Isaac was born Comparing Rom. 4.10 with Gen. 17. chap. But of the Solemn Declaration thereof before the world by the clear Fruits and Evidences of one in that State and that it cannot be meant of his justification before God is sure seeing the Scriptures Cited shew very peremptorily that he was a justified man before he offered that work by which James there says he was justified And the Apostles clear Scope in the place is to hold forth that justifying Faith cannot be alone but must and will be accompanied with other graces and vertues and good works which give Lustre and Glory thereunto which there he calls the perfecting of it and without which it will be found but a dead Faith And when thirdly it is objected that men will be judged according to or by their words and works as the Scriptures often say the same answer is to be given viz. they will be judged according to or by them Declaratively as Solemn Witnesses and Testimonies of the State they are in manifesting before all the Equity of Gods procedure not as Causes or Conditions except in the Damned whose evil works are indeed the Meritorious Cause of their Misery An Appendix concerning the Merit of our good Works George Keith in his Quakerism no Popery page 55 56 57. Teaches also that the good works of the Saints are Meritorious of the Reward of happiness though not in the strictest sort of merit which he calls Condignity or deserving a Reward so as the Merit is equal in worth and dignity to the Reward yet so as to obtain viz. Meritoriously for positively he pleads for their merit here from God by promise as he out of his Infinite bounty hath seen fit to bestow viz. unto such a merit and though he refuses all Condign merit both here and likewise in the 72 page of the book as that signifies an equality betwixt the Merit and the Reward yet he still sticks though subtilly to a Condignity below an equality page 57 and in all his Arguments he still aims to prove a worth and merit in the very works themselves But I must Assert that there is no merit in any of our good or best works in any sense of merit that 's proper whatsoever to obtain from God any good thing much less the Reward of Heaven I shortly prove it Therefore first the best of our works in this life are imperfect as we have before now proved and comes far short of that which we owe Ergo they can never merit any good at the hands of God but upon the contrary the Curse and Damnation Eternally which is due to them who do not exactly in all things keep the Law of God Deut. 27.26 Galat. 3.10 Secondly Eternal Life is the Gift of God says the Apostle Rom. 6.23 therefore it is no ways merited by any good work of ours for that which a man merits is not Gifted to him but it is his due George Keith answers to this that both the Works and Merits are a free Gift and the Reward too But I rejoyn how can I merit at a mans hand by his free Gift unto me Can I merit at his hand because he hath obliged me and made me his Debtor viz. I merit from him because I owe him When I give a Beggar a Farthing then I become his Debtor and must give him another in payment of my Debt to him and then we are free and if I give him a third because now this is a free Gift again I over again become his Debtor Is not that fine Non-sense and strong Contradiction Thirdly the Apostle says Ephes 2.5.8 that by Grace we are saved and not by works Therefore our good works do not merit the Reward of Heaven in any proper signification of merit be it never so moderate and remote from strictness especially seeing the same Apostle tells us Rom. 11.6 that that which is of works cannot be of grace nor that which is of grace be of works because of a clear contradiction and the destroying of both their Natures which he their shews The Quakers then with their dear Friends the Papists must either confess Salvation not to be by any merit of our Works or else they must deny it to be by Grace flat contrary to the Scriptures George Keith's Answer that as the Reward is of Grace so the Merit is of Grace is already destroyed for I cannot merit by a free Gift of Grace seeing I can never merit by becoming a Debtor to a man for then the more I receive from him he should be the more my Debtor not I his whereas in all sense and reason I must owe him the more instead of meriting Now when George Keith yields this merit not to be equal in dignity and worth unto the Reward I cannot but commend his Modesty for its very much that the Quakers cannot merit above Adams merit if he had stood in his Obedience for nothing that he could have done all being still due to his great Sovereign could have merited properly nor could it ever have been equal to the Reward of happiness And the difference betwixt the two Covenants is not that under the first good works would have Merit Condignly not so under the Second for as to the First that is false But it lies here that under the First good works behooved to be compleatly performed as the Condition before we got or had a right unto the reward but in the Second Covenant we have right upon our first Entering into and closing of the Covenant by Faith unto the Inheritance before the performance of good works But George Keith objects there pag. 56 that the Saints are said to be worthy of the Kingdom of God and of walking with Christ in white 2 Thes 1.5 Revel 3 4 which Infers at least a suitableness Ans First their worth is not reckoned in themselves but in Christ Secondly a sutableness doth not Infer a dignity and merit A poor man in great need yea though no good man is a sutable object of an Alms though he does not merit it from us he hath no Jus personae into it Again he objects that God rewards our good works and therefore they must have some worthiness in them Ans God's rewarding so far beyond any worth that dare be pretended in our good works proves that it is not for their worth but upon some other account that we obtain the reward viz. upon Christs account in whom by his free grace we have obtained Redemption and Salvation Thirdly he objects that a meek and quiet Spirit is in the sight of God of great price 1 Pet. 3 4. Ans First our Souls also are of great price in the sight of God yet we do not for that merit Heaven Secondly doubtless God has a great esteem of vertues of one of which the Apostle here speaks in the abstract consideration from vice but in us they are mixed with Relicks of vice and imperfect and so cannot merit Thirdly
for that which is before clean needs no more cleansing Fifthly They object That the Apostle says 1 Cor. 7.28 That though a Woman Marry she hath not sinned Therefore there are some actions at least free of all sin Ans If this objection proved any thing it would prove that Reprobates and Pagans also have perfect works Secondly I answer that Paul there means of the action of Marriage considered in respect of it's nature and kind and in order to its proper object as abstracted from all particular circumstances which may attend it which way the action hath no evil in it otherwise it could not be lawful to Marry whereas to forbid Marriage is a Doctrine of Devils 1 Tim. 4.1 2 3. Nevertheless albeit the action of Marriage so considered be not sinful yet seeing every particular action is necessarily exercised in several Circumstances wherewith it ought or ought not to be cloathed it may easily be defiled and become sinful by the Vesture of evil Circumstances instead whereof it should have been cloathed with good ones especially adding the impurity and uncleanness of the Agent which exerts it self in every particular action Sixthly The Quakers object and hereby they endeavour to prove the perfection both of the Saints and of their good works in this life The Saints say they have in this life perfect good works Therefore the Saints in this life must be perfect They prove the Consequence because perfect Effects crave perfect Causes They prove the Antecedent because they are acceptable to God and because if they be not perfect then they are sinful but sinful they cannot be seeing God commands them who commands not things sinful Ans Our good works are acceptable to God thorow Christ into whom all believers are by Faith Ingrafted and thorow whom alone both their persons and good works are accepted but none of aur good works here-away ore in themselves acceptable to God seeing they are still Imperfect Again God accepts them as they are good that is Sincerely done not as they are Imperfect and so evill and so from their acceptation their perfection follows not To the Second I Answer that God Commands our good works not as we perform them but as we ought to perform nor yet as they are defective as to the Degree he does not Command their gradual defect but he Commands them as they are good in respect of their Nature and kind So the objection perishes Seventhly they endeavour to prove that Christians have at least some perfect Actions in this Life and for that purpose they Inquire of us if the Apostles sinned in writing the Scripures Ans First this will not prove the perfection of any Action of any man now living except they can first prove him to have as large a measure of grace and of the Spirit 's Influence and Assistance as the Apostles had when they wrote the Scriptures which will be hard enough I think for them to get done Secondly the writing of the Scriptures wherein the Prophets and Apostles were but Pen-men for the Holy Ghost dictated all may consist with some Degree of imperfection as the Action is considered Morally and as lyable to the Law of God David and Asaph wrote Scriptures when they were not perfect Psal 51 10. and 73 22. or else beside the Instances given what will they say of an Hypocrites writing over in whole or in part the whole Scriptures and of every Action of Printing while our Printers print them over But Thirdly for full satisfaction I Answer that in that Action the Apostles did not at all sin upon the matter which yet is the most Formal sense of the objection which thus proposed directly imports the matter seeing the matter of the Action did perfectly agree with the Law of God as also the Action of an unrenewed man may doe Secondly there was much good in it compared with all the rest of the causes and so it was sincere and of another nature and kind then any Action of an unrenewed man is or can be seeing the principles thereof love to God and men The ends thereof the glory of God and good of Souls the form and manner wherein it was done in obedience to God were all certainly good Yet considering it as a Moral Action lyable to God's Law it was surely for the reasons given Defective and Imperfect as to the exact and compleat Degree of love to God and men and respect to the glory of God and good of Souls and Acting in it in pure obedience to Gods Command wherewith every perfect Action is to be qualified They will may be say that then the Scriptures would be in danger to Contract some Impurity from the Impurity of the Agent and Action of writing Ans That is false as appears from our Instances of an Hypocrite and Printer and of David and Asaph when they were not pure or perfect And if the Doctrine written did necessarily Contract any impuritie from the impurity of the writer by the same Reason and with more Reason seeing the Tongue is a more Immediat Instrument of the Heart then the Hand the Doctrine Preached should Contract some Impurity from the Impurity of the Preacher which is manifestly false to the Worlds eye Christ was the external object of the persecutive Actions of the Jews yet he Contracted no Impurity from thence But the Quakers urge saying though we cannot do all we ought to do yet that which we do we may do it perfectly Ans This reply must either be understood of diverse Actions so that the sense shall be though we cannot do all the good Actions we ought to do yet that Action or these Actions which we do we may do it or them perfectly which seeing by Perfectly they must mean the perfection of Degrees and otherwise it would be nothing to their purpose of a sinless perfection which they plead we must deny because of these and many other Scriptures Prov. 20 9. Eccles 7 20. Galat. 5 17. Rom. 7 21. or else that reply must be understood of one and the same Action And so the sense is though we cannot do an Action in that perfect degree of goodness that we ought yet in that degree of goodness wherein we do it we may do it perfectly where it being the perfection of degrees which is here Controverted and by the Adversaries pleaded for and otherwise we should have no debate with them here their reply involves a strong Contradiction viz. that any Action performed below that degree of goodness which it ought to have should notwithstanding be performed perfectly in respect of the perfection of Degrees seeing so it would both want and yet not want some Degree of goodness which it ought to have For these reasons I justly deny the latter part of their proposition Sixteenth QUERY Can any man be saved by his own works Self-righteousness will worship And are not all men in Self-righteousness that are not in the righteousness of Christ Jesus And
are not all of their own works that be out of the light and the Faith that is the gift of God And are not all in their will-worships that are not in the worship that Jesus Christ the Heavenly man set up above Sixteen hundred years Since that is in the Spirit and the truth So must not every man come to the truth and to the Spirit in their own hearts if they come to the worship Jesus Christ Set up And are not your Catechisms Confession of Faith and Directories your own works and your own worship which ye have set down for People to fall down and do worship to and be Saved by And have ye not set up this since the Apostles days and since Christ set up his worship SVRVEY Because this Survey will divide it self into three Subjects and it would be too long together therefore I shall order it into three Sections The First shall Vindicat us from a Popish Salvation or justification by works or Inherent Righteousness and shall fix a Popish justification upon the Quakers The Second shall very breifly confuted their Popish justification The Third shall overturn an exception made by the Quakers against the charge of a Popish justification which we justly lay to their door SECT 1. Vindicating us from a Popish Salvation and Justification and fixing a Popish Justification upon the Quakers The great scope of this Querie is to make us seem guilty of holding a Popish Salvation by works albeit the whole Christian World knoweth what a lewd Calumny this is It having been the constant Doctrine of ours and all other Protestant Churches against the Papists that the good works of the Saints are not the causes or Meritorious procurers of their Salvation and it is founded upon Scripture-Testimony as clear as the Sun For eternal Life is none of our merit and due but is the Free gift of God Rom. 6 23. And by grace not by works we are Saved Ephēs 2 5 8 9. not by works of Righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he Saveth us Tit. 3.5 And the best of our works are in this Life imperfect as is proven and so they cannot merit any good but Contrarily every defect and short coming of our Duty Merits Damnation and the Curse Deut. 27 26. Galat. 3 10. And if our good works could merit then we might trust to them which the Apostle dare not do Philip. 39 Nor is there any proportion betwixt our best works and eternal Life Rom. 8 18. And therefore they cannot merit it The whole Protestant Church hath no less always abhorred the Doctrine of justification by our own Inherent Righteousness and good works from the same clear Evidence of the Scripture for which see Rom. 3 Chap. from Vers 20. to the end and the whole Chap. following As also Galat. 2 16 21. and 3 10 11. and 5 4. Philip. 3 9. and seeing that is still imperfect in this life it can neither be the cause nor Condition of our justification before God in whose sight no man living shall be justified Psal 143 2. viz. by any Righteousness inherent or inward in himself Nevertheless albeit our inherent Righteousness and good works be not necessary to Salvation as Efficient or Meritorious causes thereof yet they are necessary indispensably thereunto by necessity of presence or as pure Antecedents without which no man is Saved excepting these that Die Immediately after Conversion and Infants from the Actual performance of good works For which see Mat. 3.10 and 5.20 and 25. from vers 34. to the end and Rom. 2.9 10. and 8.13 1 Cor. 6.9 10. Galat. 5.21 and 6.8 Heb. 12.14 And albeit our inherent or inward Righteousness be neither the Cause nor Condition of our justification before God yet it is still an inseparable Concomitant of justifying Faith For which see Rom. 8.1 9 10. 2 Cor. 5.17 Jam. 2.17.20 1 Joh. 3.3 But what if the Quakers be Guilty of a Popish justification Do not the Quakers hold justification by a Righteousness wrought within them and formally inward and inherent in themselves in this they joyn hands with the Papists in one of their most Fundamental Errors which does indeed contradict the very Design and Current of the Gospel which is to Teach us to seek Righteousness for justification in Christ and not in our selves yea and the very plain Design of Christs Death See Rom. 3.25 and 10.4 Galat. 2.16 21. and 5.4 But the Quakers endeavour to elude this our Charge pretending that they are far from holding justification by their own Inherent Righteousness with the Papists but by the alone Imputed Righteousness of Christ Thus they pretend in their Confession of Faith pag. 4.21 22. But the Quakers will not so Cheat and deceive the Christian world for first in that 21. pag. Cited where they purposely handle this Question and pretend as is now said they deny us to be justified by a Righteousness received of us by Faith calling that but an Act of the Creaturely skill and an Imputation which is an Act of mans Spirit and forging and a Fiction and Imagination in the Creaturely will and power Hence then they deny us to be justified by the Righteousness received of us by Faith and so consequently by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ seeing the Righteousness of his Obedience and Sufferings Imputed to us in Justification is not a diverse Righteousness from the Righteousness of Faith but is one and the same as is clear from Rom. 3.21 22 24 25. and 4.6 11 13 22 23 24. and 9.30 and 10.4 10. Galat. 2.16 and 3.8 and 5.5 Secondly this justification held by the Quakers must either be by the Righteousness received by Faith or else by the Righteousness of the Law and its works for there is no other third sort of Righteousness known to compet in this point but these are always stated as the only two Members of the Distinction for which see Rom. 3.28 and 4.2 3 4 5. and 9.30 31 32. and 10.3 5 6. Galat. 3.11 12. But the Quakers plainly deny the Justification held by them to be by the former yea they Scoff and Mock at that more than ever Papist did as is evident from their preceeding Language Therefore they do inevitably hold Justification by the latter wherein they manifestly joyn hands with the Papists for all their pretexts to cover it Again in the fore-Cited 22. page of their Confession they have these words and because say they we are against the latter viz. Justification by a Righteousness received by Faith whereof they were last speaking we are Clamoured upon as if we denied the Imputation of Christs Righteousness when it is only to these that are not made Righteous by it to walk as he also walked Here they hold Justification by a Righteousness Making their walk Righteous which is the plain inherent Righteousness of our Life and Conversation But the Quâkers in that last Cited pag. of their Confession go on and add that it
is not Acts of Righteousness as done by them nor as inherent in them as Acts by which they are accepted of God and justified before him but they are accepted of God and justified before him by Christ the Author and worker of these Acts in them Ans That is well I see then the Quakers hold not themselves to be justified by all Acts done by them or inherent in them as when they commit Blasphemy may be and truly this is all they have yeilded or said for their Vindication for if they were justified by any thing upon the very formal account of its being done by or inherent in them then they should be justified by every thing done by or inherent in them for a Quatenus ad omne sequitur universaliter But why would not the Quakers say if they intended to make any Faith of a vindication that they hold not justification by Acts of Righteousness done by or inherent in them as they are Acts of Righteousness and gracious Acts and not meerly as they are Acts done by or inherent in them Which seeing they inclined not to say especially where they are so purposely endeavouring to purge themselves from the suspicion of a Popish justification we see they do but prevaricat and throw dust in the eyes of the Vulgar But George Keith is in this point most plain in his Quakerism no Popery and as positive as any Papist I have seen For in the 44 45 46 47 48 50 52 53. pages thereof he expresly and positively Teaches that our inward graces and vertues of Repentance Conversion Faith as a Work Love Hope c. are the Righteousness whereby we are justified before God and that immediately page 53. which was never true of Faith it self which does not justifie immediately by it self but only Correlatively by its object which it apprehends and relies upon viz. the Righteousness of Christ And in his Definition of justification there page 47 he gives us no other material Cause of justification before God but our meer graces of Repentance and Conversion And he cunningly pleads moderate Merit page 46 47. but most openly and plainly page 55 56. and he quite confounds justification and sanctification leaving no imaginable Distinction betwixt these two making us to be justified by inward Righteousness and sanctified by the very same pages 46 47 50 53. compared which in his Popish Principles he is I Confess forced to do And is not George Keith plainly Popish in this point who holds justification by inherent Righteousness immediately gives us no other material Cause of our Righteousness before God but that only pleads moderate Merit in us by it allows Faith in the business only as a work with the rest and confounds justification and sanctification together Bellarmine himself was never more Popish than thus which all know that are acquaint with him upon the Controversie But George Keith endeavours to shift our Charge of a Popish justification because he seemingly yields pag. 44 46 47. that our inward Grace and Righteousness are not the procuring cause of our justification by way of strict Merit and in a way of strict Justice strictly and rigidly considered as when the work is of equal worth and dignity to the Reward as he explains it page 55. But I would fain know the other Member of this distinction from the Author He tells us their inherent grace and Righteousness are not the procuring cause of their Justification by way of strict Merit and strict Justice strictly and rigidly considered How many Stricts Strictlies and Rigidlies are there here he has certainly been exceedingly concerned and eagerly careful to get his Minute and imperfect inherent Righteousness at least next Neighbour to the strictest Merit and Justice and it would not fail nor he be feared for it in any thing but that and yet he has been as careful as he could to cover his meaning in this which must be the other Member of his distinction We see then that if Justice will not exact the very rigid Rigour of the Law from the Quakers and take the very summum Jus which uses to be called the summum Nefas they think to merit their justification by their inherent Righteousness at Gods Tribunal And this and what this great Ringleader of the Quakers we see hath said before shews that they hold as Popish a justification as the Pope himself I believe does But George Keith is yet resolved to shake off this Popish justification in the eyes of the world and to fix it forsooth upon us too in his Quakerism no Popery page 48. first because they differ both from the Papists and us in holding the Act of God in justification to be really Inward which the Papists and we says he do not Ans Indeed it is true that upon our believing the Gospel-promises pronounces the Sentence nor have we nor need we any immediate Dictates to warrand that but we may soon or late get a Transcript thereof Inwardly for our Formal assurance and so we do not differ wholly from this point that George Keith would have us differ as to the Inwardness of the Act or Copy of the Act rather out of these Divine Records but we differ hugely from them as to the Immediateness of the Act I grant but I never heard that that was called Popish till now but that a Popish justification was always reckoned upon inherent Righteousness as the Meritorious or material Cause thereof although George Keith denies that a man can Taste of Spiritual Food except he get it in his Enthusiastick way immediately Quakerism no Popery page 16. as if forsooth a man could not Taste Meat conveighed to him in any Vessel or Dish and this fully answers a long Discourse which he there has upon this matter seeing the Promises are the Vessels conveighing to us all our Spiritual Comforts of Justification Salvation c. Secondly to shake it off himself and fix it upon us he says page 48. that in regard of the Object they Teach that we are the Object thereof not only as having our sins Pardoned for Christs sake but as being Righteous in the sight of God viz. by inherent Righteousness whereof he still speaks through Christ dwelling in us But in this he is still Popish not we in holding himself to be the Object of Justification as being or because he is for all is one Antecedently Inherently Righteous and therefore justified which we never held but that we are justified by Faith as laying hold and relying on Christs Righteousness where Faith is not considered as a work or immediately in it self or as it qualifies its subject But Correlatively as apprehending and getting hold of the Object viz. Christs Righteousness let George Keith think this Distinction as nice as he will as he calls it scornfully in his Quakerism no Popery page 45 46. which was not so nice to the Apostle Paul who still opposes justification by Faith and by works and so does not consider Faith
Christ was under the Law as man yet he was never under it as God or else so should the Father and Spirit also seeing they are all one and the same God though they be distinct persons Therefore God cannot be said to obey God in any proper speech and the Doctor we see by his expressions above rehearsed means properly Lastly the Doctor here contradicts himself for if God requires our Sabbath and not working as he affirms and the regenerate and good man does so lay aside all works as he no more thinks sees speaks goes wishes wills c. as he affirmeth too then the good man obeys God In doing that which God requires of him and yet the Doctor denies that any thing obeys God but God himself But the Doctor may be would object that the good works of the Saints are in the Scripture ascribed to God and said to be done by his power Ephes 1.19 Philip. 1.6 and 2.13 2 Thes 1.11 Ans God is indeed a very special Title the principal efficient cause of all our good works and the Scriptures ascribe that unto him But no Scripture saith that in our works of obedience only God obeyeth himself in us for the reasons given that could not be Nor can it be said that it is God that in us wishes wills prays believes desires c. Seeing these actions are not Immanent in God but are meerly transient as to him and its Impossible for any person to will wish desire c. by any act not Immanent in it self â—s any man knows But these good works and actions whereunto we are quickened and determined by God and his grace and Spirit are Formally subjected in us and Immanent and so being Intrinsecally united and Informing us cannot but give us their Intrinsecal and formal denomination for an act of love being Immanent or united to my will or affections cannot but denominate me as loving some object and it cannot so denominate any other person as is manifest Though God therefore workes in us the acts of obedience faith repentance yet it is not God that obeys believes repents c. The Quakers afford us another objection from Gal. 2.20 where Paul denies himself to live viz. Spiritually but that Christ lived in him Ans Paul does not there deny himself to live Spiritually or vitally to exerce the operations of a Spiritual life or else if that were Then Paul was then Spiritually as dead a man as before he was converted which is most false and in the very next words he declares himself to live viz. Spiritually When therefore he denies himself to live Spiritually but Christ in him he plainly means of the fountain and source or stock and supply of his Spiritual life viz. That that was not in himself or in nature but in Christ the redeemer and so the objection proves not their point The Doctor teaches also in that same book Pag. 16.17.299.361 part first And Pag. 27.29.259.264.265 part second That take but off all accidents from every creature and that which remains is Christ and God as if we take away all height and depth greatness and littleness weight and measure heat and cold matter and form for says he these are all accidents and then that which is left is Christ is God God is the substance of all things and all the creatures are but meer accidents and they are not only Gods workmanship as most men teach and believe but also God is their very substance and Being he is their very Essence and Being Thus he But if these things were so God would be the most passive Being in all the world for so he should be the passive subject whereinto all creatures should inhere as meer accidents and he should be the passive and changed subject in all their mutations and alterations This would make a very changeable God more changeable then the Moon or Wind. 2ly If God be the very Being and Essence of every creature then every creature is Essentially God Almighty Infinite Eternal c. for that whose Being and Essence is God must in respect of its Essence or Essentially be God or else in respect of its Essence it will be both God and not God which is a Contradiction 3ly If God be the Being and Essence of every creature then the Being and Essence of every creature is an uncreated Being seeing God is such and so every creature as to its Essence or Essentially is not a creature that is to say it is Essentially not it self 4ly Every evil action is a creature if then God be the being of every creature then he is the being of every evil action too and so the sin inhering into every evil action shall inhere into God absit Blasphemia who is the being of the action Lastly If all creatures be but meer accidents and if God be the very Essence and Being of every creature then God shall also be an accident meerly he being the very essence and Being of these created accidents as the Doctor will Blasphemous Absurd and Repugnant The Doctor also teaches pag. 83.84.343 part first that if we speak of God Abstractedly from all creatures so the Father Son and Spirit are all one But if we come to speak of any thing created then we divide the Godhead into Persons and there is Immediatly Father Son and Spirit When God puts forth himself in the creating of any creature here now the Word is spoken and came forth from the bosom of his Father before there was any creature made there was neither Father Son nor Spirit in the Godhead as divided for the Trinity is expressed only in relation to creatures Thus he But by the Oneness or Unity of the Father Son and Spirit as God is spoken of Abstractedly from Creatures the Doctor either means of the Oneness of their Essence and Godhead and thus they are still one what ever way we speak of them seeing they are still but one God or else he thereby means of the Unity and Oneness of their persons and this way which is the way he doth mean which appears by his opposing the distinction of their persons in the second member of his Antithesis to the unity mentioned in the first the Doctor teaches meer blasphemy in denying that there was any distinction of persons in the Godhead before God made any creature and except in relation to creatures for so if God had never made any creature which might easily have been seeing he did not create by necessity or impulsion there should never-have been three persons in the Godhead nay nor any person for before God made any creature there was neither Father Son nor Spirit in the Godhead and the Trinity is expressed only in relation to creatures says the Doctor So also the three distinct persons in the Godhead must be meerly temporary created within time if there was no distinct person in the same before the creatures were made Yea so the persons in the Godhead shall be debitors to