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
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 Eternal Word And as to thy telling of another Comforter i. e. Another as to subsistence or manner of being What manner of being and wherein can it differ from Christ's spiritul manner of being Had he another manner of being distinct from his own Who cannot see the ignorance and confusion of thy blind distinction For it appears that thy distinction of three distinct Persons subsistences or manners of being is attributed to the Father Son and Holy Ghost before Christ's Bodily or Personal Appearance in the form of a Servant thou telling us they being of an infinite nature are three persons Is this a good Argument for thy turn whereas T.V. saith Christ as man was not fifty years old pag. 31. whilst thou argues from John 14.16 for their being three distinct persons subsistences or manners of being For were they three distinct Comforters of an infinite nature Or three distinct separate persons of an infinite nature And was Christ's manner of being in the Flesh of an infinite nature Or was he therein a Fourth Person Surely when Christ had taken upon him the form of a Servant and that he said My Father is greater than I now W.M. confesseth that the form of God was his divine nature which is above the form of a Servant and he being in the likeness of sinful flesh made a little lower than the Angels in respect of his Sufferings humbling himself to the Death of the Cross. In this manner and in these capacities he was not declared to be from Eternity but as he was equal with God in his Glory before the World was neither can three coeternal coequal distinct persons be argued from thence for the Controversie runs higher as before they being of an infinite nature are three increated persons he should rather have said are one divine substance or being which is of an infinite nature But in plain Contradiction these Presbyterians tells us in their 45. pag. That in the abstract infiniteness is not aplicable to the subsistence what then is become of their three infinite increated persons or subsistences Are they now chang'd from infinite to finite What sad work is this Where are the Blasphemers now Are they not herein found guilty of that which most unjustly they have charg'd on us viz. Of that which is plainly derogatory to the Glory of the Infinite God by going to fasten the limitations of finite Creatures upon him For if there be a subsistence or personallity or manner of being as he defines subsistence in the God-head which is not infinite then something finite is in God which is no less than blasphemy to affirm And if there be three such distinct subsistences in the relative Property of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as W. M. saith pag. 19. to which infiniteness is not aplicable Then have they denied the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Infinite and by this the Reader may see what their unscriptural distinctions of Persons and Subsistences in the Deity amount to and how most derogatory to the Glory of the Infinite God they are But the remarkableness of their gross Contradictions is so obvious that he that runs may read it for one while the Father Son and Holy Ghost being of an infinite nature are three distinct persons three increated persons which renders them three distinct Infinite and so Three Gods Another while infiniteness is not aplicable to them as such or as subsistences which renders them under the limitations of finite Creatures Do you think that the wiser sort either among Papists or Protestants or Church of England own these men's management of this matter or will their Work stand them in any stead or be to the advancement of the Christian Faith in other Nations If these men should go into Turkey and also among the Indians and pretend to Preach the everlasting God or the Father the Word and Spirit under such Names Terms and Distinctions as being three distinct and separate persons or subsistences to which infiniteness is not aplicable what would be the effect and consequence of such Preachings do you think Would it not bring a reproach upon the Name and Profession of Christianity and render the Christians as believing and expecting Salvation from finite Persons or Creatures Or else if they should Preach them to be three distinct or separate Persons as being of an infinite nature might not they reasonably conclude that they were Preaching three Gods Would not this kind of Preaching more stumble the Jewes and Turks from believing in Christ than ever and the more strengthen the Heathen in their Idolatrous Imaginations especially whilst they oppose the Light within as an Idol for whilst a Doctrine is Preached implying three Gods may they not suppose many more As also how have many ignorant People in the time of Darkness been begotten into vain Imaginations touching the God-head by such Doctrine aforesaid contrary to Scripture-language as to think God to be like unto a Man or Person whereas he is a Spirit he is Invisible even that Eternal Word or Spirit which made all things and Christ is the Image of the Invisible God not divided nor separate from him whose Image he is And though in the World there are Gods many and Lords many yet to us there is but One God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and One Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him 1 Cor. 8.6 So that it was never any Design or Plot of ours to endeavour to prejudice the minds of any against the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost as falsely and blasphemously we are accused by this our prejudiced Opposer W. M. What you mean by separate I know not if you mean so separate as to destroy the unity and simplicity of the divine Essence I own no such separation if you take it to be all one with distinct then it was no begging the Question And in their 39. pag. it 's said viz. The word Separate Person I disown any further then we may conceive it to signifie no more then dictinct Answ. It appears then that T. D. and their using the word separate persons was to explain their meaning of distinct persons for it was used after distinct viz. distinct and separate persons which word separate persons they know I chiefly reflected upon at the Dispute I proving the contrary from Scripture viz. both the Oneness and Inseparability of the Father Word and Spirit but seeing they own no such separation as to destroy the Unity of the Divine Essence why did they make use of the word Separate at all in the case telling us the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct and separate persons which they confess are of one divine Essence Now they disown separate any otherwise then it signifies distinct but they should not have own'd it at all in this case Is it not sad Doctrine that supposeth any Separation Finiteness or Limitation in this Divine Being
the Question and presumption in thee especially whilst by your vain Philosophy some of you have either rendered them as Three Gods or denied them to be Infinite as in pag. 45. Yea and it was evident to many That we found fault with your mis-calling and mis-representing the Father the Word and Spirit and never in the least opposed nor questioned their being Three such as mentioned in Scripture viz. The Father Son and Holy Ghost but there openly confessed to the Fundamental Truth of them in Scripture terms And when you fell into your needless Questions and Philosophick terms of incommunicabl properties subsistences c. I to bring the matter to be more obvious to the People to shorten and mittigate the Controversie and to abate your heat did tell you That if you meant by incommunity of properties the Fathers begetting the Son and the Spirits being sent state your Question so in plain English Whether the Son was begotten and the Spirit sent of the Father and it would quickly end the Controversie But nothing would serve you but an Answer to your vain babling and School-terms with such a limitation as Aye or No as if the Scripture terms and expressions were in this to be waved and slighted as insufficient and your confusion vain â—hilosophy and deceit must be set up above the Scriptures of Truth though you profess them to be your Rule at other times But here in plain Contradiction you have gone about to obscure Divine Mysteries under your Traditional terms of Heathenish Metaphysicks and laid such a stress upon them as if all were to be deem'd Blasphemers and Hereticks and so to be damned that cannot confess own and be tyed up to your terms nice and confused distinctions which you presumptuously put upon the Father Word Spirit And as for W. M. his accusing us with rejecting the Son and so the Father It is a gross slander as many more of his accusations are and never was it in our Intention nor Doctrine so to do whilst the Oneness of Father Son and Spirit we really confess to but disown your blind distinctions which deny them Infiniteness And as for W. M. his so much talk of three Hee 's each of which he saith is by nature God We do not read in Scripture that God is called three Hee 's or three distinct Hee 's and therefore three distinct separate Persons indeed Children in the Accidence call Hee the third Person singular But that both the Father and Son speaking of themselves use the word Hee as I am Hee and he that is with you shall be in you Christ speaking of his own manifestation which was that other Comforter I will not leave you comfortless I will come unto you But each of these three Hee 's he tells of he hath told us is by nature God so then they are One as God the Word and Spirit are And as to his charge of Ignorance of Philosophy about Subsistence which he sayes is not a form of a Hee but the manner of his being His Charge of Ignorance of his kind of Philosophy and such nice distinctions as this between manner and form we can easily bear and pass by and leave them to feed upon it who will choose such chaff for their food knowing that the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ consists not in such trifles W.M. The form of God the Father is his Divine Nature but his Subsistence is his manner of being in the relative Property of the Father and so he speaks of the Form and Subsistence of the Son and Holy Ghost as his terms of them are Now touching these distinct Subsistences or manners of being wherein stands their Model distinction of Three distinct Personalities to which they say in pag. 45. That infiniteness is not applicable and that there be three distinct Personallities unto which infiniteness is not ascribed Here they have given People to understand what their meaning is about their three distinct Subsistences or Personallities that they are not Infinite What then Is the Father Son and Holy Spirit Finite What gross darkness is this Let the impartial Reader judge whether we have not sufficient ground and cause to oppose them and their vain Philosophy in this so high a matter and whether herein their Doctrine doth not blasphemously oppose the Divinity of Father Son and Spirit and they go about to eclipse and detract from the Glory of the infinite God-head whilst at other times in contradiction they confess each to be God and tell of the Eternal Son of God and say That in the concret every subsistent is infinite but not the subsistance or personallity in the abstract What darkness is here Is God divided or Father Son and Holy Ghost separate or abstract from their Essences and where then is this finite personallity so much contended for Is it in God yea or nay or relating to his Divine Being or Substance But if these distinct personallities or subsistances which they say are not infinite be the relative Properties of the Father Son and Spirit then I ask Hath not this Doctrine denied both Father Son and Holy Spirit to be infinite Let the unbyassed Readers judge And yet in Confutation of themselves again there 's God the Father the first Person God the Son a Person distinct from him God the Holy Ghost a Person proceeding from both How to make sense of these three distinctions comparing them together or how to make them hang together without rendering them Three Gods and not only so but such as are not Infinite doth not yet appear to me And whether my comparison of not understanding Paul Peter and John could be three Persons each of them an Apostle and yet all but one Apostle was not suitable to detect these mens unscriptural Doctrines and Distinctions and to shew the absurdity of the consequences thereof which whilst this railing angry man W. Madox doth so often take it as a comparing the Father Son and Holy Ghost to three Apostles herein he hath grossely wronged and abused me and his own understanding And his Charge of Blasphemy against me for that he intimates that I should say That God is but equal with man I return back upon him as a most malicious horrid slander and an apparent Lye against me It was never my intent nor saying for if I had said That God is but equal with man or compared the Father Son and Holy Ghost to three Apostles then had I and these ridgid Presbyterians accorded nearer than we did for then had I owned their Dostrine and terms of three distinct and separate persons in the God-head which are not infinite which I can never own nor believe nor depend upon any God or thing which is finite for Salvation Besides I never denied finite man nor three distinct Apostles as Paul Peter and John to be distinct and separate Persons so if I had really compared the Deity to such we had not differed about the distinction of
in this matter as he argues viz. If the Divine Essence or God head can be but One and the Father is God the Son God the Holy Ghost God and they three distinct Subsistents or Persons then they are three distinct Subsistents or Persons in the same single Divine Essence but the Essence can be but One and the Father is God the Son God c. and they are three distinct Subsistents or Persons therefore there are three distinct Subsistents or Persons Let the moderate Readers but mark this Argument and whether it carries any matter or weight of any proof or Argumentation along with it any more than an Empty Assertion Tautologies begging the Question in the sequel of the Major and so along still taking the matter in Controversie for granted which cannot be without better proof and more convincing Arguments than T.V. hath patched up and produced But as for the beginning of his Argument That the Divine Essence or God-head can be but One and this in each of the Three we never denied and T. V. has confessed it is not denied by us pag. 28. But as for the rest of his Argument it runs in the substance of it thus If they be three distinct subsistents or persons then there are three distinct subsistents or persons But they are three distinct subsistents therefore c. Or if they be so then they are so but they are so therefore they are so I shall not need to say much to shew what mean Logick this is since it is from a Person whom Reason has so far failed that he can neither clear nor demonstrate that to himself which thus pitifully he has assayed to demonstrate to others And so let the Readers judge if he be not such an one as he tells of that by attempting to bring that Mystery to the Modal of his Reason hath lost the sight and sunk into grosse Apprehensions And as for his fierce Railing against W. P. and calling him wretched Blasphemer accusing him with denying that the Lord Jesus Christ is God and with denying the Divinity of Christ and Holy Ghost and with thrusting the Lord Jesus Christ off from the Throne of his God-head c. I have not yet perceived any strength or weight of Argument from either T.V. or his Brethren that has convicted W. P. as guilty herein but rather the more they strive with him and thus grossely revile him and rail against him the more their Folly Confusion and Weakness appears And indeed if W. P. be supposed to be so grossely Erroneous as he is represented it must be more Competent Antagonists than T. V. or such Railers as he that must Convince him But his shewing the absurdity of T.V. his Doctrines and both unscriptural and unreasonable Distinctions and his denyal thereof is neither a denyal of the Son nor Spirit nor the Divinity of either but the apparent falseness of these railing and slanderous Accusations before with the Consequences thereof against W. P. in this thing touching the Divinity of Christ c. appears in his own Book pag. 14 Of Christ being the only God and the Divine Nature being inseparable to each whom they call Person have the whole Divine Nature the Son in the Father and the Spirit in the Son unless the God-head be as incommunicable to the Person so called as they are reported to be among themselves saith W.P. Doth not W.P. herein own the Divinity of Christ and Holy Spirit let the indifferent judge how T.V. has wronged him And then W. P. his Admonition pag. 15. saith Apply thy mind unto the Light and Grace which brings Salvation that by obedience thereunto those mists Tradition hath cast before thy eyes may be expel'd and thou receive a certain knowledge of that one God whom to know is Life Eternal not to be a divided but ONE pure intire and eternal Being who in the fulness of time sent forth his Son as the true Light which enlightneth every man that whosoever followed him the Light might be translated from the dark Notions and vain Conversations of men to this Holy Light in which onely sound Judgment and eternal Life are obtainable he testified the virtue of it and has communicated unto all such a proportion as may enable them to follow his Example thus far W.P. Now mark whether herein he has not owned the Divinity of the Son when thus plainly he hath confessed to his Light both as to its Extent and Virtue And so as for T. V. his railing against us so bitterly calling us black-mouth'd Blasphemers accusing W. P. with Heathenism abominableness foulness falsely comparing him to Arius c. These are but mean Arguments to Convince W. P. and doth but shew the malice and rancor of T. Vincent's Spirit and what an implacable persecuting Spirit appears among these Presbyterian Priests What cruel work would they make if they had power in their hands to persecute such as cannot be tyed up to their narrow Spirits and Principles which is the same old persecuting Spirit that cryed for Fire and Faggot after it put these names Blasphemer and Hereticks upon the Martyrs And indeed if any should be so disingenious and drowned in their understandings by prejudice as to think that the Absurdities that W. P. draws from his Adversaries Principles are his own they may be apt to charge him with Blasphemy and what not though falsely But farther how evidently hath W.P. in his 18 19 21 pag. owned and confessed Christ the Son of God and his Light and Grace both for Remission of sins Reconciliation Salvation of men Life Eternal and as he is the only begotten of the Father the Gift and Expression of Eternal Love for Salvation Now can any thing have or work these Effects that is not Divine Is not Christ's Divinity Virtue Divine Light and Power plainly confest by W.P. herein as also to his being God pag. 21. How grossely have these angry Presbyterians wronged him in so hidiously charging the contrary upon him and are not they rather justly chargeable herein with denying the Divinity of Christ in setting so slight by his Light in every man as they have done one calling it an Idol another Cautioning not to follow its guidance But the Divinity of Christ and the Honour due to him far be it from us to deny as these men have done and the Scripture-instances in that case we both know and own Joh. 3.13 Rom. 9.5 Phil. 2.6 Heb. 1.8 Joh. 2.17 Heb. 1.3 Joh. 14.1 Phil. 2.10 Col. 1.16 17. Joh. 8.58 But we are not convinced that mens invented distinctions put upon Christ does add any thing to his Honour but rather diminish from it And where in pag. 31. it is said In regard of his humane Nature the Jewes spoke true Thou art not yet fifty years old as Man he was a Son of Abraham and born many generations after him c. Now I ask if he was not a Person as Man and so born And if there were three Coeternal Persons
before whether this doth not make a fourth For as he was not fifty years old this had not reference to his Divine Nature as is confessed But then where in pag. 36. The generation of the Son must be Eternal the Son being so they say How is his Personallity with reference to his being begotten denyed to be Infinite in pag. 45. What gross and apparent Contradictions are these And as to his instance Matt. 3.16 17. how that Jesus went up out of the Water and the Spirit descended like a Dove and lo a Voice from Heaven to prove a distinction of all the Three Persons the Son was cloathed in Flesh the Spirit in the shape of a Dove the Father was in the Voice he saith c. Let the Reader but mark how far short of proving his Distinction this instance is Surely he will not say That the Son was cloathed in Flesh from Eternity nor the Spirit in a bodily shape like a Dove from Eternity for if their Personallities did consist in these visible Appearances how were they Coeternal Coessential Coequal with God c And surely Personallity doth not consist in the shape of a Dove neither do we read of the Person of a Dove besides the Spirits appearing in a bodily shape like a Dove doth not prove that the Spirit was a distinct or separate Person from Jesus for he had the Spirit in him and was not separate from the Spirit though that appearance like a Dove was for a Confirmation to John's belief of him John 1.32 33. T.V. Isa. 6.3 Holy holy holy is the Lord of Hosts the three Holies signifies the three persons the Lord of Hosts the One God I must confess I never heard this Argument before if each Holy signifie a Person how then are they spoken to the One God And if so many Holies as are given in praise to him do signifie so many distinct Persons in him then they will amount to a great many Trinities for it is said Rev. 4.8 They rest not day nor night saying Holy holy holy Lord God Almighty c. Now if all the Holies they give day and night to him be so many Persons then they will amount to Persons ad infinitum but the absurdity of this Argument who cannot but see As also his Argument from the distinct Names is little better for God is denominated under many Names more than Three And also his arguing from John 14 15 16. chap. from personal Acts as he calls them as sending the Comforter his speaking and guiding c. Where doth the Scripture call them Personal Acts Were they not Spiritual Acts of the Divine Spirit and Power of God And was there any Act but what was brought forth in time And was the Father's begetting the Son a Personal Act however was it not an Act in time if so how sayes T. V. That the Generation of the Son must be Eternal What distracted confused work is here And as to that Cavil in pag. 40. at the word ONE as not being in the Hebrew in all those Scriptures Isa. 40.25 chap. 48.17 Psal. 71.22 where Holy One is mentioned in the English which to Cavil at shews little prudence whilst Holy One and the Lord being One and the Only Wise God is often mentioned elsewhere see Zac. 14.9 which W. P. quotes is it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovah echad ushemo echad i. e. Dominus unus nomen Ejus unum One Lord and his Name One. And see Deut. 6.4 how its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovah echad One Lord but where the word Echad is not expressed whether it be not understood Besides T. V. himself pag. 33. useth these words The Lord of Hosts the One God so that he might have spared his Contradictory Cavil about it And if their distinctions be in regard of the Personallity and not of the Essence then I ask Are they three Persons both distinct among themselves and also distinct from the Essence or Being of God and so not infinite or neither finite nor infinite as most Absurdly and Contradictorily is laid down in their 44 45 46 pages as before has been mentioned And as to W. P. his Cloudy Brain Conceptions as it 's called which is so difficult to find out as they say and his Phrases so uncouth and his Reasonings so odly joynted together Indeed neither T. V. nor T. D. have shewen any such Brightness nor strength of Argument as to expel or drive away these cloudy Conceptions if they be such it must be another thing that must unvail him and overthrow what he hath said than their grosse Confusion and many apparent Contradictions which I am certain that W. P. is so far unvail'd as to have a sight and discovery of though this dark ridged Presbyterian Spirit hath sought by Persecution false Reports and Slanders to vail and obscure both him and others in whom any degree breakings forth or glimerings of true Light have appeared where they could not do it by slandering grossely villifying and traducing them they would endeavour to bring Persecution and Cruelty and outward Restraint upon them to their Power And as for their taxing W.P. for instancing Irenaeus Justin Martyr Tertullian Origen Theophil and others as appearing forreign to the matter in Controversie c. they telling us The Doctrine of the Trinity is plainly enough to be gathered from several passages in Irenaeus lib. 1. ch 2. Ecclesia accipit fidem quae est in unum Deum Patrem Omnipotentem in unum Christum filium Dei incarnatum in spiritum Sanctum qui per Prophetas praedicavit And then our Opposers ask Do not these words hold forth a distinction of those three persons To which I say However he gathers or imagines such a distinction of their being three Persons he does but beg the Question in calling them three Persons which their words no not prove nor so call them but God the Father Omnipotent Christ the Son of God and the Holy Ghost in whom the Faith of the Church is Neither do the latter words prove any thing for this purpose which mention the God of all things making and governing all things by his word and Spirit If he had asserted no otherwise herein then Irenaeus hath done there had not been this Controversie between us and them And as for the rest of the Authors they mention I do not find that they called them three distinct separate persons as T. D. did in all these Passages mentioned and quoted by them And it s known that W.P. his Controversie was principally against them for unscriptural Doctrine of the God-head subsisting in three distinct and separate persons which also their own Instance of Theophil lib. 1. Com. in Evang. doth contradict viz. Margarita pretiosa est Sancta Trinitas quae dividi non potest nam in unitate consistit the Holy Trinity is a precious Jewel which cannot be divided because it consisteth in Unity To which I say then the Glorious
competent judge over them whilst he hath perverted them both in the former Powers days and now also and whilst in those days he did indeavour to insinuate into the Powers that then were against the Quakers he was plainly manifested and his Errors and Falshoods detected by those faithfull Servants of Christ Samuel Fisher Richard Hubberthorn and my self he might now have been silent from raking over his old silly confused stuff so long since answered and confuted since that from the ample Confutation and just reproof and discovery given against him by Samuel Fisher he could never yet clear himself nor hath essayed a Replication thereto but only a slight put off as will appear without either Truth or Reason and as for his commendation of the pains of his worthy Friend Master Thomas Vincent as he calls him he has little ground to applaud his pains for he has sufficiently manifested his envy errors confusion and shallowness as any unbyassed may see as also the palpable contradictions both to himself and T. D. so that they should first have studied to see a reconciliation and harmony between their own Principles before they had come thus publickly to engage but it is the Judgement of God upon them and such giddied spirits that one should oppose and contradict another till they are both overturned and broke to pieces in their war but if his worthy Friend Thomas Vincent hath done so worthily against the Quakers why doth T. D. take so much pains again after him why doth he actum agere as he saith his Answer is because of some reflections upon him also that as experience hath shewed there is a great deal of difference of intellectual gifts and that the Method Phrase and Notions of scarce any one man are acceptable to all he saith by which it appears that he was conscious or at least jealous that his worthy Master Vincent's work would not be so acceptable as his own but would give distaste and therefore he has endeavoured to smooth it over and to new moddel it in another phrase according to what he has imagined and learned out of Writers and old Authors both Popish and others but what saith he for not answering Samuel Fisher's Book against himself Jo. Owen Baxter and Tombs Entituled Rusticus ad Academicos which they were never able to answer nor to reply to T. D. excuseth himself as followeth viz. If any Quaker shall demand why I do not answer Samuel Fisher 's Book against me instead of writing against a new man I answer that I am guided in my neglect by the judgment of abler Persons then my self that that Book is but a Bundle of impertinent cavils c. Indeed this is a very easie way of answering which if we should deal so with T. D. what would he say to it and to such neglect but this doth not clear himself from Samuel Fisher's Answer but it stands over his head and if he was guided by abler persons then himself in not answering S. F. those abler persons for ought as appears might see T. D. so baffled and confuted that it was in vain for him to strive any further and if abler persons then himself did advice him in that case he should have followed the example thereof so as not to have meddled as he hath done to the further manifesting his weakness and folly and as for his instance of Biddles twelve Articles against the Holy Ghost's Diety t is no president nor instance for us as is most falsly insinuated against us whilst we never denied the Diety or Divinity of either Father Word or Holy Ghost And how doth he advise the Reader to be at pains to understand the positive grounds of the great Truths opposed by the Quakers as he falsly saith what must give the understanding thereof if not the Light of Christ within and how must sacred mysteries be known and what must bring to the right use of reason and to understand the Scriptures if immediate Revelation or Inspiration be supposed not attainable in these days Can the natural man with his natural understanding know the things that are spiritual surely no or know the right use of the Scriptures without the guidance of that infallible Spirit that gave them forth no sure for it is the Inspiration of the Almighty that giveth understanding And Seeing also that T.D. confesseth that Reason tells us the Nature and Works of God are above our reach and that God were not Gof if he could be comprehended by a Creature which if so that the Nature and Works of God are above his and their reach and comprehension why has he essayed so much by his natural understanding to define and distinguish the Godhead into three distinct Persons which he has no Scripture for nor yet Reason to demonstrate nor Revelation to ground a Faith upon in that case whilst the Presbyterians were wont to affirm Revelation to be ceased and to be sure God will not put the Seal of his immediate power to a falshood as is confessed so that whilst we have neither Revelation Scriptures Reason nor Seal of immediate Power for their Doctrines and distinctions put upon the Diety we have ground at least to question them if not positively to oppose them as unscriptural irrational implicite Doctrines and Traditions which hath tended to vail both the glory of God Christ and holy Spirit which we confess from people And now to T. D's definition of the word Person first from Aquinas as being an individual substance of a rational nature but his worthy Friend Tho. Vincent hath denied the Father the Word and the Spirit to be three Substances then I ask how they can be three distinct Persons whilst a Person is an individual Substance what contradiction is this But then T. D. saith Some think it viz. Aquinas his Explanation of Person liable to some exception and therefore he chuseth to borrow that of learned Wotton on 1 Joh. 1.2 pag. 2. that a Person is an individual Subsistance or Subsistent rather in an intellectual nature or a several or singular thing that subsists by it self c. A Man we call a Person a Person notes some one endued with Reason and understanding which is several and distinct from another a Person is intire of it self c. pag. 1 2. Concerning which I query first whether the Father the Word and holy Spirit be three several and singular things that subsist each by himself each one from another yea or nay Secondly whether a man being a Person is a competent instance for proof of his Maker being three several Persons and whether a man subsists by himself Thirdly whether Christ be several and distinct by himself from God and the holy Spirit several and distinct from both If yes where or in what place of the whole world or out of it is the one entire and severed from the other and how far distant one from another Fourthly And if the Father Son and Holy Ghost do
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
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
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
named amongst them as becometh Saints Eph. 5. And how corrupt and grosse is T. V's reason for his wicked and unsavoury Doctrine before in saying Because the defilement of the Soul is more deep and more hard to be washed off than the defilement of Whoredom or Adultry As if they did not defile the Soul but the Body only this is a Doctrine that may gratifie Whoremongers and Adulterers and not only to reject the wholsom Warnings and Reproofs against all such Wickedness which both in their own Consciences and in our Meetings is declared and Preached against but also it tends rather to incourage them to go to Bawdy-houses than to our Innocent and Godly Meetings wherein the Truth Righteousness and Power of God which cleanseth and frees from sin and unrighteousness is exalted and born witness to T.V. having so manifestly discovered his Spirit he had now better go and sit down under the Common Prayer and confess himself a miserable Sinner among the rest and not remain in a separation with his whewling and whineing Prayers feigning himself as one more Holy and Humble than they What sober People could have thought that such foulness should lie under these Presbyterians coverings as is mentioned before and after And T. V. further adds to explain his gross corrupt Doctrine these words viz. I told her if there stood a Cup of Poyson in the Window I would rather drink it than drink in their damnable Doctrines because poysoning of the Body is not so bad as poysoning and damning the Soul By which the Reader may further see how his prejudice and envy hath blinded him thus to imply as if Persons might commit either Whordom or Murder upon their Bodies and their Souls not be defiled or damned thereby and then what actual wickedness may not People commit and their Souls not be damnified nor prejudiced by it from this Doctrine whereas the wicked slayeth his own Soul lifteth up his Soul to vanity the Peoples lusting after evil things caused leanness to enter their Souls tribulation and anguish is to come upon every Soul of man that doth evil And it is only the Power and Life of God which purifies the Soul sanctifies the Creature throughout in Body Soul and Spirit and so leads into Righteousness and thereby saves and brings the Soul to God and gives it Life and indues it with the Image of the Heavenly But after this T. V. hath uttered such corrupt Language and Doctrine as before he is so bold as to justifie himself in these words viz. I am sure I neither did nor spake any thing unbecoming a Minister of the Gospel That I refer all modest and sober Readers to judge of Whether T. V. hath spoken Truth herein yea or nay and whether or no it had not been more prudence for him to have studied quietness and quietly to have followed his Devotion with thankfulness for the Liberty they are permitted to enjoy then thus to have shewed himself in outrage with clamorous reproaches and reviling against us who mean him no harm to the great disgrace both of himself and his Religion and them that adher to him therein And as for his accusing me with confused Discourse and indirect Answers to his Arguments and with filling my Mouth and the Peoples Ears with a multitude of words wherein was so much ambiguity and obscurity that the sentiments of my mind were not easily to be perceived as he saith Wherein I have as much cause to complain of not having direct Answers from him as he seems to have against me whilst he was so puzled and put to it with what I said though I answered them in plain Scripture-language And wherein their Questions or pretended Arguments were either indirect or in terms which accorded not with Scripture-language I did not judge my self ingaged so far to admit of the stating their matters as being infallible in the manner and terms of them as to be tyed to Yea or Nay denial of Major or Minor without further scruple Their Arguments appear hereafter And whereas T. V. pleads for using some words in explaining Scripture which are not in the Scripture saying That the Quakers in their Books use many words which are not in the Scripture I Answer We neither contend with words or matters which are not contrary or do not tend to vail or darken the Truth 's or simplicity of the innocent language contained in Scripture neither do we go about to impose one manner and form of expression upon others or limit them therein whilst they speak the Truth or what is in or according to Scripture We are not of Kin to the narrow Spirit of the ridged Presbyters that will count a man a blasphemous Heretick Socinian Arian and what not if he can't repeat his Creed of the Deity or Father Word and Spirit in their invented School-terms although he really believeth and confesseth according to Scripture unto the only true God the eternal Word and Spirit or the Father Son and Holy Spirit and that they are One and in Unity inseparable And whereas T. V. saith That W. P. puts forth the sting of the Serpent in tearming his Prayers strangely affected Whines what more opprobious terms saith he would the Damn-me Blades of the Times have used c. Answ. To which I say That he did not only use a strange affected way of Whineing in his feigned Praying but also therein most falsely accused us for Blasphemers in telling God That we compared Him and his Son and Holy Spirit to three finite Creatures which more justly was charged upon himself and his Brethren from their distinction of Persons in the Deity T. V's lye to God was so apparent in this matter that some that were by said The next time he Prayed he had need to ask God forgiveness for telling him that Lye for our comparison was to evince the natural consequence of their own distinction and the gross tendency of it as further is mainfest and not to represent the infinite God like unto man or finite Creatures as they have done about their Personalities And his comparing W. P's words to such tearms as those use he calls The Dam-me Blades of the Times he should rather have began at home and judged himself for his own wicked opprobious terms in saying It was worse to go to the Quakers Meetings than to a Bawdy-house what more gross terms could the Damners and Sinkers have used but evil words corrupt good manners And as for his Confidence that it is a falshood that they did use such words as impudent villain that there was striking among some of T. V's Hearers There are Persons of repute and credit who can testifie both against them and to my knowledge an honest sober Women did affirm That one of his Hearers thumpt her on the Breast when we were about that Dispute with them besides the malice envy and rudeness that appeared amongst them in clamouring railing and reviling us like the Billings-gate folks though
Believers and if he loves his Image in his People freely then he is satisfied in his own Image and that which brings to know and injoy this Image and the renewing of it within is that which brings into Love and Union with God which is his Divine Spirit and Power that renews man into the Heavenly Image and Righteousness of the Everlasting God which they that injoy have the acceptable Sacrifice and from thence can present Living Sacrifices unto God to his Eternal Praise And to T. V's saying That if Christ were not punished for us to satisfie God's Justice it would follow from W. P 's words that Christ should be a sinner and that he was punished for his own sins Reply That 's a blasphemous Consequence indeed but not truly charged upon W. P. for he never intended by his words to render Christ a sinner nor that he was punished for his own sins for he never sinned but he was Punished and Suffered by sinners who by wicked hands and so by their injustice put him to Death and under the buden and weight of their Transgressions he Suffered as also his tender Spirit that made Intercession and suffered for Transgressors from a fore-sight of the Wrath that should come upon the Rebellious and was not the Wicked the Instruments that wounded bruised and afflicted him and that oppressed his Righteous Soul And did not his Innocent Life and Righteous Soul suffer under a great oppression and weight of man's Transgression when he was in his Agony and sweat drops of Blood before his being Crucified And so was not his Suffering two-fold both Inward and Outward And then if so that the pure Life and holy Spirit suffered as bearing the burthen of their sins and if the God-Head being in Christ so nearly united as to bear up the Manhood under the Suffering as is confessed How then can it be deemed that God inflicted the punishment of Eternal Wrath or Vengeance on his Son Surely his permitting wicked men by their wicked hands to punish him with a Temporal Suffering and Death could not be his Eternal Wrath or Vengeance which is supposed to Answer and Satisfie Divine Justice for man and so to acquit man Living and Dying in sin a great Error from Eternal Wrath whereas Christ Jesus was the Son of his Love were it not inconsistent to say That God's Justice did punish or execute Wrath upon his Love Seeing that it 's confest That Grace and Justice are very well consistent and that there is a free Exercise both of Justice and Love without force or compulsion How does T.V. his matter hang together let the moderate judge But had he stated it in the Language and sense of the Scriptures of Truth there had not appeared this Contrariety nor Opposition either between us or with himself For Scripture-accounts concerning Christ and his Sufferings for sinners both inward and outward I do own and Confess to and have a reverend Esteem of all his Sufferings and the worth thereof and do greatly prize his Meekness and Humility who hath freely condescended according to the Good Will and Pleasure of God not from Wrath nor Compulsion to offer himself a Lamb without spot to God to bear our griefs and sorrows yet saith the Prophet Isaiah chap. 53 we did esteem him stricken smitten of God and afflicted but he was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our Peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed he was oppressed he was afflicted yet he opened not his mouth he was brought as a Lamb to the slaughter he made his Grave with the wicked and with the rich in his Death because he had not done no violence neither was any deceipt in his mouth yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him he hath put him to grief when thou shalt make his Soul an Offering for sin he shall see his seed he shall prolong his dayes and the Pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand This is he that hath been despised and rejected of men This is he who hath been as a Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World This is he men have evilly entreated and evilly requited for his kindness and good Will that he hath shewed forth towards them This is he whom they have caused to suffer by their iniquities and so thereby have shewed great unworthiness and ingratitude towards him and his Father whose Pleasure and Good Will he came to perform both in his being delivered up to undergo Afflictions and Bruises and many hard Sufferings for Mankind and surely God was in him Reconciling the World even in and through that low and suffering state which the Righteous Seed and renowned Plant of the Lord hath undergone but now what effect hath all this Love Tenderness and Compassion of God in and through Christ upon and in man whilst Sin Transgression and Imperfection term of Life is pleaded for by the Priests Surely they herein do not make a right use of Christ's Suffering but both reject him and the End thereof and this was not the use that the true Ministers did make thereof for they witnessed that he died for all that as many as lived should not live unto themselves but unto him that died and rose again 2 Cor. 5.15 and his own self bare our sins in his Body on the Tree that we being dead to sin should live to Righteousness this was not a living to sin nor pleading for Imperfectiom as T. V hath done who farther adds viz. The 7 th Consequence is childish and a shame that a man that pretendeth to any brains should mention it That though Christ hath satisfied for us the Debt remaineth still to Christ pag. 66. Reply Is this such a childish shameful or brainless Consequence that the Debt remains still to Christ Has not T.V. herein shewed his Ignorance of Scripture for ought nor Christ to be obeyed who is the Author of Eternal Salvation to them that obey him Heb. 5. and we are not under the Law to God but under the Law to Christ and to what end is his spiritual Law written in the Heart and his Spirit in the inward Parts but to be obeyed and we are Debtors not to the Flesh to live after the Flesh Rom. 8.12 to what then but to live after the Spirit and through it to mortifie the Deeds of the Body vers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. The Apostle was far from pleading for sin and Imperfection as Priests do for which God will judge them by Jesus Christ to whom all Judgment is committed who hath Power to proclaim the Day of Vengeance as well as the acceptable year of the Lord. The truth of it is T.V. has Confessed to what W. P. has writ in many places but to his own Contradiction but here he falls a Railing and vilifying him with such terms as Abominable Worm c. He has not at all dealt fairly or honestly
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
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
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
separate Persons or finite subsistances in the God-head which is no less than Blasphemy But then how poorly maliciously and falsely this W. M. comes off in so positively deeming their Doctrine and terms in these matters to be Scripture Truth and charging us with designing to blast and overthrow the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost upon which Blasphemers and blasphemy and damnable speeches are hideously cast upon us but most unjustly and falsely for no such design ever had we as either to blast or over-throw the Deity of Christ or Holy Spirit we having openly professed and declared the contrary both in words and writings As also his accusing us with boldly spitting in the face of God is a gross and malicious slander and a presumptuous taking for granted that our opposing their corrupt unscriptural distinctions and vain babling was a spitting in the face of God as if we must believe all what these men say in this matter to be as true as God is and his Glory to be so deeply concern'd in their vain Philosophy Judge whether they ' herein are competent Disputants yea or nay and whether these our opposers or we have compared God or the Father Son and Spirit to men let the Reader judge by what follows In their Answer to that Argument of W. P's viz. The Divine Persons are either finite or infinite if finite then something finite is in God if infinite then there would be three distinct infinites and consequently three distinct Gods thus far W. P. Touching which after they have denied infiniteness to be applicable or ascribed to them as to their subsistences or personallities as they call them they bring a comparison of the subsistance of a man pag. 46. saying It would be improper to ascribe the property that belong to him unto his subsistence to say that his subsistance in the abstract is either a learned or unlearned subsistence a great one or a small one a white one or a black one What vain babling and a blind instance is here And so they say It is improper to say that either of the Persons in regard of the personallity or subsistence are finitie or infinite but in regard of their Essence in the concrete are infinite Now the Reader at length may see what 's become of their distinctions of three distinct subsistences or persons in the God-head or Divine Essence wherein they having here undertaken to demonstrate that which Reason cannot demonstrate to them nor they clear to themselves by demonstration as in pag. 26. they have run themselves as into a Wood and Labyrinth as persons bewildered and confounded so as now the subsistences or distinct persons in the Deity they so much contend for are such as are neither learned nor unlearned neither great nor small neither finite nor infinite what are they then what Gods are they that these men would have us believe in before they were not infinite now neither finite nor infinite What grosse Confusion and Contradiction is here for if not infinite then finite but the God whom we serve and believe in is infinite the only Wise God and nothing relating to him or his being finite Howbeit since these our Opposers are contending for that which they cannot by Reason demonstrate nor clear to themselves pag. 26. It is very unreasonable in them to Impose it upon others to believe without either reason or demonstration or to pronounce them Blasphemers who cannot own their Doctrine and distinctions therein to be according to the Scriptures whilst they cannot clear them by Reason to themselves but both a mis-calling and grossely mis-representing of Father Son and Holy Spirit as one while with being not infinite another while neither finite nor infinite instancing in the case the subsistence of a man which they say is neither learned nor an unlearned one They have accused W.P. with Blasphemy who never denied the infiniteness of either Father Word or Spirit but what greater Blasphemy can there be than their own And now let the indifferent Reader judge what effect this kind of their vain babling would have in the minds of an Auditory if thus God should be Preached in their blind confused terms and if one of them should exhort People to believe in a Trinity of separate persons or subsistences which are infinite in the concrete but not infinite in the personallity or subsistence in the abstract Another while they are neither finite nor infinite and what they are they cannot tell for by reason they cannot clear this their Mystery to themselves Another while they are three Hee 's that People must believe in and therefore three persons or subsistances with incommunicable properties by all which they go to demonstrate the Father Son and Holy Ghost who are infinite in the Essence but not in their Personallities They say another while neither finite nor infinite as they say what effect would this kind of Preaching have with People do you think and where ever did the Apostles and true Ministers of God Preach in this manner or allow of such Philosophy in Preaching the Mysteries of God Nay did they not Preach in the simplicity of the Gospel and Exhort in simplicity as of the Abilitiy that God gave And did not Paul absolutely forbid such Philosophy and vain deceipt And to avoid opposition of Science falsly so called Coll. 2.8 1 Tim. 6.20 And are there not words sufficient in the Scriptures of Truth to Preach God and Christ in according to the plainness and simplicity thereof but men pretending to be his Ministers and Scripture their Rule must thus run themselves into confusion and darkness by Humane Inventions and Traditions both of words terms and blind distinctions of man's fallen wisom which neither knows God nor can rightly speak of him but hath obscured the Glory of his Appearance from very many but the Light is risen and the Day dawned which hath not only discovered but will expel those thick Mists and Clouds of mens Inventions that the simple may come to be undeceived and unvailed and so be delivered from such as these confussed Babel builders that have made a prey upon them CHAP. III. Something farther Observed in Answer to Tho. Vincent NOw let us a little observe some Passages and Arguments in Tho. Vincent's Work For their distinctions about Trinity of Persons as they call them distinguished one from another by incommunicable personal properties But such kind of distinctions and terms he hath not learned from Scriptures but from humane Inventions by which they have darkned the simplicity of Truth as also he hath appeared as one in self-contradiction when he saith That one should be in another the first should be in the second and the second in the first and both in the third and all one and the same individual Essence Now if they be in each other they are not separate Persons as at the Dispute was affirmed and if one be in another where are the personal
Heavens and is thereby become a most compleat Captain and perfect Example Obs. Here Christ is confest to as the Gift of God's Eternal Love for the Life and Salvation of men that come to receive him and his Appearance to destroy the works of the Devil which his own Light and Grace maketh manifest as it is believed and waited in and so Christ is the Leader and Captain of such and is made unto us Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption And I ask who are those T.V. saith That the Lord extendeth his special Mercies to And whether is Mercy extended to All in sending his Son into the World and what more special Mercies can there be than the only begotten Son of God who is given for a Light for a Leader for a Covenant for Life and Salvation that whosoever receives and believes in him might receive the blessed End and Priviledge of his Coming and Manifestation to wit Life and Salvation in him from Sin Death and Destruction And whereas T.V. in pag. 65. brings an Instance That the Soul cannot see without the Body for want of an Organ and that therefore tho God separately cannot satisfie because he cannot suffer and man separately cannot satisfie because the satisfaction would not be of infinite value yet as God-Man he satisfied c. Reply Do but mark what an Instance and Comparison he has here brought in Competition with the Infinite Omnipotent God to shew us that God separately cannot satisfie any more then the Soul can see without an Organ And who is it that God cannot satisfie Is it himself Can he not satisfie or please himself Is he ever divided or displeased with himself What gross darkness appears in this Comparison Instance and Assertion to say God cannot satisfie c. and thus to bring the Infinite God and his Infinite Power under the Limitations of finite Creatures Is this any less then Blasphemy let but the indifferent judge in this case Have not these our Oppossers been ready to call us Blasphemers but for bringing an Instance to shew the absurdity of their Doctrine whereas this is an Instance from a finite to an infinite tending to lessen the infinite Power of God And as to his telling That the Soul cannot see without an Organ in one sense that 's not true though he meant outwardly yet it hath a spiritual sight As to his saying That God cannot suffer is in one sense not true though he intended as to Death yet the Spirit of God hath suffered and hath been grieved by man's Transgressions The Rebellious Jews grieved and vexed his Holy Spirit until he became their Enemy and fought against them Isa. 63.10 And did not the Lord say Behold I am pressed under you as a cart is pressed that is full of sheaves Amos 2.13 So did not he suffer in being pressed by them then and did not he say My heart is turned within me my repentings are kindled together 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 Hos. 11.8 9. Did not herein his Suffering and Forbearance declare him to be God the Holy One and not man rather then the Execution of the fierceness of his Anger And was not God's being grieved by the rebellious Jews a Suffering when they hardened their hearts and provoked him in the Wilderness for he said Forty years long was I grieved with this generation Psal. 95. therefore to day if ye will hear his voice harden not your heart And did not God suffer long by the old World before he destroyed them seeing when he saw their wickedness it grieved him at his heart Gen. 6.6 Also he said His Spirit should not alwayes strive with them vers 3. So that his Spirit did suffer and was grieved by them before they were destroyed Again How oft did they provoke him and grieve him in the Desart Psal. 78.40 And did not he Complain against the People when they were Rebellious and Polluted saying Your new Moons and your appointed Feasts my Soul hateth they are a trouble to me I am weary to bear them Was not this trouble and being weary with them matter of Suffering and was not this his Suffering for some time before he did ease himself of his Adversaries and avenge him of his Enemies See Isa. 1. And also it 's said Chap. 7.13 Hear ye now ye House of David is it a small thing to weary men but will ye weary my God also And Chap. 43.24 25. Neither hast thou filled me with the Fat of thy Sacrifices but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins thou hast wearied me with thy iniquities I even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for my own sake and will not remember thy sins Mark for my own sake So then surely God could satisfie himself seeing it was for his own sake that he blotted out Transgressions and here the infinite Value Ransom and Satisfaction was in himself and what Patience Forbearance Long-Suffering and Forgiveness as was signified by Christ and testified of by his outward Suffering and Death was really in being in God before and in the fullness of time a signal testimony thereof given to man 〈◊〉 induce him to receive the free Love and Grace of God and Life and Salvation in the Son of his Love T.V. Who do ascribe more Grace and Mercy to God than we who do apprehend it in his Son pag. 65. Reply Indeed your apprehensions in that matter are sufficiently manifest before had T.V. added Who do apprehend more Grace and Mercy in God then we that say he cannot Satisfie himself and Christ as man could not satisfie him by finite Suffering and the Grace we ascribe we apprehend it only to extend to a few a select number c. Had T.V. spoke this plainly together People might the more easily have judged whether he has truly ascribed or apprehended concerning the Grace of God and whether many thousands do not ascribe more Grace and Mercy to God that own it in the free and general Extent of it to all men than he hath done Again his confessing That God doth execute his Justice freely as he doth love his Image in his People freely yet both are necessary because Natural and neither forced nor compelled by any External Agent Reply So here 's a better Confession then much of his Work before and it contradict much of it For 1st If his Love be as free as his Justice and neither compelled neither fotced by any External Agent how then is he obliged to take vengeance upon all that have transgressed when upon Repentance he readily pardoneth and passeth by former offences and how then is it impossible for God freely to Pardon 2dly What is that Image in his People he loves freely is it perfect or imperfect if perfect then how do they deny the perfection of any thing within or that 's inherent in the
Righteous whilst such as if God's Righteousness or Workmanship were impure This Doctrine has led many in the way to Hell and Destruction But T.V. in 2 Cor. 5. should have read vers 17. If any man be in Christ he is a new Creature old things are passed away behold all things are become new Which is a real change in that man that is in Christ from sin and transgression and not a Justification therein for the Spirit of God both discovers to man his sin and reproves him as a transgressor and one Guilty whilst therein and surely God does not accept of men as his own Righteousness and in Christ whilst his Spirit in them judges them to be both unrighteous and out of Christ for if he did that were to make God contradict himself and to speak quite contrary to his own Spirit which were very absurd and blasphemous to assert But had T.V. rightly minded and understood that of Rom. 8.1 2 3 4 he might have seen how contrary it is to his Doctrine before and himself therein confuted For 1st They that are in Christ Jesus walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit and it s to such only to whom there is no Condemnation therefore Justification and this is not a sinful imperfect or guilty state 2dly The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus hath made such free from the Law of Sin and Death 3dly God sending his Son to condemn sin in the Flesh was not to look upon man Justified in the sinful state or whilst he walks after the Flesh. But 4thly That the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in such who walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit and this doth absolutely confute T.V. and his Brethren And whereas for the proof of his Doctrine of Guilty Persons being the Righteousness of God he citeth Rom. 4.6 7. where it is said David described the blessedness of that man to whom God imputeth Righteousness without Works to which I say not without the Works of the True and Living Faith in Jesus nor yet without a subjection to the Law of Faith but without that the Works or Deeds of the Law of Works chap. 3.19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28. the Apostle did not exclude the Works Obedience or Righteousness of the true Faith from a justified state for if Paul had so done it had been contrary to James his Testimony who said Was not our Father Abraham justified by Works when he had offered up Isaac See Jam. 2. And Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for Righteousness We say That Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness Rom. 4.3 9. which Faith was not without its own Works although it be not the Works of the Law as Circumcision and others that were Types or Signs wherein the Righteousness of Faith doth not consist which they that are in the uncircumcision as the Gentiles that were the ungodly spoken of Rom. 4.5 11. chap. 3.29 do receive through Faith in Christ and become really partakers thereof being Justified from all those things from which they could not be Justified by the Law of Moses And so such are Justified or made Just or truly so Accepted of God not in sin or ungodliness but as Redeemed out of it and Sanctified from it See 1 Cor. 6.11 And blessed are they whose Iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin This is no Proof for T. V. his sinful Doctrine for them whom the Lord doth bless and imputeth not Iniquity to are in the way of God and partakes of his Righteousness through Faith cannot feed upon an imagined Imputation or Justification in sin for in Psal. 32.2 David describeth the blessedness of such in these words Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not Iniquity and in whose Spirit there is no guile These words in whose Spirit there is no guile the Priests use to leave out in their talk of Imputation but as their Faith without Works or a real Obedience on the Creatures part is but a dead empty and feigned Faith So their laying a claim to and pretending a Justification by the imputed Righteousness of Christ whilst they are sinners and polluted pleading for Imperfection whilst here 't is but a false imagination of their own for though we confess that Justification is in the Righteousness of Christ by Faith in him and that this True and Living Faith and the Righteousness of it is reckoned to the true Believer yet we do not therefore grant that Sinners or Polluted Persons in that state are cloathed with this Righteousness nor that 't is imputed to them as theirs whilst they are out of it for they that have put on Christ are translated from sin and unrighteousness and so are made partakers of the Righteousness of Faith which T.V. saith is without us and so puts it a far off and yet cites Phil. 3.9 which plainly Contradicts his Doctrine for Paul having confessed Christ Jesus to be his Lord and suffered the loss of all things that he might win Christ it was that he might be found in him not having his own Righteousness but that which is through the Faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by Faith that said he I may know him and the Power of his Resurrection and the Fellowship of his Suffering being made conformable to his Death vers 9 10. Mark his winning Christ being found in him his not having his own Righteousness but that of Faith extends to a real injoyment of Christ and his being in him and not to an imagined Imputation in sin but to his knowing Christ and the Power of his Resurrection Fellowship of his Suffering and Conformity to his Death this was a blessed estate which all you that plead for Sin and Imperfection and a Justification whilst you are out of Christ or strangers to him being both unacquainted with his Power and Fellowship of Suffering and never came ye so to be conformable to his Death you being yet alive in your sins And as to T. V. his Argument or Syllogism it proves nothing of his Doctrine of impure or guilty Persons being Justified by Imputation for Justification by Faith in Jesus Christ and his Righteousness we never denied but this Faith is not a dead Faith nor without its own Works for it purifieth the heart but so does not your Faith who plead for sin by which you apply Christ's Righteousness whilst you are out of it and it without you as T.V. confesseth pag. 17. How hath he and the rest of you that own this his Doctrine soothed and daubed People up in their sins flattering them with a Pretence of Imputation and Justification therein when your Faith is but dead and empty as a body without a Spirit is dead That we are Justified by Faith without Works By what Faith and without what Works is mentioned and manifest according to Scripture both
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.
either required a thing not attainable or as if being perfect as he is perfect were but the measure of our Duty and so to be put off till the Life to come wherein the Saints had not such Commands given to them seeing they are not capable of sinning in the Life to come but John said As is he so are we in this world 1 John 4.17 And herein they knew their Love made perfect and this is more then either the small resemblance of Children to their Parents which T. D. speaks of and beyond his imperfect sinfull state and Doctrine for the perfect Love which they had was in them a perfect resemblance of God who is Love verse 16. But this way of T. D. his slighting and diminishing and falsly interpreting the Commands of God which require such perfection only as the measure of our Duty is like his Brethren saying That a Child of God his not committing Sin is to be meant he doth not make a trade of Sin which indeed is a very easie way they have taken to pervert the Commands of God and to give ease and liberty to the Transgressors in their sins as if when a thing is absolutely required of them they should put it off with this It is meant only as but in part to be obeyed and so if they should deal thus with God and say Lord then requires us not to Steal or not to commit Adultery or not to Covet but we are to understand it as that we cannot altogether abstain from Stealing Adultery or Covetousness only we are not to make a trade of these things nor wholy make it our business to be imployed in them what acceptance do they think such a Plea would have before the Lord and what Answer would he make them to this their corruption and what resentment would such Doctrine have in the minds of sober people if they should preach them and give such meanings to the Scriptures and tell them that where Stealing and Adultery and worldly â—usts and Covetousness are forbidden that they are not to go to the extent of the Commands but only not make a trade or a common practice of Stealing or these things c for thus they have dealt with many of God's Commands enjoyning perfect Holiness and Righteousness but then they have an easie way to lay all upon Christ as having paid their debt and fulfilled the Righteousness of the Law in his Person in their stead so that they must not expect its fulfilling in their persons for where the Scripture speaks of its being fulfilled in us we are to understand by in us that it is in Christ's Person and this is the manner of their course from time to time both to shut Christ his Works and Righteousness out of People so much as in them lies 1 John 3.9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit Sin T. D. saith to this We may interpret it as he is born of God he doth not sin every Child of God is mixta persona Pag. 57. as our Law sayes of the King consists of an old and new nature and so his new nature is Principium quo the Principle from which he acts graciously and the old nature the Principle from which he acts sinfully Reply Here again he hath palpably perverted plain Scripture and contradicted the Apostle John as may be seen in that 1 John 3. For he that is born of God who doth neither commit sin nor can sin because he is born of God has put off the old nature and is not acted by that Principle which leads to act sinfully because he cannot sin and that gracious Principle in him hath overcome the sin and the nature of it and so to tell of his being mixta persona is T. D's gross blindness For first that which is born of God that overcomes the World is not mixt with sin nor with the old sinful nature Secondly He or whosoever is born of God whose Seed remains in him who abideth in Christ is not acted by that old sinful nature because he is born of God and abideth in Christ in whom is no sin neither is mans having divers parts as Body and Soul c. or his being liable or not liable to death any reason to shew that he that is born of God doth act sinfully from the old nature for the Bodies of the Saints were the Temples of the Holy Ghost and their Bodies were sanctified and so brought into subjection unto the Divine Spirit or Principle in them so as they might glorifie God in their bodies and in their spirits which were his Again T. D's meaning to that first of John 3.9 is That it may intend the manner of sinning so the 8 th verse seems to limit it be that committeth sin is of the Devil for the Devil sinneth from the beginning the Comparison quoth he is not between the act simply for then it should have been said only for the Devil sinneth but from the beginning implies a Comparison between the manner of man's sin and the Devils in respect of which he is said to be of the Devil because he immitates his example who from the day he began never ceased to sin nor ever did one truly good action Observ. By this we may gather T. D's limitation put upon that of 1 John 3.9 and the Comparison he makes between not the act simply but the manner of mans sin and the Devils still taking it for granted that he that is born of God doth sin and acts sinfully from the old nature but not in that manner as he that is of the Devil who intimates his example so that his meaning and comparison seems to amount to this that he that is born of God doth sin but not always or not as the Devil sinneth he is somewhat better then the Devil in that he doth some good actions but the Devil doth none Reply Surely our opposer hath come off but very poorly in his arguing for the Devils work contrary both to the state and testimony of such as were born of God whom he hath here very meanly debased and sadly abused the Scriptures misrepresenting Gods Children whom he by his Eternal Power hath delivered from the power of Sin and Satan and given them a Heavenly place in Christ where the Devil cannot come and in whom the Prince of the World hath nothing nor his sinfull Ministers any part or interest whilst they plead against God's Promises holy Commands and against the very end and purpose of Christ's manifestation as T. D. and his Brethren have done wherein they have shown themselves to be Antichrist's Agents and Ministers and not the true Christ's Now touching Christ's Enlightning every man whose Light we affirm to be saving this is set down as an Error by T. D. he and his Brethren denying the Light of Christ in every man to be Saving in its own nature and property which we do affirm it to be but that he enlightens every man to
Salvation I do not remember these to be our words as T. D. lays them down who also begins with a meer falshood against us saying That the word Christ is a meer blind to delude the ignorant for the Quakers denying Christ to be God they cannot own him for the Author of Illumination Answ. This is an apparent Slander cast upon us as our Books and Writings do shew that we never denied Christ to be God or his Divinity still affirming That in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God and that in him was Life and the Life was the Light of men and that was the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the World as in John 1.1.4 9. Now to detect us as being in an Error herein T. D. urgeth Ephes. 2.12 that at that time ye were without Christ having no hope c. which is no proof that they had none of Christ's Light in them though they then did not experience him their Hope nor were come to the Covenant being without God in the World in which state they were Strangers and Enemies in their minds the mystery was hid from them the Light was obscured from their understandings it shined in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not but it doth not follow that the Light was not in them because they were without God in the World no more then it follows that God is not in the World because the World knows him not whereas its plain that he was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not John 1.10 and seeing Christ as God is acknowledged to be the Author of Illumination his illumination is Divine and Spiritual and therefore saving to them that believe in it and God's Presence filleth Heaven and Earth neither can Darkness it self nor the Deep nor Hell hide or cover man from the Presence of God nor yet obscure him from the reach of his Spirit Whether shall I go from thy Spirit or whether shall I fly from thy Presence if I ascend up into Heaven thou art there if I make my Bed in Hell behold thou art there if I take the wings of the Morning c. Psal. 139. Yet still I grant that there is a state in which all are ignorant of God and in which the Mystery to wit Christ within the hope of Glory hath been hid from Ages and Generations but is shewed revealed and made manifest to the true Believers in his Light who said Believe in the Light that you may be the Children of the Light and Christ said I am come a Light into the World that whosoever believeth in me might not perish but have Eternal Life and this we testifie to against all Opposers of his Light as it is in every man Pag. 59. And where T. D. argues that the Gentiles for a time had no Promises of Christ therefore knew of none and consequently had not a Light or Knowledge sufficient to bring them to Salvation Reply What time was that the Gentiles had no Promise of Christ and how long was it Was not the Promise of God after the Fall that the Seed of the Woman should bruise the Serpents head of a general extent as well towards Gentiles as Jews For was not Adam and Eve the first Parents of both to whom this Promise was made Secondly The Promise that was made to Abraham whilst in the uncircumcision did not this relate to the Gentiles as well as the Jews see Rom. 4. and Galat. throughout And thirdly Was not Christ's Death for all still a confirmation or evident Testimony to the fore-going Promises and Covenant of God towards both Jews and Gentiles but and if there was some time or Ages in which the Gentiles had no Promises of Christ and therefore not a Light sufficient to Salvation according to T. D. then it follows that none of them in that time or those Ages could be saved and why but because God did not afford them a sufficient Light which assertion and consequence lays the blame upon God but the falsehood thereof who is it that know the Scriptures that cannot see Again where he puts Light for Knowledge herein he doth not reach our Principle for many have a true Light in them that are not come to the true Knowledge for it is the Light that shines in the heart that gives the knowledge of the Glory of God 2 Cor. 4. so the Light is there before the Knowledge is given and in that its able to give that Knowledge it is sufficient to save And where he brings 1 Tim. 3. ver last for proof That the Gentiles neither had nor knew any Promises of Christ for a time where he saith God manifested in the Flesh and as such preach'd unto the Gentiles are made two parts of the Mystery of Godliness which in other Ages was not made known unto the Sons of men as it s now revealed to his holy Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit c. Where note first that this manistation of God in the Flesh and preaching unto the Gentiles is no proof that either they had no promises of Christ before or that they had no Light in them sufficient to salvation for if so then all Gentiles in all Ages before that time were condemned for want of saving Light being given to them which were a gross errour to assert 2dly As to the manifestation of the mystery of God and Christ I grant that it was more large and open in the Apostles days then for Ages before as also that was made manifest then which was hid for Ages and Generations yet still it doth not follow that the Gentiles before had not a Light sufficient to save or to manifest the mystery of Godliness in some degree 3dly But yet T. D. his arguing against the Gentiles having a sufficient Light before Christ's coming in the flesh however if we could grant him his plea which we cannot it doth not follow that now the Gentiles or the whole world hath not a Light sufficient given them since Christ is so come manifestly testified as God's Salvation prepared before the face of all People being a Light to the Gentiles and his Testimony so signally confirmed as it hath been also both by his works and sufferings But yet the better to inform our Opposers of the Light let them read John 1. where speaking of the Word that was God that made all things it s said In him was Life and the Life was the Light of men verse 4. and this Light and Life of men which proceeds from the Word though it was before Christ's comming in the Flesh yet it was still the Light and Life of Christ born witness of and more fully manifested through his coming or being sent in the fulness of time Pag. 60. T. D. The Father is said to hide the object because he did not enlighten the subject i. e. to hide the Gospel because he did
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
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
was made an Offering for sin he having offered himself through the Eternal Spirit yet his Soul or Spirit did not die with the Body though J. O. hath ignorantly made no distinction but joyns both as being but Humane Nature which was Sacrificed to death but yet its evident that though his Soul and Spirit did not die with the Body yet his Soul was offered for sin for the sins of men were laid upon him or did meet on him as is frequently confessed and so he suffered and his Soul travelled under the burthen of them so that his Sufferings were twofold both inward and outward and which were the greater suppose ye Professors and whether there be not a mystery to be known in the Sufferings Death and Blood of Christ beyond what could be seen or perceived with the carnal or outward eye since that he is truly and savingly to be known after the Spirit as the Apostles knew him who experienced the Fellowship of his Sufferings and a conformity unto his Death and bare in their bodies the Dying of the Lord Jesus that his Life might be manifest in them And Christ being touched with the feeling of their Infirmities was able to relieve them that were tempted and as Paul saith Colos. 1. You that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your minds through wicked works yet now hath he reconciled in the Body of his Flesh through death to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight if you continue in the Faith grounded and setled and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel which you have heard which is preached to every Creature which is under Heaven whereof I Paul am made a Minister who now rejoyce in my sufferings for you and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his Body sake which is the Church verse 21 22 23 24. where mark that the reconciled state was not that of enmity in their minds and the end of this reconciliation through his Death was to present them holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight which does not admit of sin and imperfection term of life nor yet of Professors arguing or pleading for sin as they do and was there any of Christ's afflictions or sufferings then to be filled up in the Apostle for the sake of his Church how do Professors resent this Doctrine and what meaning will they give to it can they say that Christ's suffering was all at an end or fulfilled at once whilest yet some was behind to be filled up in his Saints and that for his Churches sake although still he was the one Offering Ransom and Sacrifice for sin and was offered once for all as both being opposed to and ending the many Offerings under the Law and consecrating a new and Living Way and establishing an Everlasting Covenant of Life and Salvation as also that in what he did and suffered be set us an Example bare Testimony unto and confirmed the Truth this J. O. confesseth page 199. And as to his being a perfect High Priest and discharging the Office thereof and all other the Father required of him these we never opposed nor went about to slight or lessen as some injuriously represented us Neither would we have any unreverent and slighty Contests entertained on any hand about the Sufferings Afflictions and Death of Christ in the least to lessen or undervalue them nor yet ought you to meddle and tamper about either God Christ or Holy Spirit or about the Suffering and Sacrifice of Christ with your pitifull sorry confused School-terms and distinctions and beggerly scraps of mens Traditions and Rudiments of the World c. wherein you have laboured more to fill your heads with airy notions invented words and brain knowledge rather then your hearts and souls with a saving Knowledge and experimental sence and feeling of the Life and Power of Godliness or of the Vertue and Efficacy of Christ Jesus and his Reconciliation as the one Offering and Sacrifice which puts away sin and whose Blood both remits and clenseth from all iniquity But to evade these blessed Effects which are only known to them that walk in the Light 1 John 1.7 many of you Professors have found out a very easie way and notion of all being fully satisfied and payed for you both for sins past present and to come and of all being suffered and perfectly obeyed for you by Christ in your stead though you deny his dying and being a Propitiation for all men in the whole World so that you can plead and wrangle for sin imperfection and body of sin all your life and say Christ hath fully payed all and perfectly obeyed for you as also you can easily evade or refuse to suffer either with him or for him if but a little Storm Trial or Persecution doth arise you and your Leaders can secure your selves and creep into corners though now you can make a shew and bluster in this time of calm and some of you make a boasting and insulting against W. P. and a hidious reviling of him now he is in suffering and you at liberty thinking probably that you may get your selves some credit and repute with those in power by your railing Pamphlets which you bring out one after another like cowardly base spirited men so many to go to trample upon a man that is already underfoot as to the outward man in regard of his confinement which some report that some of you Presbyterians were the Instigators and occasion of by such invective Clamours and Complaints as some of you are accustomed to clear your selves as well as you can but yet withal you do but befool your selves in so many of you going to war against and reproaching a poor man in Prison who freely offered up himself to suffer which the most of you would be loath to do for by that your so great stir and noise you make against him you render him how mean soever he be in himself such a potent Antagonist contrary to your many slighty and scornfull Characters of him in your Books that you make many momoderate people the more enquire after him and to have the better conception of him because of your enmity and outrage but such who wait upon the Lord and in his Light stand still can see beyond you all and your spirits and work which the day hath declared More Errors escaped the Press IN the Epistle Page 2. Line 12. for agree in read are p. 23. l. 2. blot out 1. l. 23. for for r. in p. 25. l. 10. r. produced l. 35. for 13 r. 3. In the Answer to T. V. p. 65. l. 1. blot out that In the Answer to T. D. p. 2. l. 24. for gifts r. gusts p. 5. l. 18. for in r. on p. 7. l. 5. for 13 r. 3. l. 11. for by r. high p. 9. l. 10. for and all r. an act p. 12. l. 2. for he r. the. p. 17.
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
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