Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	father_n	nature_n	son_n	13,355	5	6.0279	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36551	A synopsis of Quakerism, or, A collection of the fundamental errors of the Quakers whereof these are a taste, viz. 1. That there are not three persons in the God-head, 2. That Christ did not make satisfaction for the sin of man, 3. That justification is not by imputed righteousness, 4. That our good works are the meritorious cause of our justification, 5. That a state of freedom from sin, is attainable in this life, 6. That there is a light in every man, sufficient to guide him to salvation, 7. That the Scripture is not the word of God, nor a standing rule of faith and life, 8. That there is no resurrection in the body, 9. That there's no need nor use of ordinances, baptisme, Lords Supper, &c. : collected out of their printed books : with a brief refutation of their most material arguments, (and particularly, W. Pens, in his late Sandy foundation shaken) and an essay towards the establishment of private Christians, in the truths opposed by those errors / by Tho. Danson ...	Danson, Thomas, d. 1694.	1668 (1668)	Wing D218; ESTC R8704	44,296	95

Card. Pool that when one asked him how be should do to understand the former part of Pauls Epistle to the Romans Replied by practising the latter the former part being Doctrinical and hard the latter Practical and plain In vita Card. Poli. The neglect of such Advice hath provoked God to give men over to strong Delusions to believe Lies gross Figments such as I have here presented thee with Reader I shall not detain thee any longer but recommend thee and this small Piece to the Blessing of God by which if thou art preferved from being led away with the Errours of the Wicked and falling from thy own stedfastness I have obtained my end and shall therein rejoyce for e●er Thy Servant in the Gospel Tho. Danson London Decemb. 13. 1668. A Synopsis of Quakerisme 1. Errour That One God does not subsist in Three Persons THree things I must necessarily premise before I come to the proof of the Proposition which the Quakers deny 1. I must necessarily explain the word Person the usual Definition is Rationalis naturoe individua Substantia or an individual Substance of a rational Nature which Aquinas desends sum Par. 1. Q. 29. art 2. but some think it lyable to some Exception as whereby the humane Soul separated from the Body and the humane Nature of Christ are made Persons and therefore add to it Quoe nec est pars alterius nec ab alio Sustentatur i. e. which is neither the part of an other nor is upheld by an other I shall not interpose my Judgment in the case as remembering that I write for the Unlearned I shall chuse to borrow that of the Learned Wottan on John 1. vers 1. 2. pag. 29. which is the plainest and will not be gain-said I suppose by any Learn●● Man A Person is an individual Subsistence or Subsistent rather in an intellectual Nature or a several or singular thing that subsists by it self in a nature indued with Vnderstanding 1. The thing which we call a Person is by nature indued with Reason and Understanding A man we call a Person but we give not that name unto a bruit B●ast An individual or singular Creature of that kind is called in the Schools Suppositum 2. A Person notes some one indued with Reason and Understanding which is several and distinct by himself from another And hereby we exclude 1. Qualities or Vertues as Fortitude Temperance c. from being Persons though found in a rational Nature and distinct one from another because they subsist not by themselves but in a subject For a Person is entire of it self and must not depend on any thing as a property thereof And hereby we exclude 2. The Soul separated from the Body for the Soul is a part of the humane Species or of mans Nature and Retinet naturam unibilitatis as Aquin●s speaks Sum. p. 1. Q. 29. art 2. is to be looked upon as a part still in its Separation the Separation of it from the Body being a violence offer'd to it and therefore can no more be called a Person than the hand or foot ●ut off the Body or then a part the foot for instance of a Beast can be call'd a Suppositum 2. That the word person cannot properly be attributed to Father Son and Holy Ghost because they do not subfist 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 be not only Three Persons but Three God● which need not be a wonder for as Divines say Deus creaturae nihil habent commune praeter nomen God and the Creature have nothing common to them both but names which Rule must be understood with the Limitation that other Rule suggests Nomina de De● creaturis non univoce nec pure aequivoce Sed analogice dicuntur secundum analogiam Creaturarum ad ipsum Aquinas Sum. par 1. Q. 29. Art 3. That the names common to God and the Creatures do not signifie simply the same thing nor wholly different but something wherein the Creature bears some Analogy to God 3. Yet may this word person be used by us and t is used in the Scripture of the Father Heb. 1. 3. to express the distinction of Father Son and Spirit in the God-Head and one from another And the reason why it may be used is this because a person signifies that which is most excellent and perfect in Nature and what the Scripture hath revealed to us concerning that distinction in the God-Head cannot be apprehended by u● under any other Notion or Resemblance which therefore we Attribute to God ye● after a most excellent manner For the nature of Man being finite may be multiplyed into many several Men or Persons of the same kind or Nature But the divine nature being infinite cannot possibly admit of a Multiplication For that there should be two infinite Natures implies a Contradiction Therefore when Father Son and Spirit are said to be Three and yet but one God we know not what to call those three but Persons for there is that ascribed to them viz Properties and Operations which cannot agree but either to Three Gods or Three Subsistents that is persons though not strictly yet proportionably or Analogically so call'd in the God-Head And thus I think I have in effect answered all the Arguments of the Antitrinitarians before I meddle with them For their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or grand Errour is that because the word person is not praedicated of Father Son and Holy-Ghost and of the Creature vnivoce that is the same word does not signifie wholly the same thing in God and the Creature Therefore they deny Personality of Son and Spirit whereas though the name person does not agree to them in the sence of it's first Imposition yet it does as to what we intend to signifie thereby answerable to the notion the Scripture hath Impressed on our minds Vid. Aquin. Sum. Q. 29. art 3. p. 1. In the next place I shall propose one Scripture and from thence gather some Conclusions the proof whereof will be all I shall offer and as much as will be needful for private Christian's Confirmation in the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity 1. John 5. 7. For there are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy-Gho●t and these Three are One. The causal Conjunction for implies a re●son of somewhat foregoing viz That Jesus Christ was the Son of God vers 5. And so these words contain an Argument drawn from indubitable Testimonies And from them we may deduce Prop. 1. That there is but one God one in this verse is explained as meant of God vers 9. The Witness of God is greater referring to the Witness concerning Christ vers 7. not to vers 8. for none of those Witnesses are God Prop. 2. That Father Word and Spirit are Three Subsistents or persons 1. He attributes the Act of bearing Record to them

now all Witnesses properly so call'd are Persons 2. That is not all but the Apostle joyns Word and Holy-Ghost with the Father whom all acknowledge a Person as Witness of the same kind so that if he be a Person then are they also Persons 3. I add that the attributes of God the Father or instance Omniscience which cannot agree but to a Person are also ascribed to the Word or Son and to the Spirit Jesus knew all things Joh. 2. 22. Acts 5. 9. of which see the Fifth Proposition I know that this proves their Deity too but I produce it only to prove their Person●lity Prop. 3. That Father Word or Son and Spirit are Subsistants or Persons of the same Order In Heaven as to the Father notes the Seat of his Glory and Majesty as appears by the use of that phrase in the Lords Prayer and why not then as to Word and Spirit And some stamp of Divinity more than ordinary is intended for otherwise there are many Witnesses and Persons in Heaven the Angels who from Heaven bore Record of Christ Luke 2. 10 13. Prop. 4. That the Father Word or Son and Spirit are distinct one from another appears from the Text in Conjunction with the story to which they refer Mat. 3. 17. where the Father and Spirit bear Record concerning the Son ●● one distinct from them both And John 8. 18. the Word did bear Record of himself And these did bear Record in a different manner The Father by a Voice from Heaven the Spirit by assuming the shape of a Dove The Son by Word of Mouth on Earth Put all together here were Testimonies given from distinct places Earth Heaven to distinct Sences Ear Eye by distinct actions speaking assuming a shape Then these Witnesses must needs be distinct Again it appears the Father Son and Spirit are distinct one from another 1. From their Incommunicable Properties The Father begets and is not begotten the Son is begotten and does not beget Heb. 1. For unto which of the Angels said he at any time Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee vers 5. The Apostle speaks of an Eternal Generation of the Son of God declared and made manifest in time by the Resurrection of Christ from the dead see Acts 13. 33. compared with Rom. 1. 4. John 1. 18. Christ is called the only begotten Son of God The spirit proceeds from the Father John 15. 26. and Christ says I will send from the Father a mission implies a pr●cession from both 2. From their Order which may be collected from those properties The Father must needs be first in order of Original as in time also a Father is among men and the Son next for Relata sunt simul Naturae The Father and Son are together in Nature and then the spirit proceeding from both must needs in order be after both 3. From their manner of Oper●tion one place will suffice ●ut when the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from the Father c. Joh. 16. That Mission was but a manifestation of the presence of the Spirit by a new effect viz. or a clearer Revelation of Christ and the order is the Son sends from the Father or the Father sends by the Son the Spirit to testifie of Christ Prop. 5. To be proved is that every one of these Three distinct Persons are truly God vers 9. He calls the Witnesse given by Three in in Heaven the Witnesse of God therefore each Witness is God not to speak of the names God given to them which is more lyable to cavil as being sometimes given to Creatures 1. It appears by the properties of the God-Head given to Son and Spirit as for the Father he is acknowledged to be God on all hands 1. From their Omnipresence Lo I am with you always to the end of the World Math. 28. ult spoken of Christ Psal 139. 7. Whither shall I go from thy spirit or whither shall I flee from thy presence 2. Omniscience John 2. 24. Jesus knew all men Acts 5. 9. Why have yee agreed together to Tempt the spirit of the Lord i. e. to try whither he could discover your Hypocrisie There are other Instances of Divine properties but let these suffice 2. By the Works or Operations proper to God as 1. Creation Eccles 12. 1. Remember thy Creators so the He● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1. 2. By whom also he made the World T is spoken of God the Father with reference to Christ and 〈◊〉 ●implies that the Son of God joyned with his Father in making the World as an efficient Cause equal in Power not as an Instrument for there can be none in Creation because to make something out of nothing requires Infinite power and between a finite power and nothing there is no proportion Job 33. 4. The spirit of God made me 2. Preservation Heb. 1. 3. Vpholding all things by the Word of his Power spoken of the Son or Christ Gen. 1. 2. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the Waters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Commovens in cubans used of Birds brooding their Yong Deut. 32. 11 and so applied me●aphorically to the spirits Operation in conse●●ing the Chaos 3. That Son and Spirit are truly God Isa ●● 8. by the Right they have to be Objects of Divine Worship And let all the Angels of God Worship him Spoken of the Son who is call●d God and said to have a Throne or Seat of Majesty to the person whereon Worship is given Heb. 1. 6 8. and Rev. 1. Grace Mercy and Peace from him which is and is to come and from the seven spirits i. e. the spirit that is manifested in Variety of Gifts which are before the Throne and from Jesus Christ Though John speaks in the Third Person yet ●t is a Prayer and so in effect an add●ess to the Persons as if he had said O Father 〈◊〉 and spirit Grant these Churches Grace Mercy and P●●ce Cant. 4. ult Awake thou North Wind and come thou South i. e. O Blessed spirit bre●th into my heart spirit compared to Wind Jo●n 3. 8 the same Word signifies both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And to the son Acts 7. 59. Lord. Jesus receive my spirit Prop. 6. That these Persons are not divided on● from another so as to be Three Gods but on● God appears from the Text in that ●● call● the Witness of Three the Witness of one viz in natu●e or essence which is vers 9. said to b● God not Three Divine natures but one is predicated of the Three Witnesses And thus a way is made to an Answer to W. P s. Arguments Arg. 1. If there be Three distinct Persons then Thr●● distinct Substances Ans I deny the Consequence because as 〈◊〉 shewed before the Word Person is not p●●d●cated of Father Son and Holy Ghost and 〈◊〉 the Creature univoce that is the same Wo●● does not signifie wholly the same thing in God and the

Creature But in God Three Perso● notes a subsisting of Three in one Individu●● Nature in Man a subsisting of Three Pet●● James and John suppose for instance i● Thr●e divided or several Natures of the sam● kind Arg. 2. Either the Divine Persons are Finite 〈◊〉 Infinite if Infinite then Three distinct Infinites and so three Gods Ans 1. We may deny the Disjunction finit●ness and infiniteness are not Personal but Essential properties For in the Notion of the Nature these properties are coutained before you consider that Nature as in a Person So finiteness in respect of man and infiniteness in respect of God And hence though all the properties of the Divine Nature whereof infinit●ness is one agree to each Person subsisting in that Nature yet will it not follow that there are three ●nfinites but only one because there are not three Divine Natures but only one of which one Nature Infiniteness is a property Ans 2. Suppose we grant that these three Persons may be said to be Infinite t is no more in effect than to ●ay that these three Persons are God we may as well attribute to the Person the property included in the Divine Nature as the Divine Nature which includes the property the Nature and Property b●ing one re though not ratione Ans 3. Yet will it not follow that Father Son and Spirit be three distinct Infinites or which is all one three distinct Gods the property and Nature being really one though different according to our way of apprehension as I said above because those three subsist not in three sever●l but in one Individual Nature Arg. 3. If each Person be God and that Go● subsists in Three Persons then in each pe●Pe●son ar● Three Persons or Gods and so from Three they will increase to nine Ans 1. If he understands the Terms God 〈◊〉 we do in the Antecedent of God essentially no such consequence will follow no more than i● this instance If Peter James and John each Person b● Man and that Man subsists in those three Persons then in each of those three Persons 〈◊〉 three Persons or Men and so from three the will increase to nine Take Man here not so a Person but the Nature as we do God in th● Antecedent of Pens Hypothetical Syllogism●● and t is evident that we mean no more then th● the name Man may be attributed to Peter Jame and John because the same humane Nature 〈◊〉 mean specifically agrees to them and so is th● name God attributed to each Person because th● same Divine Nature subsists in each of them 〈◊〉 rather each of them subsists in the same num●rically Divine Nature There is no Cons●quence in Pens Argument unless we held th● each person in the God-Head subsists in 〈◊〉 persons which he goes about unworthily to i● finuate Ans 2. I rather think he hath catched at som● what in our Writers which he did not well u●derstand which he would represent as our Judgments and thence deduce his absurd Conse quence viz that Nature and Person in the God-Head or God are one thing For the Nature of God is so simple that it admits of no parts or Accidents The three Persons are not three parts either essential or Integral of the God-Head nor can the relative properties begetting being begotten proceeding be accidents but substantial attributes as the absolute properties Wisdom Merey Justice for instance yet will it not follow that there are three Persons in each Person that is that the Persons includes each other any more then that these three absolute Attributes include each other For the Conception or Notion that we have of the Father suppose as a subsistent or Person is in●dequatus conceptus in respect of the Divine Es●ence considered as affecta Subsistentia or subsisting in divers manners and so does not include the Son and spirit who subsist in two different manners from him And as we cannot say that he Notion of Justice does include Mercy or the Notion of Mercy include Justice though the Divine Essence or God be the same with both those properties so 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 he Father though each of those Persons are he Divine Essence or God and so nor does he Father nor Son include the Spirit or the Spirit include them by the like Reason which w● may thus Ill●st●ate and indeed confirm by comparing the Acts of those absolute Attributes and the properties of those relative Attributes A● punishing is not an Act of Mercy nor sparing 〈◊〉 Act of Justice nor does the one Act include th● other So nor does the Attributes of Mercy and Justice include each other So as begettin● is not being begotten nor being begotten is 〈◊〉 begetting so nor does the Notion of the Fath●● include the Son nor of the Son include the F●ther 4. The fourth is answered in the answer to t●● second and we do not affirm the Person in the God-Head to be finite but infinite 5. If those three distinct Persons are one wit● the God-Head then are they each one with another That 's the sum though he multiplie● words Answ That Argument is grounded though 〈◊〉 does not express nor perhaps understand it upon that rule Quae conveniunt in uno tertio con●●niunt inter●se Those things which are one 〈◊〉 some third thing are one among themselv●● And I answer That rule is to be understood that they are one among themselves only in r●spect of that wherein they agree not simply 〈◊〉 in this plain instance David was a Man and S●lomon was a Man they two agree in a third thin● viz. in the humane nature Will it therefore f●●low that they are one Person nothing les● 〈◊〉 though the Father be God and the Son God it will not follow that they are one Person for in personality or manner of subsistence they differ but only it will follow that they are one God or one in that Divine nature in which third these two meet And now I shall take notice of my Answer to his Question mentioned p. 10. of his Sandy Foundation shaken and his reply thereto Where first the Reader is to know that W. P. conceals his ignorance or falshood in denying that Person was a Scripture term and his front in demanding an instance with that eagerness as if none could be given when I gave him that Heb. 1. 3. Again whereas he relates my Answer to his Question of whom Christ was the express Image that Christ was the express image of Gods subsistence or manner of being he does me wrong for my answer was that Christ was the express image of God the Fathers Person That which I spake of a subsistence or manner of being was in answer to his question What a Person was From whence he then infer'd that if Christ was the image of his Fathers Person he must

be the image of a mode or manner of being to which he received this reply that Christ was the image of the Father subsisting in the divine nature not of the personality or manner of the Fathers being nor yet of the divine nature in the abstract which was illustrated by the Childs bearing the image of his Father And so my answer to his two absurd consequences will be needless But if he thinks them deducible from this answer I gave him I reply thus to them To the first It makes God a Father only by subsistence that if he means that the relation of a Father arises from a personal not an essential act I see no absurdity the immanent act called begetting is not an act of God absolutely but relatively considered that is of the first Person subsisting in that God-head To the second That Christ is then a Son without a substance I answer that though the Son as God is from himself yet as God the Son he is from the Father the person and substance being inseparable As for the place he refers me to Col 1. 15. Who is the Image of the invisible God I see not how it opposes my exposition God is taken there personally for the Father not essentially for the God-head or divine nature which I prove because Christ is said to be the Image of God which if meant of God essentially then Christ must be the image of himself which cannot be And that Christ is God by nature appears by v. 16. where he is said to be the first cause and last end of all things For the translation it is good enough 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by the Greek Phylosophers for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Aristotle uses for substantia prima and secunda the the former of which is when the common nature expressed in the definition is restrained by certain proprieties to an individual which is called Person● or a Person when the nature is indued with reason Suppositum when it is not And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may by a Metalepsis yea must be rendered Person or subsistent or some word to that effect because Christ as God is of himself and so is not the image of any other there being no multiplication of the divine nature but of Persons in the nature three Vid. Amyrald de myst Trin. p. 462 c. And he that reads Justin Martyr who flourished about A. D. 150. will finde that he applies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Father Son and Spirit which answers W. P. s cavil that 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used Heb. 1. 3. and that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not used in that sense till Athanasiu's time Errour 2. The impossibility of God's pardoning sinners without plenary satisfaction refuted So Pen. Title page WHere I observe that he argues against the impossibility of God's forgiveness of sin without Satisfaction Concerning which stating of the Question I shall say that either he did or ought to have known that many of us who deny any forgiveness without satisfaction do not affirm any impossibility of forgiveness without it And for my own part though I know some worthy persons do deny W. P's affirmative yet I cannot joyn with them therein For to me it seems evident that God is free in his determinations what attribute he will manifest and in what degree and manner Had Man stood God had only manifested remunerative justice as he does in the elect Angels when Man fell God might only have manifested vindictive justice as he does upon the reprobate Angels or Devils or sparing mercy only as he does in the Persons of elect Men. This variety gives ground to believe that between these properties or attributes of justice and mercy not to speak of others and their effects an act of his meer will intervenes And neither of these is wronged by the manifestation of the other and concealment of it self For the internal glory of none of the divine attributes receives either addition or diminution by the external glory or manifestation of them in their proper effects And as for the way of redemption by Christ we may well conclude it to be a free choice by those emphatical phrases whereby it is set forth The counsel of Gods own will Eph. 1. 11. The mystery of his will his good pleasure v. 9. He that desires may in my weak judgment receive much satisfaction in this point by that short but scholastick Tract of the learned Gilbert intituled Vinditiae Supremi Dei Dominii c. In this we all agree that God does not pardon sin without satisfaction first made to his justice by Christ and he that can make clear proof of this assertion hath won the Goal from the Socinians and their partakers As for the possibility or impossibility of forgiveness without satisfaction we need not much contest seeing the cause does not depend upon either apprehension It was a wise observation of Aquinas Cumquis ad probandam fidem Christianam inducit rationes quae non sunt cog●ntes cedit in irrisionem infidelium credunt enim quod hujusmodi rationibus innitamur propter eas credimus c. Sum. par 1. Q. 32. art 1. Q. 46. art 2. I need not English the passage for they who are concerned understand the School-man without an Interpreter But because W. Pen does also oppose the fact and affirms that God pardons sin without satisfaction made by Christ to his justice I shall therefore briefly explain the terms and then give you my sense in answer to four Questions By pardon of sin we understand a gracious absolution or dissolving of the obligation the sinner is under to sustain punishment for his sin That absolution which is not some way gracious cannot be call'd a pardon Satisfaction is not a Scripture phrase but the thing is found there viz. a compensation or recompence made to God for the injury done him by our sin which may be by doing or suffering or both Justice that is Vindictive God must be considered as a supream Rector or Judge and not as Pars Laes● the party offended only in the satisfaction made and if any thing be done for satisfaction when the letter of the Law requires suffering or undergoing of a penalty therein expressed it must in some respect or other have rationem poenae as suppose in regard of the person by w●om be penal and in merit equivalent to what the Law required and so esteemed by the person to whose acceptance it is tende●'d The Q●erys I shall answer to are Qu. 1. What did Christ tender to God for Satisfaction Answ His obedience or subjection to the Law in its penalties or curses Therefore he is said to be made a curse for us Gal. 3. 13. And also to the Law in its precepts whence he is said to be made under the Law ipso facto upon his being

Resurrection are Arg. From Eccles 3. 19 20 21. Whence he concludes the fleshly Bodies of Men rise not again for if the fleshly Bodies of Men rise again and not the flesh of Beasts then Mens Bodies have a preheminence over a Beasts Body and to affirm the Bodies of Men shall rise again were to give Solomon the lie Answ Men are said to be Beasts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not simply but in a certain respect viz. in respect of the mortality of the Body which being composed of the same materials with bruit Beasts is as lyable to a dissolution In respect of the immortality of Mans Soul and the Resurrection of his Body He hath preheminence above a Beast As for Verse 21. if they be the Atheists words personated by Solomon they note the Reason of his Opinion because the difference between Man and Beast as to their future state is not visible as their agreement in their dissolution is If they be Solomon's own words he cannot be supposed to mean any more than that the different disposal of the spirits of Man and Beast is not visible to the eye of sence and but dimly to the eye of reason and faith and so may be an occasion of the Atheists conceit that that difference in their future state is but talk and uncertain conjecture For Ch. 12. 7. Solomon tells us that The Spirit of Man returns to God that gave it viz. to be disposed of as Justice or Mercy shall see meet Arg. 2. From Job 7. 8. The Fye of him that bath seen me shall see me no more But if all rise again then the Eye that hath seen him may see him again which Opinion giveth Job the lie Answ The meaning of Job can be but that the Eye that had seen him should after his death see him no more in statu quo not with such worldly comforts about him as now he had Verse 10. he instances in a return to his House They that had seen him and Inhabitant in the Land of Vz should never see him there again in that capacity Vers 7. He says his Eye should see no more good compare that passage with this in hand and they amount to this that Job should after death no more in joy the accommodations of this life and therefore no Eye could be witness of any such in joyment That Job did not intend a denial of the Resu●●●ction of his Bod● unless we will make Job give himsel● the lie is evident by Chap. 19. 26 27. And though after my Skin worms destroy this body yet in my Flesh shall I see God whom I shall see for my self and mine Eyes shall behold and not another though my Reins be consumed within me Of which place he that would see a full explication let him read the Learned Caryl Comm on Job All that I shall infer from the summe of the words discernable by an ordinary judgment is that if Job had the same body after the Resurrection that he had before then he was as visible after as before it Arg. 3. From 1 Cor. 15. 50. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God then not the body of Man says the Quaker for that is flesh and in it is blood Answ The latter Clause of this Verse explains the former Neither doth corruption inherit incorruption where the Apostle gives us to understand that a corruptible Body shall not inherit a state of immortality the adjunct being put for the subject in both words And the Quakers interpretation crosses the whole drift of the Apostle in a great part of the Chapter which is to shew that the same Body shall rise but with so different qualities that it shall be as unlike to what it was before as the standing Corn to the Seed p●t into the Earth or as one Star is to another in brightness and lustre Vers 37 38 41. And the Apostle enumerates those qualities Vers 42 43 44. The sum whereof is that that body which was before mortal i. e. liable to death natural i. e. supported by food rest c. dishonoured by being used as an Instrument of sin and by weaknesses blemishes the fruits of sin shall become immortal i. e. not liable to death spiritual i. e. not needing nor using its former props glorious neither subject to sin or the punishment of it I might have been much larger on these points but I know great Books finde sew buyers and fewer Readers and therefore I resolved not to exceed Six Sheets I wish what I have done may prove profitable If my Answers seem not so cleer as the Objections which I hope I need not fear unless in the point of the Trinity that being a mystery so high that it re●ates the sharpest edge of humane understanding I desire the Reader to ponder upon this grave saying of a learned Man It is easier to oppose than to defend the Christian Religion for it having something in it above the capacity of Man's understanding 't is no hard matter by reason to oppose such a Religion Villeroy in his Counceller of State FINIS AN ADVERTISEMENT ONe of W. Pens Arguments against the Trinity I had almost omitted it being out of its proper Place in his Book viz. that in p. 10. If the God-head subsist in Three distinct Manners or Forms then one of them cannot be a compleat Subsistence without the other two and so parts and something sinite would be in God or if in finite then Three distinct in finite Subsistences and by consquence Three distinct Gods Answ Not to Quarrel at the Impropriety of Pens Phrase nor at the Coincidence in effect of this with his Third Arguments I answer by denying the consequence For as every Person is compleat In esse quid ditativo per Essentiam i. e. is truly God by having the Divine Nature So is every Person compleat In esse Personali per Subsistentiam as the Schools speak i. e. is a compleat Subsistent or Person by his proper manner of Subsisting And I wonder he should not see that his Argument may be retorted upon him thus If the God-head be in Three Manners or Forms then the God-head in one manner must needs be a compleat Subsistent and distinct from the God-head in the other two manners Or more plainly thus If the same God-head be in Father Son and Spirit then they must needs be distinct one from another and any one compleat without the other two God the Father cannot be God the Son nor can God the Son be God the Father Though both Father and Son are one God For the Persons are formally Constituted by their relative Properties and so the God-head considered with its Three relative Properties admits of a Three-sold distinction from it self absolutely considered If any shall wonder at the Distance of Time between the Date of the Epistle and Publication he may please to know that the Whole Book except the Advertisement was flnished before the Epistle but by reason of some intervening Accidents not needful nor altogether Convenient to be mentioned could not get through the Press till now ERRATA Title page dele Collected Ep. to Reader p. 1. l. 15. for referd r. refin'd l. 19. for charitably devout r. charitable and devout p. 4. l. 4. for and like this r. as in this instance Book p. ● l. 3. dele or p. 14. l. 4. dele the properties of and after attributes r. among themselves and with their Subjects p. 17. l. 7. for of Persons in the nature Three r. Three Persons in the nature p. 24. l. 1. far counterpriae r. counterprice p. 35. l. 8. dele had The Literal Faults may easily be seen and amended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gratis immerito without sufficient Cause