Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	word_n	worship_v	write_v	511	4	5.2786	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65863	The divinity of Christ and unity of the three that bear record in heaven with the blessed end and effects of Christ's appearance, coming in the flesh, suffering and sacrifice for sinners, confessed and vindicated, by his followers, called Quakers : and the principal matters in controversie, between them, and their present opposers (as Presbyterians, Independants, &c.) considered and resolved, according to the scriptures of truth, and more particularly to remove the aspersions ... cast upon the ... Quakers ... in several books, written by Tho. Vincent, Will. Madox, their railing book, stil'd The foundation, &c, Tho. Danson, his Synopsis, John Owen, his Declaration / which are here examin'd and compared by G.W. ... ; as also, a short review of several passages of Edward Stillingfleet's ... in his discourse of the sufferings of Christ's and sermon preached before the King, wherein he flatly contradicts the said opposers.	Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723.	1669 (1669)	Wing W1925; ESTC R19836	166,703	202

THE Divinity of Christ AND Unity of the Three that bear Record in Heaven WITH The blessed End and Effects of Christ's Appearance coming in the Flesh Suffering and Sacrifice for Sinners confessed and vindicated By his followers called Quakers And the principal matters in Controversie between Them and their present Opposers as Presbyterians Independants c. Considered and Resolved according to the Scriptures of Truth And more particularly to Remove the Aspersions Slanders and Blasphemies cast upon the People called QUAKERS and their Principles in several Books Written By Tho. Vincent Will. Madox their railing Book stil'd The Foundation c. Tho. Danson his Synopsis John Owen his Declaration Which are here Examin'd and Compared by G. W. And their Mistakes Errors and Contradictions both to themselves and each other made manifest As also A short Review of several Passages of Edward Stillingfleet's D.D. and Chaplin in Ordinary so called to his Majesty in his Discourse of the Sufferings of Christ And Sermon preached before the KING wherein he flatly Contradicts the said Opposers Mark 14.56 For many bare false witness against him but their witness agreed not together Coll. 2.8 Beware lest any man spoyl you through Philosophy and vain deceipt 1 Tim. 6.3 4 5 20. If any man consenteth not to the wholsome words of our Lord Jesus Christ c. he is puft up or proud c. Acts 24.14 After the way which they call Heresie do I Worship the God of my Fathers believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets c. London Printed in the Year 1669. An Epistle to the Presbyterians and Independants and their Rough Hearers who profess the Scriptures to be their Rule whereby they are examined and tryed and their wayes discovered 1 st WHether do the Scriptures speak of Three Persons in the God-head according to your own Rule in these express words let us see where it is written Come do not shuffle for we are resolved that the Scriptures shall buffet you about and that you shall be whipped about with the Rule 2 dly Where doth the Scripture speak of Christ's Righteousness imputed unto Unrighteous men who live in their sins and that in their Unrighteousness and Sins they shall live and die seeing that Faith purifies the heart from unrighteousness And he that believes passes from Death to Life and so from Sin that brought Death And he that receives Christ receives Righteousness it self by Faith in him the Lord the Righteousness this is Scripture 3 dly And where doth the Scripture say That a man shall not be made free from sin and that it is not attainable in this Life Let us see where ever Christ or the Prophets or Apostles preached such Doctrine Give us plain Scripture without adding or diminishing for Christ's bids men be perfect and the Apostle spoke Wisdom among them that were perfect 4 thly You that deny Perfection do ye not deny the One Offering Christ Jesus who hath perfected for ever them that are Sanctified Do you not deny the Blood of Christ Jesus in trampling it under your feet and the Blood of the new Covenant which Blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin and whose garments are made white by the Blood of the Lamb and he throughly purges his floor with his Fan and gathers his Wheat into his Garner 5 thly And did Christ make Satisfaction for the sins of men that they should live and die in their sins for he came to save his People from their sins and so he Died for them that they should not live to them but to God through him 6 thly Where do the Scripture speak of a Trinity of distinct Persons from Genesis to the Revelation give us plain Scripture for it without shuffling adding or diminishing you that talk so much of Scripture to be your Rule for the Father Word and Spirit this is owned according to Scripture and they agree in One. And we charge you to give us a plain Scripture that saith there are three separate Persons let us see Scripture we will have Scripture for it or otherwise be silent 7 thly And where do the Scriptures say That Christ the Light of the World which enlighteneth every one that cometh into the World is not sufficient to guide men to Salvation Christ saith Believe in the Light that you may become Children of the Light and Children of the Day and who walk in the Light there is no occasion of stumbling And this is the Condemnation that Light is come into the World and men love Darkness rather than Light because their deeds be evil And is not the Light sufficient that lets a man see whether his deeds be wrought in God read John 3. 8 thly Where doth the Scripture say from Genesis to the Revelation That the true Faith of God is without Works Hath not Faith works that purifies the heart Doth it not give Victory Will you deny the Works of Faith because the Works of the Law was denyed by the Apostle 9 thly Where doth the Scripture say That it self is the Word of God Do you not belye the Rule here For doth not the Scripture say That Christ is the Word and the Scriptures are Words read Exodus 20 and Revelation 22. He that adds to these Words and takes from these Words the Plagues of God are added to him So see whether you are not adders to these Words as it is made appear before And Christ saith My words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and Life c. And in many places of Scripture God saith My Words Doth not Scripture signifie Writing For all your high Schollar-ship you may go to the English School-Master and it will tell you what it signifies What is all the writing in Peoples hearts Is Paper and Ink in Peoples hearts Come do not cheat People but confess truth you affirm Scripture to be the Rule but are found contrary to the Rule But what is all the Scripture the Rule from Genesis to the Revelations to walk by and practice Or what part of Scripture is the Rule are Herods words Pharoahs words Nebuchadnezars words Judas words the Jewes words Jobs Friends words the Devils words the Offerings and the Sacrifices c. Come what part of Scripture is your Rule Distinguish For you say the Scripture is your Rule Is it all a Rule for practice Must we obey every tittle of it for we own the Scriptures more then you do which Holy Men of God gave forth Christ Jesus and the Apostles and Prophets and they made a distinction but you make none Do not go with your Malice and envious minds to possess the People and say That we dis-esteem the Scriptures for we esteem Scripture more than you do that have kept People under your Teaching that they might be paying of you and so make a Trade of them The Scriptures speaks plentifully concerning Christ being the Word of God God is the Word is not this Scripture And in the Beginning

are Justified by his Death and by his offering up once for all answer in plain words And whether or no you will make a Sect that he died for some ungodly and some sinners only for the sons of Adam were the sinners and ungodly But he that believes is born of God and they receive Christ and he gives them Power to become the sons of God and they know he died for them and have the Testimony of it and have the Benefit of his Death and Resurrection And what was the Light that shined in the Darkness and the Darkness comprehended it not What was the Spirit that the Wicked grieved vexed and quenched Where is it and what is the Spirit of Truth that reproves the World of sin Where is it that leads the Saints into all Truth Come we must have plain Scripture for these things What is the Law that God will write in the Heart and put in the Mind that all shall know Him from the greatest to the least that they shall not every one teach his Brother and shall all know the Lord What is that Light that shines in the Heart to give the Knowledge of the Glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus 2 Cor. 4. What is the Word of God in the Heart the Apostle Preached and the People was to obey it and do it And what was that Rule that Adam had and all the Holy Men in the Old World And what was the Rule of Enoch's Faith by which he was translated And Abraham's Faith who obeyed God and forsook his Countrey Answer these things by Scripture because you say The Writings the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith And Presbyterians and Independants have you forgotten all your Petitions and Addresses you Petitioned and made to the other Powers against the Quakers If you have forgotten them read William Caton 's Book of your Petitions and Addresses gathered up and down the Nation What you said of Oliver and Richard and how the People of God in scorn called Quakers the first beginning of calling them so was at Darby by one Bennet an Independant about 19 year since and then when the People called Quakers were gathered together in divers places to Worship God then you said they were Plotting together against Oliver whom some of you called the Light of your Eyes and breath of your Nostrils to bring in King Charles and Oliver said We would not hurt a Mouse at that time though he did cast many of us in Prison through you after that and then you Baptized us in your Prisons by cruel sufferings Of all men you should hold your Tongues in bawling so against us seeing the Light of your Eyes and breath of your Nostrils is gone And what was it not through some of you That the Act against Sturdy Beggars came forth upon which Friends at that time could hardly travel three or four miles from their own Houses but they were Whipped men worth three or four-score pounds or an hundred a year were Whipped for Beggars and Vagrants And then did you not get another Act That we must not speak to you in going or coming from a Steeple-house And how Friends were thronged in Prison up and down in the Nation by you Answer these Queries And thus you may see what a Havock you made in your Day but when Persecution came you durst hardly look out with your heads your selves And was there ever the like known or seen how your Brethren turns from North to South and from South to North and there they can turn and chop and change And yet you could tell us then That the Common-Prayer was Hell and Egyptian Bondage And we could hardly have a Meeting but you were incensing the Rulers against us That we were Plotting to bring in King Charles and how many in those dayes were put in Prison upon that account by you because we went to Meetings We can tell you we have a List of them And yet the Quakers were House Creepers said you when you had gotten the Mass-houses and Tythes and your Easter-Reckonings and Midsummer-Dues and straining our Goods for your Bread and Wine And who are become the House Creepers now Then you had gotten the old Mass-houses Oh! your filthiness comes to be made manifest to all men and you have made your selves ridiculous who are fighting against an innocent People that wishes hurt to no man but the good of all men And do you think that the Lord will nor remember and reckon with you for all these things Dare you look into the Book of your Actions and Consciences and see what is written there and see if they be not Recorded How now Presbyterians High Priests What is this your Doctrine that you now Preach up for your Hearers to go to a Bawdy-house as Thomas Vincent speaks What Liberty here do you give to Youth and your Hearers who sayes It 's worse to go to the Quakers Meetings than to a Bawdy-house You pleaded for a body of sin as long as you live but now it 's com'd out indeed when you plead for a Bawdy-house rather than Quakers Meetings it 's like the Presbyterian Priest knows where they are it appears as if he thought more of a Bawdy-house than of Christ and Vertue So it 's clear here you are Them that turn the People to Vice and from the Lord and his Truth Ellimas like seeking to pervert For the Quakers Meetings are in the Fear and Power and Spirit of God who meet together in the Name of Christ Jesus so it 's like you love Meetings at Bawdy-houses more then the Meetings of the People of God who meet to Worship God And if this be your Doctrine then you must enlarge your Brothel and Bawdy-houses as they do at Rome Legorn and Venice and other parts in Italy and then they will give you Tythes and Easter-Reckonings and Midsummer-Dues For have you not called Bawdy-house People good Church Members And have you not taken Tythes of them And would you not say The Peace of God to them for paying you Tythe Who would have thought that we should have had such Unvertuous Expressions from the Presbyterians that this stinking savour should have lyen covered under their Weeds Well the Quakers must Declare against all your Bawdy-houses which thou Vincent sayes Thou hadst rather thy People should go to than to the Quakers Meetings where the Word of God is Preached And so Presbyterians if this be your Doctrine to your People to send them to Bawdy-houses rather then to send them to a Meeting of the People of God we utterly deny you and your Bawdy-house too And is it not a shame to put in Print to tell the World That thou wouldst rather have thy People go to a Bawdy-house than to a Quakers Meeting For it 's like if thou wilt set up that House thou mayst have a yearly Revenue like thy Father the Pope out of your Bawdy-houses it 's like if you were there you might

the Eternal Word And as to thy telling of another Comforter i. e. Another as to subsistence or manner of being What manner of being and wherein can it differ from Christ's spiritul manner of being Had he another manner of being distinct from his own Who cannot see the ignorance and confusion of thy blind distinction For it appears that thy distinction of three distinct Persons subsistences or manners of being is attributed to the Father Son and Holy Ghost before Christ's Bodily or Personal Appearance in the form of a Servant thou telling us they being of an infinite nature are three persons Is this a good Argument for thy turn whereas T.V. saith Christ as man was not fifty years old pag. 31. whilst thou argues from John 14.16 for their being three distinct persons subsistences or manners of being For were they three distinct Comforters of an infinite nature Or three distinct separate persons of an infinite nature And was Christ's manner of being in the Flesh of an infinite nature Or was he therein a Fourth Person Surely when Christ had taken upon him the form of a Servant and that he said My Father is greater than I now W.M. confesseth that the form of God was his divine nature which is above the form of a Servant and he being in the likeness of sinful flesh made a little lower than the Angels in respect of his Sufferings humbling himself to the Death of the Cross. In this manner and in these capacities he was not declared to be from Eternity but as he was equal with God in his Glory before the World was neither can three coeternal coequal distinct persons be argued from thence for the Controversie runs higher as before they being of an infinite nature are three increated persons he should rather have said are one divine substance or being which is of an infinite nature But in plain Contradiction these Presbyterians tells us in their 45. pag. That in the abstract infiniteness is not aplicable to the subsistence what then is become of their three infinite increated persons or subsistences Are they now chang'd from infinite to finite What sad work is this Where are the Blasphemers now Are they not herein found guilty of that which most unjustly they have charg'd on us viz. Of that which is plainly derogatory to the Glory of the Infinite God by going to fasten the limitations of finite Creatures upon him For if there be a subsistence or personallity or manner of being as he defines subsistence in the God-head which is not infinite then something finite is in God which is no less than blasphemy to affirm And if there be three such distinct subsistences in the relative Property of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as W. M. saith pag. 19. to which infiniteness is not aplicable Then have they denied the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Infinite and by this the Reader may see what their unscriptural distinctions of Persons and Subsistences in the Deity amount to and how most derogatory to the Glory of the Infinite God they are But the remarkableness of their gross Contradictions is so obvious that he that runs may read it for one while the Father Son and Holy Ghost being of an infinite nature are three distinct persons three increated persons which renders them three distinct Infinite and so Three Gods Another while infiniteness is not aplicable to them as such or as subsistences which renders them under the limitations of finite Creatures Do you think that the wiser sort either among Papists or Protestants or Church of England own these men's management of this matter or will their Work stand them in any stead or be to the advancement of the Christian Faith in other Nations If these men should go into Turkey and also among the Indians and pretend to Preach the everlasting God or the Father the Word and Spirit under such Names Terms and Distinctions as being three distinct and separate persons or subsistences to which infiniteness is not aplicable what would be the effect and consequence of such Preachings do you think Would it not bring a reproach upon the Name and Profession of Christianity and render the Christians as believing and expecting Salvation from finite Persons or Creatures Or else if they should Preach them to be three distinct or separate Persons as being of an infinite nature might not they reasonably conclude that they were Preaching three Gods Would not this kind of Preaching more stumble the Jewes and Turks from believing in Christ than ever and the more strengthen the Heathen in their Idolatrous Imaginations especially whilst they oppose the Light within as an Idol for whilst a Doctrine is Preached implying three Gods may they not suppose many more As also how have many ignorant People in the time of Darkness been begotten into vain Imaginations touching the God-head by such Doctrine aforesaid contrary to Scripture-language as to think God to be like unto a Man or Person whereas he is a Spirit he is Invisible even that Eternal Word or Spirit which made all things and Christ is the Image of the Invisible God not divided nor separate from him whose Image he is And though in the World there are Gods many and Lords many yet to us there is but One God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and One Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him 1 Cor. 8.6 So that it was never any Design or Plot of ours to endeavour to prejudice the minds of any against the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost as falsely and blasphemously we are accused by this our prejudiced Opposer W. M. What you mean by separate I know not if you mean so separate as to destroy the unity and simplicity of the divine Essence I own no such separation if you take it to be all one with distinct then it was no begging the Question And in their 39. pag. it 's said viz. The word Separate Person I disown any further then we may conceive it to signifie no more then dictinct Answ. It appears then that T. D. and their using the word separate persons was to explain their meaning of distinct persons for it was used after distinct viz. distinct and separate persons which word separate persons they know I chiefly reflected upon at the Dispute I proving the contrary from Scripture viz. both the Oneness and Inseparability of the Father Word and Spirit but seeing they own no such separation as to destroy the Unity of the Divine Essence why did they make use of the word Separate at all in the case telling us the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct and separate persons which they confess are of one divine Essence Now they disown separate any otherwise then it signifies distinct but they should not have own'd it at all in this case Is it not sad Doctrine that supposeth any Separation Finiteness or Limitation in this Divine Being

But if the separation relate to the Personallity or their distinctions of persons and not to the Essence then doth not this tend to divide God or to separate Father Son and Spirit who are in each other and how then are they three distinct coeternal coessential coequal Persons Or how are they three distinct increated persons of an infinite nature as before but another while not infinite in the Personality what wonderful confusion and gross contradictions are here and what strange boldness is it for men so dark in their understandings discomposed in their minds confused and incongruent in their Principles thus ignorantly to attempt to define or demonstrate the infinite Power or God-head which is out of their sight and beyond their earthly capacities who are so ignorant of God who is Light they count the Light within an Idol of our own brains as W. M. hath blasphemously done whereas it is the Light by which God hath shined in our hearts to give us the knowledge of his Glory in the face of Christ 2 Cor. 4. W.M. Read also Job 35.10 God thy Makers Heb. consult Mr. Carril on the place Eccles. 12.1 Remember thy Creators c. Isa. 54.5 Thy Makers is thy Husband in all which Texts the Trinity of Persons is denoted by words of the plural number Answ. Upon which I query is the distinction of three Persons derived from three Makers or three Creators Or dare they say That the Father Word and Spirit are three distinct severed or separate Creators and doth not this bespeak three Gods And what sense is it to say thy Makers is thy Husband from Isa. 54.5 where it is said Thy Maker is thine Husband the Lord of Hosts is his Name Is not this truly rendered See Pagnine's Versions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Osiik i. e. factor tnus It 's neither sunt nor est factores tui And Eccles. 12.1 it's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Borecha Creatoris tui in singular it 's not Creatorum tuorum And Job 35.10 it 's Osai factor meus not factores mei But whilst one God and one Lord is confessed how is it consistent that a plurality of severed Persons be in him as Makers Creators c. What ground have we to believe either Carryl or Madox herein more than Pagn and our English Translation with many others And notwithstanding this great stir they have made with their distinctions of separate persons incommunicable properties c. yet W. M. hath confest That the Names Properties or Attributes Works and Worship of God are frequently in Scripture given to each of these Three Persons so that they are one and the same perfect and infinite Essence one God by Nature c. but if he should distinguish personal Attributes from Attributes of God I ask what they are if not of God which if so how is infiniteness not applicable to them nor ascribed to them And how have you gone with your vain unscriptural distinctions to darken Counsel to darken Scripture to darken the minds of People by words without knowledge thereby going to demonstrate that to others which you cannot clear to your selves by demonstration As T. V. in his 26 pag. saith of the Trinity touching which he would have us Assent unto your terms and traditional distinctions upon Divine Authority which he cannot demonstrate by reason But how then shall we receive your bare Assertions upon Divine Authority when we have neither Scripture nor Reason nor yet any immediate Revelation from you for them must we pinn our Faith upon your sleeves or will you supply the places of so many Popes by Imposing an implicit Faith in those matters which you cannot demonstrate nor clear to your selves which then how can you clear them to others Which if this be the course you take to convince gain-sayers of your Doctrine you might have spared a great deal of labour in going about so confusedly to demonstrate your case to us and only have laid down your Doctrine of three distinct separate Persons in the Deity to which infiniteness is not ascribed as you have said in pag. 45. And so you might as well have said That we T.V. W.M. and T.D. do affirm it and therefore you must believe it or otherwise you are blasphemous Hereticks and so damned But we must have better ground for our Faith and a better Authority than Affirmations Revilings and Threatnings of men that are untaught themselves in those things which they presume to teach others W. M. I called them three Hee 's to try if you would own the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost under any title As the subject of this Tryal is very mean and weak to wit the calling them three Hee 's to prove the Deity so his trying of us hereby was altogether groundless since that we never disowned the Deity of Christ or Holy Ghost as falsely and injuriously is insinuated against us And since that three Hee 's will now serve instead of Persons he saying they are three Persons or three Hee 's to prove the Deity of Father Son and Holy Ghost Why have they made such a pudder for their distinctions of Persons But would it be a strong Reason to induce Infidels to the belief of the Deity of each because they are three Hee 's as he saith for are all Hee 's either God or yet Persons or Divine But I need say little to the shallowness of this Work Let the ingenious Reader judge of it But when he thinks he mends the matter by calling them three divine Hee 's his intent is that the Father is called Hee the Son is Hee the Spirit Hee which neither proves them three separate nor incommunicable Persons distinct subsistences or bottoms whilst both the Father 's a Spirit the Lord is that Spirit Christ a quickening Spirit all inseparable W. M. You by refusing to call them Three Divine Hee 's have made it manifest that your Quarrel is not with the word Person as some then apprehended but with the Doctrine or Fundamental Truth expressed by the three Persons viz. the Modal Distinction and Essential Vnion or Oneness of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Answ. It 's manifest that some of the Hearers that were present at our Debating this matter had a better apprehension and understanding of us than you prejudiced Teachers and Opposers had for some of them apprehended that we opposed your unscriptural terms and words put upon the Deity and not that we opposed either the Divinity or Union of Father Son or Holy Ghost neither did we in the least go to quarrel with any Fundamental Truth as most grosly and slanderously we are accused and misrepresented by thee W.M. who hast shewed thy self so far from either Truth Moderation or Reasonableness in this matter as one swallowed up with Envie and Prejudice And thy taking for granted that thy Model distinction and terms are Fundamental Truth and joyning them with the Oneness of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is but a begging

before whether this doth not make a fourth For as he was not fifty years old this had not reference to his Divine Nature as is confessed But then where in pag. 36. The generation of the Son must be Eternal the Son being so they say How is his Personallity with reference to his being begotten denyed to be Infinite in pag. 45. What gross and apparent Contradictions are these And as to his instance Matt. 3.16 17. how that Jesus went up out of the Water and the Spirit descended like a Dove and lo a Voice from Heaven to prove a distinction of all the Three Persons the Son was cloathed in Flesh the Spirit in the shape of a Dove the Father was in the Voice he saith c. Let the Reader but mark how far short of proving his Distinction this instance is Surely he will not say That the Son was cloathed in Flesh from Eternity nor the Spirit in a bodily shape like a Dove from Eternity for if their Personallities did consist in these visible Appearances how were they Coeternal Coessential Coequal with God c And surely Personallity doth not consist in the shape of a Dove neither do we read of the Person of a Dove besides the Spirits appearing in a bodily shape like a Dove doth not prove that the Spirit was a distinct or separate Person from Jesus for he had the Spirit in him and was not separate from the Spirit though that appearance like a Dove was for a Confirmation to John's belief of him John 1.32 33. T.V. Isa. 6.3 Holy holy holy is the Lord of Hosts the three Holies signifies the three persons the Lord of Hosts the One God I must confess I never heard this Argument before if each Holy signifie a Person how then are they spoken to the One God And if so many Holies as are given in praise to him do signifie so many distinct Persons in him then they will amount to a great many Trinities for it is said Rev. 4.8 They rest not day nor night saying Holy holy holy Lord God Almighty c. Now if all the Holies they give day and night to him be so many Persons then they will amount to Persons ad infinitum but the absurdity of this Argument who cannot but see As also his Argument from the distinct Names is little better for God is denominated under many Names more than Three And also his arguing from John 14 15 16. chap. from personal Acts as he calls them as sending the Comforter his speaking and guiding c. Where doth the Scripture call them Personal Acts Were they not Spiritual Acts of the Divine Spirit and Power of God And was there any Act but what was brought forth in time And was the Father's begetting the Son a Personal Act however was it not an Act in time if so how sayes T. V. That the Generation of the Son must be Eternal What distracted confused work is here And as to that Cavil in pag. 40. at the word ONE as not being in the Hebrew in all those Scriptures Isa. 40.25 chap. 48.17 Psal. 71.22 where Holy One is mentioned in the English which to Cavil at shews little prudence whilst Holy One and the Lord being One and the Only Wise God is often mentioned elsewhere see Zac. 14.9 which W. P. quotes is it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovah echad ushemo echad i. e. Dominus unus nomen Ejus unum One Lord and his Name One. And see Deut. 6.4 how its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovah echad One Lord but where the word Echad is not expressed whether it be not understood Besides T. V. himself pag. 33. useth these words The Lord of Hosts the One God so that he might have spared his Contradictory Cavil about it And if their distinctions be in regard of the Personallity and not of the Essence then I ask Are they three Persons both distinct among themselves and also distinct from the Essence or Being of God and so not infinite or neither finite nor infinite as most Absurdly and Contradictorily is laid down in their 44 45 46 pages as before has been mentioned And as to W. P. his Cloudy Brain Conceptions as it 's called which is so difficult to find out as they say and his Phrases so uncouth and his Reasonings so odly joynted together Indeed neither T. V. nor T. D. have shewen any such Brightness nor strength of Argument as to expel or drive away these cloudy Conceptions if they be such it must be another thing that must unvail him and overthrow what he hath said than their grosse Confusion and many apparent Contradictions which I am certain that W. P. is so far unvail'd as to have a sight and discovery of though this dark ridged Presbyterian Spirit hath sought by Persecution false Reports and Slanders to vail and obscure both him and others in whom any degree breakings forth or glimerings of true Light have appeared where they could not do it by slandering grossely villifying and traducing them they would endeavour to bring Persecution and Cruelty and outward Restraint upon them to their Power And as for their taxing W.P. for instancing Irenaeus Justin Martyr Tertullian Origen Theophil and others as appearing forreign to the matter in Controversie c. they telling us The Doctrine of the Trinity is plainly enough to be gathered from several passages in Irenaeus lib. 1. ch 2. Ecclesia accipit fidem quae est in unum Deum Patrem Omnipotentem in unum Christum filium Dei incarnatum in spiritum Sanctum qui per Prophetas praedicavit And then our Opposers ask Do not these words hold forth a distinction of those three persons To which I say However he gathers or imagines such a distinction of their being three Persons he does but beg the Question in calling them three Persons which their words no not prove nor so call them but God the Father Omnipotent Christ the Son of God and the Holy Ghost in whom the Faith of the Church is Neither do the latter words prove any thing for this purpose which mention the God of all things making and governing all things by his word and Spirit If he had asserted no otherwise herein then Irenaeus hath done there had not been this Controversie between us and them And as for the rest of the Authors they mention I do not find that they called them three distinct separate persons as T. D. did in all these Passages mentioned and quoted by them And it s known that W.P. his Controversie was principally against them for unscriptural Doctrine of the God-head subsisting in three distinct and separate persons which also their own Instance of Theophil lib. 1. Com. in Evang. doth contradict viz. Margarita pretiosa est Sancta Trinitas quae dividi non potest nam in unitate consistit the Holy Trinity is a precious Jewel which cannot be divided because it consisteth in Unity To which I say then the Glorious

Believers and if he loves his Image in his People freely then he is satisfied in his own Image and that which brings to know and injoy this Image and the renewing of it within is that which brings into Love and Union with God which is his Divine Spirit and Power that renews man into the Heavenly Image and Righteousness of the Everlasting God which they that injoy have the acceptable Sacrifice and from thence can present Living Sacrifices unto God to his Eternal Praise And to T. V's saying That if Christ were not punished for us to satisfie God's Justice it would follow from W. P 's words that Christ should be a sinner and that he was punished for his own sins Reply That 's a blasphemous Consequence indeed but not truly charged upon W. P. for he never intended by his words to render Christ a sinner nor that he was punished for his own sins for he never sinned but he was Punished and Suffered by sinners who by wicked hands and so by their injustice put him to Death and under the buden and weight of their Transgressions he Suffered as also his tender Spirit that made Intercession and suffered for Transgressors from a fore-sight of the Wrath that should come upon the Rebellious and was not the Wicked the Instruments that wounded bruised and afflicted him and that oppressed his Righteous Soul And did not his Innocent Life and Righteous Soul suffer under a great oppression and weight of man's Transgression when he was in his Agony and sweat drops of Blood before his being Crucified And so was not his Suffering two-fold both Inward and Outward And then if so that the pure Life and holy Spirit suffered as bearing the burthen of their sins and if the God-Head being in Christ so nearly united as to bear up the Manhood under the Suffering as is confessed How then can it be deemed that God inflicted the punishment of Eternal Wrath or Vengeance on his Son Surely his permitting wicked men by their wicked hands to punish him with a Temporal Suffering and Death could not be his Eternal Wrath or Vengeance which is supposed to Answer and Satisfie Divine Justice for man and so to acquit man Living and Dying in sin a great Error from Eternal Wrath whereas Christ Jesus was the Son of his Love were it not inconsistent to say That God's Justice did punish or execute Wrath upon his Love Seeing that it 's confest That Grace and Justice are very well consistent and that there is a free Exercise both of Justice and Love without force or compulsion How does T.V. his matter hang together let the moderate judge But had he stated it in the Language and sense of the Scriptures of Truth there had not appeared this Contrariety nor Opposition either between us or with himself For Scripture-accounts concerning Christ and his Sufferings for sinners both inward and outward I do own and Confess to and have a reverend Esteem of all his Sufferings and the worth thereof and do greatly prize his Meekness and Humility who hath freely condescended according to the Good Will and Pleasure of God not from Wrath nor Compulsion to offer himself a Lamb without spot to God to bear our griefs and sorrows yet saith the Prophet Isaiah chap. 53 we did esteem him stricken smitten of God and afflicted but he was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our Peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed he was oppressed he was afflicted yet he opened not his mouth he was brought as a Lamb to the slaughter he made his Grave with the wicked and with the rich in his Death because he had not done no violence neither was any deceipt in his mouth yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him he hath put him to grief when thou shalt make his Soul an Offering for sin he shall see his seed he shall prolong his dayes and the Pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand This is he that hath been despised and rejected of men This is he who hath been as a Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World This is he men have evilly entreated and evilly requited for his kindness and good Will that he hath shewed forth towards them This is he whom they have caused to suffer by their iniquities and so thereby have shewed great unworthiness and ingratitude towards him and his Father whose Pleasure and Good Will he came to perform both in his being delivered up to undergo Afflictions and Bruises and many hard Sufferings for Mankind and surely God was in him Reconciling the World even in and through that low and suffering state which the Righteous Seed and renowned Plant of the Lord hath undergone but now what effect hath all this Love Tenderness and Compassion of God in and through Christ upon and in man whilst Sin Transgression and Imperfection term of Life is pleaded for by the Priests Surely they herein do not make a right use of Christ's Suffering but both reject him and the End thereof and this was not the use that the true Ministers did make thereof for they witnessed that he died for all that as many as lived should not live unto themselves but unto him that died and rose again 2 Cor. 5.15 and his own self bare our sins in his Body on the Tree that we being dead to sin should live to Righteousness this was not a living to sin nor pleading for Imperfectiom as T. V hath done who farther adds viz. The 7 th Consequence is childish and a shame that a man that pretendeth to any brains should mention it That though Christ hath satisfied for us the Debt remaineth still to Christ pag. 66. Reply Is this such a childish shameful or brainless Consequence that the Debt remains still to Christ Has not T.V. herein shewed his Ignorance of Scripture for ought nor Christ to be obeyed who is the Author of Eternal Salvation to them that obey him Heb. 5. and we are not under the Law to God but under the Law to Christ and to what end is his spiritual Law written in the Heart and his Spirit in the inward Parts but to be obeyed and we are Debtors not to the Flesh to live after the Flesh Rom. 8.12 to what then but to live after the Spirit and through it to mortifie the Deeds of the Body vers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. The Apostle was far from pleading for sin and Imperfection as Priests do for which God will judge them by Jesus Christ to whom all Judgment is committed who hath Power to proclaim the Day of Vengeance as well as the acceptable year of the Lord. The truth of it is T.V. has Confessed to what W. P. has writ in many places but to his own Contradiction but here he falls a Railing and vilifying him with such terms as Abominable Worm c. He has not at all dealt fairly or honestly

Righteous whilst such as if God's Righteousness or Workmanship were impure This Doctrine has led many in the way to Hell and Destruction But T.V. in 2 Cor. 5. should have read vers 17. If any man be in Christ he is a new Creature old things are passed away behold all things are become new Which is a real change in that man that is in Christ from sin and transgression and not a Justification therein for the Spirit of God both discovers to man his sin and reproves him as a transgressor and one Guilty whilst therein and surely God does not accept of men as his own Righteousness and in Christ whilst his Spirit in them judges them to be both unrighteous and out of Christ for if he did that were to make God contradict himself and to speak quite contrary to his own Spirit which were very absurd and blasphemous to assert But had T.V. rightly minded and understood that of Rom. 8.1 2 3 4 he might have seen how contrary it is to his Doctrine before and himself therein confuted For 1st They that are in Christ Jesus walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit and it s to such only to whom there is no Condemnation therefore Justification and this is not a sinful imperfect or guilty state 2dly The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus hath made such free from the Law of Sin and Death 3dly God sending his Son to condemn sin in the Flesh was not to look upon man Justified in the sinful state or whilst he walks after the Flesh. But 4thly That the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in such who walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit and this doth absolutely confute T.V. and his Brethren And whereas for the proof of his Doctrine of Guilty Persons being the Righteousness of God he citeth Rom. 4.6 7. where it is said David described the blessedness of that man to whom God imputeth Righteousness without Works to which I say not without the Works of the True and Living Faith in Jesus nor yet without a subjection to the Law of Faith but without that the Works or Deeds of the Law of Works chap. 3.19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28. the Apostle did not exclude the Works Obedience or Righteousness of the true Faith from a justified state for if Paul had so done it had been contrary to James his Testimony who said Was not our Father Abraham justified by Works when he had offered up Isaac See Jam. 2. And Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for Righteousness We say That Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness Rom. 4.3 9. which Faith was not without its own Works although it be not the Works of the Law as Circumcision and others that were Types or Signs wherein the Righteousness of Faith doth not consist which they that are in the uncircumcision as the Gentiles that were the ungodly spoken of Rom. 4.5 11. chap. 3.29 do receive through Faith in Christ and become really partakers thereof being Justified from all those things from which they could not be Justified by the Law of Moses And so such are Justified or made Just or truly so Accepted of God not in sin or ungodliness but as Redeemed out of it and Sanctified from it See 1 Cor. 6.11 And blessed are they whose Iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin This is no Proof for T. V. his sinful Doctrine for them whom the Lord doth bless and imputeth not Iniquity to are in the way of God and partakes of his Righteousness through Faith cannot feed upon an imagined Imputation or Justification in sin for in Psal. 32.2 David describeth the blessedness of such in these words Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not Iniquity and in whose Spirit there is no guile These words in whose Spirit there is no guile the Priests use to leave out in their talk of Imputation but as their Faith without Works or a real Obedience on the Creatures part is but a dead empty and feigned Faith So their laying a claim to and pretending a Justification by the imputed Righteousness of Christ whilst they are sinners and polluted pleading for Imperfection whilst here 't is but a false imagination of their own for though we confess that Justification is in the Righteousness of Christ by Faith in him and that this True and Living Faith and the Righteousness of it is reckoned to the true Believer yet we do not therefore grant that Sinners or Polluted Persons in that state are cloathed with this Righteousness nor that 't is imputed to them as theirs whilst they are out of it for they that have put on Christ are translated from sin and unrighteousness and so are made partakers of the Righteousness of Faith which T.V. saith is without us and so puts it a far off and yet cites Phil. 3.9 which plainly Contradicts his Doctrine for Paul having confessed Christ Jesus to be his Lord and suffered the loss of all things that he might win Christ it was that he might be found in him not having his own Righteousness but that which is through the Faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by Faith that said he I may know him and the Power of his Resurrection and the Fellowship of his Suffering being made conformable to his Death vers 9 10. Mark his winning Christ being found in him his not having his own Righteousness but that of Faith extends to a real injoyment of Christ and his being in him and not to an imagined Imputation in sin but to his knowing Christ and the Power of his Resurrection Fellowship of his Suffering and Conformity to his Death this was a blessed estate which all you that plead for Sin and Imperfection and a Justification whilst you are out of Christ or strangers to him being both unacquainted with his Power and Fellowship of Suffering and never came ye so to be conformable to his Death you being yet alive in your sins And as to T. V. his Argument or Syllogism it proves nothing of his Doctrine of impure or guilty Persons being Justified by Imputation for Justification by Faith in Jesus Christ and his Righteousness we never denied but this Faith is not a dead Faith nor without its own Works for it purifieth the heart but so does not your Faith who plead for sin by which you apply Christ's Righteousness whilst you are out of it and it without you as T.V. confesseth pag. 17. How hath he and the rest of you that own this his Doctrine soothed and daubed People up in their sins flattering them with a Pretence of Imputation and Justification therein when your Faith is but dead and empty as a body without a Spirit is dead That we are Justified by Faith without Works By what Faith and without what Works is mentioned and manifest according to Scripture both

they may be made perfect in one c. And God said Let us make man in our own Image after our likeness Gen. 1 26. Now if by us here is intended Father Son and Holy Ghost which is called Trinity then it follows that he was made in the likeness of all three and yet we do not read that God did consist in three distinct Persons nor that man was made in the Image of three Persons nor yet that three distinct and separate persons dwelt in him though God did promise after the Fall to dwell in his people and he and his Son and Spirit we do really own confess to and have a living sence and experience of to our Souls Comfort and everlasting peace So when we cannot well resent nor accept of mens invented terms put upon the Father Son and Holy Ghost it is unreasonable and injurious to accuse us with opposing any of them or denying their Divinity and the Unity of the Deity And where John Owen in pag. 91 92. to prove the Holy Ghost a Person and an existing Substance which he calls also a distinct and divine Person he quotes many Scriptures as Gen. 1.2 the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters Psalm 33.6 by the Word of the Lord the Heavens were made and all the Host of them by the Spirit of his Mouth these with many he urgeth for proof of the Personallity of the Holy Ghost So according to his Principle and terms which he puts upon the Holy Ghost as a distinct Person c. and according to J. O's meaning we must read the Scripture thus the Person of God moved upon the face of the Waters By the Person of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Host of them by the Person of his mouth and so likewise upon Job 26.13 by his Person he hath garnished the Heavens and in like manner upon the rest of the Scriptures he bringeth in this case Now let the Reader judge whether such a meaning alteration put upon the Scriptures doth either look clear or sound well and whether it be not a corrupting Scripture and addition contrary to the plain innocent Language thereof and if such corruption and alteration upon Scripture may be admitted of how are they the only Rule or great Rule of speaking and treating about spiritual things J. Owen and his Brethen had better refer people to the Scriptures and leave them to a naked attention to what Scripture asserts rather then thus to pervert them or puzle and darken peoples minds with their humane inventions and Scholastick terms imposed in the time of Apostacy and Popery And concerning the Son of God and some accounting him the Light within men this J. O. numbers among the monstrous imaginations pag. 87. Wherein he hath not only struck at us who testifie to Christ as the Light of the World that lighteth every man and as being in the true Believers both their Light Life and Salvation but also J. O. hath herein opposed both the former Saints and Scriptures of Truth who testified unto Christ the Light as we do as also he owned himself to be come a light into the World and to be in his Followers He that is with you shall be in you I in them and they in me c. Pag. 103. J.O. queries how can the Power of God or a quality be said to be sent to be given to be bestowed on men Answ. Yes very well it may be so said Christ gave them power to become the Sons of God who believed on his Name and was not this God's Power had Christ any thing but what was Gods and the Saints knew the Power of God to work mightily in them so that this Doctor hath shewed himself very ignorant of the Power of God and its work which doth beget and restore man into the Image Righteousness and true Holiness of God and this is given and bestowed on such as believe in the Light within the Light of the Divine Power of God which giveth unto us all things appertaining to Life and Godliness And now touching their distinctions of Persons or Personal Subsistances in God J. O. saith pag. 114. The distinct apprehension of them and their accurate expression is not necessary unto Faith as it is our Guide c. nor are those brief explanations before mentioned so proposed as to be placed immediately in the same rank or order with the original Revelations Answ. If they be not necessary unto Faith nor yet to be placed in the order with Revelations meaning Scripture why then are these men so strict in going about to impose their terms expressions and explications which they have not in the Scripture upon peoples Faith and Conscience as if it were a matter of damnation not to receive a Faith concerning God under their traditional notions and terms However we believe what the Scriptures saith both of God Christ and holy Spirit who are one laying aside all these mens invented confused amusing Sophistry Cavils and their darkning terms as distinct and separate Personallities Substances Subsistances Modallities c. of which they themselves are guilty though J. O. accuseth others therewith pag. 116. And whilst these pretended accurate expressions are not necessary unto Faith why doth J. O. press them as proper expressions of what is revealed to encrease our light pag. 115. What apparent contradiction is this not necessary unto Faith as our Guide and yet proper to encrease our light as if the encrease of light had not a necessary relation unto both Faith as Guide and Principle both in and unto religious worship but to be sure that instead of encreasing light their dark invented scholastick Heathenish and Popish terms have encreased much darkness in the minds of people and kept many in great ignorance both of God and the mystery of godliness And whereas J. O. gives order or instruction that they that deny or oppose their explications are to be required positively to deny or disapprove the oneness of the Deity or to prove that the Father or Son or Holy Ghost are not God before they be allowed to speak one word against the manner of the explication pag. 115. Answ. A very unreasonable imposition and requiring to require any to deny the oneness of the Deity or to prove the Father Son or Holy Ghost not to be God because they may except against such invented explications as J. O. and his Brethren have brought out of their Heathenish Store-houses and Chambers of Imaginary and hath not he herein imposed upon the Objecters and begged the question taking it as granted that their explications are as true as the oneness of the Deity or as true as that the Father Son and Holy Ghost are God as if he had told us it is all one as true that they are distinct severed Persons as it is that they are God which it is not we have not ground to believe their explications herein to be equal for the Unity