Chapter 2: Of God and the Holy Trinity

Question 1.

Is there but one only true and living God? Yes (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4, 6; 1 Thessalonians 1:9).

Well then, do not the Tritheists err, who maintain three Gods numerically distinct, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? Yes.

Do not likewise the Manicheans err, who maintain that there are two Gods, being diverse and opposite as to kind, namely, one good, the author and cause of all good things, and of things immaterial, being the God of the New Testament, the other evil, namely, the Devil, the author and cause of all evil things, and of things material, being the God of the Old Testament? Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

(1) Because though there be a plurality of persons mentioned in Scripture, yet it is ever God as one, as is evident from the first chapter of Revelation, and the last. For if that one God have in himself all perfections, there can be no perfection beside him, and so no God but this one true God: for if there were, he should not be God, because not infinite in perfection. And if God be infinite in perfection, then surely there cannot be a multiplicity of Gods, seeing that which is infinite, in that respect, cannot be multiplied. (2) It is evident from Deuteronomy 32:39, where the Lord speaks of himself, I, even I am he, and there is no God with me. (3) Because God is Omnipotent, and so cannot be hindered by any other in his working (Revelation 15:3). (4) It is evident from Christ's words to the young man of the Gospel, there is none good but one, that is God. (5) From the words of Hannah in her song, for there is none beside you, O Lord, neither is there any rock beside our God. (6) From the testimony of the Apostle (1 Corinthians 8:6): to us, says he, there is but one God. (7) From what Christ said to one of the Scribes, namely, the Lord our God is one Lord (Mark 12:29). (8) Because God is a most absolute and most perfect being, and so beyond all other things, one (John 10:29; Psalm 145:3; 147:5). (9) Because this one blessed God is most absolutely sufficient, and furnished with infinite power and wisdom, for the production, conservation, and ruling of all things in heaven and in earth. (10) Because he is of all things without himself the first and supreme cause, from which all creatures visible or invisible have their rise and beginning. (11) It is evident, lastly, from the testimonies of the most wise heathens, who have been necessitated to acknowledge but one God only.

Question 2.

Is God infinite in being and perfection? Yes (Job 11:7-9; Job 26:14).

Well then, do not the Vorstians, Socinians, and Anthropomorphitans err, who maintain that God is finite in being and perfection? Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

(1) Because God has a being from himself, and all things have their dependence from him: and therefore there can be nothing by which he can be limited (Romans 11:36). (2) Because God is everywhere present, in heaven and in earth and beyond the heavens (Jeremiah 23:24; Isaiah 66:1). (2) Because the Scripture affirms that the perfection of God is the highest, is unmeasurable, unchangeable, and infinitely great, beyond all creatures (Job 11:7-9; Psalm 145:3; Job 26:14).

Question 3.

Is the only living and true God a most pure spirit, invisible, without a body and parts? Yes (John 4:24; 1 Timothy 1:17; Deuteronomy 4:15-16; Luke 24:39).

Well then, do not the Vorstians, Anthropomorphitans, and Socinians err, who maintain God to have a body, and endowed with parts, and an outward shape and form? Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

(1) Because God is the Father of spirits (Hebrews 12:9). (2) Because God is invisible (1 Timothy 1:17). (3) Because God is like to no bodily thing, nor can he be represented by any image or corporeal likeness (Isaiah 40:18; Acts 17:29).

Question 4.

Are there in the unity of the Godhead three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity? Yes (1 John 5:7; Matthew 3:16-17; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14).

Well then, do not the Arians and Socinians err, and others, who deny the Godhead of the Son and Holy Ghost? Yes.

Do not likewise the Tritheists err, who deny the unity of the divine essence? Yes.

Thirdly, do not the Sabellians err, who deny the real distinction of the persons? Yes.

And lastly, do not the Quakers err, who maintain there are no persons in the Godhead? Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

(1) From the places of Scripture already cited. (2) From the Apostolical Benediction, in which the three Persons of the Godhead, are called upon expressly: (2 Corinthians 13:14). (3) From (1 Corinthians 12:4-6), where the three Persons are named Spirit, Lord, God. And from (John 15:26): But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth. (4) Because, there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit (1 John 5:7). These three must be either three Persons, or three Gods. This last is the height of impossibility; therefore they must be three Persons. Here they are put to silence, and have nothing to reply; such is the strength and power of Truth, which is able to stop the mouths of the greatest rebels against religion and reason. But there is good ground for the word Person, (Hebrews 1:3), where Christ is said to be the express Image, or impression of the Father's Person. Because the Person of the Son perfectly represents the Person of the Father, as an impression does the Seal: therefore he is also called the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). The Greek word is [in non-Latin alphabet], Subsistence, or Person, whereby is understood the Person of the Father as distinct from the Son, and subsists of himself, and in himself, and is, as the Original of the Person of the Son, by an eternal and ineffable generation. That there are three Persons in the Godhead is further evident: (1) from all the Epistles written to the seven Churches of Asia. For, as may be gathered from (Revelation 1:1), it is the Father that sends, it is the Son that gives John the Commission, and it is the holy Ghost in the close that is mentioned as a joint speaker. (2) Because, in that Epistle written to Thyatira, there are three distinctly named: first, the Father and the Son, in these words, these things says the Son of God. Next, there is named in the last verse of that second chapter, the Spirit: he that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches. (3) Because, in the beginning of that Epistle to the Church of Sardis, they are all three put together: these things says He (to wit, the Son) that has the seven Spirits of God. Here, God, that is the Father, is distinctly considered as another Person. The seven spirits are the holy Ghost. (4) Because these three Persons are most fully and clearly distinguished in the fifth chapter. First, the Father sitting on the Throne. Secondly, the Lamb, or the Son of God. And thirdly, the seven Spirits, or the holy Ghost, so called from the pouring out of his Gifts upon the Churches in that abundant manner, as if he were seven Spirits, or a sevenfold Spirit.

It is evident also that the Father, Son, and Spirit are really distinct from one another, and are three Persons. They are indeed in respect of their Essence, which is indivisibly communicable to them, one and the same God; but considered personally, they differ really, for the Father is not the Son, neither is he that sits upon the Throne the Lamb. Neither the Father, nor the Spirit were incarnate, but the Son, who died, and was buried, which can be said of none but of a Person. It cannot be said that the Father died, or that the Spirit died. Next, is not the holy Ghost the spirit of God, as the Son is the Son of God? And if that supposes a real distinct personality, this must do it also. Now if the Father be God, and the Son be God, and the Spirit God also, who have one and the same divine nature and essence indivisibly communicated to them; and so, if there be but one God, and yet these three really distinct, then they must be distinct persons in respect of their personal properties, seeing they are Persons and distinct. The Son (as was said) is called the express Image of the Father's Person, which evidently shows that the Father, considered as distinct from the Son, is a Person, and subsists. If then, thus it be, must not the Son, as distinct from the Father, and so lively and expressly representing his person, be a person also, having this from the Father? The same must be true likewise of the holy Ghost, who is God equal with both, yet different from both; for he who proceeds from the Father, and from the Son, must differ from the Father, and from the Son; as he who is begotten, must be distinct from him that begat him.

Some Quakers either ignorantly, or perversely, will have the word [in non-Latin alphabet], translated substance (as it is Hebrews 11:1), and thus they read, (Hebrews 1:3): the Character or Image of God's substance, which is to be understood of Christ (say they) not simply as God, but as Man. But they might as well have said, it signifies confident, or confidence, because it is so translated (2 Corinthians 9:4) and (2 Corinthians 11:17). But they speak here in keeping with their own tenets, who in effect deny the Trinity, and all distinction between the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, not only in words, but in very deed. The Apostle in this place is proving Christ the Son of God to be Lord, and Heir of all things; because God created the worlds by him; He is the brightness of his glory, the express Image of his person, upholds all things by the Word of his power. These titles are here given to the Son of God as a Creator and Preserver of all things, which belong to him only according to his divine nature: therefore these titles must be understood of Christ, forasmuch as he is the eternal Son of God, and a Light from the Eternal Light, of one Essence and Glory with the Father; nevertheless distinguished from the Person of the Father, by whom the Father executes his operations and shows his properties, even as the Sun by its light does shine.

Quest. 5.

Is the Son of God, of the same substance, Power, and Eternity with the Father? Yes. (1 John 5:20; Romans 9:5; Isaiah 9:6).

Well then, do not the Arians err, who maintain the Son to be a creature, brought forth before the foundations of the world? Yes.

Do not likewise the Socinians err, who maintain the Son to have had no existence before he was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary? Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

(1) From the Scriptures above cited. (2) Because the Son is Omnipotent, the Creator and Preserver of all things (Revelation 1:18; Colossians 1:16-17). (3) Because he is Omniscient, and searcher of the heart (Matthew 9:3-4; John 2:25; John 21:17).

Quest. 6.

Is the Holy Ghost God? Yes (Acts 5:3; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17).

Well then, do not the Macedonians, or Pneumatomachians, Arians, Socinians, and many of the Anabaptists err, who maintain the Holy Ghost to be a creature, as do the Macedonians, or a power, virtue, or efficacy of the Father, as many Socinians and others do? Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

(1.) Because the Holy Ghost is to be worshipped as God (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Revelation 1:4). (2.) Because he is omniscient, and knows all things (1 Corinthians 2:10-11). (3.) Because he is omnipotent, the maker and preserver of all things, the worker of miracles; and it is he that sanctifies and justifies the believers (Genesis 1:2; Psalm 33:6; Matthew 12:28; compare Isaiah 6:9 with Acts 28:25-27). (4.) Because Ananias is said to lie to the Holy Ghost (Acts 5:3), and in verse 4 he is said not to lie to men, but to God. (5.) Because believers are said to be the temple of God (1 Corinthians 3:16-17), and they are said (1 Corinthians 6:19) to be the temple of the Holy Ghost; therefore the Holy Ghost is God, seeing to be the temple of God and the temple of the Holy Ghost are the same. (6.) Because none can be properly sinned against but the true God; therefore the Holy Ghost is God, because many have been said to have sinned against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:31).

Quest. 7.

Does not the Holy Ghost eternally proceed from the Father and the Son? Yes (John 15:26; Galatians 4:6).

Well then, does not the Greek Church err, who maintains the Holy Ghost to proceed only from the Father? Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

(1.) Because he is sent by the Son (John 15:26; Acts 2:33). (2.) Because all things which are the Son's are the Father's, except the personal properties by which they are distinguished; and all things are communicated from the Father to the Son, and consequently the Holy Ghost (John 16:13-15; Matthew 11:27; John 17:10). (3.) Because Christ gave to his Apostles the Spirit by breathing it upon them (John 20:22), to show that he proceeded from himself. (4.) Because he is the Spirit of the Son no less than the Spirit of the Father (Galatians 4:6). (5.) Because if the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son as truly as from the Father, he would not be a person really distinct from the Son, which is contrary to John 14:16-17. (6.) Because it is said (John 16:14), 'He shall glorify me (namely by his testimony, gifts, and miracles) for he shall receive of mine (that is, the doctrine of salvation which I have taught you, he shall also reveal it to you, seeing he shall receive the same from me) and shall show it to you.' And in Romans 8:9, he is called the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son: it is said, 'if any man has not the Spirit of Christ,' that is, the same Spirit which in the foregoing verse is called the Spirit of God, namely the Father, and is here also called the Spirit of Christ, because he also proceeds from Christ and is procured for us by Christ (John 14:26; John 16:7).