or shew himself There was no need to save my Brethren for I do not remember one word either of Scripture or right reason that was opposed to what they asserted and proved so that it was neither to save my Brethren nor to shew my self that I then appeared but to stop a blasphemer's mouth and to make manifest his wickedness that he might proceed no further 2 Tim. 3. 8 9. Silences our further controverting the Principle Your further reproaching and reviling it you mean for if you would have disputed it without your wicked comparisons and reflections I would not have interposed By a Sylogistical but false and impertinent Reflection upon G. W. his person it runs thus He that scornfully and reproachfully compares the Doctrine of the Trinity of Father Son and Spirit to three finite men as Paul Peter and John is a Blasphemer But you G. W. have so done Ergo That this is a false and impertinent reflection on G. W. his person you assert but prove not I shall therefore prove the contrary And first that the minor is not false nor impertinent appears by his words and your confession for you acknowledge that in scorn to the Doctrine of the Trinity he compar'd it to three finite men viz. Paul Peter and Iohn which you call a most apt comparison to detect the ridicule of our Doctrine Secondly that the major is not false nor impertinent as is manifest for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hurt or blast the fame of another is all one as to blaspheme him and hence the perverse disputings and railings of men of corrupt mindes that consent not to wholesom words and the Doctrine that is according to Godliness are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blasphemies 1 Tim. 6. 4. And what can be more derogatory to the glory of the infinite God than to fasten the imperfections and limitations of finite creatures upon him and to assert three separate essences as the necessary consequent of three distinct persons this was the old Arian Plot whereby he and his followers endeavored to prejudice the mindes of well meaning but simple men against the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost and this is to blaspheme God and the Scriptures A strange way of argumentation to beg what cannot be granted and to take for granted what still remains a question viz. that there are three distinct and separate persons in one essence 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 I say it was no begging of the question for it had been sufficiently proved that there are in the Divine Essence three distinct persons the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Let them first prove their Trinity and then charge their Blasphemy It is not for want of proof that this Doctrine is rejected and blasphemed and still called our Trinity in a way of reproach assure your self the day is coming when you will wish you had made it yours also but you have a way to scorn all that is offered in defence of it as mens lo here Interpretations and lo there and to brand all the determinations of Councels Fathers c. concerning it as the issues of Faction Prejudice and Cruelty and there is little hope that any Arguments though never so strong will convince men of such proud insolent humors this Doctrine is more than hinted in the first line of the Bible Gen. 1. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Verb of the singular number signifies the Unity of the Divine Effence and the Noun of the plural number denotes the Trinity of persons God that created Heaven and Earth is God the Father Son and Holy Ghost Read also Iob 35. 13. God thy Makers Heb. Consult Mr. Caryl on the place Eccles. 12. 1. Remember thy Creators c. Isa. 54. 5. My Makers is thy husband Heb. in all which Texts the Trinity of persons is denoted by words of the plural number See also Isa. 42. 1. where you have the Father choosing and upholding the Son and the Spirit put on him as Mediator three persons spoken of Mat. 3. 16 17. and 28. 19. Ioh. 14. 16. there is Christ praying the Father and he giving another Comforter the Spirit of Truth what can be more plain than a Trinity of persons in this Text So Ioh. 15. 26. the Spirit sent by Christ from the Father and Act. 2. 32 33. 2 Cor. 13. 14. 1 Ioh. 5. 7. for brevity sake I onely name the Texts I might also adde that the names properties or attributes works and worship of God are frequently in the Scripture given to each of these three Persons so that they are one and the same perfect and infinite Essence each of them God and one God by nature but three persons And now having proved the Trinity W. Pen must either deny Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles and God himself speaking from Heaven or else confess the Blasphemy But I must not forget this persons self-confutation who to be plainer called them three Hee 's But what self-confutation it is to call three persons three Hee 's you neither do nor can tell that each of them is frequently spoken of in the Scripture as a distinct he is so plain you cannot deny it and expressed by the Pronouns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioh. 1. 2 3. and chap. 16. ver 8. 13 14. 27. and I called them three Hee 's to try if you would own the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost under any Title and 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 union or one-ness of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is no less than to deny and reject God for though you pretend to own God the Father yet in rejecting the Son you reject the Father for saith Christ he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me Luke 10. 16 and the beloved Disciple telleth us that whosoever denieth the Son the same hath not the Father 1 Ioh. 2. 23. If he can finde a he without a substance or prove that a subsistence is any thing else than the form of a he he will do well to justifie himself from the imputation of ignorance That my calling the three persons three Hee 's implies a He without a substance is the first thing that you would here insinuate but this is your gross ignorance of this great mystery For each of these Hee s is by nature God and hath the entire undivided nature substance or essence of God and all that you can say to the contrary is but like childrens shooting Paper-pellets against a Rock your latter phrase discovers your ignorance of Philosophy
Father the only true God In this place Christ excludeth not himself from being God but only excludeth all false Gods and if you mark it the word only as also the word one doth belong to the predicate God and not to the subject Father it being not onely thee to be the true God but thee to be the only true God and so it may be applyed to the Son and Iesus Christ whom thou bast sent to be the only true God which is signifyed in that place and expressed 1 Iob. 5. 10. we are in him that is true even in his Son Iesus Christ this is the true God and eternal life The other Scriptures prove that there is one God essentially in opposition unto all that upon any other account are called Gods not being Gods by essence all which do but assert that which is acknowledged and hath been already proved in the former Chapter that there is but one God In the argument which W. P. draws from the fore-mentioned Scriptures he doth again show his ignorance if he know not that in several of these places the word one is not in the Hebrew or his deceitfulness if he know and dissemble it and thinks by laying stress on the word one to impose upon the understandings of the vulgar as if there were some great force in his argument from those places when indeed they prove not in the least what he alledgeth them for But allowing W. P. to draw his argument from those places which do prove the unity of God though God be declared and believed to be but one it will not follow that the Divine nature doth not subsist in three persons the Scripture indeed doth hold him forth as one God but there it speaketh of his essence and yet withal doth elsewhere sufficiently declare that in this one essence there are three distinct persons therefore we professe our beleif of the Holy three persons as well as the Holy one God and both according to the plain Scripture before urged for proof hereof 1 Ioh. 5. 7. There are three that bare record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one But this distinction of one God and three persons so plainly signifyed in that Scripture W. P. most impudently and blasphemously calleth impertinent and the reason he giveth is because God was not declared and believed incompleatly or without his subsistance nor did require homage from his creatures as an incompleat and abstracted being c. which is a most egregions non sequitur besides that he fastneth that on us which neither we nor any Orthodox Christian ever yet affirmed viz that God was ever declared or believed incompleatly without his subsistance or as an incompleat and abstracted Being we know no such thing as the essence of God without a subsistance we know the Divine nature only in the three persons not abstracted from them or being any way out of them and so God is not manifested or worshipped without that which is absolutely necessary to himself namely without his subsistance but the Divine essence is worshipped as subsisting in the three persons and so the blessed Trinity is not our nor any mans fiction as he impiously speaks but this folish and absurd notion is his own fiction or the fiction of some of his Socinian brethren After W. P's vain attempts to refute the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Scripture he fronts his other arguments with the swelling but false title Refuted from right reason false I say for besides that what ever attempt reason doth make for the refuting of any Scripture truth which is the object of faith as this is concerning the Trinity of persons in the unity of the Divine essence it doth hereby discover it self to be crooked and depraved reason and the arguings from it are called the perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth 1 Tim. 6. 5. compared with the fourth verse W. P. who before had charged me for using Heathenish Metaphysicks in disputing for the Truths of God though my terms were either Scripture-words or carried Scripture-sense doth here most Heathenishly make use of Metaphysical terms in arguing against the truth but that so weakly that his Argumentation is so far from deserving the name of right reason that more properly it may be called no reason as shall be made evident in the Answer unto his Arguments which if they seem crabbed it is not because of the strength but because of the obscurlty of them for some of the phrases are so uncouch and his reasoning are so odly jointed together to avoid that part of a Scholar in putting them into a Sylogistical form that it is more difficult to find out what his cloudy brains conception and meaning is than to give answer unto any of his cavilling Arguments And here having promised to reply to his reason p. 10. why he flatly denied my minor proposition in the Sylogism before mentioned wherein he argueth onely against the conclusion endeavouring to prove that there are not three subsistences and the argument he useth being the same in sense and scope with his first argument under that which he calleth a Refutation from right reason I shall answer both together and omit nothing in his argument that hath any show of cogency in it His argument is thus No one substance can have three distinct subsistances and perserve its own unity and not to repeat all his words in the obscure way that he propoundeth his arguments but to help him in the methodizing of them his consequence is that every distinct Subsistance will have its own substance and consequently that three distinct subsistances will require three distinct substances consequently if the Doctrine of the Trinity of subsistences were true there would be three Gods And in his first argument he argueth that every person is inseparable from it's own substance and therefore Father Son and Spirit either are three distinct nothings or if persons then three distinct substances and consequently three distinct Gods Answer If Substance be taken here for Essence as it must be otherwise it will conclude nothing against us then the proposition is most false that no one substance can have three distinct subsistances and preserve it 's own unity for though a created Essence being finite limited and divisible cannot be communicated unto any more than one subsistance yet it followeth not that the divine Essence which is infinite and indivisible cannot be communicated to several subsistances neither doth W. P's reason prove the contrary viz that every subsistance will have it 's own substance unlesse he can prove that each distinct subsistence must necessarily have it 's own substance in God as well as Creatures distinct from what the other subsistences have For one and the same singular nature or substance may be and is the substance or nature subsisting in each person of the Trinity and so every subsistence hath it's own substance and yet
not distinct but one and the same and therefore as three Essences so three Gods cannot be concluded from hence and though every person in the Trinity be inseparable from it's substance yet it doth not follow that the substance must be distinct in every person though the persons be distinct neither doth it follow that the persons are either three distinct nothings as W. P. blasphemously reproacheth the ever glorious Trinity or three distinct Gods because the distinction is in regard of the personality and not in regard of the Essence and whereas Pag. 10. he seemeth to adde another reason why the infinite Godhead cannot subsist in three manners or forms he means the three persons because then one of them could not be a compleat subsistence without the other two and so parts and something finite would be in God or if infinite then there would be three distinct infinite subsistences and by consequence there would be three distinct Gods Answer Each person is a compleat person or subsistent without the personality or subsistence of the other two that is distinct from the other two but not without the substance of the other two which is the same in all three from whence it doth no ways follow that parts or something finite is in God nor that there are three infinite subsistences for though in the concrete every subsistent is infinite yet in the abstract infinitenesse is not applicable to the subsistance of which more in answer to the second argument which is to the same purpose with the close of this page 13. 2. Arg. The Divine persons are either finite or infinite if finite then something finite is in God if infinite then there would be three distinct infinites and consequently three Gods Answer The Divine persons or subsistents are infinite in the concrete The Father is infinite the Son is infinite the Holy Ghost is infinite the Father is omnipotent the Son omnipotent and the Holy Ghost omnipotent and yet three are not three infinites or three omnipotents but one infinite one omnipotent and the reason is because these and all other essential attributes agree to the persons onely in regard of the Essence from whence they flow and therefore though person or subsistent in the concrete be infinite omnipotent and the like in regard of the Essence included therein yet this can not be properly ascribed to the subsistence or personality therefore though there be three distinct personalities unto which infinitenesse is not ascribed yet there being but one and the same single Essence in all the three persons unto which infinitenesse is attributed it doth not follow that there are three infinites or the consequence that there are three Gods But W. P. in his arguings confoundeth the person with the personality the subsistent with the subsistence the concrete with the abstract taking the former for the latter but if he should understand the person in the abstract for the personality or subsistence then it is denied that either finitenesse for infinitenesse doth properly belong unto it it being altogether improper to ascribe the property of the nature to the subsistence of that nature in the abstract as immortality and mortality do not agree to any particular subsistence as such but to the nature in which it doth subject or to instance in the subsistence of a man it would be improper to ascribe the properties that belong to him unto his subsistence to say that his subsistence in the abstract is either a learned or unlearned subsistence a great one or a small one a white one or a black one and so it is improper to say that either of the persons in regard of their personality or subsistence are finite or infinite but in regard of their Essence in the concrete they are infinite which Essence being but one in each there is but one infinite and by consequence but one God W. P's third Argument is this If each person be God and that God subsists in three persons then in each person there are three persons or Gods and so from three they would increase to nine and so in infinitum Answer W. P. confoundeth again the concrete and the abstract together it is granted that each person is God in the concrete and that God not in the concrete but in the abstract God essentially or the Essence of God doth subsist in three persons from whence it doth not at all follow that there be three persons in each person but that there are three persons in one Godhead and so his consequence of the persons encreasing to nine and ad infinitum is both ridiculous and absurd W. P's fourth argument being built upon the supposition that we deny the persons to be infinite which we have affirmed it proveth nothing and therefore requireth no answer and I have not leasure to trace him with remarks upon his absurd arguings upon a false supposition which he conceived we might have W. P's last argument is this If these three distinct persons are one then they are not incommunicable amongst themselves but so much the contrary to be in the place of one another for if the onely God is the Father and Christ be that onely God then is Christ the Father and so round Answer Though the three persons be one that is one Essence yet it doth not follow that they are not incommunicable amongst themselves and that they are in the place of one another Here W. P. confounds again the persons and the personalities the concrete and the abstract the persons are in the one Essence or Godhead and agree among themselves yet these persons in regard of their personal properties are incommunicable to each other the subsistents are the same in regard of the Essence the subsistences are not the same and therefore though the only God be the Father and Christ that only God yet it followeth not that Christ is the Father because Christ is the onely God Essentially that is hath the Nature and Essence of God and so hath the Holy Ghost and yet both are personally distinguished from the Father The next thing that followeth under that head I need not repeat it being nothing against us we acknowledge the Divine nature to be inseparable from the three persons and communicated to each and each person to have the whole Divine nature and likewise the Father to be in the Son and Son in the Father Ioh. 14. 10. and the Spirit in the Son and we know no absurdity that followeth from hence these persons being in each other by reason of the Essence which is the same in every of them and therefore the consequences he draweth from the denial hereof we have nothing to do with so that W. P. more justly may take shame and ridiclousnesse unto himself W. P's reasonings against the ever Blessed and Glorious Trinity falling to the ground let us look into his Information and caution which he subjoyns whether any thing of truth and congency be there to be found
no direct reply to this Sylogism but findeth fault with the terms and W. P. telleth us that God did not use to wrap his Truths in Heathenish Metaphysicks but in plain language but let the Reader judge whether there be the heathenish Metaphysicks he speaketh of in this Sylogism wherein there is not a word but what is to be found in the Scripture not but that some words may be made use of in explaining Scripture Truths which are not in the Scripture themselves so they expresse the thing which the Scripture doth signify in other Phrases more proper to the languages the Scripture were wrot in and I could make it evident out of the Books of the Quakers themselves that they use many words which are not in the Scripture No answer could be obtained to my argument in the Meeting but W. P. taking the argument into further consideration attempteth at length in his Pamphlet to make a reply and first taxeth me to be as little a Scholar in regard of the manner of my Sylogism as a Christian in regard of the matter of it My Sylogism was urged to prove the three glorious persons in the Godhead the denial of which doth necessarily infer the denial of Christ to be God equal with the Father and let any judge who approveth himself most a Christian either W. P. in denying this or I in asserting and proving it As to the manner of my Sylogism some Quakers it may be who know not what a Sylogism is may believe that it bespeaks me to be little a Scholar but no Scholar will judge so from that Sylogism which they know to be according to rule and to carry a firm proof in it drawn from the Induction of particulars but W. P. discovereth himself to be that which he taxeth me for namely little a Scholar and though he hath been at the University yet that either he never read Logick or never understood Logick or hath forgot Logick or that purposely he hath laid aside Logick that herein he might be like to the Quakers in answering nothing to the purpose for besides his finding fault with my Sylogism his reply to it doth most of all detect his want of Learning and grosse absurdity for which he would have been hissed out of the Schools had he done it in the University for though he telleth us he will give his reason why he will deny my Minor yet most ridiculously and ignorantly he argueth against my conclusion The Minor as he repeateth it is But they are not three manifestations three operations three substances or three some things else besides subsistences The conclusion Therefore three subsistences If he had indeed denied the Minor he must have asserted that they were either three substances or operations or manifestations or something else but he mistaketh the conclusion for the Minor and argueth that they are not three subsistences No one substance can have three distinct subsistences c. W. P. argueth against the Trinity of persons in the unity of Essence behold the Christian he argueth against the conclusion of a Sylogism calling it the Minor behold the Scholar yet because his argument is against our Doctrine therefore I shall give answer thereunto and his other cavils together in the sixth chap. After this he reflected upon Mr. Madox in the 11. page whose answer you have in the following Chapter CHAP. III. An Answer to the 11. page of W. P's pernicious Pamphlet by W. M. ANd because G. W. willing to bring this strange Doctrine This Doctrine is strange to none but such as are strangers to God and ignorant of the Scriptures whose eyes the God of this world hath blinded lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ who is the Image of God should shine into them 2 Cor. 4. 3 4. but as Ephraim when joyned to idols counted the great things of Gods Law a strange thing Hos. 8. 12. so these men having prostituted themselves to an Idol of their own brains The Light within which is their Christ and Savior count the Doctrine of the true God a strange Doctrine To the capacity of the people You mean to the scorn and contempt of the people for his design was not to explain but to expose the Doctrine and it is absurd to imagine that he could facilitate that to the understanding of others which he himself neither derstands nor believes Compar'd their three Persons to three Apostles By their three persons you mean the three increated Persons of the ever blessed Trinity the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost Of the insolency and wickedness of this Comparison you shall hear by and by onely here let me tell you that we have endeavoured to make them ours by a fiducial application of them to our selves and it is no dishonor to us though it be a blasphemous reflection on them that they are in reproach called our three persons because we appear in vindication of them saying he did not understand how Paul Peter and Iohn could be three persons and one Apostle Neither did we assert it either directly or by consequence For though we call the father Son and Holy Ghost three Persons or He 's according as they are held forth in the Scriptures yet we say there is a vast and infinite difference between three created and the three increated persons for three created persons are so many distinct and separate Essences as they are persons but all the increated persons have the same simple and unseparated essence of God Ioh. 10. 30. I and my Father are one 1 Joh. 5. 7. These three are one not one in person for so the Father is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Another from Christ Ioh. 5. 32. There is Another c. and the Holy Ghost is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioh. 14. 16. Another Comforter i. e. Another as to subsistence or manner of being but one in nature and essence so that though Paul Peter and Iohn being of a finite nature cannot be three persons and one Apostle yet I am sure from the Scripture that the Father Son and Holy Ghost being of an infinite nature are three persons and yet but one God and till you can prove that finite and infinite or God and the Creature are all one it will be in vain to make such a comparison for the shaking of this Foundation-truth A most apt comparison to detect the ridicult of their doctrine Or rather to discover the monstrous blindness hardness and unbelief of his own and your hearts who dare so boldly spit in the face of God like men that have cast off all fear and reverence of God as well as of men One Maddocks whose zeal out-stript his knowledge busling hard as one that had some necessary matter for the decision of Controversie These extravagant expressions designed to cast disgrace on my person I purposely overlook because I contend not for mine own honor but for the honor of God In stead thereof perhaps to save his brethren
Trinity of Persons that three should be one and one should be three that three should be distinguished but not divided that one should not be another the first should not be the second nor the second third nor the second or third the first and yet the first second and third the same that the first should be in the second and the second in the first and both first and second in the third and that without composition without confusion all related to one another and al distinguished one from another by incommunicable personal properties and yet all one and the same in regard of one individual Essence this is such a mystery as doth exceed the weak and narrow understanding of the most enlightned and clear sighted Christians fully to comprehend some by gazing too long upon the Sun become blind and some by prying too much into this mystery and attempting to bring it to the standard and module of their reason have lost the sight thereof and sunk into grosse apprehensions and denied either the unity of the Godhead affirming the three persons to be three distinct Gods or denied the Trinity affirming the Godhead to be without three distinct persons thus while they have professed and conceited themselves to be wise they have proved themselves to be fools void of true understanding by changing the glory of God into that which is unworthy of him But we having a sure word of Prophecy in the Scriptures which is like a light shining in a dark place ought to give heed thereunto and conform all our conceptions of God according to the discoveries which he hath made of himself in his word God knoweth himself better than any creature can know and what he hath spoken of himself must needs be so because he cannot represent himself otherwise than he is and if there be a mystery in him which we cannot reach we adde folly to our weakness if we do in the least question it reason it may be will leave us in our search after the Deity in the Trinity and the Trinity in the Deity but where reason faileth Faith must supply it's room the proper object of Divine Faith is such things as we purely do assent unto upon Divine authority such are not onely Histories and Prophesies but also Mysteries which reason cannot demonstrate unto us in this mystery of the Trinity we must exercise our Faith though we cannot clear it to our selves by demonstration not as if we were to lay reason quite aside in this thing or trample it under foot not as if we should put out the eye of reason that we might see more clearly with the eye of Faith for though this mystery be above reason yet it is not against reason yea there is the greatest reason in the world that we should assent unto that for truth which God hath revealed of himself in his word because he is a God of truth and nothing is more true than that which God hath spoken Wherefore if the Scriptures have revealed that there are three distinct persons in one Divine Essence it is a certain truth and it is reason and duty that every one should assent unto it though the mystery of it there being no such thing to be found in nature cannot be fully comprehended Here then I shall propound my assertion and prove it out of Scripture My assertion according to the generally believed Doctrine of the Church of God is this That there are three distinct subsistents or persons in the same single Divine Essence or Godhead The argument bottom'd upon the Scripture to prove my assertion is this If the Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one and the Father is God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and the Father Son and Holy Ghost be three distinct subsistents or persons then there are three distinct subsistents or persons Father Son and Holy Ghost in the same single Divine Essence or Godhead But the Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one and the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God and the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct subsistents or persons Therefore there are three distinct subsistents or persons Father Son and Holy Ghost in the same single Divine Essence or Godhead The consequent of the major proposition is plain and firm that no man of reason can in the least question or deny The minor proposition is that which must be proved and there are five things in the proposition to be proved 1. That the Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one 2. That the Father is God 3. That the Son is God 4. That the Holy Ghost is God 5. That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct subsistents or persons 1. The Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one Deut. 6. 4. Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord Isa. 44. 6. Thus saith the Lord I am the first and I am the last and besides me there is no God Isa. 45. 21 22. There is no God else besides me a just God and Saviour there is none besides me look unto me and be ye saved all the ends of the Earth for I am God and there is none else And it cannot be otherwise for if there were more than one God then the Godhead might be divided it might be limited and by consequence would be finite and so not God because God is infinite I need not insist upon this because the unity of the Godhead is not denied by the adversaries I have to deal withal 2. The Father is God 1 Cor. 8. 6. To us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him I need not multiply places of Scripture nor adde arguments to prove that the Father is God since it is generally acknowledged by all that acknowledge a Deity and the Scriptures 3. The Son is God this William Penn plainly denieth he denieth that the Lord Jesus Christ is God wretched blasphemy that would thrust the Lord Jesus Christ off from the Throne of his Godhead His denial of the Divinity of Christ as well as the Divinity of the Holy Ghost is plain enough I shall repeat his words as they lye in his first argument against the three distinct persons in the Godhead page 13. And since the Father is God the Son is God and the Spirit is God which their opinion necessitates them to confesse then unlesse the Father Son and Spirit are three distinct nothings they must be three distinct substances and consequently three distinct Gods I shall answer the argument in its proper place only observe here that he denieth the Son and Spirit to be God by a plain consequence for first he telleth us that our opinion necessitates us to acknowledge that the Father is God and the Son God and the Spirit God which showeth that his opinion is otherwise that the Son and Spirit are not
property of the Holy Ghost is to proceed from the Father and the Son Ioh. 15. 26. And when the comforter is come whom I will send from the Father even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father he shall testify of me I shall conclude the proof of the distinction of the persons of the Father the Son and Holy Ghost in the unity of the Divine Essence with the two arguments made mention of before in the disputation which because no answer was given unto they remain in force The first argument is this against W. P's plain assertion that there were not three distinct persons in the Godhead with three distinct incommunicable properties If the Father be another from the Son and the Son another from the Father and the Holy Ghost another from each and all three be God and the incommunicable property of the Father is to beget the Son the incommunicable property of the Son to be begotten of the Father and the incommunicable property of the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son then there are three distinct persons in the Godhead with three distinct incommunicable properties But the Father is another c. Therefore there are three distinct persons in the Godhead with three distinct incommunicable properties The consequence of the Major none can with any reason deny because another and another and another do signify plainly a distinction of those persons and begetting being begotten and proceeding are real not imaginary properties The Minor also is firm in all the parts of it 1. The Father is another from the Son Ioh. 5. 32. There is another that beareth witness of me Ioh. 8. 18. I am one that bear witnesse of my self and the Father that sent me beareth witnesse of me 2. The Son is another from the Father because the Father is another from the Son 3. The Holy Ghost is another from each Ioh. 14. 16 17. I will pray the Father and he shall give you another comforter even the spirit of truth 4. That Father Son and Holy Ghost are God hath been proved 5. The incommunicable properties of each person also hath been proved Therefore it undeniably followeth that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead with three distinct incommunicable properties The second argument out of 1 Ioh. 5. 7. to prove that Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons was this The Father Son and Holy Ghost are either three substances or three manifestations or three operations or three persons or something else But 1. They are not three substances because in the same verse the three are called one that is in regard of substance or Essence 2. They are not three manifestations for all the attributes of God are manifestations and so there would be more than three hence also it would follow that one manifestation should beget and send another which is absurd 3. They are not three operations for the same reason namely that there are more than three operations and it would be very improper to asribe personal properties either to manifestations or operations 4. They are not any thing else Therefore the proposition remaineth firm and sound That Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct subsistents or persons in one Divine Essence or Godhead The Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God and yet they are nor three Gods but one God the persons of the Father Son and Holy Ghost are distinct but the Godhead is the same not specifically the same as the same humane nature is in all individual men but numerically the same so as no similitude or comparison is to be found in the creatures to set it forth The fooles gathering his skirt into three folds and pulling them abroad into one the affections of One Good True in Being The understanding will and executive power in the Soul and the like similitudes may a little help the understanding in the conception of this mystery but all comparisons fall short and cannot square in every respect hereunto Yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is so hath been proved from Scripture and it is one great fundamental point of our Christian Faith which all Christians are bound to believe because of the authority of God CHAP. VI. Ananswer to part of the 10 the 12 13 14 and 15 pages of W. P's Pamphlet which he intituleth the Trinity of distinct separate persons in the Vnity of essence refuted from Scripture right reason with information and caution in the close THe word separate person I disown any further than we may conceive it to signify no more than distinct and so W. P. was told again and again in the meeting I need speak no more of that since his endeavours are to refute the distinction not the separation of persons in the glorious and ever blessed Trinity And his first attempt is to refute this Doctrine by Scripture The Scriptures which he alledgeth to overthrow the Doctrine of the Trinity of persons are such as prove the unity of the essence that there is but one God which we do not in the least deny but have and do assert with as firme belief as he or any in the world can do but though the Godhead or Divine essence be but one this is not inconsistent with the plurality and distinction of the three persons in the same Godhead And here it is very remarkable how W. P. doth discover weakness and want of learning in the proof of the unity of the Godhead by Scripture for however he doth attempt to show something of a Scholar in quoting one Hebrew text in the margin as if he were well acquainted with the original Hebrew tongue so as to be able to read and understand it without punets yet most ignorantly and rediculously he cites three texts namely Isa. 40. 25. chap. 48. 17. Psal. 71. 22. to prove Gods unity in all which the Hebrew maketh no mention of it the translation indeed is Holy one and Holy one of Israel and he very sillily writes ONE in great letters as if one did bear the emphasis of the place when there is no such word as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one in the Hebrew only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou Holy of Israel in the new Testament he alleageth some Scriptures which the Socinians do make use of to prove that Christ is not God one is Math. 19. 17. Iesus said unto him why callest thou me good there is none good but one that is God Whence no Socinian can rationaly infer that Christ is not God any more than that he is not good for his question doth not infer a denial of his Divinity or goodnesse but is propounded according to the young man's apprehension of him and by way of probation For in other places as hath been shown Christ's Divinity is clearly enough declared Another Text is Ioh. 17. 3. This is life eternal that they might know thee