Trinity of Persons that three should be one and one should be three that three should be distinguished but not divided that one should not be another the first should not be the second nor the second third nor the second or third the first and yet the first second and third the same that the first should be in the second and the second in the first and both first and second in the third and that without composition without confusion all related to one another and al distinguished one from another by incommunicable personal properties and yet all one and the same in regard of one individual Essence this is such a mystery as doth exceed the weak and narrow understanding of the most enlightned and clear sighted Christians fully to comprehend some by gazing too long upon the Sun become blind and some by prying too much into this mystery and attempting to bring it to the standard and module of their reason have lost the sight thereof and sunk into grosse apprehensions and denied either the unity of the Godhead affirming the three persons to be three distinct Gods or denied the Trinity affirming the Godhead to be without three distinct persons thus while they have professed and conceited themselves to be wise they have proved themselves to be fools void of true understanding by changing the glory of God into that which is unworthy of him But we having a sure word of Prophecy in the Scriptures which is like a light shining in a dark place ought to give heed thereunto and conform all our conceptions of God according to the discoveries which he hath made of himself in his word God knoweth himself better than any creature can know and what he hath spoken of himself must needs be so because he cannot represent himself otherwise than he is and if there be a mystery in him which we cannot reach we adde folly to our weakness if we do in the least question it reason it may be will leave us in our search after the Deity in the Trinity and the Trinity in the Deity but where reason faileth Faith must supply it's room the proper object of Divine Faith is such things as we purely do assent unto upon Divine authority such are not onely Histories and Prophesies but also Mysteries which reason cannot demonstrate unto us in this mystery of the Trinity we must exercise our Faith though we cannot clear it to our selves by demonstration not as if we were to lay reason quite aside in this thing or trample it under foot not as if we should put out the eye of reason that we might see more clearly with the eye of Faith for though this mystery be above reason yet it is not against reason yea there is the greatest reason in the world that we should assent unto that for truth which God hath revealed of himself in his word because he is a God of truth and nothing is more true than that which God hath spoken Wherefore if the Scriptures have revealed that there are three distinct persons in one Divine Essence it is a certain truth and it is reason and duty that every one should assent unto it though the mystery of it there being no such thing to be found in nature cannot be fully comprehended Here then I shall propound my assertion and prove it out of Scripture My assertion according to the generally believed Doctrine of the Church of God is this That there are three distinct subsistents or persons in the same single Divine Essence or Godhead The argument bottom'd upon the Scripture to prove my assertion is this If the Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one and the Father is God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and the Father Son and Holy Ghost be three distinct subsistents or persons then there are three distinct subsistents or persons Father Son and Holy Ghost in the same single Divine Essence or Godhead But the Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one and the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God and the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct subsistents or persons Therefore there are three distinct subsistents or persons Father Son and Holy Ghost in the same single Divine Essence or Godhead The consequent of the major proposition is plain and firm that no man of reason can in the least question or deny The minor proposition is that which must be proved and there are five things in the proposition to be proved 1. That the Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one 2. That the Father is God 3. That the Son is God 4. That the Holy Ghost is God 5. That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct subsistents or persons 1. The Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one Deut. 6. 4. Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord Isa. 44. 6. Thus saith the Lord I am the first and I am the last and besides me there is no God Isa. 45. 21 22. There is no God else besides me a just God and Saviour there is none besides me look unto me and be ye saved all the ends of the Earth for I am God and there is none else And it cannot be otherwise for if there were more than one God then the Godhead might be divided it might be limited and by consequence would be finite and so not God because God is infinite I need not insist upon this because the unity of the Godhead is not denied by the adversaries I have to deal withal 2. The Father is God 1 Cor. 8. 6. To us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him I need not multiply places of Scripture nor adde arguments to prove that the Father is God since it is generally acknowledged by all that acknowledge a Deity and the Scriptures 3. The Son is God this William Penn plainly denieth he denieth that the Lord Jesus Christ is God wretched blasphemy that would thrust the Lord Jesus Christ off from the Throne of his Godhead His denial of the Divinity of Christ as well as the Divinity of the Holy Ghost is plain enough I shall repeat his words as they lye in his first argument against the three distinct persons in the Godhead page 13. And since the Father is God the Son is God and the Spirit is God which their opinion necessitates them to confesse then unlesse the Father Son and Spirit are three distinct nothings they must be three distinct substances and consequently three distinct Gods I shall answer the argument in its proper place only observe here that he denieth the Son and Spirit to be God by a plain consequence for first he telleth us that our opinion necessitates us to acknowledge that the Father is God and the Son God and the Spirit God which showeth that his opinion is otherwise that the Son and Spirit are not
of Christians in the truths and ways of God In W. P's conclusion by way of caution he teleth us he doth not disown Father Word and Spirit to be one but he disowneth them to be three Persons which hath been proved out of the Scripture that the Trinity as he saith hath not a foundation in the Scripture that its original was three hundred years after Christianity was in the World hath been proved to be false What he speaketh concerning the Council of Sirmia That the controversie concerning the Trinity should not be remembred because the Scriptures made no mention thereof is also falsely alledged for by that very Council the Doctrine of the Trinity is expresly asserted as a chief article of the Christian faith and the distinction of Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost plainly implyed in the Anathema which was pronounced upon those that asserted they were but one Person that which W. P. citeth is concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which this Council was heterodox as it might well be when so much influenced by the Emperor Constantius who himself was infected with Arianisme But W. P. should have looked into the Councils more ancient and authentique than the Sirmian namely the first Nicene Council which condemned the Arian heresie blasphemously denying the Son to be coeternal and coessential with the Father the first Constantinopolitan council which condemned the Macedonian heresie denying the Deity of the Holy Ghost The Council of Ephesus Chalcedon who with other approved oecumenical Councils generally assented to the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Consubstantiality of the three Persons What W. P. further addeth concerning the occasion of Idolatry is groundless the scandalizing of Turks c. is no wonder when the preaching of Christ crucified was such a stumbling-block of old After he confesseth that Christ offered unto God a Satisfactory Sacrifice and yet he denieth Christs Satisfaction and Justification by his imputative Righteousness all which three Doctrines being Fundamental established by the Word of Truth W. P's attempts to subvert them are in vain and have discovered him to be both a Blasphemer and an Heretick Since I began my Answer to W. P. there came to my hands a Pamphlet subscribed by Solomon Eccles styled The Quakers Challenge wherein amongst others he challengeth me at two Weapons as he calleth them to Fast seven days and seven nights and to Wake seven days and seven nights and that hereby tryal shall be made who are in the truth Though the Pamphlet be ridiculous yet I was unwilling to let it pass without any remark and my Answer is when the Lord hath appointed these ways for tryal of the Orthodox and Hereticks I shall undertake them but not finding any such Command or Warrant in the Word to forbear Food or Sleep so long but on the contrary because it is a tempting of God and a breach of the sixth Commandment which requireth all lawful endeavors for the preservation of our own life as well as the lives of others therefore it would be a God-provoking sin to endanger self-murther by such Weapons The Scripture Instances of Fasting many days together were miraculous and not for our imitation others I have heard of that have lived as many days together as he speaketh of without meat or drink or sleep but they have been distracted people amongst whom this man deserveth to be numbred and if I should answer him in the way he challengeth I should be accounted by the sober as mad as himself His Lie he venteth concerning me is refuted already in my Narrative CHAP. X. The Call and Exhortation HAving asserted and proved the three great Doctrines of the Trinity Satisfaction and Iustification denyed by W. P. I shall further add by way of premise to the Call and Exhortation what was before intimated that these three are great Fundamental Truths of the Christian Religion necessary to be believed in order to Salvation the unbelief and denyal of which will bring unavoidable damnation 1. The Doctrine of the Trinity of distinct Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence is a Fundamental Truth because the Godhead in the three persons is the proper object of saving Faith and right Worship and those that do not savingly believe and rightly worship God cannot possibly be saved besides the denyal of the three distinct persons in the Godhead doth necessarily inferr the denyal of the co-eternal co-essential Deity of the Son and Holy Ghost which is Blasphemy and damnable Heresie so accounted by the most ancient and authentique Councils and by the true Church of God in all Ages II. The Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and Justification by his imputed Righteousness are Fundamental Truths also without which there can be no Redemption Reconciliation Remission and consequently no Salvation This being premised I shall now apply my self first to the Quakers and then to others To W. P. and other Quakers who believe these and other Quaker damnable errors I shall propound these four Queries which I shall answer according to truth Que. 1. Do you know what you are 1. You are strangers to Christ whatever your fancy be of Christ within you and I am confident that none of you all that believe these errors have had experience of the new birth and forming of Christs image upon your hearts since there never is a work of regeneration and uniting the souls of any to Christ that leaveth them in such darkness and error as you are left and bound up in No had you been ever truly regenerated you would have been humbled and emptied of your selves you would have seen your selves lost in your selves and your need of Christs satisfaction and imputed Righteousness without which you would have been assured that there is no possibility Gods anger should be appeased and your souls saved It is not turning Quaker that is turning from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to Christ but on the contrary it is a turning from light to darkness and from Christ to Satan and what will be the issue hereof not remission of sins and salvation but the fastening of guilt upon you and eternal destruction 2. You are enemies to Christ and I believe that Jesus Christ hath scarcely greater enemies under the Sun than you who are greater enemies to Christ than those who deny his eternal Deity as I have proved to be the plain consequence of W. P's words and of the denial of the Trinity who are greater enemies to Christ than those that deny his Satisfaction and Justification by his merrits who are greater enemies to Christ than those that oppose his faithful Ministers and Embassadors and that lye in wait to deceive and mislead Christians you are enemies to his truths and ways and ordinances and cause and interest and Ministers and true Disciples and all this with Christ in your mouths and I am confident the Lord doth hate and abhor you for such hypocrisy 3. You are Children of the Devil and
Ghost most rightly they do partake of the same Essence and are dignified with one and the same Godhead What can be more plain And he goeth on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. How can any say that he which begetteth doth not differ from him which is begotten that he which proceedeth doth not differ from him from whom he proceedeth Here is Unity of Essence and Trinity of distinct Persons asserted plainly I shall add but one place more of many in Resp. 17. ad Ortho. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore there is but one God in one indistinct Essence and three Persons with distinction of their Persons or Subsistences Tertullian Lib. de Trinitate adversus Proaxnean doth express his faith in this doctrine throughout the whole Book and argueth it strongly from the Scriptures Cap. 12. Si te adhuc numerus scandalizat Trinitatis quasi non connexae in unitate simplici interrogo quomodo unicus singularis pluraliter loquitur Faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram Adam factus est tanquam unus ex nobis quia adhunc adhaerebat illi Filius secundae persona tertia Spiritus ideo pluraliter pronunciavit Faciamus nostram nobis If the number of the Trinity doth offend thee as if it could not be joyned in the simple unity I ask thee how thee one and single God doth speak pluraly Let us make Man after our Image Adam is become like one of us because the Son the second person and the Spirit the third did adhere to him therefore he spake pluraly Let us make our us Chap. 13. Pater Deus Filius Deus Spiritus Sanctus Deus the Father is God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God Chap. 31. Pater Filius Spiritus Sanctus tres crediti unum Deum sistunt The Father Son and Holy Ghost the three we are to believe in bold forth but one God Theophilus Lib. 1. Com in Evang doth acknowledge the Trinity Margarita pretiosa est Sancta Trinitas quae dividi non potest nam in unitate consistit The Holy Trinity is a precious Iewel which cannot be divided because it consisteth in unity Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in preaemio and Cap. 2. I am informed by a learned Author doth expresse his Faith in this Doctrine but I have not that Peice of Origen by me as I have the rest to consult I could adde the testimony of other Fathers who lived before the time W. P. maketh mention of but it is enough to cite these for the detection of the falshood of W. P. who telleth us that these Fathers were strangers to the Doctrine of the Trinity wherefore the weakness absurdity falshood and folly of this man being made manifest I suppose people will be more cautious than to follow him and the guidance of the light which W. P. saith is communicated unto all and forsake the true Light of the Word and Spirit which alone can guide men into all truth CHAP. VII The Doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ the second person of the real and glorious Trinity asserted and proved IF the doctrine of the ever glorious Trinity or three persons Father Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead had been overthrown by W. P. or could be indeed shaken by the Sociniant which with all the argument they can device in vain they do endeavour if he or they could prove which they never can that there is but one person in the God-head then it would follow that Christ could not be the eternal Son of God the second person of this glorious Trinity as W. P. most blasphemously stileth him the second person of the imagin'd Trinity and by consequence the Doctrine of satisfaction depending upon this person would fall to the ground and might by invincible argument be refuted it being impossible for any meer finite creature to make plenary satisfaction to the infinite Justice of God But the Doctrine of the Trinity being established by Scripture Testimony and the Lord Jesus Christ proved to be God equal with the Father the Doctrine also of satisfaction dependent upon this second person of the real and ever glorious Trinity will remain firm against all Quaker and Socinian attempts to overthrow it and before I give answer unto the objections and cavils against this Doctrine I shall breifly assert and prove the doctrine by the Word of Truth in the Holy Scripture W. P. in his title The impossibility of Gods pardoning offin without a plenary satisfaction refuted seemeth to infinuate that he denyeth onely the impossibility of Gods pardoning sin without satisfaction but whoever readeth his arguments shall finde them to be the very same which the Socinians use against Satisfaction it self and that he plainly denyeth the thing therefore I shall not concern my self to enquire what God could or might do if he pleased but what he hath decreed and determined to do and declared in the Scripture to be his will and here I affirm 1. That God never doth nor will nor can pardon any sinner without satisfaction made to his offended Iustice for their sins And that because his holiness righteousness and truth obligeth him to take vengeance upon all that have transgressed his Law the Lord is so Holy that he hateth all the workers of iniquity Psal. 5. 5. and what is Gods hatred but Percatum pro merito suo velle punire as Bradsh de Iust. his will to punish sin and sinners according to their desert His Justice doth engage him by no means to clear the guilty Exod. 34. 7. and his truth would be enfringed if he should not curse every one that centinueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. II. That no sinners themselves by any thing they can do or suffer in this life can give satisfaction unto Gods Iustice for their sins And the reason is because whatever good they do is no more than duty wherein also they must have Divine help to enable them and when they have done their duty their works are but imperfect and they unprofitable servants and this can make no compensation for their faults before Luk. 17. 10. When have done all the things commanded say we are unprofitable servants c. Our righteousnesses are as filthy raggs Isa. 64. 6. And what ever sinners suffer in this life it is infinitely short of what their sins have deserved Gods Justice is infinite and requierth an infinite satisfaction sinners are finite and therefore there is no porportion between any thing they can bring and what Gods Justice doth require for satisfaction III. That Iesus Christ being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and Man in one person was onely fit to make and hath actually made satisfaction unto Gods infinite and offended Iustice for the sins of Men. It was necessary that the person that should make satisfaction should be man because none but a creature could suffer and none but a man could be a fit
Religion than the Papists themselves And because W. P. doth take occasion from the meeting with me and others in disputation if it might be so called where nothing was directly answered to put forth his Pamphlet and because he giveth but a lame and in somethings a false account of transactions therefore I shall 1. give a true and brief Narative of what passed at the Meetting or Conference with answer to his Postscript 2 Establish the truths he objecteth against by Scripture and Argument 3 Answer his objections against those truths Lastly apply my self to deluded Quakers for the recalling of them and to all other Christians for the cautioning and establishing of them against the attempts of such as would draw them aside into the dark and dangerous path which doth as certainly lead to Hell as the broad way of Prophaneness CHAP. II. A brief Narrative of T. V's meeting with some Quakers in Spittle-yard with the occasion and transactions there and some exceptions to the account which W. P. hath given thereof MY first meeting with the Quakers was upon desire at the house of a friend in Houndsditch in der to the preserving of some who were tempted to go amongst them I met there several Quakers two of which were the chief speakers It would tire the Reader as I believe it did the hearers to give relation of all their wild and impertinent discourse I could not get them to speak out and plainly to assert some of their Principles through fear it is likely lest their mouths should be stopped before the people yet after many words they asserted the perfection of Saints in this Life and the place of Scripture which they brought for the proof of their assertion was 1 Iob. 3. 9. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin Unto this I answered That the words in the Original were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one of them interrupted me at the mention of the Original words saying It was the smoke of the bottomless pit that the signification was doth not make it his business to sin and the meaning was that such as were born again did not make a trade of sin did not go on in a course of sin or did not commit sin that is with the full bent of the will as the wicked do But that it could not be understood of not committing sin at all because the same Apostle in the same Epistle Chap. 1. 8. telleth thus If we say we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us There he speaketh of himself and others that were born again and plainly acknowledgeth they were not without sin It was further urged that if all that were born of God were perfectly free from sin then it would follow that who ever found any sin in them were not born of God consequently in state of nature and so if they should die with any sin remaining they would certainly go to Hell and so none there yea none in the world would be saved Moreover I appealed to the experience of the best of them whether they could say they were wholly free from sin whether they had no irregular thoughts nor affections this they would not affirm neither did they absolutely deny when they pleaded the perfection the Apostle Paul speaketh of Phil. 3. 15. I replied that the same Apostle v. 12. acknowledgeth that he had not as yet attained neither was yet perfect and if the Apostle Paul who had arrived to so great a heighth in grace that he was how ever as some think little in bodily stature yet taller by the head and shoulders than others in regard of his grace and spiritual attainments how could Audacious Quakers who if Quakers indeed because of their damnable opinions I am confident have not the least degree of true grace boast of perfection as if they had got above the Apostle himself I told them that all true Believers were perfect in a sence they were Evangelically perfect but not legally not absolutely perfect they had perfection of parts but not perfection of degrees and in this sence the work of Grace though the work of God was not perfect in regard of our selves but by degrees was carried on unto further perfection After this when they could give no answer to the Arguments urged against them they burst out into a clamor and talking all altogether opening their mouths as wide as they could and shutting their ears as hard as they could repeating the same things over and over again You make your selves the Patrons of sin He that committeth sin is of the Devil And whilst they pleaded That all which were born of God were without sin they discovered themselves to be none of those that were born of God by the sin which they were palpably guilty of in the multitude of their words especially in their wresting the Scripture from its genuine sence meaning and in the perverse disputings of their corrupt minds Our discourse was to this effect wherein they discovered so much of their rotten Tenents so much of their folly and weakness being unable to maintain what they had asserted that one said to them An 't please God I will believe you no more Others that were wavering before were confirmed against them aud established in the ways of Truth and so continue still to this day The next week after this meeting I went into the Country for a fortnight and in my absence two of my friends Mother and Daughter went off to the Quakers the Daughter was the first whose inclinations and humour carried her that way for some time before for the preserving of whom from the Quakers delusions upon the request of the Mother I had several discourses with her I gave several reasons against their tenents and ways unto which she could give no answer nor any ground of her liking their ways which was not answered onely a perverse will which I am inform'd her Mother hath so much indulg'd in other things unbefitting a parent that in this it is like to prove the destinction both of mother and child did lead her this way against all reasons and perswasions I acknowledge I did say It was worse to go to the Quakers meetings than to a Bawdyhouse because the defilement of the soul with their damnable erors which there she was likely to contract was more deep and more hardly to be washt off than the defilement of whoredom or adultery and what our Saviour said of the Pharisees I may say of the Quakers that harlots go into the Kingdom of Heaven sooner than they moreover I told her that If there stood a cup of poyson in the window I would rather drink it than suck in their damnable Doctrines because poysoning of the body was not so bad as the poysoning and damning of the soul. I said further not that I would give her up but that if she went again God might give her up to believe a lye that she might be damned the
no direct reply to this Sylogism but findeth fault with the terms and W. P. telleth us that God did not use to wrap his Truths in Heathenish Metaphysicks but in plain language but let the Reader judge whether there be the heathenish Metaphysicks he speaketh of in this Sylogism wherein there is not a word but what is to be found in the Scripture not but that some words may be made use of in explaining Scripture Truths which are not in the Scripture themselves so they expresse the thing which the Scripture doth signify in other Phrases more proper to the languages the Scripture were wrot in and I could make it evident out of the Books of the Quakers themselves that they use many words which are not in the Scripture No answer could be obtained to my argument in the Meeting but W. P. taking the argument into further consideration attempteth at length in his Pamphlet to make a reply and first taxeth me to be as little a Scholar in regard of the manner of my Sylogism as a Christian in regard of the matter of it My Sylogism was urged to prove the three glorious persons in the Godhead the denial of which doth necessarily infer the denial of Christ to be God equal with the Father and let any judge who approveth himself most a Christian either W. P. in denying this or I in asserting and proving it As to the manner of my Sylogism some Quakers it may be who know not what a Sylogism is may believe that it bespeaks me to be little a Scholar but no Scholar will judge so from that Sylogism which they know to be according to rule and to carry a firm proof in it drawn from the Induction of particulars but W. P. discovereth himself to be that which he taxeth me for namely little a Scholar and though he hath been at the University yet that either he never read Logick or never understood Logick or hath forgot Logick or that purposely he hath laid aside Logick that herein he might be like to the Quakers in answering nothing to the purpose for besides his finding fault with my Sylogism his reply to it doth most of all detect his want of Learning and grosse absurdity for which he would have been hissed out of the Schools had he done it in the University for though he telleth us he will give his reason why he will deny my Minor yet most ridiculously and ignorantly he argueth against my conclusion The Minor as he repeateth it is But they are not three manifestations three operations three substances or three some things else besides subsistences The conclusion Therefore three subsistences If he had indeed denied the Minor he must have asserted that they were either three substances or operations or manifestations or something else but he mistaketh the conclusion for the Minor and argueth that they are not three subsistences No one substance can have three distinct subsistences c. W. P. argueth against the Trinity of persons in the unity of Essence behold the Christian he argueth against the conclusion of a Sylogism calling it the Minor behold the Scholar yet because his argument is against our Doctrine therefore I shall give answer thereunto and his other cavils together in the sixth chap. After this he reflected upon Mr. Madox in the 11. page whose answer you have in the following Chapter CHAP. III. An Answer to the 11. page of W. P's pernicious Pamphlet by W. M. ANd because G. W. willing to bring this strange Doctrine This Doctrine is strange to none but such as are strangers to God and ignorant of the Scriptures whose eyes the God of this world hath blinded lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ who is the Image of God should shine into them 2 Cor. 4. 3 4. but as Ephraim when joyned to idols counted the great things of Gods Law a strange thing Hos. 8. 12. so these men having prostituted themselves to an Idol of their own brains The Light within which is their Christ and Savior count the Doctrine of the true God a strange Doctrine To the capacity of the people You mean to the scorn and contempt of the people for his design was not to explain but to expose the Doctrine and it is absurd to imagine that he could facilitate that to the understanding of others which he himself neither derstands nor believes Compar'd their three Persons to three Apostles By their three persons you mean the three increated Persons of the ever blessed Trinity the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost Of the insolency and wickedness of this Comparison you shall hear by and by onely here let me tell you that we have endeavoured to make them ours by a fiducial application of them to our selves and it is no dishonor to us though it be a blasphemous reflection on them that they are in reproach called our three persons because we appear in vindication of them saying he did not understand how Paul Peter and Iohn could be three persons and one Apostle Neither did we assert it either directly or by consequence For though we call the father Son and Holy Ghost three Persons or He 's according as they are held forth in the Scriptures yet we say there is a vast and infinite difference between three created and the three increated persons for three created persons are so many distinct and separate Essences as they are persons but all the increated persons have the same simple and unseparated essence of God Ioh. 10. 30. I and my Father are one 1 Joh. 5. 7. These three are one not one in person for so the Father is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Another from Christ Ioh. 5. 32. There is Another c. and the Holy Ghost is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioh. 14. 16. Another Comforter i. e. Another as to subsistence or manner of being but one in nature and essence so that though Paul Peter and Iohn being of a finite nature cannot be three persons and one Apostle yet I am sure from the Scripture that the Father Son and Holy Ghost being of an infinite nature are three persons and yet but one God and till you can prove that finite and infinite or God and the Creature are all one it will be in vain to make such a comparison for the shaking of this Foundation-truth A most apt comparison to detect the ridicult of their doctrine Or rather to discover the monstrous blindness hardness and unbelief of his own and your hearts who dare so boldly spit in the face of God like men that have cast off all fear and reverence of God as well as of men One Maddocks whose zeal out-stript his knowledge busling hard as one that had some necessary matter for the decision of Controversie These extravagant expressions designed to cast disgrace on my person I purposely overlook because I contend not for mine own honor but for the honor of God In stead thereof perhaps to save his brethren
God especially it followeth from the scope of the argument which is to prove that if the Father be God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God than there are three distinct Gods but W. P. having plainly asserted his belief that there is but one God he must of necessity deny by his argument that the Son and Holy Ghost are God for neither he nor any Socinian of them all will deny that the Father is God Behold here the Christian that hath offered such an affront and indignity unto the Son and Spirit as to divest them what in him lieth of their Divinity is not this a treading of the Son of God underfoot and doing despight to the spirit of grace and should not this cause the hearts of all sincere Christians who have any zeal for their masters honour to arise with indignation against such Black-mouth'd blasphemers and to abhor their opinions and ways but more of this in the exhortation at the latter end the Heathenism abominablenesse and foulness of this opinion being such a blasphemy and reproach of the eternal Son of God may excuse a little disgression to expresse my abhorrency thereof The thing to be proved is that the Son is God I do not mean nominal so as those are that are called Gods whether in heaven or in earth but really so that he is God co-essential co-equal co-eternal with the Father The onely proof of this is to be drawn from the Scripture I. Joh. 1. 1. 3. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made By the Word we are to understand the Essential not the written Word namely the Son the only begotten of the Father which is Christ it being the same whom Iohn came to bear witness of ver 7. the same which was made flesh and dwelt amongst them ver 14. Now that this Word or Son of God is God is evident from this place where 1. He is called God The Word was God 2. It is said All things were made by him So Col. 1 16. For by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth visible and invisible whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers all things were created by him and for him Whence it followeth 1. That he himself was not made for then he must be made by himself which is absurd and impossible and if he were not made then he is no creature and if no creature then God all things that have a being being divided into God and his creatures 2. It followeth hence that all things being made by him that he is the Creator that he is Infinite in Power and Wisdom and Goodness as his works of Creation do demonstrate 3. It followeth that all things being made by him that he was before all things as it is said expresly Col. 1. 17. And he is before all things that he was before the beginning of time when creatures received their beings it being necessary that he which made creatures should be before the creatures he made and therefore he must be eternal and by consequence that he must needs be God none being eternal a parte ante in respect of heretofore but God II. Joh. 8. 58. Iesus said unto them Verily verily I say unto you Before Abraham was I am That the Jews did apprehend him to assert himself to be God is evident by their taking up stones to cast at him for the Blasphemy which they through their unbelief of his Deity did think he had spoken And that he did really hereby assert himself to be God is evident from the words themselves I Am is the Name whereby God made himself known to Moses and the children of Israel Exod. 3. 14. And God said unto Moses thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel I Am hath sent me unto you I am doth signifie infinite eternal necessary independent Being this Christ doth apply to himself therefore he is God Moreover in our Saviours saying Before Abraham was I am it must needs have a reference to his Divine Nature for in regard of his humane nature the Jews spake truth v. 57. Thou are not yet fifty years old as man he was a son of Abraham and born many generations after him therefore his Being before Abraham yea before the world by the former Scriptures proved hath a reference to his Divine Nature and Godhead III. Joh. 3. 13. And no man hath ascended unto heaven but he that came down from heaven even the Son of Man which is in heaven That Christ was not in heaven at that time as man is evident because he was upon the earth speaking to Nicodemus yet he telleth him He is in heaven that is as God he filleth both heaven and earth IV. Rom. 9. 5. Whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever Amen Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came that setteth forth his humane nature Who is over all God blessed for ever that evidently doth prove his Divine Nature The Title of God with universal Soveraignty and eternal Blessedness cannot without blasphemy and absurdity be ascribed unto any creature as it is here unto Christ. V. Philip. 2.6 Who being in the form of God thought it no robbery to be equal with God In this Scripture there are two Proof that Christ is God 1 He is said to be in the form of God by the form of God we can rationally understand nothing but the Essence of God and to be in the form of God is to subsist in the Essence of God Christ subsisting eternally in the Essence of God must needs be God 2. It is said He thought it no robbery to be equal with God that is he was equal with God without robbing God of his honor without any detraction from the Deity And none can be equal with God but he that is God and such is Christ. I might here add for the proof of Christs Divinity all those Scriptures which ascribe the same divine Attributes to Christ as Eternity Heb. 1. 8. Vnto the Son he saith Thy Throne O God is for ever and euer Omniscience Ioh. 21. 17. Lord thou knowest all things thou knowest that I love thee Omnipresence Math. 28. 20. Lo I am with you always Omnipotence In making all things as before and upholding all things by the word of his power Heb. 1. 3 As also those Scriptures which ascribe the same honor and worship to Christ which is due onely to God In him we must believe Joh. 14. 1. In his name we must be baptized Math. 28. 19. Vpon his name we must call 1 Cor. 1. 2. At his name we must bow Phil. 2. 10. None can reasonably question Christs Deity who give credit to the Scriptures Authority 4. The fourth thing is to prove that the holy Ghost
is God which W. P. also doth deny and this also I shall prove from Scripture I. But Peter said Act. 5. 4 3. Ananias why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the holy Ghost to keep back part of the price of the Land c. Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart thou hast not lyed unto men but unto God Him whom the Apostle calleth Holy Ghost in the 3d. verse he calleth God in the 4. verse and him whom he calleth God in the 4th verse he calleth the Spirit of the Lord in the ninth verse How is it that ye have agreed to tempt the Spirit of the Lord II. 1 Cor. 12. 4 5 6. Now there are diversities of gifts but the same spirit and there are differences of Administrations but the same Lord and there are diversities of operations but it is the same God which worketh all in all He that is called the same Spirit in the 4th verse is called the same Lord in the fifth verse and the same God which worketh all in all in the sixth verse and that what is spoken of Administrations and Operations in the fifth and sixth verses is attributed to the Spirit as appeareth by the seventh verse where they are called The manifestation of the Spirit given to every man to profit withal and more plainly verse 11. But all this worketh that one and the same Spirit dividing unto every man severally as he will And what can be more plain to prove that the Holy Ghost or Spirit is God when he worketh all in all and distributeth spiritual gifts unto men according to his own good pleasure III. Isa. 6. 1. I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne c. v. 2 3. Above stood the Seraphims and cryed Holy holy holy is the Lord of Hosts The three Holies signifie the three Persons the Lord of Hosts the one God ver 8. I heard the voice of the Lord ver 9. And he said Go tell this people Hear ye indeed but understand not c. This must needs be spoken of God and it is by the Apostle applyed to the Holy Ghost Act. 28. 25. Well spake the Holy Ghost go to this people and say hearing you shall hear c. IV. 1 Cor. 2. 10. For the Spirit searcheth all things yea the deep things of God None is omniscient to know all things yea whatsoever is in the unsearchable minde of God but he that is God and therefore the Holy Ghost is God I might speak further of his divine Works as Regeneration Ioh. 3. 5. guiding Believers into all truth Ioh. 16. 13. Sanctification and the like of our being baptized by him Mat. 3. 11. and in his name Mat. 28. 19. and his being called One that is one God where he is numbred up amongst the three Persons that bare record in heaven 1 Ioh. 5. 7. All which undeniably prove that the Holy Ghost is God co-essential and co-equal with the Father and the Son 5. The fifth and last thing is to prove That Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct Subsistents or Persons Concerning the name Person I shall not speak of it because Mr. Danson intendeth to vindicate that word from the cavils of W. P. in answer to what concerneth him p. 10. That there are three such distinct Persons in one Divine Essence is evident from the Scripture See Math. 3. 16 17. And Iesus when he was baptized went up straightway out of the water and to the Heavens were opened unto him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a Dove and lighting upon him And lo a voice from Heaven saying This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased Here is a distinction of all the three Persons the Son was clothed in flesh and came up out of the water the Spirit was in the shape of a Dove which came down from heaven the Fa was in the voice saying This is my beloved Son Another Scripture which holdeth forth this distinction is Ioh. 16. 17. I will pray the Father and he shall give them another Comforter even the Spirit of Truth The Son prayeth the Father giveth The Spirit of Truth is the Comforter that is given I shall adde a third Scripture 1 Ioh. 5. 7. There are three that bare record in heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one They are the distinct Persons but one undivided Essence But further to confirm this truth denied by the Adversaries I shall prove from the Scripture that there are three distinct Persons in one Divine Essence 1 From the distinct Names given to them 2 From their distinct personal Acts. 3 From their distinct personal Properties 1. From their distinct Names they are called Father Son and Holy Ghost Math. 28. 19. Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Father Word and Holy Ghost in Ioh. 5. 7. before cited These names do evidence a distinction not of nature and essence for they are one therefore of personality 2. From their distinct personal acts I mean such acts as can be ascribed unto none but such as are persons 1 Giving the Comforter is ascribed to the Father Ioh. 14. 16. I will pray the Father and he shall send you another Comforter it is proper onely to a person to give this act requiring both understanding and will 2 Sending the Comforter is ascribed to the Son Ioh. 15. 6. When the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from the Father and it is proper onely to a person to send 3 Guiding into all truth speaking what he heareth is ascribed to the Holy Ghost Ioh. 16. 13. Howbeit when he the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all truth for he shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak And who can deny that these are personal acts The distinction of the persons in these acts is evident in all these places where the Son speaketh of himself in the first person I will pray I will send he speaketh of the Father and the Spirit in the third person which persons he evidently distinguisheth one from another by the preposition from speaking of the Spirit whom I will send from the Father Surely he must wink very hard that doth not perceive a distinction of the persons of Father Son and Spirit in these places 3. That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons is evident from these distinct personal and incommunicable Properties 1. The personal property of the Father is to beget the Son Heb. 1. 5. Vnto which of the Angels said he at any time thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee and the Son being eternal as hath been proved this generation must be eternal 2. The personal property of the Son is to be begotten of the Father Ioh. 1. 14. We beheld his glory the glory as of the onely begotten of the Father 3. The personal
from them but taking his whole satisfaction at the hands of Christ whom of free grace he sent into the World to dye and hereby to satisfie his justice in their stead God indeed proclaims himself to be gracious and merciful whereby he declares what he is in his Son whom he had before promised to give and in whom alone all Nations of the Earth that ever should obtain his favour were to be blessed 2 Chron. 32 9. If you turn again to the Lord the Lord is gracious and merciful c. I deny the consequence from this Scripture that Gods remission is grounded on Mens repentance but his grace and mercy through Christ is the reason of his invitation of sinners to repent and turn unto him as is evident from that Scripture Eph. 1. 6. that we are made accepted only in the beloved without whole satisfaction and intercession the repentance and reformation of sinners would not in the least avail for remission and acceptation Neh. 9. 17. Thou art a God ready to pardon c. Isa. 55. 7. Let the wicked forsake his way c. Let him return to the Lord and he will have mercy on him c. Jer. 31. 34. I will forgive their iniquity Mic. 7. 18. Who is a God like unto thee that pardoneth iniquity c. These and the like places prove God to be gracious and merciful ready to forgive and that he hath engaged himself to do it And who is there that denyeth all this But where is the inconsistence between this and Christs satisfaction Yea where would have been the exercise of any grace and mercy towards us if it had not been for Christs satisfaction He hath promised to pardon sin in the new Covenant but was not that Covenant ratifyed with the blood of Christ and doth not the Apostle tell us plainly Heb. 9. 22. That without shedding of blood there is no remission So that our opinion or rather belief is not strange but his consequence is so and his denyal of satisfaction doth destroy the design of the Covenant of grace which cannot be of force without it and not our asserting of it And though God be exalted upon the Throne of his mercy to forgive sinners that by faith are interested in the merits and satisfaction of his Son yet W. P. and all Quakers and Socinians which deny Christs satisfaction and thereby ipso facto exclude themselves from all share in it will finde at the length that God is exalted upon the Throne of his judgment to take vengeance upon them all that will not be beholding to his Son to appease his wrath Math. 6. 12. And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors From whence W. P. argueth that which is forgiven is not payed I answer that which is forgiven is not payed by us but it is payed by Christ and it is free to us though it cost Christ dear He further argueth that we are to forgive without satisfaction and therefore God doth I answer that God doth forgive without satisfaction from us and as those that do injure us we ought to forgive them freely without satisfaction because vengeance doth not belong to us but unto the Lord who in our room as it were will have satisfaction one way or other from them and hath threatned to recompence every injury upon their heads so the Lord doth freely forgive us and yet so as that still he doth preserve the honour of his justice in taking satisfaction from Christ. Joh. 3. 16. God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish c. This Scripture is nothing to W. Ps purpose but strongly against his errour because if we be saved only by faith in Christ than it must need be in Christ as a sacrifice for sin as fulfilling the Law and bearing Gods wrath and by consequence as making satisfaction I grant that Gods love of benevolence or electing love is not the effect of Christs satisfaction from whence it was that he sent his Son into the World for our salvation but his love of complacency is the effect of Christs satisfaction Math. 3. 17. He is well pleased with us only in Christ. Rom. 8. 31 32. Carrieth the same argument and therefore may have the same answer neither is it any absurdity to say that God should be at the charges of his own satisfaction Job 33. 24. I have found a ransome Act. 10. 34. Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins This place is grosly wrested and perverted by W. P. since remission is through faith in Christ called faith in his blood Rom. 3. 25. And how in his blood but as his blood is the price of our redemption but W. P. calleth faith only a believing of his testimony yea he addeth obeying his precepts as a concurring cause of remission which is rank Popery importing justification by works 2 Cor. 5. 18. That God himself reconcileth sinners to himself by Christ is most true and most strongly argueth against his errour and for our cause for how doth God reconcile us to himself by Christ but by the blood of his Cross Col. 1. 20. And what doth this import but satisfaction by this blood without which there is no reconciliation Eph. 1. 7. In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his grace This place is an invincible argument for Christs satisfaction redemption through Christs blood on our part clearly importing satisfaction through Christs blood on Gods part and therefore this with other places which W. P. mentioneth against the truth do prove to be for the truth and cut the throat of his own tenents who most childishly God infatuating of him bringeth arguments to the destruction of his own cause His arguing that grace is not justice because forgiveness is according to the riches of Gods grace is very weak for though grace be not formally justice yet grace and justice are very well consistent as Rom. 3. 24. Being justified freely by his grace c. vers 25. To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins vers 26. That he might be just and the justifier of him that believeth As God is just in respect of Christ he pardoneth them that believe because of his satisfaction though all be free grace in regard of us 1 Pet. 5. 10. But the God of all grace that hath called us c. This hath the same consequence as the other and therefore needs no other answer 1 Iob. 4. 9. In this was manisested the love of God c. I have granted it is out of love that God sent his Son but it doth no way follow that therefore his Son did not make satisfaction to his justice and therefore though W. P. in enumerating some of the ends of Christs mission into the World doth reach no higher than his setting him forth as a perfect example which is the Socinian doctrine yet the
not distinct but one and the same and therefore as three Essences so three Gods cannot be concluded from hence and though every person in the Trinity be inseparable from it's substance yet it doth not follow that the substance must be distinct in every person though the persons be distinct neither doth it follow that the persons are either three distinct nothings as W. P. blasphemously reproacheth the ever glorious Trinity or three distinct Gods because the distinction is in regard of the personality and not in regard of the Essence and whereas Pag. 10. he seemeth to adde another reason why the infinite Godhead cannot subsist in three manners or forms he means the three persons because then one of them could not be a compleat subsistence without the other two and so parts and something finite would be in God or if infinite then there would be three distinct infinite subsistences and by consequence there would be three distinct Gods Answer Each person is a compleat person or subsistent without the personality or subsistence of the other two that is distinct from the other two but not without the substance of the other two which is the same in all three from whence it doth no ways follow that parts or something finite is in God nor that there are three infinite subsistences for though in the concrete every subsistent is infinite yet in the abstract infinitenesse is not applicable to the subsistance of which more in answer to the second argument which is to the same purpose with the close of this page 13. 2. Arg. The Divine persons are either finite or infinite if finite then something finite is in God if infinite then there would be three distinct infinites and consequently three Gods Answer The Divine persons or subsistents are infinite in the concrete The Father is infinite the Son is infinite the Holy Ghost is infinite the Father is omnipotent the Son omnipotent and the Holy Ghost omnipotent and yet three are not three infinites or three omnipotents but one infinite one omnipotent and the reason is because these and all other essential attributes agree to the persons onely in regard of the Essence from whence they flow and therefore though person or subsistent in the concrete be infinite omnipotent and the like in regard of the Essence included therein yet this can not be properly ascribed to the subsistence or personality therefore though there be three distinct personalities unto which infinitenesse is not ascribed yet there being but one and the same single Essence in all the three persons unto which infinitenesse is attributed it doth not follow that there are three infinites or the consequence that there are three Gods But W. P. in his arguings confoundeth the person with the personality the subsistent with the subsistence the concrete with the abstract taking the former for the latter but if he should understand the person in the abstract for the personality or subsistence then it is denied that either finitenesse for infinitenesse doth properly belong unto it it being altogether improper to ascribe the property of the nature to the subsistence of that nature in the abstract as immortality and mortality do not agree to any particular subsistence as such but to the nature in which it doth subject or to instance in the subsistence of a man it would be improper to ascribe the properties that belong to him unto his subsistence to say that his subsistence in the abstract is either a learned or unlearned subsistence a great one or a small one a white one or a black one and so it is improper to say that either of the persons in regard of their personality or subsistence are finite or infinite but in regard of their Essence in the concrete they are infinite which Essence being but one in each there is but one infinite and by consequence but one God W. P's third Argument is this If each person be God and that God subsists in three persons then in each person there are three persons or Gods and so from three they would increase to nine and so in infinitum Answer W. P. confoundeth again the concrete and the abstract together it is granted that each person is God in the concrete and that God not in the concrete but in the abstract God essentially or the Essence of God doth subsist in three persons from whence it doth not at all follow that there be three persons in each person but that there are three persons in one Godhead and so his consequence of the persons encreasing to nine and ad infinitum is both ridiculous and absurd W. P's fourth argument being built upon the supposition that we deny the persons to be infinite which we have affirmed it proveth nothing and therefore requireth no answer and I have not leasure to trace him with remarks upon his absurd arguings upon a false supposition which he conceived we might have W. P's last argument is this If these three distinct persons are one then they are not incommunicable amongst themselves but so much the contrary to be in the place of one another for if the onely God is the Father and Christ be that onely God then is Christ the Father and so round Answer Though the three persons be one that is one Essence yet it doth not follow that they are not incommunicable amongst themselves and that they are in the place of one another Here W. P. confounds again the persons and the personalities the concrete and the abstract the persons are in the one Essence or Godhead and agree among themselves yet these persons in regard of their personal properties are incommunicable to each other the subsistents are the same in regard of the Essence the subsistences are not the same and therefore though the only God be the Father and Christ that only God yet it followeth not that Christ is the Father because Christ is the onely God Essentially that is hath the Nature and Essence of God and so hath the Holy Ghost and yet both are personally distinguished from the Father The next thing that followeth under that head I need not repeat it being nothing against us we acknowledge the Divine nature to be inseparable from the three persons and communicated to each and each person to have the whole Divine nature and likewise the Father to be in the Son and Son in the Father Ioh. 14. 10. and the Spirit in the Son and we know no absurdity that followeth from hence these persons being in each other by reason of the Essence which is the same in every of them and therefore the consequences he draweth from the denial hereof we have nothing to do with so that W. P. more justly may take shame and ridiclousnesse unto himself W. P's reasonings against the ever Blessed and Glorious Trinity falling to the ground let us look into his Information and caution which he subjoyns whether any thing of truth and congency be there to be found
There he pretends to inform the Reader concerning the original of this doctrine and first he would have the Reader assure himself that it is neither from Scripture nor reason But I suppose most Readers will be more wise and cautious than to build their assurance upon the bold assertions and crude reasonings of this presumptuous and Heaven-daring disputant That this doctrine is not from reason will be easily granted yea that it is contrary to corrupt reason such as W. P. hath plainly declared it self to be it is a mystery which flesh and blood cannot reveal but the Father which is in Heaven yet so as it is not contrary to right and truly sanctifyed reason And whereas W. P. asserteth that it is not from Scripture he must not think to impose this upon Christians who have look't into the Word any more than what he further asserts as to the first three hundred years upon those that have look't into the writings of the ancient Fathers The Doctrine of the Trinity is as old as the Scriptures themselves and hath been proved out of the first Chapter of Genesis and other places of the Old Testament by Mr. M. Chap. 4th and abundantly out of the New Testament Chap. 5. The Readers that search and believe the Scriptures will never believe W. Penn. That the Doctrine of the Trinity came into the world above three hundred years after the first preaching of the Gospel by the nice distinctions and too daring curiosity of the Bishop of Alexandria is one of W. Pen's loud lyes It was indeed opposed by Arius about that time who denied Christ to be equal to and of the same substance with the Father yet not first opposed by him but by other hereticks before him one of whose disciples if not worse W. P. hath in his Pamphlet sufficiently proved himself to be and if it were opposed before sure it was known before so that W. P. might have derived the pedigree of his abomination and blasphemy if he had consulted Church History higher than from Arius The miserable end of which blasphemour and dishonourer of the eternal Son of God who voided his entrails with his excrements in a place of easement and so died by an unheard of death should caution all others from offering the like indignities unto the Son as to disrobe him of his Deity and number him amongst creatures like themselves lest he stretch forth the arm of his Almighty power and make them feel him if they will not otherwise acknowledge him to be God by bringing some remarkable destruction upon them in this world W. P. Thus was it conceived in ignorance brought forth and maintained by cruelty c. What a strange composition is here of impudence and folly thus boldly and blasphemously to assert this great fundamental truth to be conceived in ignorance and maintained by cruelty and yet in the next breath he owns persecution to be as well on the Arians side as the other and so by his own confession the Arian Doctrine was maintained by cruelty and with how great cruelty and bitternesse those which look into the Histories of those times may easily see To say nothing of W. P's so proud censuring so eminent a champion of Jesus Christ as Athanasius was when he shall produce the grounds of his suspecting the Creed commonly called The Athanasian Creed to be the Results of Popish School-men it will be time enough to answer that Clause Next W. P. cautioneth the Reader to take heed of embracing the Determinations of prejudiced Councils c. and yet giveth no reason why the Reader should be prejudic'd against them except the belying of the Scripture testimony be a reason which I suppose was the ground of their Determinations in this point and no further are any Councils to be heeded than they do agree in their Results with the Scriptures I hope the Reader will rather take heed of embracing such damnable Doctrine as this peremptory Dictatour would impose upon the understanding of the weak and indeed weak they must needs be and blinde too and either renounce the Scriptures or their own senses that will suffer their assent to these great Scripture-truths to be in the least enfeebled by any thing that this raw Disputer alledgeth for the maintaining of this Blasphemy and Heresie or oppugning our received and never to be shaken Foundations And here W. P. who had discovered before his skill in Logick by arguing against the conclusion of my Syllogism telling us he opposed the Minor his skill in the Original Tongues in noting the Holy ONE in great letters to prove Gods Unity when the word One is not to be found in the Hebrew Text doth make a third attempt to show something of a Scholar but is as unhappy as before and as grosly as in the two former attempts doth signifie to all that understand Learning that he is a proud boaster and pretender to that which he never attained unto He telleth us the Doctrine of the Trinity was never believed by the Primitive Saints nor ever thus stated by any he hath read in three first Centuries particularly Irenaeus Just in Martyr Tertullian Origen Theophilus Theophilact who lived several hundred after Athanasius was cited by W. P. but I finde in the Errata it is corrected Theophilus with many other who appear wholly forreign to the matter in controversie But who ever will peruse these Authors W. P. maketh mention of with others who writ in those times will finde both his lies to be very great and his reading to be very little notwithstanding this vain flourish and boasting The Doctrine of the Trinity is plainly enough to be gathered from several passages in Irenaeus Lib. 1. Cap. 2. Ecclesia accepit fidem quae est in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem in unum Christum filium Dei incarnatum in Spiritum Sanctum qui per Prophet as praedicavit The Faith which the Church hath received is in one God the Father omnipotent and in Christ the Son of God who was made flesh and in the Holy Ghost who spake by the Prophets Do not these words hold forth a distinction of these three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost And cap. 19. Omnium Deus per verbum spiritum omnia faciens gubernans The God of all things making and governing all things by his Word and Spirit Here the making and governing of all things are attributed to the Word and Spirit as well as to the Father and as the former place doth show that he believed they were three distinct persons so this latter place that he believed they were but one God Iust. Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Title of this Book being concernig faith in the holy Consubstantial Trinity sheweth he was not a stranger to this Doctrine Read some of his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When as the Father doth beget the Son of his substance and of the same doth produce the Holy