Christ's Nature Divine and his Soul Divine which comes out from God And where is his Soul called Humane Come to the Accidence again thou that professes thy self to be a great Schollar tell us what Humane signifies 16 thly Thou speaks of Three Persons and a man is a Person What doest thou infer from this Is God a Man No he is a Spirit I tell thee the Scripture sayes so Is the Holy Ghost a Man It is call'd the Holy Spirit and Christ was a man the man Christ Jesus So it seems the Presbyterians can say little of himself but he hath learned something of the Learned Wotton in pag. the second but he doth not tell us what he is whether a Papist or an Heathen 17 thly Thou sayest the Soul is part of man's Nature Where doth the Scripture thy Rule say so For the Scripture saith God breathed into man the breath of Life and man became a Living Soul 18 thly Thou sayest the word Person cannot properly be attributed to the Father Son and Holy Ghost Why doth the Presbyterians rage so against the Quakers It seems you cannot agree among your selves because the Quakers speak as the Scriptures do Father Son and Holy Spirit and say the Scripture doth not speak of Three Persons as thou thy self in thy third page sayes the word Person cannot properly be attributed to the Father Son and Holy Ghost See how this man is in Confusion who saith sometimes there are Three separate Persons and another while the word Person cannot properly be attributed to the Father Son and Holy Chost But we do charge Danson and his Brethren to make this good by Scripture in plain words For the Scripture saith The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father and the Holy Ghost proceeds from them So how can you say they are separated when they are one in another but it shews you have little knowledge of God or Scriptures either 19 thly The Priest saith concerning that distinction in the God-head it cannot be apprehended by us and yet he will call them Three separated Persons and a Trinity and gives them Names which are not apprehended by you you might have been silent then in what you did not apprehend And yet you will lay Principles down concerning God the Son and Spirit which you do not apprehend your selves but presume above what is written and so go contrary to your Rule Should you not call the Father Son and Holy Spirit as the Holy Men did call them in the Scriptures 20 thly In the 4th page thou sayest The Father the Son and the Spirit are said to be Three yet but one God and yet thou sayest we do not know what to call those Three but Three Persons and there is that ascribed to them thou sayest Properties which agree not simply Answ. The Father Son and Spirit agree but that which you do ascribe do not agree with Scripture with them nor among your selves about them And if you do not know what to call the Father Son and Spirit but Three Persons you might have holden your Tongues then till you did know who calls them and gives them Names contrary to Scriptures and the Holy Men of God who called them Father Son and Spitit who were wiser Men then any of you 21 thly And again in thy 4th page thou sayest Thre Subsistents that is Persons though not strictly yet proportionably or Anologically so called in the God-head People Did you ever hear such a Mash We do charge this Presbyterian to make these words good by plain Scripture viz. Three Subsistents Three Persons and Analogically Is this a Scripture word People Where did the Apostles use any such dark words Hadst thou not this word from the Heathen Well Mark Reader he sayes there are Three Persons and Three Subsistents in the God-head and hath not he made Four here If there be Three in the God-head he hath made Four for what is the God-head God is One and he hath made Three besides see pag. 4. of his Book And so in the Title of his Book he speaks of Three Persons in the God-head Are there not Four then And in the said 4th page he sayes he thinks he hath answered all the Arguments of the Antitrinitarians he doth but think so it seems Answ. The Scripture saith 1 Joh. 5.7 That there are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one But he doth not say that they are separated nor distinct neither doth call them Persons And thus we call them as the Scriptures call them Father Word and Holy Ghost and the Apostle doth not say they are separate nor distinct and we are not to presume above what is written We charge you Presbyterians to give us printed Scriptures for these following words and let us see in what Chapter and Verse they are printed Come to the Rule and do not presume above what is written Concreet Abstract Predicate the Relative Co-eternity Co-essentiallity Co-equallity Communication of Properties Co-essentiallities Modallities Suppossitallities Incommunicable Subsistances and Hypostatical Unions Come are these words spoken in the Rule the Scriptures let us see the Chapter and Verse that we may see where such terms are spoken of the Father Word and Spirit which are one Had you not them rather from your old Logical and Philosophical Books And have not they been your Rule for such words and not the Scriptures which the Holy men of God spoke forth Thou sayest in the 12th page of thy Book That we must not take Man here for a Person but a Nature as you do God c. And yet before thou saidst That Man was a Person and so it is the Nature that is a Person and not the Man nor God but thou hast not defined to us what a Person is nor what the word Person signifies for all thy Schollar-ship And thou sayest Ye mean no more then the Name Man to be attributed to Peter James and John because the same human Nature specifically agrees unto them and so is the Name God attributed to each Person because the same Divine Nature subsists in each of them Answ. This is a dark thing to whom will you liken me saith God like Peter James and John or like unto some corrupt person The Saints were partakers of the Divine Nature What do you say of them therefore And where do the Scriptures speak that the Nature of God is so simple c. where learned you this word And where doth the Scripture use these words Accidents and Integrals of the God-head and this is your Conceptions and Notions of God and the Word and the Spirit as it 's said in the 13th page of Danson's Book It 's a Conception and Notion indeed For you say in the same 13th page The Conception or Notion that we have of the Father c. so it 's but a Notion and Conception it seems that you have of the Father and
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
the Question and presumption in thee especially whilst by your vain Philosophy some of you have either rendered them as Three Gods or denied them to be Infinite as in pag. 45. Yea and it was evident to many That we found fault with your mis-calling and mis-representing the Father the Word and Spirit and never in the least opposed nor questioned their being Three such as mentioned in Scripture viz. The Father Son and Holy Ghost but there openly confessed to the Fundamental Truth of them in Scripture terms And when you fell into your needless Questions and Philosophick terms of incommunicabl properties subsistences c. I to bring the matter to be more obvious to the People to shorten and mittigate the Controversie and to abate your heat did tell you That if you meant by incommunity of properties the Fathers begetting the Son and the Spirits being sent state your Question so in plain English Whether the Son was begotten and the Spirit sent of the Father and it would quickly end the Controversie But nothing would serve you but an Answer to your vain babling and School-terms with such a limitation as Aye or No as if the Scripture terms and expressions were in this to be waved and slighted as insufficient and your confusion vain â—hilosophy and deceit must be set up above the Scriptures of Truth though you profess them to be your Rule at other times But here in plain Contradiction you have gone about to obscure Divine Mysteries under your Traditional terms of Heathenish Metaphysicks and laid such a stress upon them as if all were to be deem'd Blasphemers and Hereticks and so to be damned that cannot confess own and be tyed up to your terms nice and confused distinctions which you presumptuously put upon the Father Word Spirit And as for W. M. his accusing us with rejecting the Son and so the Father It is a gross slander as many more of his accusations are and never was it in our Intention nor Doctrine so to do whilst the Oneness of Father Son and Spirit we really confess to but disown your blind distinctions which deny them Infiniteness And as for W. M. his so much talk of three Hee 's each of which he saith is by nature God We do not read in Scripture that God is called three Hee 's or three distinct Hee 's and therefore three distinct separate Persons indeed Children in the Accidence call Hee the third Person singular But that both the Father and Son speaking of themselves use the word Hee as I am Hee and he that is with you shall be in you Christ speaking of his own manifestation which was that other Comforter I will not leave you comfortless I will come unto you But each of these three Hee 's he tells of he hath told us is by nature God so then they are One as God the Word and Spirit are And as to his charge of Ignorance of Philosophy about Subsistence which he sayes is not a form of a Hee but the manner of his being His Charge of Ignorance of his kind of Philosophy and such nice distinctions as this between manner and form we can easily bear and pass by and leave them to feed upon it who will choose such chaff for their food knowing that the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ consists not in such trifles W.M. The form of God the Father is his Divine Nature but his Subsistence is his manner of being in the relative Property of the Father and so he speaks of the Form and Subsistence of the Son and Holy Ghost as his terms of them are Now touching these distinct Subsistences or manners of being wherein stands their Model distinction of Three distinct Personalities to which they say in pag. 45. That infiniteness is not applicable and that there be three distinct Personallities unto which infiniteness is not ascribed Here they have given People to understand what their meaning is about their three distinct Subsistences or Personallities that they are not Infinite What then Is the Father Son and Holy Spirit Finite What gross darkness is this Let the impartial Reader judge whether we have not sufficient ground and cause to oppose them and their vain Philosophy in this so high a matter and whether herein their Doctrine doth not blasphemously oppose the Divinity of Father Son and Spirit and they go about to eclipse and detract from the Glory of the infinite God-head whilst at other times in contradiction they confess each to be God and tell of the Eternal Son of God and say That in the concret every subsistent is infinite but not the subsistance or personallity in the abstract What darkness is here Is God divided or Father Son and Holy Ghost separate or abstract from their Essences and where then is this finite personallity so much contended for Is it in God yea or nay or relating to his Divine Being or Substance But if these distinct personallities or subsistances which they say are not infinite be the relative Properties of the Father Son and Spirit then I ask Hath not this Doctrine denied both Father Son and Holy Spirit to be infinite Let the unbyassed Readers judge And yet in Confutation of themselves again there 's God the Father the first Person God the Son a Person distinct from him God the Holy Ghost a Person proceeding from both How to make sense of these three distinctions comparing them together or how to make them hang together without rendering them Three Gods and not only so but such as are not Infinite doth not yet appear to me And whether my comparison of not understanding Paul Peter and John could be three Persons each of them an Apostle and yet all but one Apostle was not suitable to detect these mens unscriptural Doctrines and Distinctions and to shew the absurdity of the consequences thereof which whilst this railing angry man W. Madox doth so often take it as a comparing the Father Son and Holy Ghost to three Apostles herein he hath grossely wronged and abused me and his own understanding And his Charge of Blasphemy against me for that he intimates that I should say That God is but equal with man I return back upon him as a most malicious horrid slander and an apparent Lye against me It was never my intent nor saying for if I had said That God is but equal with man or compared the Father Son and Holy Ghost to three Apostles then had I and these ridgid Presbyterians accorded nearer than we did for then had I owned their Dostrine and terms of three distinct and separate persons in the God-head which are not infinite which I can never own nor believe nor depend upon any God or thing which is finite for Salvation Besides I never denied finite man nor three distinct Apostles as Paul Peter and John to be distinct and separate Persons so if I had really compared the Deity to such we had not differed about the distinction of
incommucicable properties wherein they are not Infinite as they have told us Is there finiteness in each person and yet each person God what gross darkness and blasphemy is this But then to mend the matter T. V. tells us This is such a Mystery as doth exceed the weak and narrow understandings of most inlightned and clear sighted Christians fully to comprehend Some by gazing too long upon the Sun become blind Surely then if it be such a Mystery as exceeds the understanding of the clear sighted it must needs exceed the dark understanding of T. V. and his Brethren And seeing as appears he was conscious to himself of his own dimness or darkness herein as by what follows also he should have let it alone and not troubled his head with things beyond his reach for he has confounded and marr'd his cause and not at all mended nor cleared it but if he hath assayed to demonstrate this Mystery as he calls it as one more clear sighted than the most inlightned his Work doth manifest the contrary And that God cannot represent himself otherwise than he is It 's true but where doth he thus represent himself as these men do with such invented terms vain tautologies and confusion We do not read such in all the Scriptures of Truth howbeit T. V. takes the boldness to Assert his Doctrine herein to be of Divine Authority and to be the Truth of God revealed in his Word and that if the Scriptures have revealed that there are Three distinct Persons in one Divine Essence it is a certain Truth c. This is sooner said than proved if that Word of God and Scripture could be produced that doth so reveal their Doctrine and say there are three distinct Persons in one Divine Essence Produce us such a Scripture among all the Writings of the Holy men of God in all the Bible and it shall end the Controversie otherwise let T. V. be ashamed of his Asserting it to be revealed in the Word of God And of his saying that in his Sylogism pag. 13. There is not a word but what is to be found in the Scripture whereas neither the matter manner nor expressions of his Arguments are to be found in Scripture As for Instance his Argument Pag. 13. The Father the Word and the Holy Ghost are either three Substances or three Manifestations or three Operations or three Persons or something else but they are not three Substances nor three Manifestations nor three Operations nor any thing else therefore they are three Persons To the first part Indeed they must be something to the Minor if they be neither three Substances Manifestations c. nor any thing else this renders them nothing and contradicts both the Major and Conclusion where they are something else which is three Persons he saith so the tenour of his Argument runs thus they are something but they are nothing he meant nothing else but three Persons therefore they are three Persons It would have held better thus but against himself If the Father the Word and Spirit be not three distinct Substances then not three distinct Persons but they are not three distinct Substances Ergo. unless he can shew us a distinct person without its own substance But his Brother T.D. saith A person is rationalis naturae individua substantia an individual substance of a rational nature see how flatly T.D. and T.V. have Contradicted one another herein one affirming they are three Persons because not three Substances the other That a person is an individual substance But if T. V. by saying There is not a word in his Syllogism but what is to be found in Scripture intends that every word particularly is to be found in Scripture the word Substance the word Manifestation Operation Person c. abstractively what proves this of his matter for the contrary may as well be asserted from bare words I never met with more silly kind of Arguing before And if so be his other Argument from the Property of the Father to beget of the Son to be begotten of the Holy Ghost to proceed from them both c. be an Argument sufficient to prove Three distinct Persons in the God-head with three incommunicable Properties c. Then doth it not follow as well That every spiritual perfect Gift that proceeds from God to man must needs be a Person and then so many Gifts or manifold Graces as proceed from him or are begotten by him are so many Persons in him which would be numerous indeed and amount to a Plurallity of Trinities for the Spitit is given variously and in divers Manifestations and the graces gift of God are many and manifold but the shallowness of this mans arguing who is it cannot see besides that Christ being the express Image of the Fathers substance and the Spirit the Life of both it 's neither scriptural nor reasonable to say that the Image and Life of One and the same thing should be either Two distinct and separate Persons from it or from their own substance so that still it follows that if the Three bearing Record in Heaven be One divine substance and not Three substances then not Three distinct or separate Persons As also God is called both the Word and Spirit Farther Mark the manner of T. V. his expressing his Doctrine viz. The Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence and the Unity of the Divine Essenee in the Trinity of Persons that three should be one and that one should be three that three should be distinguished but not divided that one should not be another the first should not be the second nor the second the third nor the second or third the first and yet the first second and third the same that the first should be in the second and the second in the first and both first and second in the third Thus far T.V. for his separate persons Reader Do but mark his Jigg here and what a whirling he has made like one distempered but where is his Scripture for all this see how he manages it pag. 26. he saith Reason it may be will leave us in our search after the Deity in the Trinity and the Trinity c. but where Reason faileth Faith must supply its room And then tells us of Mysteries which Reason cannot demonstrate to us and that in this Mystery of the Trinity we must Exercise our Faith though we cannot clear it to our selves by demonstration c. But sure whilst Reason hath so much failed T. V. and his Brethren in this matter that thereby they cannot clear it to themselves by demonstration it s very strange and unreasonable they should make such a stir in the dark as they have done to Impose it on the Faith of others and what tends this to but to force People to Exercise an implicite Faith whilst they have neither Scripture Reason Demonstration nor Revelation for that 's ceased they say to ground a Faith upon
of the Godhead or Divinity of Christ or his Spirit we never denied nor scrupled Therefore for J. O. to require any that except against their terms and inventions positively to deny the Unity of the Deity is both sad Doctrine and unreasonableness as also shews an imperious lording spirit though its probable among the Independants and Professors he can make a shew of more humility then he did formerly for he now wants Cromwel to promote him However he and others of his Fraternity might by this time have in reallity learned more lowliness and humility then yet appears in them towards such as cannot be screwed up to their way and method of expressing the Invisible things of God which are Heavenly Divine and Spiritual as his being and properties are absolutely above the comprehension of J. O's reason as is confest pag. 128. We cannot by searching find out God we cannot find out the Almighty to perfection And yet vain man would be wise and imploy his natural reason and fallen wisdom both to find and set out God to evince him and his things unto the natural reason of others which still falls short both of any true knowledg and spiritual understanding for vain by nature is every man and ignorant of God It is the spiritually minded who are begotten to God who are spiritually and immediately taught by his Spirit that have a true and spiritual understanding of Divine Matters and Mysteries Pag. 118. J. O. Every person hath distinctly its own Substance But then in contradiction he adds for the one Substance of the Deity is the Substance of each Person but each Person hath not its own distinct Substance Reply A strange Riddle and invention that each person hath distinctly its own Substance and yet not its own distinct Substance what Scripture hath he for this Critick and nice distinction how is a person then an individual Substance of a rational nature that is not upheld by another if it hath not its own distinct Substance whilst yet it hath distinctly its own Substance but the Divine Substance of the Deity of the Father the Word and Spirit is but one as often hath been granted so then the Holy Ghost though confessed to be a Substance pag. 101. yet I say not a Personal Substance distinct from the Father and the Son as there is ignorantly asserted But then J. O. to tell us pag. 118. That all Divine properties such as to be infinite is belong not to the Persons on the account of their Personallity but of their nature c. Observ. Then it appears they are not three Infinite Persons but one Infinite God and yet those Persons are the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost were it not both Blasphemy and contradiction to say they are finite and what better have our Opposers said but at other times they are Eternal God Eternal the Eternal Son and Eternal Spirit and thus they wheel about and say and unsay Answ. It were better for them nakedly to apply themselves to the plain Language of Scripture and keep to it to lay aside and avoid confusion and absurdities about distinct finite personallities which the Scripture does not put upon the Infinite God in whom there is neither finiteness nor variableness I am God I change not saith he the Lord is one and his name one from Everlasting to Everlasting he is God unchangable And the Father Son and Holy Ghost being one Divine Infinite Substance are one Infinite God Away with your vain babling and invented erroneous distinctions of finite Persons in him who is infinite you are not worthy therein to talk of God nor to take his holy precious and pure Name in your mouthes who are in your sins and pollutions corrupting your selves in your carnal conceptions and imaginations about those things that you know not who are gone a whoring after humane inventions invented words names terms and distinctions such as neither the Holy Ghost nor the Scriptures ever taught you Pag. 117. And as for them that will keep to their Cavils and Sophisms about terms and expressions I know not who J. O. may intend hereby but if he intend us called Quakers because we do not own but oppose his and their dark unscriptural terms and expressions which darken both counsel and knowledge we do reject his Accusation and Charge herein for Cavils and Sophisms are rather his and his Brethrens who have been trained up in Sophistry and School-craft in order to be furnished to a Trade of Preaching to make a Trade of the Scriptures corrupting them by their dark meanings and School-terms and Philosophick distinctions by which poor people have been kept even learning that they might be always paying them Pag. 117. But then J. O. addeth against such as he supposeth will keep to their Cavils and Sophisms That all further debate or conference with them may justly and ought both conscientiously and rationally to be refused and rejected Reply If herein he may intend us as it s probably he may as well as others among whom he has numbred us though unrighteously as his debating or conference is of little value or esteem with us whilst it proceeds neither from a sence of God's Divine Power nor from any Living experience of God or his work within but from humane inventions and traditions So J. O. and his Brethrens work in these matters whether they go on in it or stop from further debate it will be of very little weight to us since we see to the far end of their subtilty and beyond their spirits and confusion however J. O. laying it as their duty not to debate any further with such as he censures as before he hath brought himself and those that own him under a Law and Limitation that if they further contend with us they must either not accuse us with Cavils and Sophisms or else not debate nor contend any further with us for if they do so accuse and censure us and yet further debate or contend with us they transgress their own Law so strictly here urged by J.O. and by the same reason when he and they are found guilty of Cavils and Sophisms may not others as much slight him and them therein But however he or they judge or censure us I hope we shall not be backward nor negligent to vindicate the Truth and clear our innocency from reproaches and scandals of men of perverse and envious spirits when we have occasion given us thereby J. O. These sacred Mysteries of God and the Gospel are not lightly to be made the subject of mens contest and disputations Observ. It is very true that sacred Mysteries of God and Gospel are not lightly nor yet slightly to be made subjects of contests nor yet ought they to be medled with by light airy minds nor by perverse and prejudiced spirits which are apt to bring forth perverse disputes as it is too common to men of corrupt minds who are destitute of the Truth But why then do
little Storm or Persecution comes to try you its probable the Back-doors Back-wayes Closets Cole-holes Garrets or Cock-lofts with the Back-leads c. may stand you Professors in some stead as they have done many of you otherwise if there be no such By-wayes to make an escape and run away the Table spread with Victuals or Beer and Tobaco may stand for a colour and pretence in your Meetings as they have in some of them to delude those that shall oppose you and make them believe a lie and discover what spirit and religion Independants and Presbyterians are of W. M. * See his shuffle here for neither Nature nor Man simply can be called Three distinct separate Persons as Peter James and John were and as they say the Father Word and Spirit are Contradict * That was not Christ. * Where then is the Impossibility in him for it see Matth. 19.26 Luk. 1.37 Contr. to the former * Not upon his beloved Son Christ. All which Contradict their Doctrine of Imperfection and prove our Principle and then their filthy Raggs of self-Righteousness and best Performances which are sinful are shut out of both Union and Intimacy with Christ as not proceeding from any true dependance upon him or that Spirit and Truth wherein the True and Living God is Worshipped by all such as are of the true Circumcision In the Margent are J. Owen and T. Danson 's Doctrines [a] Jo. Owen For the term of Satisfaction the right understanding of the word it self depends on some Notions of Law that as yet we need not take into Consideration pag. 150. [b] J. O. He Christ bare our sins or the punishment due unto them pag. 160. He answered the Law and the penalty of it pag. 161. T.D. The deliverer undergoes the evil in kind which he that is delivered should have undergone pag. 24. Obs. Here is as much opposition between these men and Dr. Still as if J. O. should say It was the very same punishment c. but E. S. Nay It was not the very same c. [c] T. D. Christ when he suffered was not Innocent and when God required satisfaction of him it was due from him c. [d] J.O. God as supream Ruler dispenseth not with the Act of Law but the immediate object and substitutes another Sufferer in the room of them who are principally lyable unto the sentence c. [e] J. O. The Son of God was upon the account of the Dignity of his Person able to Answer the Penalty which all others had incurred [f] J.O. That God did so lay our sins in and by the sentence of the Law upon him c. pag. 166. [g] T. D. God admits of what Christ did on our behalf as if it had been our personal Act as the Creditor Cancels the Bond le ts the Debtor out of Prison and gives him as Legal a Discharge upon the Sureties payment c. Observe T. D's words below whereupon 1. I ask if refusable Payment how then is God bound to take Vengeance in T. V. his sense 2. If another thing be paid How agrees this with J. O? For [h] T. D. Supposes That Satisfaction to be Solutio recusabilis Refusable payment dum alius solvit aliud solvitur When another Person then what was obliged makes payment another thing is paid then what the Law required * As J. O. T. D. T. V. they being the Mistakers [h] T.D. That Christ made a Compensation to God for the Injury done him by our sin which may be both by doing and suffering Justice that is Vindictive * For which see their railing Language as Black-mouthed Blasphemers hiddeous Blasphemers with Socinian and damnably Heretical Opinions c. used by T. V. They may receive a Check from Dr. Stillingfleet to the Reader viz. It may be some will be dissatisfied that I give our Adversaries no harder Names but I never found any men convinced by ill Language and those we have to deal withal are too subtile not to distinguish between loud Clamours and Demonstrations I leave that Method of Confuting them to those who have greater Abilities in that way I think it very Incongruous for us while we Magnifie the Patience and Meekness of Christ in his Sufferings to discover our Passion in Disputing about them [a] T. Danson Christ when he Suffered was not Innocent and when God required Satisfaction of him it was due from him Christ was guilty of our sin when he Suffered for it Synopsis pag. 36. Christ was made sin by Imputation therefore so are we made Righteous pag. 40. [b] T.D. A state of freedom from sin is not attainable in this life No man ever did attain a state of Perfection viz. none of the eminently Holy Persons in the Scripture pag. 55. Yet Perfection is commanded Be ye therefore perfect as your Heavenly Father c. Mat. 5.48 Such Commands are the measure of our Duty not of our Attainments pag. 57. [b] T.D. A state of freedom from sin is not attainable in this life No man ever did attain a state of Perfection viz. none of the eminently Holy Persons in the Scripture pag. 55. Yet Perfection is commanded Be ye therefore perfect as your Heavenly Father c. Mat. 5.48 Such Commands are the measure of our Duty not of our Attainments pag. 57. [b] T.D. A state of freedom from sin is not attainable in this life No man ever did attain a state of Perfection viz. none of the eminently Holy Persons in the Scripture pag. 55. Yet Perfection is commanded Be ye therefore perfect as your Heavenly Father c. Mat. 5.48 Such Commands are the measure of our Duty not of our Attainments pag. 57. * His tasting Death was not the Revenge that the Wicked have incurred neither is Grace Revenge
not subsist in a several and distinct nature of the same kind so as they are not three Gods as is confessed pag. 3. how are they three distinct or separate persons subsisting each by himself These things being considered by the impartial Readers the absurdity of the Presbyterians Doctrine and Comparison touching the Deity will easily appear And what was this Aquinas quoted as T. D's Author so much cited and commented by him as a wise Observant pag. 19 Was not he a great Writer for the Romish Religion and the Pope's Doctrine of Transubstantiation and so a promoter of Popery in his time and canonized 〈◊〉 Saint among them see his large Volums his Sums and others he is highly applauded by the Papists as being an industrious Promoter of their Faith and Religion and was he not a Dominican Fryer To whom it appears that T. D. is very much beholding for his Doctrine of three distinct or sever'd Persons in the Godhead more then he is to Scripture for that is silent concerning it but I have of late Read it in Aquinas his Sums who is Tho. Danson's wise Observant And further mark that after T. D. has confessed that the word Person cannot be properly attributed to Father Son and Holy Ghost and that the Names common to God and the Creatures do signifie somthing wherein the Creatures bears some anology to God and three Persons not strictly yet anologically in the Godhead pag. 3 4. Where proves he this by Scripture and wherein doth man bear a proportion or likeness in his Person with his Maker this is strange Doctrine importing that the Diety hath the resemblance or likeness of persons but not properly which if improperly why do they stand so much upon their improper distinctions in the Godhead Yet saith T. D. may this word Person be used by us to distinguish the Father Son and Spirit in the Godhead and one from another Answer So it appears he pleads for a liberty to put improper names upon God from his pretence of anology the Scripture he mentions Hebr. 1.3 makes against him it being the express Image of his Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but as it is in some English Copies express Image of his Person however it is not the express Person of his Person much less the express singular Person or rational Substance subsisting by it self distinct from the Father For I and my Father are one said Christ and the Son doth nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do and the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father and if so be that the Soul separated from the Body cannot be called a Person as T. D. saith pag. 2 3. how can he presume to call the Spirit which is the Life or Breath of God a Person distinct from God whilst God is never distinct and separate from his own Life But then it appears that T. D. is necessitated to call the Glorious Divine three in Heaven somthing and therefore he saith that distinction in the Godhead cannot be apprehended by us by any other notion or resemblance then Person and saith he we know not what to call these three but Persons pag. 4. For the conception or notion that we have of the Father suppose as a Subsistent or Person is in adaequatus conceptus in respect of the Divine Essence c. pag. 17. Reply But by what doth he and his Brethren apprehend this concerning God surely neither by the Scripture not by immediate Revelation or Inspiration nor yet by reason for that has failed them in this matter as also the nature and works of God is above their reach and the comprehension of the Creature so that their conceptions and notions being unscriptural we have no ground to believe them whilst we have but their conceptions words and notions for what they say derived from Popish and Heathen Authors and not from any immediate Power Revelation or Scripture and his saying they do not know what to call these three but Persons shews they were hard put to it as being necessitated to call them something but what are they ignorant of the Scripture or would not the Scripture satisfie them and yet profess it their Rule they had better search the Scriptures instead of Aquinas and Aristotle and see what they are called there viz. The Father the Word and Holy Ghost which are One besides these three bearing record in Heaven T. D. hath elsewhere called them Witnesses pag. 5 7 and 10. and thus he contradicts himself one while he knows not what to call them but Persons and another while calls them three Witnesses from their bearing Record and thus in contradiction he knows what to call them besides Persons but then he saith all Witnesses properly so called are Persons How proves he that Are not all things that bear record Witnesses Are Heaven and Earth Persons and are the Water and the Blood Persons seeing they bear record in the Earth and is Conscience in a man a Person distinct from the man seeing Conscience beareth witness if it be how then is the Soul distinct from the Body no Person page 3 5. T. D. upon 1 John 5.9 the Witness of God is greater referring to the Witness concerning Christ verse 7. not to verse 8. for none of those Witnesses are God Reply And yet those Witnesses verse 8. are the Spirit the Water and the Blood herein T. D. hath denied the Spirit to be God contrary to their former pretence and so is come under that they have so unjustly charged us withal but we own the Divinity of that Spirit that bears record in the Earth and know the Water and Blood which agree in one with it to be therefore Spiritual and of this water and Spirit a man must be born or else he cannot enter the Kingdom of God Joh. 13.5 and by this Blood his Conscience must be sprinkled from dead works who ever comes to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary And we may further observe how dubious T. D. in his Work hath appeared from what he saith pag. 83. viz. If my Answers seem not so clear as the Objections which I hope I need not fear unless in the point of the Trinity that being a Mystery so by that it rebates the sharpest edge of humane understanding c. By which the Reader may take notice that he was conscious to himself that his Answers in this case might not seem so clear as the Objections and that he has but made use of his humane understanding and not of Scripture therein the Edge of which is so rebated and grown so dull that it will take very little impression upon any that are in a right mind and understanding even none at all upon such who rely not nor lean to their own understandings but upon the guidance of the Spirit of Truth which leads into all Truth which it appears he has refused and gone from whilst he is now fain to make use of his humane understanding
the benefit whereof they only receive who believe in and obey him in his Light within and to such only he is the Author of Eternal Salvation as do obey him though the free proffers of Gods Love in him towards all mankind God commended his Love to us in that whilst we were Sinners Christ died So that we do faithfully acknowledge the Love and Goodness of God in Christ and would not at all have it diminished or suspected nor yet have Christ's Offices Works or end of his coming brought into question however we do oppose mens confusions and misapprehensions concerning God Christ's Righteousness Faith c. which none rightly know or apprehend but they who are led by the Spirit of God And now touching Justification by Imputed Righteousness where it is known in reallity we never denied or opposed seeing that where God imputes or reckons righteousness as he did to Abraham and still doth to his Seed of Faith that hath a real sence and enjoyment of it as every one hath that is in the exercise of the true and living Faith But we do still oppose and deny the vain Conceits and Imaginations of the Presbyterians Independants and all of their affinity touching their false Imputation and Justification to sinful and wicked men whilst such which he that justifieth is abomination to the Lord as he is that condemneth the Just. Pag. 39. But whilst T. D. grants that the word Justifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Hebrew Hitzdik signifies Justum facere By this he hath contradicted himself and much of his Brethrens work for Persons being justified whilst the Subjects of Sin and disobedience for if 〈◊〉 Justifie be to make Just then t is a real work effected by the Spirit of God Sanctification and Justification being inseparable Companions as T. Vincent hath confessed which is not their imagined Justification nor pronouncing men righteous whilst they are really unrighteous for whilst such the Spirit of God doth both condemn and accuse and not justifie them in any thing contrary to its own nature neither is it truly said that men are made Just while they continue unjust and Sinners Secondly if the word Impute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifie to cast account and the Hebrew Chashab signifies to think imagine and reason c. as T. D. saith Then first if it hath relation to Gods imputing righteousness to the Believer the account he casts therein must needs be true for he doth not account wicked men righteous Secondly If Impute signifieth to think imagine and reason as to imagining it cannot have relation to God for his Account is beyond Imaginations and his thoughts above mans thoughts and then it is not safe nor true in man to depend upon his own thinking or imagining or imputation for where God accounts a man righteous his Spirit doth evidence it beyond thoughts or imaginations for many imagine and think themselves righteous when they are unrighteous as there is a Generation that is pure in their own eyes yet are not clensed from their filthiness and when Christ's Righteousness is esteemed any ones it is not without the works of her own as it is falsly asserted pag. 39. no more then Abraham's Faith was without its own works or obedience Pag. 40. T. D. Argues first from the proportion which our justification by Christ's Righteousness bears to our condemnation by Adam 's sin but our condemnation was by imputation of Adam 's sin therefore our Justification is by the imputation of Christ's Righteousness Rom. 5.19 Reply This Condemnation that is come upon all men is because all have sinned and partaken of the fall being in Adam in the Earthly state really bearing his Image and this is not a thinking or imagining a condemnation from or for an imputation of Adam's sin according to their notion of it but really a partaking of the disodience of one upon all every man shall die for his own iniquity the Soul that sinneth it shall die c. And if our Justification by Christ's Righteousness bears a proportion to our Condemnation then must we as really partake of Christ's Righteousness being converted as we have of sin being unconverted and this is not a thinking or imagining our selves righteous but a true enjoyment and bearing his Image and being conformable to it as really as we have born and been conformable to the Image of the Earthly 1 Cor. 15.47 48 49. T. D. Argues secondly from the proportion of our being made righteous bears to Christ being made sin but Christ was made sin by imputation therefore so are we made righteous 2 Cor. 5. ult for he was made sin for us who knew no sin i. e. by an experimental knowledge of its operation in himself he did no sin 1 Pet. 2.21 that we might be made the righteousness of God in him Reply Here T. D. hath but brought over his old Arguments long since answered and confuted by that Servant of the Lord S. Fisher as may be seen at large in his Book Rusticus ad Acadaemicos which T. D. J. O. and their Brethren could never answer this I mention that people may perceive his matter to be neither new nor more profound then it was many years ago when it was confuted by Truth And if our being made the Righteousness of Christ bearâ—â— proportion to his being made to be sin for us when he knew no sin by its operation in himself nor did sin then it follows by this proportion that we are made or rather thought or imagined to be the Righteousness of God in Christ whilst we neither knew his Righteousness nor experienced his work in our selves nor did righteousness which is altogether false and contrary to the Apostles Doctrine and intent seeing that it is Christ in whom is no sin that we are made Gods Righteousness having experienced the new Creatures state in Christ which in him is created unto good works which God hath ordained we should walk in them 2 Cor. 5.17 18. Ephes. 2.10 and this is more then thoughts or imaginations of being righteous or in Christ for it is in truth and reallity which admits not of your imagined applications or claiming an interest in that which you are out of and which is none of yours in the true enjoyment And if the word Impute hath relation to Justification and Justifie signifie Justum facere then W. P's definition thereof is true being that which expresseth what is personally enjoyed and not imagined and this was no Cavil as Tho. Danson falsly saith page 41. T. D. God admits of what Christ did on our behalf as if it were our Personal Act pag. 41. Reply This is his apprehension of the Sureties payment of the Debt as appears before which is a very easie put off to evade personal or real and perfect obedience on the Creatures part but it will not be so accepted of God as the end of Christ's Obedience seeing that it was to
Presbyterian Teachers give such occasion by their light and vain contests confusions and contradictions to stir up the minds of people into such disputations about things which both they themselves are yet to seek in and by which they do the more darken the Enquirers J.O. should seriously review and examine his Bro. Vincent and T. Danson their contests in their late Pamphlets and see how lightly and sorrily they have contended and how they have contradicted themselves and whether such as they be fit Champions in the management of their Cause it concerns them to pause upon their work and examine it and compare their Books together for they have very palpably contradicted one another in divers passages of principle concernment and if several of them write Pamphlets again against the Quakers they had need to compare them very diligently for otherwise in all probability they will contradict one another as they have done as is the nature of Babel's Builders so to do Pag. 150. J. O. For the term of Satisfaction the right understanding of the word it self defends on some notions of Law that as yet we need not take into consideration Answ. It appears J. O. and his Brethren's understanding of their Doctrine herein depends on notions of Law not yet taken into consideration and not on any living experience of the Gospel of Gods Divine Power wherein the Righteousness of Faith is revealed and the living and blessed effect of Christ's suffering and death and here they bring us their notions instead of Gospel so that what they tell us in this matter it is not from a saving knowledge or sence of the work of God in themselves but notions received by tradition from one another though they intermix many Scriptures among their notions and therefore would have all go for Gospel that they divulge but who knows the Power of God within and the fellowship of Christ's Sufferings will own the Scriptures of Truth as we do and not relie upon their uncertain notions about which so much of their confusion and contradiction amongst themselves doth appear that little of their work can certainly be laid hold on as with any confidence of their stability howbeit J. O. has in several things consented to the Truth in words which we do own though we do not believe that he or his Brethren do experience the Life and Power of what they profess as where J. O. Confesseth That God out of his infinite Goodness Grace and Love to mankind sent his only Son to save and deliver them viz. from their sins and that this Love was the same in the Father and Son and that Christ gave himself a Ransom for all to be testified in due time 1 Tim. 2.6 And gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity Titus 2.14 And to finish Transgression and to make an end of Sin to make Reconciliation to bring in Everlasting Righteousness Dan. 9.24 And that God had provided himself a Lamb for a Sacrifice And God doth not pardons Sins freely without requiring Faith Repentance and Obedience in them that are pardoned and it is certain that the prescribing of Faith and Repentance in and unto Sinners antecedently to their participation of it c. We are to be discharged upon Gods terms and under a new obligation unto his Love c. Thus far J.O. Observ. In all which observe that J. O. has confessed unto the Truth much more then some of his Brethren For first to the infinite Goodness of God and his Love the same in Father and Son which declares the freeness of both towards man kind and their union therein for mans deliverance from Sin Death and the Curse Secondly That God sending his Son was to save and deliver from Sin to redeem us from all Iniquity It s well if J. O. truly believes what he sayes herein for his Brethren T. V. and T. D. have pleaded the contrary in their contending for Sin and Imperfection in all Believers term of Life Thirdly Christ giving himself a ransom for all to be testified of in due time instead of For All Presbyterians and Independants were wont to say it was but for a few that he died only for a certain select number wherein they have denied the universal Love and Grace of God in Christ to mankind Fourthly His coming to finish Transgression to make an end of Sins and to bring in Everlasting Righteousness is both beyond and contradicts their sinfull Doctrine for sin and imperfection and their notion of imputation of Christ's Righteousness to sinfull persons whilst they are not at all really partakers of Christ's Righteousness Holiness or Purity in them no more then Christ was guilty of sin when he knew no sin according to T. D's instance and erroneous Argument for a proportion in that case Fifthly And seeing that without Faith Repentance and Obedience on the Creature 's part God doth not pardon sins freely it appears it is not peoples bare application and belief of what Christ hath done and suffered for them that will free and acquit them without the knowledge and sence of his Power which works living Faith and Repentance and makes willing to obey the pure Law of God in the heart and the new Covenant in the inward parts for as J. O. confesseth it would altogether unbecome the holy God to pardon Sinners that continue so to live and die in their sins pag. 179. this is a truth which he and his Brethren had need to look to that they be not found guilty both in Principle and in Practice as namely both contending and preaching up a continuance in sin and imperfection all their dayes as T. D. and T. V. hath done and as it s said by many some of the Presbyterian Teachers do more of late revile the Quakers for holding Perfection and Freedom from Sin attainable in this life and to perswade people against the belief of such a state more then they have done heretofore wherein they work as if they would hasten people to Hell and Destruction and do but strengthen the hands of the Evil-Doers that they may not forsake their sins by promising them life as the false Prophets did and promising them pardon and peace on the account of all being fully paid and satisfied for them they living and dying in sin or telling them that perfection is not attainable till after death as namely till the Resurrection as T. D. and others of them have affirmed but they had little need to preach up such Doctrine for their Hearers and Followers are prone and apt enough to run on in sin and transgression without their Leaders tutering them in it they had not need to drive them on to Hell and Destruction the Devil can lead them fast enough thither who continue Sinners to live and die in their sins wherein it does not become the holy God to pardon them as is confessed And now touching your Explication Declaration and Confession
either required a thing not attainable or as if being perfect as he is perfect were but the measure of our Duty and so to be put off till the Life to come wherein the Saints had not such Commands given to them seeing they are not capable of sinning in the Life to come but John said As is he so are we in this world 1 John 4.17 And herein they knew their Love made perfect and this is more then either the small resemblance of Children to their Parents which T. D. speaks of and beyond his imperfect sinfull state and Doctrine for the perfect Love which they had was in them a perfect resemblance of God who is Love verse 16. But this way of T. D. his slighting and diminishing and falsly interpreting the Commands of God which require such perfection only as the measure of our Duty is like his Brethren saying That a Child of God his not committing Sin is to be meant he doth not make a trade of Sin which indeed is a very easie way they have taken to pervert the Commands of God and to give ease and liberty to the Transgressors in their sins as if when a thing is absolutely required of them they should put it off with this It is meant only as but in part to be obeyed and so if they should deal thus with God and say Lord then requires us not to Steal or not to commit Adultery or not to Covet but we are to understand it as that we cannot altogether abstain from Stealing Adultery or Covetousness only we are not to make a trade of these things nor wholy make it our business to be imployed in them what acceptance do they think such a Plea would have before the Lord and what Answer would he make them to this their corruption and what resentment would such Doctrine have in the minds of sober people if they should preach them and give such meanings to the Scriptures and tell them that where Stealing and Adultery and worldly â—usts and Covetousness are forbidden that they are not to go to the extent of the Commands but only not make a trade or a common practice of Stealing or these things c for thus they have dealt with many of God's Commands enjoyning perfect Holiness and Righteousness but then they have an easie way to lay all upon Christ as having paid their debt and fulfilled the Righteousness of the Law in his Person in their stead so that they must not expect its fulfilling in their persons for where the Scripture speaks of its being fulfilled in us we are to understand by in us that it is in Christ's Person and this is the manner of their course from time to time both to shut Christ his Works and Righteousness out of People so much as in them lies 1 John 3.9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit Sin T. D. saith to this We may interpret it as he is born of God he doth not sin every Child of God is mixta persona Pag. 57. as our Law sayes of the King consists of an old and new nature and so his new nature is Principium quo the Principle from which he acts graciously and the old nature the Principle from which he acts sinfully Reply Here again he hath palpably perverted plain Scripture and contradicted the Apostle John as may be seen in that 1 John 3. For he that is born of God who doth neither commit sin nor can sin because he is born of God has put off the old nature and is not acted by that Principle which leads to act sinfully because he cannot sin and that gracious Principle in him hath overcome the sin and the nature of it and so to tell of his being mixta persona is T. D's gross blindness For first that which is born of God that overcomes the World is not mixt with sin nor with the old sinful nature Secondly He or whosoever is born of God whose Seed remains in him who abideth in Christ is not acted by that old sinful nature because he is born of God and abideth in Christ in whom is no sin neither is mans having divers parts as Body and Soul c. or his being liable or not liable to death any reason to shew that he that is born of God doth act sinfully from the old nature for the Bodies of the Saints were the Temples of the Holy Ghost and their Bodies were sanctified and so brought into subjection unto the Divine Spirit or Principle in them so as they might glorifie God in their bodies and in their spirits which were his Again T. D's meaning to that first of John 3.9 is That it may intend the manner of sinning so the 8 th verse seems to limit it be that committeth sin is of the Devil for the Devil sinneth from the beginning the Comparison quoth he is not between the act simply for then it should have been said only for the Devil sinneth but from the beginning implies a Comparison between the manner of man's sin and the Devils in respect of which he is said to be of the Devil because he immitates his example who from the day he began never ceased to sin nor ever did one truly good action Observ. By this we may gather T. D's limitation put upon that of 1 John 3.9 and the Comparison he makes between not the act simply but the manner of mans sin and the Devils still taking it for granted that he that is born of God doth sin and acts sinfully from the old nature but not in that manner as he that is of the Devil who intimates his example so that his meaning and comparison seems to amount to this that he that is born of God doth sin but not always or not as the Devil sinneth he is somewhat better then the Devil in that he doth some good actions but the Devil doth none Reply Surely our opposer hath come off but very poorly in his arguing for the Devils work contrary both to the state and testimony of such as were born of God whom he hath here very meanly debased and sadly abused the Scriptures misrepresenting Gods Children whom he by his Eternal Power hath delivered from the power of Sin and Satan and given them a Heavenly place in Christ where the Devil cannot come and in whom the Prince of the World hath nothing nor his sinfull Ministers any part or interest whilst they plead against God's Promises holy Commands and against the very end and purpose of Christ's manifestation as T. D. and his Brethren have done wherein they have shown themselves to be Antichrist's Agents and Ministers and not the true Christ's Now touching Christ's Enlightning every man whose Light we affirm to be saving this is set down as an Error by T. D. he and his Brethren denying the Light of Christ in every man to be Saving in its own nature and property which we do affirm it to be but that he enlightens every man to
Salvation I do not remember these to be our words as T. D. lays them down who also begins with a meer falshood against us saying That the word Christ is a meer blind to delude the ignorant for the Quakers denying Christ to be God they cannot own him for the Author of Illumination Answ. This is an apparent Slander cast upon us as our Books and Writings do shew that we never denied Christ to be God or his Divinity still affirming That in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God and that in him was Life and the Life was the Light of men and that was the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the World as in John 1.1.4 9. Now to detect us as being in an Error herein T. D. urgeth Ephes. 2.12 that at that time ye were without Christ having no hope c. which is no proof that they had none of Christ's Light in them though they then did not experience him their Hope nor were come to the Covenant being without God in the World in which state they were Strangers and Enemies in their minds the mystery was hid from them the Light was obscured from their understandings it shined in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not but it doth not follow that the Light was not in them because they were without God in the World no more then it follows that God is not in the World because the World knows him not whereas its plain that he was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not John 1.10 and seeing Christ as God is acknowledged to be the Author of Illumination his illumination is Divine and Spiritual and therefore saving to them that believe in it and God's Presence filleth Heaven and Earth neither can Darkness it self nor the Deep nor Hell hide or cover man from the Presence of God nor yet obscure him from the reach of his Spirit Whether shall I go from thy Spirit or whether shall I fly from thy Presence if I ascend up into Heaven thou art there if I make my Bed in Hell behold thou art there if I take the wings of the Morning c. Psal. 139. Yet still I grant that there is a state in which all are ignorant of God and in which the Mystery to wit Christ within the hope of Glory hath been hid from Ages and Generations but is shewed revealed and made manifest to the true Believers in his Light who said Believe in the Light that you may be the Children of the Light and Christ said I am come a Light into the World that whosoever believeth in me might not perish but have Eternal Life and this we testifie to against all Opposers of his Light as it is in every man Pag. 59. And where T. D. argues that the Gentiles for a time had no Promises of Christ therefore knew of none and consequently had not a Light or Knowledge sufficient to bring them to Salvation Reply What time was that the Gentiles had no Promise of Christ and how long was it Was not the Promise of God after the Fall that the Seed of the Woman should bruise the Serpents head of a general extent as well towards Gentiles as Jews For was not Adam and Eve the first Parents of both to whom this Promise was made Secondly The Promise that was made to Abraham whilst in the uncircumcision did not this relate to the Gentiles as well as the Jews see Rom. 4. and Galat. throughout And thirdly Was not Christ's Death for all still a confirmation or evident Testimony to the fore-going Promises and Covenant of God towards both Jews and Gentiles but and if there was some time or Ages in which the Gentiles had no Promises of Christ and therefore not a Light sufficient to Salvation according to T. D. then it follows that none of them in that time or those Ages could be saved and why but because God did not afford them a sufficient Light which assertion and consequence lays the blame upon God but the falsehood thereof who is it that know the Scriptures that cannot see Again where he puts Light for Knowledge herein he doth not reach our Principle for many have a true Light in them that are not come to the true Knowledge for it is the Light that shines in the heart that gives the knowledge of the Glory of God 2 Cor. 4. so the Light is there before the Knowledge is given and in that its able to give that Knowledge it is sufficient to save And where he brings 1 Tim. 3. ver last for proof That the Gentiles neither had nor knew any Promises of Christ for a time where he saith God manifested in the Flesh and as such preach'd unto the Gentiles are made two parts of the Mystery of Godliness which in other Ages was not made known unto the Sons of men as it s now revealed to his holy Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit c. Where note first that this manistation of God in the Flesh and preaching unto the Gentiles is no proof that either they had no promises of Christ before or that they had no Light in them sufficient to salvation for if so then all Gentiles in all Ages before that time were condemned for want of saving Light being given to them which were a gross errour to assert 2dly As to the manifestation of the mystery of God and Christ I grant that it was more large and open in the Apostles days then for Ages before as also that was made manifest then which was hid for Ages and Generations yet still it doth not follow that the Gentiles before had not a Light sufficient to save or to manifest the mystery of Godliness in some degree 3dly But yet T. D. his arguing against the Gentiles having a sufficient Light before Christ's coming in the flesh however if we could grant him his plea which we cannot it doth not follow that now the Gentiles or the whole world hath not a Light sufficient given them since Christ is so come manifestly testified as God's Salvation prepared before the face of all People being a Light to the Gentiles and his Testimony so signally confirmed as it hath been also both by his works and sufferings But yet the better to inform our Opposers of the Light let them read John 1. where speaking of the Word that was God that made all things it s said In him was Life and the Life was the Light of men verse 4. and this Light and Life of men which proceeds from the Word though it was before Christ's comming in the Flesh yet it was still the Light and Life of Christ born witness of and more fully manifested through his coming or being sent in the fulness of time Pag. 60. T. D. The Father is said to hide the object because he did not enlighten the subject i. e. to hide the Gospel because he did