Christ's Nature Divine and his Soul Divine which comes out from God And where is his Soul called Humane Come to the Accidence again thou that professes thy self to be a great Schollar tell us what Humane signifies 16 thly Thou speaks of Three Persons and a man is a Person What doest thou infer from this Is God a Man No he is a Spirit I tell thee the Scripture sayes so Is the Holy Ghost a Man It is call'd the Holy Spirit and Christ was a man the man Christ Jesus So it seems the Presbyterians can say little of himself but he hath learned something of the Learned Wotton in pag. the second but he doth not tell us what he is whether a Papist or an Heathen 17 thly Thou sayest the Soul is part of man's Nature Where doth the Scripture thy Rule say so For the Scripture saith God breathed into man the breath of Life and man became a Living Soul 18 thly Thou sayest the word Person cannot properly be attributed to the Father Son and Holy Ghost Why doth the Presbyterians rage so against the Quakers It seems you cannot agree among your selves because the Quakers speak as the Scriptures do Father Son and Holy Spirit and say the Scripture doth not speak of Three Persons as thou thy self in thy third page sayes the word Person cannot properly be attributed to the Father Son and Holy Ghost See how this man is in Confusion who saith sometimes there are Three separate Persons and another while the word Person cannot properly be attributed to the Father Son and Holy Chost But we do charge Danson and his Brethren to make this good by Scripture in plain words For the Scripture saith The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father and the Holy Ghost proceeds from them So how can you say they are separated when they are one in another but it shews you have little knowledge of God or Scriptures either 19 thly The Priest saith concerning that distinction in the God-head it cannot be apprehended by us and yet he will call them Three separated Persons and a Trinity and gives them Names which are not apprehended by you you might have been silent then in what you did not apprehend And yet you will lay Principles down concerning God the Son and Spirit which you do not apprehend your selves but presume above what is written and so go contrary to your Rule Should you not call the Father Son and Holy Spirit as the Holy Men did call them in the Scriptures 20 thly In the 4th page thou sayest The Father the Son and the Spirit are said to be Three yet but one God and yet thou sayest we do not know what to call those Three but Three Persons and there is that ascribed to them thou sayest Properties which agree not simply Answ. The Father Son and Spirit agree but that which you do ascribe do not agree with Scripture with them nor among your selves about them And if you do not know what to call the Father Son and Spirit but Three Persons you might have holden your Tongues then till you did know who calls them and gives them Names contrary to Scriptures and the Holy Men of God who called them Father Son and Spitit who were wiser Men then any of you 21 thly And again in thy 4th page thou sayest Thre Subsistents that is Persons though not strictly yet proportionably or Anologically so called in the God-head People Did you ever hear such a Mash We do charge this Presbyterian to make these words good by plain Scripture viz. Three Subsistents Three Persons and Analogically Is this a Scripture word People Where did the Apostles use any such dark words Hadst thou not this word from the Heathen Well Mark Reader he sayes there are Three Persons and Three Subsistents in the God-head and hath not he made Four here If there be Three in the God-head he hath made Four for what is the God-head God is One and he hath made Three besides see pag. 4. of his Book And so in the Title of his Book he speaks of Three Persons in the God-head Are there not Four then And in the said 4th page he sayes he thinks he hath answered all the Arguments of the Antitrinitarians he doth but think so it seems Answ. The Scripture saith 1 Joh. 5.7 That there are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one But he doth not say that they are separated nor distinct neither doth call them Persons And thus we call them as the Scriptures call them Father Word and Holy Ghost and the Apostle doth not say they are separate nor distinct and we are not to presume above what is written We charge you Presbyterians to give us printed Scriptures for these following words and let us see in what Chapter and Verse they are printed Come to the Rule and do not presume above what is written Concreet Abstract Predicate the Relative Co-eternity Co-essentiallity Co-equallity Communication of Properties Co-essentiallities Modallities Suppossitallities Incommunicable Subsistances and Hypostatical Unions Come are these words spoken in the Rule the Scriptures let us see the Chapter and Verse that we may see where such terms are spoken of the Father Word and Spirit which are one Had you not them rather from your old Logical and Philosophical Books And have not they been your Rule for such words and not the Scriptures which the Holy men of God spoke forth Thou sayest in the 12th page of thy Book That we must not take Man here for a Person but a Nature as you do God c. And yet before thou saidst That Man was a Person and so it is the Nature that is a Person and not the Man nor God but thou hast not defined to us what a Person is nor what the word Person signifies for all thy Schollar-ship And thou sayest Ye mean no more then the Name Man to be attributed to Peter James and John because the same human Nature specifically agrees unto them and so is the Name God attributed to each Person because the same Divine Nature subsists in each of them Answ. This is a dark thing to whom will you liken me saith God like Peter James and John or like unto some corrupt person The Saints were partakers of the Divine Nature What do you say of them therefore And where do the Scriptures speak that the Nature of God is so simple c. where learned you this word And where doth the Scripture use these words Accidents and Integrals of the God-head and this is your Conceptions and Notions of God and the Word and the Spirit as it 's said in the 13th page of Danson's Book It 's a Conception and Notion indeed For you say in the same 13th page The Conception or Notion that we have of the Father c. so it 's but a Notion and Conception it seems that you have of the Father and
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
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
in the Flesh hath ceased from sin that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the Flesh to the lusts of men but to the Will of God Chap. 4.1 2. Now the ceasing from Sin and following of Christ's steps in the harmless sinless state is the right use and end of his Suffering for man and his Example to man But then mark T. D's Doctrine as followeth what an example and subject of Wrath and Vindictive Justice so tearmed he renders Christ viz. T. D. pag. 36.4 Christ when he suffered was not innocent and when God required satisfaction of him it was due from him Christ was guilty of our sin when he suffered for it for guilt is but obligatio ad paenam an obligation to undergo punishment which Christ was under by contract Hebr. 7.22 Answ. It s no wonder that these Presbyterians and those of their affinity accuse all Christ's Followers of being Sinners and imperperfect all their life time since that T. D. one of their Leaders or Chieftains hath accused Christ not to be innocent when he suffered saying also Christ was guilty of our Sin when he suffered for it which how false and blasphemous this charge is against Christ I appeal to all sober and moderate Professors of Christianity who have any real esteem and reverence to the Name of Christ and his Glory and how contrary to plain Scripture-testimonies plentifully given of him as being a Lamb yea the Lamb of God which declared his innocency and purity being without sin or guile who offered up himself by the Eternal Spirit a Lamb without spot to God 1 Pet. 1.19 chap. 2.22 Hebr. 9.14 Isa. 53.7 Acts 8.32 Now his being a Lamb without spot and without blemish manifests him to be a perfect Offering and Sacrifice for Sin as also how guilt is more then barely an obligation to undergo punishment being always imputed to the Transgressors and disobedient for sin and not to Christ Rom. 3.19 Jam. 2.10 1 Cor. 11.27 Deut. 19.13 and 21.9 Exod. 34.7 Although t is true those chief Priests false Witnesses and Persecutors of Christ among the Jews and such as accused him for a Blaspemer they said also that he was guilty of death Mat. 26.65 66. Mark 14.64 whose example T. D. hath followed in accusing Christ of being guilty and not innocent But if T. D. should say he meant not that Christ was really or inherently or personally guilty of sin but by imputation and so not innocent but guilty of our sins by this we may perceive then what he means by imputation that on the one hand an innocent person is made guilty and is not innocent whilst he hath no sin nor guile or evil in him and so on the other hand by their own rule of contraries contraria contrariorum ratio persons are to be reckoned imputatively righteous and innocent in God's sight whilst there is neither righteousness nor innocency really in them which is both unreasonable unscriptural and apparently false It was a false imputation of the persecuting Jews and Tho. Danson to impute guilt of sin to Christ and to accuse him with not being innocent when no sin evil nor guilt was in him and it is as false an imputation of theirs to impute Christ's Righteousness to sinfull persons who are not in it nor partakes of it in them so it s neither God's imputation nor Christ's for had Abraham no righteousness really in him when his Faith was reckoned to him for righteousness where then was his Faith and the righteousness and obedience of it if in reallity he was not a partaker and an enjoyer thereof within from whence did his acts or works of real obedience proceed and flow if not from his living Faith and its righteousness within Surely they are of very mean capacities that cannot see T. D's absurdities ignorance in these matters And his vain imaginations and conceits about imputation further will appear and that the stress and drift of all his and his Brethrens work in these invented Doctrines â—s to keep people in their sins and imperfections all their dayes and so their work in rendring Christ the subject of guilt and so of vengeance that belongs to Devils and their rendring people the subjects of his Righteousness and Justification by imputation whilst unjust and sinful in themselves it all centers in their sinfull Doctrine for sin and imperfection term of life Pag. 37. As to T. D's telling of the Son of God's Incarnation the creation of his Body and Soul the parts of that nature he subsisted in c. To this I say if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both Created doth not this render him a Fourth Person for Creation was in time which contradicts their Doctrine of Three distinct Increated Co-eternal Co-essential Persons in the Deity seeing that which was created was not so but herein whether doth not his and their ignorance of the only begotten of the Father and their denial of Christs Divinity plainly appear yea or nay where doth the Scripture say that his Soul was created for was not he the brightness of his Fathers Glory and the express Image of his Divine Substance But supposing the Soul of Christ was with the Body created in time I ask if from Eternity he was a Person distinct from God and his holy Spirit without either Soul or Body and where doth the Scripture speak of any Person without either Soul or Body le ts have plain Scripture Pag. 38. Whilst T. D. grants our actual freedom from sin and wrath depends on what Christ did and suffered as on and upon its means what becomes of his Doctrine and Pleas for sin and imperfection which they that continues in term of life cannot be truly said to be Actually freed from sin nor yet imputatively righteous in Gods sight whilst actually and really sinfull And if Christ's obedience was not intended to exempt us from a personal obedience to the Law as is confest in pag. 38. then it s contrary to the end of his Obedience to live in sin and disobedience term of life and for any to be reckoned imputatively righteous when actually disobedient Secondly And if we be only so far made righteous by Christs Obedience as unrighteous by our own disobedience how far is that have we not been actually unrighteous and shall we so far be made righteous by Christ's Righteousness Is not this more then your Doctrine of Imputation whilst personally sinfull amount to but your flat contradictions in these matters are evident Pag. 39. And though Christ is our Surety this doth not exempt us either from following him or walking in the Way of God but the more ingage us therein and herein we know acceptance in the Beloved of God in that holy conversation which his pure Law within enjoyns without obedience to which God is not well pleased nor satisfied on man's part though he was even well pleased and satisfied in his own Son both in his doing and suffering
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
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
to and obey is the Light of Christ which witnesseth against all sin against all Idolatry and unrighteousness and leads us in the Doctrine of the true God which we receive in the Light and not mens Traditions and corrupt Doctrines and Inventions whereby People have been kept in the dark by such perverse and prejudiced Spirits as thus blasphemously deem the Light within an Idol of our own brains whereas it is the Light and Life of the Eternal Word which enlightens every man that cometh into the World that we testifie unto against all the dark opposers and gain-sayers whose wayes are dark and crooked as thine W. M. is who thus falsely and blasphemously hast represented the Light within like those that put Light for Darkness and Darkness for Light And now let the Reader judge Whether such dark envious Persons as thou herein hast shewed they self are fit to be Judges in these things of Controversie about such high matters touching the Three that bear Record in Heaven viz. The Father The Word and The Spirit when thou in thy earthly sensual wisdom never camest there neither canst thou till thou countest it loss unto thee and com'st to loose it that the Babe's state that enters the Kingdom be known in which the Light and Life of the Son of God is manifest which discovers the hidden things of darkness and reveals the Mysteries of God's Salvation to them that obey it but not to such as count it an Idol and now what may we expect but darkness from such an one as calls the Light within an Idol and they that look into thy following work against us may see the gross darkness thereof yea darkness that may be felt W. M. By their three Persons you mean the three increated Persons of the ever blessed Trinity the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost Three increated Persons are thy own words and terms but the Father Word and Spirit we really own and bear witness to both as mentioned in the Scripture and as knowing the absolute Testimony and Eternal Power thereof manifested where that which may be known of God is manifest even within both in creating begetting and quickening us again to God out of death and darkness And these Three which are One which bear Record in Heaven to wit The Father the Word and the Spirit as I could not own the title of Three distinct and separate Persons to be put upon them as thy Brother Erroniously did being not Scripture-language so it was never my intent nor Principle to compare them to three Apostles or finite Creatures as most falsely and injuriously thou accusest me But to endeavour to make the People understand both the grosseness and falseness of Tho. Danson's and Tho. Vincent's Principles of three distinct separate Persons in the Deity you naming each Person God which renders them Three Gods whilst but One God by shewing the Consequence of this your Principle After I had from Scripture shewed how inseperable the Father and the Son were and the Oneness of the Father Word and the Spirit but if I had simply compared them to three Apostles who were distinct and separate Persons then had I owned your own Terms and Principle and then the Controversie had fallen between us But instead thereof I am accused for opposing your Doctrine of distinct separate Persons and thus you confound your selves in wronging of me for were not the three Apostles Paul Peter and John three distinct separate Persons did I ever deny that they were how like then to finite Creatures doth your own Doctrine render the Eternal God his Word Spirit which to shew was my end in instancing three Apostles for we never believed the Eternal God to be like to corruptible man since we knew any thing of his Divine Power But T. Danson in his Synopsis pag. 12. plainly instanceth three Apostles Peter James and John as also his instance of David and Solomon for their Trinity or three Persons in one nature Was not this an instance of finite Creatures and such an indignity put upon God as I never intended How can such men but blush for charging that on others which so evidently they are guilty of themselves Madox We call the Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Persons or Hee 's according as they are held forth in the Scriptures Answ. Nay had you stood to Scripture-language there had not been any Controversie between us therein but it would not satisfie you but you must obtrude your Popish unscripture-like terms and distinctions or rather worse in telling not only of distinct but separate Persons which being plainly refuted from Scripture you may remember I several times called to T. D. and T. V. to confess their Error I shewing how inseparable the Father and the Son were reflecting chiefly on the words separate Persons which how you come off about will appear hereafter And as for their being Three Hee 's thou W. M. durst not keep to any Argument from thence or to make that any Cause or Reason why we must own them to be Three Persons though here thou seem'st to make the terms equivolent viz. Three Persons or Hee 's so then it appears that either will serve if the Three that bear Record in Heaven be but own'd under the Name of Three Hee 's it will serve instead of Three distinct Persons but then are all Hee 's or Males Persons and all Shee 's or Females no Persons What strange Logick is implyed here And where doth the Scripture mention three increated Persons thou tell'st of are they three distinct increated Persons If so then mayst thou not as well say they are three distinct Infinites three Eternals and so three Gods Where is now the blasphemy and blasphemer And Christ's speaking of another Comforter which was the Spirit of Truth Joh. 14.16 was not another Person distinct from him for that Spirit was then in him neither doth he use those words for the same Comforter or Spirit was in him and was that divine Life that then spoke in him when he was personally present with them He doth not say he would send them another Person to Comfort them but speaks more spiritually for though they had been Comforted in his outward Presence and Ministry yet his spiritual Presence was that other Comforter for ever to abide with them for in that Joh. 14.17 Christ speaking of the Spirit of Truth or that other Comforter saith he that dwelleth with you shall be in you vers 18. I will not leave you comfortless I will come unto you which clearly explains his former words which to say this Comforter was a Person distinct from Christ is all one or as absurd as to say the Spirit or Life that was in him was a distinct Person from him or that he was a Person distinct from himself for I will not leave you comfortless I will come unto you or were it not gross to say That Christ in his People is a Person distinct from Christ or
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
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
in this matter as he argues viz. If the Divine Essence or God head can be but One and the Father is God the Son God the Holy Ghost God and they three distinct Subsistents or Persons then they are three distinct Subsistents or Persons in the same single Divine Essence but the Essence can be but One and the Father is God the Son God c. and they are three distinct Subsistents or Persons therefore there are three distinct Subsistents or Persons Let the moderate Readers but mark this Argument and whether it carries any matter or weight of any proof or Argumentation along with it any more than an Empty Assertion Tautologies begging the Question in the sequel of the Major and so along still taking the matter in Controversie for granted which cannot be without better proof and more convincing Arguments than T.V. hath patched up and produced But as for the beginning of his Argument That the Divine Essence or God-head can be but One and this in each of the Three we never denied and T. V. has confessed it is not denied by us pag. 28. But as for the rest of his Argument it runs in the substance of it thus If they be three distinct subsistents or persons then there are three distinct subsistents or persons But they are three distinct subsistents therefore c. Or if they be so then they are so but they are so therefore they are so I shall not need to say much to shew what mean Logick this is since it is from a Person whom Reason has so far failed that he can neither clear nor demonstrate that to himself which thus pitifully he has assayed to demonstrate to others And so let the Readers judge if he be not such an one as he tells of that by attempting to bring that Mystery to the Modal of his Reason hath lost the sight and sunk into grosse Apprehensions And as for his fierce Railing against W. P. and calling him wretched Blasphemer accusing him with denying that the Lord Jesus Christ is God and with denying the Divinity of Christ and Holy Ghost and with thrusting the Lord Jesus Christ off from the Throne of his God-head c. I have not yet perceived any strength or weight of Argument from either T.V. or his Brethren that has convicted W. P. as guilty herein but rather the more they strive with him and thus grossely revile him and rail against him the more their Folly Confusion and Weakness appears And indeed if W. P. be supposed to be so grossely Erroneous as he is represented it must be more Competent Antagonists than T. V. or such Railers as he that must Convince him But his shewing the absurdity of T.V. his Doctrines and both unscriptural and unreasonable Distinctions and his denyal thereof is neither a denyal of the Son nor Spirit nor the Divinity of either but the apparent falseness of these railing and slanderous Accusations before with the Consequences thereof against W. P. in this thing touching the Divinity of Christ c. appears in his own Book pag. 14 Of Christ being the only God and the Divine Nature being inseparable to each whom they call Person have the whole Divine Nature the Son in the Father and the Spirit in the Son unless the God-head be as incommunicable to the Person so called as they are reported to be among themselves saith W.P. Doth not W.P. herein own the Divinity of Christ and Holy Spirit let the indifferent judge how T.V. has wronged him And then W. P. his Admonition pag. 15. saith Apply thy mind unto the Light and Grace which brings Salvation that by obedience thereunto those mists Tradition hath cast before thy eyes may be expel'd and thou receive a certain knowledge of that one God whom to know is Life Eternal not to be a divided but ONE pure intire and eternal Being who in the fulness of time sent forth his Son as the true Light which enlightneth every man that whosoever followed him the Light might be translated from the dark Notions and vain Conversations of men to this Holy Light in which onely sound Judgment and eternal Life are obtainable he testified the virtue of it and has communicated unto all such a proportion as may enable them to follow his Example thus far W.P. Now mark whether herein he has not owned the Divinity of the Son when thus plainly he hath confessed to his Light both as to its Extent and Virtue And so as for T. V. his railing against us so bitterly calling us black-mouth'd Blasphemers accusing W. P. with Heathenism abominableness foulness falsely comparing him to Arius c. These are but mean Arguments to Convince W. P. and doth but shew the malice and rancor of T. Vincent's Spirit and what an implacable persecuting Spirit appears among these Presbyterian Priests What cruel work would they make if they had power in their hands to persecute such as cannot be tyed up to their narrow Spirits and Principles which is the same old persecuting Spirit that cryed for Fire and Faggot after it put these names Blasphemer and Hereticks upon the Martyrs And indeed if any should be so disingenious and drowned in their understandings by prejudice as to think that the Absurdities that W. P. draws from his Adversaries Principles are his own they may be apt to charge him with Blasphemy and what not though falsely But farther how evidently hath W.P. in his 18 19 21 pag. owned and confessed Christ the Son of God and his Light and Grace both for Remission of sins Reconciliation Salvation of men Life Eternal and as he is the only begotten of the Father the Gift and Expression of Eternal Love for Salvation Now can any thing have or work these Effects that is not Divine Is not Christ's Divinity Virtue Divine Light and Power plainly confest by W.P. herein as also to his being God pag. 21. How grossely have these angry Presbyterians wronged him in so hidiously charging the contrary upon him and are not they rather justly chargeable herein with denying the Divinity of Christ in setting so slight by his Light in every man as they have done one calling it an Idol another Cautioning not to follow its guidance But the Divinity of Christ and the Honour due to him far be it from us to deny as these men have done and the Scripture-instances in that case we both know and own Joh. 3.13 Rom. 9.5 Phil. 2.6 Heb. 1.8 Joh. 2.17 Heb. 1.3 Joh. 14.1 Phil. 2.10 Col. 1.16 17. Joh. 8.58 But we are not convinced that mens invented distinctions put upon Christ does add any thing to his Honour but rather diminish from it And where in pag. 31. it is said In regard of his humane Nature the Jewes spoke true Thou art not yet fifty years old as Man he was a Son of Abraham and born many generations after him c. Now I ask if he was not a Person as Man and so born And if there were three Coeternal Persons
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
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
thereby being to his satisfaction how can men continuing in their sins truly plead they are fully acquitted at once without them and they onely in the implicite belief thereof received from the ridged Presbyters rest satisfied in their sins all their life time And where doth T. D. prove his Doctrine of Christ's being holy by a true inherent righteousness of the humane Nature pag. 25. what Scripture hath he for this or these Expressions was not his Righteousness from the Divine Nature and was it not Everlasting but is not that which is humane Finite And T. D. saying that the Socinians vomit the Quakers have now lickt up pag. 27. herein hath he spoken scornfully and falsly against us which will not at all tend to convince Socinians if they were as bad as rendred but to that they can answer him And his saying the Elect whilst Sinners in state where proves he this that the Elect are Sinners in state seeing the state of the Elect is a sanctified and chosen state out of the World and its wayes chosen in Christ through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the Truth 2 Thes. 2.13 the impossibility of deceiving the Elect is signified Matth. 24.24 where the Calling and Election is made sure they shall never fall 2 Pet. 1.10 And that Christ was made surety of a better Covenant Heb. 7.22 And came to do his Fathers Will Hebr. 10.7 And that his being a Surety is an Act of Grace pag. 28. This we confess and own more then you that contend for Sin for the Will of God is our Sanctification and the better Testament and Covenant which Christ is the Surety Mediator and Establisher of is that of Righteousness Life and Peace wherein Sins and Transgressions are done away and wherein true Believers live to God And as for T. D. his so often comparing God to a Creditor Christ to the Surety and Sinners as the Debtors telling of God being considered as a Creditor and as a private Person pag. 32. But where doth the Scripture so call him Reply He does not speak from a true sence of God or Christ or of Gods Covenant but a Notion he hath learned by Tradition and as to Sinners their case is worse then meerly Debtors they not onely owing obedience to God and Christ but are disobedient and rebellious as the case of Fellons Traytors and other Malefactors is worse then that of Debtors yet Christ is our Surety Mediator and Intercessor to make agreement between God and man and to deliver man from the Punishment and Wrath to come by delivering from Sin the cause of it and destroying the Devil the Author of Sin not for us still to live in Sin and daily both contract more Debt and incur tribulation and anguish upon our Souls Howbeit the Wayes of God extend beyond T. D's comparison his Wayes are not as man wayes nor his Thoughts as mans thoughts for as the Heaven is higher then the Earth so are my Thoughts higher then your thoughts saith the Lord whose graciousness also to poor deceived lost man for his restoration is infinitely beyond mans legality and exactions as the Lord said I will not execute the fierceness of mine Anger I will not return to destroy Ephraim for I am God and not man the Holy One in the midst of thee Hosea 11.9 But is there not perfect obedience now for men to perform must they all live in Sin and Imperfection tearm of life and say all our Debts is paid and if all their Debts be paid why are they not out of Prison Are not all that are in Sin and Bondage of Corruption in Prison and would it be glad Tydings to tell them that though Christ has paid all their Debts and procured their release and ransomed them that they must not expect personal freedom out of Prison nor out of their Chains and Fetters so long as they lived here or if one should tell the Slaves in Turkey that they are ransomed and yet they must not expect personal freedom from their Vassalry and Slavery so long as they live here would this be glad tydings no sure but rather sad news and is just like these Presbyterians and Independants preaching to people and the tendence of their Gospel and pretence of Satisfaction Redemption Ransom c. whilst they hold none of them in Truth nor Righteousness nor in the same Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures of Truth and Testimonies of Christ or his Apostles T. D. pag. 29. He is satisfied and the debt paid too by his Intercession which being grounded upon his Satisfaction supposes it to be what it pretends full and compleat Observ. Here it is to be observed that notwithstanding this his Assertion of the Satisfaction both by payment and punishment being compleatly made and the debt fully paid yet he confesseth to Christ's Intercession but what does he ever live to make Intercession for if all be fully done paid satisfied at once by Christ's personal subjection and obedience must there ever be an intercession for that which is already so fully and dearly paid for as they reckon Christ hath done and God hath granted how will this hold consistent But then it appears it supposes it to be what it pretends full and compleat saith T. D. pag. 30. So here is now supposition and pretence put upon Christ's Intercession and Satisfaction what sorry shallow work is this but it appears But to proceed from one that hath followed his own conceptions notions weak judgement and humane understanding as also one that by his Logick and Traditional borrowed Notions and Doctrines goes about to make People to believe that from him that he hath no Scripture phrase for as that of God being a private person and other things And therefore like a Lawyer is fain to patch up his work as well as he can though in many things it be very inconsistant and repugnant to it self And whereas our confessing Christ both in Life and Suffering to be a perfect and real Example is so much struck at by these Priests and Professors we still withal confessing both to his Power and Living Effects through all and of all his Sufferings Afflictions Death and Life which we reverently esteem touching which I testifie in the Lord that if Christ be not really owned and confessed as he was a real Example both in Life Conversation and in Patient Suffering neither the Fellowship of his Suffering nor the Power thereof is truly known or experienced for they who would partake of the Benefit and blessed Effects of Christ's Death and Sufferings and yet will not own him for their Example shall never enjoy him therein seeing that Christ also hath suffered for us leaving us an Example that we should follow his steps who did not sin neither was guile found in his mouth 1 Pet. 2.21 22. Again Forasmuch then as Christ hath Suffered for us in the Flesh arm your selves likewise with the same mind for he that hath sufferred
but they that come to witness a part in Christ Jesus the Light of Life they in his Light may come to perceive the Mystestery of the Resurrection but if Truth can be received and understood then it will appear that I do not deny the Resurrection for I do verily believe that the Hour is coming in which all that are in the Graves shall bear the voice of the Son of God and shall come forth they that have done good unto the Resurrection of Life and they that have done evil unto the Resurrection of Condemnation but to Fools that say that this Body of natural Flesh and Bones shall be raised I say that body which is sown is not that body that shall be but God giveth a body as it pleaseth him yet to every Seed it s own body Thus far G. F. junior by all which T. D. his slander is detected and his false spirit discovered as not fit to meddle with the Mysteries of God which are out of his sight and reach God will sweep away the refuge of Lyes and Lyars Some Observations upon John Owen's Book Entituled A Declaration c. including a brief Answer and Reply to the same AS We the People of God called Quakers are but little concerned in John Owen's Declaration we need concern our selves the less and let them that are chiefly concerned in his Accusations make him answer But in that he hath in some few places hinted and falsly insinuated against us as being one with the Socinians as he calls them or seduced into Socinianism Lest any should give credit to these and such like insinuations and thereby be prejudiced against us or the Truth professed by us meerly upon John Owen's overly Reports I judge it meet a little to appear in Truth 's Vindication and our clearness in answer to some particulars in his Book As first where in his Preface Pag. 6. he saith There is now a visible accession made by that sort of People whom men will call Quakers from their department from the first erection of their Way long since desertted by them Answ. We have not made any accession contrary to the Truth first received by us nor have we deserted its Way which so long since the Lord God by his Power gathered us into out of the corrupt Wayes Inventions Traditions and false Worships of the World to worship him in the Spirit and in the Truth wherein we have been gathered to be a peculiar people to God being delivered from the many Sects Wayes and Professions set up since the dayes of the Apostles AS to Socinianism as he calls it we are neither Discipled in it nor Baptized into Socinus his name neither do we own him for our Author or Patern in those things which we Believe and Testifie nor yet do we own several Principles which John Owen relates as being from Socinus and principally that of Christ's being God but not the Most High God pag. 54 55. It was never our Principle for though we do confess to his condescention humility and Suffering in the dayes of his Flesh wherein he appeared in the form of a Servant being made in fashion as a man but his being in the form of God in the Divine Nature of God wherein he was equal with God and being glorified with the same glory he had with the Father before the World began and his being God over all blessed for ever these things we professed and believed in the beginning and do the same still it never being in our hearts in the least to oppose or desert them therefore as to the Conjunction J. O. â—ell of betwixt both these sorts of men in opposition to the holy Trinity with the Person and Grace of Christ. Herein he hath charged a double falshood upon us first such a Conjunction and Opposition either to the Person or Grace of Christ which we absolutely deny neither is our opposing of mens corrupt meanings of Scripture and invented names and terms put upon the Deity any opposition either against God Christ or Spirit nor yet against the Grace or Love of either J. O. Pag. 6. However they may seem in sundry things as yet to look divers wayes yet like Sampson 's Foxes they are knit together by the tayl in these firebrand Opinions and joyntly endeavour to consume the standing Corn of the Church of God and their joynt management of their business of late c. Answ. I suppose he intends Quakers and Socinians wherein both his Accusation and Comparison are false and scornfull for there 's no such conjunction nor joynt endeavours between them neither ever was it the Quakers intent or principle in the least to endeavour to consume the standing Corn of God's Church as we injuriously are accused but such vain and false imaginations corruptions and perverting Scripture as J. O. and his Brethren are guilty of which have no growth nor reception in the Church of God for his Church is in him and led by his Spirit into all Truth which no Lye nor Deceit have any part in Besides as for Sampson's Foxes they were not set to destroy the Corn of the Church or Israel but of the Philistines neither can we believe that the Presbyterians and Independants are the true Church till we see better Fruit appear among them then is yet for look into their Assemblies and see what pride and vanity they are gotten into in their apparel behold also how gaudy in their habits their women are and what an example of pride and pomp they shew to the profane to the shame of their profession certainly God hath yet Viols of Wrath unemptied to pour down upon that proud and persecuting Spirit which hath so much shewed it self in many of them But what he means by those words holy Trinity he further explains in pag. 26 27. in these words viz. Now the sum of the Revelation in these terms is that God is one that this one God is Father Son and Holy Ghost that the Father is the Father of the Son and the Son the Son of the Father and the Holy Ghost the Spirt of the Father and and the Son Now had this Doctor Owen and his Brethren but kept to these and such like expressions and have left out their unscriptural scholastick terms and distinctions about Trinity distinct Subsistances and Personalities we should not need to have had such controversies with any of them about them but have taken their confession that God is one and that Father Son and holy Ghost are God and that the Father is Father of the Son and the Son the Son of the Father c. according to this great Doctors Relation who pretends very much to Scripture and makes many large Repetitions of Scripture to prove his matter counting them the Revelation but then being again not willing to keep to the terms expressions and phrases of Scripture but writes his own conceivings sences and meanings as men of his Coat and Fraternity use to do
as in Pag. 31. he pleads for making use of other words expressions and phrases that neither are litterally nor formally contained in Scripture and so makes use of his conceptions and apprehensions of what is contained therein see pag. 30 31. But then again another while he saith Let us nakedly attend to what the Scripture asserts as in pag. 42. And in pag. 110. he tells us of manifesting what was revealed expresly in Scripture concerning God the Father Son and Holy Ghost so that many times he would make people believe as if he would nakedly and exactly keep to the Scriptures but then at other times his notions conceptions meanings and odd invented terms must be put upon them and men must either confess to those or else be liable to his and his Brethrens censures of being Socinians Hereticks Blasphemers and what not And though he hath appeared a little smother then his Brother Tho. Vincent hath done in his railing Pamphlet yet he hath wronged us by his false insinuations against us as if we denied the Diuinity of Christ and deserted our former Principles also he hath represented us as being in conjunction with those whom he accuseth of opposing or denying the oneness of the Deity and the Grace of Christ or the Father Son and holy Ghost to be God which we are not at all concerned in nor guilty of and our Books and Writings now and from the very beginning evince the contrary But then in Pag. 129. he confesseth That the objections these men principally insist upon are meerly against the explanations we use of this Doctrine and not against the primitive Revelation of it which is the principal object of our Faith c. Now if by these men he intends us called Quakers as is apparent he doth by his present discouse he hath then very much cleared us from other of his and his Brethrens Accusations and thereby hath also plainly contradicted both himself and them for here our objections are meerly against their explanations and not against the primitive Revelation or principal object of Faith so whilst the Revelation which is according to the Scriptures and the principal object of Faith is not objected against but owned and professed by us according to the Scripture it is very unjust and injurious either in him or his Brethren to insinuate against us as if we denied either the Divinity of Christ or the holy Spirit though as to their distinctions about Personalities Subsistances Modallities and the like invented terms and names which they put upon the Deity we must needs except against as not scriptural nor proceeding from any naked attention to what the Scripture asserts which J. O. doth but pretend to but from mens conceptions and traditions which are upheld by the wisdom which this world teacheth and not that which the Holy Ghost teacheth And then in Pag. 89. he goes to accuse and vilifie us in these words viz. Our Quakers for a long time hovered up and down like a swarm of Flyes with a confused noise and huming what falshood and scorn is here for such a Doctor to express begin now to settle in the Opinions lately by them declared for this is a false insinuation again what their thoughts will fall to be concerning the holy Ghost when they shall be contented to speak intelligeably and according to the usage of other men or the pattern of Scripture the great rule of speaking or treating about spiritual things I know not and I am uncertain whether they do themselves or no. Thus far J. Owen To which I say in the first of these expressions he hath scornfully and falsly accused us as also with beginning now to settle in Opinions for we are neither so beginning nor so to begin but are setled in the Truth out of and above mens invented Opinions about which are so many Divisions and Sects among them but if by Opinion he intends Socinianism as he calls and represents it his own testimony shall testifie against him as a false Accuser of us herein as in pag. 129. where he confesseth our objections to be meerly against the explanation they use and not against the primitive Revelation of it so then we are not guilty of such Opinions as either deny the Divinity of Christ or that tends to lessen him in any respect or offices relating to man's Salvation for our desire is and our endeavour hath been the exaltation of his Name Power and Glory over all neither have we been hovering nor in confusion as falsly he hath represented us and if he knows not what our thoughts will fall into concerning the Holy Ghost but is uncertain whether we do our selves or no he should therefore have been silent of accusing or reviling us as he hath done because it appears it is in his ignorance and uncertainty that he hath thus vilified us and insinuated against us he should have received a better information and knowledge of us before he had thus reviled us and not to have gone and bespattered and vilified a whole Body of People to render them odious from his own uncertain thoughts of them for he would not be so dealt by himself and the Reader may take notice that a great part of his Book wherein he goes about to prove the Divinity or Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost in which he appears as one opposing some great Enemies among whom we are numbred we are unconcerned therein having never denied Christ's Divinity and if his own testimony may be of any value we are cleared by it as before in pag. 129. Alas poor man J. 0. has missed his mark in shooting thus uncertainly and at random against the Quakers And where he adds touching the Holy Ghost Whether he may be the Light within them or an infallible afflatus is uncertain Though it be uncertain to J. O. it is certain to us that have the Testimony and evidence of the holy Spirit in us which gives us both Life Light and Power and we know him to be infallible how deridingly soever he speaks of it as also according to the precious Promises of God which hereby we know in a large measure the fulfilling of we experience Christ to be in us and in that the Father Word and Spirit are confessed to be one Power Wisdom and Love and to be of one Divine Substance Nature and Essence this we neither do nor ever did deny and God is in his People and dwels in them and walks in them and the Spirit is sent into our hearts so they are not divided distinct and separate persons c. as may be read in John 17.21 to the end where Christ said that they may all be one as thou Father art in me and I in thee that they also may be one in us that the World may believe that thou hast sent me and the glory which thou gavest me I have given them that they may be one even as we are one I in them thou in me that
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