of the Godhead or Divinity of Christ or his Spirit we never denied nor scrupled Therefore for J. O. to require any that except against their terms and inventions positively to deny the Unity of the Deity is both sad Doctrine and unreasonableness as also shews an imperious lording spirit though its probable among the Independants and Professors he can make a shew of more humility then he did formerly for he now wants Cromwel to promote him However he and others of his Fraternity might by this time have in reallity learned more lowliness and humility then yet appears in them towards such as cannot be screwed up to their way and method of expressing the Invisible things of God which are Heavenly Divine and Spiritual as his being and properties are absolutely above the comprehension of J. O's reason as is confest pag. 128. We cannot by searching find out God we cannot find out the Almighty to perfection And yet vain man would be wise and imploy his natural reason and fallen wisdom both to find and set out God to evince him and his things unto the natural reason of others which still falls short both of any true knowledg and spiritual understanding for vain by nature is every man and ignorant of God It is the spiritually minded who are begotten to God who are spiritually and immediately taught by his Spirit that have a true and spiritual understanding of Divine Matters and Mysteries Pag. 118. J. O. Every person hath distinctly its own Substance But then in contradiction he adds for the one Substance of the Deity is the Substance of each Person but each Person hath not its own distinct Substance Reply A strange Riddle and invention that each person hath distinctly its own Substance and yet not its own distinct Substance what Scripture hath he for this Critick and nice distinction how is a person then an individual Substance of a rational nature that is not upheld by another if it hath not its own distinct Substance whilst yet it hath distinctly its own Substance but the Divine Substance of the Deity of the Father the Word and Spirit is but one as often hath been granted so then the Holy Ghost though confessed to be a Substance pag. 101. yet I say not a Personal Substance distinct from the Father and the Son as there is ignorantly asserted But then J. O. to tell us pag. 118. That all Divine properties such as to be infinite is belong not to the Persons on the account of their Personallity but of their nature c. Observ. Then it appears they are not three Infinite Persons but one Infinite God and yet those Persons are the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost were it not both Blasphemy and contradiction to say they are finite and what better have our Opposers said but at other times they are Eternal God Eternal the Eternal Son and Eternal Spirit and thus they wheel about and say and unsay Answ. It were better for them nakedly to apply themselves to the plain Language of Scripture and keep to it to lay aside and avoid confusion and absurdities about distinct finite personallities which the Scripture does not put upon the Infinite God in whom there is neither finiteness nor variableness I am God I change not saith he the Lord is one and his name one from Everlasting to Everlasting he is God unchangable And the Father Son and Holy Ghost being one Divine Infinite Substance are one Infinite God Away with your vain babling and invented erroneous distinctions of finite Persons in him who is infinite you are not worthy therein to talk of God nor to take his holy precious and pure Name in your mouthes who are in your sins and pollutions corrupting your selves in your carnal conceptions and imaginations about those things that you know not who are gone a whoring after humane inventions invented words names terms and distinctions such as neither the Holy Ghost nor the Scriptures ever taught you Pag. 117. And as for them that will keep to their Cavils and Sophisms about terms and expressions I know not who J. O. may intend hereby but if he intend us called Quakers because we do not own but oppose his and their dark unscriptural terms and expressions which darken both counsel and knowledge we do reject his Accusation and Charge herein for Cavils and Sophisms are rather his and his Brethrens who have been trained up in Sophistry and School-craft in order to be furnished to a Trade of Preaching to make a Trade of the Scriptures corrupting them by their dark meanings and School-terms and Philosophick distinctions by which poor people have been kept even learning that they might be always paying them Pag. 117. But then J. O. addeth against such as he supposeth will keep to their Cavils and Sophisms That all further debate or conference with them may justly and ought both conscientiously and rationally to be refused and rejected Reply If herein he may intend us as it s probably he may as well as others among whom he has numbred us though unrighteously as his debating or conference is of little value or esteem with us whilst it proceeds neither from a sence of God's Divine Power nor from any Living experience of God or his work within but from humane inventions and traditions So J. O. and his Brethrens work in these matters whether they go on in it or stop from further debate it will be of very little weight to us since we see to the far end of their subtilty and beyond their spirits and confusion however J. O. laying it as their duty not to debate any further with such as he censures as before he hath brought himself and those that own him under a Law and Limitation that if they further contend with us they must either not accuse us with Cavils and Sophisms or else not debate nor contend any further with us for if they do so accuse and censure us and yet further debate or contend with us they transgress their own Law so strictly here urged by J.O. and by the same reason when he and they are found guilty of Cavils and Sophisms may not others as much slight him and them therein But however he or they judge or censure us I hope we shall not be backward nor negligent to vindicate the Truth and clear our innocency from reproaches and scandals of men of perverse and envious spirits when we have occasion given us thereby J. O. These sacred Mysteries of God and the Gospel are not lightly to be made the subject of mens contest and disputations Observ. It is very true that sacred Mysteries of God and Gospel are not lightly nor yet slightly to be made subjects of contests nor yet ought they to be medled with by light airy minds nor by perverse and prejudiced spirits which are apt to bring forth perverse disputes as it is too common to men of corrupt minds who are destitute of the Truth But why then do
l. last r. invented p. 18. l. 25. for on and r. an end p. 19. l. 1. r. amounts l. 13. r. is towards p. 21. l. 27. r. It is in Christ. p. 27. l. 6. r. deserving p. 39. l. 35. for whether r. whither p. 45. at l. 26 27. the Reader may add or understand as given by divine Inspiration not mens fallable Judgments and Mistakes upon them p. 49. l. 17. being 〈…〉 for and r. or p. 55. l. 18. dele which p. 73. l. 7. in the Apendix r. principal p. 74. l. 33. for T. V r. T. D. p. 76. l. 16. dele three p. 77. l. 12. for 1 r. 5. p. 81. l. 16. dele and. Sometimes such defects have escaped as misplacing hath for have doth for do was for were are for is it for they saith for say and so on the contrary Such are not material faults to any but such as are critical who do not soberly weigh the intent of the matter An APPENDIX Wherein are some of the manifest Contradictions of Thomas Vincent William Maddox Thomas Danson and John Owen both to themselves and one against another With brief Animadversions or Observations upon their Contradictions which are about Principle Matters 1. Touching their distinction of Three Persons I Am sure from the Scriptures that the Father Son and Holy Ghost being of an infinite Nature are three Persons three increated persons subsistences or manner of beings pag. 16 17 18 19. Contrad T.V. In Contradiction to his Brother Maddox saith Infiniteness is not applicable to the Subsistence it cannot be properly ascribed to the Personality though there be three distinct Personalities to which Infiniteness is not ascribed pag. 45. Obs. See here is as much inconsistency between these two as between infinite and finite one making their being of an infinite Nature a proof or reason of their distinct Personalities or Subsistencies And the other saith Infiniteness is not applicable nor properly ascribed to them what gross contradiction and blasphemous stuff is here W. M. Each of these three persons is God his subsistence is his manner of being in the Relative property of the Father and so he speaks of the Son and Holy Ghost pag. 18 19. Contr. T.V. It is improper to say that either of the persons in regard of their personality or subsistence are finite or infinite pag. 46. Obs. This latter Contradiction then would have neither Father Son nor Holy Ghost to be either finite or infinite what gross nonsence and apparent Contradictions are these Contr. T.V. Christ is the Eternal Son of God by Eternal Generation pag. 36 47. Obs. He is now the Eternal Son of God before not infinite but again neither finite nor infinite in his Personality and yet the Eternal Son of God what mad distracted blasphemous work is this these men do make with their vain babling T.V. They are not three substances c. therefore three persons p. 13. Contr. T. D. The usual definition of person is an individual substance of a rational Nature which is neither the part of another nor upheld by another which Aquinus defends Sum Par. 1.9.29 art 2. a man we call a person c. pag. 1 2. Obs. See again how apparently these two Brethren contradict one another one saying a person is an individual substance c. yet the other saith They are not three substances therefore three persons whereas it follows therefore not three persons Contr. J.O. We must acknowledge the Holy Ghost to be a substance a person God yet distinct from the Father and the Son pag. 101. a personal subsistance pag. 114. Obs. Where note that this Doctor Contradicts T.V. his saying they are not three substances as also that he seems to make both substance person and subsistance to intend all one thing contrary to T. V. again But these words a Person God yet distinct from the Father and Son I cannot make sense of though they are from a Doctor for God is not a Person distinct from himself W.M. I called them three Hee 's to try if you would own the Deity of Christ c. according to the Scriptures we call them Persons or Hee 's in respect of their manner of Subsistence pag. 18 20. Contrad T. V. The word Person cannot properly be attributed to Father Son and Holy Ghost because they do not subsist in a several and distinct Nature of the same kind for if each of them had a several and not one individual Nature then they should not be only three Persons but three Gods Synopsis pag. 3. Obs. It 's very evident here that Thomas Danson has Contradicted both himself and the rest of his Brethren seeing the Father Son and Holy Ghost cannot properly be called Persons W.M. saith His comparing the three increated persons to three Apostles Paul Peter and John is blasphemy pag. 20. Contr. T. D. A man we call a person a person is intire of it self pag. 2. if Peter James and John each person be man c. Take man here not for a person but the Nature as we do God and 't is evident that we mean no more that the name Man may be attributed to Peter James and John pag. 12. David was a man and Solomon was a man they two agree in a third thing c. pag. 14 15. Obs. What less do their own distinctions and comparisons concerning them amount to than to Three Apostles or men that is each intire of himself as a Person is T. D. saith who hath apparently spoyled his own and his Brethrens Cause T.V. The Trinity of Persons the first in the second and the second in the first and both in the third pag. 25. Contr. T. D. A Person notes some one indued with reason and understanding which is several and distinct by himself from another p. 2. and in the Dispute they are three distinct and separate Persons in the Deity A person is intire of it self c. Obs. If the Father the Word and the Spirit be in each other and so inseparable then not three distinct nor separate Persons neither can one be several by himself from another T.V. That the Father Word and Holy Ghost are three persons pag. 13. is to be found in the Scriptures God hath revealed it in his Word the Scriptures hath revealed that there are three distinct persons in one Divine Essence pag. 26. Is Scripture truth pag. 4. great truth Contr. T.V. In this Mystery of the Trinity we must exercise our Faith Though we cannot clear it to our selves by Demonstration Reason cannot demonstrate it unto us pag. 26. 't is such a Mystery that doth exceed the most enlightned and clear-sighted Christians Contr. T.D. For Person Aquinus defends I chuse to borrow that of the Learned Wotton the Trinity's a Mystery so high that it rebates the sharpest edge of humane understanding p. 83. Obs. If this Mystery be so apparent in Scripture why can they neither demonstrate it nor clear it to themselves We should desire no clearer
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
incommucicable properties wherein they are not Infinite as they have told us Is there finiteness in each person and yet each person God what gross darkness and blasphemy is this But then to mend the matter T. V. tells us This is such a Mystery as doth exceed the weak and narrow understandings of most inlightned and clear sighted Christians fully to comprehend Some by gazing too long upon the Sun become blind Surely then if it be such a Mystery as exceeds the understanding of the clear sighted it must needs exceed the dark understanding of T. V. and his Brethren And seeing as appears he was conscious to himself of his own dimness or darkness herein as by what follows also he should have let it alone and not troubled his head with things beyond his reach for he has confounded and marr'd his cause and not at all mended nor cleared it but if he hath assayed to demonstrate this Mystery as he calls it as one more clear sighted than the most inlightned his Work doth manifest the contrary And that God cannot represent himself otherwise than he is It 's true but where doth he thus represent himself as these men do with such invented terms vain tautologies and confusion We do not read such in all the Scriptures of Truth howbeit T. V. takes the boldness to Assert his Doctrine herein to be of Divine Authority and to be the Truth of God revealed in his Word and that if the Scriptures have revealed that there are Three distinct Persons in one Divine Essence it is a certain Truth c. This is sooner said than proved if that Word of God and Scripture could be produced that doth so reveal their Doctrine and say there are three distinct Persons in one Divine Essence Produce us such a Scripture among all the Writings of the Holy men of God in all the Bible and it shall end the Controversie otherwise let T. V. be ashamed of his Asserting it to be revealed in the Word of God And of his saying that in his Sylogism pag. 13. There is not a word but what is to be found in the Scripture whereas neither the matter manner nor expressions of his Arguments are to be found in Scripture As for Instance his Argument Pag. 13. The Father the Word and the Holy Ghost are either three Substances or three Manifestations or three Operations or three Persons or something else but they are not three Substances nor three Manifestations nor three Operations nor any thing else therefore they are three Persons To the first part Indeed they must be something to the Minor if they be neither three Substances Manifestations c. nor any thing else this renders them nothing and contradicts both the Major and Conclusion where they are something else which is three Persons he saith so the tenour of his Argument runs thus they are something but they are nothing he meant nothing else but three Persons therefore they are three Persons It would have held better thus but against himself If the Father the Word and Spirit be not three distinct Substances then not three distinct Persons but they are not three distinct Substances Ergo. unless he can shew us a distinct person without its own substance But his Brother T.D. saith A person is rationalis naturae individua substantia an individual substance of a rational nature see how flatly T.D. and T.V. have Contradicted one another herein one affirming they are three Persons because not three Substances the other That a person is an individual substance But if T. V. by saying There is not a word in his Syllogism but what is to be found in Scripture intends that every word particularly is to be found in Scripture the word Substance the word Manifestation Operation Person c. abstractively what proves this of his matter for the contrary may as well be asserted from bare words I never met with more silly kind of Arguing before And if so be his other Argument from the Property of the Father to beget of the Son to be begotten of the Holy Ghost to proceed from them both c. be an Argument sufficient to prove Three distinct Persons in the God-head with three incommunicable Properties c. Then doth it not follow as well That every spiritual perfect Gift that proceeds from God to man must needs be a Person and then so many Gifts or manifold Graces as proceed from him or are begotten by him are so many Persons in him which would be numerous indeed and amount to a Plurallity of Trinities for the Spitit is given variously and in divers Manifestations and the graces gift of God are many and manifold but the shallowness of this mans arguing who is it cannot see besides that Christ being the express Image of the Fathers substance and the Spirit the Life of both it 's neither scriptural nor reasonable to say that the Image and Life of One and the same thing should be either Two distinct and separate Persons from it or from their own substance so that still it follows that if the Three bearing Record in Heaven be One divine substance and not Three substances then not Three distinct or separate Persons As also God is called both the Word and Spirit Farther Mark the manner of T. V. his expressing his Doctrine viz. The Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence and the Unity of the Divine Essenee in the Trinity of Persons that three should be one and that one should be three that three should be distinguished but not divided that one should not be another the first should not be the second nor the second the third nor the second or third the first and yet the first second and third the same that the first should be in the second and the second in the first and both first and second in the third Thus far T.V. for his separate persons Reader Do but mark his Jigg here and what a whirling he has made like one distempered but where is his Scripture for all this see how he manages it pag. 26. he saith Reason it may be will leave us in our search after the Deity in the Trinity and the Trinity c. but where Reason faileth Faith must supply its room And then tells us of Mysteries which Reason cannot demonstrate to us and that in this Mystery of the Trinity we must Exercise our Faith though we cannot clear it to our selves by demonstration c. But sure whilst Reason hath so much failed T. V. and his Brethren in this matter that thereby they cannot clear it to themselves by demonstration it s very strange and unreasonable they should make such a stir in the dark as they have done to Impose it on the Faith of others and what tends this to but to force People to Exercise an implicite Faith whilst they have neither Scripture Reason Demonstration nor Revelation for that 's ceased they say to ground a Faith upon
competent judge over them whilst he hath perverted them both in the former Powers days and now also and whilst in those days he did indeavour to insinuate into the Powers that then were against the Quakers he was plainly manifested and his Errors and Falshoods detected by those faithfull Servants of Christ Samuel Fisher Richard Hubberthorn and my self he might now have been silent from raking over his old silly confused stuff so long since answered and confuted since that from the ample Confutation and just reproof and discovery given against him by Samuel Fisher he could never yet clear himself nor hath essayed a Replication thereto but only a slight put off as will appear without either Truth or Reason and as for his commendation of the pains of his worthy Friend Master Thomas Vincent as he calls him he has little ground to applaud his pains for he has sufficiently manifested his envy errors confusion and shallowness as any unbyassed may see as also the palpable contradictions both to himself and T. D. so that they should first have studied to see a reconciliation and harmony between their own Principles before they had come thus publickly to engage but it is the Judgement of God upon them and such giddied spirits that one should oppose and contradict another till they are both overturned and broke to pieces in their war but if his worthy Friend Thomas Vincent hath done so worthily against the Quakers why doth T. D. take so much pains again after him why doth he actum agere as he saith his Answer is because of some reflections upon him also that as experience hath shewed there is a great deal of difference of intellectual gifts and that the Method Phrase and Notions of scarce any one man are acceptable to all he saith by which it appears that he was conscious or at least jealous that his worthy Master Vincent's work would not be so acceptable as his own but would give distaste and therefore he has endeavoured to smooth it over and to new moddel it in another phrase according to what he has imagined and learned out of Writers and old Authors both Popish and others but what saith he for not answering Samuel Fisher's Book against himself Jo. Owen Baxter and Tombs Entituled Rusticus ad Academicos which they were never able to answer nor to reply to T. D. excuseth himself as followeth viz. If any Quaker shall demand why I do not answer Samuel Fisher 's Book against me instead of writing against a new man I answer that I am guided in my neglect by the judgment of abler Persons then my self that that Book is but a Bundle of impertinent cavils c. Indeed this is a very easie way of answering which if we should deal so with T. D. what would he say to it and to such neglect but this doth not clear himself from Samuel Fisher's Answer but it stands over his head and if he was guided by abler persons then himself in not answering S. F. those abler persons for ought as appears might see T. D. so baffled and confuted that it was in vain for him to strive any further and if abler persons then himself did advice him in that case he should have followed the example thereof so as not to have meddled as he hath done to the further manifesting his weakness and folly and as for his instance of Biddles twelve Articles against the Holy Ghost's Diety t is no president nor instance for us as is most falsly insinuated against us whilst we never denied the Diety or Divinity of either Father Word or Holy Ghost And how doth he advise the Reader to be at pains to understand the positive grounds of the great Truths opposed by the Quakers as he falsly saith what must give the understanding thereof if not the Light of Christ within and how must sacred mysteries be known and what must bring to the right use of reason and to understand the Scriptures if immediate Revelation or Inspiration be supposed not attainable in these days Can the natural man with his natural understanding know the things that are spiritual surely no or know the right use of the Scriptures without the guidance of that infallible Spirit that gave them forth no sure for it is the Inspiration of the Almighty that giveth understanding And Seeing also that T.D. confesseth that Reason tells us the Nature and Works of God are above our reach and that God were not Gof if he could be comprehended by a Creature which if so that the Nature and Works of God are above his and their reach and comprehension why has he essayed so much by his natural understanding to define and distinguish the Godhead into three distinct Persons which he has no Scripture for nor yet Reason to demonstrate nor Revelation to ground a Faith upon in that case whilst the Presbyterians were wont to affirm Revelation to be ceased and to be sure God will not put the Seal of his immediate power to a falshood as is confessed so that whilst we have neither Revelation Scriptures Reason nor Seal of immediate Power for their Doctrines and distinctions put upon the Diety we have ground at least to question them if not positively to oppose them as unscriptural irrational implicite Doctrines and Traditions which hath tended to vail both the glory of God Christ and holy Spirit which we confess from people And now to T. D's definition of the word Person first from Aquinas as being an individual substance of a rational nature but his worthy Friend Tho. Vincent hath denied the Father the Word and the Spirit to be three Substances then I ask how they can be three distinct Persons whilst a Person is an individual Substance what contradiction is this But then T. D. saith Some think it viz. Aquinas his Explanation of Person liable to some exception and therefore he chuseth to borrow that of learned Wotton on 1 Joh. 1.2 pag. 2. that a Person is an individual Subsistance or Subsistent rather in an intellectual nature or a several or singular thing that subsists by it self c. A Man we call a Person a Person notes some one endued with Reason and understanding which is several and distinct from another a Person is intire of it self c. pag. 1 2. Concerning which I query first whether the Father the Word and holy Spirit be three several and singular things that subsist each by himself each one from another yea or nay Secondly whether a man being a Person is a competent instance for proof of his Maker being three several Persons and whether a man subsists by himself Thirdly whether Christ be several and distinct by himself from God and the holy Spirit several and distinct from both If yes where or in what place of the whole world or out of it is the one entire and severed from the other and how far distant one from another Fourthly And if the Father Son and Holy Ghost do
and his own notions and conceptions which are not grounded on Scripture and therefore we may not have our Faith imposed upon by them as to accept of his humane conceptions and notions which cannot reach the nature of God for divine verities And how says T. D. That infiniteness being a property of the Divine Nature agrees to each Person subsisting in that Nature contrary to his worthy Master Vincent's saying that infiniteness is not ascribed unto the Personality but such like confusion and conrradiction we have enough of from them And indeed such nonsensical stuff as is in both their Pamphlets I have seldom met withal as one while T. D. saith We do not affirm the Person in the Godhead to be finite but infinite another while T. V. saith infiniteness is not ascribed to them another while T. D. saith pag. 14. That they are one among themselves only in respect of that wherein they agree not simply What kind of oneness or agreement doth he reckon is in the Diety if it be not simply Was there ever such darkness and confusion uttered and what blind Sophistry and silly Logick and babling do these men use and put upon the Immortal God whom with all their inventions airy notions and vain conceptions they can never reach the knowledge of neither will nor can their Heathenish Phylosophy tearms of Aristotle nor apostate Christians and Papists demonstrate or discover the Knowledge of either Father Word or Spirit to any people that want the knowledge thereof but make them more dark and ignorant and shut them up in more blindness as they have a long time done And his saying that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may by a metalepsis yea must be rendred Person or Subsistent or some word to that effect and so tells that Just. Martyr applies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Father Son and Spirit pag. 17. Reply Surely T. D. is put very hard to it to word his Doctrine by his Anology and Metalepsis for his distinctions of Persons and his thereby rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Person of necessity Where proves he this and those tearms by Scripture and if they signifie one and the same thing why is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebr. 1.3 and Chap. 11.1 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As in Hebr. 11.1 Faith is the Substance of things hoped for it is not Person of things hoped for the same word that is for Substance in that is Hebr. chap. 2. verse 3. where it is speaking of the Son of God who being the brightness of his Glory and the express Image of his Substance Besides what ever Authors or Fathers so called did put names distinctions and tearms upon the Godhead which were either improper or unscriptural we must believe the Scriptures rather then them And do they count all Justin Martyr wrot One hundred fifty years after Christ to be of equal Authority with the Scriptures of Christ and the Apostles Or might not probably Justin bring in some of his Philosophy which is not Scripture And we do not read in the Scriptures either of three distinct Substances in God or three distinct Persons for where are they so rendred either in the Hebrew Greek Latine or English in Scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelations But if they be not three Substances as Tho. Vincent saith how doth T. Danson make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equivolent or apply both to Father Son and Spirit Is not here a manifest contradiction between these two Brethren unto themselves and their own Doctrine in this matter As for T. D. his Discourse about satisfaction there needs not much to be said unto it for that the matter hath been answered before as also in part he assents to W. P. in what he hath said for he T. D. doth not affirm any impossibility of forgiviness without a plenary satisfaction made as in the sence and notion some of them have c. And though he knows some worthy Persons do deny W. P's Affirmative yet he cannot joyn with them therein He saith also God is free in his determinations what attribute he will manifest and in what degree and manner and that between Justice and Mercy and their effects and all of his meer will interveens c. By all which in a great measure he hath confest to what W. P. hath writ in that case though in contradiction to his Brother Vincent as is evident But where he speakes of Vindictive Justice that God might onely have manifested when man fell as he does upon the reprobate Angels or Devils c. Now I query then Is this Vindictive Justice that which Christ under-went at God's hand and satisfied according to their Doctrine if they say it is where do the Scriptures say so or that God inflicted the same revengefull justice as I think they mean upon Christ that he doth upon the reprobate Angels or Devils and then make this the means and manner of full satisfaction for mankind let us have plain Scripture for this Doctrine was God's Love to man purchased by such revenge upon his innocent Son as he lays upon reprobate Angels or Devils or is it not rather blasphemous to suppose that Christ could ever be so far out of Gods favour as to construe his Sufferings to the height of revenge as goes against reprobate Angels and Devils and doth not this also accord with T. V. his Doctrine whereas Chrit was the beloved of the Father even his onely begotten the Son of his Love in whom his Soul delighted and was always well pleased both in his works and Sufferings both in his life and death for Sinners but angry with the wicked such as persecuted him and crucified him afresh unto themselves as he was also crucified in Spiritual Sodom and Egypt such Adversaries God will be avenged of but his pleasure shall prosper in the hand of his Anointed Seed Christ but these things T. D. his weak judgement as he confesseth it to be pag. 18. cannot reach And indeed in much of his Discourse about this matter he has talked more like a Lawyer then a Divine and has brought several similitudes which will not hold in matters of such high concernment But I shall not need much to take notice of his dark kind of reasoning in this particular which proceeds but from his weak judgemnt and private conceptions since the matter is answered elsewhere and the extent of his and their Principles therein is further manifest and handled about his and their Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness and his Arguments for Sin and Imperfection in all tearm of life yet a little to some particulars I may observe by the way of this point after he saith he shall give us his sence confessing that Satisfaction is not a Scripture phrase pag. 19. However we will chuse Scripture phrase rather then T. D's weak judgment and conceptions therein having
demonstration then clear Scripture surely whilst they cannot clear it and their distinctions to themselves they are not like to clear them unto others but instead of Scripture proof and demonstration we must either aquiesce with what their humane understandings can produce from Aquinas Wotton and Aristotle c. or else we are like to be most bitterly railed against by these our Opposers T.V. The three Holies Isa. 6.1 signifie the three persons Contradiction the Lord of Hosts the One God pag. 33. Contr. J. O. Contradicts T. V. pag. 45. where he saith That of Isa. 6.1 2. three Holy Holy Holy is the Lord of Hosts the whole Earth is full of his glory applyed unto the Son Joh. 12.41 42. Obs. How palpably one Contradicts another one saying the three Holyes signifies three Persons the other viz. J.O. saith They are applied to the Son who is but One. This Doctor Owen should correct his Brother Vincent T.V. The Son being Eternal this Generation must be Eternal the personal property of the Son is to be begotten pag. 36. Contr. T. V. They are three distinct persons from their distinct personal Acts Contradiction again Infiniteness is not applicable to the three distinct personallities pag. 45. The Son of God is God is infinite in Power in Wisdom and Goodness and Eternal pag. 30. Obs. Here manifest Contradiction to himself shews it self as much as to say That either the Son of God is eternal and yet not infinite or else That the Son of God being eternal is not a person distinct from God if a Person be not infinite but yet the Son of God is infinite in Power Wisdom Goodness c. How ever these can be reconciled I leave to the ingenious to judge T. V. The Father Word and Holy Ghost are three subsistences pag. 13.43 not three substances pag. 13. They are three distinct subsistents pag. 27. A person is one individual subsistent rather T.D. pag. 2. Obs. Here they are now put to it what to call them being not three substances as T. V. saith they call them three subsistences But now it must be subsistents rather But then in Contradiction to both Doctor Owen saith The Holy Ghost is a substance a personal subsistence What differs now between substance and subsistence T. D. What the Scripture hath revealed to us concerning that distinction in the God-head cannot be apprehended under any other Notion or Resemblance which therefore we attribute to God pag. 3. We know not what to call those three but persons Contr. T.D. Of the Father Word and Spirit c. from 1 Joh. 1.7 Now all Witnesses properly so called are persons pag. 5. Then these Witnesses must needs be distinct pag. 7. Obs. Why is not that Scripture produced all this while if there be such as reveal your distinctions and notion of persons in God And why do you not know what to call those three in Heaven but Persons when T.D. knows how to call them Witnesses What ignorance and Contradictions are here T. V. From Matth. 3.16 17. Herein is a distinction of all the three persons The Son cloathed in Flesh The Spirit in the shape of a Dove The Father in the Voice c. pag. 34. Contr. W.M. The Father Son and Holy Ghost being of an infinite Nature are three Persons Co-essential Co-equal Co-eternal pag. 29. Contr. T.V. The Son being Eternal his Generation must be Eternal the personal property of the Holy Ghost is to proceed from the Father and the Son pag. 36. Obs. Quest. But was Christ being cloathed with Flesh or the Spirits appearing in the shape of a Dove or being sent from Eternity are these pertinent proofs of their distinct personalities which are reckoned Co-eternal c. And whether or to whom was the Spirit sent from Eternity T.V. The Holy Ghost is God which W.P. doth deny pag. 32. his denyal of the Divinity of Christ is plain pag. 28. Contr. T.V. The Unity of the God-head is not denyed by the Adversaries I have to do withal pag. 28. Obs. So here the same person that is accused for denying the Divinity of Christ is in these latter words cleared as not denying that Unity of the God-head and to be sure he doth confess the Father the Word and the Spirit to be One being one Divine Substance and so One God T. V. The Son is God co-essential co-equal co-eternal with the Father Christ is infinite in power wisdom and goodness eternal pag. 29 30. T. V. In regard of his humane Nature the Jewes speak truth Joh. 8.57 Thou art not yet fifty years old as he was a Son of Abraham and born many generations after him pag. 31. Obs. Quest. And was not he a Person as he was a Son of Abraham not fifty years old if he was as I never heard any yet deny and your Doctrine supposes a Trinity of distinct Persons as being co-eternal co-equal c. doth not this then render Christ as a Son of Abraham to be a fourth person 2. Touching Pardon and Satisfaction T. V. That God never doth nor will nor can pardon any sinner without Satisfaction made to his offended Justice for their sins because his Holiness Righteousness and Truth obligeth him to take Vengeance upon all that have transgressed his Law pag. 54. T. V. Christ the eternal Son of God the second person of this glorious Trinity the Doctrine of Satisfaction depending upon this person The Lord Jesus Christ proved to be God equal with the Father pag. 54. Contrad T. D. Many of us do not affirm any impossibility of forgiveness without Satisfaction and for my part though I know some worthy Persons do deny W. P 's affirmative yet I cannot joyn with them therein for to me it is evident that God is free in his Determinations what Attribute he will manifest pag. 17 18. Contrad T. V. God proclaims himself to be gracious and merciful pag. 60. He is exalted upon the Throne of his Mercy ready to forgive sinners pag. 60 61. God was at the Charges of his own Satisfaction Job 33.24 pag. 62. Obs. Then it appears That God had Power to shew himself Gracious he willeth not the Death of sinners but rather their return and Merciful ready to forgive sinners upon Repentance he being at the Charges of his own Satisfaction as is said in giving his Eternal Son who is confessed to be God equal with the Father all which in the best sense amounts to this That God satisfied himself with his own Gift and without performing his own Will he could not be satisfied And who ever doubted or made question or Controversie of that if it were so taken but this proves not their unscriptural terms phrases and notions of Law supposed in the case nor yet that God took vengeance on Christ instead of all Transgressors and they to go free and yet still sin T. V. It was necessary that the Person that should make Satisfaction should be a Man because none but a Creature
the Question and presumption in thee especially whilst by your vain Philosophy some of you have either rendered them as Three Gods or denied them to be Infinite as in pag. 45. Yea and it was evident to many That we found fault with your mis-calling and mis-representing the Father the Word and Spirit and never in the least opposed nor questioned their being Three such as mentioned in Scripture viz. The Father Son and Holy Ghost but there openly confessed to the Fundamental Truth of them in Scripture terms And when you fell into your needless Questions and Philosophick terms of incommunicabl properties subsistences c. I to bring the matter to be more obvious to the People to shorten and mittigate the Controversie and to abate your heat did tell you That if you meant by incommunity of properties the Fathers begetting the Son and the Spirits being sent state your Question so in plain English Whether the Son was begotten and the Spirit sent of the Father and it would quickly end the Controversie But nothing would serve you but an Answer to your vain babling and School-terms with such a limitation as Aye or No as if the Scripture terms and expressions were in this to be waved and slighted as insufficient and your confusion vain â—hilosophy and deceit must be set up above the Scriptures of Truth though you profess them to be your Rule at other times But here in plain Contradiction you have gone about to obscure Divine Mysteries under your Traditional terms of Heathenish Metaphysicks and laid such a stress upon them as if all were to be deem'd Blasphemers and Hereticks and so to be damned that cannot confess own and be tyed up to your terms nice and confused distinctions which you presumptuously put upon the Father Word Spirit And as for W. M. his accusing us with rejecting the Son and so the Father It is a gross slander as many more of his accusations are and never was it in our Intention nor Doctrine so to do whilst the Oneness of Father Son and Spirit we really confess to but disown your blind distinctions which deny them Infiniteness And as for W. M. his so much talk of three Hee 's each of which he saith is by nature God We do not read in Scripture that God is called three Hee 's or three distinct Hee 's and therefore three distinct separate Persons indeed Children in the Accidence call Hee the third Person singular But that both the Father and Son speaking of themselves use the word Hee as I am Hee and he that is with you shall be in you Christ speaking of his own manifestation which was that other Comforter I will not leave you comfortless I will come unto you But each of these three Hee 's he tells of he hath told us is by nature God so then they are One as God the Word and Spirit are And as to his charge of Ignorance of Philosophy about Subsistence which he sayes is not a form of a Hee but the manner of his being His Charge of Ignorance of his kind of Philosophy and such nice distinctions as this between manner and form we can easily bear and pass by and leave them to feed upon it who will choose such chaff for their food knowing that the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ consists not in such trifles W.M. The form of God the Father is his Divine Nature but his Subsistence is his manner of being in the relative Property of the Father and so he speaks of the Form and Subsistence of the Son and Holy Ghost as his terms of them are Now touching these distinct Subsistences or manners of being wherein stands their Model distinction of Three distinct Personalities to which they say in pag. 45. That infiniteness is not applicable and that there be three distinct Personallities unto which infiniteness is not ascribed Here they have given People to understand what their meaning is about their three distinct Subsistences or Personallities that they are not Infinite What then Is the Father Son and Holy Spirit Finite What gross darkness is this Let the impartial Reader judge whether we have not sufficient ground and cause to oppose them and their vain Philosophy in this so high a matter and whether herein their Doctrine doth not blasphemously oppose the Divinity of Father Son and Spirit and they go about to eclipse and detract from the Glory of the infinite God-head whilst at other times in contradiction they confess each to be God and tell of the Eternal Son of God and say That in the concret every subsistent is infinite but not the subsistance or personallity in the abstract What darkness is here Is God divided or Father Son and Holy Ghost separate or abstract from their Essences and where then is this finite personallity so much contended for Is it in God yea or nay or relating to his Divine Being or Substance But if these distinct personallities or subsistances which they say are not infinite be the relative Properties of the Father Son and Spirit then I ask Hath not this Doctrine denied both Father Son and Holy Spirit to be infinite Let the unbyassed Readers judge And yet in Confutation of themselves again there 's God the Father the first Person God the Son a Person distinct from him God the Holy Ghost a Person proceeding from both How to make sense of these three distinctions comparing them together or how to make them hang together without rendering them Three Gods and not only so but such as are not Infinite doth not yet appear to me And whether my comparison of not understanding Paul Peter and John could be three Persons each of them an Apostle and yet all but one Apostle was not suitable to detect these mens unscriptural Doctrines and Distinctions and to shew the absurdity of the consequences thereof which whilst this railing angry man W. Madox doth so often take it as a comparing the Father Son and Holy Ghost to three Apostles herein he hath grossely wronged and abused me and his own understanding And his Charge of Blasphemy against me for that he intimates that I should say That God is but equal with man I return back upon him as a most malicious horrid slander and an apparent Lye against me It was never my intent nor saying for if I had said That God is but equal with man or compared the Father Son and Holy Ghost to three Apostles then had I and these ridgid Presbyterians accorded nearer than we did for then had I owned their Dostrine and terms of three distinct and separate persons in the God-head which are not infinite which I can never own nor believe nor depend upon any God or thing which is finite for Salvation Besides I never denied finite man nor three distinct Apostles as Paul Peter and John to be distinct and separate Persons so if I had really compared the Deity to such we had not differed about the distinction of
not subsist in a several and distinct nature of the same kind so as they are not three Gods as is confessed pag. 3. how are they three distinct or separate persons subsisting each by himself These things being considered by the impartial Readers the absurdity of the Presbyterians Doctrine and Comparison touching the Deity will easily appear And what was this Aquinas quoted as T. D's Author so much cited and commented by him as a wise Observant pag. 19 Was not he a great Writer for the Romish Religion and the Pope's Doctrine of Transubstantiation and so a promoter of Popery in his time and canonized 〈◊〉 Saint among them see his large Volums his Sums and others he is highly applauded by the Papists as being an industrious Promoter of their Faith and Religion and was he not a Dominican Fryer To whom it appears that T. D. is very much beholding for his Doctrine of three distinct or sever'd Persons in the Godhead more then he is to Scripture for that is silent concerning it but I have of late Read it in Aquinas his Sums who is Tho. Danson's wise Observant And further mark that after T. D. has confessed that the word Person cannot be properly attributed to Father Son and Holy Ghost and that the Names common to God and the Creatures do signifie somthing wherein the Creatures bears some anology to God and three Persons not strictly yet anologically in the Godhead pag. 3 4. Where proves he this by Scripture and wherein doth man bear a proportion or likeness in his Person with his Maker this is strange Doctrine importing that the Diety hath the resemblance or likeness of persons but not properly which if improperly why do they stand so much upon their improper distinctions in the Godhead Yet saith T. D. may this word Person be used by us to distinguish the Father Son and Spirit in the Godhead and one from another Answer So it appears he pleads for a liberty to put improper names upon God from his pretence of anology the Scripture he mentions Hebr. 1.3 makes against him it being the express Image of his Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but as it is in some English Copies express Image of his Person however it is not the express Person of his Person much less the express singular Person or rational Substance subsisting by it self distinct from the Father For I and my Father are one said Christ and the Son doth nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do and the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father and if so be that the Soul separated from the Body cannot be called a Person as T. D. saith pag. 2 3. how can he presume to call the Spirit which is the Life or Breath of God a Person distinct from God whilst God is never distinct and separate from his own Life But then it appears that T. D. is necessitated to call the Glorious Divine three in Heaven somthing and therefore he saith that distinction in the Godhead cannot be apprehended by us by any other notion or resemblance then Person and saith he we know not what to call these three but Persons pag. 4. For the conception or notion that we have of the Father suppose as a Subsistent or Person is in adaequatus conceptus in respect of the Divine Essence c. pag. 17. Reply But by what doth he and his Brethren apprehend this concerning God surely neither by the Scripture not by immediate Revelation or Inspiration nor yet by reason for that has failed them in this matter as also the nature and works of God is above their reach and the comprehension of the Creature so that their conceptions and notions being unscriptural we have no ground to believe them whilst we have but their conceptions words and notions for what they say derived from Popish and Heathen Authors and not from any immediate Power Revelation or Scripture and his saying they do not know what to call these three but Persons shews they were hard put to it as being necessitated to call them something but what are they ignorant of the Scripture or would not the Scripture satisfie them and yet profess it their Rule they had better search the Scriptures instead of Aquinas and Aristotle and see what they are called there viz. The Father the Word and Holy Ghost which are One besides these three bearing record in Heaven T. D. hath elsewhere called them Witnesses pag. 5 7 and 10. and thus he contradicts himself one while he knows not what to call them but Persons and another while calls them three Witnesses from their bearing Record and thus in contradiction he knows what to call them besides Persons but then he saith all Witnesses properly so called are Persons How proves he that Are not all things that bear record Witnesses Are Heaven and Earth Persons and are the Water and the Blood Persons seeing they bear record in the Earth and is Conscience in a man a Person distinct from the man seeing Conscience beareth witness if it be how then is the Soul distinct from the Body no Person page 3 5. T. D. upon 1 John 5.9 the Witness of God is greater referring to the Witness concerning Christ verse 7. not to verse 8. for none of those Witnesses are God Reply And yet those Witnesses verse 8. are the Spirit the Water and the Blood herein T. D. hath denied the Spirit to be God contrary to their former pretence and so is come under that they have so unjustly charged us withal but we own the Divinity of that Spirit that bears record in the Earth and know the Water and Blood which agree in one with it to be therefore Spiritual and of this water and Spirit a man must be born or else he cannot enter the Kingdom of God Joh. 13.5 and by this Blood his Conscience must be sprinkled from dead works who ever comes to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary And we may further observe how dubious T. D. in his Work hath appeared from what he saith pag. 83. viz. If my Answers seem not so clear as the Objections which I hope I need not fear unless in the point of the Trinity that being a Mystery so by that it rebates the sharpest edge of humane understanding c. By which the Reader may take notice that he was conscious to himself that his Answers in this case might not seem so clear as the Objections and that he has but made use of his humane understanding and not of Scripture therein the Edge of which is so rebated and grown so dull that it will take very little impression upon any that are in a right mind and understanding even none at all upon such who rely not nor lean to their own understandings but upon the guidance of the Spirit of Truth which leads into all Truth which it appears he has refused and gone from whilst he is now fain to make use of his humane understanding
3.13 Hosea 14.3 Joh. 17.11 Tit. 2.24 Ephes. 5.25 26 27. 1 John 3. 1 Cor. 2.6 Col. 1.28 29. ch 4.12 2 Tim. 3.17 James 1.4 But what sin or sins he can charge upon either the holy Patriarchs Prophets or Apostles that they were not freed from perfectly before their decease this he hath yet to shew and evince to us concerning all them that died in the Faith who finished their Testimony with Joy and Peace T. D. Arg. 2. That there is a continual need and use of Faith and Repentance in thâ—s life therefore c. Answ. That there is a continual need of Repentance this I deny for true Repentance where it is wrought and the fruits of it brought forth this is unto Salvation never to be repented of and is attended with a real forsaking of sin and transgression this is beyond your fained repentance humility which is still to be repented of as the sins of your best performances are also True and Living Faith purifies the heart and is the Saints Victory and the exercise of it through that Divine Power and Love by which it works against temptations and the fiery darts of the Devil after the mind and heart is cleared from sin and pollution it being one thing for man to sin and another Only to be tempted to sin so that it is a falsehood to say that there is a like reason for a continual need of Repentance in this life as there is for the use of Faith neither doth that 1 Cor. 13. ult prove that Repentance abideth with Faith Hope and Charity as falsly T. D. reasons might he not as well say there is the same reason for repentance to abide that there is for Charity to abide seeing that Faith Hope and Charity abide whereas Charity is the Bond of Perfection Col. 3.14 and Love is the fulfilling of the Law and the end of the Commandment is Love out of a pure Heart which positively opposeth T. D's sinfull Doctrine for sin and imperfection which tends greatly to pervert people and to keep his Hearers in unbelief whilst he doth not only deny that ever any attained to perfection but affirms Freedom from Sin not attainable in this life which is his gross ignorance and unbelief of Christ and his Power which is greater and stronger then the Devil and all his attempts and is able to overcome him and to destroy his works and in this Power of Christ the Faith of the Righteous stands and this we contend for against the Devil and all his sinful Agents who thus mannage and maintain his work And how falsly is it for T. D. pag. 56. to say that Charity or Love suits our present imperfect state as he also saith Faith and Hope doth whereas Charity or Love which is the Bond of Perfectness and is known in the pure heart suits that State which is of its own nature as Perfection and Purity is which is also effected through the true Faith that purifies the heart and that hope which he that hath purifieth himself even as he is pure 1 John 3. which admits not of sin and imperfection term of life for he that abideth in Christ sinneth not And as to that of Phil. 3. Not as though I had already attained or were already perfect to which T. D. saith He denies in one verse what he affirms in another if the word perfect be in both places understood in the same sence verse 12.15 To vers 12. I say that Paul did not say that Perfection was not attainable in this life neither doth it appear to be his judgment for then why should he follow after reach forth or press forward unto those things before and plainly say Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded Whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule Brethren be followers together of me and mark them which walk so as you have us for an Example vers 15 16 17. Surely he was not an Example of sin and imperfection but of purity and holiness yet notwithstanding he then both expected and believed a growth in the Spiritual and Divine Understanding and Apprehension of that for which he was apprehended of Christ so the Perfection he had not already then attained relating to such an apprehension as he speaks of doth not exclude that state of Perfection and integrity that he was then brought and apprehended into of Christ Jesus as to the Purity and Righteousness which he was a partaker of in Christ for the Child of God its growth in Strength Wisdom and Spiritual Vnderstanding doth not render it sinfull or impure in the nature and properties of it but rather shews its Purity and Innocency the more in that its truly capable of such a growth Page 56 57. But then when is this freedom from Sin or state of Holiness which T. D. saith will be in a proper sence perfect attainable if not in this life T. D. The Saints shall be invested with it at the Resurrection called The Resurrection of the Dead Metonimically in the Life to come indeed we shall be like God Reply By this we may understand that he has put off Freedom from sin from all Gods People till the life to come and not only so but till this Metonimical Resurrection according to his terms which he may understand is not as yet to any of the deceased though the Life to come that 's Everlasting as intended is by the Righteous enjoyed after this life I do not intend here to dispute his terms of the Resurrection but admitting it in his sence my end is to shew how he has excluded all the Saints both deceased and yet remaining from a state of freedom from sin as not being yet attained to it if this Resurrection he intends be yet to come and then where are they in the mean time where are their Souls where are their sins and pollutions and imperfections if all be yet uncleansed and not freed from sin will not T. D's Doctrine herein meer and be one with the Popes touching a Purgatory for if none be perfectly cleansed here and yet none come to God or into his Kingdom unclean they must be clensed somewhere he should have told us the Place of Purging which is not in the Grave not in Hell not in the Pit and it must be before Heaven be entred into what place then between both if T. D's Doctrine must be owned for Catholick on Authentick but who is it that are not meer Papist or that have nor drunk up his corrupt Doctrines that cannot see him his Popery Ignorance Confusion and Error herein And what Popery he hath at unawares run himself into is now obvious And Matth. 5.48 Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect to this T. D. saith Such Commands are the Measure of our Duty not of our Attainments in this Life Reply Thus he perverts and diminisheth the righteous Commands of God as if God had
either required a thing not attainable or as if being perfect as he is perfect were but the measure of our Duty and so to be put off till the Life to come wherein the Saints had not such Commands given to them seeing they are not capable of sinning in the Life to come but John said As is he so are we in this world 1 John 4.17 And herein they knew their Love made perfect and this is more then either the small resemblance of Children to their Parents which T. D. speaks of and beyond his imperfect sinfull state and Doctrine for the perfect Love which they had was in them a perfect resemblance of God who is Love verse 16. But this way of T. D. his slighting and diminishing and falsly interpreting the Commands of God which require such perfection only as the measure of our Duty is like his Brethren saying That a Child of God his not committing Sin is to be meant he doth not make a trade of Sin which indeed is a very easie way they have taken to pervert the Commands of God and to give ease and liberty to the Transgressors in their sins as if when a thing is absolutely required of them they should put it off with this It is meant only as but in part to be obeyed and so if they should deal thus with God and say Lord then requires us not to Steal or not to commit Adultery or not to Covet but we are to understand it as that we cannot altogether abstain from Stealing Adultery or Covetousness only we are not to make a trade of these things nor wholy make it our business to be imployed in them what acceptance do they think such a Plea would have before the Lord and what Answer would he make them to this their corruption and what resentment would such Doctrine have in the minds of sober people if they should preach them and give such meanings to the Scriptures and tell them that where Stealing and Adultery and worldly â—usts and Covetousness are forbidden that they are not to go to the extent of the Commands but only not make a trade or a common practice of Stealing or these things c for thus they have dealt with many of God's Commands enjoyning perfect Holiness and Righteousness but then they have an easie way to lay all upon Christ as having paid their debt and fulfilled the Righteousness of the Law in his Person in their stead so that they must not expect its fulfilling in their persons for where the Scripture speaks of its being fulfilled in us we are to understand by in us that it is in Christ's Person and this is the manner of their course from time to time both to shut Christ his Works and Righteousness out of People so much as in them lies 1 John 3.9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit Sin T. D. saith to this We may interpret it as he is born of God he doth not sin every Child of God is mixta persona Pag. 57. as our Law sayes of the King consists of an old and new nature and so his new nature is Principium quo the Principle from which he acts graciously and the old nature the Principle from which he acts sinfully Reply Here again he hath palpably perverted plain Scripture and contradicted the Apostle John as may be seen in that 1 John 3. For he that is born of God who doth neither commit sin nor can sin because he is born of God has put off the old nature and is not acted by that Principle which leads to act sinfully because he cannot sin and that gracious Principle in him hath overcome the sin and the nature of it and so to tell of his being mixta persona is T. D's gross blindness For first that which is born of God that overcomes the World is not mixt with sin nor with the old sinful nature Secondly He or whosoever is born of God whose Seed remains in him who abideth in Christ is not acted by that old sinful nature because he is born of God and abideth in Christ in whom is no sin neither is mans having divers parts as Body and Soul c. or his being liable or not liable to death any reason to shew that he that is born of God doth act sinfully from the old nature for the Bodies of the Saints were the Temples of the Holy Ghost and their Bodies were sanctified and so brought into subjection unto the Divine Spirit or Principle in them so as they might glorifie God in their bodies and in their spirits which were his Again T. D's meaning to that first of John 3.9 is That it may intend the manner of sinning so the 8 th verse seems to limit it be that committeth sin is of the Devil for the Devil sinneth from the beginning the Comparison quoth he is not between the act simply for then it should have been said only for the Devil sinneth but from the beginning implies a Comparison between the manner of man's sin and the Devils in respect of which he is said to be of the Devil because he immitates his example who from the day he began never ceased to sin nor ever did one truly good action Observ. By this we may gather T. D's limitation put upon that of 1 John 3.9 and the Comparison he makes between not the act simply but the manner of mans sin and the Devils still taking it for granted that he that is born of God doth sin and acts sinfully from the old nature but not in that manner as he that is of the Devil who intimates his example so that his meaning and comparison seems to amount to this that he that is born of God doth sin but not always or not as the Devil sinneth he is somewhat better then the Devil in that he doth some good actions but the Devil doth none Reply Surely our opposer hath come off but very poorly in his arguing for the Devils work contrary both to the state and testimony of such as were born of God whom he hath here very meanly debased and sadly abused the Scriptures misrepresenting Gods Children whom he by his Eternal Power hath delivered from the power of Sin and Satan and given them a Heavenly place in Christ where the Devil cannot come and in whom the Prince of the World hath nothing nor his sinfull Ministers any part or interest whilst they plead against God's Promises holy Commands and against the very end and purpose of Christ's manifestation as T. D. and his Brethren have done wherein they have shown themselves to be Antichrist's Agents and Ministers and not the true Christ's Now touching Christ's Enlightning every man whose Light we affirm to be saving this is set down as an Error by T. D. he and his Brethren denying the Light of Christ in every man to be Saving in its own nature and property which we do affirm it to be but that he enlightens every man to
concerning the Terms and Conditions whereon Sinners may be interested in the Satisfaction made by Christ J. O. saith pag. 167. It may also be farther evinced that there is nothing asserted in them but what is excellently suited unto the common notions which mankind hath of God and his Righteousness and that in their practice they answer the Light of Nature and common Reason exemplified in sundry instances among the Nations of the World Answ. First it is to be observed that a great stress is laid upon these Explications Declarations or Confessions of yours as relating to the terms and interest you claim in Christ's Satisfaction unto the determination of God's Will and Confirmation of Divine testimonies according to J. O's words wherein no less then Salvation appears to be concerned for without an interest in Christ and his Righteousness men cannot be saved Secondly Your Assertions herein being suited unto the common notions of mankind and as answering the Light of Nature and common Reason as it is called and as J. O's words are whether herein hath he not rendred this Light and common Reason together with the common notions mankind hath of God to be of a saving property since it so suits those things wherein Salvation is so deeply concerned according to J. O. but then if he does not reckon mens common Notions Light or Reason which is natural to be saving as indeed we do not believe that any thing natural as of man in the Fall can save then may we not reasonablely look upon J.O. to have asserted and declared those things wherein Salvation is not concerned or which we are not to look upon as answering that Light which is Spiritual and Saving but only common Notions and natural Reason whilst he and his Brethren keep not to plain Scripture Language and but run into notions terms distinctions which they have by Tradition from men mens inventions more suiting common and corrupt reason then Divine Light But and if the Light in men be Divine which manifests divine Revelations and Testimonies relating to Salvation such as J. O. would have us believe his matter to be grounded on then it follows that such a light is common or universal in mankind and not only given to a few nor natural as it hath been often rendred by such as J. O. and what doth this spiritual or divine Light teach concerning God and his Righteousness but that he is to be feared obeyed and honoured and that all sin and iniquity should be forsaken and God's Righteousness Power and Image which is Christ Jesus lived in obeyed and followed by man for herein is God well pleased and satisfied in beholding his own Image and birth renewed and brought forth which admits not of sin nor imperfection much less of either pleading contending disputing or preaching for its continuance in all term of life and this Light of Christ within however any miscall it is that which gives the knowledge of God's Love in Christ and of the vertue and efficacy of his Suffering and so of his Blood and to eat of his flesh which is given for the Life of the World wherein we partake of him as the one Offering at the Altar of God in his Sanctuary which the carnal Professors both among Jews and pretended Christians were and are ignorant of and in this Light are we come to know and receive Christ and reconciliation through his Death and also the glory of God through him in whom we have received the Attonement Peace and Union with the Father in the Son which all you that either slight oppose or deny this Light within and say its but natural are ignorant of being but in your dark notions natural apprehensions and conceivings which you intermix with Scripture so that the Dignity Glory Power and Vertue that is and ever was in Christ you do but talk of without the real sence discerning or enjoyment thereof but every one that truely waits upon the Living God in his Light and Life within whereby their minds and spirits being subjected unto his Will and their hearts truly broken before him such know the Ransom and Attonement which the Righteous and redeemed of the Lord knew and witnessed in all Ages and have that to offer unto God and such Sacrifices to present before him wherein he behold of his own glory and beauty and savours of his own vertue which is truly acceptable and well pleasing unto him who delighteth in his own Image Seed and Royal Off-spring which none truly know but who come into the Light to receive Christ the promised Seed which bruiseth the Serpents head and to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood without which you have no Life in you for all your talk and notions Pag. 185. J. O. The Sacrifice denotes his Humane Nature whence God is said to purchase his Church with his own Blood Acts 20.28 For he offered himself through the Eternal Spirit there was the matter of the Sacrifice which was the Humane Nature of Christ Soul and Body his Soul was made an Offering for Sin Isa. 53.10 his Death had the nature of a Sacrifice c. Answ. These Passages are but darkly and confusedly expressed as also we do not read in Scripture that the Blood of God by which he purchased his Church is ever called the Blood of the Humane Nature nor that the Soul of Christ was the Humane Nature or was put to death with the Body for the wicked could not kill the Soul though his Soul was made an Offering for sin and he poured it out to death he bore the sin of many and made intercession for Transgressors but what death and in what manner was it is a mystery truly to know for his Soul in his own being was Immortal and the Nature of God is Divine and therefore that the Blood of God should be of Humane or earthly nature appears inconsistent and where doth the Scripture call the Blood of God Humane or Humane Nature Neither do we read that the Blood which beareth record in the Earth and agrees in one with the Spirit and which purgeth the Conscience washeth and cleanseth the Believer in the Light from all sin was ever called by the Apostles the blood of the Humane Nature nor do we read that the Saints did eat and drink Flesh and Blood that was of a Humane Nature to receive Divine Life in them thereby for the Water of Life and Blood of Christ which are said to wash sanctifie and justifie which agree in one with the Spirit in those works and effects we never read that they are called in Scripture by the name of Humane Nature for the Spirit that quickens is divine and it is the Spirit that gives Life the Flesh profiteth nothing John 6. And the Soul of Christ is Immortal and did not die with the Body though it s deemed as being of the Humane Nature with the Body and so as of the Sacrifice in Suffering and Death whereas though his Soul