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 not subsist in a several and distinct nature of
l. last r. invented p. 18. l. 25. for on and r. an end p. 19. l. 1. r. amounts l. 13. r. is towards p. 21. l. 27. r. It is in Christ. p. 27. l. 6. r. deserving p. 39. l. 35. for whether r. whither p. 45. at l. 26 27. the Reader may add or understand as given by divine Inspiration not mens fallable Judgments and Mistakes upon them p. 49. l. 17. being 〈…〉 for and r. or p. 55. l. 18. dele which p. 73. l. 7. in the Apendix r. principal p. 74. l. 33. for T. V r. T. D. p. 76. l. 16. dele three p. 77. l. 12. for 1 r. 5. p. 81. l. 16. dele and. Sometimes such defects have escaped as misplacing hath for have doth for do was for were are for is it for they saith for say and so on the contrary Such are not material faults to any but such as are critical who do not soberly weigh the intent of the matter An APPENDIX Wherein are some of the manifest Contradictions of Thomas Vincent William Maddox Thomas Danson and John Owen both to themselves and one against another With brief Animadversions or Observations upon their Contradictions which are about Principle Matters 1. Touching their distinction of Three Persons I Am sure from the Scriptures that the Father Son and Holy Ghost being of an infinite Nature are three Persons three increated persons subsistences or manner of beings pag. 16 17 18 19. Contrad T.V. In Contradiction to his Brother Maddox saith Infiniteness is not applicable to the Subsistence it cannot be properly ascribed to the Personality though there be three distinct Personalities to which Infiniteness is not ascribed pag. 45. Obs. See here is as much inconsistency between these two as between infinite and finite one making their being of an infinite Nature a proof or reason of their distinct Personalities or Subsistencies And the other saith Infiniteness is not applicable nor properly ascribed to them what gross contradiction and blasphemous stuff is here W. M. Each of these three persons is God his subsistence is his manner of being in the Relative property of the Father and so he speaks of the Son and Holy Ghost pag. 18 19. Contr. T.V. It is improper to say that either of the persons in regard of their personality or subsistence are finite or infinite pag. 46. Obs. This latter Contradiction then would have neither Father Son nor Holy Ghost to be either finite or infinite what gross nonsence and apparent Contradictions are these Contr. T.V. Christ is the Eternal Son of God by Eternal Generation pag. 36 47. Obs. He is now the Eternal Son of God before not infinite but again neither finite nor infinite in his Personality and yet the Eternal Son of God what mad distracted blasphemous work is this these men do make with their vain babling T.V. They are not three substances c. therefore three persons p. 13. Contr. T. D. The usual definition of person is an individual substance of a rational Nature which is neither the part of another nor upheld by another which Aquinus defends Sum Par. 1.9.29 art 2. a man we call a person c. pag. 1 2. Obs. See again how apparently these two Brethren contradict one another one saying a person is an individual substance c. yet the other saith They are not three substances therefore three persons whereas it follows therefore not three persons Contr. J.O. We must acknowledge the Holy Ghost to be a substance a person God yet distinct from the Father and the Son pag. 101. a personal subsistance pag. 114. Obs. Where note that this Doctor Contradicts T.V. his saying they are not three substances as also that he seems to make both substance person and subsistance to intend all one thing contrary to T. V. again But these words a Person God yet distinct from the Father and Son I cannot make sense of though they are from a Doctor for God is not a Person distinct from himself W.M. I called them three Hee 's to try if you would own the Deity of Christ c. according to the Scriptures we call them Persons or Hee 's in respect of their manner of Subsistence pag. 18 20. Contrad T. V. The word Person cannot properly be attributed to Father Son and Holy Ghost because they do not subsist in a several and distinct Nature of the same kind for if each of them had a several and not one individual Nature then they should not be only three Persons but three Gods Synopsis pag. 3. Obs. It 's very evident here that Thomas Danson has Contradicted both himself and the rest of his Brethren seeing the Father Son and Holy Ghost cannot properly be called Persons W.M. saith His comparing the three increated persons to three Apostles Paul Peter and John is blasphemy pag. 20. Contr. T. D. A man we call a person a person is intire of it self pag. 2. if Peter James and John each person be man c. Take man here not for a person but the Nature as we do God and 't is evident that we mean no more that the name Man may be attributed to Peter James and John pag. 12. David was a man and Solomon was a man they two agree in a third thing c. pag. 14 15. Obs. What less do their own distinctions and comparisons concerning them amount to than to Three Apostles or men that is each intire of himself as a Person is T. D. saith who hath apparently spoyled his own and his Brethrens Cause T.V. The Trinity of Persons the first in the second and the second in the first and both in the third pag. 25. Contr. T. D. A Person notes some one indued with reason and understanding which is several and distinct by himself from another p. 2. and in the Dispute they are three distinct and separate Persons in the Deity A person is intire of it self c. Obs. If the Father the Word and the Spirit be in each other and so inseparable then not three distinct nor separate Persons neither can one be several by himself from another T.V. That the Father Word and Holy Ghost are three persons pag. 13. is to be found in the Scriptures God hath revealed it in his Word the Scriptures hath revealed that there are three distinct persons in one Divine Essence pag. 26. Is Scripture truth pag. 4. great truth Contr. T.V. In this Mystery of the Trinity we must exercise our Faith Though we cannot clear it to our selves by Demonstration Reason cannot demonstrate it unto us pag. 26. 't is such a Mystery that doth exceed the most enlightned and clear-sighted Christians Contr. T.D. For Person Aquinus defends I chuse to borrow that of the Learned Wotton the Trinity's a Mystery so high that it rebates the sharpest edge of humane understanding p. 83. Obs. If this Mystery be so apparent in Scripture why can they neither demonstrate it nor clear it to themselves We should desire no clearer
Children of the Light as in Joh. 14. And deny that which should give People the Knowledge of the Light that is in their hearts the Light of Jesus 2 Cor. 4. And so People see what these men can Preach that deny true Faith true Belief true Apostles and Scripture and the Blood of Christ and the Offering and so denies God and Christ and his Commands and Preach up Sin and Imperfection and the Bawdy-houses and would have his Hearers rather go to a Bawdy-house than to go among the People called Quakers that Preaches up Perfection and the Blood of Jesus the One Offering that makes People perfect and Sanctifies them and must not People have Faith in them and Christ in them and the Blood in them sprinkling their Hearts and Consciences Reader I pray thee read the Scriptures for they were given forth to be read and believed and not for Presbyterians and Independants to make a Trade of them and keep People alwayes to be hearing them and paying of them the Holy Men of God did not give forth the Scriptures for that end that suffered many of them to death for giving them forth And so I pray thee Reader do not fell thy Wit and Reason any longer for they will put it up all in their Pokes and Bags and then lead them into a ditch and barren Mountain and so feed themselves of you and not feed you But the Lord is come to gather his People from off the barren Mountains and from their mouths that have fed themselves and not the Flock and sought themselves and not the Flock and made a Prey upon you and sought for your wooll hath bit you when you put not into their mouths and have sought for handfuls of Barley and a piece of Bread and hath born rule amongst you by their means and hath been the greedy dumb Dogs that could never have enough who have been slumbering Read Jer. 5. Isa. 56. Mic. 3. Ezek. 14. and so read how Christ marks out those false Teachers Mat. 23. And the Apostle to Timothy and Titus So no more but my Love that you may all come to know the Freedom in Christ from all the blind Guides G. F. Jo. Stubbs If that the Father Son and Holy Ghost be three distinct separate Persons not simply One or agreeing simply as the Priest saith then how far distance are they from one another shew us Chapter and Verse for this and make it good by Scriptures And let us see through all the Scriptures where ever the Holy Men of God did give such Titles or Names to God and Christ and the Holy Ghost as the Presbyterians and Independants have done as may be seen in this Book The Scripture saith That God and Christ and the Holy Ghost will dwell in Man then you Independant Presbyterian Priests Whether then that there is not three Persons in a Man dwelling in him that is a Person for the Apostle saith That your Bodies are the Temples of the Holy Ghost and that your Bodies are the Temples of God and that Christ is in you except ye are Reprobates The DIVINITY of CHRIST Confessed by us called Quakers And What we own touching the Deity or God-head according to the Scriptures THat there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and our Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him That there are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and that these three are One both in Divinity Divine Substance and Essence not three Gods nor separate Beings That they are called by several Names in Scripture as manifest to and in the Saints for whatsoever may be known of God is manifest in man Rom. 1. and their Record received as the full testimony of three by such as truly know and own the Record of the three in Earth and yet they are Eternally One in Nature and Being One infinite Wisdom One Power One Love One Light and Life c. We never denyed the Divinity of Christ as most injuriously we have been accused by some prejudiced spirits who prejudicially in their perverse Contests have sought occasion against us As chiefly because when some of us were in Dispute with some Presbyterians we could not own their unscriptural distinctions and terms touching the Father the Word and the Holy Spirit to wit Of their being incommunicable distinct separate persons or subsistences whereas the Father the Word and Spirit are One not to be compared to corruptible men nor to finite Creatures or Persons which are limitable and separable For the only Wise God the Creator of all who is One and his Name One is infinite and inseparable Deut. 6.4 Zec. 14.9 And the Father's begetting the Son and the Spirit 's being sent we witness to and own as He said Thou art my Son this day I have begotten thee Psal. 2.7 Heb. 1.5 And he hath sent his Spirit into our hearts Gal. 4.6 And that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father yea in the bosome of the Father Joh. 1.18 chap. 17.21 23. so that they are neither divided nor separate being One and of One infinite Nature and Substance Christ being the Image of the invisible God the first born of every Creature by whom all things were Created both in Heaven and in Earth Col. 1. Yea the Son of God is the brightness of his glory and the express Image of his substance Heb. 1.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that it was in due time God was manifest in Flesh 1 Tim. 3.16 As in the fulness of time God sent his Son Gal. 4. And the Son of God was made manifest to destroy sin 1 Joh. 3.8 And a manifestation of the Spirit is given to every Man to profit withal 1 Cor. 12. So the manifestation of the Father of the Son and Holy Spirit we confess to and own to be in Unity and so the only true God according to the Scriptures And that Jesus Christ being in the Form of God thought it no robbery to be Equal with God and yet as a Son in the fulness of time was sent of the Father and took on him the form of a servant Phil. 2.6 7. in which state he said My Father is greater than I 1 Joh. 14.28 And he learned Obedience through Suffering and was made perfect and is become an everlasting High Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck and is the Author of Eternal Salvation unto all them that Obey him Heb. 5. And God hath given us Eternal Life in his Son And unto us a Child is born and a Son is given to Govern whose Name is Wonderful Counsellor The Mighty God The Everlasting Father The Prince of Peace Isa. 9.6 And he is over all God blessed for ever Rom. 9.5 Even the true God and Eternal Life 1 Joh. 5. So that the Deity or Divinity of Christ in his Eternal Infinite Glorious State we really confess and
the Eternal Word And as to thy telling of another Comforter i. e. Another as to subsistence or manner of being What manner of being and wherein can it differ from Christ's spiritul manner of being Had he another manner of being distinct from his own Who cannot see the ignorance and confusion of thy blind distinction For it appears that thy distinction of three distinct Persons subsistences or manners of being is attributed to the Father Son and Holy Ghost before Christ's Bodily or Personal Appearance in the form of a Servant thou telling us they being of an infinite nature are three persons Is this a good Argument for thy turn whereas T.V. saith Christ as man was not fifty years old pag. 31. whilst thou argues from John 14.16 for their being three distinct persons subsistences or manners of being For were they three distinct Comforters of an infinite nature Or three distinct separate persons of an infinite nature And was Christ's manner of being in the Flesh of an infinite nature Or was he therein a Fourth Person Surely when Christ had taken upon him the form of a Servant and that he said My Father is greater than I now W.M. confesseth that the form of God was his divine nature which is above the form of a Servant and he being in the likeness of sinful flesh made a little lower than the Angels in respect of his Sufferings humbling himself to the Death of the Cross. In this manner and in these capacities he was not declared to be from Eternity but as he was equal with God in his Glory before the World was neither can three coeternal coequal distinct persons be argued from thence for the Controversie runs higher as before they being of an infinite nature are three increated persons he should rather have said are one divine substance or being which is of an infinite nature But in plain Contradiction these Presbyterians tells us in their 45. pag. That in the abstract infiniteness is not aplicable to the subsistence what then is become of their three infinite increated persons or subsistences Are they now chang'd from infinite to finite What sad work is this Where are the Blasphemers now Are they not herein found guilty of that which most unjustly they have charg'd on us viz. Of that which is plainly derogatory to the Glory of the Infinite God by going to fasten the limitations of finite Creatures upon him For if there be a subsistence or personallity or manner of being as he defines subsistence in the God-head which is not infinite then something finite is in God which is no less than blasphemy to affirm And if there be three such distinct subsistences in the relative Property of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as W. M. saith pag. 19. to which infiniteness is not aplicable Then have they denied the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Infinite and by this the Reader may see what their unscriptural distinctions of Persons and Subsistences in the Deity amount to and how most derogatory to the Glory of the Infinite God they are But the remarkableness of their gross Contradictions is so obvious that he that runs may read it for one while the Father Son and Holy Ghost being of an infinite nature are three distinct persons three increated persons which renders them three distinct Infinite and so Three Gods Another while infiniteness is not aplicable to them as such or as subsistences which renders them under the limitations of finite Creatures Do you think that the wiser sort either among Papists or Protestants or Church of England own these men's management of this matter or will their Work stand them in any stead or be to the advancement of the Christian Faith in other Nations If these men should go into Turkey and also among the Indians and pretend to Preach the everlasting God or the Father the Word and Spirit under such Names Terms and Distinctions as being three distinct and separate persons or subsistences to which infiniteness is not aplicable what would be the effect and consequence of such Preachings do you think Would it not bring a reproach upon the Name and Profession of Christianity and render the Christians as believing and expecting Salvation from finite Persons or Creatures Or else if they should Preach them to be three distinct or separate Persons as being of an infinite nature might not they reasonably conclude that they were Preaching three Gods Would not this kind of Preaching more stumble the Jewes and Turks from believing in Christ than ever and the more strengthen the Heathen in their Idolatrous Imaginations especially whilst they oppose the Light within as an Idol for whilst a Doctrine is Preached implying three Gods may they not suppose many more As also how have many ignorant People in the time of Darkness been begotten into vain Imaginations touching the God-head by such Doctrine aforesaid contrary to Scripture-language as to think God to be like unto a Man or Person whereas he is a Spirit he is Invisible even that Eternal Word or Spirit which made all things and Christ is the Image of the Invisible God not divided nor separate from him whose Image he is And though in the World there are Gods many and Lords many yet to us there is but One God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and One Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him 1 Cor. 8.6 So that it was never any Design or Plot of ours to endeavour to prejudice the minds of any against the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost as falsely and blasphemously we are accused by this our prejudiced Opposer W. M. What you mean by separate I know not if you mean so separate as to destroy the unity and simplicity of the divine Essence I own no such separation if you take it to be all one with distinct then it was no begging the Question And in their 39. pag. it 's said viz. The word Separate Person I disown any further then we may conceive it to signifie no more then dictinct Answ. It appears then that T. D. and their using the word separate persons was to explain their meaning of distinct persons for it was used after distinct viz. distinct and separate persons which word separate persons they know I chiefly reflected upon at the Dispute I proving the contrary from Scripture viz. both the Oneness and Inseparability of the Father Word and Spirit but seeing they own no such separation as to destroy the Unity of the Divine Essence why did they make use of the word Separate at all in the case telling us the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct and separate persons which they confess are of one divine Essence Now they disown separate any otherwise then it signifies distinct but they should not have own'd it at all in this case Is it not sad Doctrine that supposeth any Separation Finiteness or Limitation in this Divine Being
But if the separation relate to the Personallity or their distinctions of persons and not to the Essence then doth not this tend to divide God or to separate Father Son and Spirit who are in each other and how then are they three distinct coeternal coessential coequal Persons Or how are they three distinct increated persons of an infinite nature as before but another while not infinite in the Personality what wonderful confusion and gross contradictions are here and what strange boldness is it for men so dark in their understandings discomposed in their minds confused and incongruent in their Principles thus ignorantly to attempt to define or demonstrate the infinite Power or God-head which is out of their sight and beyond their earthly capacities who are so ignorant of God who is Light they count the Light within an Idol of our own brains as W. M. hath blasphemously done whereas it is the Light by which God hath shined in our hearts to give us the knowledge of his Glory in the face of Christ 2 Cor. 4. W.M. Read also Job 35.10 God thy Makers Heb. consult Mr. Carril on the place Eccles. 12.1 Remember thy Creators c. Isa. 54.5 Thy Makers is thy Husband in all which Texts the Trinity of Persons is denoted by words of the plural number Answ. Upon which I query is the distinction of three Persons derived from three Makers or three Creators Or dare they say That the Father Word and Spirit are three distinct severed or separate Creators and doth not this bespeak three Gods And what sense is it to say thy Makers is thy Husband from Isa. 54.5 where it is said Thy Maker is thine Husband the Lord of Hosts is his Name Is not this truly rendered See Pagnine's Versions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Osiik i. e. factor tnus It 's neither sunt nor est factores tui And Eccles. 12.1 it's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Borecha Creatoris tui in singular it 's not Creatorum tuorum And Job 35.10 it 's Osai factor meus not factores mei But whilst one God and one Lord is confessed how is it consistent that a plurality of severed Persons be in him as Makers Creators c. What ground have we to believe either Carryl or Madox herein more than Pagn and our English Translation with many others And notwithstanding this great stir they have made with their distinctions of separate persons incommunicable properties c. yet W. M. hath confest That the Names Properties or Attributes Works and Worship of God are frequently in Scripture given to each of these Three Persons so that they are one and the same perfect and infinite Essence one God by Nature c. but if he should distinguish personal Attributes from Attributes of God I ask what they are if not of God which if so how is infiniteness not applicable to them nor ascribed to them And how have you gone with your vain unscriptural distinctions to darken Counsel to darken Scripture to darken the minds of People by words without knowledge thereby going to demonstrate that to others which you cannot clear to your selves by demonstration As T. V. in his 26 pag. saith of the Trinity touching which he would have us Assent unto your terms and traditional distinctions upon Divine Authority which he cannot demonstrate by reason But how then shall we receive your bare Assertions upon Divine Authority when we have neither Scripture nor Reason nor yet any immediate Revelation from you for them must we pinn our Faith upon your sleeves or will you supply the places of so many Popes by Imposing an implicit Faith in those matters which you cannot demonstrate nor clear to your selves which then how can you clear them to others Which if this be the course you take to convince gain-sayers of your Doctrine you might have spared a great deal of labour in going about so confusedly to demonstrate your case to us and only have laid down your Doctrine of three distinct separate Persons in the Deity to which infiniteness is not ascribed as you have said in pag. 45. And so you might as well have said That we T.V. W.M. and T.D. do affirm it and therefore you must believe it or otherwise you are blasphemous Hereticks and so damned But we must have better ground for our Faith and a better Authority than Affirmations Revilings and Threatnings of men that are untaught themselves in those things which they presume to teach others W. M. I called them three Hee 's to try if you would own the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost under any title As the subject of this Tryal is very mean and weak to wit the calling them three Hee 's to prove the Deity so his trying of us hereby was altogether groundless since that we never disowned the Deity of Christ or Holy Ghost as falsely and injuriously is insinuated against us And since that three Hee 's will now serve instead of Persons he saying they are three Persons or three Hee 's to prove the Deity of Father Son and Holy Ghost Why have they made such a pudder for their distinctions of Persons But would it be a strong Reason to induce Infidels to the belief of the Deity of each because they are three Hee 's as he saith for are all Hee 's either God or yet Persons or Divine But I need say little to the shallowness of this Work Let the ingenious Reader judge of it But when he thinks he mends the matter by calling them three divine Hee 's his intent is that the Father is called Hee the Son is Hee the Spirit Hee which neither proves them three separate nor incommunicable Persons distinct subsistences or bottoms whilst both the Father 's a Spirit the Lord is that Spirit Christ a quickening Spirit all inseparable W. M. You by refusing to call them Three Divine Hee 's have made it manifest that your Quarrel is not with the word Person as some then apprehended but with the Doctrine or Fundamental Truth expressed by the three Persons viz. the Modal Distinction and Essential Vnion or Oneness of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Answ. It 's manifest that some of the Hearers that were present at our Debating this matter had a better apprehension and understanding of us than you prejudiced Teachers and Opposers had for some of them apprehended that we opposed your unscriptural terms and words put upon the Deity and not that we opposed either the Divinity or Union of Father Son or Holy Ghost neither did we in the least go to quarrel with any Fundamental Truth as most grosly and slanderously we are accused and misrepresented by thee W.M. who hast shewed thy self so far from either Truth Moderation or Reasonableness in this matter as one swallowed up with Envie and Prejudice And thy taking for granted that thy Model distinction and terms are Fundamental Truth and joyning them with the Oneness of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is but a begging
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 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
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
with the full bent of his will as do the wicked because he is born of God Doth not this reflect upon that pure Relation he hath with the Father and so upon the Nature of God for begetting and bringing forth such an impure birth And is not this to frustrate the end of the Son of God in being made manifest to destroy the works of the Devil whereas he that abides in Christ sinneth not see further 1 Joh. 3.5 6 7 8 9 10 verses 2. Whereas T. V. his contrary meaning to plain Scripture accuseth the Apostle John and others that were born again with committing sin from that chap. 1. vers 8. that doth not prove it against John and such as he hath so accused whereby he hath rendred John to be of the Devil for he that commits sin is so 1 Joh. 3.8 no more then James his saying With the same Tongue bless we God and curse we men doth prove himself to be one that so cursed which he said ought not to be for John writes to divers states and degrees of growth as to them that had sin to be cleansed from that they might walk in the Light to know the Blood of Christ to cleanse them from all sin vers 7. As also he said If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness vers 9. Surely John was come further then a Confession of sin at that time besides having sin may relate either to a former state or to its besetting the Creature in the temptations when it is warred against and in the Faith withstood in its motions in order to a Conquest when the Creature doth not commit sin but withstands it as Paul said It s not I that sinneth so that having some sin and committing sin are two things for it doth not appear that the beloved Disciple or Apostle John was a committer of sin in that state when he wrote that Epistle for he saith vers 10. If we say we have not sinned we make him a lyar and his word is not in us which relates to a state that was past If we say we have not sinned is not all one as to say if we say we do not commit sin c. Yet he saith chap. 2.1 My little Children these things I write unto you that ye sin not Now had John been of T. V's perswasion that such a state of Perfection or not Sinning is not here attainable why should he exhort them not to sin and so plainly shew the difference between him that is born of God and him that is of the Devil See 1 Joh. 3. throughout And then as to T. V. his supposed Consequence from our Doctrine of Perfection That whoever found any sin in them were not born of God which I say that its neither our Assertion nor the Consequence of our saying That he that 's born of God doth not commit sin for having sin when it is withstood and warred against by that which is born of God and committing sin are two things yet we know that that which is born of God overcomes the World and this is the Victory even our Faith and the end of Christ's manifestation is to destroy sin that it may not have a being so long as we live in us And T.V. further adds That if they should die with any sin remaining they would certainly go to Hell and so none there yea none in the World would be saved he saith Hereby he still takes it for granted That there 's no such Perfection here as a freedom from all sin but that all God's Children die with sin remaining in them I then ask How long after death shall sin remain and when and where is the time and place of being fully cleansed after death is it in the Grave or is it in some Purgatory For if God's Children must be cleansed after death they must be cleansed somewhere and then in the mean time betwixt death and this supposed time and place of cleansing and purging where lyes the sin and pollution and the stain of it is it in the Soul or in the Body Surely not in the Body when dead neither can the Soul go to God with sin or pollution in it for no unclean thing can enter into his Kingdom or dwell with him so then the Question still remains where the Soul is after death and where is the place of its purging and fully cleansing If T. V. and his Brethren are not Papists let them answer and clear themselves and Principle from the Popes Purgatory T. V. his reviling and calling us Audacious Quakers who have not the least degree of true Grace because of damnable Opinions This his harsh language and railing signifies little to us for any proof against us or what we hold but only shewes his own peevishness and implacable enmity as one vexed and fretted in his mind and so not fit to intermeddle with things of so high concernment as he hath presumptiously attempted to stir in as about Perfection and the Deity and Satisfaction of Christ Justification Righteousness c. nor yet to call and exhort others whilst he himself had need to be called and exhorted to repent of his hard and uncharitable speeches and censours and to come to meekness and moderation which would better become his Profession And his confidence that we have not the least degree of true grace is both a false and uncharitable confidence and charge against us as also his flaunting and jearing W. P. as having but some smattering of Learning and being but little of a Scholar never to have read nor understood Logick or to have forgot or laid it aside Herein hath he manifested himself both scornful and ridiculous to make so much use of his own pretended Learning Arguments Logick Demonstration c. to such as he reckons hath neither true grace nor Learning it appears T.V. had a mind to shew himself in a vain flourish and boasting over such whom he hath endeavoured to render contemptible mean and ignorant as he hath done us all which doth but the more manifest the pride of his heart vain-glorying c. And then he adds I told them that all true Believers were perfect in a sense they were Evangellically perfect but not legally not absolutly perfect they had perfection of parts but not of degrees I Answer What confusion is here and what contradiction to his former Doctrine of Imperfection and Sin in this Life for first an Evangelical Perfection he grants but not a Legal as if either the Law or the state under it were above the Gospel or else that the state of the Gospel is not a state of Perfection exceeding that under the Law but rather inferiour both which are false and absurd For this Doctrine doth not only charge Imperfection upon the Creature under the Gospel but upon the Gospel it self whilst Evangelical Perfection is deemed either Imperfection or not a
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
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
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