Christ's Nature Divine and his Soul Divine which comes out from God And where is his Soul called Humane Come to the Accidence again thou that professes thy self to be a great Schollar tell us what Humane signifies 16 thly Thou speaks of Three Persons and a man is a Person What doest thou infer from this Is God a Man No he is a Spirit I tell thee the Scripture sayes so Is the Holy Ghost a Man It is call'd the Holy Spirit and Christ was a man the man Christ Jesus So it seems the Presbyterians can say little of himself but he hath learned something of the Learned Wotton in pag. the second but he doth not tell us what he is whether a Papist or an Heathen 17 thly Thou sayest the Soul is part of man's Nature Where doth the Scripture thy Rule say so For the Scripture saith God breathed into man the breath of Life and man became a Living Soul 18 thly Thou sayest the word Person cannot properly be attributed to the Father Son and Holy Ghost Why doth the Presbyterians rage so against the Quakers It seems you cannot agree among your selves because the Quakers speak as the Scriptures do Father Son and Holy Spirit and say the Scripture doth not speak of Three Persons as thou thy self in thy third page sayes the word Person cannot properly be attributed to the Father Son and Holy Ghost See how this man is in Confusion who saith sometimes there are Three separate Persons and another while the word Person cannot properly be attributed to the Father Son and Holy Chost But we do charge Danson and his Brethren to make this good by Scripture in plain words For the Scripture saith The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father and the Holy Ghost proceeds from them So how can you say they are separated when they are one in another but it shews you have little knowledge of God or Scriptures either 19 thly The Priest saith concerning that distinction in the God-head it cannot be apprehended by us and yet he will call them Three separated Persons and a Trinity and gives them Names which are not apprehended by you you might have been silent then in what you did not apprehend And yet you will lay Principles down concerning God the Son and Spirit which you do not apprehend your selves but presume above what is written and so go contrary to your Rule Should you not call the Father Son and Holy Spirit as the Holy Men did call them in the Scriptures 20 thly In the 4th page thou sayest The Father the Son and the Spirit are said to be Three yet but one God and yet thou sayest we do not know what to call those Three but Three Persons and there is that ascribed to them thou sayest Properties which agree not simply Answ. The Father Son and Spirit agree but that which you do ascribe do not agree with Scripture with them nor among your selves about them And if you do not know what to call the Father Son and Spirit but Three Persons you might have holden your Tongues then till you did know who calls them and gives them Names contrary to Scriptures and the Holy Men of God who called them Father Son and Spitit who were wiser Men then any of you 21 thly And again in thy 4th page thou sayest Thre Subsistents that is Persons though not strictly yet proportionably or Anologically so called in the God-head People Did you ever hear such a Mash We do charge this Presbyterian to make these words good by plain Scripture viz. Three Subsistents Three Persons and Analogically Is this a Scripture word People Where did the Apostles use any such dark words Hadst thou not this word from the Heathen Well Mark Reader he sayes there are Three Persons and Three Subsistents in the God-head and hath not he made Four here If there be Three in the God-head he hath made Four for what is the God-head God is One and he hath made Three besides see pag. 4. of his Book And so in the Title of his Book he speaks of Three Persons in the God-head Are there not Four then And in the said 4th page he sayes he thinks he hath answered all the Arguments of the Antitrinitarians he doth but think so it seems Answ. The Scripture saith 1 Joh. 5.7 That there are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one But he doth not say that they are separated nor distinct neither doth call them Persons And thus we call them as the Scriptures call them Father Word and Holy Ghost and the Apostle doth not say they are separate nor distinct and we are not to presume above what is written We charge you Presbyterians to give us printed Scriptures for these following words and let us see in what Chapter and Verse they are printed Come to the Rule and do not presume above what is written Concreet Abstract Predicate the Relative Co-eternity Co-essentiallity Co-equallity Communication of Properties Co-essentiallities Modallities Suppossitallities Incommunicable Subsistances and Hypostatical Unions Come are these words spoken in the Rule the Scriptures let us see the Chapter and Verse that we may see where such terms are spoken of the Father Word and Spirit which are one Had you not them rather from your old Logical and Philosophical Books And have not they been your Rule for such words and not the Scriptures which the Holy men of God spoke forth Thou sayest in the 12th page of thy Book That we must not take Man here for a Person but a Nature as you do God c. And yet before thou saidst That Man was a Person and so it is the Nature that is a Person and not the Man nor God but thou hast not defined to us what a Person is nor what the word Person signifies for all thy Schollar-ship And thou sayest Ye mean no more then the Name Man to be attributed to Peter James and John because the same human Nature specifically agrees unto them and so is the Name God attributed to each Person because the same Divine Nature subsists in each of them Answ. This is a dark thing to whom will you liken me saith God like Peter James and John or like unto some corrupt person The Saints were partakers of the Divine Nature What do you say of them therefore And where do the Scriptures speak that the Nature of God is so simple c. where learned you this word And where doth the Scripture use these words Accidents and Integrals of the God-head and this is your Conceptions and Notions of God and the Word and the Spirit as it 's said in the 13th page of Danson's Book It 's a Conception and Notion indeed For you say in the same 13th page The Conception or Notion that we have of the Father c. so it 's but a Notion and Conception it seems that you have of the Father and
THE Divinity of Christ AND Unity of the Three that bear Record in Heaven WITH The blessed End and Effects of Christ's Appearance coming in the Flesh Suffering and Sacrifice for Sinners confessed and vindicated By his followers called Quakers And the principal matters in Controversie between Them and their present Opposers as Presbyterians Independants c. Considered and Resolved according to the Scriptures of Truth And more particularly to Remove the Aspersions Slanders and Blasphemies cast upon the People called QUAKERS and their Principles in several Books Written By Tho. Vincent Will. Madox their railing Book stil'd The Foundation c. Tho. Danson his Synopsis John Owen his Declaration Which are here Examin'd and Compared by G. W. And their Mistakes Errors and Contradictions both to themselves and each other made manifest As also A short Review of several Passages of Edward Stillingfleet's D.D. and Chaplin in Ordinary so called to his Majesty in his Discourse of the Sufferings of Christ And Sermon preached before the KING wherein he flatly Contradicts the said Opposers Mark 14.56 For many bare false witness against him but their witness agreed not together Coll. 2.8 Beware lest any man spoyl you through Philosophy and vain deceipt 1 Tim. 6.3 4 5 20. If any man consenteth not to the wholsome words of our Lord Jesus Christ c. he is puft up or proud c. Acts 24.14 After the way which they call Heresie do I Worship the God of my Fathers believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets c. London Printed in the Year 1669. An Epistle to the Presbyterians and Independants and their Rough Hearers who profess the Scriptures to be their Rule whereby they are examined and tryed and their wayes discovered 1 st WHether do the Scriptures speak of Three Persons in the God-head according to your own Rule in these express words let us see where it is written Come do not shuffle for we are resolved that the Scriptures shall buffet you about and that you shall be whipped about with the Rule 2 dly Where doth the Scripture speak of Christ's Righteousness imputed unto Unrighteous men who live in their sins and that in their Unrighteousness and Sins they shall live and die seeing that Faith purifies the heart from unrighteousness And he that believes passes from Death to Life and so from Sin that brought Death And he that receives Christ receives Righteousness it self by Faith in him the Lord the Righteousness this is Scripture 3 dly And where doth the Scripture say That a man shall not be made free from sin and that it is not attainable in this Life Let us see where ever Christ or the Prophets or Apostles preached such Doctrine Give us plain Scripture without adding or diminishing for Christ's bids men be perfect and the Apostle spoke Wisdom among them that were perfect 4 thly You that deny Perfection do ye not deny the One Offering Christ Jesus who hath perfected for ever them that are Sanctified Do you not deny the Blood of Christ Jesus in trampling it under your feet and the Blood of the new Covenant which Blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin and whose garments are made white by the Blood of the Lamb and he throughly purges his floor with his Fan and gathers his Wheat into his Garner 5 thly And did Christ make Satisfaction for the sins of men that they should live and die in their sins for he came to save his People from their sins and so he Died for them that they should not live to them but to God through him 6 thly Where do the Scripture speak of a Trinity of distinct Persons from Genesis to the Revelation give us plain Scripture for it without shuffling adding or diminishing you that talk so much of Scripture to be your Rule for the Father Word and Spirit this is owned according to Scripture and they agree in One. And we charge you to give us a plain Scripture that saith there are three separate Persons let us see Scripture we will have Scripture for it or otherwise be silent 7 thly And where do the Scriptures say That Christ the Light of the World which enlighteneth every one that cometh into the World is not sufficient to guide men to Salvation Christ saith Believe in the Light that you may become Children of the Light and Children of the Day and who walk in the Light there is no occasion of stumbling And this is the Condemnation that Light is come into the World and men love Darkness rather than Light because their deeds be evil And is not the Light sufficient that lets a man see whether his deeds be wrought in God read John 3. 8 thly Where doth the Scripture say from Genesis to the Revelation That the true Faith of God is without Works Hath not Faith works that purifies the heart Doth it not give Victory Will you deny the Works of Faith because the Works of the Law was denyed by the Apostle 9 thly Where doth the Scripture say That it self is the Word of God Do you not belye the Rule here For doth not the Scripture say That Christ is the Word and the Scriptures are Words read Exodus 20 and Revelation 22. He that adds to these Words and takes from these Words the Plagues of God are added to him So see whether you are not adders to these Words as it is made appear before And Christ saith My words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and Life c. And in many places of Scripture God saith My Words Doth not Scripture signifie Writing For all your high Schollar-ship you may go to the English School-Master and it will tell you what it signifies What is all the writing in Peoples hearts Is Paper and Ink in Peoples hearts Come do not cheat People but confess truth you affirm Scripture to be the Rule but are found contrary to the Rule But what is all the Scripture the Rule from Genesis to the Revelations to walk by and practice Or what part of Scripture is the Rule are Herods words Pharoahs words Nebuchadnezars words Judas words the Jewes words Jobs Friends words the Devils words the Offerings and the Sacrifices c. Come what part of Scripture is your Rule Distinguish For you say the Scripture is your Rule Is it all a Rule for practice Must we obey every tittle of it for we own the Scriptures more then you do which Holy Men of God gave forth Christ Jesus and the Apostles and Prophets and they made a distinction but you make none Do not go with your Malice and envious minds to possess the People and say That we dis-esteem the Scriptures for we esteem Scripture more than you do that have kept People under your Teaching that they might be paying of you and so make a Trade of them The Scriptures speaks plentifully concerning Christ being the Word of God God is the Word is not this Scripture And in the Beginning
then sayes suppose as a subsistent or Person c. But which of these terms it is this Notionist hath not declared to us in his 13th page And this Notionist goes on in the said 13th page and sayes Nor can we say that the Notion of the Father as one Person in the God-head includes the Son nor the Notion of the Son as one Person in the God-head includes the Father Reader Didst thou ever hear the like This is but a Notion of the Father and a Notion of the Son indeed And are these Presbyterian Priests like to interpret Scripture with their Notions Conceptions and Suppositions no no. No one knows the Father but the Son and he to whom the Son reveals him Nor none knows the Son but the Father and to know God and Jesus Christ is Life Eternal and none can call him Lord but by the Holy Ghost And so this Knowledge is beyond all your false Conceptions Suppositions and Notions And if the Holy Ghost the Saints bodies be the Temple of it which Holy Ghost leads them into all Truth And if the Holy Ghost be a Person then have not the Saints a Person in their bodies And why did not the Apostle say That their bodies were the Temples of a Person according to your Doctrine and Rule the Holy Ghost is a Spirit and so let us see that Scripture which gives the Holy Ghost the Name of a Person And he speaks again in his 14th page of Three distinct Persons are one with the God-head Now Reader is not here Four to wit Three Persons and the God-head But Reader we charge him to give us Chapter and Verse for this Doctrine for we must order him with the Rule And then he tells us of a Notion of the Father and including the Son it 's but his own Notion for if he had known him he would have spoken in a form of sound words whereby he might not have been reproved And again the Presbyterian sayes the Three Persons are distinct and the Rule is to be understood that they are One among themselves only in respect of that wherein they agree not simply Answ. Reader take notice he sayes The Father and Son and Holy Ghost which he calls Three Persons doth not agree simply Is not this contrary to Scripture What agreement is this which is not simply What! separate distinct Persons not agreeing simply Come what is this agreement then if it be not an agreeing simply Tell us what it is by Chapter and Verse thou sayes the Scripture is the Rule Where doth the Scripture say That the Father Son and Spirit doth not agree simply Didst thou not say That God was so simple that he admitted of no parts what agreement is this if it be not simple What is it then tell us Dost thou not abuse the Father Son and Spirit and Scriptures clear thy self and make this good That the Father Son and Spirit doth not agree simply if not simply then tell us how and give Chapter and Verse for it out of the Scriptures or else acknowledge thy self to be of a Sandy Foundation Seeing thou sayst A Man is a Person and God is a Person and the Scripture saith God is a Spirit and Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost the begotten of the Father Was Christ the Image of the Father as he was of the Generation of Abraham or David or Adam or according to the Spirit Whether of these was he the express Image of his Father's substance because thou calls the Father a Person And the Scripture sayeth He suffered according to the Flesh which he did not die as he was God and the Scripture calls him Son of Man and Son of God and he being the express Image of his Fathers substance see the Old Translations And dost thou not in thy 16th page of thy Synopsis bring the Greek Philosophers to prove the Persons Yes How now Presbyterian Priest thou hast run beside thy own Directory and Scripture both but the Greek Philosophers must be thy Rule and Leader surely People will not alwayes have their Eyes blinded by you Christ is come to open them And in the 17th page of his Book the Presbyterian saith that Hypostasis must be rendred Person or Subsistent or some word to that Effect he sayes So People see it must be some word but what it must be he knows not and so in this manner they are giving Names to Christ and God besides the Rule of Scripture we charge thee shew us a Verse in Scripture that speak such Language and where one word may be put for another by Metalepsis and so leave People in Doubts and Questions you are going beside your Scripture and Rule that at last People shall not know what to call God and Christ. So the Presbyterians and Independants must give us Scripture For we will not be satisfied with your Notions and Whymsies and false Conceptions which you have from Aristotle and the Greek Philosophers and the Papists and Cardinals We do command you to give us Scripture Chapter and Verse Presbyterians and Independants for these things plainly seeing you are of late perked up in a way of scolding against us not like the Holy Men of God Patient and Meek and apt to Teach as you may see in the latter end of your Brother Vincent's Book Is that the Language of a Christian No He hath declared what spirit you are of Rabshecha's spirit railing and speaking evil of the way of Truth he thinks to overcome by Railing and complaining not by Love nay the Lamb must have the victory Whether or no was Christ's Blood shed for All men and by it Justifies All men they living in their sins and not believing in it are they saved by their saying they believe in the Blood and not believing in the Light which Christ Commands and become Children of the Light and they say they believe and yet not pass from Death to Life and from sin that brings Death And whether or no any are cleansed from all sin by the Blood of Christ but such as walk in the Light of Christ as in 1 Joh. 1. And so whether or no are those Justified who believe not in the Light of Christ nor passes from Death to Life nor walks not in the Light whether or no are those Justified by Christ's Blood and have not the Testimony of Justification in them as in the accompt to God Christ's Blood was shed for All men but for a man to come to partake of this Justification is it not to feel the Blood sprinkling the Heart and Conscience For the outward Jewes in the Figure had Blood sprinkled upon them in the outward Offerings Come answer us by Scripture Do not daub up People with untempered Mortar do you know the Mortar that is tempered Whether or no was Christ an Offering for the sins of the whole World and died for the sins of the whole World Whether or no all the sinners and ungodly of the whole World
Children of the Light as in Joh. 14. And deny that which should give People the Knowledge of the Light that is in their hearts the Light of Jesus 2 Cor. 4. And so People see what these men can Preach that deny true Faith true Belief true Apostles and Scripture and the Blood of Christ and the Offering and so denies God and Christ and his Commands and Preach up Sin and Imperfection and the Bawdy-houses and would have his Hearers rather go to a Bawdy-house than to go among the People called Quakers that Preaches up Perfection and the Blood of Jesus the One Offering that makes People perfect and Sanctifies them and must not People have Faith in them and Christ in them and the Blood in them sprinkling their Hearts and Consciences Reader I pray thee read the Scriptures for they were given forth to be read and believed and not for Presbyterians and Independants to make a Trade of them and keep People alwayes to be hearing them and paying of them the Holy Men of God did not give forth the Scriptures for that end that suffered many of them to death for giving them forth And so I pray thee Reader do not fell thy Wit and Reason any longer for they will put it up all in their Pokes and Bags and then lead them into a ditch and barren Mountain and so feed themselves of you and not feed you But the Lord is come to gather his People from off the barren Mountains and from their mouths that have fed themselves and not the Flock and sought themselves and not the Flock and made a Prey upon you and sought for your wooll hath bit you when you put not into their mouths and have sought for handfuls of Barley and a piece of Bread and hath born rule amongst you by their means and hath been the greedy dumb Dogs that could never have enough who have been slumbering Read Jer. 5. Isa. 56. Mic. 3. Ezek. 14. and so read how Christ marks out those false Teachers Mat. 23. And the Apostle to Timothy and Titus So no more but my Love that you may all come to know the Freedom in Christ from all the blind Guides G. F. Jo. Stubbs If that the Father Son and Holy Ghost be three distinct separate Persons not simply One or agreeing simply as the Priest saith then how far distance are they from one another shew us Chapter and Verse for this and make it good by Scriptures And let us see through all the Scriptures where ever the Holy Men of God did give such Titles or Names to God and Christ and the Holy Ghost as the Presbyterians and Independants have done as may be seen in this Book The Scripture saith That God and Christ and the Holy Ghost will dwell in Man then you Independant Presbyterian Priests Whether then that there is not three Persons in a Man dwelling in him that is a Person for the Apostle saith That your Bodies are the Temples of the Holy Ghost and that your Bodies are the Temples of God and that Christ is in you except ye are Reprobates The DIVINITY of CHRIST Confessed by us called Quakers And What we own touching the Deity or God-head according to the Scriptures THat there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and our Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him That there are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and that these three are One both in Divinity Divine Substance and Essence not three Gods nor separate Beings That they are called by several Names in Scripture as manifest to and in the Saints for whatsoever may be known of God is manifest in man Rom. 1. and their Record received as the full testimony of three by such as truly know and own the Record of the three in Earth and yet they are Eternally One in Nature and Being One infinite Wisdom One Power One Love One Light and Life c. We never denyed the Divinity of Christ as most injuriously we have been accused by some prejudiced spirits who prejudicially in their perverse Contests have sought occasion against us As chiefly because when some of us were in Dispute with some Presbyterians we could not own their unscriptural distinctions and terms touching the Father the Word and the Holy Spirit to wit Of their being incommunicable distinct separate persons or subsistences whereas the Father the Word and Spirit are One not to be compared to corruptible men nor to finite Creatures or Persons which are limitable and separable For the only Wise God the Creator of all who is One and his Name One is infinite and inseparable Deut. 6.4 Zec. 14.9 And the Father's begetting the Son and the Spirit 's being sent we witness to and own as He said Thou art my Son this day I have begotten thee Psal. 2.7 Heb. 1.5 And he hath sent his Spirit into our hearts Gal. 4.6 And that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father yea in the bosome of the Father Joh. 1.18 chap. 17.21 23. so that they are neither divided nor separate being One and of One infinite Nature and Substance Christ being the Image of the invisible God the first born of every Creature by whom all things were Created both in Heaven and in Earth Col. 1. Yea the Son of God is the brightness of his glory and the express Image of his substance Heb. 1.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that it was in due time God was manifest in Flesh 1 Tim. 3.16 As in the fulness of time God sent his Son Gal. 4. And the Son of God was made manifest to destroy sin 1 Joh. 3.8 And a manifestation of the Spirit is given to every Man to profit withal 1 Cor. 12. So the manifestation of the Father of the Son and Holy Spirit we confess to and own to be in Unity and so the only true God according to the Scriptures And that Jesus Christ being in the Form of God thought it no robbery to be Equal with God and yet as a Son in the fulness of time was sent of the Father and took on him the form of a servant Phil. 2.6 7. in which state he said My Father is greater than I 1 Joh. 14.28 And he learned Obedience through Suffering and was made perfect and is become an everlasting High Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck and is the Author of Eternal Salvation unto all them that Obey him Heb. 5. And God hath given us Eternal Life in his Son And unto us a Child is born and a Son is given to Govern whose Name is Wonderful Counsellor The Mighty God The Everlasting Father The Prince of Peace Isa. 9.6 And he is over all God blessed for ever Rom. 9.5 Even the true God and Eternal Life 1 Joh. 5. So that the Deity or Divinity of Christ in his Eternal Infinite Glorious State we really confess and
to and obey is the Light of Christ which witnesseth against all sin against all Idolatry and unrighteousness and leads us in the Doctrine of the true God which we receive in the Light and not mens Traditions and corrupt Doctrines and Inventions whereby People have been kept in the dark by such perverse and prejudiced Spirits as thus blasphemously deem the Light within an Idol of our own brains whereas it is the Light and Life of the Eternal Word which enlightens every man that cometh into the World that we testifie unto against all the dark opposers and gain-sayers whose wayes are dark and crooked as thine W. M. is who thus falsely and blasphemously hast represented the Light within like those that put Light for Darkness and Darkness for Light And now let the Reader judge Whether such dark envious Persons as thou herein hast shewed they self are fit to be Judges in these things of Controversie about such high matters touching the Three that bear Record in Heaven viz. The Father The Word and The Spirit when thou in thy earthly sensual wisdom never camest there neither canst thou till thou countest it loss unto thee and com'st to loose it that the Babe's state that enters the Kingdom be known in which the Light and Life of the Son of God is manifest which discovers the hidden things of darkness and reveals the Mysteries of God's Salvation to them that obey it but not to such as count it an Idol and now what may we expect but darkness from such an one as calls the Light within an Idol and they that look into thy following work against us may see the gross darkness thereof yea darkness that may be felt W. M. By their three Persons you mean the three increated Persons of the ever blessed Trinity the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost Three increated Persons are thy own words and terms but the Father Word and Spirit we really own and bear witness to both as mentioned in the Scripture and as knowing the absolute Testimony and Eternal Power thereof manifested where that which may be known of God is manifest even within both in creating begetting and quickening us again to God out of death and darkness And these Three which are One which bear Record in Heaven to wit The Father the Word and the Spirit as I could not own the title of Three distinct and separate Persons to be put upon them as thy Brother Erroniously did being not Scripture-language so it was never my intent nor Principle to compare them to three Apostles or finite Creatures as most falsely and injuriously thou accusest me But to endeavour to make the People understand both the grosseness and falseness of Tho. Danson's and Tho. Vincent's Principles of three distinct separate Persons in the Deity you naming each Person God which renders them Three Gods whilst but One God by shewing the Consequence of this your Principle After I had from Scripture shewed how inseperable the Father and the Son were and the Oneness of the Father Word and the Spirit but if I had simply compared them to three Apostles who were distinct and separate Persons then had I owned your own Terms and Principle and then the Controversie had fallen between us But instead thereof I am accused for opposing your Doctrine of distinct separate Persons and thus you confound your selves in wronging of me for were not the three Apostles Paul Peter and John three distinct separate Persons did I ever deny that they were how like then to finite Creatures doth your own Doctrine render the Eternal God his Word Spirit which to shew was my end in instancing three Apostles for we never believed the Eternal God to be like to corruptible man since we knew any thing of his Divine Power But T. Danson in his Synopsis pag. 12. plainly instanceth three Apostles Peter James and John as also his instance of David and Solomon for their Trinity or three Persons in one nature Was not this an instance of finite Creatures and such an indignity put upon God as I never intended How can such men but blush for charging that on others which so evidently they are guilty of themselves Madox We call the Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Persons or Hee 's according as they are held forth in the Scriptures Answ. Nay had you stood to Scripture-language there had not been any Controversie between us therein but it would not satisfie you but you must obtrude your Popish unscripture-like terms and distinctions or rather worse in telling not only of distinct but separate Persons which being plainly refuted from Scripture you may remember I several times called to T. D. and T. V. to confess their Error I shewing how inseparable the Father and the Son were reflecting chiefly on the words separate Persons which how you come off about will appear hereafter And as for their being Three Hee 's thou W. M. durst not keep to any Argument from thence or to make that any Cause or Reason why we must own them to be Three Persons though here thou seem'st to make the terms equivolent viz. Three Persons or Hee 's so then it appears that either will serve if the Three that bear Record in Heaven be but own'd under the Name of Three Hee 's it will serve instead of Three distinct Persons but then are all Hee 's or Males Persons and all Shee 's or Females no Persons What strange Logick is implyed here And where doth the Scripture mention three increated Persons thou tell'st of are they three distinct increated Persons If so then mayst thou not as well say they are three distinct Infinites three Eternals and so three Gods Where is now the blasphemy and blasphemer And Christ's speaking of another Comforter which was the Spirit of Truth Joh. 14.16 was not another Person distinct from him for that Spirit was then in him neither doth he use those words for the same Comforter or Spirit was in him and was that divine Life that then spoke in him when he was personally present with them He doth not say he would send them another Person to Comfort them but speaks more spiritually for though they had been Comforted in his outward Presence and Ministry yet his spiritual Presence was that other Comforter for ever to abide with them for in that Joh. 14.17 Christ speaking of the Spirit of Truth or that other Comforter saith he that dwelleth with you shall be in you vers 18. I will not leave you comfortless I will come unto you which clearly explains his former words which to say this Comforter was a Person distinct from Christ is all one or as absurd as to say the Spirit or Life that was in him was a distinct Person from him or that he was a Person distinct from himself for I will not leave you comfortless I will come unto you or were it not gross to say That Christ in his People is a Person distinct from Christ or
the Question and presumption in thee especially whilst by your vain Philosophy some of you have either rendered them as Three Gods or denied them to be Infinite as in pag. 45. Yea and it was evident to many That we found fault with your mis-calling and mis-representing the Father the Word and Spirit and never in the least opposed nor questioned their being Three such as mentioned in Scripture viz. The Father Son and Holy Ghost but there openly confessed to the Fundamental Truth of them in Scripture terms And when you fell into your needless Questions and Philosophick terms of incommunicabl properties subsistences c. I to bring the matter to be more obvious to the People to shorten and mittigate the Controversie and to abate your heat did tell you That if you meant by incommunity of properties the Fathers begetting the Son and the Spirits being sent state your Question so in plain English Whether the Son was begotten and the Spirit sent of the Father and it would quickly end the Controversie But nothing would serve you but an Answer to your vain babling and School-terms with such a limitation as Aye or No as if the Scripture terms and expressions were in this to be waved and slighted as insufficient and your confusion vain â—hilosophy and deceit must be set up above the Scriptures of Truth though you profess them to be your Rule at other times But here in plain Contradiction you have gone about to obscure Divine Mysteries under your Traditional terms of Heathenish Metaphysicks and laid such a stress upon them as if all were to be deem'd Blasphemers and Hereticks and so to be damned that cannot confess own and be tyed up to your terms nice and confused distinctions which you presumptuously put upon the Father Word Spirit And as for W. M. his accusing us with rejecting the Son and so the Father It is a gross slander as many more of his accusations are and never was it in our Intention nor Doctrine so to do whilst the Oneness of Father Son and Spirit we really confess to but disown your blind distinctions which deny them Infiniteness And as for W. M. his so much talk of three Hee 's each of which he saith is by nature God We do not read in Scripture that God is called three Hee 's or three distinct Hee 's and therefore three distinct separate Persons indeed Children in the Accidence call Hee the third Person singular But that both the Father and Son speaking of themselves use the word Hee as I am Hee and he that is with you shall be in you Christ speaking of his own manifestation which was that other Comforter I will not leave you comfortless I will come unto you But each of these three Hee 's he tells of he hath told us is by nature God so then they are One as God the Word and Spirit are And as to his charge of Ignorance of Philosophy about Subsistence which he sayes is not a form of a Hee but the manner of his being His Charge of Ignorance of his kind of Philosophy and such nice distinctions as this between manner and form we can easily bear and pass by and leave them to feed upon it who will choose such chaff for their food knowing that the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ consists not in such trifles W.M. The form of God the Father is his Divine Nature but his Subsistence is his manner of being in the relative Property of the Father and so he speaks of the Form and Subsistence of the Son and Holy Ghost as his terms of them are Now touching these distinct Subsistences or manners of being wherein stands their Model distinction of Three distinct Personalities to which they say in pag. 45. That infiniteness is not applicable and that there be three distinct Personallities unto which infiniteness is not ascribed Here they have given People to understand what their meaning is about their three distinct Subsistences or Personallities that they are not Infinite What then Is the Father Son and Holy Spirit Finite What gross darkness is this Let the impartial Reader judge whether we have not sufficient ground and cause to oppose them and their vain Philosophy in this so high a matter and whether herein their Doctrine doth not blasphemously oppose the Divinity of Father Son and Spirit and they go about to eclipse and detract from the Glory of the infinite God-head whilst at other times in contradiction they confess each to be God and tell of the Eternal Son of God and say That in the concret every subsistent is infinite but not the subsistance or personallity in the abstract What darkness is here Is God divided or Father Son and Holy Ghost separate or abstract from their Essences and where then is this finite personallity so much contended for Is it in God yea or nay or relating to his Divine Being or Substance But if these distinct personallities or subsistances which they say are not infinite be the relative Properties of the Father Son and Spirit then I ask Hath not this Doctrine denied both Father Son and Holy Spirit to be infinite Let the unbyassed Readers judge And yet in Confutation of themselves again there 's God the Father the first Person God the Son a Person distinct from him God the Holy Ghost a Person proceeding from both How to make sense of these three distinctions comparing them together or how to make them hang together without rendering them Three Gods and not only so but such as are not Infinite doth not yet appear to me And whether my comparison of not understanding Paul Peter and John could be three Persons each of them an Apostle and yet all but one Apostle was not suitable to detect these mens unscriptural Doctrines and Distinctions and to shew the absurdity of the consequences thereof which whilst this railing angry man W. Madox doth so often take it as a comparing the Father Son and Holy Ghost to three Apostles herein he hath grossely wronged and abused me and his own understanding And his Charge of Blasphemy against me for that he intimates that I should say That God is but equal with man I return back upon him as a most malicious horrid slander and an apparent Lye against me It was never my intent nor saying for if I had said That God is but equal with man or compared the Father Son and Holy Ghost to three Apostles then had I and these ridgid Presbyterians accorded nearer than we did for then had I owned their Dostrine and terms of three distinct and separate persons in the God-head which are not infinite which I can never own nor believe nor depend upon any God or thing which is finite for Salvation Besides I never denied finite man nor three distinct Apostles as Paul Peter and John to be distinct and separate Persons so if I had really compared the Deity to such we had not differed about the distinction of
not subsist in a several and distinct nature of the same kind so as they are not three Gods as is confessed pag. 3. how are they three distinct or separate persons subsisting each by himself These things being considered by the impartial Readers the absurdity of the Presbyterians Doctrine and Comparison touching the Deity will easily appear And what was this Aquinas quoted as T. D's Author so much cited and commented by him as a wise Observant pag. 19 Was not he a great Writer for the Romish Religion and the Pope's Doctrine of Transubstantiation and so a promoter of Popery in his time and canonized 〈◊〉 Saint among them see his large Volums his Sums and others he is highly applauded by the Papists as being an industrious Promoter of their Faith and Religion and was he not a Dominican Fryer To whom it appears that T. D. is very much beholding for his Doctrine of three distinct or sever'd Persons in the Godhead more then he is to Scripture for that is silent concerning it but I have of late Read it in Aquinas his Sums who is Tho. Danson's wise Observant And further mark that after T. D. has confessed that the word Person cannot be properly attributed to Father Son and Holy Ghost and that the Names common to God and the Creatures do signifie somthing wherein the Creatures bears some anology to God and three Persons not strictly yet anologically in the Godhead pag. 3 4. Where proves he this by Scripture and wherein doth man bear a proportion or likeness in his Person with his Maker this is strange Doctrine importing that the Diety hath the resemblance or likeness of persons but not properly which if improperly why do they stand so much upon their improper distinctions in the Godhead Yet saith T. D. may this word Person be used by us to distinguish the Father Son and Spirit in the Godhead and one from another Answer So it appears he pleads for a liberty to put improper names upon God from his pretence of anology the Scripture he mentions Hebr. 1.3 makes against him it being the express Image of his Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but as it is in some English Copies express Image of his Person however it is not the express Person of his Person much less the express singular Person or rational Substance subsisting by it self distinct from the Father For I and my Father are one said Christ and the Son doth nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do and the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father and if so be that the Soul separated from the Body cannot be called a Person as T. D. saith pag. 2 3. how can he presume to call the Spirit which is the Life or Breath of God a Person distinct from God whilst God is never distinct and separate from his own Life But then it appears that T. D. is necessitated to call the Glorious Divine three in Heaven somthing and therefore he saith that distinction in the Godhead cannot be apprehended by us by any other notion or resemblance then Person and saith he we know not what to call these three but Persons pag. 4. For the conception or notion that we have of the Father suppose as a Subsistent or Person is in adaequatus conceptus in respect of the Divine Essence c. pag. 17. Reply But by what doth he and his Brethren apprehend this concerning God surely neither by the Scripture not by immediate Revelation or Inspiration nor yet by reason for that has failed them in this matter as also the nature and works of God is above their reach and the comprehension of the Creature so that their conceptions and notions being unscriptural we have no ground to believe them whilst we have but their conceptions words and notions for what they say derived from Popish and Heathen Authors and not from any immediate Power Revelation or Scripture and his saying they do not know what to call these three but Persons shews they were hard put to it as being necessitated to call them something but what are they ignorant of the Scripture or would not the Scripture satisfie them and yet profess it their Rule they had better search the Scriptures instead of Aquinas and Aristotle and see what they are called there viz. The Father the Word and Holy Ghost which are One besides these three bearing record in Heaven T. D. hath elsewhere called them Witnesses pag. 5 7 and 10. and thus he contradicts himself one while he knows not what to call them but Persons and another while calls them three Witnesses from their bearing Record and thus in contradiction he knows what to call them besides Persons but then he saith all Witnesses properly so called are Persons How proves he that Are not all things that bear record Witnesses Are Heaven and Earth Persons and are the Water and the Blood Persons seeing they bear record in the Earth and is Conscience in a man a Person distinct from the man seeing Conscience beareth witness if it be how then is the Soul distinct from the Body no Person page 3 5. T. D. upon 1 John 5.9 the Witness of God is greater referring to the Witness concerning Christ verse 7. not to verse 8. for none of those Witnesses are God Reply And yet those Witnesses verse 8. are the Spirit the Water and the Blood herein T. D. hath denied the Spirit to be God contrary to their former pretence and so is come under that they have so unjustly charged us withal but we own the Divinity of that Spirit that bears record in the Earth and know the Water and Blood which agree in one with it to be therefore Spiritual and of this water and Spirit a man must be born or else he cannot enter the Kingdom of God Joh. 13.5 and by this Blood his Conscience must be sprinkled from dead works who ever comes to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary And we may further observe how dubious T. D. in his Work hath appeared from what he saith pag. 83. viz. If my Answers seem not so clear as the Objections which I hope I need not fear unless in the point of the Trinity that being a Mystery so by that it rebates the sharpest edge of humane understanding c. By which the Reader may take notice that he was conscious to himself that his Answers in this case might not seem so clear as the Objections and that he has but made use of his humane understanding and not of Scripture therein the Edge of which is so rebated and grown so dull that it will take very little impression upon any that are in a right mind and understanding even none at all upon such who rely not nor lean to their own understandings but upon the guidance of the Spirit of Truth which leads into all Truth which it appears he has refused and gone from whilst he is now fain to make use of his humane understanding
but they that come to witness a part in Christ Jesus the Light of Life they in his Light may come to perceive the Mystestery of the Resurrection but if Truth can be received and understood then it will appear that I do not deny the Resurrection for I do verily believe that the Hour is coming in which all that are in the Graves shall bear the voice of the Son of God and shall come forth they that have done good unto the Resurrection of Life and they that have done evil unto the Resurrection of Condemnation but to Fools that say that this Body of natural Flesh and Bones shall be raised I say that body which is sown is not that body that shall be but God giveth a body as it pleaseth him yet to every Seed it s own body Thus far G. F. junior by all which T. D. his slander is detected and his false spirit discovered as not fit to meddle with the Mysteries of God which are out of his sight and reach God will sweep away the refuge of Lyes and Lyars Some Observations upon John Owen's Book Entituled A Declaration c. including a brief Answer and Reply to the same AS We the People of God called Quakers are but little concerned in John Owen's Declaration we need concern our selves the less and let them that are chiefly concerned in his Accusations make him answer But in that he hath in some few places hinted and falsly insinuated against us as being one with the Socinians as he calls them or seduced into Socinianism Lest any should give credit to these and such like insinuations and thereby be prejudiced against us or the Truth professed by us meerly upon John Owen's overly Reports I judge it meet a little to appear in Truth 's Vindication and our clearness in answer to some particulars in his Book As first where in his Preface Pag. 6. he saith There is now a visible accession made by that sort of People whom men will call Quakers from their department from the first erection of their Way long since desertted by them Answ. We have not made any accession contrary to the Truth first received by us nor have we deserted its Way which so long since the Lord God by his Power gathered us into out of the corrupt Wayes Inventions Traditions and false Worships of the World to worship him in the Spirit and in the Truth wherein we have been gathered to be a peculiar people to God being delivered from the many Sects Wayes and Professions set up since the dayes of the Apostles AS to Socinianism as he calls it we are neither Discipled in it nor Baptized into Socinus his name neither do we own him for our Author or Patern in those things which we Believe and Testifie nor yet do we own several Principles which John Owen relates as being from Socinus and principally that of Christ's being God but not the Most High God pag. 54 55. It was never our Principle for though we do confess to his condescention humility and Suffering in the dayes of his Flesh wherein he appeared in the form of a Servant being made in fashion as a man but his being in the form of God in the Divine Nature of God wherein he was equal with God and being glorified with the same glory he had with the Father before the World began and his being God over all blessed for ever these things we professed and believed in the beginning and do the same still it never being in our hearts in the least to oppose or desert them therefore as to the Conjunction J. O. â—ell of betwixt both these sorts of men in opposition to the holy Trinity with the Person and Grace of Christ. Herein he hath charged a double falshood upon us first such a Conjunction and Opposition either to the Person or Grace of Christ which we absolutely deny neither is our opposing of mens corrupt meanings of Scripture and invented names and terms put upon the Deity any opposition either against God Christ or Spirit nor yet against the Grace or Love of either J. O. Pag. 6. However they may seem in sundry things as yet to look divers wayes yet like Sampson 's Foxes they are knit together by the tayl in these firebrand Opinions and joyntly endeavour to consume the standing Corn of the Church of God and their joynt management of their business of late c. Answ. I suppose he intends Quakers and Socinians wherein both his Accusation and Comparison are false and scornfull for there 's no such conjunction nor joynt endeavours between them neither ever was it the Quakers intent or principle in the least to endeavour to consume the standing Corn of God's Church as we injuriously are accused but such vain and false imaginations corruptions and perverting Scripture as J. O. and his Brethren are guilty of which have no growth nor reception in the Church of God for his Church is in him and led by his Spirit into all Truth which no Lye nor Deceit have any part in Besides as for Sampson's Foxes they were not set to destroy the Corn of the Church or Israel but of the Philistines neither can we believe that the Presbyterians and Independants are the true Church till we see better Fruit appear among them then is yet for look into their Assemblies and see what pride and vanity they are gotten into in their apparel behold also how gaudy in their habits their women are and what an example of pride and pomp they shew to the profane to the shame of their profession certainly God hath yet Viols of Wrath unemptied to pour down upon that proud and persecuting Spirit which hath so much shewed it self in many of them But what he means by those words holy Trinity he further explains in pag. 26 27. in these words viz. Now the sum of the Revelation in these terms is that God is one that this one God is Father Son and Holy Ghost that the Father is the Father of the Son and the Son the Son of the Father and the Holy Ghost the Spirt of the Father and and the Son Now had this Doctor Owen and his Brethren but kept to these and such like expressions and have left out their unscriptural scholastick terms and distinctions about Trinity distinct Subsistances and Personalities we should not need to have had such controversies with any of them about them but have taken their confession that God is one and that Father Son and holy Ghost are God and that the Father is Father of the Son and the Son the Son of the Father c. according to this great Doctors Relation who pretends very much to Scripture and makes many large Repetitions of Scripture to prove his matter counting them the Revelation but then being again not willing to keep to the terms expressions and phrases of Scripture but writes his own conceivings sences and meanings as men of his Coat and Fraternity use to do
as in Pag. 31. he pleads for making use of other words expressions and phrases that neither are litterally nor formally contained in Scripture and so makes use of his conceptions and apprehensions of what is contained therein see pag. 30 31. But then again another while he saith Let us nakedly attend to what the Scripture asserts as in pag. 42. And in pag. 110. he tells us of manifesting what was revealed expresly in Scripture concerning God the Father Son and Holy Ghost so that many times he would make people believe as if he would nakedly and exactly keep to the Scriptures but then at other times his notions conceptions meanings and odd invented terms must be put upon them and men must either confess to those or else be liable to his and his Brethrens censures of being Socinians Hereticks Blasphemers and what not And though he hath appeared a little smother then his Brother Tho. Vincent hath done in his railing Pamphlet yet he hath wronged us by his false insinuations against us as if we denied the Diuinity of Christ and deserted our former Principles also he hath represented us as being in conjunction with those whom he accuseth of opposing or denying the oneness of the Deity and the Grace of Christ or the Father Son and holy Ghost to be God which we are not at all concerned in nor guilty of and our Books and Writings now and from the very beginning evince the contrary But then in Pag. 129. he confesseth That the objections these men principally insist upon are meerly against the explanations we use of this Doctrine and not against the primitive Revelation of it which is the principal object of our Faith c. Now if by these men he intends us called Quakers as is apparent he doth by his present discouse he hath then very much cleared us from other of his and his Brethrens Accusations and thereby hath also plainly contradicted both himself and them for here our objections are meerly against their explanations and not against the primitive Revelation or principal object of Faith so whilst the Revelation which is according to the Scriptures and the principal object of Faith is not objected against but owned and professed by us according to the Scripture it is very unjust and injurious either in him or his Brethren to insinuate against us as if we denied either the Divinity of Christ or the holy Spirit though as to their distinctions about Personalities Subsistances Modallities and the like invented terms and names which they put upon the Deity we must needs except against as not scriptural nor proceeding from any naked attention to what the Scripture asserts which J. O. doth but pretend to but from mens conceptions and traditions which are upheld by the wisdom which this world teacheth and not that which the Holy Ghost teacheth And then in Pag. 89. he goes to accuse and vilifie us in these words viz. Our Quakers for a long time hovered up and down like a swarm of Flyes with a confused noise and huming what falshood and scorn is here for such a Doctor to express begin now to settle in the Opinions lately by them declared for this is a false insinuation again what their thoughts will fall to be concerning the holy Ghost when they shall be contented to speak intelligeably and according to the usage of other men or the pattern of Scripture the great rule of speaking or treating about spiritual things I know not and I am uncertain whether they do themselves or no. Thus far J. Owen To which I say in the first of these expressions he hath scornfully and falsly accused us as also with beginning now to settle in Opinions for we are neither so beginning nor so to begin but are setled in the Truth out of and above mens invented Opinions about which are so many Divisions and Sects among them but if by Opinion he intends Socinianism as he calls and represents it his own testimony shall testifie against him as a false Accuser of us herein as in pag. 129. where he confesseth our objections to be meerly against the explanation they use and not against the primitive Revelation of it so then we are not guilty of such Opinions as either deny the Divinity of Christ or that tends to lessen him in any respect or offices relating to man's Salvation for our desire is and our endeavour hath been the exaltation of his Name Power and Glory over all neither have we been hovering nor in confusion as falsly he hath represented us and if he knows not what our thoughts will fall into concerning the Holy Ghost but is uncertain whether we do our selves or no he should therefore have been silent of accusing or reviling us as he hath done because it appears it is in his ignorance and uncertainty that he hath thus vilified us and insinuated against us he should have received a better information and knowledge of us before he had thus reviled us and not to have gone and bespattered and vilified a whole Body of People to render them odious from his own uncertain thoughts of them for he would not be so dealt by himself and the Reader may take notice that a great part of his Book wherein he goes about to prove the Divinity or Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost in which he appears as one opposing some great Enemies among whom we are numbred we are unconcerned therein having never denied Christ's Divinity and if his own testimony may be of any value we are cleared by it as before in pag. 129. Alas poor man J. 0. has missed his mark in shooting thus uncertainly and at random against the Quakers And where he adds touching the Holy Ghost Whether he may be the Light within them or an infallible afflatus is uncertain Though it be uncertain to J. O. it is certain to us that have the Testimony and evidence of the holy Spirit in us which gives us both Life Light and Power and we know him to be infallible how deridingly soever he speaks of it as also according to the precious Promises of God which hereby we know in a large measure the fulfilling of we experience Christ to be in us and in that the Father Word and Spirit are confessed to be one Power Wisdom and Love and to be of one Divine Substance Nature and Essence this we neither do nor ever did deny and God is in his People and dwels in them and walks in them and the Spirit is sent into our hearts so they are not divided distinct and separate persons c. as may be read in John 17.21 to the end where Christ said that they may all be one as thou Father art in me and I in thee that they also may be one in us that the World may believe that thou hast sent me and the glory which thou gavest me I have given them that they may be one even as we are one I in them thou in me that
l. last r. invented p. 18. l. 25. for on and r. an end p. 19. l. 1. r. amounts l. 13. r. is towards p. 21. l. 27. r. It is in Christ. p. 27. l. 6. r. deserving p. 39. l. 35. for whether r. whither p. 45. at l. 26 27. the Reader may add or understand as given by divine Inspiration not mens fallable Judgments and Mistakes upon them p. 49. l. 17. being 〈…〉 for and r. or p. 55. l. 18. dele which p. 73. l. 7. in the Apendix r. principal p. 74. l. 33. for T. V r. T. D. p. 76. l. 16. dele three p. 77. l. 12. for 1 r. 5. p. 81. l. 16. dele and. Sometimes such defects have escaped as misplacing hath for have doth for do was for were are for is it for they saith for say and so on the contrary Such are not material faults to any but such as are critical who do not soberly weigh the intent of the matter An APPENDIX Wherein are some of the manifest Contradictions of Thomas Vincent William Maddox Thomas Danson and John Owen both to themselves and one against another With brief Animadversions or Observations upon their Contradictions which are about Principle Matters 1. Touching their distinction of Three Persons I Am sure from the Scriptures that the Father Son and Holy Ghost being of an infinite Nature are three Persons three increated persons subsistences or manner of beings pag. 16 17 18 19. Contrad T.V. In Contradiction to his Brother Maddox saith Infiniteness is not applicable to the Subsistence it cannot be properly ascribed to the Personality though there be three distinct Personalities to which Infiniteness is not ascribed pag. 45. Obs. See here is as much inconsistency between these two as between infinite and finite one making their being of an infinite Nature a proof or reason of their distinct Personalities or Subsistencies And the other saith Infiniteness is not applicable nor properly ascribed to them what gross contradiction and blasphemous stuff is here W. M. Each of these three persons is God his subsistence is his manner of being in the Relative property of the Father and so he speaks of the Son and Holy Ghost pag. 18 19. Contr. T.V. It is improper to say that either of the persons in regard of their personality or subsistence are finite or infinite pag. 46. Obs. This latter Contradiction then would have neither Father Son nor Holy Ghost to be either finite or infinite what gross nonsence and apparent Contradictions are these Contr. T.V. Christ is the Eternal Son of God by Eternal Generation pag. 36 47. Obs. He is now the Eternal Son of God before not infinite but again neither finite nor infinite in his Personality and yet the Eternal Son of God what mad distracted blasphemous work is this these men do make with their vain babling T.V. They are not three substances c. therefore three persons p. 13. Contr. T. D. The usual definition of person is an individual substance of a rational Nature which is neither the part of another nor upheld by another which Aquinus defends Sum Par. 1.9.29 art 2. a man we call a person c. pag. 1 2. Obs. See again how apparently these two Brethren contradict one another one saying a person is an individual substance c. yet the other saith They are not three substances therefore three persons whereas it follows therefore not three persons Contr. J.O. We must acknowledge the Holy Ghost to be a substance a person God yet distinct from the Father and the Son pag. 101. a personal subsistance pag. 114. Obs. Where note that this Doctor Contradicts T.V. his saying they are not three substances as also that he seems to make both substance person and subsistance to intend all one thing contrary to T. V. again But these words a Person God yet distinct from the Father and Son I cannot make sense of though they are from a Doctor for God is not a Person distinct from himself W.M. I called them three Hee 's to try if you would own the Deity of Christ c. according to the Scriptures we call them Persons or Hee 's in respect of their manner of Subsistence pag. 18 20. Contrad T. V. The word Person cannot properly be attributed to Father Son and Holy Ghost because they do not subsist in a several and distinct Nature of the same kind for if each of them had a several and not one individual Nature then they should not be only three Persons but three Gods Synopsis pag. 3. Obs. It 's very evident here that Thomas Danson has Contradicted both himself and the rest of his Brethren seeing the Father Son and Holy Ghost cannot properly be called Persons W.M. saith His comparing the three increated persons to three Apostles Paul Peter and John is blasphemy pag. 20. Contr. T. D. A man we call a person a person is intire of it self pag. 2. if Peter James and John each person be man c. Take man here not for a person but the Nature as we do God and 't is evident that we mean no more that the name Man may be attributed to Peter James and John pag. 12. David was a man and Solomon was a man they two agree in a third thing c. pag. 14 15. Obs. What less do their own distinctions and comparisons concerning them amount to than to Three Apostles or men that is each intire of himself as a Person is T. D. saith who hath apparently spoyled his own and his Brethrens Cause T.V. The Trinity of Persons the first in the second and the second in the first and both in the third pag. 25. Contr. T. D. A Person notes some one indued with reason and understanding which is several and distinct by himself from another p. 2. and in the Dispute they are three distinct and separate Persons in the Deity A person is intire of it self c. Obs. If the Father the Word and the Spirit be in each other and so inseparable then not three distinct nor separate Persons neither can one be several by himself from another T.V. That the Father Word and Holy Ghost are three persons pag. 13. is to be found in the Scriptures God hath revealed it in his Word the Scriptures hath revealed that there are three distinct persons in one Divine Essence pag. 26. Is Scripture truth pag. 4. great truth Contr. T.V. In this Mystery of the Trinity we must exercise our Faith Though we cannot clear it to our selves by Demonstration Reason cannot demonstrate it unto us pag. 26. 't is such a Mystery that doth exceed the most enlightned and clear-sighted Christians Contr. T.D. For Person Aquinus defends I chuse to borrow that of the Learned Wotton the Trinity's a Mystery so high that it rebates the sharpest edge of humane understanding p. 83. Obs. If this Mystery be so apparent in Scripture why can they neither demonstrate it nor clear it to themselves We should desire no clearer
Their own mouths will Condemn them when they charge God with laying impossible Lawes upon Mankind Yet such is the unlimited Nature of Divine Goodness and the exceeding Riches of God's Grace that he makes a large and free offer of Assistance to all those who are so senseable of their own infirmity as to beg it of him And can men then say the Command is impossible when he hath promised an assistance sutable to the nature of the Duty and infirmities of men pag. 23. Hath he not made use of the most obliging motives to perswade us to the Practice of what he requires by the infinite discovery of his own Love the Death of his Son and the Promise of his Spirit and what then is wanting but only setting our selves with a serious Obedience to them to make his Commands not only not impossible but easie to us pag. 24. Thus far E.S. Obs. Here observe That E.S. hath Asserted Truth contrary to the Presbyterians and Independants 1st On the behalf of the Freeness and Sufficiency of God's Grace to Mankind for the Fulfilling or Obeying of God's Commands 2dly In his Asserting the Possibility of man's Obeying them thereby which amounts to Perfection and Freedom from Sin as being attainable by those Divine Helps that God affords man for that end 3dly In Reproving them that being sharply rebuked in their Consciences for sin do charge God with laying impossible Lawes on men which is no less than to charge him with Cruelty or Tyranny The CONCLUSION The sum of the Controversie between us and our present Opposers consists in these following Heads 1st FIrst I Affirm That their distinguishing the Deity or God-head into Three separate or finite Personalities and to reckon the Father Son and Holy Ghost not Infinite is Anti-scriptural Erroneous and Blasphemous 2dly That their Affirming Christ not to be Innocent but Guilty of our sins when he Suffered is Blasphemous and so their deeming that the Suffering he underwent was the same Revenge or Vengeance from God which they term Vindictive Justice that 's due to Wicked men Reprobate Angels and Devils this is false also and that upon that ground their stating the matter of Satisfaction to Divine Justice as otherwise It being impossible 〈◊〉 God to Pardon c. All this is to charge God with Injustice and Cruelty against his Innocent Son and is in the first place Blasphemous against Christ and in the next its Impious to the dishonour of both Father and Son 3dly Their Affirming Christ but to have died but for a few and not for all men and that his being a Propitiation or Sacrifice is but for some of all sorts of Jewes and Gentiles and not for the sins of the whole World is contrary to plain Scripture and repugnant to the free Grace and gift of God to all 4thly Their Affirming That Christ doth not enlighten every man with a spiritual saving Light but with a natural insufficient Light is an Erroneous Doctrine of Darkness and Antichrist and repugnant both to Christ and God's free Grace and Love in him to Mankind 5thly Their Affirming Perfection or freedom from sin not to be attainable in this Life and so their arguing for sin term of Life is Antichristian and of the Devil being against the Commands and Promises of God and against the Power and Coming of Christ and frustrates the end of his Suffering Sacrifice and Manifestation 6thly Their Notion of Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to impure sinful rebellious Persons who are not partakers of it in themselves nor yet in that Faith which purifies the heart and thereupon their reckoning them Righteous in God's account is a false Notion and none of God's nor Christ's Imputation but as Gross Erroneous and Impious as their imputing sin to Christ as not being Innocent when he Suffer'd but Guilty c. 7thly And their Affirming men to be Justified or in a Justified state by an Imputed Righteousness whilst actually sinful and unjust is as false and as great abomination as he that Justifieth the Wicked and he that Condemneth the Just or as they are that Condemn Christ as not being Innocent and Justifie sinful men or Hypocrites as being Righteous whose Faith is but empty dead and feigned 8thly So their Affirming men to be Imputatively Righteous when inherently and actually sinful or Imputatively saved when actually damned And all their Doctrines that tend to dishonour God or Christ and to give People ease and liberty in sin are to be denied as Erroneous Antichristian and Devillish And here in opposition to our Ridgid Opposers both those of Presbyterians and Independants concerned in these Doctrines I further Affirm as followeth First That the Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit or the Father Son and Holy Ghost are One and inseparable no where in Scripture called Three separate Persons nor finite in Personalities though three in manifestation and so testified of as Three Witnesses for the Confirmation of the Testimony of the Gospel Secondly That Christ was Innocent and not Guilty when he Suffered he was Just that Suffered for the Unjust seeing he freely in the Love of God to man gave and offered himself by the Eternal Spirit a Lamb without spot to God so that he was an Offering well pleasing a sweet smelling savour and so a most acceptable and satisfactory Sacrifice to God for all men It being also possible for God and he doth Pardon men upon Repentance for Christ's sake without either accounting Christ not Innocent or Guilty of men's sins and without either exercising the same Rigour of Punishment Eternal Death or Vengeance upon him that 's due to Reprobates and Devils For it was in one and the same Love mutual Condescention and a Spirit of Compassion and Forgiveness both in the Father and in the Son towards Mankind that Christ was given a Ransom or in which as it 's said God sent his Son and Christ gave himself c. Thirdly That Christ gave himself a Ransom for all men and by the Grace of God tasted Death for every man being a Propitiation for the sins of the whole World to shew forth and give Testimony of God's Love and Grace towards all Mankind Fourthly That Christ inlightens every man that cometh into the World with a spiritual saving Light which they that believe in and follow do receive Life in him the true Light however Darkness oppose or deny it and they that reject or hate his Light are condemned and left without excuse before the Lord by it Fifthly That Perfection and freedom from sin is attainable in this Life to all that believe in the Power of Christ for that end what ever the Devil and his Ministers say to the contrary Sixthly That while Persons are impure or sinful not experiencing the Work of God in them nor the Living Faith in it's Operation nor Sanctification in them God doth not impute Christ's Righteousness to them nor reckon it theirs they being out
are Justified by his Death and by his offering up once for all answer in plain words And whether or no you will make a Sect that he died for some ungodly and some sinners only for the sons of Adam were the sinners and ungodly But he that believes is born of God and they receive Christ and he gives them Power to become the sons of God and they know he died for them and have the Testimony of it and have the Benefit of his Death and Resurrection And what was the Light that shined in the Darkness and the Darkness comprehended it not What was the Spirit that the Wicked grieved vexed and quenched Where is it and what is the Spirit of Truth that reproves the World of sin Where is it that leads the Saints into all Truth Come we must have plain Scripture for these things What is the Law that God will write in the Heart and put in the Mind that all shall know Him from the greatest to the least that they shall not every one teach his Brother and shall all know the Lord What is that Light that shines in the Heart to give the Knowledge of the Glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus 2 Cor. 4. What is the Word of God in the Heart the Apostle Preached and the People was to obey it and do it And what was that Rule that Adam had and all the Holy Men in the Old World And what was the Rule of Enoch's Faith by which he was translated And Abraham's Faith who obeyed God and forsook his Countrey Answer these things by Scripture because you say The Writings the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith And Presbyterians and Independants have you forgotten all your Petitions and Addresses you Petitioned and made to the other Powers against the Quakers If you have forgotten them read William Caton 's Book of your Petitions and Addresses gathered up and down the Nation What you said of Oliver and Richard and how the People of God in scorn called Quakers the first beginning of calling them so was at Darby by one Bennet an Independant about 19 year since and then when the People called Quakers were gathered together in divers places to Worship God then you said they were Plotting together against Oliver whom some of you called the Light of your Eyes and breath of your Nostrils to bring in King Charles and Oliver said We would not hurt a Mouse at that time though he did cast many of us in Prison through you after that and then you Baptized us in your Prisons by cruel sufferings Of all men you should hold your Tongues in bawling so against us seeing the Light of your Eyes and breath of your Nostrils is gone And what was it not through some of you That the Act against Sturdy Beggars came forth upon which Friends at that time could hardly travel three or four miles from their own Houses but they were Whipped men worth three or four-score pounds or an hundred a year were Whipped for Beggars and Vagrants And then did you not get another Act That we must not speak to you in going or coming from a Steeple-house And how Friends were thronged in Prison up and down in the Nation by you Answer these Queries And thus you may see what a Havock you made in your Day but when Persecution came you durst hardly look out with your heads your selves And was there ever the like known or seen how your Brethren turns from North to South and from South to North and there they can turn and chop and change And yet you could tell us then That the Common-Prayer was Hell and Egyptian Bondage And we could hardly have a Meeting but you were incensing the Rulers against us That we were Plotting to bring in King Charles and how many in those dayes were put in Prison upon that account by you because we went to Meetings We can tell you we have a List of them And yet the Quakers were House Creepers said you when you had gotten the Mass-houses and Tythes and your Easter-Reckonings and Midsummer-Dues and straining our Goods for your Bread and Wine And who are become the House Creepers now Then you had gotten the old Mass-houses Oh! your filthiness comes to be made manifest to all men and you have made your selves ridiculous who are fighting against an innocent People that wishes hurt to no man but the good of all men And do you think that the Lord will nor remember and reckon with you for all these things Dare you look into the Book of your Actions and Consciences and see what is written there and see if they be not Recorded How now Presbyterians High Priests What is this your Doctrine that you now Preach up for your Hearers to go to a Bawdy-house as Thomas Vincent speaks What Liberty here do you give to Youth and your Hearers who sayes It 's worse to go to the Quakers Meetings than to a Bawdy-house You pleaded for a body of sin as long as you live but now it 's com'd out indeed when you plead for a Bawdy-house rather than Quakers Meetings it 's like the Presbyterian Priest knows where they are it appears as if he thought more of a Bawdy-house than of Christ and Vertue So it 's clear here you are Them that turn the People to Vice and from the Lord and his Truth Ellimas like seeking to pervert For the Quakers Meetings are in the Fear and Power and Spirit of God who meet together in the Name of Christ Jesus so it 's like you love Meetings at Bawdy-houses more then the Meetings of the People of God who meet to Worship God And if this be your Doctrine then you must enlarge your Brothel and Bawdy-houses as they do at Rome Legorn and Venice and other parts in Italy and then they will give you Tythes and Easter-Reckonings and Midsummer-Dues For have you not called Bawdy-house People good Church Members And have you not taken Tythes of them And would you not say The Peace of God to them for paying you Tythe Who would have thought that we should have had such Unvertuous Expressions from the Presbyterians that this stinking savour should have lyen covered under their Weeds Well the Quakers must Declare against all your Bawdy-houses which thou Vincent sayes Thou hadst rather thy People should go to than to the Quakers Meetings where the Word of God is Preached And so Presbyterians if this be your Doctrine to your People to send them to Bawdy-houses rather then to send them to a Meeting of the People of God we utterly deny you and your Bawdy-house too And is it not a shame to put in Print to tell the World That thou wouldst rather have thy People go to a Bawdy-house than to a Quakers Meeting For it 's like if thou wilt set up that House thou mayst have a yearly Revenue like thy Father the Pope out of your Bawdy-houses it 's like if you were there you might
own having known his Virtue and Power to redeem us from our vain Conversations and to save us from wrath to come And our knowledge of the only true God and our Faith in and concerning him and his Name unto our Salvation doth not consist in the traditional Names humane Inventions nor in Philosophical terms and nice School distinctions derived from Heathenish Metaphysicks which since the Apostles time men have put upon the God-head but in the living sense and feeling of his Divine Power Life and Love revealed in us by the Spirit of the Son of God whereby we have in his gift of Divine Light and Spirit received Life and Salvation from sin and death see Matth. 11.27 Luk. 10.22 Matth. 16.17 Rom. 1.17 ch 8.18 Gal. 1.16 Eph. 3.5 1 Pet. 15.12 ch 4.14 ch 4.13 ch 5.1 2 Pet. 1 3. Matth. 1.21 Also we judge That such Expressions and Words as the Holy Ghost taught the true Apostles and Holy Men mentioned in the Scriptures are most meet to speak of God and Christ and not the words of mans wisdom or humane inventions and devised distinctions since the Apostles dayes Finally We have received an Unction or Anointing from the Holy One which as it doth teach us we know a continuance in the Father and in the Son 1 Joh. 2. And for whom we know the Father is well pleased and in him we know the true Satisfaction Justification and Peace which all that abide in him enjoy and witness Now unto the Father Son and Holy Spirit the One Eternal Word The Only Wise Pure Perfect God who is Infinite Omnipotent Incomprehensible who giveth unto all Life and Being and is the Life of all and the Being of Beings who filleth all in all with his Presence Unto whom be Glory now and evermore saith our Souls G. Whitehead And for Definition of a Person or what a Person is we shall not need to go to Popish and Heathenish Authors as Thomas Aquinas Aristotle and others as some of these Presbyterian Teachers and others have done when they have gone about to demonstrate their Doctrine of a Trinity of distinct Persons in God And yet in Contradiction for a cloak they pretend the Scriptures to be their Rule wherein there is no proof of their calling the Father the Word and the Spirit three distinct Persons while the Scriptures be full and plain enough to prove define or shew what a Person is as namely a Man or Woman sometime the body the face or visible appearance of either c. But the Infinite God is not like unto corruptible man See first in the Old Testament so called as to Person Esau took his Wives his Sons and Daughters and all the Persons of his house Gen. 36.16 Joseph was a goodly person Gen. 39.6 The Number of your persons Exod. 16.16 No uncircumcised person Exod. 12.48 The person of the poor and of the mighty Levit. 19. The guilty person unclean person Numb 5.6 A clean person Numb 19.18 Thirty two thousand persons in all of Women c. Numb 31.35 Whosoever killeth any person vers 19. Numb 35.11 15 30. Josh. 20. 3 9. Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal hired vain light persons and slew his brethren the sons of Jerubbaal being threescore and ten persons Judg. 9. Note here that persons dyed or were slain But can it be said of the Immortal God whom they distinguish into three several Persons that he ever dyes And though Christ as concerning the Flesh or Person was put to Death so was not his Divine Life or God-head And again Not a goodlier person than Saul 1 Sam. 9.2 David a comely person 1 Sam. 16.18 When wicked men have slain a righteous person 2 Sam. 4.11 They shall come at no dead person Ezek. 44.25 Or will he accept thy person Mal. 1.8 These places before cited with many more are according to the English God accepteth not the person of Princes Job 34.19 which in the Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phene Sarim i. e. facies Principum the faces of Princes And the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phene is in Gen. 1.2 for the face of the deep See likewise Gen. 4.14 Job 38.30 with many more places in the Old Testament so that the same word which is translated person having also relation to the outward face of men and things how can it be either proper seasonable or good Doctrine to Preach the Invisible Incomprehensible God under these terms of three distinct or separate Persons And whether it doth not render God or represent the Deity to be like visible men or finite creatures that are comprehended in time yea or nay And hath not this kind of representing the God-head produce those vain Conceptions and Imaginations in the minds of the Ignorant from whence they have formed the Images and Pictures of God and Christ and Holy Ghost made by men of corrupt minds in the night of Apostacy and Popery to the great reproach and abuse of the Name of God and Profession of Christianity in the World See also more Scriptures touching Persons to the same purpose as before Judg. 20.39 1 Sam. 9.22 22.18 22. 2 King 10.6 7. 2 Chron. 19.7 Psal. 26.4 Psal. 82.2 Prov. 12.11 Prov. 24.23 Jer. 52.29 30. Lam. 4.16 Ezek. 17.17 Chron. 27.13 Joh. 4.11 Zeph. 3.4 Mal. 1.9 And 2dly in the New Testament so called it appeares that the word Person or Persons is mentioned with the same acceptation as before in the Old As for instance Thou regardest not the person of men Matth. 22.16 Mar. 12.14 Luk. 20.21 In the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. faciem hominum the face of men In the Hebrew it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 phene haadam Doth not this still relate to the outward or visible appearance of man See also Matth. 27.24 1 Cor. 5.13 Gal. 2.6 Eph. 5.5 Heb. 12.16 2 Pet. 2.5 Luk. 15.7 Act. 10.34 17.17 Rom. 2.11 Jude 16. 2 Cor. 1.11 Eph. 6.9 Col. 3.25 1 Tim. 1.10 Jam. 2.1 9. 1 Pet. 1.17 2 Pet. 3.11 In all which it is evident That the word persons is attributed to men c. And as to that of 2 Cor. 2.10 where some of our English Copies have it To whom I forgave it for your sakes forgave I it in the Person of Christ The words in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are translated in facie Christi in the face of Christ And some of the Latins have it in conspectu Christi in the sight of Christ. And that in Heb. 1.13 where speaking of the Son of God In some of the English we have it thus Who being the Brightness of his Glory and the express Image of his Person In the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Et character substantiae ejus and the Character of his Substance It is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his Person As also in Heb. 11.1 Faith is the substance of things hoped for The same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is
But if the separation relate to the Personallity or their distinctions of persons and not to the Essence then doth not this tend to divide God or to separate Father Son and Spirit who are in each other and how then are they three distinct coeternal coessential coequal Persons Or how are they three distinct increated persons of an infinite nature as before but another while not infinite in the Personality what wonderful confusion and gross contradictions are here and what strange boldness is it for men so dark in their understandings discomposed in their minds confused and incongruent in their Principles thus ignorantly to attempt to define or demonstrate the infinite Power or God-head which is out of their sight and beyond their earthly capacities who are so ignorant of God who is Light they count the Light within an Idol of our own brains as W. M. hath blasphemously done whereas it is the Light by which God hath shined in our hearts to give us the knowledge of his Glory in the face of Christ 2 Cor. 4. W.M. Read also Job 35.10 God thy Makers Heb. consult Mr. Carril on the place Eccles. 12.1 Remember thy Creators c. Isa. 54.5 Thy Makers is thy Husband in all which Texts the Trinity of Persons is denoted by words of the plural number Answ. Upon which I query is the distinction of three Persons derived from three Makers or three Creators Or dare they say That the Father Word and Spirit are three distinct severed or separate Creators and doth not this bespeak three Gods And what sense is it to say thy Makers is thy Husband from Isa. 54.5 where it is said Thy Maker is thine Husband the Lord of Hosts is his Name Is not this truly rendered See Pagnine's Versions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Osiik i. e. factor tnus It 's neither sunt nor est factores tui And Eccles. 12.1 it's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Borecha Creatoris tui in singular it 's not Creatorum tuorum And Job 35.10 it 's Osai factor meus not factores mei But whilst one God and one Lord is confessed how is it consistent that a plurality of severed Persons be in him as Makers Creators c. What ground have we to believe either Carryl or Madox herein more than Pagn and our English Translation with many others And notwithstanding this great stir they have made with their distinctions of separate persons incommunicable properties c. yet W. M. hath confest That the Names Properties or Attributes Works and Worship of God are frequently in Scripture given to each of these Three Persons so that they are one and the same perfect and infinite Essence one God by Nature c. but if he should distinguish personal Attributes from Attributes of God I ask what they are if not of God which if so how is infiniteness not applicable to them nor ascribed to them And how have you gone with your vain unscriptural distinctions to darken Counsel to darken Scripture to darken the minds of People by words without knowledge thereby going to demonstrate that to others which you cannot clear to your selves by demonstration As T. V. in his 26 pag. saith of the Trinity touching which he would have us Assent unto your terms and traditional distinctions upon Divine Authority which he cannot demonstrate by reason But how then shall we receive your bare Assertions upon Divine Authority when we have neither Scripture nor Reason nor yet any immediate Revelation from you for them must we pinn our Faith upon your sleeves or will you supply the places of so many Popes by Imposing an implicit Faith in those matters which you cannot demonstrate nor clear to your selves which then how can you clear them to others Which if this be the course you take to convince gain-sayers of your Doctrine you might have spared a great deal of labour in going about so confusedly to demonstrate your case to us and only have laid down your Doctrine of three distinct separate Persons in the Deity to which infiniteness is not ascribed as you have said in pag. 45. And so you might as well have said That we T.V. W.M. and T.D. do affirm it and therefore you must believe it or otherwise you are blasphemous Hereticks and so damned But we must have better ground for our Faith and a better Authority than Affirmations Revilings and Threatnings of men that are untaught themselves in those things which they presume to teach others W. M. I called them three Hee 's to try if you would own the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost under any title As the subject of this Tryal is very mean and weak to wit the calling them three Hee 's to prove the Deity so his trying of us hereby was altogether groundless since that we never disowned the Deity of Christ or Holy Ghost as falsely and injuriously is insinuated against us And since that three Hee 's will now serve instead of Persons he saying they are three Persons or three Hee 's to prove the Deity of Father Son and Holy Ghost Why have they made such a pudder for their distinctions of Persons But would it be a strong Reason to induce Infidels to the belief of the Deity of each because they are three Hee 's as he saith for are all Hee 's either God or yet Persons or Divine But I need say little to the shallowness of this Work Let the ingenious Reader judge of it But when he thinks he mends the matter by calling them three divine Hee 's his intent is that the Father is called Hee the Son is Hee the Spirit Hee which neither proves them three separate nor incommunicable Persons distinct subsistences or bottoms whilst both the Father 's a Spirit the Lord is that Spirit Christ a quickening Spirit all inseparable W. M. You by refusing to call them Three Divine Hee 's have made it manifest that your Quarrel is not with the word Person as some then apprehended but with the Doctrine or Fundamental Truth expressed by the three Persons viz. the Modal Distinction and Essential Vnion or Oneness of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Answ. It 's manifest that some of the Hearers that were present at our Debating this matter had a better apprehension and understanding of us than you prejudiced Teachers and Opposers had for some of them apprehended that we opposed your unscriptural terms and words put upon the Deity and not that we opposed either the Divinity or Union of Father Son or Holy Ghost neither did we in the least go to quarrel with any Fundamental Truth as most grosly and slanderously we are accused and misrepresented by thee W.M. who hast shewed thy self so far from either Truth Moderation or Reasonableness in this matter as one swallowed up with Envie and Prejudice And thy taking for granted that thy Model distinction and terms are Fundamental Truth and joyning them with the Oneness of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is but a begging
incommucicable properties wherein they are not Infinite as they have told us Is there finiteness in each person and yet each person God what gross darkness and blasphemy is this But then to mend the matter T. V. tells us This is such a Mystery as doth exceed the weak and narrow understandings of most inlightned and clear sighted Christians fully to comprehend Some by gazing too long upon the Sun become blind Surely then if it be such a Mystery as exceeds the understanding of the clear sighted it must needs exceed the dark understanding of T. V. and his Brethren And seeing as appears he was conscious to himself of his own dimness or darkness herein as by what follows also he should have let it alone and not troubled his head with things beyond his reach for he has confounded and marr'd his cause and not at all mended nor cleared it but if he hath assayed to demonstrate this Mystery as he calls it as one more clear sighted than the most inlightned his Work doth manifest the contrary And that God cannot represent himself otherwise than he is It 's true but where doth he thus represent himself as these men do with such invented terms vain tautologies and confusion We do not read such in all the Scriptures of Truth howbeit T. V. takes the boldness to Assert his Doctrine herein to be of Divine Authority and to be the Truth of God revealed in his Word and that if the Scriptures have revealed that there are Three distinct Persons in one Divine Essence it is a certain Truth c. This is sooner said than proved if that Word of God and Scripture could be produced that doth so reveal their Doctrine and say there are three distinct Persons in one Divine Essence Produce us such a Scripture among all the Writings of the Holy men of God in all the Bible and it shall end the Controversie otherwise let T. V. be ashamed of his Asserting it to be revealed in the Word of God And of his saying that in his Sylogism pag. 13. There is not a word but what is to be found in the Scripture whereas neither the matter manner nor expressions of his Arguments are to be found in Scripture As for Instance his Argument Pag. 13. The Father the Word and the Holy Ghost are either three Substances or three Manifestations or three Operations or three Persons or something else but they are not three Substances nor three Manifestations nor three Operations nor any thing else therefore they are three Persons To the first part Indeed they must be something to the Minor if they be neither three Substances Manifestations c. nor any thing else this renders them nothing and contradicts both the Major and Conclusion where they are something else which is three Persons he saith so the tenour of his Argument runs thus they are something but they are nothing he meant nothing else but three Persons therefore they are three Persons It would have held better thus but against himself If the Father the Word and Spirit be not three distinct Substances then not three distinct Persons but they are not three distinct Substances Ergo. unless he can shew us a distinct person without its own substance But his Brother T.D. saith A person is rationalis naturae individua substantia an individual substance of a rational nature see how flatly T.D. and T.V. have Contradicted one another herein one affirming they are three Persons because not three Substances the other That a person is an individual substance But if T. V. by saying There is not a word in his Syllogism but what is to be found in Scripture intends that every word particularly is to be found in Scripture the word Substance the word Manifestation Operation Person c. abstractively what proves this of his matter for the contrary may as well be asserted from bare words I never met with more silly kind of Arguing before And if so be his other Argument from the Property of the Father to beget of the Son to be begotten of the Holy Ghost to proceed from them both c. be an Argument sufficient to prove Three distinct Persons in the God-head with three incommunicable Properties c. Then doth it not follow as well That every spiritual perfect Gift that proceeds from God to man must needs be a Person and then so many Gifts or manifold Graces as proceed from him or are begotten by him are so many Persons in him which would be numerous indeed and amount to a Plurallity of Trinities for the Spitit is given variously and in divers Manifestations and the graces gift of God are many and manifold but the shallowness of this mans arguing who is it cannot see besides that Christ being the express Image of the Fathers substance and the Spirit the Life of both it 's neither scriptural nor reasonable to say that the Image and Life of One and the same thing should be either Two distinct and separate Persons from it or from their own substance so that still it follows that if the Three bearing Record in Heaven be One divine substance and not Three substances then not Three distinct or separate Persons As also God is called both the Word and Spirit Farther Mark the manner of T. V. his expressing his Doctrine viz. The Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence and the Unity of the Divine Essenee in the Trinity of Persons that three should be one and that one should be three that three should be distinguished but not divided that one should not be another the first should not be the second nor the second the third nor the second or third the first and yet the first second and third the same that the first should be in the second and the second in the first and both first and second in the third Thus far T.V. for his separate persons Reader Do but mark his Jigg here and what a whirling he has made like one distempered but where is his Scripture for all this see how he manages it pag. 26. he saith Reason it may be will leave us in our search after the Deity in the Trinity and the Trinity c. but where Reason faileth Faith must supply its room And then tells us of Mysteries which Reason cannot demonstrate to us and that in this Mystery of the Trinity we must Exercise our Faith though we cannot clear it to our selves by demonstration c. But sure whilst Reason hath so much failed T. V. and his Brethren in this matter that thereby they cannot clear it to themselves by demonstration it s very strange and unreasonable they should make such a stir in the dark as they have done to Impose it on the Faith of others and what tends this to but to force People to Exercise an implicite Faith whilst they have neither Scripture Reason Demonstration nor Revelation for that 's ceased they say to ground a Faith upon
confess that W. P. confesseth That Christ offered unto God a satisfactory Sacrifice c. yea a most satisfactory Sacrifice but not to help God as being otherwise unable to save men However it is evident that W. P. has according to Scriptures confessed to God's Power Omnipotency Infiniteness and also That Jesus Christ in Life Doctrine and Death fulfilled his Fathers Will and offered up a most satisfactory Sacrifice so that he hath been wrongfully accused concerning this matter And whereas T. V. saith That God's Righteousness and Truth obliegeth him to take vengeance upon all that have transgressed his Law and his will to punish sin and sinners according to their desert his Justice doth ingage him c. Answ. How then is God free in his Attributes as they confess and his Good Will shewed by Christ unto men for their good in order to Salvation or hath God two contrary Wills the one obliging him to take Vengeance or execute Judgement to the uttermost upon All and the other to Exercise Patience Forbearance and shew Mercy and so not to Will the Death of Sinners but rather their Return that they may Live Is there any variableness or shaddow of Change in God or rather is not the Love and Good Will of God held forth in Christ to all men in the first place and that then when he Chasteneth Corrects Reproves any for sin it is not in Vengeance or Fury but in Love and Good Will for his Vengeance is to fall upon his Adversaries that have rejected and turned against him and the free proffers of his Love in Christ Jesus and who have Crucified Christ unto themselves a-fresh and trampled upon the Blood of the Covenant and so despised the one Offering which was offered up once for all as a real Witness of God's Good Will Patience Forbearance Long-suffering towards all And now to T. V. his saying That Sinners must have Divine help to inable them to their duty or in doing good and when they have done their duty their works are but imperfect and they unprofitable servants and for it brings Luke 17.10 When you have done all the things commanded say we are unprofitable servants our Righteousness is as filthy raggs Isa. 64.6 Answ. If you Presbyterians and Professors were come to know a Divine help in what you do and to do all the things Commanded you would give us a better account of those Works and Performances brought forth by Divine help than to compare them to filthy Raggs Divine help would cloath you with better Garments than filthy Raggs What sad Doctrine is this to say the Good that is done by Divine help and that doing all things Commanded of God are but as filthy Raggs What darkness is this not to distinguish between self-Righteousness which are but as filthy Raggs and the good that 's done by Divine help that hath a beauty and splendour of God's Righteousness with it Is this the construction you make of Christ's Satisfaction or being a Sacrifice to God that you must be cloathed upon all your Life time with your own filthy Raggs of self-Righteousness And then to cover over all these your Babylonish Brats with a pretence of Christ's Satisfaction paying your Debt for you imputation of his Righteousness deceitfully and feignedly applyed by you to your selves in your filthy Raggs whilst you have no share in it nor feel in you the Effect of his sufferings as if you were only to believe and apply and sin all your time you are far from the state of the unprofitable Servant that did all that he was Commanded You are daily breaking the Commands of God and Plead for it much more farther from the state of those whom Christ called no more Servants but Friends T. V. That God never doth nor will nor can pardon any sinner without satisfaction made to his offended Justice for their sins Reply But then in Contradiction to himself he saith I shall not concern my self to inquire what God could or might do if he pleased Why then doth he say he never will nor can and seem to lay such an Impossibility upon God in the case as if he could not freely Pardon whereas he could do whatsoever he pleased and certainly he could both please and satisfie himself And then I Query How is this Satisfaction made by Christ T. V. It depends upon him as the second Person in the Trinity pag. 54. Query Does it depend upon him as Man or as God and Man T. V. It was necessary that the Person that should make Satisfaction should be Man because none but a Creature could suffer But then he adds It were necessary he should be God othewise the sufferings and satisfaction would have been but finite Query What then were the Sufferings Infinite that the Wicked inflicted upon the Body of Christ seeing nothing but a Creature could suffer he saith and yet as a Creature could give no proportionable Satisfaction to Infinite Justice What Confusion is here For as God he could not Suffer nor Die as is confessed but God did strengthen the Manhood to bear up under such opressure of Wrath But where doth the Scripture say That Christ the second Person in the Trinity did suffer under infinite Wrath either as God or Man or both He should have produced his plain Scripture for Scripture we own and Christ's Satisfaction as rightly stated and what a most acceptable Sacrifice he was to the Father for All yea his Suffering as Man or in the Flesh without the Gates at Jerusalem was all acceptible to God his Soul was also made an Offering for sin and that he was a Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World the Mystery Virtue and Effects of his Sufferings none knows but they that believe in his Name and receive the Righteousness of Faith But indeed the manner of T. V's stating the business I do not see that sense can be made of it whilst he makes it a Payment of a second Person distinct from God and yet not as a Creature for as such the Sufferings were finite as he faith that could not bear a proportionable Satisfaction to infinite Justice and then it being as God united that did bear up and strengthen the man under opressure of Wrath that made this Satisfaction as he hath stated it c. Obs. What amounts this to that God made a satisfaction to and paid himself either by inflicting infinite Wrath upon Christ as God which cannot be or else that he satisfied himself by the finite Suffering of Christ as man when as that which was finite could not satisfie infiniteness they say And as God-man can they say he was the subject of Wrath or vindictive Justice as their term is How these things should be reconciled I leave to the ingenious Readers to judge Answ. Yes still we know that God was ever satisfied and well-pleased in Christ Jesus and in all his Works and it was God that was in him reconciling the World
thereby being to his satisfaction how can men continuing in their sins truly plead they are fully acquitted at once without them and they onely in the implicite belief thereof received from the ridged Presbyters rest satisfied in their sins all their life time And where doth T. D. prove his Doctrine of Christ's being holy by a true inherent righteousness of the humane Nature pag. 25. what Scripture hath he for this or these Expressions was not his Righteousness from the Divine Nature and was it not Everlasting but is not that which is humane Finite And T. D. saying that the Socinians vomit the Quakers have now lickt up pag. 27. herein hath he spoken scornfully and falsly against us which will not at all tend to convince Socinians if they were as bad as rendred but to that they can answer him And his saying the Elect whilst Sinners in state where proves he this that the Elect are Sinners in state seeing the state of the Elect is a sanctified and chosen state out of the World and its wayes chosen in Christ through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the Truth 2 Thes. 2.13 the impossibility of deceiving the Elect is signified Matth. 24.24 where the Calling and Election is made sure they shall never fall 2 Pet. 1.10 And that Christ was made surety of a better Covenant Heb. 7.22 And came to do his Fathers Will Hebr. 10.7 And that his being a Surety is an Act of Grace pag. 28. This we confess and own more then you that contend for Sin for the Will of God is our Sanctification and the better Testament and Covenant which Christ is the Surety Mediator and Establisher of is that of Righteousness Life and Peace wherein Sins and Transgressions are done away and wherein true Believers live to God And as for T. D. his so often comparing God to a Creditor Christ to the Surety and Sinners as the Debtors telling of God being considered as a Creditor and as a private Person pag. 32. But where doth the Scripture so call him Reply He does not speak from a true sence of God or Christ or of Gods Covenant but a Notion he hath learned by Tradition and as to Sinners their case is worse then meerly Debtors they not onely owing obedience to God and Christ but are disobedient and rebellious as the case of Fellons Traytors and other Malefactors is worse then that of Debtors yet Christ is our Surety Mediator and Intercessor to make agreement between God and man and to deliver man from the Punishment and Wrath to come by delivering from Sin the cause of it and destroying the Devil the Author of Sin not for us still to live in Sin and daily both contract more Debt and incur tribulation and anguish upon our Souls Howbeit the Wayes of God extend beyond T. D's comparison his Wayes are not as man wayes nor his Thoughts as mans thoughts for as the Heaven is higher then the Earth so are my Thoughts higher then your thoughts saith the Lord whose graciousness also to poor deceived lost man for his restoration is infinitely beyond mans legality and exactions as the Lord said I will not execute the fierceness of mine Anger I will not return to destroy Ephraim for I am God and not man the Holy One in the midst of thee Hosea 11.9 But is there not perfect obedience now for men to perform must they all live in Sin and Imperfection tearm of life and say all our Debts is paid and if all their Debts be paid why are they not out of Prison Are not all that are in Sin and Bondage of Corruption in Prison and would it be glad Tydings to tell them that though Christ has paid all their Debts and procured their release and ransomed them that they must not expect personal freedom out of Prison nor out of their Chains and Fetters so long as they lived here or if one should tell the Slaves in Turkey that they are ransomed and yet they must not expect personal freedom from their Vassalry and Slavery so long as they live here would this be glad tydings no sure but rather sad news and is just like these Presbyterians and Independants preaching to people and the tendence of their Gospel and pretence of Satisfaction Redemption Ransom c. whilst they hold none of them in Truth nor Righteousness nor in the same Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures of Truth and Testimonies of Christ or his Apostles T. D. pag. 29. He is satisfied and the debt paid too by his Intercession which being grounded upon his Satisfaction supposes it to be what it pretends full and compleat Observ. Here it is to be observed that notwithstanding this his Assertion of the Satisfaction both by payment and punishment being compleatly made and the debt fully paid yet he confesseth to Christ's Intercession but what does he ever live to make Intercession for if all be fully done paid satisfied at once by Christ's personal subjection and obedience must there ever be an intercession for that which is already so fully and dearly paid for as they reckon Christ hath done and God hath granted how will this hold consistent But then it appears it supposes it to be what it pretends full and compleat saith T. D. pag. 30. So here is now supposition and pretence put upon Christ's Intercession and Satisfaction what sorry shallow work is this but it appears But to proceed from one that hath followed his own conceptions notions weak judgement and humane understanding as also one that by his Logick and Traditional borrowed Notions and Doctrines goes about to make People to believe that from him that he hath no Scripture phrase for as that of God being a private person and other things And therefore like a Lawyer is fain to patch up his work as well as he can though in many things it be very inconsistant and repugnant to it self And whereas our confessing Christ both in Life and Suffering to be a perfect and real Example is so much struck at by these Priests and Professors we still withal confessing both to his Power and Living Effects through all and of all his Sufferings Afflictions Death and Life which we reverently esteem touching which I testifie in the Lord that if Christ be not really owned and confessed as he was a real Example both in Life Conversation and in Patient Suffering neither the Fellowship of his Suffering nor the Power thereof is truly known or experienced for they who would partake of the Benefit and blessed Effects of Christ's Death and Sufferings and yet will not own him for their Example shall never enjoy him therein seeing that Christ also hath suffered for us leaving us an Example that we should follow his steps who did not sin neither was guile found in his mouth 1 Pet. 2.21 22. Again Forasmuch then as Christ hath Suffered for us in the Flesh arm your selves likewise with the same mind for he that hath sufferred
in the Flesh hath ceased from sin that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the Flesh to the lusts of men but to the Will of God Chap. 4.1 2. Now the ceasing from Sin and following of Christ's steps in the harmless sinless state is the right use and end of his Suffering for man and his Example to man But then mark T. D's Doctrine as followeth what an example and subject of Wrath and Vindictive Justice so tearmed he renders Christ viz. T. D. pag. 36.4 Christ when he suffered was not innocent and when God required satisfaction of him it was due from him Christ was guilty of our sin when he suffered for it for guilt is but obligatio ad paenam an obligation to undergo punishment which Christ was under by contract Hebr. 7.22 Answ. It s no wonder that these Presbyterians and those of their affinity accuse all Christ's Followers of being Sinners and imperperfect all their life time since that T. D. one of their Leaders or Chieftains hath accused Christ not to be innocent when he suffered saying also Christ was guilty of our Sin when he suffered for it which how false and blasphemous this charge is against Christ I appeal to all sober and moderate Professors of Christianity who have any real esteem and reverence to the Name of Christ and his Glory and how contrary to plain Scripture-testimonies plentifully given of him as being a Lamb yea the Lamb of God which declared his innocency and purity being without sin or guile who offered up himself by the Eternal Spirit a Lamb without spot to God 1 Pet. 1.19 chap. 2.22 Hebr. 9.14 Isa. 53.7 Acts 8.32 Now his being a Lamb without spot and without blemish manifests him to be a perfect Offering and Sacrifice for Sin as also how guilt is more then barely an obligation to undergo punishment being always imputed to the Transgressors and disobedient for sin and not to Christ Rom. 3.19 Jam. 2.10 1 Cor. 11.27 Deut. 19.13 and 21.9 Exod. 34.7 Although t is true those chief Priests false Witnesses and Persecutors of Christ among the Jews and such as accused him for a Blaspemer they said also that he was guilty of death Mat. 26.65 66. Mark 14.64 whose example T. D. hath followed in accusing Christ of being guilty and not innocent But if T. D. should say he meant not that Christ was really or inherently or personally guilty of sin but by imputation and so not innocent but guilty of our sins by this we may perceive then what he means by imputation that on the one hand an innocent person is made guilty and is not innocent whilst he hath no sin nor guile or evil in him and so on the other hand by their own rule of contraries contraria contrariorum ratio persons are to be reckoned imputatively righteous and innocent in God's sight whilst there is neither righteousness nor innocency really in them which is both unreasonable unscriptural and apparently false It was a false imputation of the persecuting Jews and Tho. Danson to impute guilt of sin to Christ and to accuse him with not being innocent when no sin evil nor guilt was in him and it is as false an imputation of theirs to impute Christ's Righteousness to sinfull persons who are not in it nor partakes of it in them so it s neither God's imputation nor Christ's for had Abraham no righteousness really in him when his Faith was reckoned to him for righteousness where then was his Faith and the righteousness and obedience of it if in reallity he was not a partaker and an enjoyer thereof within from whence did his acts or works of real obedience proceed and flow if not from his living Faith and its righteousness within Surely they are of very mean capacities that cannot see T. D's absurdities ignorance in these matters And his vain imaginations and conceits about imputation further will appear and that the stress and drift of all his and his Brethrens work in these invented Doctrines â—s to keep people in their sins and imperfections all their dayes and so their work in rendring Christ the subject of guilt and so of vengeance that belongs to Devils and their rendring people the subjects of his Righteousness and Justification by imputation whilst unjust and sinful in themselves it all centers in their sinfull Doctrine for sin and imperfection term of life Pag. 37. As to T. D's telling of the Son of God's Incarnation the creation of his Body and Soul the parts of that nature he subsisted in c. To this I say if the Body and Soul of the Son of God were both Created doth not this render him a Fourth Person for Creation was in time which contradicts their Doctrine of Three distinct Increated Co-eternal Co-essential Persons in the Deity seeing that which was created was not so but herein whether doth not his and their ignorance of the only begotten of the Father and their denial of Christs Divinity plainly appear yea or nay where doth the Scripture say that his Soul was created for was not he the brightness of his Fathers Glory and the express Image of his Divine Substance But supposing the Soul of Christ was with the Body created in time I ask if from Eternity he was a Person distinct from God and his holy Spirit without either Soul or Body and where doth the Scripture speak of any Person without either Soul or Body le ts have plain Scripture Pag. 38. Whilst T. D. grants our actual freedom from sin and wrath depends on what Christ did and suffered as on and upon its means what becomes of his Doctrine and Pleas for sin and imperfection which they that continues in term of life cannot be truly said to be Actually freed from sin nor yet imputatively righteous in Gods sight whilst actually and really sinfull And if Christ's obedience was not intended to exempt us from a personal obedience to the Law as is confest in pag. 38. then it s contrary to the end of his Obedience to live in sin and disobedience term of life and for any to be reckoned imputatively righteous when actually disobedient Secondly And if we be only so far made righteous by Christs Obedience as unrighteous by our own disobedience how far is that have we not been actually unrighteous and shall we so far be made righteous by Christ's Righteousness Is not this more then your Doctrine of Imputation whilst personally sinfull amount to but your flat contradictions in these matters are evident Pag. 39. And though Christ is our Surety this doth not exempt us either from following him or walking in the Way of God but the more ingage us therein and herein we know acceptance in the Beloved of God in that holy conversation which his pure Law within enjoyns without obedience to which God is not well pleased nor satisfied on man's part though he was even well pleased and satisfied in his own Son both in his doing and suffering
Spirit Christ perfectly obeyed offered up himself a Lamb without spot to God and we know that it is the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ that makes us free from the Law of Sin and Death Romans 8. which Freedom is effected with in Pag. 53. If there be a connexion between Justification and Sanctification and that the same Christ Jesus that Justifieth by his Blood Sanctifieth by his Spirit as is confest from Calvin c. in Loc. 2. then men are not Justified whilst in an unsanctified state seeing that it is also evidenced by a holy life but then herein T. D. seem doubtfull as rather enclining to lay it upon the active obedience of Christ but then is not he that is Sanctified and Justified being in an holy life a partaker of Christ's Righteousness Obedience and Subjection in the Spirit of Life and the pure Law of it seeing that makes free from the Law of Sin and Death But then he wavers again to the understanding of some who suppose the end of Christ's coming into the World is that God's Righteous Laws might not be absolutely contemned but might be observed though imperfectly by Believers others saith he of the Imputation of Christ's Surety Righteousness c. This imperfect observation of God's Righteous Laws is that he would fain center in and which indeed the tenor of most of his discourse amounts to though it be not the end of Christ's sending into the World nor yet the work of the Spirit and Law of Life within for the end thereof was to destroy sin and to work mans perfect freedom from it which they that experience are only the true and real subjects of Christ's Righteousness and know the true imputation thereof and effect and real benefit of his being a Surety of the new Testament wherein the Promises of God are fulfilled to and in man and man brought under the obligation of that Law and Covenant which tends to the exaltation of Truth and Righteousness in the Earth and the bringing the Creature into a perfect and peaceable subjection unto its Maker So Christ's being both our Surety Advocate Intercessor and Mediator betwixt God and man is to make both Unity Reconciliation and Peace betwixt them a Mediator being not a Mediator of one but betwixt two c. to bring into mutual agreement T. D. Our good and our evil works are not perfectly contrary for our evil works are perfectly evil for malum fit ex quilibet defectu any one defect make our works evil but our good works are but imperfestly good Answ. If good works and evil works be not perfectly contrary where and what then are the good works whilst defect and imperfection is pleaded for which makes them evil Surely good and evil are perfectly contrary but by this man's consequence there is no good works whilst defects and imperfections remain in them and then why doth he call them good works It appears he gives them that name which is improper to them but if good works be really acknowledged as we know they are in Scripture and that they that are truly so are wrought in the Light and so in God these are perfectly contrary to evil but such T. D. his Brethren with their sins and imperfections are strangers to whilst they shew themselves to be out of the Light wherein the good works are wrought and as to the condignity he speaks of or worth as with relation to the infinite reward we do as before place it in that Heavenly Image Spirit and Life which brings forth the good works which were ordained of God and it is that Spirit which leads its Followers to the infinite reward of Life and Salvation Arg. 4. Rom. 2.13 Not the Hearers of the Law are Justified before God but the Doers of the Law shall be Justified to this T. D. saith The words give a reason of the Jews perishing who had the Law viz. the old Covenant Reply The reason of their perishing was their Disobedience unto the Law but this of the Doers of the Law wherein both the Just and Justified state is intimated according to the Gospel verse 14 15 16. relates to those Gentiles which had not the Law outwardly and yet did by nature the things contained in the Law which the Apostle renders as a reason and proof of their Justification who shewed the Work of the Law written in their hearts which Law was pure and Spiritual converting the Souls and here it is also evident that the matter or things contained in the Law they had both in Power and Operation who had it not in the Letter of it but the extent of this is and hath been much opposed by T. D. and such as he who have grosly perverted the Scriptures for their own sinfull and corrupt ends to their own and others destruction And now that a state of Freedom from sin is attainable in this life this T. D. erroneously sets down as an Error and argues against it as followeth Arg. 1. If no meer man ever attained to any such state then it is not attainable but no meer man ever did c. Answ. His term meer man is his own and not ours what he means by meer man is a question for it may be taken variously as first he may be deemed a meer man that is without God Christ or the guidance of his Spirit who lives to himself in which state we never said that freedom from sin was attainable by any meer man for without Christ we can do nothing Secondly if meer man be taken singly as purus homo or man purely or intirely without mixture of those things which are either contrary to him as Man or not proper to his being Man as sin and transgression were improper to him for so he was in his first Creation in Innocency and primitive Purity as so considered to deny him Perfection or Freedom from sin were to deny him that which God did invest him with whilst he was in his Maker's Image which was proper to him and to which Christ comes to restore man again out of the Fall But then T. D. explains what he means by meer man viz. such as the eminently holy Persons in the Scriptures whom he denies to have ever attained a state of Perfection by which he has accused all the holy Men of God at once as but meer men in the worst sence and such were they that were carnal and walked as men 1 Cor 3.3 and he hath therein both opposed God's Commands Promises and Works as also the end of Christ's manifestation which was perfectly to restore man out of sin and unrighteousness unto God see Gen. 3.15 Rom. 16.20 Deut. 6.5 and 10.12 and 11.1 and 13.18 and 19.9 Matth. 22.37 Mark 12.30 Gen. 17.1 Deut. 18.13 2 Sam. 22.33 Psal. 18.32 and 37.37 and 119.1 2 3 4. Isa. 1.16 John 13.8 Isa. 4.4 and 60.21 Ezek. 36.25 26 27 33. Jer. 33.8 Hebr. 8. and chap. 10.13 14 15 16 17. Zeph.
evident that they were troubled condemned and reproved by his Witness in their Consciences or else how should they say depart from us if he never came nigh them nor ever touched their Consciences or why should they say we desire not the knowledge of thy Wayes if the knowledge thereof was not tendred to them And further If so be that the Gentiles as confessed were those in whom that which might be known of God was manifested and shewed unto them from the Creation to the being of God and his Eternal Power which discovery did leave them without excuse what was it that brought them to this understanding of the Eternal Power and Godhead from and through the Creation was it Spiritual yea or nay surely this clear sight and discovery in them did rise from that which might be known of God that was manifest in them and if this had not a sufficiency in it to save how were they left without excuse surely the fault was not to be laid upon God nor on his Light in them but to and upon themselves for disobeying it and not liking to retain him in their knowledge And seeing Christ is confessed page 63. to be set for a Light to the Gentiles Isa. 49.6 which saith T. D. is but a Prophesie of the Gentiles mercy in the time of Christ's actual exhibition in the Flesh. However this Mercy is of a large extent and for ever to be prized as in the fulness of time it is more manifest then before and now especially since it is thus openly declared and manifested it ought not to be thus opposed and slighted by men of corrupt minds which affirm it is an error to say that Christ enlightens ever man that cometh into the World and yet at length are forced to confess it as in these words viz. That it is Supernatural the Light of the Gospel of the Messias c. And thus they are confounded and broken to pieces and their wisdom turned backward by this convincing Light this stumbling stone this Rock of offence which they cannot avoid stumbling at and falling upon and breaking to pieces who set themselves against it and bring forth their vain imaginations to eclipse its glory as too many of this Generation hath done And now touching the Scriptures being a Declaration of the Word of God but not the Word nor the only Rule of Faith and Life which T. D. sets down as an Error wherein he hath no less then accused the Scriptures themselves with being Error For first we in calling them a true Declaration we call them what they call themselves Luke 1. as also that they are Writings given forth by the holy men of God and that which they call the Word we do also the Word was in the beginning with God John 1. and his Name is called the Word of God yet both the Doctrinal part and Historical part of the Scripture contained in the Books of the Old and New Testaments we own and never sleighted nor denied yet if we should look upon them as the only Rule of Faith and Life this would exclude the Rule and guidance of the Spirit for the only Rule must be infallible certain incorruptible obvious c. which leads into all Truth as either not sufficient so to guide or not to be owned as the Rule of Faith and Obedience to God c. and this would be contrary to the Testimonies of the holy men of God concerning it who followed it and directed others to it and to walk in this Spirit and therein they knew their several attainments and measures and herein was the Rule of the new Creature who worshipped not in the oldness of the Letter but in the newness of the Spirit Rom. 7.6 2 Cor. 10.13 14 15. Phil. 3.15 16. Gal. 6.15 16. And we know that without the guidance of this Spirit of Truth men can never come to a right judgment nor understanding of the holy Scriptures or Spiritual things And how then doth T. D. go to prove the Scripture to be the Word and the only Rule of Faith and Life whilst he hath granted that to bring a testimony of Scripture concerning it self were petitio principii a begging the question and were insignificant for their conviction which deny its Divine Authority What course then will he take to convince such seeing he himself doth but follow his notions conceivings and humane understanding while Divine Revelation and immediate Inspiration are laid aside and opposed in these dayes by such as he Pag. 65. he saith he will give a taste of our Arguments and leave our tenents to the judgment of the understanding c. What understanding and what Judgment must be the Guide and Rule of mens judgements and undertandings if the Light within must not be the Rule for after he hath asserted the Scriptures to be the only Rule of Faith presently he hath put himself upon a Hanck and shakes his own Foundation in confessing the Scriptures insufficient for the conviction of such who deny its Divine Authority otherwise it s but a begging the question to go to prove the Scriptures by themselves and now what he will erect as a Rule instead thereof for the conviction of such whilst he hath opposed the Light within and asserted the insufficience of the Scriptures shewing them not to be the only Rule is questionable whether he knoweth himself if he doth let him tell it to them that desire it And Pag. 66. It is to be observed one while he tell us of the Judgment of the Vnderstanding another while the matter contained in the Scriptures was the Rule before it was committed in writing and that the Gospel was preached to Adam And again when they affirm the Scripture to be the only Rule its intended to them who have the Scriptures and not to them that have them not Pag. 67. And presently after we must understand this point with connexion with the former the Light within So do but mark what confusion here is First 't is his own confession that the matter contained in the Scripture was before it was written Secondly That to them who have not the Scriptures something must be the Rule and what is it the Light within having no other way as he saith Now if the Light within and the matter contained in the Scriptures be a sufficient Rule to them which have them not in the Writing surely its sufficiency is not diminished by the writing but rather testified unto neither is it the intent of the Scriptures to draw people from either the matter or Light within which opens them nor to set up Scriptures as the only Rule instead thereof But then saith T. D. that very Scripture Rom. 10.8 speaks not of the Light within but of the Scriptures Answ. It speaks of the very same Word which Moses and the Prophets spake of which was before the Scriptures were written in Moses's time much of them was unwritten and yet he directed the people to
the Word and the Apostle called it the Word of Faith which was nigh them in their mouthes and in their hearts but saith T. D. It is not the Light within but the Scriptures as if he should say the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were in their mouthes and hearts but this Word of which they give testimony was in the hearts of all the holy men of God that gave forth the Scriptures before they writ them and it was a Lamp to David's feet and a Light to his path and he hid it in his heart that he might not sin c. Psal. 119.11 verse 115. and the Word is for ever setled in Heaven verse 89. this was that which quickned sanctified and saved the Righteous in and thorow all Generations and of this the Scriptures or Writings do testifie in which are words of God but the Word was before they were spoke or writ And T. D.'s accusing the Quakers for not owning the Authority of the Scriptures is false for we are in the Spirit that gave forth and openeth and brings to the right use and end of them and in the same Spirit can and do make use of them not only to prove our Tenents and to Confute our Opposers but also to obey and practice the things contained in them which are truly moral and Christian as the Spirit of Truth doth direct and enable T. D. We are not now to expect any new discovery of Truth as to the matter revealed but only as to the person whom God enlightens gradually to discern the evidence of what is revealed in Scripture Answ. First If no new Discovery then what is in Scriptures then no need of Popish and Heathenish Authors to prove distinct and separate personal Subsistances in God nor any other such traditional distinctions which obscures the simplicity of Scripture Truth and darkens the minds of People but people should rather be referred singly to the Scripture Phrase and Language and to search them in the Light of Christ within Secondly if the discerning of the Scripture is from God's enlightning them people ought to be recommended to God to wait in his Light to know his Counsel and direction therein or otherwise they will remain ignorant of the Scriptures and Revelation of the things declared Again it s well that T. D. confesseth that there are Prophesies and Histories of things done before the Pen-mens birth as also personal experiences c. So now at length he doth a little assent to Truth as if he were a little convinced by S. Fisher's Answer to him that he doth not now bind up all to the Scriptures but confesseth that Prophesies Histories and personal experiences to be before the Pen-mens birth But herein he hath but manifested his uncertainty and wavering to and again one while opposing the Sufficiency of the Light and placing all upon the Scriptures as the only Rule another while upon the matter contained in the Scriptures which was before the Scriptures were written and was written on the heart of the Gentiles another while the Light within he seems to assent unto as in pag. 67. for them that have not Scripture another while Prophesies and Experiences where before the Scripture and thus at length the Spirit or Light that gave forth the Scriptures must be preferred as the most certain and universal Guide and Rule as indeed it is to all them who follow obey and believe in it and this Light the blind corrupt imaginary Teachers whose knowledge and profession is but natural and traditional cannot corrupt as they have done the Scriptures by their false glosses meanings and private interpretations contrary to the intent and end of the Spirit of God which gave them forth and which leads into all Truth and Righteousness for a further Answer to T. D. touching this matter I do refer the Reader to S. Fisher's Book titled Rusticus ad Accademicos And as for his accusing Quakers with error touching Baptism and the Lords Supper as to their ceasing and setting up the appearance of Christ within c. Answ. The one Baptism Ephes. 4.5 into the one Body 1 Cor. 12.13 and the eating drinking and supping with Christ at the table of the Lord in his house and Kingdom we own and experience but what Baptism it is he intends whether sprinkling Infants or John's Baptism he hath not discovered neither indeed doth it concern him now to make such a frivolous pudder against the Quakers upon this account for indeed we do not look upon him either as a true Minister nor as having a call either from God or man as one impowered to impose things he calls Ordinances its probable when he was Parish Priest at Sandwich in Kent in Cromwel's time he could shew a greater force for his impositions then now he can in Houses and Corners where he and his Brethren can creep and not only so but be ready to obscure and hide themselves if but a little Storm and Trial come He stiles himself sometime Minister of the Gospel at Sandwich but is not rather that report of him true that there he was given to Gaming Bowls and Nine-pins c But as to the appearance and enjoyment of Christ within we do confess him to be the Substance and the Living Bread and in him we are kept not only in a Living remembrance but also in a real Possession of the Power and Vertue of his Life having known a conformity to his Death which is more then a remembrance of it and we know him to be the enduring Divine Substance which ends all Types Shaddows and Figures and his Coming and Appearance in the Flesh wherein he went through the Types and Shaddows as Circumcision John's Baptism observing the Passover at his Supper and his Sufferings did make way for his coming in the Spirit as he consecrated a new and living way through the Vail that is to say his Flesh now the coming of Christ until which his Dispiples were to shew forth his Death in the observation of the figure this coming they did not put afar off as our Opposers yet do how long they know not it being already above Sixteen hundred years since and yet this his coming is still put off whereas the Disciples after they were with Christ at his last Supper were Witnesses of his coming after his Resurrection and also of his Spiritual Coming and Revelation in their hearts and now to suppose that what the Disciples did to shew his Death was till a third Coming not yet manifest is to overlook the two former as no Comings as also to render Christs own words and Promises ineffectual who said Verily I say unto you there be some standing here which shall not taste of Death till they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom Matth. 16.28 Mark 9. Luke 9.27 And as to 1 Cor. 11.23 24 25. wherein the Apostle repeats what Christ did the same night he was betrayed in giving the Bread and Cup
they may be made perfect in one c. And God said Let us make man in our own Image after our likeness Gen. 1 26. Now if by us here is intended Father Son and Holy Ghost which is called Trinity then it follows that he was made in the likeness of all three and yet we do not read that God did consist in three distinct Persons nor that man was made in the Image of three Persons nor yet that three distinct and separate persons dwelt in him though God did promise after the Fall to dwell in his people and he and his Son and Spirit we do really own confess to and have a living sence and experience of to our Souls Comfort and everlasting peace So when we cannot well resent nor accept of mens invented terms put upon the Father Son and Holy Ghost it is unreasonable and injurious to accuse us with opposing any of them or denying their Divinity and the Unity of the Deity And where John Owen in pag. 91 92. to prove the Holy Ghost a Person and an existing Substance which he calls also a distinct and divine Person he quotes many Scriptures as Gen. 1.2 the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters Psalm 33.6 by the Word of the Lord the Heavens were made and all the Host of them by the Spirit of his Mouth these with many he urgeth for proof of the Personallity of the Holy Ghost So according to his Principle and terms which he puts upon the Holy Ghost as a distinct Person c. and according to J. O's meaning we must read the Scripture thus the Person of God moved upon the face of the Waters By the Person of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Host of them by the Person of his mouth and so likewise upon Job 26.13 by his Person he hath garnished the Heavens and in like manner upon the rest of the Scriptures he bringeth in this case Now let the Reader judge whether such a meaning alteration put upon the Scriptures doth either look clear or sound well and whether it be not a corrupting Scripture and addition contrary to the plain innocent Language thereof and if such corruption and alteration upon Scripture may be admitted of how are they the only Rule or great Rule of speaking and treating about spiritual things J. Owen and his Brethen had better refer people to the Scriptures and leave them to a naked attention to what Scripture asserts rather then thus to pervert them or puzle and darken peoples minds with their humane inventions and Scholastick terms imposed in the time of Apostacy and Popery And concerning the Son of God and some accounting him the Light within men this J. O. numbers among the monstrous imaginations pag. 87. Wherein he hath not only struck at us who testifie to Christ as the Light of the World that lighteth every man and as being in the true Believers both their Light Life and Salvation but also J. O. hath herein opposed both the former Saints and Scriptures of Truth who testified unto Christ the Light as we do as also he owned himself to be come a light into the World and to be in his Followers He that is with you shall be in you I in them and they in me c. Pag. 103. J.O. queries how can the Power of God or a quality be said to be sent to be given to be bestowed on men Answ. Yes very well it may be so said Christ gave them power to become the Sons of God who believed on his Name and was not this God's Power had Christ any thing but what was Gods and the Saints knew the Power of God to work mightily in them so that this Doctor hath shewed himself very ignorant of the Power of God and its work which doth beget and restore man into the Image Righteousness and true Holiness of God and this is given and bestowed on such as believe in the Light within the Light of the Divine Power of God which giveth unto us all things appertaining to Life and Godliness And now touching their distinctions of Persons or Personal Subsistances in God J. O. saith pag. 114. The distinct apprehension of them and their accurate expression is not necessary unto Faith as it is our Guide c. nor are those brief explanations before mentioned so proposed as to be placed immediately in the same rank or order with the original Revelations Answ. If they be not necessary unto Faith nor yet to be placed in the order with Revelations meaning Scripture why then are these men so strict in going about to impose their terms expressions and explications which they have not in the Scripture upon peoples Faith and Conscience as if it were a matter of damnation not to receive a Faith concerning God under their traditional notions and terms However we believe what the Scriptures saith both of God Christ and holy Spirit who are one laying aside all these mens invented confused amusing Sophistry Cavils and their darkning terms as distinct and separate Personallities Substances Subsistances Modallities c. of which they themselves are guilty though J. O. accuseth others therewith pag. 116. And whilst these pretended accurate expressions are not necessary unto Faith why doth J. O. press them as proper expressions of what is revealed to encrease our light pag. 115. What apparent contradiction is this not necessary unto Faith as our Guide and yet proper to encrease our light as if the encrease of light had not a necessary relation unto both Faith as Guide and Principle both in and unto religious worship but to be sure that instead of encreasing light their dark invented scholastick Heathenish and Popish terms have encreased much darkness in the minds of people and kept many in great ignorance both of God and the mystery of godliness And whereas J. O. gives order or instruction that they that deny or oppose their explications are to be required positively to deny or disapprove the oneness of the Deity or to prove that the Father or Son or Holy Ghost are not God before they be allowed to speak one word against the manner of the explication pag. 115. Answ. A very unreasonable imposition and requiring to require any to deny the oneness of the Deity or to prove the Father Son or Holy Ghost not to be God because they may except against such invented explications as J. O. and his Brethren have brought out of their Heathenish Store-houses and Chambers of Imaginary and hath not he herein imposed upon the Objecters and begged the question taking it as granted that their explications are as true as the oneness of the Deity or as true as that the Father Son and Holy Ghost are God as if he had told us it is all one as true that they are distinct severed Persons as it is that they are God which it is not we have not ground to believe their explications herein to be equal for the Unity
of the Godhead or Divinity of Christ or his Spirit we never denied nor scrupled Therefore for J. O. to require any that except against their terms and inventions positively to deny the Unity of the Deity is both sad Doctrine and unreasonableness as also shews an imperious lording spirit though its probable among the Independants and Professors he can make a shew of more humility then he did formerly for he now wants Cromwel to promote him However he and others of his Fraternity might by this time have in reallity learned more lowliness and humility then yet appears in them towards such as cannot be screwed up to their way and method of expressing the Invisible things of God which are Heavenly Divine and Spiritual as his being and properties are absolutely above the comprehension of J. O's reason as is confest pag. 128. We cannot by searching find out God we cannot find out the Almighty to perfection And yet vain man would be wise and imploy his natural reason and fallen wisdom both to find and set out God to evince him and his things unto the natural reason of others which still falls short both of any true knowledg and spiritual understanding for vain by nature is every man and ignorant of God It is the spiritually minded who are begotten to God who are spiritually and immediately taught by his Spirit that have a true and spiritual understanding of Divine Matters and Mysteries Pag. 118. J. O. Every person hath distinctly its own Substance But then in contradiction he adds for the one Substance of the Deity is the Substance of each Person but each Person hath not its own distinct Substance Reply A strange Riddle and invention that each person hath distinctly its own Substance and yet not its own distinct Substance what Scripture hath he for this Critick and nice distinction how is a person then an individual Substance of a rational nature that is not upheld by another if it hath not its own distinct Substance whilst yet it hath distinctly its own Substance but the Divine Substance of the Deity of the Father the Word and Spirit is but one as often hath been granted so then the Holy Ghost though confessed to be a Substance pag. 101. yet I say not a Personal Substance distinct from the Father and the Son as there is ignorantly asserted But then J. O. to tell us pag. 118. That all Divine properties such as to be infinite is belong not to the Persons on the account of their Personallity but of their nature c. Observ. Then it appears they are not three Infinite Persons but one Infinite God and yet those Persons are the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost were it not both Blasphemy and contradiction to say they are finite and what better have our Opposers said but at other times they are Eternal God Eternal the Eternal Son and Eternal Spirit and thus they wheel about and say and unsay Answ. It were better for them nakedly to apply themselves to the plain Language of Scripture and keep to it to lay aside and avoid confusion and absurdities about distinct finite personallities which the Scripture does not put upon the Infinite God in whom there is neither finiteness nor variableness I am God I change not saith he the Lord is one and his name one from Everlasting to Everlasting he is God unchangable And the Father Son and Holy Ghost being one Divine Infinite Substance are one Infinite God Away with your vain babling and invented erroneous distinctions of finite Persons in him who is infinite you are not worthy therein to talk of God nor to take his holy precious and pure Name in your mouthes who are in your sins and pollutions corrupting your selves in your carnal conceptions and imaginations about those things that you know not who are gone a whoring after humane inventions invented words names terms and distinctions such as neither the Holy Ghost nor the Scriptures ever taught you Pag. 117. And as for them that will keep to their Cavils and Sophisms about terms and expressions I know not who J. O. may intend hereby but if he intend us called Quakers because we do not own but oppose his and their dark unscriptural terms and expressions which darken both counsel and knowledge we do reject his Accusation and Charge herein for Cavils and Sophisms are rather his and his Brethrens who have been trained up in Sophistry and School-craft in order to be furnished to a Trade of Preaching to make a Trade of the Scriptures corrupting them by their dark meanings and School-terms and Philosophick distinctions by which poor people have been kept even learning that they might be always paying them Pag. 117. But then J. O. addeth against such as he supposeth will keep to their Cavils and Sophisms That all further debate or conference with them may justly and ought both conscientiously and rationally to be refused and rejected Reply If herein he may intend us as it s probably he may as well as others among whom he has numbred us though unrighteously as his debating or conference is of little value or esteem with us whilst it proceeds neither from a sence of God's Divine Power nor from any Living experience of God or his work within but from humane inventions and traditions So J. O. and his Brethrens work in these matters whether they go on in it or stop from further debate it will be of very little weight to us since we see to the far end of their subtilty and beyond their spirits and confusion however J. O. laying it as their duty not to debate any further with such as he censures as before he hath brought himself and those that own him under a Law and Limitation that if they further contend with us they must either not accuse us with Cavils and Sophisms or else not debate nor contend any further with us for if they do so accuse and censure us and yet further debate or contend with us they transgress their own Law so strictly here urged by J.O. and by the same reason when he and they are found guilty of Cavils and Sophisms may not others as much slight him and them therein But however he or they judge or censure us I hope we shall not be backward nor negligent to vindicate the Truth and clear our innocency from reproaches and scandals of men of perverse and envious spirits when we have occasion given us thereby J. O. These sacred Mysteries of God and the Gospel are not lightly to be made the subject of mens contest and disputations Observ. It is very true that sacred Mysteries of God and Gospel are not lightly nor yet slightly to be made subjects of contests nor yet ought they to be medled with by light airy minds nor by perverse and prejudiced spirits which are apt to bring forth perverse disputes as it is too common to men of corrupt minds who are destitute of the Truth But why then do
demonstration then clear Scripture surely whilst they cannot clear it and their distinctions to themselves they are not like to clear them unto others but instead of Scripture proof and demonstration we must either aquiesce with what their humane understandings can produce from Aquinas Wotton and Aristotle c. or else we are like to be most bitterly railed against by these our Opposers T.V. The three Holies Isa. 6.1 signifie the three persons Contradiction the Lord of Hosts the One God pag. 33. Contr. J. O. Contradicts T. V. pag. 45. where he saith That of Isa. 6.1 2. three Holy Holy Holy is the Lord of Hosts the whole Earth is full of his glory applyed unto the Son Joh. 12.41 42. Obs. How palpably one Contradicts another one saying the three Holyes signifies three Persons the other viz. J.O. saith They are applied to the Son who is but One. This Doctor Owen should correct his Brother Vincent T.V. The Son being Eternal this Generation must be Eternal the personal property of the Son is to be begotten pag. 36. Contr. T. V. They are three distinct persons from their distinct personal Acts Contradiction again Infiniteness is not applicable to the three distinct personallities pag. 45. The Son of God is God is infinite in Power in Wisdom and Goodness and Eternal pag. 30. Obs. Here manifest Contradiction to himself shews it self as much as to say That either the Son of God is eternal and yet not infinite or else That the Son of God being eternal is not a person distinct from God if a Person be not infinite but yet the Son of God is infinite in Power Wisdom Goodness c. How ever these can be reconciled I leave to the ingenious to judge T. V. The Father Word and Holy Ghost are three subsistences pag. 13.43 not three substances pag. 13. They are three distinct subsistents pag. 27. A person is one individual subsistent rather T.D. pag. 2. Obs. Here they are now put to it what to call them being not three substances as T. V. saith they call them three subsistences But now it must be subsistents rather But then in Contradiction to both Doctor Owen saith The Holy Ghost is a substance a personal subsistence What differs now between substance and subsistence T. D. What the Scripture hath revealed to us concerning that distinction in the God-head cannot be apprehended under any other Notion or Resemblance which therefore we attribute to God pag. 3. We know not what to call those three but persons Contr. T.D. Of the Father Word and Spirit c. from 1 Joh. 1.7 Now all Witnesses properly so called are persons pag. 5. Then these Witnesses must needs be distinct pag. 7. Obs. Why is not that Scripture produced all this while if there be such as reveal your distinctions and notion of persons in God And why do you not know what to call those three in Heaven but Persons when T.D. knows how to call them Witnesses What ignorance and Contradictions are here T. V. From Matth. 3.16 17. Herein is a distinction of all the three persons The Son cloathed in Flesh The Spirit in the shape of a Dove The Father in the Voice c. pag. 34. Contr. W.M. The Father Son and Holy Ghost being of an infinite Nature are three Persons Co-essential Co-equal Co-eternal pag. 29. Contr. T.V. The Son being Eternal his Generation must be Eternal the personal property of the Holy Ghost is to proceed from the Father and the Son pag. 36. Obs. Quest. But was Christ being cloathed with Flesh or the Spirits appearing in the shape of a Dove or being sent from Eternity are these pertinent proofs of their distinct personalities which are reckoned Co-eternal c. And whether or to whom was the Spirit sent from Eternity T.V. The Holy Ghost is God which W.P. doth deny pag. 32. his denyal of the Divinity of Christ is plain pag. 28. Contr. T.V. The Unity of the God-head is not denyed by the Adversaries I have to do withal pag. 28. Obs. So here the same person that is accused for denying the Divinity of Christ is in these latter words cleared as not denying that Unity of the God-head and to be sure he doth confess the Father the Word and the Spirit to be One being one Divine Substance and so One God T. V. The Son is God co-essential co-equal co-eternal with the Father Christ is infinite in power wisdom and goodness eternal pag. 29 30. T. V. In regard of his humane Nature the Jewes speak truth Joh. 8.57 Thou art not yet fifty years old as he was a Son of Abraham and born many generations after him pag. 31. Obs. Quest. And was not he a Person as he was a Son of Abraham not fifty years old if he was as I never heard any yet deny and your Doctrine supposes a Trinity of distinct Persons as being co-eternal co-equal c. doth not this then render Christ as a Son of Abraham to be a fourth person 2. Touching Pardon and Satisfaction T. V. That God never doth nor will nor can pardon any sinner without Satisfaction made to his offended Justice for their sins because his Holiness Righteousness and Truth obligeth him to take Vengeance upon all that have transgressed his Law pag. 54. T. V. Christ the eternal Son of God the second person of this glorious Trinity the Doctrine of Satisfaction depending upon this person The Lord Jesus Christ proved to be God equal with the Father pag. 54. Contrad T. D. Many of us do not affirm any impossibility of forgiveness without Satisfaction and for my part though I know some worthy Persons do deny W. P 's affirmative yet I cannot joyn with them therein for to me it is evident that God is free in his Determinations what Attribute he will manifest pag. 17 18. Contrad T. V. God proclaims himself to be gracious and merciful pag. 60. He is exalted upon the Throne of his Mercy ready to forgive sinners pag. 60 61. God was at the Charges of his own Satisfaction Job 33.24 pag. 62. Obs. Then it appears That God had Power to shew himself Gracious he willeth not the Death of sinners but rather their return and Merciful ready to forgive sinners upon Repentance he being at the Charges of his own Satisfaction as is said in giving his Eternal Son who is confessed to be God equal with the Father all which in the best sense amounts to this That God satisfied himself with his own Gift and without performing his own Will he could not be satisfied And who ever doubted or made question or Controversie of that if it were so taken but this proves not their unscriptural terms phrases and notions of Law supposed in the case nor yet that God took vengeance on Christ instead of all Transgressors and they to go free and yet still sin T. V. It was necessary that the Person that should make Satisfaction should be a Man because none but a Creature
little Storm or Persecution comes to try you its probable the Back-doors Back-wayes Closets Cole-holes Garrets or Cock-lofts with the Back-leads c. may stand you Professors in some stead as they have done many of you otherwise if there be no such By-wayes to make an escape and run away the Table spread with Victuals or Beer and Tobaco may stand for a colour and pretence in your Meetings as they have in some of them to delude those that shall oppose you and make them believe a lie and discover what spirit and religion Independants and Presbyterians are of W. M. * See his shuffle here for neither Nature nor Man simply can be called Three distinct separate Persons as Peter James and John were and as they say the Father Word and Spirit are Contradict * That was not Christ. * Where then is the Impossibility in him for it see Matth. 19.26 Luk. 1.37 Contr. to the former * Not upon his beloved Son Christ. All which Contradict their Doctrine of Imperfection and prove our Principle and then their filthy Raggs of self-Righteousness and best Performances which are sinful are shut out of both Union and Intimacy with Christ as not proceeding from any true dependance upon him or that Spirit and Truth wherein the True and Living God is Worshipped by all such as are of the true Circumcision In the Margent are J. Owen and T. Danson 's Doctrines [a] Jo. Owen For the term of Satisfaction the right understanding of the word it self depends on some Notions of Law that as yet we need not take into Consideration pag. 150. [b] J. O. He Christ bare our sins or the punishment due unto them pag. 160. He answered the Law and the penalty of it pag. 161. T.D. The deliverer undergoes the evil in kind which he that is delivered should have undergone pag. 24. Obs. Here is as much opposition between these men and Dr. Still as if J. O. should say It was the very same punishment c. but E. S. Nay It was not the very same c. [c] T. D. Christ when he suffered was not Innocent and when God required satisfaction of him it was due from him c. [d] J.O. God as supream Ruler dispenseth not with the Act of Law but the immediate object and substitutes another Sufferer in the room of them who are principally lyable unto the sentence c. [e] J. O. The Son of God was upon the account of the Dignity of his Person able to Answer the Penalty which all others had incurred [f] J.O. That God did so lay our sins in and by the sentence of the Law upon him c. pag. 166. [g] T. D. God admits of what Christ did on our behalf as if it had been our personal Act as the Creditor Cancels the Bond le ts the Debtor out of Prison and gives him as Legal a Discharge upon the Sureties payment c. Observe T. D's words below whereupon 1. I ask if refusable Payment how then is God bound to take Vengeance in T. V. his sense 2. If another thing be paid How agrees this with J. O? For [h] T. D. Supposes That Satisfaction to be Solutio recusabilis Refusable payment dum alius solvit aliud solvitur When another Person then what was obliged makes payment another thing is paid then what the Law required * As J. O. T. D. T. V. they being the Mistakers [h] T.D. That Christ made a Compensation to God for the Injury done him by our sin which may be both by doing and suffering Justice that is Vindictive * For which see their railing Language as Black-mouthed Blasphemers hiddeous Blasphemers with Socinian and damnably Heretical Opinions c. used by T. V. They may receive a Check from Dr. Stillingfleet to the Reader viz. It may be some will be dissatisfied that I give our Adversaries no harder Names but I never found any men convinced by ill Language and those we have to deal withal are too subtile not to distinguish between loud Clamours and Demonstrations I leave that Method of Confuting them to those who have greater Abilities in that way I think it very Incongruous for us while we Magnifie the Patience and Meekness of Christ in his Sufferings to discover our Passion in Disputing about them [a] T. Danson Christ when he Suffered was not Innocent and when God required Satisfaction of him it was due from him Christ was guilty of our sin when he Suffered for it Synopsis pag. 36. Christ was made sin by Imputation therefore so are we made Righteous pag. 40. [b] T.D. A state of freedom from sin is not attainable in this life No man ever did attain a state of Perfection viz. none of the eminently Holy Persons in the Scripture pag. 55. Yet Perfection is commanded Be ye therefore perfect as your Heavenly Father c. Mat. 5.48 Such Commands are the measure of our Duty not of our Attainments pag. 57. [b] T.D. A state of freedom from sin is not attainable in this life No man ever did attain a state of Perfection viz. none of the eminently Holy Persons in the Scripture pag. 55. Yet Perfection is commanded Be ye therefore perfect as your Heavenly Father c. Mat. 5.48 Such Commands are the measure of our Duty not of our Attainments pag. 57. [b] T.D. A state of freedom from sin is not attainable in this life No man ever did attain a state of Perfection viz. none of the eminently Holy Persons in the Scripture pag. 55. Yet Perfection is commanded Be ye therefore perfect as your Heavenly Father c. Mat. 5.48 Such Commands are the measure of our Duty not of our Attainments pag. 57. * His tasting Death was not the Revenge that the Wicked have incurred neither is Grace Revenge