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
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
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
Ghost most rightly they do partake of the same Essence and are dignified with one and the same Godhead What can be more plain And he goeth on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. How can any say that he which begetteth doth not differ from him which is begotten that he which proceedeth doth not differ from him from whom he proceedeth Here is Unity of Essence and Trinity of distinct Persons asserted plainly I shall add but one place more of many in Resp. 17. ad Ortho. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore there is but one God in one indistinct Essence and three Persons with distinction of their Persons or Subsistences Tertullian Lib. de Trinitate adversus Proaxnean doth express his faith in this doctrine throughout the whole Book and argueth it strongly from the Scriptures Cap. 12. Si te adhuc numerus scandalizat Trinitatis quasi non connexae in unitate simplici interrogo quomodo unicus singularis pluraliter loquitur Faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram Adam factus est tanquam unus ex nobis quia adhunc adhaerebat illi Filius secundae persona tertia Spiritus ideo pluraliter pronunciavit Faciamus nostram nobis If the number of the Trinity doth offend thee as if it could not be joyned in the simple unity I ask thee how thee one and single God doth speak pluraly Let us make Man after our Image Adam is become like one of us because the Son the second person and the Spirit the third did adhere to him therefore he spake pluraly Let us make our us Chap. 13. Pater Deus Filius Deus Spiritus Sanctus Deus the Father is God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God Chap. 31. Pater Filius Spiritus Sanctus tres crediti unum Deum sistunt The Father Son and Holy Ghost the three we are to believe in bold forth but one God Theophilus Lib. 1. Com in Evang doth acknowledge the Trinity Margarita pretiosa est Sancta Trinitas quae dividi non potest nam in unitate consistit The Holy Trinity is a precious Iewel which cannot be divided because it consisteth in unity Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in preaemio and Cap. 2. I am informed by a learned Author doth expresse his Faith in this Doctrine but I have not that Peice of Origen by me as I have the rest to consult I could adde the testimony of other Fathers who lived before the time W. P. maketh mention of but it is enough to cite these for the detection of the falshood of W. P. who telleth us that these Fathers were strangers to the Doctrine of the Trinity wherefore the weakness absurdity falshood and folly of this man being made manifest I suppose people will be more cautious than to follow him and the guidance of the light which W. P. saith is communicated unto all and forsake the true Light of the Word and Spirit which alone can guide men into all truth CHAP. VII The Doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ the second person of the real and glorious Trinity asserted and proved IF the doctrine of the ever glorious Trinity or three persons Father Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead had been overthrown by W. P. or could be indeed shaken by the Sociniant which with all the argument they can device in vain they do endeavour if he or they could prove which they never can that there is but one person in the God-head then it would follow that Christ could not be the eternal Son of God the second person of this glorious Trinity as W. P. most blasphemously stileth him the second person of the imagin'd Trinity and by consequence the Doctrine of satisfaction depending upon this person would fall to the ground and might by invincible argument be refuted it being impossible for any meer finite creature to make plenary satisfaction to the infinite Justice of God But the Doctrine of the Trinity being established by Scripture Testimony and the Lord Jesus Christ proved to be God equal with the Father the Doctrine also of satisfaction dependent upon this second person of the real and ever glorious Trinity will remain firm against all Quaker and Socinian attempts to overthrow it and before I give answer unto the objections and cavils against this Doctrine I shall breifly assert and prove the doctrine by the Word of Truth in the Holy Scripture W. P. in his title The impossibility of Gods pardoning offin without a plenary satisfaction refuted seemeth to infinuate that he denyeth onely the impossibility of Gods pardoning sin without satisfaction but whoever readeth his arguments shall finde them to be the very same which the Socinians use against Satisfaction it self and that he plainly denyeth the thing therefore I shall not concern my self to enquire what God could or might do if he pleased but what he hath decreed and determined to do and declared in the Scripture to be his will and here I affirm 1. That God never doth nor will nor can pardon any sinner without satisfaction made to his offended Iustice for their sins And that because his holiness righteousness and truth obligeth him to take vengeance upon all that have transgressed his Law the Lord is so Holy that he hateth all the workers of iniquity Psal. 5. 5. and what is Gods hatred but Percatum pro merito suo velle punire as Bradsh de Iust. his will to punish sin and sinners according to their desert His Justice doth engage him by no means to clear the guilty Exod. 34. 7. and his truth would be enfringed if he should not curse every one that centinueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. II. That no sinners themselves by any thing they can do or suffer in this life can give satisfaction unto Gods Iustice for their sins And the reason is because whatever good they do is no more than duty wherein also they must have Divine help to enable them and when they have done their duty their works are but imperfect and they unprofitable servants and this can make no compensation for their faults before Luk. 17. 10. When have done all the things commanded say we are unprofitable servants c. Our righteousnesses are as filthy raggs Isa. 64. 6. And what ever sinners suffer in this life it is infinitely short of what their sins have deserved Gods Justice is infinite and requierth an infinite satisfaction sinners are finite and therefore there is no porportion between any thing they can bring and what Gods Justice doth require for satisfaction III. That Iesus Christ being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and Man in one person was onely fit to make and hath actually made satisfaction unto Gods infinite and offended Iustice for the sins of Men. It was necessary that the person that should make satisfaction should be man because none but a creature could suffer and none but a man could be a fit
of Christians in the truths and ways of God In W. P's conclusion by way of caution he teleth us he doth not disown Father Word and Spirit to be one but he disowneth them to be three Persons which hath been proved out of the Scripture that the Trinity as he saith hath not a foundation in the Scripture that its original was three hundred years after Christianity was in the World hath been proved to be false What he speaketh concerning the Council of Sirmia That the controversie concerning the Trinity should not be remembred because the Scriptures made no mention thereof is also falsely alledged for by that very Council the Doctrine of the Trinity is expresly asserted as a chief article of the Christian faith and the distinction of Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost plainly implyed in the Anathema which was pronounced upon those that asserted they were but one Person that which W. P. citeth is concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which this Council was heterodox as it might well be when so much influenced by the Emperor Constantius who himself was infected with Arianisme But W. P. should have looked into the Councils more ancient and authentique than the Sirmian namely the first Nicene Council which condemned the Arian heresie blasphemously denying the Son to be coeternal and coessential with the Father the first Constantinopolitan council which condemned the Macedonian heresie denying the Deity of the Holy Ghost The Council of Ephesus Chalcedon who with other approved oecumenical Councils generally assented to the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Consubstantiality of the three Persons What W. P. further addeth concerning the occasion of Idolatry is groundless the scandalizing of Turks c. is no wonder when the preaching of Christ crucified was such a stumbling-block of old After he confesseth that Christ offered unto God a Satisfactory Sacrifice and yet he denieth Christs Satisfaction and Justification by his imputative Righteousness all which three Doctrines being Fundamental established by the Word of Truth W. P's attempts to subvert them are in vain and have discovered him to be both a Blasphemer and an Heretick Since I began my Answer to W. P. there came to my hands a Pamphlet subscribed by Solomon Eccles styled The Quakers Challenge wherein amongst others he challengeth me at two Weapons as he calleth them to Fast seven days and seven nights and to Wake seven days and seven nights and that hereby tryal shall be made who are in the truth Though the Pamphlet be ridiculous yet I was unwilling to let it pass without any remark and my Answer is when the Lord hath appointed these ways for tryal of the Orthodox and Hereticks I shall undertake them but not finding any such Command or Warrant in the Word to forbear Food or Sleep so long but on the contrary because it is a tempting of God and a breach of the sixth Commandment which requireth all lawful endeavors for the preservation of our own life as well as the lives of others therefore it would be a God-provoking sin to endanger self-murther by such Weapons The Scripture Instances of Fasting many days together were miraculous and not for our imitation others I have heard of that have lived as many days together as he speaketh of without meat or drink or sleep but they have been distracted people amongst whom this man deserveth to be numbred and if I should answer him in the way he challengeth I should be accounted by the sober as mad as himself His Lie he venteth concerning me is refuted already in my Narrative CHAP. X. The Call and Exhortation HAving asserted and proved the three great Doctrines of the Trinity Satisfaction and Iustification denyed by W. P. I shall further add by way of premise to the Call and Exhortation what was before intimated that these three are great Fundamental Truths of the Christian Religion necessary to be believed in order to Salvation the unbelief and denyal of which will bring unavoidable damnation 1. The Doctrine of the Trinity of distinct Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence is a Fundamental Truth because the Godhead in the three persons is the proper object of saving Faith and right Worship and those that do not savingly believe and rightly worship God cannot possibly be saved besides the denyal of the three distinct persons in the Godhead doth necessarily inferr the denyal of the co-eternal co-essential Deity of the Son and Holy Ghost which is Blasphemy and damnable Heresie so accounted by the most ancient and authentique Councils and by the true Church of God in all Ages II. The Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and Justification by his imputed Righteousness are Fundamental Truths also without which there can be no Redemption Reconciliation Remission and consequently no Salvation This being premised I shall now apply my self first to the Quakers and then to others To W. P. and other Quakers who believe these and other Quaker damnable errors I shall propound these four Queries which I shall answer according to truth Que. 1. Do you know what you are 1. You are strangers to Christ whatever your fancy be of Christ within you and I am confident that none of you all that believe these errors have had experience of the new birth and forming of Christs image upon your hearts since there never is a work of regeneration and uniting the souls of any to Christ that leaveth them in such darkness and error as you are left and bound up in No had you been ever truly regenerated you would have been humbled and emptied of your selves you would have seen your selves lost in your selves and your need of Christs satisfaction and imputed Righteousness without which you would have been assured that there is no possibility Gods anger should be appeased and your souls saved It is not turning Quaker that is turning from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to Christ but on the contrary it is a turning from light to darkness and from Christ to Satan and what will be the issue hereof not remission of sins and salvation but the fastening of guilt upon you and eternal destruction 2. You are enemies to Christ and I believe that Jesus Christ hath scarcely greater enemies under the Sun than you who are greater enemies to Christ than those who deny his eternal Deity as I have proved to be the plain consequence of W. P's words and of the denial of the Trinity who are greater enemies to Christ than those that deny his Satisfaction and Justification by his merrits who are greater enemies to Christ than those that oppose his faithful Ministers and Embassadors and that lye in wait to deceive and mislead Christians you are enemies to his truths and ways and ordinances and cause and interest and Ministers and true Disciples and all this with Christ in your mouths and I am confident the Lord doth hate and abhor you for such hypocrisy 3. You are Children of the Devil and
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
is God which W. P. also doth deny and this also I shall prove from Scripture I. But Peter said Act. 5. 4 3. Ananias why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the holy Ghost to keep back part of the price of the Land c. Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart thou hast not lyed unto men but unto God Him whom the Apostle calleth Holy Ghost in the 3d. verse he calleth God in the 4. verse and him whom he calleth God in the 4th verse he calleth the Spirit of the Lord in the ninth verse How is it that ye have agreed to tempt the Spirit of the Lord II. 1 Cor. 12. 4 5 6. Now there are diversities of gifts but the same spirit and there are differences of Administrations but the same Lord and there are diversities of operations but it is the same God which worketh all in all He that is called the same Spirit in the 4th verse is called the same Lord in the fifth verse and the same God which worketh all in all in the sixth verse and that what is spoken of Administrations and Operations in the fifth and sixth verses is attributed to the Spirit as appeareth by the seventh verse where they are called The manifestation of the Spirit given to every man to profit withal and more plainly verse 11. But all this worketh that one and the same Spirit dividing unto every man severally as he will And what can be more plain to prove that the Holy Ghost or Spirit is God when he worketh all in all and distributeth spiritual gifts unto men according to his own good pleasure III. Isa. 6. 1. I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne c. v. 2 3. Above stood the Seraphims and cryed Holy holy holy is the Lord of Hosts The three Holies signifie the three Persons the Lord of Hosts the one God ver 8. I heard the voice of the Lord ver 9. And he said Go tell this people Hear ye indeed but understand not c. This must needs be spoken of God and it is by the Apostle applyed to the Holy Ghost Act. 28. 25. Well spake the Holy Ghost go to this people and say hearing you shall hear c. IV. 1 Cor. 2. 10. For the Spirit searcheth all things yea the deep things of God None is omniscient to know all things yea whatsoever is in the unsearchable minde of God but he that is God and therefore the Holy Ghost is God I might speak further of his divine Works as Regeneration Ioh. 3. 5. guiding Believers into all truth Ioh. 16. 13. Sanctification and the like of our being baptized by him Mat. 3. 11. and in his name Mat. 28. 19. and his being called One that is one God where he is numbred up amongst the three Persons that bare record in heaven 1 Ioh. 5. 7. All which undeniably prove that the Holy Ghost is God co-essential and co-equal with the Father and the Son 5. The fifth and last thing is to prove That Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct Subsistents or Persons Concerning the name Person I shall not speak of it because Mr. Danson intendeth to vindicate that word from the cavils of W. P. in answer to what concerneth him p. 10. That there are three such distinct Persons in one Divine Essence is evident from the Scripture See Math. 3. 16 17. And Iesus when he was baptized went up straightway out of the water and to the Heavens were opened unto him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a Dove and lighting upon him And lo a voice from Heaven saying This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased Here is a distinction of all the three Persons the Son was clothed in flesh and came up out of the water the Spirit was in the shape of a Dove which came down from heaven the Fa was in the voice saying This is my beloved Son Another Scripture which holdeth forth this distinction is Ioh. 16. 17. I will pray the Father and he shall give them another Comforter even the Spirit of Truth The Son prayeth the Father giveth The Spirit of Truth is the Comforter that is given I shall adde a third Scripture 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 They are the distinct Persons but one undivided Essence But further to confirm this truth denied by the Adversaries I shall prove from the Scripture that there are three distinct Persons in one Divine Essence 1 From the distinct Names given to them 2 From their distinct personal Acts. 3 From their distinct personal Properties 1. From their distinct Names they are called Father Son and Holy Ghost Math. 28. 19. Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Father Word and Holy Ghost in Ioh. 5. 7. before cited These names do evidence a distinction not of nature and essence for they are one therefore of personality 2. From their distinct personal acts I mean such acts as can be ascribed unto none but such as are persons 1 Giving the Comforter is ascribed to the Father Ioh. 14. 16. I will pray the Father and he shall send you another Comforter it is proper onely to a person to give this act requiring both understanding and will 2 Sending the Comforter is ascribed to the Son Ioh. 15. 6. When the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from the Father and it is proper onely to a person to send 3 Guiding into all truth speaking what he heareth is ascribed to the Holy Ghost Ioh. 16. 13. Howbeit when he the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all truth for he shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak And who can deny that these are personal acts The distinction of the persons in these acts is evident in all these places where the Son speaketh of himself in the first person I will pray I will send he speaketh of the Father and the Spirit in the third person which persons he evidently distinguisheth one from another by the preposition from speaking of the Spirit whom I will send from the Father Surely he must wink very hard that doth not perceive a distinction of the persons of Father Son and Spirit in these places 3. That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons is evident from these distinct personal and incommunicable Properties 1. The personal property of the Father is to beget the Son Heb. 1. 5. Vnto which of the Angels said he at any time thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee and the Son being eternal as hath been proved this generation must be eternal 2. The personal property of the Son is to be begotten of the Father Ioh. 1. 14. We beheld his glory the glory as of the onely begotten of the Father 3. The personal
There he pretends to inform the Reader concerning the original of this doctrine and first he would have the Reader assure himself that it is neither from Scripture nor reason But I suppose most Readers will be more wise and cautious than to build their assurance upon the bold assertions and crude reasonings of this presumptuous and Heaven-daring disputant That this doctrine is not from reason will be easily granted yea that it is contrary to corrupt reason such as W. P. hath plainly declared it self to be it is a mystery which flesh and blood cannot reveal but the Father which is in Heaven yet so as it is not contrary to right and truly sanctifyed reason And whereas W. P. asserteth that it is not from Scripture he must not think to impose this upon Christians who have look't into the Word any more than what he further asserts as to the first three hundred years upon those that have look't into the writings of the ancient Fathers The Doctrine of the Trinity is as old as the Scriptures themselves and hath been proved out of the first Chapter of Genesis and other places of the Old Testament by Mr. M. Chap. 4th and abundantly out of the New Testament Chap. 5. The Readers that search and believe the Scriptures will never believe W. Penn. That the Doctrine of the Trinity came into the world above three hundred years after the first preaching of the Gospel by the nice distinctions and too daring curiosity of the Bishop of Alexandria is one of W. Pen's loud lyes It was indeed opposed by Arius about that time who denied Christ to be equal to and of the same substance with the Father yet not first opposed by him but by other hereticks before him one of whose disciples if not worse W. P. hath in his Pamphlet sufficiently proved himself to be and if it were opposed before sure it was known before so that W. P. might have derived the pedigree of his abomination and blasphemy if he had consulted Church History higher than from Arius The miserable end of which blasphemour and dishonourer of the eternal Son of God who voided his entrails with his excrements in a place of easement and so died by an unheard of death should caution all others from offering the like indignities unto the Son as to disrobe him of his Deity and number him amongst creatures like themselves lest he stretch forth the arm of his Almighty power and make them feel him if they will not otherwise acknowledge him to be God by bringing some remarkable destruction upon them in this world W. P. Thus was it conceived in ignorance brought forth and maintained by cruelty c. What a strange composition is here of impudence and folly thus boldly and blasphemously to assert this great fundamental truth to be conceived in ignorance and maintained by cruelty and yet in the next breath he owns persecution to be as well on the Arians side as the other and so by his own confession the Arian Doctrine was maintained by cruelty and with how great cruelty and bitternesse those which look into the Histories of those times may easily see To say nothing of W. P's so proud censuring so eminent a champion of Jesus Christ as Athanasius was when he shall produce the grounds of his suspecting the Creed commonly called The Athanasian Creed to be the Results of Popish School-men it will be time enough to answer that Clause Next W. P. cautioneth the Reader to take heed of embracing the Determinations of prejudiced Councils c. and yet giveth no reason why the Reader should be prejudic'd against them except the belying of the Scripture testimony be a reason which I suppose was the ground of their Determinations in this point and no further are any Councils to be heeded than they do agree in their Results with the Scriptures I hope the Reader will rather take heed of embracing such damnable Doctrine as this peremptory Dictatour would impose upon the understanding of the weak and indeed weak they must needs be and blinde too and either renounce the Scriptures or their own senses that will suffer their assent to these great Scripture-truths to be in the least enfeebled by any thing that this raw Disputer alledgeth for the maintaining of this Blasphemy and Heresie or oppugning our received and never to be shaken Foundations And here W. P. who had discovered before his skill in Logick by arguing against the conclusion of my Syllogism telling us he opposed the Minor his skill in the Original Tongues in noting the Holy ONE in great letters to prove Gods Unity when the word One is not to be found in the Hebrew Text doth make a third attempt to show something of a Scholar but is as unhappy as before and as grosly as in the two former attempts doth signifie to all that understand Learning that he is a proud boaster and pretender to that which he never attained unto He telleth us the Doctrine of the Trinity was never believed by the Primitive Saints nor ever thus stated by any he hath read in three first Centuries particularly Irenaeus Just in Martyr Tertullian Origen Theophilus Theophilact who lived several hundred after Athanasius was cited by W. P. but I finde in the Errata it is corrected Theophilus with many other who appear wholly forreign to the matter in controversie But who ever will peruse these Authors W. P. maketh mention of with others who writ in those times will finde both his lies to be very great and his reading to be very little notwithstanding this vain flourish and boasting The Doctrine of the Trinity is plainly enough to be gathered from several passages in Irenaeus Lib. 1. Cap. 2. Ecclesia accepit fidem quae est in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem in unum Christum filium Dei incarnatum in Spiritum Sanctum qui per Prophet as praedicavit The Faith which the Church hath received is in one God the Father omnipotent and in Christ the Son of God who was made flesh and in the Holy Ghost who spake by the Prophets Do not these words hold forth a distinction of these three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost And cap. 19. Omnium Deus per verbum spiritum omnia faciens gubernans The God of all things making and governing all things by his Word and Spirit Here the making and governing of all things are attributed to the Word and Spirit as well as to the Father and as the former place doth show that he believed they were three distinct persons so this latter place that he believed they were but one God Iust. Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Title of this Book being concernig faith in the holy Consubstantial Trinity sheweth he was not a stranger to this Doctrine Read some of his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When as the Father doth beget the Son of his substance and of the same doth produce the Holy
God especially it followeth from the scope of the argument which is to prove that if the Father be God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God than there are three distinct Gods but W. P. having plainly asserted his belief that there is but one God he must of necessity deny by his argument that the Son and Holy Ghost are God for neither he nor any Socinian of them all will deny that the Father is God Behold here the Christian that hath offered such an affront and indignity unto the Son and Spirit as to divest them what in him lieth of their Divinity is not this a treading of the Son of God underfoot and doing despight to the spirit of grace and should not this cause the hearts of all sincere Christians who have any zeal for their masters honour to arise with indignation against such Black-mouth'd blasphemers and to abhor their opinions and ways but more of this in the exhortation at the latter end the Heathenism abominablenesse and foulness of this opinion being such a blasphemy and reproach of the eternal Son of God may excuse a little disgression to expresse my abhorrency thereof The thing to be proved is that the Son is God I do not mean nominal so as those are that are called Gods whether in heaven or in earth but really so that he is God co-essential co-equal co-eternal with the Father The onely proof of this is to be drawn from the Scripture I. Joh. 1. 1. 3. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made By the Word we are to understand the Essential not the written Word namely the Son the only begotten of the Father which is Christ it being the same whom Iohn came to bear witness of ver 7. the same which was made flesh and dwelt amongst them ver 14. Now that this Word or Son of God is God is evident from this place where 1. He is called God The Word was God 2. It is said All things were made by him So Col. 1 16. For by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth visible and invisible whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers all things were created by him and for him Whence it followeth 1. That he himself was not made for then he must be made by himself which is absurd and impossible and if he were not made then he is no creature and if no creature then God all things that have a being being divided into God and his creatures 2. It followeth hence that all things being made by him that he is the Creator that he is Infinite in Power and Wisdom and Goodness as his works of Creation do demonstrate 3. It followeth that all things being made by him that he was before all things as it is said expresly Col. 1. 17. And he is before all things that he was before the beginning of time when creatures received their beings it being necessary that he which made creatures should be before the creatures he made and therefore he must be eternal and by consequence that he must needs be God none being eternal a parte ante in respect of heretofore but God II. Joh. 8. 58. Iesus said unto them Verily verily I say unto you Before Abraham was I am That the Jews did apprehend him to assert himself to be God is evident by their taking up stones to cast at him for the Blasphemy which they through their unbelief of his Deity did think he had spoken And that he did really hereby assert himself to be God is evident from the words themselves I Am is the Name whereby God made himself known to Moses and the children of Israel Exod. 3. 14. And God said unto Moses thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel I Am hath sent me unto you I am doth signifie infinite eternal necessary independent Being this Christ doth apply to himself therefore he is God Moreover in our Saviours saying Before Abraham was I am it must needs have a reference to his Divine Nature for in regard of his humane nature the Jews spake truth v. 57. Thou are not yet fifty years old as man he was a son of Abraham and born many generations after him therefore his Being before Abraham yea before the world by the former Scriptures proved hath a reference to his Divine Nature and Godhead III. Joh. 3. 13. And no man hath ascended unto heaven but he that came down from heaven even the Son of Man which is in heaven That Christ was not in heaven at that time as man is evident because he was upon the earth speaking to Nicodemus yet he telleth him He is in heaven that is as God he filleth both heaven and earth IV. Rom. 9. 5. Whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever Amen Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came that setteth forth his humane nature Who is over all God blessed for ever that evidently doth prove his Divine Nature The Title of God with universal Soveraignty and eternal Blessedness cannot without blasphemy and absurdity be ascribed unto any creature as it is here unto Christ. V. Philip. 2.6 Who being in the form of God thought it no robbery to be equal with God In this Scripture there are two Proof that Christ is God 1 He is said to be in the form of God by the form of God we can rationally understand nothing but the Essence of God and to be in the form of God is to subsist in the Essence of God Christ subsisting eternally in the Essence of God must needs be God 2. It is said He thought it no robbery to be equal with God that is he was equal with God without robbing God of his honor without any detraction from the Deity And none can be equal with God but he that is God and such is Christ. I might here add for the proof of Christs Divinity all those Scriptures which ascribe the same divine Attributes to Christ as Eternity Heb. 1. 8. Vnto the Son he saith Thy Throne O God is for ever and euer Omniscience Ioh. 21. 17. Lord thou knowest all things thou knowest that I love thee Omnipresence Math. 28. 20. Lo I am with you always Omnipotence In making all things as before and upholding all things by the word of his power Heb. 1. 3 As also those Scriptures which ascribe the same honor and worship to Christ which is due onely to God In him we must believe Joh. 14. 1. In his name we must be baptized Math. 28. 19. Vpon his name we must call 1 Cor. 1. 2. At his name we must bow Phil. 2. 10. None can reasonably question Christs Deity who give credit to the Scriptures Authority 4. The fourth thing is to prove that the holy Ghost