believing as it were to grow into him, and be incorporate with his members. The Protestant Doctors many of them go the same way also, making the Credo of this place, to be the same with Fiduciam in Deo colloco, the placing of our whole trust and confidence in God Almighty Zuinglius in Matth. 23.13., which are Zuinglius words: with whom agree, as to the meaning of the phrase, P. Ramus de Relig. l. 1. c. 2. Zanch. de tribus Elohim part. 1. lib. 4. cap. 7. & lib. 5. c. 2. Amesius in Medull. Theol. lib. 1. cap. 3. num. 15. besides diverse others, whose names it were impertinent to remember here. By these in Deum credere, to believe in God, is made the highest and most excellent act or degree of faith; the [...] or full assu­rance of the understanding, which St. Paul speaks of Coloss. 2.2. higher then which a Christian cannot go in this present life. Tertia fidei pars, vel gradus, as we read in Musculus, non modo de Deo, & Deo, sed & in Deum credere Muscul. lo­ci commun. loco de Fide. n. 3.. And this he doth define to be, Spem omnen in Deum dirigere, firma (que) fiducia ab illius bo­nitate pendere: making it so peculiar unto God alone, ut nec Moysi, nec Prophetis, nec Apostolis, imo ne Angelis quidem debeat accommodari; that it is neither to be used when we speak of Moses, or of the Prophets, or Apostles, no nor of any of the Angels. Finally for the phrase it self, [...], which the Apostles have made use of in this place of the Creed, and in other parts of Divine Writ, they make it an expression or form of speech so proper to the holy [Page 6] Ghost, that neither the Septuagint in their Translation, nor any learned Author amongst the Graecians ever used the same Wotton de Reconcil. Peccat. part. 1. lib 2. c. 14. n. 3.. Which notwithstanding I am yet unsatisfied in the solidity and truth of the said distinction, and also of the explication of the phrase here used. And therefore with the leave of the learned Reader, and with all due respect to those Reverend men, who have transmitted them unto us; I shall endevour to evince these two conclusions: first, that the phrase in Deum, or in Christum [...]redere, the explica­tion of the phrase in Deum credere, and the distinction thereon founded, is not so generally and universally true as it is pretended; And 2. that howso­ever it may be admitted in some texts of Scripture, in which that phrase is used by the holy Ghost, it can by no means be admitted in this place of the Creed.

First, for the phrase in Deum, or in Christum credere, they make it signifie (as be­fore I said) that [...], or full assurance which a Christian hath of the love of God, the confidence which we have in his love and goodness, the casting of our selves entirely into his goodness and protection: which I conceive is more then the phrase importeth, or was intended by it in the holy Ghost. The only place in which we finde this form of speech in St. Matthews Go­spel, is in the 18. chap. vers. 6. where it is said, Whosoever offendeth any of these little ones, ( [...], qui credunt in me) which believe in me, it were better that a mil-stone were hung about his neck, &c. In which place, by those little ones, or pusilli, which our Saviour speaks of, he neither meaneth little children, nor men small in stature, (they must needs wrest the words too far, who do so expound them) but men weak in faith; such as he else­where calleth [...] Mat. 8.26., men of little faith. And certainly a weak faith, or a little faith, cannot consist with that [...], that full assurance and perswasion which is by them intended in the phrase in question. Or if they mean it literally of little children, because they finde [...], parvulum, a little childe Mat. 28.2. &c., to be a great part of the argument of that discourse, either they, must mean somewhat else by in Christum credere, then their explication of the phrase admits of, or else confess that little children are endued with that [...], that confidence in the love and goodness of Almighty God in Iesus Christ, which is the highest pitch and [...] of the strongest faith; which I think no wife man will affirm. Thus is it said of the Disciples in the second chapter of St. Iohn, that when they had seen the miracle which Iesus did in Cana of Galilee, [...] crediderunt in eum, they believed on him. ver. 11. Assuredly the faith of the Disciples at this time was but weak and wavering, and needed many signs and miracles to confirm the same. Magna vero Christi indulgentia, quod pro Discipulis habet in quibus tam pusilla est fides Calvin in Ioh. cap. 2. v. 11. And this, saith Calvin on the place, declares the goodness and indulgence of our Saviour Christ, who would admit such men to be his Disciples, in whom there was so little faith. And yet these men, in whom there was so little faith, are said in eum credere to believe in him; because upon the sight of so great a miracle, tun [...] demum se illi addicere coeperunt, they first began to fasten a more close de­pendence on him. The like is said of the Samaritans, that on the same rai­sed of our Saviour by the woman, [...], multi in eum credi­derunt, many of them believed in him Joh. 4.39.. And this the holy Ghost hath reported of them, before they heard our Saviour speak, or had so much as seen his per­son, believing in him, at that time on no other ground, then propter verbum mulieris, for the saying of the woman only. Now if the [...] of a Chri­stian faith be so firmly grounded, Vt non possit vel seductorum versutia, vel Ty­rannorum violentia, vel ulla machinatione Diaboli expugnari, that neither the fraud of Hereticks, nor the violence of Tyrants, nor all the machinations of the De­vil can prevail against it, as Bishop Davenant saith it is Davenant in Coloss. 2. v. 2., and exceeding rightly: either it must have better grounds then the words of a woman, a woman of an ill name and a scandalous life, (for such she is described to be vers. 18.) or else when the Samaritans are said to believe in Christ, propter [Page 7] verbum mulieris, only upon this womans words; the phrase imports no such assurance, no such strength of faith, as hath been formerly supposed. In the same Gospel of St. Iohn we finde it written also, that many of the chief Ru­lers, [...], crediderunt in eum, believed in him, cap. 11. v. 42. but then it follows thereupon, that because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the Synagogue Joh. 11.42. Here is a Credere in eum, accompa­nied with a very weak faith, (Quanta in illis fidei imbecilli [...]as Calvin in Ioh. cap. 11. v. 42., as it is in Calvin) a faith that durst not shew it self by any outward confession, or look abroad into the world for fear of the Pharisees. And therefore credere in eum, in that place (as in those before) is no more but this, as Calvin notes it, Christo n [...]men dare, & doctrinam ejus amplexos esse, to profess the faith of Christ, and embrace his Gospel. The like may be affirmed also of the blinde man in the 9. chapter of St. Iohn, who was required to believe on the Son of God, when he was fain to ask this question, Quis est Domine ut credam in eum? i e. Who is [...]e Lord that I might believe on him? vers. 36. and of the Iayler in the Acts, of which more anon. Besides that which in all these places, and in many others, is called [...], in Ch [...]is [...]um credere, in other places of the Scripture, is called [...], in nomen ejus credere, As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [...], Nempe iis qui credunt in nomen ejus Joh. 1.12., even to them that believe in his Name; that is to say, to them that do believe on him. And yet we finde it said of some, when they saw his miracles, that they believed on his Name, in Nomine ejus Joh. 2.23., (or in Nomen ejus, as Beza more neer unto the Greek) whom yet our Saviour never held to be true Disciples (pro germanis Discipulis non habuit, as it is said by Calvin Calv. in locum. cap. 2. v. 23., but slighted them as light and inconsiderable men. And therefore it is said of them in the following words, Non credebat eis semetip­sum Joh. 2.24., that he did not commit himself unto them, because he knew the falshood and hypocrisie which was within them. So that by looking over so many of those texts of Scripture in which this form of speech is used, it is more then manifest, that the Explication of the same before delivered is not so generally and universally true, as hath been pretended. Let us next see what ground there is for the distinction which is founded on it.

And first, whereas it is affirmed of this form of speech, that it is so peculiar unto God alone, that it is not to be used of any creature, neither of Moses nor the Prophets, nor of men or Angels Muscul Lo­ci commun. de fide.; I hold this to be gratis dictum, a building without good foundation. Those which are learned in the He­brew have long since noted, that where the Affix [...] Beth is added to the word which signifieth credere, to believe, it doth import as much as in: and that whereas we read in all late Translations, the people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord and his servant Moses Exod. 14. v. 31., the words in the Original will bear this translation, that they believed in the Lord, and in Moses his servant. Musculus doth acknowledge this Muscul. ut supr., and granteth that the words may be thus translated, Et crediderunt in Dominum & in Mosen servum ejus, and that the words do bear this sense; though Hierom, as he saith, haud inconsulto, not with­out good reason and advice did thus change the same, Et crediderunt Domino & Moysi servo ejus; which hath been since retained in the Latine Bibles, and in all National Translations that I have met with. So also, when God said to Moses, Loe, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever Exod. 19.9.: the words in the Original, as before they did, do bear this construction, (and Musculus doth so translate them) Et etiam in te credant in seculum; that the people may for ever believe in thee. But be­ing after changed by Hierom, because in aliquem credere, much about his time began to be esteemed a solecism in the Christian Grammar; in stead thereof, we have Et credat tibi in perpetuum, both in the Vulgar Bibles, and all late Transla­tions. Conform unto which phrase in the Original, Crediderunt in Dominum & in Mosen, St. Basil a most learned Father of the Greek Church, speaking of the Iews, saith that they were baptized in Moses (or in the name of Moses, [Page 8] and believed in Moses: [...] Basil. de sancto Spiritu. c. 14., as his own words are, Baptizati sunt in Mosen, & crediderunt in illum, as it is turned by his Translator. Nor is this said of Moses only, the principal Founder, un­der God, of the Iewish Church, as a man more in grace with Almighty God, then any of the sons of men since his time have been, but of the Church of CHRIST in general. For in the Greek copies of the Apostles Creed, it is said ex­presly, [...], that is to say, I believe in the holy Catholick Church: and in the Nicene Creed it was said of old, [...], i. e. Credo in unam Catholicam Ecclesiam, as the Translator of Socrates Socrat. hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 25., where that Creed occurreth. And though the same be not ex­pressed in terminis in the Latine Creed, yet in the Grammar of the words it is understood. For where the Latine Creeds run thus, Credo in Spiritum san­ctum, sanctam Catholicam Ecclesiam, &c. that is to say, I believe in the holy Ghost, the holy Catholick Church, &c. as the English hath it: either the word Credo must be interposed, as Credo in Spiritum sanctam, credo sanctam Catholi­cam Ecclesiam, i. e. I believe in the holy Ghost, I believe the holy Catho­lick Church; or else the Preposition In, must relate to both, as also to the rest that follow. I know indeed, that after Credere in Deum, or in Iesum Christum, was thought to be a different act and degree of faith, from Credere Deo, or Iesu Christo: that men began to think it somewhat inconvenient, to say as formerly, Credo in sanctam Catholicam Ecclesiam, or Credo in Mosen & Prophetas, I believe in the holy Catholick Church; or, I believe in Moses and the holy Prophets which have been since the world began. And so we are to understand both Ruffin Ruffin. in Exposit. Sym­boli. and Paschasius Paschas. de Spirit. sancto. lib. 1., when they speak thereof, both fitting their expressions to such forms of words as were then authorized in the Schools of CHRIST. The like is to be said of St. Augustine also, viz. Credimus Paulo, non credimus in Paulum, &c. August. in Ioh. tractat. 29.. We believe Paul (saith he) we believe not in Paul; and we believe Peter, we believe not in Peter: Where note, the Father speaks not of the property, but of the use of the phrase, ac­cording to the language of the times he lived in: for ab initio non fuit sic, that it was otherwise intended at the first beginning, we have shewn already. Whe­ther the phrase be so peculiar an expression of the holy Ghost, as that it is not to be found in the old Greek Writers, I will not meddle at the present: though I conceive the holy Ghost did dictate nothing of the Scriptures, but the matter only, and left the language thereof to the sacred Pen-men. But for the Septuagint, although they do not use the word [...] with the Pre­position [...] preceding an Accusative Case, (which is the singularity of ex­pression so much insisted on in this business) yet use they other words to the same effect. For those which stand so highly on singularity cannot choose but grant Wotton de Reconcil. Pec­cat. part. 1. l. 2. c. 14. that many times they use [...], not seldom [...], and sometimes also though not often [...]: which whosoever should translate in the English tongue, could not translate it otherwise, then thus, to believe in God: So that whether it be [...], or [...], i. e. Credo in Deum, or Credo in Deo, it makes no difference in this case: no more, then that these words of the Evangelist Joh. 2.23. [...], by Beza are translated Crediderunt in nomen ejus, but by the Author of the Vulgar, in nomine ejus; which come both to one. This makes it evident in part that the said distinction between Credere Deo, & credere Deum, stands not upon so sure a ground as was imagined; but I must make it yet more evident, that in the true intent and meaning of the sacred Pen-men, there is no difference at all to be found between them. For in the 16. chapter of the Acts, the Iaylor did demand of Paul and Silas, what it behoved him to do that be might be saved; vers. 30. to which they made this following answer, [...], Crede in Dominum Ie­sum Christum, &c. believe on the Lord IESVS CHRIST, and thou shalt be saved and thy house Act. 16 31.. It followeth thereupon in the sacred story, that be­ing instructed in the Word, and baptized with water, he rejoyced greatly, [Page 9] [...], Credens Deo, as both Beza and the Vulgar read it; Believing in God with all his house; vers. 34. where if [...] in the 34. be not the same with that of [...], in the 31 verse, as to the act of faith, which is one in both, although the Object of this Act be given us in a different manner; the Iaylor had fallen short of that way to Heaven; and pos­sibly might have been as far from the hopes of Salvation, as when he first pro­posed the question. And if they be the same, as no doubt they be, then Cre­dere Deo, & Credere in Deum, differ not at all: and therefore neither the distinction, nor the Explication, so generally true, and universally to be imbraced, as hath been supposed, which was the first thing to be proved.

The second was, that howsoever Credere in Deum in some texts of Scripture may possibly admit that explication which is made thereof; yet can it not be possisibly admitted in this place of the Creed. My reason is, because all Novices or Catechumeni, which were to be admitted into the Church, by the dore of Bap­tism; all children formerly baptized, which either came or were brought before the Bishop for Confirmation; were first to give an account of their faith, to make a publick profession or confession of it in the face of the Church, according to the very words and Articles of this common Creed. For which see proof sufficient in the former chapter. Now if by Credere in Deum, & in Iesum Christum, the Church intended such a [...], such an adhaesion unto God in IESVS CHRIST, such an assurance and perswasion of our interest in him, as the phrase is pretended to import: the Church did very ill to exact it from the hands of Novices, or from the mouths of babes in Christ; considering how strong the meat was, and how agreeable unto the stomach of the strongest faith. My se­cond reason is, (which before was touched at) because if [...], to believe in God the Father Almighty, in Iesus Christ his only Son, and in the holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, import no less then such a dependence on them as is due from the Creature to his God; and that too ex vi Phraseos, out of the very prhase or form of speech in Deum credere: the same dependence must all Christians have upon the Church, the same on the Communion of Saints; and the rest that follow. Will you have a reason of this reason? It is because the very same phrase [...], is extant still interminis, in tearms exprest, in all Greek copies of the Creed; and necessarily implyed in the Latine also, as before was shown. Which if it may not be admitted in the Articles of the Catholick Church, and the Communion of Saints, with the rest that fol­low: I see no cause why it should be admitted in the front of all, which was to be the leading Case unto all the rest. But other men of higher mark have seen this before me, who give no other sense the [...]eof in this place of the Creed, then to believe that there is one only eternal God, the Maker of all things. For thus the Book entituled Pastor, and commonly ascribed to Hermes St. Pauls scholar. Ante omnia unum credere Deum esse, qui condidit omnia Hermes. i. e. Before all other things believe that there is one God who made all things. Origen thus, Primum cre­dendus est Deus qui omnia creavit, Origen [...] in pro­oemio., i. e. In the first place we must believe that there is a God, by whom all things were created. S. Hilary of Poyctiers thus, In abso­luto nobis & facilis est aeternitas, Iesum Christum a mortuis suscitatum credere Hilar. de Trinitate, l. 10., i.e. Eter­nity is prepared for us, and made easie to us, if we believe that Christ is risen from the dead. And finally thus Charles the Great in the Creed published in his name, but made by the most learned men which those times afforded; Praedicandum est omnibus, ut credant Patrem, Filium & Spiritum sanctum unum esse Deum omnipotentem Symbol. Ca­roli, M., i. e. the Gospel must be preached to all men, that they may know that the Fa­ther, Son, and holy Ghost is one God Almighty. Which resolution and autho­rity of the antient Fathers, is built no doubt upon the dictate and determina­tion of S Paul himself, who did thus lead the way unto them; viz. He that c [...]meth to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him Heb. 11.6.. Where the first Article of the Creed I believe in God, is thus ex­pounded, and no otherwise, [...], I believe that God is, that there is a God. According to which Exposition of the blessed Apostle our Reverend [Page 10] Iewell publishing the Apology and Confession of the Church of England did de­clare it thus Iewel. A­pol. Eccles. Ang­lic.. ‘We believe that there is one certain Nature and Divine power which we call GOD, &c. and that the same one God hath created Heaven and Earth, and all things contained under Heaven. We believe that Iesus Christ the only Son of the Eternal Father, when the fulness of time was come, did take of that blessed and pure Virgin both flesh and all the nature of man, &c. that for our sakes he died and was buried, descended into Hell, &c. We believe that the holy Ghost is very God, &c. and that it is his property to mollifie and soften the hardness of mens hearts, when he is once received thereunto, &c. We believe that there is one Church of God, and that the same is not shut up (as in times past amongst the Iews) into some one corner or King­dom; but that it is Catholick and Universal, and dispersed throughout the whole world, &c. and that this Church is the Kingdom, the Body, and the Spouse of CHRIST, &c. To conclude, we believe that this our self same flesh wherein we live, although it dye and come to dust, yet at the last shall return again to life by the means of Christs Spirit, which dwelleth in us, &c. and that we through him shall enjoy everlasting life, and shall for ever be with him in glory.’ Which consonancy of expression being so agreeable to that observed before by the antient Fathers; and that observed before by the anti­ent Fathers, so consonant unto the expression of S. Paul the Apostle, is the last reason which I have for this resolution, that the so much applauded explication of the phrase in Deum credere, is not to be admitted in this place of the Cre [...]d. And this shall also serve for a justification of that gloss or Commentary, which I have given on this first Article: viz. that to believe in God the Father Almighty, is only to believe that there is one Immortal and Eternal Spirit, of great both Majesty and Power, which we call GOD; and that this God is the Fa­ther Almighty, the Father both of IESVS CHRIST and of all mankinde, who as a Father hath not only brought us into the world, but hath pro­vided us of all things necessary both for body and soul, protecting us by his mighty power, and governing us and our affairs by his infinite wisdome.

But against this there may be some objections made, which must first be an­swered, before we come unto the further explication of this Article. For if Faith be no other then a firm assent to supernatural truths revealed; the Reprobate, (as they call them) may be said to have faith, which yet is reckoned in the Scrip­ture as a peculiar gift of God unto his Elect, which is therefore called Fides electorum, or the Faith of the Elect, Tit. 1.1. 2. If to believe in God the Father Almighty, and in IESVS CHRIST his only Son, &c. be only to believe that there is a God, and that all those things are most undoubtedly true and certain which be affirmed of IESVS CHRIST in the holy Scripture; the De­vil may be reckoned for a true believer, S. Iames assuring us of this, that the Devils do believe and tremble, Iam. 2.19. And 3. if the definition and the expli­cation before delivered, be allowed for currant, it will quite overthrow the received distinction of Faith into Historical, temporary, saving or justifying faith, and the faith of Miracles; so generally embraced in the Protestant Schools. This is the sum of those objections, which I conceive most likely to be made against me; but such as may be answered without very great difficulty. For that the Reprobate (as they call them) may have Faith in CHRIST, is evident by many instances and texts of Scripture. Of Simon Magus it is written in the Book of the Acts, that he believed and was baptized, and continued with Philip Act. 8.13. the Evangelist. Adhaerebat Philippo, saith the Vulgar, he stuck so fast unto him, that he would not leave him. Ask Calvin what he thinks of this faith of Simons, and he will tell you, Majestate Evangelii victum, vitae & salutis authorem Christum agnovisse, ita ut libenter illi nomen daret Calvin Instit. l. 3. c. 2. [...]. 10.; that being vanquished by the power and Majesty of the Gospel of Christ, he did acknowledge him to be the Author of salvation and eternal life, and gladly was inrolled amongst his Disciples. And whereas some had taught and published amongst other things, that Simon never did believe, but counterfeited a belief, for his private ends: Calvin doth [Page 11] readily declare his dislike thereof, acknowledging this faith of Simons to be true and real, though but only temporarie. Non tamen multis assentior qui simulasse duntaxat fidem putant quum minime cred [...]ret Idem in Act. 8.13., I cannot yeild to them (saith he) which think he only made a shew of faith, which he never had: Why so? Quia Lucas aperte testatur eum credidisse, because S. Luke affirms that he did be­lieve, being convinced by the signs and miracles which S. Philip wrought, as many others of Samaria at the same time were. And yet no doubt but Simon Magus was a Reprobate, a man rejected by the Lord in regard of his wick­edness Act. 8.21, 22., and that his heart was not right in the sight of God: and afterwards an author of such mischief in the Church of God, that Ignatius, who lived neer those times, very rightly cals him [...] Ignat. Epi., the first be­gotten of the Devil. The like m [...]y be affirmed also of Alexander, Hymeneus, and Philetus 1 Tim. 1.19, 20. & 2 Tim. 2.17, 18., who had been made partakers of the Faith of CHRIST, and were zealous in it for the time; but afterwards made shipwrack of it, denying (amongst other Articles of the Christian faith) that of the resurrection of the dead; and thereby overthrowing the faith of some. Men questionless given over to a reprobate sense, or else we may be well assured St. Paul had never given them over to the hands of Satan, as it is plain he did 1 Tim. 1.20.. But what need search be made into these particulars, when Calvin himself affirms in general, Reprobis fidem tribui, eosdem interdum simili fere sensu atque Electos affici, eos (que) merito dici Deum sibi propitium credere Calvin In­stit. l. 3. c. 2. n. 11., &c. that Faith is given unto the Reprobate; that sometimes they are touched with the like sense of Gods grace as the Elect ones are, and may deservedly be said to believe that God is favourable and propi­tious to them? God sometimes makes the Sun of Righteousness as well as the Sun of Heaven, to shine on the evil and on the good. Which notwithstanding, Faith is called, and that most properly, Fides Electorum, the Faith of Gods Elect, in that and other places of the Book of God, because the fruits thereof are in them more visible, the confession of the same more fervent, the seeds thereof more fastly rooted, and the fruit more durable. For which cause possibly the Apostle doth there join together the faith of Gods Elect, and the knowledge of the truth which is after godliness: Which is indeed the special difference, which is between the faith of the Elect, and the faith of the Reprobates. For if the fruit be unto holi­ness, no question but the end thereof will be life everlasting Rom. 6.22.. It is not then the weakness or the want of faith, which doth alone exclude the Reprobate from the Kingdom of Heaven, and make him finally uncapable of the grace and fa­vour of the Lord, in the day of judgement, but the want of a good conscience in the sight of God. And therefore if we mark it well, St. Peter did not charge it upon Simon Magus, that he wanted faith, or that his faith was only a dissembled hypocritical faith; upbraiding him, as formerly Ananias in another case, that he had not only lyed unto men, but unto God Act. 5.4.: but that he was in the gall of bitterness, and in the bonds of iniquity, not having his heart right in the sight of God Act. 8.23.21.. Nor did St. Paul accuse the said three Apostates, that they never had received the faith, or that the faith which they received was not true and real; but that first having put away a good conscience 1 Tim. 1.19., they afterwards made shipwrack of the faith also, blas­pheming God, and scattering abroad their dangerous errours, to the seducing of their brethren. If Simon had repented of his wickedness Act. 8.22. as St. Peter advised, it may be charitably supposed that the thoughts of his heart had been forgiven him. And Hymeneus and Alexander, if they had made good use of the Apostles censure 1 Tim. 1.20., (when he delivered them unto Satan) for the destruction of the flesh 1 Cor. 5.4., no question, but their spirits might have been saved in the day of the Lord IESUS. Which may suffice for answer to the first objection, touching the faith of repro­bates, (as they use to call them) whose firm assent to supernatural truths revealed, makes them not inheritable to the Kingdom of Heaven, because they hold the truth revealed in unrighteousness, and so become without excuse Rom. 1. 18.20., as St. Paul tels us (in another case) of the antient Gentiles.

The next Objection is, that if this phrase in Deum credere, import no more then this, that there is a God, and that all his words are Divine truths, and all the world [Page 12] the workmanship of his hands alone; the Devils do belieue as much, as St. Iames assures us. Thou believest (saith he) that there is one God; thou dost well: the Devils also believe and tremble, Iam. 1.19. The answer unto this is easie. St. Iames assures us of the Devils that they believe there is one God, but doth withall assure us this that this belief of theirs confirms them in the certainty and foreknow­ledge of their everlasting damnation; the apprehension of the which produ­ceth nothing in them but fear and horrour. The Devils do believe that there is a God, and that this God is just in all his actions, and righteous in all his ways; unchangeable in his Decrees; Yesterday, and to day, and the same for ever. What other comfort can they reap from this faith of theirs, but that being once condemned by God to eternal fire, they are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, to the judgement of the great and terrible day Jude v. 6.? For knowing that the judgements of the Lord are just, and his doom unchangeable; they must needs know withall the certainty of their own damnation, or else they cannot pro­perly be affirmed to believe this truth, that there is a God. And as they do believe that there is a God, so they believe also that he is the Maker of heaven and earth. For being at the first created by Almighty God with so great perspicacity and clearness of the understanding, they could not choose but know the hand that made them, and consequently believe that he made all those things which are ascribed to God in the holy Scripture. Though by their fall, they lost the favour of the Lord, their first estate in which they were created by Almighty God, the grace by which they stood, and the glories which they did possess: yet lost they not that quickness and agility of motion, that perspicacity and clearness of the understanding, wherewith they were endowed by God at their first Creation. But what makes this unto their comfort, when the same know­ledge or belief (call it which you will) by which they are assured that God made the Heavens and the Earth, and all the things therein contained; will keep them always in remembrance of this most sad truth, that he also made an Hell of fire, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, prepared for the De­vill and his Angels Mat. 25.30.1.? To go a little farther yet, the Devils did not only be­lieve long since, that CHRIST was come in the flesh, but publickly pro­claimed him in the open Synagogue, to be the holy Son of God Mark 1.24., IESVS the Son of God Mat. 8.29., in another place. What benefit do they expect from this Confession, what recompence for that Belief so professed and published [...]; but an assurance that they have no part in David, nor any inheritance at all in the Son of Iesse? How so? Because they knew full well, no mere Creature better, that CHRIST took not on him the nature of Angels, but that he took on him the seed of Abraham Heb. 2.16.. And if he took not on him the nature of Angels, as they knew he did not, he could not be a Mediator between them and God: and if no Mediator between them and God, they have no interest in his merits, nor can claim any profit by his death and passion; but must continue in that state wherein God hath plunged them for their sins, without hope of remedy. The Devils then believe, but withall they tremble; and good reason for it: that belief making them assured that their case is desperate, and that there is no mercy for them in Gods heavenly Treasury: Besides, admit the Devil did believe all those sacred truths, which are affirmed of CHRIST in the Book of God; what will this avail them? For must they not then believe this truth amongst the rest, that without true repentance there can be no entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven? and if they do believe that truth, must they not conclude, that there can be no place for them in the heavenly glories, because the dore of repentance is shut against them, and that the Baptism of Repentance is a way to Heaven, whereof their nature is not capable? Small comfort doubtless in this faith, but of anguish plenty.

So far I had proceeded in this discourse when I incountred with a Treatise of Doctor Iacksons the late Dean of Peterburgh, containing the Original of Vnbelief, misbelief, &c. In which I finde so strong a confirmation of my opinion herein, that I have thought it not unnecessary to lay down his words for the clear evi­dence [Page 13] thereof. Sect. 1. ch. 2. Thus then saith he. ‘To believe in God hath gone currant so long for so much as to put trust or confidence in him, that now to make it go for less will perhaps be an usurpation of authority more then critical, and much greater then befits us. Notwithstanding if on Gods behalf we may plead what Lawyers do in cases of the Crown, Nullum tempus occurrit Regi, that the Antient of days may not be prejudiced by antiquity of custom or pre­scription, especially whose Orignal is erroneous; the case is clear, That to believe in God in their intention, who first composed this Creed, is no more then to believe there is a God, or to give credence to his Word. For justifying this Assertion, I must appeal from the English Dialect in which the manner of speech is proper and natural, if it were consonant unto the meaning of the Original: as also from the Latine in which the phrase being forain and uncouth, is to be valued by the Greek, whose stamp and character it heareth. Now the Greek [...], as also the Hebrew phrase whereunto by sacred Writers it was framed, is no more then hath been said, To believe there is a God; Otherwise we must believe not only in God the Father, in Christ the Son, and in the holy Ghost, but in the Catholick Church, in the Communion of Saints, in the forgiveness of sins, and in the resurrection of the body, and in life everlasting, seeing the Greek particle, (usually expressed by the Latine In) is annexed after the same manner to all these objects of our belief, as is appa­rent in the Antient Greek Creeds. And he that diligently readeth the Tran­slation of the Septuagint shall finde the Greek phrase which is verbatim, rendred by the Latine, in Deum credere, to believe in God, promise [...]ously used for the other credere Deo, i. e. to believe God. Or if besides the evident Records of the antient Copies personal witnesses be required amongst the Antients, I know few, amongst Modern Writers none more competent, then those that are ex­presly for us, as Beza, Mercer, Drusius, unto whom we may adde Ribera & Lorinus also. Now as to use the benefit of a truth known and testified is always lawful; so to us in this case it is most expedient, almost necessary. For either I did not rightly apprehend whilest I read it, or at least now remember not how the Schoolman removes the stumbling block, which he had placed in the very entry to this Creed. [If to believe in God, be as much as to put trust or confidence in him, by exacting a profession of this Creed at all mens mouths, we shall inforce a great many to profess a ly.] For of such as not only out of ordinary charity, but upon particular probabilities, we may safely acquit from actual Atheism, or contradicting infidelity, a great number do not put their trust or confidence in God; this being the mark at which the belief of Novices must aim, not the first step they are to make in this progress.’ And not long after he makes an­swer unto this Objection, touching the belief of Devils, or of wicked Angels: of whom we cannot say (say some) that they do believe in God, though they believe his being more firmly then we can do, and know his Word as clearly. For as he handsomely illustrates; ‘If the Kings Majesty should proclaim a general pardon to a number of known Rebels, and vow execution of judgement without mercy upon some principal offenders, which had maliciously and cunningly seduced their simplicity: I suppose his will and pleasure equally manifested unto both, and so believed, would as much dishearten the one, as incourage the other to relye upon his clemency. Such notwithstanding altogether is the case between men and wicked angels. The one believes CHRIST took the Womans seed, and therefore cannot without such wil­ful mistrust of the promise of life, as was in his first Parents to Gods threats of death, despair of Redemption by the eternal Sacrifice. The other as firmly believe, or rather evidently know, that CHRIST in no wise took the Angelical nature; and without this ground the better they believe his Incarnation, the less are their hopes of their own Redemption.’

As for the third and last Objection touching the overthrow of the distinction of Faith, into Historical, Temporary, saving or justifying faith, and the faith of Mi­racles, so generally received and countenanced in the Protestant Schools; it works no [Page 14] effect at all in me: who am resolved not to hazard the loss of a truth, to save the credit of a distinction. Nor are the membra dividentia, as Logicians call them, so well choyced and stated, as either to require such care of their preservation, or not to bring them into question. For all faith is Historical, there's no doubt of that; and the other members of the distinction either are coincident, or but degrees only of the same one faith. Vrsinus, the Divinity Reader in Heidelberg, though he both useth & approveth this distinction, yet to my seeming, takes not the tearms to be so different as the members of a good Division ought to be by the rules of Logick; and indeed so confounds them one with another, that we can hardly see where the difference lyeth. For he confesseth in plain tearms, Vrsin. The­ses Theol. c. 13. fi­dem Iustificantem Historicam semper inse complecti, that justifying faith doth always comprehend the Historical in it, and that the faith of Miracles, hath either Tempo­rary or Historical faith always joyned unto it. If so, the difference between them must be very small, consisting more in magis & minus, and such degrees of com­parison, then in any spiritual and formal difference: and possibly it may fall out that the faith of miracles, (as they call it) is rather an extraordinary gift or effect of faith, then any distinct species or branch thereof. First, for Histori­cal faith, that faith whereby we do believe, Ea vera esse Id. ibid. quae in libris Prophe­tarum & Evangelistarum tradita sunt, by which we do believe those things for true which are contained in the Books of the Old and New Testament, as themselves define it: I cannot see wherein it differeth from justifying or saving faith, un­less perhaps it be in the application, which rather is an Act of faith then a spe­cies of it. And 'tis but a perhaps, if that, for in my mind Dr. Iackson reasoneth very well Iackson of justifying faith. c. 2., ‘That our Faith is not to be counted unsound or non salvifical, because Historical, but rather oft-times therefore insufficient to some because not so fully Historical as it might be; or in that our apprehension of divers mat­ters related in Sacred stories is not so great, so lively and sound, as to equa­lize the utmost limits of some belief, which yet may be fully comprehended under Historical assent: there being no assent which can exceed the measure of that belief or credence which is due unto sacred Writers. Which if it be on our parts as it ought to be, to Gods general promises, it will more for­cibly, more truly and naturally apply them to us in particular, then we our selves can possibly do, by beginning our faith at that particular application where indeed it must end.’ For temporary faith they define that next, Vrsin. Cu­tech. part. 2. qu. 21.. n. 2. to be an Assent unto the Doctrine of the Gospel accompanyed with joy and gladness, and the outward profession of the same, but such as lasteth but for a season, and fades in time of persecution and affliction. And this they ground upon that passage in our Saviours parable, where it is said, Matth. 13.20, 21. that He which receiveth the seed in stony places, the same is he that receiveth the Word, and anon with joy receiveth it; yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a season: For when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the Word, by and by he is offended. But for my part I could never see any reason to perswade me yet, that our Saviour in that Parable did purpose to represent unto our view the several kindes of Believers, but the several kindes of hearers only; many of which do hear the Word with divers ends and different purposes, but only they which do so hear the Word of God, as to bring forth the fruit of good living, shall like the good grain in the following Parable, be laid up at the last day in the barn of the Heavenly husbandman. Or granting that they build this definition on a ground well laid, yet I see nothing to the contrary, but that the temporary faith which is there defined may be a true and lively faith, and justifie the man that hath it in the sight of God; though failing in the course of his Christian race, he do not get the prize proposed unto them that win, and hold out to the very end. A temporary faith may justifie for the present time, and bring forth many fruits of holiness and newness of life; but it is faith with perseverance in the works of Piety, which shall receive the Crown in the day of Judgement. And if this Temporary faith be not saving also, it is not in regard of it self, that it wants any of those signs and tokens by which a saving faith is to be discerned; but that the man that is endued or invested with it, hath not [Page 15] the gift of perseverance, but out of worldly fear, or on by-respects makes ship­wrack of his faith, or casts it over-board in the storm as a thing unprofitable. So that the difference between Temporary and Salvifical faith, is not in any thing essential to the true nature of faith; but only in duration, which is accidental, and extrinsical: which make it no more a distinct species of faith, or to fall short in any thing which true faith should have, then that a man who dyeth in the flower of his youth, wants any thing of being as compleat and perfect a man, as he that lives unto the age of Methusalem. That magis & minus do not differre specie, is an old rule in Logick. And so Bucanus doth conclude to the point in hand, though as professed and rigid a Calvinian as any other whatsoever, affirming plainly Bucan Com. loc. de Fide., Fidem languidam esse veram fidem, that a weak and languishing faith is a true faith; on this very reason, Quia magis & minus non variant rerum species, as before is said. Which rule if it hold good in the intension of Faith, as to strength and weakness, will certainly hold good in the extension of it also, as to length and shortness of duration.

Last of all, for the faith of Miracles or fides Miraculorum, as they please to call it, is defined by the said Vrsinus to be Donum singulare faciendi aliquod opus extraordina­rium, aut praedicendi certum eventum ex revelatione divina Vrsin. Ca­tech. part. 2. qu. 21. that is to say, a singular gift of doing some extraordinary and supernatural work, or foretelling things to come by divine Revelation. But this considered as it ought, is so far from being a distinct species of faith, that it ought not to be called faith at all: but is rather the effect of an eminent faith, or some more extraordinary gift su­per-added to it. For CHRIST our Saviour reckoneth it as the effect of a powerful faith, saying to his Disciples, when they seemed to complain, because they could not cast the Devil out of a man who was brought before them Mat. 17.20., that it was propter incredulitatem ipsorum, by reason of their unbelief, as our English reads it, that it to say, because their faith was yet but weak and newly planted, not strong nor spiritful enough to effect such wonders. And the Apostle reck­oning up those gifts and graces of the holy Ghost, which God bestowed upon his Church in her first plantations, gives us this punctual list or catalogue of them, saying, that unto one is given by the Spirit the Word of Wisdom, to another the Word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another is given Faith by the same Spirit; to another the gift of healing by the same Spirit 1 Cor. 12.8, 9, 10.; to another power to do miracles; to ano­ther prophecy; to another the discerning of spirits; to another diverse kindes of tongues, &c. Where plainly Faith, the gift of healing, Prophecying, and the power of working Miracles, are counted for distinct graces of the holy Ghost; by consequence, the power of working Miracles is no species of faith, but rather something extraordinary super-added to it as before I said. So that we need not stand so much upon this distinction, as in regard thereof to recede from the Exposition before delivered, wherein it was affirmed that in Deum credere, to believe in God, is only to believe that there is one Immortal and Eternal Spirit, of great both Majesty and Power, which we call GOD: and that this God is the Father Almighty, who as he made all things by his mighty power, so he doth still preserve them by his divine Pro­vidence, and preserve them by his infinite wisdome. And this Interpretation of the phrase in Deum credere, or in Christum credere, doth hold best correspondence with the definition of faith before laid down. For if Faith be no other then a firm assent to supernatural truths revealed: then to include no more in these forms of speech, then that there is a God, an Almighty God the maker of all things, and that his only Son IESVS CHRIST our Lord both did and suffered all these things which are affirmed of him in the holy Scriptures, and briefly laid together in the present Creed; must needs be most agreeable to the nature of faith ▪ Which being premised once for all, we shall proceed unto the proof of the present Article: in which we shall first make it clear and evident out of monu­ments and records of the learned Gentiles (for in this point it were unnecessary to consult either the Scriptures or the Fathers) that there is an infinite incompre­hensible and eternal Spirit, whom we call by the Name of GOD; and secondly that this GOD is only one, without any Rival or Competitor in the publick Government of the Universe: And this shall be the argument of the following Chapter.

CHAP. II. That there is a God, and but one God only, and that this one God is a pure and immortal Spirit, and the sole Governour of the World; proved by the light of Reason, and the testimonies of the Antient Gentiles.

THat GOD is, or that there is a God, is a truth so naturally graffed in the soul of man, that neither the ignorance of letters, nor the pride of wealth, nor the continual fruition of sensual pleasures have been able to obliterate the Characters or impressions of it. For Tully very well observeth, Nullam gentem tam feram esse, neminem omnium tam immanem, cujus mentem non im­buerit deorum opinio, That there was never Nation so barbarous, nor man so brutish and inhumane, but was seasoned with this opinion, that there was a God Cicer. in Tusc. quaest. l. 1.: And though (saith he) many misguided by ill customes, or want of more civil education do conceive amiss of the Divinity, yet they did all sup­pose a nature or power Divine: to which they were not drawn by conference and discourse with others, nor by tradition from their Ancestors, or the laws of their Countrey; but by a natural instinct imprinted in them. quae gentium omnium consensio lex putanda est, which general consent of all people concerning this matter is to be esteemed the Law of Nature. And though the civil wisdome which appeareth in the laws of Lycurgius, Numa, and other antient Legislators amongst the Heathens, may argue probably an opinion in them of framing many particular rites of Religion, as politick Sophisms to retain that wilde people in awe, for whose sake they devised then; yet could not their inventions have wrought so succesfully upon mens affections, unless they had been naturally inclined to the ingraffed notion of a GOD in general, under pretence of whose Soveraign right, those particulars had been commended to them, or obtrud [...]d on them. A more plentiful experiment of which evident truth, hath been suggested to us in these later Ages, wherein divers Countries peopled with In­habitants of different manners and education have been discovered; the very best whereof have been far more barbarous, then the worst of those which were so counted in the days of Tully, yea or of Numa or Lycurgus, though long time before him. And yet amongst these savage Indians, who could hardly be dis­cerned from brute beasts, Nisi in hoc uno quod loquerentur Lactant. l. 3.8., as Lactantius once said in a case much like, but only in that they had the use of speech: were found to have acknowledged several Gods or superior powers, to which they offered sacrifices and other rites of Religion, in testimony of their gratitude for be­nefits received from them. As if the signification of mans obligements to some invisible power for health, food, and other necessaries, or for their preservation from dysasters and common dangers were as natural to him, as fawnings or the like dumb signs in doggs, other tame, domestick creatures, are to those who cherish them. Concerning which, as Cicero one of the wisest of the Gentiles gives an excellent rule; so of that natural inclination did the Apostle of the Gentiles make an excellent use. For there were many great and famous Philoso­phers, which did not only ascribe the government of the World to the wisdom of the Gods; but did acknowledge all necessary supplies of health and welfare to be procured from their providence. Insomuch that corn and other increase of the Earth (saith Cicero) together with that variety of times and seasons; with those alterations or changes of weather, by which the fruits of the Earth doe spring up, and ripen, are by them made the effects of Divine goodness, and of the love of GOD to mankinde. And on this ground St. Paul pro­ceeded in his Sermon to the people at Lystra, whom he endevoured to bring unto the knowledge of the only true invisible GOD, by giving them to un­derstand, [Page 17] that though in times past he had suffered all Nations to walk in their own ways Act. 14.16, 17., yet did he not leave himself without witness, in that he (was beneficial or) did good unto them, and gave them rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts with food and gladness. From which one stream of Divine goodness, ex­perienced in giving rain, (to proceed no further) did the old Grecians chri­sten their great god Iupiter by the name of [...]; as the Latines on the same reason did surname him Pluvius.

And to say truth, the prudent Orator had very good ground both for his observation and the reason of it. For of all the Nations known in the times he lived in, there was none branded with the stain of Atheism, but the poor Fenni, a Sect or Tribe amongst the Germanes. Of whom it is affirmed by Ta­citus, that they had neither houshold gods, nor corn, nor cattel, nor any thing in property they could call their own; but were indeed a people of so extreme a poverty, that they no more needed the helps of God or man, then the Beasts of the field. Fennis mira feritas, foeda paupertas, non arma, non equi, non penates Tacit. de mor. German., as he tels us there. And more then so, they had attained, saith he, to the hardest point, Vt ne voto quidem opus sit, that they had no need nor use of prayers to the gods on high. For what need they make supplication to the gods and goddesses for blessings on their Corn, and their Wine, or Oyl, who neither sowed nor planted, nor used any husbandry? What should they do with houshold gods who had no houses, but the Earth only for their bed, and the Heavens for the Canopy? And yet perhaps these Fenni were not altogether without the know­ledge of GOD, or to be counted absolute Atheists, more then the barbarous people of other new discovered Countries; but that they had this Character bestowed upon them, because they shewed less signs of any Religion then those Nations did with whom the Romanes had had longer acquaintance, and so were more experienced in their rites and customes. And of all men that flourished before Tullies time, there were none stigmatized with the brand of Atheism, but only Diagoras Melius, and Protagoras the Cyrenaean; to whom some added Enhe­merus the Tegaean also. Of the two first indeed it is said by Lactantius, Protago­ras deos in dubium vocavit, Diagoras exclusit Lactant. l. 1.2., that Protagoras first called the bee­ing of the gods in question, and that Diagoras was the first who denyed it abso­lutely, who therefore was surnamed, [...], or the Atheist, as Minutius hath it. And yet perhaps it will be found upon further search, that neither of the three did doubt or deny this truth, that there was a God; but that they got this ill re­pute amongst the Gentiles, for scoffing and deriding those Idol-gods, whom their neighbors worshipped. For of Diagoras it is said, that when he cast the Statua of Hercules into the fire, he did it with this scoffe or jeere, In hoc decimo tertio agone mihi inservias, that he should serve him now in that thirteenth labor, as he had done Eurystheus in the other twelve Ap. Mor [...]. de vera Relig.. And as well known is that of Protagoras also, who is said to have thus mocked at the Idolatries of the old Egyptians; Si dii sunt, cur plangitis? si mortui, cur adoratis? i. e. If they be gods, why do you lament them? (for in the rites and sacrifices of the goddess Isis, they used to make great lamentations) if dead, why do you then adore them? As for the third man Euhemerus (for these were all of note who stand thus accu­sed) he was accounted guilty of Atheism for no other reason, but because he had composed an history of the birth, lives and actions of the Heathen gods, proving that they had been no other then some famous men, whose Statua's had been turned to Idols, and themselves worshipped by the people in tract of time for some powers Divine. Which book of his Lactantius Lactant l. 1. c. 11.13, &c., and some others of the Primitive Writers do make very good use of, in their discourses with and against the Gentiles. 'Tis true, that on those grounds, and on those oc­casions which are spoken of by Enhemerus, the greatest part of the old Heroes, as Saturn, Iupiter, Apollo, Neptune, Mars, Hercules, and the rest of that infinite rabble became by degrees to have divine honours conferred upon them. And 'tis as true, that the Egyptians worshipped Apis in the form of an Oxe, or the Oxe rather under the name of Apis, as being of greatest use to them in the course of [Page 18] their tillage; and so they did also Leekes and Onions, and divers other of the fruits of the Earth also, by which they lived; and some strange creatures also which they dreaded most. quis nescit qualia demens Aegyptus portenta colat Lucan. Pharsal. l. 10., as the Poet hath it. As true it is, that other Nations worshipped the Sun and Moon, and all the rest on the heavenly bodies, unto whose glorious light and influences they thought themselves so much heholding. Which may be used as a further and most invincible argument to prove that the knowledge of this truth, that there was a God, was naturally ingraffed in the souls of all men; and that this natural inclination was so powerful in them, that they rather would have any gods then none at all, and therefore made themselves such gods as came next to hand, worshipping STOCKS and Stones, and Leekes and Onyons, and whatsoever else their blinde fancies dictated. And this, I take it, gave the hint to Democritus first, and after him to Epicurus, and the whole Sect of the Stoicks, Lactant. l. 2. to set up FATE and Fortune in the place of the Gods; or otherwise to invest dame Nature with the powers of a Deity. For finding that the biass of all sorts of people inclined them strongly to believe that there was a God, they were content to let the gods hold their place in Heaven, but then they robbed them of their power or supreme providence in governing the World, and or­dering the affairs thereof. And this was the disease of Davids fool in the Book of Psalms, who used to say in his heart that there was no God. Not that he was so very a fool as to think there was no God at all: but that he thought the God of Heaven was so far above him, and so imployed in matters of an higher na­ture, as neither to take care or notice of the things beneath: Which there­fore he [...], as Democritus, and the Epicureans after did, ascribed to Chance and Fortune, or to Fate and Nature. And as it seems this errour in the time of the Poet Iuvenal, found such a general entertainment amongst the Romanes, that he thought fit to tax it in his Satyres Iuvenal. Sat. 13. thus;

That is to say;

But howsoever this opinion, carrying a less shew of impiety then that of Diagoras and Protagoras had done before, became more generally to be received among the Gentiles; yet in effect in rather changed then bettered the state of the question. And though it did not strike down all the gods at a blow, yet by degrees it lessened their authority amongst the people, and brought them to depend wholly upon chance and fortune, or on fate and destiny; that in the end there might be no other God thought of, none of the Heavenly Powers be sued to, or adored at all. Which plainly was their aim, as St. Austin telleth us, where notwithstanding their pretences he affirms this of them August. de civit. Dei. l., that all they did conduce to no other end, quam ut nullus omnino aut rogetur, aut colatur Deus. And in this state the business stood when the first Advocates which pleaded in the behalf of the Christian faith, did undertake the vindicating of Gods power and providence: and laboured to possess the world with a right opi­nion both of the Beeing and divine Nature of GOD; and also of his soveraign power in ordering the course of nature, and governing all sublunary affairs of what kinde soever. Whose arguments being drawn especially from the light of reason, and therefore fittest to convince the gainsaying Gentiles, are elegantly [Page 19] summed up by Minutius Felix; out of whose excellent Dialogue I shall here pre­sent them according as they lay before me, and then confirm the truth of that which he there delivereth, out of the works and writings of the old Philosophers, and other learned men amongst those Gentiles, whom prejudice and preposses­sion had not formerly blinded Minut. Fel in Octavio. ‘The difference, saith he, betwixt us men and beasts doth consist in this, that they whose faces are inclined to look down to the earth, seem to be chiefly made to look after their proven­der. But we whose countenances are raised up towards the Firmament, to whom is given both speech and reason, by which we may know, feel, and imitate the works of God, must needs be counted inexcusable, should we be ignorant of that divine light which doth even thrust it self on our eyes and senses. It is an high degree of Sacriledge to seek for that upon the Earth, which is not to be found but in Heaven on high. Which makes them seem to me to l [...]ve neither understanding, sense, nor so much as eyes, who would not have this World accomplished by the Divine wisdome of God, but com­pacted only of several parcels joyned together by chance. For what can be so obvious, so confessed, so manifest, whether we lift up our Eyes to Heaven, or behold those things which are beneath and round about us, then that there is some Divine power of most exquisite judgement, by which the whole frame of Nature is inspired, moved, maintained, and ordered? Be­hold the Heaven it self, of what a vast circumference, and how swiftly mo­ved, bespangled in the night with stars, illustrated in the day time with the beams of the Sun; and thou mayst know by that, the wonderful and di­vine disposure of its Supreme Governour. Observe the year, how it ends the circular motion of the Sun; the moneth distinguished by the increase and wane of the Moon; the mutual succession of light and darkness, that rest and labour may by turns succeed one another. Let us relinquish to Astronomers a more exact discourse of the Stars and Planets; whether they serve to direct the course of Navigation, or usher in the seasons of seed and harvest: which as they were not made, created, nor disposed of, without a Supreme Workman of most perfect wisdome, so could they not be com­prehended and made intelligible, but by great art and understanding. When the orderly method of the season distinguisheth it self by the constant varie­ty of several fruits, doth it not openly avouch who is the Author and the Parent thereof? that is to say, the Spring bedecked with flowers, and the Sum­mer with corn, the Fall made acceptable by its fruits; and the Winter neces­sary by its Olives. Besides how great an argument is it of an heavenly Pro­vidence, to interpose the temperament of the Spring and Autumn, lest if it were all Winter it should freeze us with cold; or if it were all Summer, it should scorch us with heat, that so one part of the year might fall into the other, without producing any sensible or dangerous alteration in the state of things? Behold the Sea, how it is bounded with the shore, which it may not pass: the Earth, how it is fructified with trees which it self produceth: the Ocean, how it is divided between ebbs and flouds; the Fountains, how they flow with continual streams; the Rivers, how they pass away with perpetual waters. What need I speak of the perpendicular height of Mountains; or the declivities of the hils, or the extension of the fields? What need we speak of that variety of weapons, wherewith brute beasts are armed for their own defence; some fortified with horns, others palisadoed with teeth; some fur­nished with hoofs, some provided of stings; and others having means to preserve themselves either by the nimbleness of their feet, or the help of their wings? Especially consider the comeliness and beauty of our own bodies, made of an upright structure, an erected countenance, the eyes advanced as Sentinels in the Keep or Watch-tower, and all the rest of the senses placed in the Fort or Capital: and will not that acknowledge GOD for its sole Ar­tificer? An endless work it were to run over all particular members; take this once for all, that there is not one part in all the body, which serveth [Page 20] not both for necessary use and ornament also. And which is yet more won­derful then all the rest, though there be the same structure of all, yet hath every man his several and proper lineaments, by which though we are all alike, yet are we also so unlike as to be easily discerned from one another. The manner of our birth, and the desire of procreation, is it not given by GOD alone? That the dugs spring with milk when the Babe doth ripen, and that the Infant groweth up by that milky dew, proceeds it not from the same Author? Nor doth GOD take care only of the whole; but of every part. The Isle of Britain, which is defective in the heat of the Sun, is notwithstanding refreshed with the warmth of the Sea which doth incompass it. Nilus doth satisfie for the want of rain that is in Egypt, Euphrates fat­neth Mesopotamia, and Indus is reported both to sow and water the Eastern Regions. If then as often as thou entrest into any house, and seest in what an excellent order all things therein are both disposed of and set [...]ut at the best advantage, thou canst not choose but think there is some Lord or Master of it which hath so disposed it, and one that is much better then the things themselves: so in this great house the World, when thou observest the Heaven and Earth, the order, law, and providence by which they are guided, how canst thou choose but think that there is some Lord of this Vniverse, the Author of those Stars and Constellations, of far more beauty then the love­liest of those several parts? But possibly thou mayst not so much call in question, whether there be a Divine Providence which ruleth all things, as whether it be subject to the power of one or of many Gods: which will be no great difficulty to determine neither, if we observe the Arts of Empire used in Earthly Kingdoms, which have their pattern from above. For when did ever any partnership in Empire, either begin upon good tearms, or not end in bloud! For to say nothing how the Persians being weary of the government of many Rulers, designed the Empire unto him whose Horse should first neigh on the morrow morning; nor to revive the dead fa­ble of the Theban brothers: who hath not heard the story of the Roman twins, contending for the command of a few Shepheards, and a Realm of Cottages? The more then Civil Wars betwixt Caesar & Pompey for the Empire of Rome, which though of very vast extent could not hold them both? Look also how it is in the Oeconomie of Nature, one King amongst the Bees, one Supreme Captain over the flock, and in the heards of Cattel one more prin­cipal Ruler. And canst thou think the Government of that Heavenly Monarchy can be dismembred or divided? It being so manifest and apparent that God, who is the Father of all things, hath neither beginning nor ending; that to all creatures giveth a beeing, to himself Eternity; who was a world unto himself when no World was made, and by his Word commandeth, by his wisdom disposeth, by his virtue protecteth, what thing soever is to be found in the whole World. This GOD we cannot see, he is too bright for our eyes; nor touch, he is too pure for our unclean hands; nor apprehend, he is above the reach of our understanding; being infinite, incomprehensi­ble and known how great he is to himself alone. Shall I speak freely what I think? He that conceiveth that he can comprehend the Majesty of God, doth under value him, and he who would not undervalue him, must profess he cannot comprehend him. Nor need we be inquisitive to know his name, his name is GOD: there being no use of proper names, but where a multitude is to be distinguished by their particular appellations. GOD therefore being but one, hath no name but GOD. And to this truth I have the general consent of all men. For when the common people lift their hands to Heaven, they then make mention but of one God only; using to say, (as their occasions do require) that God is great, and that God is true, and if God permit. Which whether it be the natural expression of the com­mon people, or the Confession of a Christian saying his Belief, it is hard to guesse.’

[Page 21]This is the sum of that which was alleadged by the Christian Advocates, in de­fence of the Divine nature and power of God; and that this God was one only Soveraign and commanding power, who governed and disposed of all things both in Heaven and Earth. In which there is not any thing affirmed of God, which hath not been before delivered by the antient Gentiles; whose judgments and opinions in this particular I shall next present. And first begining with Mercurius surnamed Trismegistus, Lactantius tels us of him that he wrote many books, In quibus Majestatem summi & singularis Dei asserit, in which he doth as­sert the Majesty of that one and only Supreme God: particularly that he is but one, and being but one, hath no other name then that of GOD Lactant. l. 1.6.. [...]. God, saith he, is but one, and being but one, he wants no name, but is simply nameless, or Anonymus: the very same with that of Minutius Felix, nec nomen Dei quaeras, nomen est Deus Minut. Fel. in Octavio.: which is thus seconded by Lactantius, who had seen his Dialogue, Deo quia semper unus est proprium nomen est DEVS. And there is very good reason for it too, I mean why God should have no known name to call him by, as had the Idols of the Heathens; because there is no use of a proper name, Nisi ubi discrimen exegerit multitudo, but where distinction must be made between one and another: which cannot be where there is but one, and never shall be more then one of that rank and order. But Mercurius goes further yet, and doth not only testifie that God is one, but that he is the Radix or root of all things, without which no­thing was made; that he is infinitely good, [...], even goodness it self, and that the name of Good belongeth unto none but him Mereur. Trism. in Pae­man. c. 2, 3, 4, &c. El in A­sclep. c. 6, 7.: and though he gives the name of GOD to the Heathen deities, yet he confesseth in plain tearms, that they are so entituled honoris causa, and not naturae ratione. Descend we next unto the Sibyls, and we shall finde one of them saying thus of God, [...], that there is but one God, and that he only is Almighty, and unbegotten Lactant. l. 1.6.: another of them saying thus in the Person of GOD, [...], i. e. I am the one and only God, and besides me there is none other. Pass we on next unto the gods, as the Gentiles called them, and we shall hear Apollo being asked the question, what was to be conceived of God, to have returned an answer in one and twenty verses, whereof these are three, as they stand cited by Lactantius Id. cap. 7.:

In English thus;

In the translation of which verses, I have took liberty to render [...], in brightest Heaven, because I think that either Apollo did allude to the Coelum Empyraeum, used among Philosophers, or that the old Philosophers took that tearm from him. But whether it were so or no, certain I am that Lactantius doth conclude from hence upon very good grounds, that this answer of Apollo can by no means imaginable be applyed to Iupiter, Qui & matrem habuerit & nomen, who had both a Mother and a name, as he there observeth; and therefore must be meant of the living GOD. Whom when the Heathens call by the name of Iupiter, Falluntur in nomine, sed de una potestate consentiunt, saith Minutius Felix Minut. Fel. in Octavio., though they are mistaken in the name of that Supreme God, yet they agree with us in this, that he is but one. Proceed we forwards to the Poets, and Orpheus the most antient of them, and one who was Co-temporary with [Page 22] the GODS themselves, as we read in Lactantius, l. 1. cap. 6. not only doth af­firm of him that he was [...], or the first begotten, before whom none was, which could not be affirmed of Iupiter the Son of Saturn, but that he ex­isted of himself only, and gave beeing to all things besides. [...], as it is cited amongst many of his verses to this purpose by Clemens of Alexandria Clem. A­lexand. in Pro­ [...]rept. an old Christian writer. What other Poets say of God we shall see hereafter, when we shall look upon him as the Maker of Heaven and Earth. In the mean time conclude we this first rank of testi­monies with that of Pythagoras, who was both a Poet and Philosopher, who tel­leth us of God, as I finde him cited in the works of Clemens, and other Writers of good credit, Deus unus est, Principium omnium rerum, Animatio & motus universi, that there is but one God, the beginning of all things, who animateth and giveth motion to the whole World or Universe.

In the next rank come the Philosophers or Sages of the Antient Gentiles, who speak no less divinely of this one God, then the Poets, or Sibylline Oracles have done before. And in the first place we meet with Socrates, who by Apollo himself was pronounced to be the wisest man of all the Grecians; but yet so little a friend of his, or any of the rest of the Heathen gods, that he used openly to deride them upon all occasions, and at the last was poysoned by Decree of the Senate of Athens Laert. in vita Socrat., because he disallowed the multitude of gods whom the people worshipped, endevouring to bring them to the knowledge of the only God. Tertullian hereupon doth put this witty scorn on their great Apol­lo, for giving the testimony of the wisest man of all Greece, to him who only of that Nation did deny him and others of his rank and quality to be Gods in­deed. O Apollinem inconsideratum (saith he)! sapientiae testimonium reddidit ei viro, qui Deos esse negabat Tertul. in Apolog. c. 46.. And though it grew into a by-word in the following times, when any man thought otherwise of their many gods, then the vulgar did, [...], that Socrates his cup was ready for him Laert. in vi­ta Socr.; yet Plato who was his scholar did not only follow him in the same opinion, but publickly maintained it in his Books and Writings. Nay he was so resolved to make good this point, that he gave it out for a rule to his special friends, how they should know whether the business which he writ to them about, were seriously proposed or not. Cum serio, ordior Epistolam ab uno Deo; cum secus, a pluribus Plato in Epist. 13. ad Di­onys.; when I intend the matter seriously, I then begin my letters in the name of the one God only; when otherwise, in the names of many. And as his rule was, such was his Divinity or Theology also: calling the true God by the name of [...], which may be rightly Englished Beeing or ex­isting; and is the name by which the LORD doth call himself in the holy Scriptures Exod. 3.14.; but for the Idol-gods he affirms of them, that they were [...], things which in very deed had no beeing at all; which is the very same with that of St. Paul, saying, Idolum nihil est 1 Cor. 8.4., that an Idol is nothing. In many places of his Writings, he speaks of God, as solely existing in himself, the beginning and the end of all things, by whom, and for whom they were first created: though otherwhiles, especially in his Books de Legibus, which were for every vulgar eye, he seems to be inclinable to the vulgar errour. The Platonists in ge­neral speak as divinely of this one God, as their Master did, Iamblicus affirming that there was one cause of all things, and one God the Lord of all thingsIamblith de myster. c. 12. &c., whom he calleth [...], both self-sufficient, and self-being; PROCLVS, that this one God was the Supreme King, who subsisting in and of himself, gave life, and beauty, and perfection to all things besides Proclus de Theolog. Platon.; Simplicuis, that he was that one and only good from whence all goodness did proceed, that unity from which all things took their Original, the God of gods, and the cause of causes Simplicius in Ariani Epi­ctet.; Plotinus, that there is one beginning of all things, of self-sufficiency, communicating life and beeing to all creatures else, and that those others are no otherwise happy, then by contemplating that intelligible light which shi­neth so gloriously in the God-head, as the Moon borroweth all her light from the beams of the Sun Plotin. Enn. 1. l. 8. & Enn. 9.. Porphyrius, the scholar of this Plotinus, defining GOD [Page 23] to be both every where, and no where, filling all places whatsoever, but contained in none, and that from him alone do all things proceed, which were, and are, and are to come Porphyr. de Abstinent. l. 2.. Finally, not to wander through more particular, this seemeth to have been the general Tenet of all Plato's followers: Quod [...] & [...], ejusdem erant insaniae, that Atheism and the worshipping of many gods, were of equal madness.

Proceed we next unto the Peripateticks, and their Master Aristotle, who be­ing loath to seem beholding to his Master Plato, did purposely run cross to him in many things, which otherwise his own excellent judgement would have gladly followed. And yet though elsewhere a defender of their many gods, yet in his Books of Metaphysicks, and in that de Mundo, he doth not only reduce all motion unto one first mover, but doth expresly say of God, that the World and the whole course of Nature is preserved by him Aristot. de Mundo., that he gives motion to the Sun and Moon, poiseth the Earth on her Basis, and sustaineth all things. And finally it is said of him, that at the time of his death he brake out into this divine expression, Ens entium miserere mei, that is to say, O thou eter­nal Beeing from whom all things exist, have mercy upon me. So many principles there are in his works and writings, which may conduct a man to the knowledge of GOD, and so divinely doth he speak of the Heavenly powers, that the Divines of Colen have writ a Book (but on what grounds and warrants, it concerns them to look) entituled De Salute Aristotelis, of the Salvation of Aristotle. Theo­phrastus that great Doctor in Physick, but by Sect a Peripatetick, maintaineth that there is one only Divine principle, or beginning from whence all things ex­ist Theophr. in Metaph & de Saporibus., one only God who out of nothing hath created all things. And Alex­ander Aphrodiseus of the same Sect also, composed a whole Tract of the divine Pro­vidence of God, in which he sheweth that there is one God who ruleth all things, and is of power to do whatsoever he pleaseth Alex. A­phrodis. de Provident.. Let us next look upon the Academicks, whose common guise it was to leave all things doubtful, Qui omnia facerent incerta, as Lactantius hath it Lactant. l. 1. c. 6., and we shall finde it said by Tully, who was one of that Sect, Nihil est praestantius Deo, &c. Cicero de nat. doerum, l. 2. that there was nothing more excellent then God; and therefore that by him the whole world was go­verned, who neither did subject himself unto FATE or Nature. And Plu­tarch, though much given to Fables, doth advise expresly, that we worship not the Heavens, nor the heavenly bodies, which are but as the Myrours or Looking-glasses in which we may behold his most wonderful Art who made and beautified the world Plutarch. de Isid. & Osi­ride.: Quid enim aliud est Mundus quam Templum ejus? for what else is the World then the Temple of God? Last of all for the antient Stoicks, Zeno is said by Aristotle to have taught of God, that there was only one, or none; and that this one God was Optimus & Maximus, both the best and greatest. And it is registred for the reverend say of old Cleanthes, O Deus rege me per eam causam, per quam omnia temperas & moderaris, Rule me O God by that prime cause whereby thou dost dispose of all things. Which Cause they called by the name of Fate or destiny. Epictetus, as of later time, so he speaks more plainly, whose dictates are much made of by the old Platonicks, Proclus, Simplicius, and the rest. Di­scendum ante omnia unum esse Deum, &c. Epictet. in Arrian. It is to be learned (saith he) in the first place, that there is but one God, who doth govern all things; and whatso­ever we do, or say, or think, is not hid from him. In Seneca, whom Lactantius calleth Stoicorum acerrimum Lactant. l. 1. c. 5., the most resolute Stoick of the Romanes, there are so many several passages to prove this point, that he who would produce them all must transcribe him wholly. For an essay therefore take that which Lactantius citeth, where he calleth God, Deorum omnium Deum, or the God of gods, the Governour of Heaven and Earth, by whom those other Deities whom the people worshipped, were many times suspended and restrained from action.

Hitherto have we traced the footsteps of the antient Poets, and all the several sects of the old Philosophers, and found a general consent amongst them that there is a GOD, and that there is but one God, who takes care of all things: [Page 24] Whom, if they call sometimes by the name of Fate or Providence, or Nature, as sometimes they do, we must still understand them of that one God in whom we Christians do profess that we do believe. Or, if they sometimes call him by the name of Iupiter, we are to understand the same one God, in whom the rest are comprehended as subservient Instruments. So witnessed the most learned Varro, affirming, as I finde him cited by St. Augustine August. de Cinit. l. 4. c. 9., that though the Doctors of the Gentiles did use sometimes to speak of the Gods and Goddesses▪ yet were they all contained in Jupiter, whose powers and Ministers they were. And thereupon the Father buildeth this resolution, that our Ancestors were not either so blinde or simple, as to think that Bacchus, Ceres, and the rest were Gods indeed Id. ibid. l. 4.24.: but rather the gifts and ministrations (Munera & functiones, as his words are there) of that one only God whom they did believe in. And this perswasion was so naturally implanted in the mindes of all men, that in their dangers, and necessities, and more sober thoughts they still made mention of one God, and but one alone. What was observed to this purpose by Minutius Felix is declared before. The same we finde to be observed by Tertullian also. Anima licet diis falsis ancillata, &c. ‘The soul, saith he, though servilely obsequious unto these false Gods, yet upon better thoughts, as if awakened newly from sleep and wine, it speaks of one God only in the singular number: it being the common voice of all, to say, If God grant me this; or looking on him as their judge to pronounce these words, God seeth, and I refer it unto God, and God shall acquit me.’ And saying this, saith he, they lift their eyes up towards heaven, not toward the Capitol Tertul. A­pol.. Novit enim sedem Dei vivi, as knowing Heaven to be the seat of the living God. The like Lactantius telleth us too, ‘Cum jurant, cum optant, &c. When they swear, or wish, or render thanks, or that the noise of war do affright their ears, they neither do then speak of IOVE, or their many Gods, but of God alone Lactant. l. 2.1.; though after they have scaped the danger, ad Deorum Templa concurrunt, they run unto the Temples of their Idol-gods to offer sacrifice.’ May we not say of these and the like expressions as Tertullian doth, that they are testimonia Ani­mae naturaliter Christianae, the testimonies of a Soul that is naturally inclined to the Christian faith; or the Confession of a Christian saying his Belief, as Minutius phrased it? If now after these testimonies of the learned Gentiles, and the gene­ral acknowledgement of all sorts of people; we should proceed to prove by reason, or in way of argument, that there is one God, and but one alone: it might be thought an endless and impertinent work, considering [...] that there is no hearb so ordinary, nor flye so small, nor worm or creature so contemptible, but is an argument sufficient to evince a God-head. Minutius hath so fully satisfied in that particular, that they which are more copious in pursute thereof, are but as Commentators, and he the Text; discoursing on his plain song with a fuller descant. And therefore I shall supersede from that way of discourse, resting content with that discovery and progress we have made herein, out of the antient Poets, and the old Philosophers, and the concur­rent testimony of all sorts of people; who lived in those dark times of igno­rance, when as the multitude of Gods was in most esteem, and the true worship of this one God, confined, and as it were imprisoned in the House of Israel.

This therefore being proved or supposed as granted, that there is one GOD, and but one alone; the next particular enquiry which we are to make, must be to finde out what GOD is, how we are to define him. A point esteemed so difficult in the former times, that Simonides being asked by Hiero of Syracusa, Quid Deus esset Cicero de Natur. Deor., what God was; desired first one day to consider of it, after­wards two, then four, and still more and more. Of which being asked the reason, he returned this answer, that the more he did consider of it, the more he was unable to determine in it. Both Xenophon and Plato did conceive so al­so, as Plotinus witnesseth, who hath recorded this for a speech of theirs, Deum pervestigare nec possibile &c. that it was neither possible nor lawful to enquire too far into the nature of GOD. And yet they ventured many of them, upon [Page 25] such particulars, as though they do not make amongst them an exact definition; yet they describe him by those Attributes, as shew they were not ignorant of his heavenly nature. Their judgements in this point collected by Minutius Fe­lix, take together here Minut. Fel.; ‘Sit Thales Milesius omnium primus, &c. Let us begin, saith he, with Thales, who though he make water the first cause of all things yet makes he God to be that universal Soul who out of that created all things;’ the mysterie of water and the Spirit being more sublime, then to be understood by the sons of men. Anaximenes, and after him Apolloniates Diogenes make him to be the Air, because both infinite and immensurable. Anaxagoras his opinion was, that GOD was an infinite understanding; Pythagoras, that he was that Soul, which dwelling in the whole frame of Nature, did give life to all things. Xenophanes did use to say, that every infinite with understanding, might be called GOD. An­tisthenes, that there were many popular Gods, and but one natural one, or one God of Nature; Speusippus, that God was that natural and animal power, by which all things are governed▪ Democritus, though the first inventor of that absurd opi­nion, that the World was made of several Atoms, joyned by chance together; yet for the most part he puts Nature in the place of GOD, as also did Straton and the Epicureans: And Aristotle though inconstant and of many mindes, yet other whiles he makes him be that Soul or understanding which presides over the World. Heraclides Ponticus will have him also to be a Divine soul or under­standing; and thereunto inclined Theophrastus, Cleanthes, Zeno, and Chrysippus; save that they sometimes call him by the name of Fate. Xenophon the Disciple of Socrates, was of opinion that the form of the true GOD could not be seen by any man, and therefore was not to be sought or inquired into: Aristo Chius, that he was not to be comprehended: both of them guessing at the Majesty of Almighty God, by a despair of understanding what indeed he was. And Plato finally not only doth affirm of God, that he is the Parent of the World, the Maker of all Celestial and Terrestrial creatures; but by reason of his eminent and in­credible power, it was a difficult thing to finde what he was, and having found it an impossible matter to express it rightly. And of all these Minutius noteth, that they are Eadem fere quae nostra, the same almost with that which was affirmed of GOD in the schools of CHRIST: Insomuch, saith he, that one might very justly think, that the modern Christians were Philosophers, or that the old Philosophers had indeed been Christians. Lactantius also doth affirm that they did vail the same truth under divers notions; and that whether they called him Nature, Reason, Vnderstanding, Fatal necessity, the Divine Law, or in what phrase soever they did use to speak him; idem est quod anobis Deus dici­tur Lact. l. 1.5., it was the same with that which we (the followers of CHRIST) call GOD.

His nature being thus declared (as far as could be seen by the Eye of Reason) proceed we next unto those Epithets or Adjuncts, whereby that nature is set forth in the best of their Writers. Philolaus a scholar of Pythagoras hath told us of him, that he is singularis, immobilis, sui similis, that there is but one God, the chief Lord of all, and that he is immovable, always like himself V. Morn. de verit. Rel. Chr. c. 3.: the Divine Plato, that God is good, and the Idea of all goodness, the Author of whatso­ever is good or beautiful, and the fountain of truth, that he is also living and everlasting. [...], as I have somewhere found him cited. Aristotle sometimes also doth come home to this, in whom the at­tributes of [...], immortal and eternal do eft-soones occur. By Or­pheus it is said that he is invisible, that he hath his dwelling in the heavens, that he sits there in [...], in a Golden Throne, and from thence doth dart his thunders upon wicked men. Phocylides hath given us as much of him, as one verse can hold Phocyl. Car. [...]. There is one God, saith he, most wise, most powerful, and most happy. One of the Sibyls, heaps upon him the most glorious attributes, of being of great Majesty, begotten by none, invisible, yet beholding all things: and Apollo one of the Hea­then Gods comes not short of her, saying of God that he was begotten of himself, and taught of none, immoveable, and of a name not to be expressed. These two [Page 26] last passages we before cited out of Lactantius, but then it was to prove that there was a GOD. And to these adde that verse of the same Apollo, which is elsewhere cited by Lactantius Lactant. l. 1. cap. 6, 7., [...], in which he calleth him the immortal and eternal GOD, the unspeakable Father. Lay all which hath been said together, and we may gather out of all this descrip­tion of him (for to define him rightly is a thing impossible) that GOD is an im­mortal and eternal Spirit, existing of himself, without any beginning, invisible, incompre­hensible, omnipotent, without change or passion, by whose Almighty power all things were created; and by whose divine goodness they are still preserved. What more then this is said by the Church of England, the purest and most Orthodox of the daughters of Sion; which in her book of Articles thus declares her self Art. 1. Of faith in the holy Trinity., that is to say, ‘There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness; the Maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible.’ What more hath been delivered by the Antient Fa­thers, who had the light of Scripture to direct them in it; then that which hath been said by these learned Gentiles, upon no other ground then the light of Reason? Which manifestly proveth that both the Beeing and the Nature of God, were points so naturally graffed in the souls of men, that neither the ignorance of letters, nor the pride of wealth, nor the continual fruition of sensual pleasures have hitherto been able to efface the Characters and impres­sions of it, as before I said. And if a GOD and but one only, he must be such as is described, or no GOD at all. But of the Attributes and Acts of Almighty God, we shall speak more at large in the two next chapters.

In the mean time, by this Theologie of the learned and more sober Gentiles we may see sufficiently, that many of those who are counted Christians do fall most infinitely short of them in the things of GOD. Of this kinde were the Anthropomorphitae, a sort of Hereticks proceeding from one Andaeus, by birth a Syrian, but living for the most part in Egypt, who miserably mistaking many Texts of holy Scripture, conceived and taught Deum humana esse for­ma, eundemq corporalia membra habere, that God was made of humane shape, and had the same members as men have Niceph. Eccles. hist. l. 11. c. 14.. Which though it was so gross a folly as would have been hissed out of all the schools of Philosophie; yet found it such a plausible welcome with the Monkes of Egypt, that Theo­philus the learned Patriarch of Alexandria was in danger to be torn in pieces, because he had opposed them in their peevish courses Nicephor. hist. Eccles. l. 13. c. 12.. And of this sort also were the Manichees, who for fear they should make God the Author of any thing which was not pleasing to them, as darkness, winter, and what­soever else did seem evil to them; would needs obtrude upon the world two contrary principles, or two Supreme Powers, from one of which all that was good, from the other all that was evil or so seemed to them, did proceed origi­nally Id. Eccles. hist. l. 6. c. 31.. The first Author of this Heresie amongst the Christians, was one Manes, who lived about the times of Aurelianus, Anno 213. by birth a Persian, to whom this errour was first propagated out of the Schools of Zo­roaster, that great Eastern Rabbin, who seeing but with half an eye into sacred matter, had fancied to himself two Gods, both of equal power, one good, the other bad; the one called Oromases, and the other Arimanius; the one the Author of good things, and the other of evil. Other impie­ties he maintained, which made him execrable in the eyes both of God and man; but I take notice of no other at this present time, as being not with­in the compass of the work in hand. And even in this we need not spend more time to confute his fellows, then to send him and his to school to the old Philosophers; most of the which acknowledged but one principium, or common principle, from whom all creatures in the world took their first beginning: Or if they did allow of many principia, as many times they did unto several things, which seemed to be of contrary nature unto one another; yet they referred all in the last resort to one only principle or principium, in which all others met as their common center Simplic. in Ariani Epictet.. And this they called Principi­um omnia principia supereminens, the Principle or principium which excelled all [Page 27] others, and finally resolved, ab hoc uno principio omnia principia, that from this one principle or principium all the rest descended. Had it been otherwise, what a continual conflict had there been since the world began betwixt God and the Devil, betwixt the good principle and the bad; betwixt the giver of blessings, and inflicter of punishments. For being of contrary affe­ctions, Fieri posse ut aliquid diversum velit, it might well be (or rather it could not otherwise be) that they should differently declare themselves in some one particular Lactant. l. 1. c. 3., which must needs draw them into such remediless quarrels, as Homer fableth to have been amongst the Gods of Gentiles, whiles some declared themselves for Troy, and the rest against it. Mulciber in Tro­jam, pro Troja stabat Apollo, said the Latine Poet. Which what a confusion and distraction it would bring on the course of Nature, I leave to any man to judge which hath common sense. But Manes, as it seems, beeing a neer neighbour to the Curdi, who dwelt close by Persia, had entertained also their Religion ▪ of whom it might be said, and that not unfitly, as Lactantius doth of some of the Greek Numens, se alios deos colere ut prosint, alios ne noceant Lactant. l. 1.20., that they did worship some Gods for fear, and others for love; some out of hope to receive benefits and blessings from them, others lest else they should be troubled and afflicted by them. But Manes was his name, and madness was his nature, (so the name doth signifie). And little less then mad are they, who for fear they should be thought to savour of the Manicheans, have run themselves upon the contrary extreme; in making God not the prime Author only of the evil of punishment, but also of the evil of sin.

Nor can it but seeme strange to a knowing man, who looks with an indif­ferent eye upon the antient Gentiles, and some present Christians; that either those in times of such an Epidemical and general darkness, should have so much of the Christian in them, or that they which live under the light of Christs glorious Gospel, should have so much in them of the Heathen. The learned Gentiles though they did acknowledg but one Supreme power, whom they called Deum naturalem, or the God of Nature: yet they allowed of many National and Topical Gods, as before I told you out of Varro. And finde we not that though the Pontificians publickly profess but one Soveraign God, yet the poor Christians every where in the Church of Rome are taught to place their confidence in more local Saints, then ever Heathen-Rome did muster of its Topical Gods? Which whether it grew upon that Church by the inun­dation of barbarous Nations; or that the late converted Paynims, before their hearts were throughly cleansed from their former leaven, did share the digni­ties and honours of the Heathen Gods amongst such Saints and Martyrs as they most affected, I will not take upon me to determine here. Certain I am, that a in very little time Rome-Christian came to have more tutelarie Saints, and Patrons, and those of each Sex too, as their fancies led them, then ever, Hea­then Rome could shew Gods and Goddesses: whose Offices they have so divided a­mongst the Saints, that changing but the name, and perhaps the dress, the super­stition is as gross now, as amongst the Gentiles. And this I speak, I am sure, on as good authority as any can be had in the Church of England, even from the very words of the book of Homilies, which doth state it thus Homil. a­gainst Idola­try, part. 3.: ‘What I pray you be such Saints with us, to whom we attribute the defence of cer­tain Countries, spoyling GOD of his honour herein, but the Dii Tutelares of the Gentile Idolaters; such as were Belus to the Babylonians; Osiris and Isis to the Egyptians; Vulcan to the Lemnians. What are the Saints to whom the safeguard of certain Cities is appointed, but the Dii Praesides of the Gentiles; such as were Apollo at Delphos, Minerva at Athens, Iuno at Carthage, and the like. What be such Saints to whom contrary to the use of the Primitive Church, Temples and Churches be erected, and Altars builded, but the Dii Patroni; such as were Iupiter in the CAPITOL, and Diana in the Temple of Ephesus. And where one Saint hath Images in divers places, and same Saint must have divers names, as had the Gods and [Page 28] Goddesses amongst the Gentiles. So that when you hear of our Lady of Ips­wich, our Lady of Walsingham, our Lady of Wilsdon and such others; what can we think but that it is in imitation of the Heathen Idolaters, who had their Venus Cypria, their Venus Paphia, and their Venus Gnida; Dianae Agrotera, Diana Coryphea, and Diana Ephesia? Nor have they only spoyled the true living God of his due honour in Temples, Cities, Countries and Lands, by such inventions and devices as the Gentiles had done before them; but the Sea and waters have as well special Saints with them, as they had Gods with the Heathen; in whose places are come St. Christopher, St. Clement, and our Lady specially, to whom the Ship-men sing Ave Maris stella. Nei­ther hath the fire escaped their Idolatrous inventions: for in stead of Vul­can and Vesta, they have placed St. Agatha, and make letters on her day to quench fire withall. Every Profession and Artificer hath his special Saint, as a peculiar God: as for example, Scholars have St. Nicolas; Painters St. Luke; neither lack Souldiers their Mars, or Lovers their Venus among Christians. Nay all diseases also have their special Saints, as Gods to cure them: the Pockes St. Roche, the Falling-evill Cornelius, the Tooth-ach St. Apollin, &c. Neither do beasts and cattel lack their Gods with us; for St. Loy is the Horse-leech, St. Anthony the Swine-heard, & sic de cateris.’ Nor is this any studyed calumny, but so clear a truth, that it was never yet gainsaid by their greatest Advocates; So much hath Rome relapsed to her antient Gentilism; revived again so many of her Gods and Goddesses; that both the Iews and Infidels may have cause to question, whether she doth believe in one God alone; or that he only is the Father Almighty whom the Creed here mentioneth. Of which and other of the Attributes of Almighty God I am next to speak.

CHAP. III. Of the Essence and Attributes of God according to the holy Scripture. The name of Father how applyed unto God; of his Mercy, Justice, and Omnipotency.

BY that which hath been said in the former Chapter, out of the Monuments and Records of the antient Gentiles, it is apparent that they knew that there is a GOD, that he was one only, and that this one God was an Eternal and Immortal Spirit, existing of him­self, without any beginning, invisible, incomprehensible, omnipotent, with­out change or passion. In which description we have all those Epithels summed up together out of the works and writings of those reverend Sages; which Ruffinus, a good Christian Writer of the Primitive times, hath bestowed up­on him in his Exposition of the Creed. Deum cum audis, substantiam, intellige, sine initio, sine fine, simplicem, sine ulla admixtione, invisibilem, incorpoream, ineffabilem inaesti­mabilem, in quo nihil adjunctum, nihil creatum Ruffin in Symb.. And though it could not be expect­ed that the Gentiles guided only by the light of Nature should have said so much: yet for the better knowledge of the Essence, Attributes, and works of GOD we must not rest our selves contented with that measure of light, which was discovered unto them, but make a more exact search for it in the holy Scriptures. Concerning which there is a memorable story of Iustin Martyr, which he re­lateth in his Dialogue with Trypho the Iew. St. Paul hath noted of the Greeks, that they seek after wisdome 1 Cor. 1.22.; and never was the note more exactly true then in that particular. For being inflamed with a desire of coming to a more perfect knowledge of the Nature of GOD then had been generally attained by the common people; first he applyed himself unto the Stoicks, who by the gravity and preciseness of their conversation, did seem most likely to direct him. But this knowledge was not with the Stoick, [...], nor could he learn much there of the nature of God Iustin Mart. in dial. cum Tryph.. Next he betook himself to the Peripateticks, men most renowned for their knowledge in the works of Nature, and the subtilties of disputation. But there he pro­fited less then before with the Stoicks, the Peripateticks being more irresolute, [Page 30] and speaking less divinely of the things of GOD, then any of the other Sects of Philosophie. Then had he severally recourse unto the Pythagorean and the Platonist, who were most eminent in those times for the contemplative parts of learning, [...], and in the search of immaterials. But true Divinity was not to be found in all the writings either of the Pythagoreans or the Platonists; although these last did seeme to come more neer the truth, then either the Peripatetick, or the Stoick. At last he was encountred by a Reverend old man, a Christian Father, and was by him directed to the Book of God, writ by the Prophets and Apostles, [...], as they which on­ly knew the truth, and which alone were able to unfold it rightly. The coun­sel of which Reverend man he obeyed full gladly, and profited so well in the Schools of CHRIST, that he became a Martyr for the Faith and Gospel. So we, if we would come unto the perfect knowledge of GOD, though we may sport our selves, and refresh our thoughts in the pleasant walks and prospects of Philosophy; must at the last apply our selves to the holy Scriptures, where we shall be as far instructed in the things of GOD, as he thinks fit to be com­municated to the sons of men.

Now for our better method in the present search, we will consider GOD in those names and Attributes, by which he hath made known himself in his holy Covenants. And first we meet with that of the Lord IEHOVAH; which the Greeks usually called the Tetragrammaton, or the name consisting of four letters, (for of no more it doth consist in the Hebrew language) the Iews more properly nomen appropriatum & gloriosum, the most peculiar and most glo­rious name of the Lord our God, appropriated unto him in so strict a manner, that it was not lawful to communicate it unto any Creature. By this name was he first pleased to make himself known unto Moses, saying, that he had appear­ed to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by the name of God Almighty, but by this Name of Jehovah, he had not made himself known unto them Exod. 6.3.. And in the Prophet Esay, thus, Ego sum Jehovah, illud est nomen meum, i. e. I am Jehovah, that is my Name, and my glory will I not give unto another Esay 42.8.. Derived it is from Iah, an old Hebrew root, which signifieth ens, existens, Being or existing. And here­upon was that when Moses in the third of Exod. v. 14. asked the name of GOD, the Lord returned this answer to him, I Am that I Am, and thus shalt thou say unto the people, I AM hath sent me unto you. And hereupon it was that St. IOHN calleth him in the Book of the Revelation, [...], which is, which was, and which is to come Apoc. 1.4.. Nor doth it signifie alone a self-existence, by which he hath a Beeing in and of himself, and doth commu­nicate a beeing unto all the creatures: but it is used in Scripture for a name of power, by which he governeth all those creatures, on which he hath been pleased to bestow a beeing. And therefore if we mark it well, though he ap­pear unto us by the name of God in the first of Genesis, when the Creation was an Embryo, an imperfect work: yet he is no where called by the name of the Lord Iehovah, till the Creation was accomplished, and his works made per­fect: The Fathers heereupon observe (and the note is handsome) that the name of GOD is absolute, essential, and coeternal with the Deitie; but that of IEHOVAH, or the Lord, not used, except in reference to the creature. And it is noted by Tertullian in his Book against Hermogenes, that in the first of Ge­nesis it is often said, Deus dixit, Deus vidit, & Deus fecit, God said, and God saw, and God created. But that he was not called the Lord, by the name of IE­HOVAH, till the second Chapter, when he had finished all his works, the Heaven and Earth, and all things in the same contained, and that there was some creature framed on which to exercise his Power and Supreme command. Ex quo creata sunt in quae potestas ejus ageret ex eo factus est & dictus DOMINVS Tertul. ad­ve s. Hermog., (for by the word Dominus do the Latines render the name IEHOVAH, as the Greeks by [...]) as he telleth us there. In this regard, if possible there had been no other reason, it was a name or Attribute (call it which we will) which was not fit to be communicated unto any creatures, as many other of his [Page 31] names and Attributes have used to be. And this the Iews so stood on in their later times of that State, that they would by no means give it to an earthly Prince: Iosephus the Historian Ioseph. Antiqu. Iudaie. l. 2. c. 18. telling us of some amongst them, whom no extremity of torment could enforce to conferre this title on any of the Roman Emperours, though at that time they had their Countrey in subjection, and did Lord it over them. Had they stayed here, it had been well. No body could have grudged or murmurred, that GOD should have a name peculiar to him­self alone, or that his name should not be mentioned otherwise then with fear and reverence. But afterwards it gave occasion to such superstitions, as made them subject to the scorn and censure of all other people; the use of that most sacred Name being forbad at all times upon pain of death: for fear [...]orsooth, Ne quotidiano usu vilesceret Buxdorfius in Lexic. Hebr., lest the promiscuous use thereof should bring it in­to disesteem amongst the Vulgar. The very same reason, if you mark it, for which the Massing-Priest in the Church of Rome is bound to speak the words of Consecra­tion in so low a voyce, that the next stander by cannot hear a syllable. Ne se. vi­lescerent sacrosancta verba Innocent. [...]. de Sacro Alt▪ myst. l. 3. cap. 1., lest they should grow into contempt with the common people.

The second name which doth occur of GOD in the holy Scripture (for of Elijah which proceedeth from the same root, I forbear to speak) is that of Eloah in the singular, but most frequently that of Elohim in the plural number. It sig­fieth the mighty Iudges, and is derived from Alah, which is to swear: because that in all weighty causes, when necessity requires an Oath to finde out the truth, we are to swear only by the name of God, who is the righteous Iudge both of Heaven and Earth. For the most part it is rendred by the English GOD, and is first used by Moses in the first words of Genesis, Gen. 1.1. Bereshith bara Elohim, saith the Hebrew Text, In principio creavit Deus, saith the Vulgar Latine; in the be­ginning God created, saith the Modern English. Where Elohim, a Nown of the plural number, is joined with Bara, being a Verb of the singular number, to signifie the Mysterie of the glorious Trinity, as many of our late Divines have been pleased to note: though neither any of the old Translations which have been formerly in use in the Christian Church, did take notice of it; nor are constructions of that kinde such strangers in the Hebrew tongue (as other learn­ed men have noted) as that so high a mystery of the Christian faith should have no better grounds to stand on then so weak a Criticism. This name is general­ly rendred in Greek by [...], (whence the Latine Deus) and in English, GOD: and is not so peculiar to the heavenly Majesty, as not to be communicated some­times to the creature also. For thus the Lord to Moses in the Book of Exodus, Ego constitui te Deum Pharaonis (the word is Elohim in the Hebrew) I have made thee a God unto Pharaoh Exod. 7.1., that is to say, I have made thee as a God unto him, to be the internuncio or Embassadour betwixt me and him. And in this sense it is applyable also unto Kings and Princes; as, Ego dixi, Dii estis, I have said, yee are Gods, Psal. 82. because they do participate of his Supreme Power, and are his Substitutes and Vicegerents here upon the Earth: in which respect they are called Potestates, Powers, in the very Abstract. The Powers that be (saith the Apostle) are ordained of GOD Rom. 13.1.. And for the Greek word [...], (whence the Latine Deus) there are given us three Originations of it, all ser­viceable to set forth the nature of the glorious Godhead. For first it is de­rived [...], which signifies to run, because of that swift motion which he seemeth to have, by being present in all places: those which conceived not the miracle of his Omnipresence, conjecturing at him by the swiftness and agility of motion. According unto that of Virgil Virgil. Georg. lib. 4.,

The very same with that of David, If I climbe up into Heaven, thou art there, if I go down into Hell, thou art there also Psa. 139.8.. A thing objected by Cecilius against [Page 32] the Christians, who had been well enough contented if they had only given him a Supreme direction over all wordly affairs: Sed quod loc is omnibus inter erret Minut. Fel., but that he should be present in all places also, that was conceived to be too great a prejudice to those many Gods whom the Gentiles worshipped and shut up in their several Temples. But of this more anon in a place more proper. The second Etymon of [...], is [...], which is to see, according to ano­ther passage of the Prophet Ieremie, Ierem. 3.24. Can any man hide himself in secret places, so that I shall not see him, saith the Lord Ibid. v. 7.? In this respect the good old Father Irenaeus, hath affirmed of God, that he is totus oculus, totum lumen, all eye, all light: and Orpheus an old Heathen Poet tels us also of him, that though he be invisible, yet he seeth all things. [...], as Cle­mens citeth him in his Protrepticon, or Exhortation. The third and last is [...], to inflame or kindle, because that by the vertue of his heavenly power, he doth inflame our souls with the fire of zeal, and kindle a right spirit within us; Est deus in nobis, agitante calescimus illo Ovid. de Fast. 1.6., as in another case said the Heathen Poet.

But leaving these Grammatical observations on the name of GOD, pass we on forwards to those other titles, by which he is presented to us in the holy Scripture, which are El, Helion, & Adonai. Of these the first is El, and signi­fieth as much as the strong God: GOD being not only strong in his own Essence, but giving strength and fortitude to all the creatures, according to their several natures. By this name Christ invoketh the assistance of his heavenly Father, say­ing, Eli, Eli Mat. 27.46., (or Eloi, Eloi Mar. 15.34. in the Syriack) My God, my God, why hast thou for­saken me? and by the same is called himself in the Prophet El Gibber, or the strong and most mighty GOD, Esa. 9.6. The next is Helion the most high, Altissimus; a name ascribed to God in both the Testaments, Pay thy vows to the most High, Psal. 50.14. the power of the most High, Luk. 50.32. the Son of the most High, Luk. 8.28. Most high, not only in respect of his habitation, because he hath his dwelling on High, Psal. 113. (in which respect the Heathen Poets said of their Idol-Iupiter, [...] Hesiod. in. Noct. & dies., that he dwelleth in the Highest Heavens) but in relation to his Essence, by which he infinitely exceeds all creatures, both in Heaven and Earth, who in comparison of him are but toys and trifles. So little reason have we to be proud of our earthly fortunes, or of our natural parts and graces; that rather looking whence we are, made of dust and ashes, the thought thereof should humble us in the sight of God, and make us have re­course to him to obtain perfection. The last we meet with in this kinde, (for still we are upon those Names or Attributes which are both absolute in God, and Essential to him) is that of Adonai, or my Lord. A name, as it is noted in the Mazoreth, found of it self no more then 134 times in all the Old Testament, but substituted by the Modern superstitious Iews, in the place of Iehovah, as often as they meet that word in the course of the Text. A name derived by the learned from the Hebrew Eden, which signifieth a Basis or foundation, on which the whole building doth relie: and therefore very fitly chosen to ex­press his nature, who beareth up the pillars of the Earth, as the Psalmist hath it; by whom the whole fabrick of the Universe is preserved in being. These are the names or Titles of Almighty God, by which he hath made known himself to his chosen servants, all of them absolutely his, without relation to the creature, and such as rather serve to declare his Essence, then set forth his office: for Deus est nomen naturae non officii, as St. Ambrose hath it. All of them laid to­gether teach us this of GOD, that he is of a self-existing, of infinite power, of incomprehensible strength, and unspeakable Majesty: and that as he hath all this of himself alone, so like an Universal Parent, he communicates a beeing to all the creatures, and doth endue them with so much of his power and wisdom, of his strength and Majesty, as shall suffice to every one in their several places. Not that the creature doth partake of his heavenly Essence, we conceive not so; but that he is the principal and Original cause by which all creatures have an Essence: non ut de essentia ejus, sed ut causa essendi Aquin. in Summa Theol., as Aquinas stateth it: [Page 33] and that having thus received an essence or a being from him, we receive also out of his abundance all additaments of what sort soever, which are expedi­ent for us in our severall callings. For out of his fulnesse we have all received Joh. 7.16., as we are told by the Apostle.

Now by the knowledge of these names, or rather of the nature of God repre­sented in them, we come unto the knowledge of those reall attributes, which are so proper and peculiar to the Lord our God, as not to be communicated unto any creature; of which we must first speak a little, in the way of groundwork or foundation, before we can behold him as the Father Almighty: And these are principally two, simplicitas, and infinitas. Simplicitas, or the simple­ness of God, if we may so call it, is that whereby he is void of all composition, either of matter and forme, or parts and accidents compounding, whether they be sensible or intelligible only. For whereas all corporall substances are com­pounded of matter and forme, and the angelicall natures of a potentia and an actus, as the School-men phrase it: GOD being incorporeal hath no matter of forme; and being wholly existing, all at once together, must be purus actus, not having any thing in potentia, which at first he had not. For if GOD were com­pounded of matter and form, there must be some pre-existent matter out of which he was made; and if he be compounded of potentia and actus, he must and may be somewhat which at first he was not: both which are so destru­ctive of the nature of GOD, as being once admitted, he is God no longer. And therefore in my minde the judicious Scaliger hath very well determined of it, in these following words, Scalig. Ex­ercit. 6. Sect. 2. Intelligentiae habent aliquid simile materiae, aliquid simile formae. Solus Deus simplex est, in quo nihil in potentia, sed in actu omnia; imo ipse purus, primus, medius, ultimus actus: that is to say, The Angels or Intelligences have something proportionable unto matter, and something which resembleth form. God only is a simple uncompounded essence, in whom there is nothing in potentia, but all things in act: he being a pure act himself, and the first, intervenient, and last act of all. God then is in the first place a simple, or uncompounded essence, without parts or accidents: his attributes not differing from his essence at all, but being of his very essence, (for in Deo non est nisi Deus, as the old rule was); nor differing essentially from one another, but only in regard of our weak understanding: which being not able to know or com­prehend the earthly things by one single act, must of necessity have ma­ny distinct acts and notions, to comprehend the nature of the incompre­hensible God. And being such a simple uncompounded essence without parts or accidents, he is both great without quantity, and good without quality, mercifull without passion, every where without motion, in heaven without a place or ubi.

The second Attribute of God which before we spake of, is that of Infinite­nesse, by which God is absolutely and actually infinite in his acts and essence. And this infinite or infinitenesse, is defined to be that without which nothing is or can be. Infinitum est extra quod nihil est, said the old Philosophers: so that it is impossible for any thing to be without or besides that, before or after that, in which all possible being is comprehended. And this infinity doth branch it self into these four species, that is to say, Infinity in regard of dura­tion, which we call Eternity. 2. Infinity in regard of dimensions, which we call Immensity. 3. Infinity in regard of comprehensions, by which we say that God is of infinite wisdome, and of infinite knowledge. And last of all, Infinity in regard of power, which we call Omnipotence. And first, Infinity in regard of duration, which we call Eternity, is that attribute of the Lord our God, by which he is without beginning or end; without beginning of dayes, or end of time; without succession or precession, if I may so speak. Or else we may define it with Boetius to be the entire or totall possession of interminable life, all at once toge­ther: or otherwise thus, to be a circular duration, whose instants are alwayes, and whose terminations of extremities never were nor shall be, which are the words of Trismegistus with some little change. In this respect God took unto [Page 34] himself this name, I AM, or I AM THAT I AM: all time being present unto God, as is also that infinity which was before the beginning of time, and shall be also as it is, when time it self shall be no more. In this regard he tels us also of himself, that he is A and Ω, Apocal. 21.6. c. 1.4. or the first or the last, which was, and is, and is to come; still the same for ever. And finally in this respect it is said by Tertullian, Ante omnia Deus erat solus, et erat sibi tempus, mundus et omnia, i. e. Tertul. ad­vers. Praxeam. Before all things were, God was, and he was also to himself, time, the world, and all things. He was alone, quia nil aliud ex­trinsecus praeter illum, because there was not any thing without or besides him: and yet not then alone, if we weigh it rightly, Habebat enim Deum quod habebat in semet ipso, &c. for he had alwayes with him that divine wisdome, which he had alwayes in himself. And so the old Philosophers are to be expoonded when they say of God, that he is [...], immortal and eternal, or ever­lasting; that is to say, not only a parte post, as Angels and the souls of men are called mortal; but also a parte ante, which none was but God. Which makes up that conclusion of the royal Psalmist, Before the mountaines were brought forth, or ever the earth and the world were made, thou art God from ever­lasting, and world without end Psal. 90.2.; world without end a parte post, from everlasting also, a parte ante, but in both eternall.

Of the same nature is that infiniteness in Almighty God in respect of dimensi­ons, which by a name distinct may be called immensity, whereby he is of infinite extension, not circumscribed with any bounds, filling all places whatso­ever, but contained of none. Of this immensity or unmeasurableness doth the Prophet speak, saying, Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his Hand, and meted out heaven with his span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in his three fingers, (after such a manner as men take up a dust or sand) and weighed the mountaines with scales, and the hils in a balance Isa. 40.12, 15, 17.. Who taketh up the Isles as a very little thing, before whom all nations are as nothing, as the drop of a bucket. This by an other name, and in other respects is also called Vbiquity, or Omnipresence, by which our GOD is present in all places every where, and confined to none: but as a sphere (as very understandingly said Trisme­gistus) whose Center is every where, his circumference no where. In reference to this we finde it said by Moses of the Lord our God, that he is God in Heaven above, and in the earth below Deut. 4 39.. The very same with that of the royal Psalmist, If I climb up into Heaven, thou art there; if I goe down into Hell, thou art there also Ps. 139.8.. And so we have it both in Moses and in the Psalms. In reference unto this it is said by Ieremy, Do not I fill Heaven and Earth, saith the Lord? Ier. 23.7, 24, And, Can any man hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? And so we have it in the Law and the Prophets too. And though the Gentiles did exceed­ingly stomach at the primitive Christians, for giving this Vbiquity or Omni­presence to their Lord and God, Discurrentem scilicet illum volunt et ubique praesen­tem Minut. Fel., as Cecilius in the Dialogue did object against them: yet did the Fathers of all times stand most stoutly to it, and would not yeild a jot to their importunities. For thus saith the renowned Augustine, Deus meus ubique praesens, ubique totus, nusquam inclusus August de civit. dei. l. 1.29, My GOD saith he, is in all places present, in all places wholly, but so in all places as contained in none. More fully Gregory the great, Deus est intra omnia non inclusus, extra omnia non exclusus, supra omnia non elatus; i. e. Gregor. in Psal. 139. GOD is in all things, but not in­closed; he is without all things, but not excluded; he is above all things, but not lifted up; and finally beneath all things, and yet not depressed. And though it may be truly said of the sons of men, Qui ubique est, nusquam est; he that is every where, is no where: that is to say, he that ingageth himself in every business, will goe thorow with none: yet so it cannot be affirmed of the God of Heaven, unlesse perhaps it be in a qualifyed sense, interpreting nusquam esse, by non includi. And in that sense is that saying of St. Bernard exactly verifyed, Nusquam est, et ubique est: i. e. He is no where, because no place either reall or imaginary can comprehend or contain him; and he is every where, because no body, no space, nor spirituall substance can exclude his presence.

[Page 35]Proceed we next to the third species or kinde of infiniteness, which we called the infinity of comprehensions, by which all things whatsoever, as well things future, as things past, are alike present to him, and for ever before him; by which he knoweth things that are not as if they were, and doth accordingly decree and determine of them, with as much perspicacity of wisdome, and infal­libility of judgment, as if they were actually before his eyes. For first, God being of an infinite knowledge, most perfectly and simply knoweth all things in himself, which ever were, or shall be in the times to come: and then being of an infinite wisdome to dispose of all things, as may conduce most to his honour and glory; hath either given them bounds which they shall not passe, or left them a dispositive power of their own occasions; putting upon things necessary the law of necessity, and leaving things contingent to the lot of contingency. The due consideration of which weighty point, brought the Apostle to cry out, [...], O the depth of the riches of the wisdome and know­ledge of God Rom. 11.33.! Which two, though two distinct acts and attributes in our apprehension, yet differ not in GOD, as before was said, nor perhaps very much in themselves at all. For wisdome is but the excellency of knowledge, consisting either in the dignity or usefulnesse of the matter known, or the more perfect manner of discerning what they truely are. And of this wisdome or more usefull kind of knowledge, there are these two offices, the one stedfastly to propose a right end; the other to present a right choice of means for effecting thereof. But being it is equally consonant to Gods infinite wis­dome, and not a whit derogatory to his infinite power, that some things should be as truely contingent, as other are really and truely necessary: therefore hath God been pleased as well to decree contingency, as to decree or fore-determine of necessity. Hereupon it will follow by good rules of Logick, that though there be an immutability in the counsails of God, arising from the infiniteness of his knowledge and wisdome; yet that there are some things which might not have been, and that some things are not which yet might have been, or might have been far otherwise then now they are. For neither is the prescience or fore­knowledge of almighty God (for by that name his infinite knowledge may be styled) the necessary and adaequate cause that things shall fall out as they do, not otherwise; but rather because things shall in time so fall out, therefore GOD fore-knowes them. Nor doth his infinite wisdome in pursuit of the means conducing to the end proposed, so fetter and intangle his most infinite power, but that he is still liberum agens, and is at liberty to produce his end by things plainly contingent, as well as by such whereon he hath imposed an everlasting necessity; or to suspend the execution of some former edict, according as he seeth just occasion for it, which liberty in the holy one of Israel is an high per­fection. For as his eternal knowledge of all things doth not make all things which he knoweth to be eternal: so neither doth the immutability of his de­crees make every thing which he decrees to be immutable; there being many temporal and mutable things which he eternally both knew and decreed accordingly. So that for GOD to alter his proceedings with men, accord­ing as they stand or fall in the acts of piety, now punishing where he lately rewarded, and presently rewarding where before he punished, argueth no mutability in the counsails of GOD, but rather an unmovable constancy to the immutable rule of justice, which being alwayes one and the same without variation, must needs afford different measure unto different deserts, and sit contrary dispositions with contrary recompences. And on the other side to make this conclusion, that because God fore-knoweth by his infinite know­ledge, and by his infinite wisdome hath decreed of all things even from all eternity; therefore it is as impossible for any thing to be otherwise then it is, or otherwise then it hath been or will be hereafter, as to recall again that which is past already: were either to make GOD an impertinent agent in the continuall governance of humane affaires, or that he hath nothing else to do but to behold the issue of his former counsails. For plainly they which so [Page 36] conceive of the counsails of GOD, that all things are decreed and predeter­mined by him, even to the taking up of a straw; (which was Cartwrights Ap. Hook. Eccl. Polit. phrase) although they have not said it in terms express, yet do they necessa­rily infer or involve thus much: That God by his eternall and immutable decrees did set the whole course of nature going with an irresistible and un­tractable swindge; and doth since only look upon it with an awfull eye, as Masters sometimes watch their servants, to see how willingly or unwillingly, how carefully or negligenly they attend his businesse. Which how derogatory it is to the truth of the Gospell, those words of CHRIST, Et pater adhuc operatur Joh. 5.17., i. e. I work and my Father also worketh, do declare sufficiently: it being evident by that Text, if considered rightly, that there is altogether as much need of Gods power and wisdome, to manage and direct the affaires of the world, as at first to make it.

Thus are we come at last to the fourth and last species of Infinity, which is that of Power or of Omnipotence, and therein to behold GOD as the Father Al­mighty: the Father, because the fountain and root of being; and the Almighty Fa­ther too, because that being in himself an eternal being, he had withall a power invested or inherent in him, to give a being to the Creatures, and to make all things out of nothing, which needs must be the act of a power most mighty. To this, the former part of this Chapter served but as a preamble, or a necessa­ry introduction to bring us to the knowledge of this part of the Article, viz. That GOD is not only a Father, but a Father Almighty: which could not otherwise have been fully cleered and made known unto us, then by a serious looking on him in his names and attributes. For finding in the name IEHOVAH that he is existing of himself, and that from him all things that are receive their being; his mighty strength in the name of El, his emi­nent power in that of Adonai or Lord; that he is God most high in Helion, and a Judge in Elohim: and then concluding out of these, that being such, he must be of an uncompounded, and most simple essence; by consequence, eternal, and incomprehensible, of infinite knowledge to foresee, and wisdome to effect what he meaneth to do; we may from all together come to this result, that he can be no other then the Father Almighty. And this was the result which was made of old by the most learned of the Gentiles: who having made a muster of his severall Attributes, resolved all into this at last, that he was the general Father both of God and Men, the Parent of the Universe, both of Hea­ven and Earth; and therefore without question an Almighty Father. Mercurius Trismegistus calleth him in termes expresse, Patrem mundi Trismegist. in Paemand. c. 2, 3. &c., the Father or Pa­rent of the world; affirming that the name of good, and of a Father, belong only to him: and so Pythagoras cals him too, as is said by Clement. Plato en­tituled him Universi Patrem, the Father or Parent of the Universe. Iamblichus one of Plato's followers, [...], or self-father, as before was noted. By Aristotle in his book de Mundo, he is called Pater deorum et hominum, the Father both of Gods and Men; [...], in the words of Homer; By Virgil in the same sense, Hominum sator atque Deorum, in the first of the Aeneids; By Orpheus, [...], the Original Ancester of all; and by Apollo himself, [...], the unspeakable Father. And for the titile of Almighty, I finde it given expresly to him in a verse of one of the Sibyls, where he is called, [...], i. e. Omnipotent, invi­sible, and yet seeing all things. The like doth frequently occurre in the Latine Poets, who call him the Almighty Father in as positive termes, as he is called here in the Creed. Tum Pater Omnipotens foecundis imbribus, &c. And in another place, At pater Omnipotens speluncis abdidit atris, as we read in Virgil. At Pater Omnipotens misso perfregit Olympum, &c. so it is in Ovid Ovid Met. l. 1.. And by Valerius Soranus one of elder times, their Iupiter, or supreme deity had the title of Almighty, and King of Kings assigned unto him, Iupiter Omnipotens, Re­gum Rex ipse Deusque, as St. Augustine August. de Civit. dei. l. 7. citeth him out of Varro. More might be added unto this, were not this sufficient to shew that even the learned Gentiles [Page 37] did acknowledge God to be the Father Almighty. We must next see, how and in what respects he is called a Father, and doth stand so entituled in the front of the Creed.

And first the name of Father as applyed to God in holy Scripture, is taken [...], or Personally, as it denotes the first person in the Oeconomie of the glo­rious Trinity. There are three that bear record in heaven, (as St. Iohn hath it) the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one 1 Joh. 5.7.. And in this notion or acception of the word, GOD is the father of our Lord and Sa­viour IESVS CHRIST, whom he hath begotten to himself before all worlds, generatione [...], by such a kind of generation, as nei­ther the tongue of Men nor Angels can expresse aright. In this respect our Saviour saith of GOD the first person, I and my Father are one Joh. 10.30.: and in another place, which we saw before on another occasion, I work, and my Fa­ther also worketh Joh. 5.17.. In this sense God the Father saith of the second person, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased Mat. 3.17.. And finally in this, as no man living, no not any of the host of Heaven, is to be called the Son of God but the second Person; so none of the three Persons takes the name of Father, but the first alone. Though GGD hath severall sons, and by severall means, as shall be shewed anone in the place fit for it; yet only CHRIST is called his begotten son: and therefore God a naturall Father (if I may so say) unto none but him. And this is that which Gregory Thaumaturgus hath told us, saying, [...] Greg. Thau­mat. in S. The­ophan., God hath no other son by nature, but thee my Saviour. The name of this generation I forbear to speak of. It is a point I waived from the very first, when first I undertook to expound this Creed Vid. Chap. 1.; as being of too sublime and transcendent nature for the shallowness of my capacity to inquire into. It is enough that I acknow­ledge God to be the Father of our Lord IESVS CHRIST, by an eter­nall generation: though I professe my self unable to discourse thereof, with any satisfaction to my self or others. And for the generation of our Saviour in the fulnesse of time, by which he was conceived of the Virgin Mary, I shall have opportunity to speak in a place more proper. So that not having more to speak of the name of Father, as it is personall and hypostaticall in the first Person only; I shall proceed to that acception of the word, wherein it is taken [...], or essentially, and so given to GOD, that every person of the Trinity doth partake thereof. But first I cannot choose but note that even in that equality or unity which is said to be between the Persons of the blessed Trinity, the Father seems to me to have some preheminency above the others. For not only the Greek Church doth acknowledge him to be [...], the root and fountain of the God-head; but it is generally agreed on by all Orthodox writers, that the Father is first in order, though not in time: Pater est prior ordine, non tempore, as Alstedius states it; and by Aquinas amongst those of the Church of Rome, that the Son or second person is Principiatus non essentiatus Aqu. Summ., that is to say, if I rightly understand his meaning, that there was a beginning of his existence though not of his essence, or a beginning of his Filiation, but not of his God-head. And yet I dare not say that I hit his meaning, (for I professe my self uncapable of these Schoole-niceties) because I finde it generally agreed on by most learned men, V. Feild of the Ch. l. 5. c. 11. that CHRIST receiveth the being and essence which he hath from the Father; although not in the way of production of an other essence, which was condemned as an impious heresie in Valentinus Gentilis, but by communication of the same. Add here, that those who have most constantly stood up in the defence of the doctrine of the Trinity against some Hereticks of this Age, doe notwithstanding say and declare in publick, that CHRIST though looked upon as the Son of God in his eternall generation, cannot be said to be [...], or self-essentiate: And that both Genebrard Genebr. de Trin. l. 1. & Lindan. in Dubitant. l. 2., Lindanus and some others of the Romish Do­ctors have quarrelled. Calvin (whom Beza laboureth to excuse in that par­ticular) for saying that he is [...], and hath his God-head from himself; [Page 38] wherein he is deserted by Arminius also Armin. Respons. ad Artic. 31., and those of the Remonstrant party in the Belgick Countries. But that the Father Almighty mentioned in my Creed was not, and is not, both [...], and [...] too, hath never been affirmed, nor so much as doubted of, by any Christian writer of what times soever.

Next look we on the name of Father as it is taken [...] essentially in the holy Scriptures, and then it is appliable to every person of the blessed Trinity; each of which in his severall person or subsistence, may be called our Father. Thus read we of the second person (for of the first there is no question to be made) in the 9. of Esay, that unto us a Son is born, and that he shall be called wonderfull, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, Vers. 6. Thus in St. Iames, we finde that the holy Ghost is called Pater luminum, Jam. 1. 7. the Father of lights; it being his office to illuminate every soul which is admitted for a member of the Church of CHRIST: in which respect the Sacrament of Baptisme, in which men are regenerated and born again of water and the holy Spirit, was an­tiently called [...], or illumination. The reason why the name Father doth in this sense belong respectively to each, is because they equally concur, as in the work of Creation, God the Father creating the world in the Son by the holy Ghost; so in those also of Redemption and Sanctification. From whence that maxim of the Schools, Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa, that is to say, the outward or externall actions of the Trinity, are severally communica­ble to the whole essence of GOD, and not appropriated unto any particular person. And yet the name of Father even in this acception is generally, [...], and in the common course of speech referred to the first Person only; as he that is [...], the root and fountain of the God-head, as before was said. For thus hath CHRIST himself instructed us to pray, and say, Our Father which art in heaven, Mat. 6.9.. And the Church following his command who hath willed us to pray after that manner, begin­neth many of her prayers in the publick Liturgy, with this solemn form of compellation, Almighty and most mercifull Father. Not that we do exclude the Son or the holy Ghost, in our devotions, but include them in him. In Patre invocantur filius et spiritus sanctus, Bellarm. de Chr. l. 8. c. 17. as Bellarmine hath most truly noted. And therefore though we commonly begin our prayers with a particular address to God the Father, yet we conclude them all with this, through Christ Iesus our Lord; and sometimes add, to whom with thee and the holy Ghost, be praise for ever. But leaving these more intricate speculations to more subtill heads; The name of Father in this sense, is ascribed to God by two severall titles.

First, Iure Creationis, by the right of Creation, by which he is the Father of all mankinde.

And secondly, Iure Adoptionis, by the right and title of Adoption, by which he hath anew begotten us (in St. Peters language) to an in­heritance immortall, undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved for us in the Heavens 1 Pet. 1.3, 4..

First, GOD is said to be our Father in the right of Creation, by which as all the World, and all things in the same contained, may be called the work­manship of his hands; so may all mankinde be called his children: not only those which trust and believe in him, but also those which know him not, nor ever read so much of him as the Book of nature; those which yet live as out-lawes from the rule of reason, and barbarous and savage people of both the Indies. Thus Malachi, the last Prophet of the Iewes, Have we not all one Father, hath not God created us Mal. 2.10.? Thus the Apostle of the Gentiles doth affirme of GOD, that out of one bloud he hath made all kindreds of men Act. 17.26.. And CHRIST himself, who brake down the partition wall between Iew and Gentile, Call no man Father on Earth, for one is your Father which is in Heaven Mat. 23.9.. Not that the Lord would have us disobedient to our naturall Parents, or ashamed to own them; for this is plainly contrary both to Law and Go­spe [...]t: but that we should refer our being unto him alone which is the fountain [Page 39] of all beeing. Solus vocandus est Pater qui creavit Lactant. in­stit. l. 4 c 4., said Lactantius truly. Now God is said to be our Father by the right of Creation, for these following reasons: as first, because he was the Father of the first man Adam, out of whose loyns we are descended, or of whose likeness since the fall we are all begotten. There­fore St. Luke when he had made the Genealogie of our Saviour CHRIST in the way of ascent, doth conclude it thus, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the Son of God Luk. 3.38.: the son of God, but not by gene­ration, for so our Saviour only was the Son of God, and therefore it must be by Creation only. Secondly, GOD is called our Father, because he hath implan­ted in our Parents the vertue Generative, moulded and fashioned us in the se­cret closets of the Womb. Thy hands have made me and fashioned me Psal. 119.. Thine eyes did see my substance being yet imperfect, and in thy book were all my members written, saith the Royal Psalmist Psa. 139.15.. The bodies of us men are too brave a building for man and Nature to erect. And therefore said Lactantius truly, Hominem non pa­trem esse sed generandi ministrum Lactan [...]. l. 5.19.. Man only is the instrument which the Lord doth use for the effecting of his purpose, to raise that godly edifice of flesh and bloud which he contemplates in his children. Last of all for our souls, which are the better part of us, by which we live, and move, and have our beeing, they are infused by GOD alone; man hath no hand in it. God breathes into our nosthrils the breath of life, and by his mighty power doth animate and in­form that matter, which of it self is meerly passive in so great a wonder. In each of these respects, and in all together, we may conclude with that of Ara­tus, an old Greek Poet, as he is cited by S. Paul Act. 17.28., [...], for we are all his off-spring, all of us his children.

The second Interest which GOD hath in us as a Father, in the way of adop­tion, by which we are regenerate, or anew begotten to a lively hope of being heirs unto the promises, and in the end partakers of eternal glories: by which we are transplanted from our Fathers house, and out of the Wilderness and unprofi­table Thickets of this present world, and graffed or inoculated on the Tree of life. Adoptare enim est juxta delectum sibi quos quis (que) velit in filios eligere Minsing. in Instit. l. 1. c. 11.. Adoption is the taking of a childe from another family, to plant and cherish in our own, say, the Civil Lawyers: and he that so adopteth may be called our Father; by ap­probation of the laws, though not by nature. Examples of this case have been very ordinary, from Moses who was adopted for her son by the daughter of Pharaoh, (though he refused to be called the son of Pharaohs daughter Heb. 11.24., as St. Paul said of him) down through all the stories both of Greece and Rome. And if it may be lawful to make such resemblances, the motives which induced GOD to proceed this way, and other the particulars of most moment in it, do seem to carry a fair proportion or correspondency with such inducements and par­ticulars, as hath been used by men on the same occasions. For in the Laws adoption was to be allowed but in these four cases Minsing. in loco citato.;

First, Quod quidam Matrimonii onera detrectarent, because some men could not away with the cares of Wedlock.

Secondly, Quod conjugium esset sterile, because God had not blessed the marri­age with a fruitful issue.

Thirdly, Quod liberi ipsorum morerentur, because their own children by un­timely death, or the unluckie chance of War, had been taken from them; in which last case, adoption by especial dispensation, was allowed to wo­men.

Fourthy, Quod liberi ipsorum improbi essent & degeneres, because their own chil­dren were debauched and shameless, likely to ruine that estate, and disgrace that family into which they were born. And upon such grounds as these, is GOD in Scripture said to adopt the Gentiles; to make them who by nature were the sons of wrath, and seemed to be excluded from the Covenant which he made with Abraham, to be the heirs of God, and Coheirs with Christ. God looked upon the Iews as his natural children. And at the first one might have known them easily for the sons of God, by the exemplarie piety of their lives [Page 40] and actions: [...], &c. as men know commonly their neighbour children by a resemblance to their Fathers Basil. Epist. ad Gregor.. St. Paul hath made a muster of some chiefs amongst them in the 11. chap. to the Heb. But they being took away by the hand of death, there next succeeded in their room a g [...] ­neration little like them in the course of their lives, and therefore little to the comfort of their heavenly Father. For his part he was never wanting unto his Vine­yard Esai. 4.4.; nor could there any thing be done to it, which he did not do, yet when he looked for grapes in their proper season, it brought forth nothing but wilde grapes, sit only for the wine-press of his indignation. So that the Lord was either childless, or else the Father of a stubborn and perverse generation, of whose re­claim there was no hopes, or but small, if any. In which estate he cast his eyes opon the Gentiles, who either knew him not at all, or knew no more of him then they could discern through the false lights, as it were, of depraved nature, or the dull spectacles of Philosophie. Thus witnesseth St. Paul in the 4. to the Galatians, saying, that when the fulness of time was come, God sent his Son made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem those which were under the law, that they might receive the Adoption of sons, vers. 5. And in the 8. unto the Romans, We have, saith he, received the Spirit of Adoption, whereby we cry unto him Abba, Fa­ther: the Spirit of God bearing witness with our spirit, that we are the heirs of God, and coheirs with CHRIST, vers. 15.