Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	father_n	spirit_n	worship_v	16,413	5	10.3152	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65863	The divinity of Christ and unity of the three that bear record in heaven with the blessed end and effects of Christ's appearance, coming in the flesh, suffering and sacrifice for sinners, confessed and vindicated, by his followers, called Quakers : and the principal matters in controversie, between them, and their present opposers (as Presbyterians, Independants, &c.) considered and resolved, according to the scriptures of truth, and more particularly to remove the aspersions ... cast upon the ... Quakers ... in several books, written by Tho. Vincent, Will. Madox, their railing book, stil'd The foundation, &c, Tho. Danson, his Synopsis, John Owen, his Declaration / which are here examin'd and compared by G.W. ... ; as also, a short review of several passages of Edward Stillingfleet's ... in his discourse of the sufferings of Christ's and sermon preached before the King, wherein he flatly contradicts the said opposers.	Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723.	1669 (1669)	Wing W1925; ESTC R19836	166,703	202

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

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 ●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

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. ●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

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

Three that bear Record in Heaven are not three separate Persons howbeit we are not bound to believe the determinations of Fathers and Councils any farther than they accord with the pure Language of Scripture And whereas T.V. and his Brethren supposing that they have detected the weakness and absurdity of W. P thereupon go to Caution People Not to follow the guidance of the Light which W. P. truly saith is communicated unto all and forsake the true Light of the Word and Spirit which alone can guide men into all truth This is a groundless Caution and false as it reflects upon the Light for suppose W.P. were in Weakness as they say yet the Light is not the cause thereof however his Weakness as they call it hath brought forth much of their Folly for the Light which is communicated unto all which People should follow the Guidance of is the Light of Christ which inlightens every man coming into the World and therefore to render weakness absurdity falshood and folly as the Products of it is both grosse Ignorance and Blasphemy for the Light never changeth however the Creature may neither is this Light contrary to the Word Spirit or Scripture And as for their so much Railing against the Socinians and Arians and malitiously comparing any of us with them it is no reasonable way to Convince either us or them if we were as ill as they render us for they have gone the way to animate and encourage both Socinians and others against them and their absurdities and ridged inveterate Spirits and Railing against many that are of better Spirits as men at least than themselves As for the Socinians they have given ground to some to think the better of them because they have shewn so much hatred and reviling against them howbeit Socinians if there be any that own themselves by that Name may answer to their Accusations it is not my work to maintain anothers Quarrel nor yet to reflect upon their Persons nor either to accuse or excuse them to gratifie such incompetent Judges as these our Revilers I am not going about to gratifie Parties or private Opinions or man's Wisdom on any hand but to vindicate the naked Truth yet it 's true I have heard of some beyond the Sea that went under that Name Socinians who were accused with denying the Divinity of Christ but I know of none here that either deny the Divinity of Christ or Him to be of one Substance with the Father if our Opposers do know of any such they may tell them of it and not accuse the Innocent with the Guilty as they have done to us However it is but a mean way of Arguing to accuse or miscall any for owning any Truth that any sort if they do Err in some things do hold for by that way I may as well be reckoned a Papist a Jew or a Turk Episcopal or Presbyterian or what not because some Truths are held by them all in words But we had not our Principles either from Arius or Socinias neither did we ever deny the Divinity of Christ or his being of the same Substance with the Father as Arius Socinias and others are accused so that therein we are very unjustly compared and mis-represented for which I can say The Lord forgive these our prejudiced Opposers But it is no strange thing for us to be called by nick-Names one after another by these and such false Accusers and incompetent Judges for one while they were wont to Revile us for wanting Learning being Illiterate Lay-men Preachers c. Another while they Railed against us and falsely accused us for Papists and Jesuits Another while they accused us falsely with being Free-Willers Arminians c. because we plead for the Free Grace of God to all men And now we are falsely reckoned Socinians and most injuriously accused with denying the Divinity of Christ the Son of God which we are ever alwayes clear of still Confessing him according to the Scriptures both in his Sufferings Dominion and Glory who is the same yesterday to day and for ever CHAP. IV. Touching the Love of God in Christ the One Offering and how his being a Sacrifice for Sin is owned by us according to the Scripture and for what end construed or applyed by these our Opposers and their corrupt Doctrines and Inferences to cover and maintain Sin and Imperfection tearm of Life under the notion of Satisfaction and Imputation c. SOme Presbyterian Priests and Professors of other sorts also affirming That man having transgressed the Righteous Law of God and so exposed to the Penalty of Eternal Wrath It 's altogether impossible for God to remit forgive or save men without a plenary Satisfaction both by full Payment and Punishment laid on Christ the same that sin and sinners deserved which they reckon extends for sins past present and to come So that though People live in sin all their dayes as Priests plead yet they sooth up themselves in sin under this opinion that all 's done for them at once But whether it be for all men or but for some T. Vincent hath not discovered nor ingeniously opened the extent of their Belief and Principle in this matter but has catched and snatched here and there and then gone to his wonted course of grinning and snarling by Reviling and Railing having not Asserted nor yet minded the End and Intent of his Opposer's Reasons from Scripture and Cautions in this matter on the behalf of God's infinite Love Mercy and Grace towards lost man which is judged and not without cause these Priests Doctrine doth eclipse and lesson which we do not concerning the Sacrifice of Christ as T.V. falsely thinks as their laying an Impossibility on God in the case against which many Scriptures were urged as Exod. 34.6 7. 2 Chron. 30.9 Isa. 55.7 Isa. 31.31 Mica 7.18 Matt. 6.12 Joh. 3.16 Act. 10.34 Rom. 8.31 32 2 Cor. 5.18 19. Eph. 1.7 1 Pet. 5.10 1 Joh. 4.9 whereby with many others is proved 1. The Lord God to be Merciful Gracious to forgive Sin and Iniquity and to pardon Transgression upon man return and forsaking of his evil way and that he retaineth not his anger for ever 2dly That it was Gods free Love and Grace to the World to give his only begotten Son that none should perish but have everlasting Life who believed in him 3dly That it was God's Work to Reconcile the World unto himself in Christ Jesus 4thly That the Benefits and Effects of Free Grace and Love in Christ Jesus as Pardon Remission Reconciliation Redemption through his Blood c. are of the nature and riches of this Grace to all that truly receive it 5thly That this Free Grace of God with its blessed Effects in the true Receivers are not of Debt Purchase or Merit on the Creatures part but Free according to the nature of Free Grace 6thly That the Love Kindness and Goodness of God is perfect and infinite in him and so in its

confess that W. P. confesseth That Christ offered unto God a satisfactory Sacrifice c. yea a most satisfactory Sacrifice but not to help God as being otherwise unable to save men However it is evident that W. P. has according to Scriptures confessed to God's Power Omnipotency Infiniteness and also That Jesus Christ in Life Doctrine and Death fulfilled his Fathers Will and offered up a most satisfactory Sacrifice so that he hath been wrongfully accused concerning this matter And whereas T. V. saith That God's Righteousness and Truth obliegeth him to take vengeance upon all that have transgressed his Law and his will to punish sin and sinners according to their desert his Justice doth ingage him c. Answ. How then is God free in his Attributes as they confess and his Good Will shewed by Christ unto men for their good in order to Salvation or hath God two contrary Wills the one obliging him to take Vengeance or execute Judgement to the uttermost upon All and the other to Exercise Patience Forbearance and shew Mercy and so not to Will the Death of Sinners but rather their Return that they may Live Is there any variableness or shaddow of Change in God or rather is not the Love and Good Will of God held forth in Christ to all men in the first place and that then when he Chasteneth Corrects Reproves any for sin it is not in Vengeance or Fury but in Love and Good Will for his Vengeance is to fall upon his Adversaries that have rejected and turned against him and the free proffers of his Love in Christ Jesus and who have Crucified Christ unto themselves a-fresh and trampled upon the Blood of the Covenant and so despised the one Offering which was offered up once for all as a real Witness of God's Good Will Patience Forbearance Long-suffering towards all And now to T. V. his saying That Sinners must have Divine help to inable them to their duty or in doing good and when they have done their duty their works are but imperfect and they unprofitable servants and for it brings Luke 17.10 When you have done all the things commanded say we are unprofitable servants our Righteousness is as filthy raggs Isa. 64.6 Answ. If you Presbyterians and Professors were come to know a Divine help in what you do and to do all the things Commanded you would give us a better account of those Works and Performances brought forth by Divine help than to compare them to filthy Raggs Divine help would cloath you with better Garments than filthy Raggs What sad Doctrine is this to say the Good that is done by Divine help and that doing all things Commanded of God are but as filthy Raggs What darkness is this not to distinguish between self-Righteousness which are but as filthy Raggs and the good that 's done by Divine help that hath a beauty and splendour of God's Righteousness with it Is this the construction you make of Christ's Satisfaction or being a Sacrifice to God that you must be cloathed upon all your Life time with your own filthy Raggs of self-Righteousness And then to cover over all these your Babylonish Brats with a pretence of Christ's Satisfaction paying your Debt for you imputation of his Righteousness deceitfully and feignedly applyed by you to your selves in your filthy Raggs whilst you have no share in it nor feel in you the Effect of his sufferings as if you were only to believe and apply and sin all your time you are far from the state of the unprofitable Servant that did all that he was Commanded You are daily breaking the Commands of God and Plead for it much more farther from the state of those whom Christ called no more Servants but Friends T. V. That God never doth nor will nor can pardon any sinner without satisfaction made to his offended Justice for their sins Reply But then in Contradiction to himself he saith I shall not concern my self to inquire what God could or might do if he pleased Why then doth he say he never will nor can and seem to lay such an Impossibility upon God in the case as if he could not freely Pardon whereas he could do whatsoever he pleased and certainly he could both please and satisfie himself And then I Query How is this Satisfaction made by Christ T. V. It depends upon him as the second Person in the Trinity pag. 54. Query Does it depend upon him as Man or as God and Man T. V. It was necessary that the Person that should make Satisfaction should be Man because none but a Creature could suffer But then he adds It were necessary he should be God othewise the sufferings and satisfaction would have been but finite Query What then were the Sufferings Infinite that the Wicked inflicted upon the Body of Christ seeing nothing but a Creature could suffer he saith and yet as a Creature could give no proportionable Satisfaction to Infinite Justice What Confusion is here For as God he could not Suffer nor Die as is confessed but God did strengthen the Manhood to bear up under such opressure of Wrath But where doth the Scripture say That Christ the second Person in the Trinity did suffer under infinite Wrath either as God or Man or both He should have produced his plain Scripture for Scripture we own and Christ's Satisfaction as rightly stated and what a most acceptable Sacrifice he was to the Father for All yea his Suffering as Man or in the Flesh without the Gates at Jerusalem was all acceptible to God his Soul was also made an Offering for sin and that he was a Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World the Mystery Virtue and Effects of his Sufferings none knows but they that believe in his Name and receive the Righteousness of Faith But indeed the manner of T. V's stating the business I do not see that sense can be made of it whilst he makes it a Payment of a second Person distinct from God and yet not as a Creature for as such the Sufferings were finite as he faith that could not bear a proportionable Satisfaction to infinite Justice and then it being as God united that did bear up and strengthen the man under opressure of Wrath that made this Satisfaction as he hath stated it c. Obs. What amounts this to that God made a satisfaction to and paid himself either by inflicting infinite Wrath upon Christ as God which cannot be or else that he satisfied himself by the finite Suffering of Christ as man when as that which was finite could not satisfie infiniteness they say And as God-man can they say he was the subject of Wrath or vindictive Justice as their term is How these things should be reconciled I leave to the ingenious Readers to judge Answ. Yes still we know that God was ever satisfied and well-pleased in Christ Jesus and in all his Works and it was God that was in him reconciling the World

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

l. last r. invented p. 18. l. 25. for on and r. an end p. 19. l. 1. r. amounts l. 13. r. is towards p. 21. l. 27. r. It is in Christ. p. 27. l. 6. r. deserving p. 39. l. 35. for whether r. whither p. 45. at l. 26 27. the Reader may add or understand as given by divine Inspiration not mens fallable Judgments and Mistakes upon them p. 49. l. 17. being 〈…〉 for and r. or p. 55. l. 18. dele which p. 73. l. 7. in the Apendix r. principal p. 74. l. 33. for T. V r. T. D. p. 76. l. 16. dele three p. 77. l. 12. for 1 r. 5. p. 81. l. 16. dele and. Sometimes such defects have escaped as misplacing hath for have doth for do was for were are for is it for they saith for say and so on the contrary Such are not material faults to any but such as are critical who do not soberly weigh the intent of the matter An APPENDIX Wherein are some of the manifest Contradictions of Thomas Vincent William Maddox Thomas Danson and John Owen both to themselves and one against another With brief Animadversions or Observations upon their Contradictions which are about Principle Matters 1. Touching their distinction of Three Persons I Am sure from the Scriptures that the Father Son and Holy Ghost being of an infinite Nature are three Persons three increated persons subsistences or manner of beings pag. 16 17 18 19. Contrad T.V. In Contradiction to his Brother Maddox saith Infiniteness is not applicable to the Subsistence it cannot be properly ascribed to the Personality though there be three distinct Personalities to which Infiniteness is not ascribed pag. 45. Obs. See here is as much inconsistency between these two as between infinite and finite one making their being of an infinite Nature a proof or reason of their distinct Personalities or Subsistencies And the other saith Infiniteness is not applicable nor properly ascribed to them what gross contradiction and blasphemous stuff is here W. M. Each of these three persons is God his subsistence is his manner of being in the Relative property of the Father and so he speaks of the Son and Holy Ghost pag. 18 19. Contr. T.V. It is improper to say that either of the persons in regard of their personality or subsistence are finite or infinite pag. 46. Obs. This latter Contradiction then would have neither Father Son nor Holy Ghost to be either finite or infinite what gross nonsence and apparent Contradictions are these Contr. T.V. Christ is the Eternal Son of God by Eternal Generation pag. 36 47. Obs. He is now the Eternal Son of God before not infinite but again neither finite nor infinite in his Personality and yet the Eternal Son of God what mad distracted blasphemous work is this these men do make with their vain babling T.V. They are not three substances c. therefore three persons p. 13. Contr. T. D. The usual definition of person is an individual substance of a rational Nature which is neither the part of another nor upheld by another which Aquinus defends Sum Par. 1.9.29 art 2. a man we call a person c. pag. 1 2. Obs. See again how apparently these two Brethren contradict one another one saying a person is an individual substance c. yet the other saith They are not three substances therefore three persons whereas it follows therefore not three persons Contr. J.O. We must acknowledge the Holy Ghost to be a substance a person God yet distinct from the Father and the Son pag. 101. a personal subsistance pag. 114. Obs. Where note that this Doctor Contradicts T.V. his saying they are not three substances as also that he seems to make both substance person and subsistance to intend all one thing contrary to T. V. again But these words a Person God yet distinct from the Father and Son I cannot make sense of though they are from a Doctor for God is not a Person distinct from himself W.M. I called them three Hee 's to try if you would own the Deity of Christ c. according to the Scriptures we call them Persons or Hee 's in respect of their manner of Subsistence pag. 18 20. Contrad T. V. The word Person cannot properly be attributed to Father Son and Holy Ghost because they do not subsist in a several and distinct Nature of the same kind for if each of them had a several and not one individual Nature then they should not be only three Persons but three Gods Synopsis pag. 3. Obs. It 's very evident here that Thomas Danson has Contradicted both himself and the rest of his Brethren seeing the Father Son and Holy Ghost cannot properly be called Persons W.M. saith His comparing the three increated persons to three Apostles Paul Peter and John is blasphemy pag. 20. Contr. T. D. A man we call a person a person is intire of it self pag. 2. if Peter James and John each person be man c. Take man here not for a person but the Nature as we do God and 't is evident that we mean no more that the name Man may be attributed to Peter James and John pag. 12. David was a man and Solomon was a man they two agree in a third thing c. pag. 14 15. Obs. What less do their own distinctions and comparisons concerning them amount to than to Three Apostles or men that is each intire of himself as a Person is T. D. saith who hath apparently spoyled his own and his Brethrens Cause T.V. The Trinity of Persons the first in the second and the second in the first and both in the third pag. 25. Contr. T. D. A Person notes some one indued with reason and understanding which is several and distinct by himself from another p. 2. and in the Dispute they are three distinct and separate Persons in the Deity A person is intire of it self c. Obs. If the Father the Word and the Spirit be in each other and so inseparable then not three distinct nor separate Persons neither can one be several by himself from another T.V. That the Father Word and Holy Ghost are three persons pag. 13. is to be found in the Scriptures God hath revealed it in his Word the Scriptures hath revealed that there are three distinct persons in one Divine Essence pag. 26. Is Scripture truth pag. 4. great truth Contr. T.V. In this Mystery of the Trinity we must exercise our Faith Though we cannot clear it to our selves by Demonstration Reason cannot demonstrate it unto us pag. 26. 't is such a Mystery that doth exceed the most enlightned and clear-sighted Christians Contr. T.D. For Person Aquinus defends I chuse to borrow that of the Learned Wotton the Trinity's a Mystery so high that it rebates the sharpest edge of humane understanding p. 83. Obs. If this Mystery be so apparent in Scripture why can they neither demonstrate it nor clear it to themselves We should desire no clearer

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