property of the Holy Ghost is to proceed from the Father and the Son Ioh. 15. 26. And when the comforter is come whom I will send from the Father even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father he shall testify of me I shall conclude the proof of the distinction of the persons of the Father the Son and Holy Ghost in the unity of the Divine Essence with the two arguments made mention of before in the disputation which because no answer was given unto they remain in force The first argument is this against W. P's plain assertion that there were not three distinct persons in the Godhead with three distinct incommunicable properties If the Father be another from the Son and the Son another from the Father and the Holy Ghost another from each and all three be God and the incommunicable property of the Father is to beget the Son the incommunicable property of the Son to be begotten of the Father and the incommunicable property of the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son then there are three distinct persons in the Godhead with three distinct incommunicable properties But the Father is another c. Therefore there are three distinct persons in the Godhead with three distinct incommunicable properties The consequence of the Major none can with any reason deny because another and another and another do signify plainly a distinction of those persons and begetting being begotten and proceeding are real not imaginary properties The Minor also is firm in all the parts of it 1. The Father is another from the Son Ioh. 5. 32. There is another that beareth witness of me Ioh. 8. 18. I am one that bear witnesse of my self and the Father that sent me beareth witnesse of me 2. The Son is another from the Father because the Father is another from the Son 3. The Holy Ghost is another from each Ioh. 14. 16 17. I will pray the Father and he shall give you another comforter even the spirit of truth 4. That Father Son and Holy Ghost are God hath been proved 5. The incommunicable properties of each person also hath been proved Therefore it undeniably followeth that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead with three distinct incommunicable properties The second argument out of 1 Ioh. 5. 7. to prove that Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons was this The Father Son and Holy Ghost are either three substances or three manifestations or three operations or three persons or something else But 1. They are not three substances because in the same verse the three are called one that is in regard of substance or Essence 2. They are not three manifestations for all the attributes of God are manifestations and so there would be more than three hence also it would follow that one manifestation should beget and send another which is absurd 3. They are not three operations for the same reason namely that there are more than three operations and it would be very improper to asribe personal properties either to manifestations or operations 4. They are not any thing else Therefore the proposition remaineth firm and sound That Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct subsistents or persons in one Divine Essence or Godhead The Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God and yet they are nor three Gods but one God the persons of the Father Son and Holy Ghost are distinct but the Godhead is the same not specifically the same as the same humane nature is in all individual men but numerically the same so as no similitude or comparison is to be found in the creatures to set it forth The fooles gathering his skirt into three folds and pulling them abroad into one the affections of One Good True in Being The understanding will and executive power in the Soul and the like similitudes may a little help the understanding in the conception of this mystery but all comparisons fall short and cannot square in every respect hereunto Yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is so hath been proved from Scripture and it is one great fundamental point of our Christian Faith which all Christians are bound to believe because of the authority of God CHAP. VI. Ananswer to part of the 10 the 12 13 14 and 15 pages of W. P's Pamphlet which he intituleth the Trinity of distinct separate persons in the Vnity of essence refuted from Scripture right reason with information and caution in the close THe word separate person I disown any further than we may conceive it to signify no more than distinct and so W. P. was told again and again in the meeting I need speak no more of that since his endeavours are to refute the distinction not the separation of persons in the glorious and ever blessed Trinity And his first attempt is to refute this Doctrine by Scripture The Scriptures which he alledgeth to overthrow the Doctrine of the Trinity of persons are such as prove the unity of the essence that there is but one God which we do not in the least deny but have and do assert with as firme belief as he or any in the world can do but though the Godhead or Divine essence be but one this is not inconsistent with the plurality and distinction of the three persons in the same Godhead And here it is very remarkable how W. P. doth discover weakness and want of learning in the proof of the unity of the Godhead by Scripture for however he doth attempt to show something of a Scholar in quoting one Hebrew text in the margin as if he were well acquainted with the original Hebrew tongue so as to be able to read and understand it without punets yet most ignorantly and rediculously he cites three texts namely Isa. 40. 25. chap. 48. 17. Psal. 71. 22. to prove Gods unity in all which the Hebrew maketh no mention of it the translation indeed is Holy one and Holy one of Israel and he very sillily writes ONE in great letters as if one did bear the emphasis of the place when there is no such word as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one in the Hebrew only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou Holy of Israel in the new Testament he alleageth some Scriptures which the Socinians do make use of to prove that Christ is not God one is Math. 19. 17. Iesus said unto him why callest thou me good there is none good but one that is God Whence no Socinian can rationaly infer that Christ is not God any more than that he is not good for his question doth not infer a denial of his Divinity or goodnesse but is propounded according to the young man's apprehension of him and by way of probation For in other places as hath been shown Christ's Divinity is clearly enough declared Another Text is Ioh. 17. 3. This is life eternal that they might know thee
Father the only true God In this place Christ excludeth not himself from being God but only excludeth all false Gods and if you mark it the word only as also the word one doth belong to the predicate God and not to the subject Father it being not onely thee to be the true God but thee to be the only true God and so it may be applyed to the Son and Iesus Christ whom thou bast sent to be the only true God which is signifyed in that place and expressed 1 Iob. 5. 10. we are in him that is true even in his Son Iesus Christ this is the true God and eternal life The other Scriptures prove that there is one God essentially in opposition unto all that upon any other account are called Gods not being Gods by essence all which do but assert that which is acknowledged and hath been already proved in the former Chapter that there is but one God In the argument which W. P. draws from the fore-mentioned Scriptures he doth again show his ignorance if he know not that in several of these places the word one is not in the Hebrew or his deceitfulness if he know and dissemble it and thinks by laying stress on the word one to impose upon the understandings of the vulgar as if there were some great force in his argument from those places when indeed they prove not in the least what he alledgeth them for But allowing W. P. to draw his argument from those places which do prove the unity of God though God be declared and believed to be but one it will not follow that the Divine nature doth not subsist in three persons the Scripture indeed doth hold him forth as one God but there it speaketh of his essence and yet withal doth elsewhere sufficiently declare that in this one essence there are three distinct persons therefore we professe our beleif of the Holy three persons as well as the Holy one God and both according to the plain Scripture before urged for proof hereof 1 Ioh. 5. 7. There are three that bare record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one But this distinction of one God and three persons so plainly signifyed in that Scripture W. P. most impudently and blasphemously calleth impertinent and the reason he giveth is because God was not declared and believed incompleatly or without his subsistance nor did require homage from his creatures as an incompleat and abstracted being c. which is a most egregions non sequitur besides that he fastneth that on us which neither we nor any Orthodox Christian ever yet affirmed viz that God was ever declared or believed incompleatly without his subsistance or as an incompleat and abstracted Being we know no such thing as the essence of God without a subsistance we know the Divine nature only in the three persons not abstracted from them or being any way out of them and so God is not manifested or worshipped without that which is absolutely necessary to himself namely without his subsistance but the Divine essence is worshipped as subsisting in the three persons and so the blessed Trinity is not our nor any mans fiction as he impiously speaks but this folish and absurd notion is his own fiction or the fiction of some of his Socinian brethren After W. P's vain attempts to refute the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Scripture he fronts his other arguments with the swelling but false title Refuted from right reason false I say for besides that what ever attempt reason doth make for the refuting of any Scripture truth which is the object of faith as this is concerning the Trinity of persons in the unity of the Divine essence it doth hereby discover it self to be crooked and depraved reason and the arguings from it are called the perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth 1 Tim. 6. 5. compared with the fourth verse W. P. who before had charged me for using Heathenish Metaphysicks in disputing for the Truths of God though my terms were either Scripture-words or carried Scripture-sense doth here most Heathenishly make use of Metaphysical terms in arguing against the truth but that so weakly that his Argumentation is so far from deserving the name of right reason that more properly it may be called no reason as shall be made evident in the Answer unto his Arguments which if they seem crabbed it is not because of the strength but because of the obscurlty of them for some of the phrases are so uncouch and his reasoning are so odly jointed together to avoid that part of a Scholar in putting them into a Sylogistical form that it is more difficult to find out what his cloudy brains conception and meaning is than to give answer unto any of his cavilling Arguments And here having promised to reply to his reason p. 10. why he flatly denied my minor proposition in the Sylogism before mentioned wherein he argueth onely against the conclusion endeavouring to prove that there are not three subsistences and the argument he useth being the same in sense and scope with his first argument under that which he calleth a Refutation from right reason I shall answer both together and omit nothing in his argument that hath any show of cogency in it His argument is thus No one substance can have three distinct subsistances and perserve its own unity and not to repeat all his words in the obscure way that he propoundeth his arguments but to help him in the methodizing of them his consequence is that every distinct Subsistance will have its own substance and consequently that three distinct subsistances will require three distinct substances consequently if the Doctrine of the Trinity of subsistences were true there would be three Gods And in his first argument he argueth that every person is inseparable from it's own substance and therefore Father Son and Spirit either are three distinct nothings or if persons then three distinct substances and consequently three distinct Gods Answer If Substance be taken here for Essence as it must be otherwise it will conclude nothing against us then the proposition is most false that no one substance can have three distinct subsistances and preserve it 's own unity for though a created Essence being finite limited and divisible cannot be communicated unto any more than one subsistance yet it followeth not that the divine Essence which is infinite and indivisible cannot be communicated to several subsistances neither doth W. P's reason prove the contrary viz that every subsistance will have it 's own substance unlesse he can prove that each distinct subsistence must necessarily have it 's own substance in God as well as Creatures distinct from what the other subsistences have For one and the same singular nature or substance may be and is the substance or nature subsisting in each person of the Trinity and so every subsistence hath it's own substance and yet
There he pretends to inform the Reader concerning the original of this doctrine and first he would have the Reader assure himself that it is neither from Scripture nor reason But I suppose most Readers will be more wise and cautious than to build their assurance upon the bold assertions and crude reasonings of this presumptuous and Heaven-daring disputant That this doctrine is not from reason will be easily granted yea that it is contrary to corrupt reason such as W. P. hath plainly declared it self to be it is a mystery which flesh and blood cannot reveal but the Father which is in Heaven yet so as it is not contrary to right and truly sanctifyed reason And whereas W. P. asserteth that it is not from Scripture he must not think to impose this upon Christians who have look't into the Word any more than what he further asserts as to the first three hundred years upon those that have look't into the writings of the ancient Fathers The Doctrine of the Trinity is as old as the Scriptures themselves and hath been proved out of the first Chapter of Genesis and other places of the Old Testament by Mr. M. Chap. 4th and abundantly out of the New Testament Chap. 5. The Readers that search and believe the Scriptures will never believe W. Penn. That the Doctrine of the Trinity came into the world above three hundred years after the first preaching of the Gospel by the nice distinctions and too daring curiosity of the Bishop of Alexandria is one of W. Pen's loud lyes It was indeed opposed by Arius about that time who denied Christ to be equal to and of the same substance with the Father yet not first opposed by him but by other hereticks before him one of whose disciples if not worse W. P. hath in his Pamphlet sufficiently proved himself to be and if it were opposed before sure it was known before so that W. P. might have derived the pedigree of his abomination and blasphemy if he had consulted Church History higher than from Arius The miserable end of which blasphemour and dishonourer of the eternal Son of God who voided his entrails with his excrements in a place of easement and so died by an unheard of death should caution all others from offering the like indignities unto the Son as to disrobe him of his Deity and number him amongst creatures like themselves lest he stretch forth the arm of his Almighty power and make them feel him if they will not otherwise acknowledge him to be God by bringing some remarkable destruction upon them in this world W. P. Thus was it conceived in ignorance brought forth and maintained by cruelty c. What a strange composition is here of impudence and folly thus boldly and blasphemously to assert this great fundamental truth to be conceived in ignorance and maintained by cruelty and yet in the next breath he owns persecution to be as well on the Arians side as the other and so by his own confession the Arian Doctrine was maintained by cruelty and with how great cruelty and bitternesse those which look into the Histories of those times may easily see To say nothing of W. P's so proud censuring so eminent a champion of Jesus Christ as Athanasius was when he shall produce the grounds of his suspecting the Creed commonly called The Athanasian Creed to be the Results of Popish School-men it will be time enough to answer that Clause Next W. P. cautioneth the Reader to take heed of embracing the Determinations of prejudiced Councils c. and yet giveth no reason why the Reader should be prejudic'd against them except the belying of the Scripture testimony be a reason which I suppose was the ground of their Determinations in this point and no further are any Councils to be heeded than they do agree in their Results with the Scriptures I hope the Reader will rather take heed of embracing such damnable Doctrine as this peremptory Dictatour would impose upon the understanding of the weak and indeed weak they must needs be and blinde too and either renounce the Scriptures or their own senses that will suffer their assent to these great Scripture-truths to be in the least enfeebled by any thing that this raw Disputer alledgeth for the maintaining of this Blasphemy and Heresie or oppugning our received and never to be shaken Foundations And here W. P. who had discovered before his skill in Logick by arguing against the conclusion of my Syllogism telling us he opposed the Minor his skill in the Original Tongues in noting the Holy ONE in great letters to prove Gods Unity when the word One is not to be found in the Hebrew Text doth make a third attempt to show something of a Scholar but is as unhappy as before and as grosly as in the two former attempts doth signifie to all that understand Learning that he is a proud boaster and pretender to that which he never attained unto He telleth us the Doctrine of the Trinity was never believed by the Primitive Saints nor ever thus stated by any he hath read in three first Centuries particularly Irenaeus Just in Martyr Tertullian Origen Theophilus Theophilact who lived several hundred after Athanasius was cited by W. P. but I finde in the Errata it is corrected Theophilus with many other who appear wholly forreign to the matter in controversie But who ever will peruse these Authors W. P. maketh mention of with others who writ in those times will finde both his lies to be very great and his reading to be very little notwithstanding this vain flourish and boasting The Doctrine of the Trinity is plainly enough to be gathered from several passages in Irenaeus Lib. 1. Cap. 2. Ecclesia accepit fidem quae est in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem in unum Christum filium Dei incarnatum in Spiritum Sanctum qui per Prophet as praedicavit The Faith which the Church hath received is in one God the Father omnipotent and in Christ the Son of God who was made flesh and in the Holy Ghost who spake by the Prophets Do not these words hold forth a distinction of these three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost And cap. 19. Omnium Deus per verbum spiritum omnia faciens gubernans The God of all things making and governing all things by his Word and Spirit Here the making and governing of all things are attributed to the Word and Spirit as well as to the Father and as the former place doth show that he believed they were three distinct persons so this latter place that he believed they were but one God Iust. Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Title of this Book being concernig faith in the holy Consubstantial Trinity sheweth he was not a stranger to this Doctrine Read some of his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When as the Father doth beget the Son of his substance and of the same doth produce the Holy
of Christians in the truths and ways of God In W. P's conclusion by way of caution he teleth us he doth not disown Father Word and Spirit to be one but he disowneth them to be three Persons which hath been proved out of the Scripture that the Trinity as he saith hath not a foundation in the Scripture that its original was three hundred years after Christianity was in the World hath been proved to be false What he speaketh concerning the Council of Sirmia That the controversie concerning the Trinity should not be remembred because the Scriptures made no mention thereof is also falsely alledged for by that very Council the Doctrine of the Trinity is expresly asserted as a chief article of the Christian faith and the distinction of Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost plainly implyed in the Anathema which was pronounced upon those that asserted they were but one Person that which W. P. citeth is concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which this Council was heterodox as it might well be when so much influenced by the Emperor Constantius who himself was infected with Arianisme But W. P. should have looked into the Councils more ancient and authentique than the Sirmian namely the first Nicene Council which condemned the Arian heresie blasphemously denying the Son to be coeternal and coessential with the Father the first Constantinopolitan council which condemned the Macedonian heresie denying the Deity of the Holy Ghost The Council of Ephesus Chalcedon who with other approved oecumenical Councils generally assented to the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Consubstantiality of the three Persons What W. P. further addeth concerning the occasion of Idolatry is groundless the scandalizing of Turks c. is no wonder when the preaching of Christ crucified was such a stumbling-block of old After he confesseth that Christ offered unto God a Satisfactory Sacrifice and yet he denieth Christs Satisfaction and Justification by his imputative Righteousness all which three Doctrines being Fundamental established by the Word of Truth W. P's attempts to subvert them are in vain and have discovered him to be both a Blasphemer and an Heretick Since I began my Answer to W. P. there came to my hands a Pamphlet subscribed by Solomon Eccles styled The Quakers Challenge wherein amongst others he challengeth me at two Weapons as he calleth them to Fast seven days and seven nights and to Wake seven days and seven nights and that hereby tryal shall be made who are in the truth Though the Pamphlet be ridiculous yet I was unwilling to let it pass without any remark and my Answer is when the Lord hath appointed these ways for tryal of the Orthodox and Hereticks I shall undertake them but not finding any such Command or Warrant in the Word to forbear Food or Sleep so long but on the contrary because it is a tempting of God and a breach of the sixth Commandment which requireth all lawful endeavors for the preservation of our own life as well as the lives of others therefore it would be a God-provoking sin to endanger self-murther by such Weapons The Scripture Instances of Fasting many days together were miraculous and not for our imitation others I have heard of that have lived as many days together as he speaketh of without meat or drink or sleep but they have been distracted people amongst whom this man deserveth to be numbred and if I should answer him in the way he challengeth I should be accounted by the sober as mad as himself His Lie he venteth concerning me is refuted already in my Narrative CHAP. X. The Call and Exhortation HAving asserted and proved the three great Doctrines of the Trinity Satisfaction and Iustification denyed by W. P. I shall further add by way of premise to the Call and Exhortation what was before intimated that these three are great Fundamental Truths of the Christian Religion necessary to be believed in order to Salvation the unbelief and denyal of which will bring unavoidable damnation 1. The Doctrine of the Trinity of distinct Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence is a Fundamental Truth because the Godhead in the three persons is the proper object of saving Faith and right Worship and those that do not savingly believe and rightly worship God cannot possibly be saved besides the denyal of the three distinct persons in the Godhead doth necessarily inferr the denyal of the co-eternal co-essential Deity of the Son and Holy Ghost which is Blasphemy and damnable Heresie so accounted by the most ancient and authentique Councils and by the true Church of God in all Ages II. The Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and Justification by his imputed Righteousness are Fundamental Truths also without which there can be no Redemption Reconciliation Remission and consequently no Salvation This being premised I shall now apply my self first to the Quakers and then to others To W. P. and other Quakers who believe these and other Quaker damnable errors I shall propound these four Queries which I shall answer according to truth Que. 1. Do you know what you are 1. You are strangers to Christ whatever your fancy be of Christ within you and I am confident that none of you all that believe these errors have had experience of the new birth and forming of Christs image upon your hearts since there never is a work of regeneration and uniting the souls of any to Christ that leaveth them in such darkness and error as you are left and bound up in No had you been ever truly regenerated you would have been humbled and emptied of your selves you would have seen your selves lost in your selves and your need of Christs satisfaction and imputed Righteousness without which you would have been assured that there is no possibility Gods anger should be appeased and your souls saved It is not turning Quaker that is turning from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to Christ but on the contrary it is a turning from light to darkness and from Christ to Satan and what will be the issue hereof not remission of sins and salvation but the fastening of guilt upon you and eternal destruction 2. You are enemies to Christ and I believe that Jesus Christ hath scarcely greater enemies under the Sun than you who are greater enemies to Christ than those who deny his eternal Deity as I have proved to be the plain consequence of W. P's words and of the denial of the Trinity who are greater enemies to Christ than those that deny his Satisfaction and Justification by his merrits who are greater enemies to Christ than those that oppose his faithful Ministers and Embassadors and that lye in wait to deceive and mislead Christians you are enemies to his truths and ways and ordinances and cause and interest and Ministers and true Disciples and all this with Christ in your mouths and I am confident the Lord doth hate and abhor you for such hypocrisy 3. You are Children of the Devil and
former is come to passe and the last is most likely to follow and now let W. P. call my zealous endeavours to keep a poor soul out of the dark path which leadeth to utter darkness peevish zeal and railing accusations and what he pleaseth I am sure I neither did nor spake any thing unbecoming a Minister of the Gospel W. P. chargeth me with cautioning the Pater-familias to exercise his authority c. This is false and the Master of the Family I am confident will not a verr it and why he should charge it I know not except that he might usher in those expressions Forgetting that they hold their liberty by connivance and the many appeals made by their non-conforming Bretheren for indulgence unto which I say that we do not forget it neither would we be unthankful either unto God or man for it and if by the appeals made by our non-conforming Brethren for indulgence he doth mean and reflect upon the grateful acknowledgement which some of them lately made unto the Supreame Magistrate under the protection of whose government we all do live He discovers little of a Christian spirit if he finds fault with it since we have a command 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. That supplications prayers intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men for kings and for all that are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty and therefore as we make conscience to pray for our Soveraign so we look upon our selves as obliged to give thanks both to God and unto him when through his clemency and favour we have liberty to live peaceable and quiet lives in all Godlinesse and honesty But to proceed in the narrative the daughter had such influence upon the mother that she was instrumental to draw her into this pernicious way which when I heard of I went to their house to use my endeavors for the reducing of them where I had not been long but the two men I had before discoursed with in Hounds-ditch came in amongst other things they flatly denied that there were three persons in the Godhead and that Father Son and Holy Ghost was a threefold variety or manifestation of God I did not think fit to enter into a dispute concerning that and other points then because it was so late and because I desired to have witnesses on my side as well as theirs This was the occasion of my meeting with the Quakers at my House which W. P. speaketh of and was present at but it is false what he saith that I bespake my usual Auditory an hour before the Quakers were appointed to come for I neither gave publick notice neither spake to any of a sooner time than I sent sent word to the Quakers of W. P. chargeth me for bringing not onely a second but a third and fourth least I should incur a non-plus c. That I should bring one with me was appointed when the Meeting was promised that our number might be the same with the two that were to dispute with us and whom we two had met with before but if other two of my Bretheren were present it was without any desire of mine but onely their our inclination brought them thither for some time after our discourse began and if they spake any thing it was not because they thought I stood in any need they should help me out but because of G. W's confused discourse and indirect answers to my Arguments they attempted to bring him to some order and to have gained an answer from him that the dispute might more intelligibly and successfully have proceeded When the assembly was come together I began with prayer which was no sooner ended but the other two Quakers who promised to meet with us not appearing George Whitehead began to speak and declared that he was there come to defend the Quakers opinions which I had asserted were damnable and when he would have first discoursed of the light within them I told him and the people that I owned my charge of damnablenesse on the Quakers opinions and though I did not decline to dispute about the light he spake of and other errours of the Quakers yet I thought it most proper to begin with the Doctrine of the Trinity denied by the Quakers I last met with who directly affirmed that the Father Son and Holy Ghost were not three distinct persons but a threefold variety or manifestation and this I asserted to be a damnable errour and would prove it to be so and therefore I asked him whether his opinion was the same with theirs unto which M. Danson added that he had asserted the Quakers to have an infallible spirit so that what was the opinion of one must consequently be the opinion of all and therefore that he must either own this opinion or disown them for Quakers G. W. at first did neither plainly assert nor directly deny the opinion but filled his mouth and the people eares with a multitude of words wherein was so much ambiguity and obscurity that the sentiments of his mind were not easily to be perceived But W. P. standeth up falsly and blasphemously reflecting on the Doctrine of the Trinity as an errour sprung up three hundred years after Christ and directly denied that there were three distinct persons in the Godhead with three distinct incommunicable properties Then I asked G. W. whether he owned W. P. for a Quaker and not being disowned I urged an argument against his assertion If the Father be another from the Son and the Son another from the Father and the Holy Ghost another from each and all three are God and the property of the Father is to beget the Son and the property of the Son to be begotten of the Father and the property of the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son then there are three distinct persons in the Godhead with three distinct incommunicable properties But the Father is another c. Therefore there are three c. When I had propounded my argument W. P. shrunk saying he did not come thither to dispute but left it to G. W. who neither would repeat my Sylogism nor give any direct answer either to the Major or Minor I could have multiplyed words as G. W. did and applyed my self to the people instead of speaking to the purpose but this I forbore propounding my argument Sylogistically and the distinction of three persons being denied though no direct answer given to the argument urged to prove it I added another argument from 1 Iob. 5. 7. There are three that bare record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one The Father Word and 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 G. W. maketh
no direct reply to this Sylogism but findeth fault with the terms and W. P. telleth us that God did not use to wrap his Truths in Heathenish Metaphysicks but in plain language but let the Reader judge whether there be the heathenish Metaphysicks he speaketh of in this Sylogism wherein there is not a word but what is to be found in the Scripture not but that some words may be made use of in explaining Scripture Truths which are not in the Scripture themselves so they expresse the thing which the Scripture doth signify in other Phrases more proper to the languages the Scripture were wrot in and I could make it evident out of the Books of the Quakers themselves that they use many words which are not in the Scripture No answer could be obtained to my argument in the Meeting but W. P. taking the argument into further consideration attempteth at length in his Pamphlet to make a reply and first taxeth me to be as little a Scholar in regard of the manner of my Sylogism as a Christian in regard of the matter of it My Sylogism was urged to prove the three glorious persons in the Godhead the denial of which doth necessarily infer the denial of Christ to be God equal with the Father and let any judge who approveth himself most a Christian either W. P. in denying this or I in asserting and proving it As to the manner of my Sylogism some Quakers it may be who know not what a Sylogism is may believe that it bespeaks me to be little a Scholar but no Scholar will judge so from that Sylogism which they know to be according to rule and to carry a firm proof in it drawn from the Induction of particulars but W. P. discovereth himself to be that which he taxeth me for namely little a Scholar and though he hath been at the University yet that either he never read Logick or never understood Logick or hath forgot Logick or that purposely he hath laid aside Logick that herein he might be like to the Quakers in answering nothing to the purpose for besides his finding fault with my Sylogism his reply to it doth most of all detect his want of Learning and grosse absurdity for which he would have been hissed out of the Schools had he done it in the University for though he telleth us he will give his reason why he will deny my Minor yet most ridiculously and ignorantly he argueth against my conclusion The Minor as he repeateth it is But they are not three manifestations three operations three substances or three some things else besides subsistences The conclusion Therefore three subsistences If he had indeed denied the Minor he must have asserted that they were either three substances or operations or manifestations or something else but he mistaketh the conclusion for the Minor and argueth that they are not three subsistences No one substance can have three distinct subsistences c. W. P. argueth against the Trinity of persons in the unity of Essence behold the Christian he argueth against the conclusion of a Sylogism calling it the Minor behold the Scholar yet because his argument is against our Doctrine therefore I shall give answer thereunto and his other cavils together in the sixth chap. After this he reflected upon Mr. Madox in the 11. page whose answer you have in the following Chapter CHAP. III. An Answer to the 11. page of W. P's pernicious Pamphlet by W. M. ANd because G. W. willing to bring this strange Doctrine This Doctrine is strange to none but such as are strangers to God and ignorant of the Scriptures whose eyes the God of this world hath blinded lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ who is the Image of God should shine into them 2 Cor. 4. 3 4. but as Ephraim when joyned to idols counted the great things of Gods Law a strange thing Hos. 8. 12. so these men having prostituted themselves to an Idol of their own brains The Light within which is their Christ and Savior count the Doctrine of the true God a strange Doctrine To the capacity of the people You mean to the scorn and contempt of the people for his design was not to explain but to expose the Doctrine and it is absurd to imagine that he could facilitate that to the understanding of others which he himself neither derstands nor believes Compar'd their three Persons to three Apostles By their three persons you mean the three increated Persons of the ever blessed Trinity the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost Of the insolency and wickedness of this Comparison you shall hear by and by onely here let me tell you that we have endeavoured to make them ours by a fiducial application of them to our selves and it is no dishonor to us though it be a blasphemous reflection on them that they are in reproach called our three persons because we appear in vindication of them saying he did not understand how Paul Peter and Iohn could be three persons and one Apostle Neither did we assert it either directly or by consequence For though we call the father Son and Holy Ghost three Persons or He 's according as they are held forth in the Scriptures yet we say there is a vast and infinite difference between three created and the three increated persons for three created persons are so many distinct and separate Essences as they are persons but all the increated persons have the same simple and unseparated essence of God Ioh. 10. 30. I and my Father are one 1 Joh. 5. 7. These three are one not one in person for so the Father is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Another from Christ Ioh. 5. 32. There is Another c. and the Holy Ghost is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioh. 14. 16. Another Comforter i. e. Another as to subsistence or manner of being but one in nature and essence so that though Paul Peter and Iohn being of a finite nature cannot be three persons and one Apostle yet I am sure from the Scripture that the Father Son and Holy Ghost being of an infinite nature are three persons and yet but one God and till you can prove that finite and infinite or God and the Creature are all one it will be in vain to make such a comparison for the shaking of this Foundation-truth A most apt comparison to detect the ridicult of their doctrine Or rather to discover the monstrous blindness hardness and unbelief of his own and your hearts who dare so boldly spit in the face of God like men that have cast off all fear and reverence of God as well as of men One Maddocks whose zeal out-stript his knowledge busling hard as one that had some necessary matter for the decision of Controversie These extravagant expressions designed to cast disgrace on my person I purposely overlook because I contend not for mine own honor but for the honor of God In stead thereof perhaps to save his brethren
or shew himself There was no need to save my Brethren for I do not remember one word either of Scripture or right reason that was opposed to what they asserted and proved so that it was neither to save my Brethren nor to shew my self that I then appeared but to stop a blasphemer's mouth and to make manifest his wickedness that he might proceed no further 2 Tim. 3. 8 9. Silences our further controverting the Principle Your further reproaching and reviling it you mean for if you would have disputed it without your wicked comparisons and reflections I would not have interposed By a Sylogistical but false and impertinent Reflection upon G. W. his person it runs thus He that scornfully and reproachfully compares the Doctrine of the Trinity of Father Son and Spirit to three finite men as Paul Peter and John is a Blasphemer But you G. W. have so done Ergo That this is a false and impertinent reflection on G. W. his person you assert but prove not I shall therefore prove the contrary And first that the minor is not false nor impertinent appears by his words and your confession for you acknowledge that in scorn to the Doctrine of the Trinity he compar'd it to three finite men viz. Paul Peter and Iohn which you call a most apt comparison to detect the ridicule of our Doctrine Secondly that the major is not false nor impertinent as is manifest for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hurt or blast the fame of another is all one as to blaspheme him and hence the perverse disputings and railings of men of corrupt mindes that consent not to wholesom words and the Doctrine that is according to Godliness are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blasphemies 1 Tim. 6. 4. And what can be more derogatory to the glory of the infinite God than to fasten the imperfections and limitations of finite creatures upon him and to assert three separate essences as the necessary consequent of three distinct persons this was the old Arian Plot whereby he and his followers endeavored to prejudice the mindes of well meaning but simple men against the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost and this is to blaspheme God and the Scriptures A strange way of argumentation to beg what cannot be granted and to take for granted what still remains a question viz. that there are three distinct and separate persons in one essence What you mean by separate I know not if you mean so separate as to destroy the unity and simplicity of the Divine Essence I own no such separation if you take it to be all one with distinct then I say it was no begging of the question for it had been sufficiently proved that there are in the Divine Essence three distinct persons the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Let them first prove their Trinity and then charge their Blasphemy It is not for want of proof that this Doctrine is rejected and blasphemed and still called our Trinity in a way of reproach assure your self the day is coming when you will wish you had made it yours also but you have a way to scorn all that is offered in defence of it as mens lo here Interpretations and lo there and to brand all the determinations of Councels Fathers c. concerning it as the issues of Faction Prejudice and Cruelty and there is little hope that any Arguments though never so strong will convince men of such proud insolent humors this Doctrine is more than hinted in the first line of the Bible Gen. 1. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Verb of the singular number signifies the Unity of the Divine Effence and the Noun of the plural number denotes the Trinity of persons God that created Heaven and Earth is God the Father Son and Holy Ghost Read also Iob 35. 13. God thy Makers Heb. Consult Mr. Caryl on the place Eccles. 12. 1. Remember thy Creators c. Isa. 54. 5. My Makers is thy husband Heb. in all which Texts the Trinity of persons is denoted by words of the plural number See also Isa. 42. 1. where you have the Father choosing and upholding the Son and the Spirit put on him as Mediator three persons spoken of Mat. 3. 16 17. and 28. 19. Ioh. 14. 16. there is Christ praying the Father and he giving another Comforter the Spirit of Truth what can be more plain than a Trinity of persons in this Text So Ioh. 15. 26. the Spirit sent by Christ from the Father and Act. 2. 32 33. 2 Cor. 13. 14. 1 Ioh. 5. 7. for brevity sake I onely name the Texts I might also adde that the names properties or attributes works and worship of God are frequently in the Scripture given to each of these three Persons so that they are one and the same perfect and infinite Essence each of them God and one God by nature but three persons And now having proved the Trinity W. Pen must either deny Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles and God himself speaking from Heaven or else confess the Blasphemy But I must not forget this persons self-confutation who to be plainer called them three Hee 's But what self-confutation it is to call three persons three Hee 's you neither do nor can tell that each of them is frequently spoken of in the Scripture as a distinct he is so plain you cannot deny it and expressed by the Pronouns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioh. 1. 2 3. and chap. 16. ver 8. 13 14. 27. and I called them three Hee 's to try if you would own the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost under any Title and 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 union or one-ness of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is no less than to deny and reject God for though you pretend to own God the Father yet in rejecting the Son you reject the Father for saith Christ he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me Luke 10. 16 and the beloved Disciple telleth us that whosoever denieth the Son the same hath not the Father 1 Ioh. 2. 23. If he can finde a he without a substance or prove that a subsistence is any thing else than the form of a he he will do well to justifie himself from the imputation of ignorance That my calling the three persons three Hee 's implies a He without a substance is the first thing that you would here insinuate but this is your gross ignorance of this great mystery For each of these Hee s is by nature God and hath the entire undivided nature substance or essence of God and all that you can say to the contrary is but like childrens shooting Paper-pellets against a Rock your latter phrase discovers your ignorance of Philosophy
Ghost most rightly they do partake of the same Essence and are dignified with one and the same Godhead What can be more plain And he goeth on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. How can any say that he which begetteth doth not differ from him which is begotten that he which proceedeth doth not differ from him from whom he proceedeth Here is Unity of Essence and Trinity of distinct Persons asserted plainly I shall add but one place more of many in Resp. 17. ad Ortho. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore there is but one God in one indistinct Essence and three Persons with distinction of their Persons or Subsistences Tertullian Lib. de Trinitate adversus Proaxnean doth express his faith in this doctrine throughout the whole Book and argueth it strongly from the Scriptures Cap. 12. Si te adhuc numerus scandalizat Trinitatis quasi non connexae in unitate simplici interrogo quomodo unicus singularis pluraliter loquitur Faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram Adam factus est tanquam unus ex nobis quia adhunc adhaerebat illi Filius secundae persona tertia Spiritus ideo pluraliter pronunciavit Faciamus nostram nobis If the number of the Trinity doth offend thee as if it could not be joyned in the simple unity I ask thee how thee one and single God doth speak pluraly Let us make Man after our Image Adam is become like one of us because the Son the second person and the Spirit the third did adhere to him therefore he spake pluraly Let us make our us Chap. 13. Pater Deus Filius Deus Spiritus Sanctus Deus the Father is God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God Chap. 31. Pater Filius Spiritus Sanctus tres crediti unum Deum sistunt The Father Son and Holy Ghost the three we are to believe in bold forth but one God Theophilus Lib. 1. Com in Evang doth acknowledge the Trinity Margarita pretiosa est Sancta Trinitas quae dividi non potest nam in unitate consistit The Holy Trinity is a precious Iewel which cannot be divided because it consisteth in unity Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in preaemio and Cap. 2. I am informed by a learned Author doth expresse his Faith in this Doctrine but I have not that Peice of Origen by me as I have the rest to consult I could adde the testimony of other Fathers who lived before the time W. P. maketh mention of but it is enough to cite these for the detection of the falshood of W. P. who telleth us that these Fathers were strangers to the Doctrine of the Trinity wherefore the weakness absurdity falshood and folly of this man being made manifest I suppose people will be more cautious than to follow him and the guidance of the light which W. P. saith is communicated unto all and forsake the true Light of the Word and Spirit which alone can guide men into all truth CHAP. VII The Doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ the second person of the real and glorious Trinity asserted and proved IF the doctrine of the ever glorious Trinity or three persons Father Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead had been overthrown by W. P. or could be indeed shaken by the Sociniant which with all the argument they can device in vain they do endeavour if he or they could prove which they never can that there is but one person in the God-head then it would follow that Christ could not be the eternal Son of God the second person of this glorious Trinity as W. P. most blasphemously stileth him the second person of the imagin'd Trinity and by consequence the Doctrine of satisfaction depending upon this person would fall to the ground and might by invincible argument be refuted it being impossible for any meer finite creature to make plenary satisfaction to the infinite Justice of God But the Doctrine of the Trinity being established by Scripture Testimony and the Lord Jesus Christ proved to be God equal with the Father the Doctrine also of satisfaction dependent upon this second person of the real and ever glorious Trinity will remain firm against all Quaker and Socinian attempts to overthrow it and before I give answer unto the objections and cavils against this Doctrine I shall breifly assert and prove the doctrine by the Word of Truth in the Holy Scripture W. P. in his title The impossibility of Gods pardoning offin without a plenary satisfaction refuted seemeth to infinuate that he denyeth onely the impossibility of Gods pardoning sin without satisfaction but whoever readeth his arguments shall finde them to be the very same which the Socinians use against Satisfaction it self and that he plainly denyeth the thing therefore I shall not concern my self to enquire what God could or might do if he pleased but what he hath decreed and determined to do and declared in the Scripture to be his will and here I affirm 1. That God never doth nor will nor can pardon any sinner without satisfaction made to his offended Iustice for their sins And that because his holiness righteousness and truth obligeth him to take vengeance upon all that have transgressed his Law the Lord is so Holy that he hateth all the workers of iniquity Psal. 5. 5. and what is Gods hatred but Percatum pro merito suo velle punire as Bradsh de Iust. his will to punish sin and sinners according to their desert His Justice doth engage him by no means to clear the guilty Exod. 34. 7. and his truth would be enfringed if he should not curse every one that centinueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. II. That no sinners themselves by any thing they can do or suffer in this life can give satisfaction unto Gods Iustice for their sins And the reason is because whatever good they do is no more than duty wherein also they must have Divine help to enable them and when they have done their duty their works are but imperfect and they unprofitable servants and this can make no compensation for their faults before Luk. 17. 10. When have done all the things commanded say we are unprofitable servants c. Our righteousnesses are as filthy raggs Isa. 64. 6. And what ever sinners suffer in this life it is infinitely short of what their sins have deserved Gods Justice is infinite and requierth an infinite satisfaction sinners are finite and therefore there is no porportion between any thing they can bring and what Gods Justice doth require for satisfaction III. That Iesus Christ being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and Man in one person was onely fit to make and hath actually made satisfaction unto Gods infinite and offended Iustice for the sins of Men. It was necessary that the person that should make satisfaction should be man because none but a creature could suffer and none but a man could be a fit
THE Foundation of God standeth sure OR A Defence of those Fundamental and so generally believed Doctrines Of The Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence The Satisfaction of Christ the second Person of the Real and Glorious Trinity The Justification of the Ungodly by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ. Against the Cavils of W. P. I. a Quaker in his Pamphlet Entituled The Sandy Foundation shaken c. Wherein his and the Quakers Hideous Blasphemies Socinian and damnably-heretical Opinions are discovered and refuted W. P's ignorance weakness falshoods absurd arguings and folly is made manifest unto all With a Call unto all such who in the simplicity of their hearts have been deluded by the Quakers to come out from amongst them And an Exhortation to all Christians as they desire their Salvation to beware of their damnable Doctrines and not to come neer the Tents of these enemies of Jesus Christ lest they be swallowed up in their ruin By Thomas Vincent sometime Minister of Maudlins Milk-street London 1 Joh. 5. 7. For there are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are One. Mat. 20. 28. The Son of Man came to give his life a ransom for many Rom. 4. 5. To him that worketh not but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly his Faith is counted for Righteousness LONDON Printed in the Year 1668. CHAP. I. The INTRODVCTION WILLIAM PENN Entituleth his Pamphlet The Foundation shaken which however he termeth a Sandy Foundation he acknowledgeth to be at least our Foundation In the beginning of his Epistle to the Reader he doth inveigh against Human Tradition amongst which he numbreth not onely those things which are Circumstantial but also those Doctrines which Protestants generally believe to be Essential And at the latter end of his Epistle he confesseth the Doctrines of the Trinity Satisfaction and Iustification by imputed Righteousness to be cardinal Points and chief Doctrines firmly believed as Articles of Christian Faith which he telleth us he hath endeavoured the total enervation of It is plain then that this man striketh at the Root and laboureth to overthrow the Foundation of Christianity as we have built upon it that he might overthrow the faith of weak and unestablished Christians But the Foundation of God standeth sure the great Fundamental Truths concerning our Lord Jesus Christhis Godhead being the second Person of the Trinity equal with the Father his satisfaction which he made to God's Justice for Man's sin and justification by his imputed Righteousness are like a Rock which cannot be moved against which what ever waves do arise and beat for removal of though the noise and clamors be great yet the attempts will be in vain the Rock remaineth where it was and the waves of opposition are broken to pieces It is possible indeed that the Faith of some may suffer shipwrack by such assaults because they were never well grounded fastned and fixed in the principles of Religion because they never received the truths of the Word either with true saving Faith or true sincere Love and therefore the Lord hath threatned to give such up unto strong delusions to believe a lie that they might be damned 2 Thes. 2 10 11 12. These are the persons who hear Christ's Word and do not practice accordingly therefore our Saviour compareth them to fools that build their house upon the sand upon which the rain descendeth and the floods come and the winds blow and beat and it falleth and the fall therefore is great Mat. 7. 26 27. This is the Sandy Foundation which W. P. and the Quakers may shake and overthrow and be instrumental to pull down into the same ruine and destruction with themselves But such who have built upon the Lord Jesus Christ who is the only true Foundation 1 Cor. 3. 11. Such who have built indeed upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles whereof Iesus Christ himself is the chief Corner-stone Eph. 2. 20. They have built upon the Rock upon which whosoever stumbleth and falleth will be broken to pieces but upon which whosoever buildeth is safe therefore are not tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine neither is it possible because of Christ's care and undertaking for them that they should be overthrown by any of the blasts of Satan or any of his instruments Math. 24. 24 If it were possible they shall deceive the very Elect. The Quakers however some of them and those of the chiefest and Ring-leaders have at sometimes let fall from their Black-mouths most hideous Blasphemies and vented most damnably-heretical Doctrines as for instance George Fox positively affirmed thus I am equal with God this was deposed at a general Sessions in Westmerland Iames Nayler said in the hearing of Mr. Baldwin a man of eminent trust and integrity That he did witness that he was as holy just and good as God In the Quakers book called Saul's Errand to Damascus it is asserted That there is no distinction of Persons in the Godhead Nayler and others have spoken to this effect That whosoever expects to be saved by him that died at Ierusalem shall be deceived I might mention many other such Blaspemies and Heresies See The perfect Pharisee by the Newcastle Ministers at the beginning I say though the Quakers have sometimes spoken out their blasphemies and corrupt Doctrines yet for the most part they are so subtle that they do not suffer the inward shape of their mind to appear so plainly abroad lest every one should run from them with loathing and abhorrency and however the import of their words be blasphemy and heresie yet they shroud their meaning under ambiguous phrases and especially at their first assault and endeavours to gain proselities and followers they cover the hook with the pleasing bait of sugred words and fair speeches whereby they deceive those that are unskilful in the word of Righteousness and in the method of their erroneous ways whence it is that many ere they are aware and not knowing whither they are going are drawn into their pernicious ways by reason of whom the way of truth is evil spoken of But W. P. being himself a Quaker and speaking in their name and vindication as himself telleth us p. 36. and they dispersing his books and calling for an answer and he being counted amongst them one of their chief because of some smattring of learning which they conceit he hath and which he himself seemeth to have a high conceit of which how groundless it is shall be discovered in the places where he doth attempt to show something of a Scholar doth in his Pamphlet plainly assert and stand up for those Quaker-Doctrines which I shall prove to be blasphemous and damnable Heresies And hath openly made it known to the World that the Quakers in those three great points which he doth militate against and endeavour the refutation of are Rank Socinians who more grosly erre in the Fundamentals of
Trinity of Persons that three should be one and one should be three that three should be distinguished but not divided that one should not be another the first should not be the second nor the second third nor the second or third the first and yet the first second and third the same that the first should be in the second and the second in the first and both first and second in the third and that without composition without confusion all related to one another and al distinguished one from another by incommunicable personal properties and yet all one and the same in regard of one individual Essence this is such a mystery as doth exceed the weak and narrow understanding of the most enlightned and clear sighted Christians fully to comprehend some by gazing too long upon the Sun become blind and some by prying too much into this mystery and attempting to bring it to the standard and module of their reason have lost the sight thereof and sunk into grosse apprehensions and denied either the unity of the Godhead affirming the three persons to be three distinct Gods or denied the Trinity affirming the Godhead to be without three distinct persons thus while they have professed and conceited themselves to be wise they have proved themselves to be fools void of true understanding by changing the glory of God into that which is unworthy of him But we having a sure word of Prophecy in the Scriptures which is like a light shining in a dark place ought to give heed thereunto and conform all our conceptions of God according to the discoveries which he hath made of himself in his word God knoweth himself better than any creature can know and what he hath spoken of himself must needs be so because he cannot represent himself otherwise than he is and if there be a mystery in him which we cannot reach we adde folly to our weakness if we do in the least question it reason it may be will leave us in our search after the Deity in the Trinity and the Trinity in the Deity but where reason faileth Faith must supply it's room the proper object of Divine Faith is such things as we purely do assent unto upon Divine authority such are not onely Histories and Prophesies but also Mysteries which reason cannot demonstrate unto us in this mystery of the Trinity we must exercise our Faith though we cannot clear it to our selves by demonstration not as if we were to lay reason quite aside in this thing or trample it under foot not as if we should put out the eye of reason that we might see more clearly with the eye of Faith for though this mystery be above reason yet it is not against reason yea there is the greatest reason in the world that we should assent unto that for truth which God hath revealed of himself in his word because he is a God of truth and nothing is more true than that which God hath spoken Wherefore if the Scriptures have revealed that there are three distinct persons in one Divine Essence it is a certain truth and it is reason and duty that every one should assent unto it though the mystery of it there being no such thing to be found in nature cannot be fully comprehended Here then I shall propound my assertion and prove it out of Scripture My assertion according to the generally believed Doctrine of the Church of God is this That there are three distinct subsistents or persons in the same single Divine Essence or Godhead The argument bottom'd upon the Scripture to prove my assertion is this If the Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one and the Father is God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and the Father Son and Holy Ghost be three distinct subsistents or persons then there are three distinct subsistents or persons Father Son and Holy Ghost in the same single Divine Essence or Godhead But the Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one and the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God and the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct subsistents or persons Therefore there are three distinct subsistents or persons Father Son and Holy Ghost in the same single Divine Essence or Godhead The consequent of the major proposition is plain and firm that no man of reason can in the least question or deny The minor proposition is that which must be proved and there are five things in the proposition to be proved 1. That the Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one 2. That the Father is God 3. That the Son is God 4. That the Holy Ghost is God 5. That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct subsistents or persons 1. The Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one Deut. 6. 4. Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord Isa. 44. 6. Thus saith the Lord I am the first and I am the last and besides me there is no God Isa. 45. 21 22. There is no God else besides me a just God and Saviour there is none besides me look unto me and be ye saved all the ends of the Earth for I am God and there is none else And it cannot be otherwise for if there were more than one God then the Godhead might be divided it might be limited and by consequence would be finite and so not God because God is infinite I need not insist upon this because the unity of the Godhead is not denied by the adversaries I have to deal withal 2. The Father is God 1 Cor. 8. 6. To us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him I need not multiply places of Scripture nor adde arguments to prove that the Father is God since it is generally acknowledged by all that acknowledge a Deity and the Scriptures 3. The Son is God this William Penn plainly denieth he denieth that the Lord Jesus Christ is God wretched blasphemy that would thrust the Lord Jesus Christ off from the Throne of his Godhead His denial of the Divinity of Christ as well as the Divinity of the Holy Ghost is plain enough I shall repeat his words as they lye in his first argument against the three distinct persons in the Godhead page 13. And since the Father is God the Son is God and the Spirit is God which their opinion necessitates them to confesse then unlesse the Father Son and Spirit are three distinct nothings they must be three distinct substances and consequently three distinct Gods I shall answer the argument in its proper place only observe here that he denieth the Son and Spirit to be God by a plain consequence for first he telleth us that our opinion necessitates us to acknowledge that the Father is God and the Son God and the Spirit God which showeth that his opinion is otherwise that the Son and Spirit are not
is God which W. P. also doth deny and this also I shall prove from Scripture I. But Peter said Act. 5. 4 3. Ananias why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the holy Ghost to keep back part of the price of the Land c. Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart thou hast not lyed unto men but unto God Him whom the Apostle calleth Holy Ghost in the 3d. verse he calleth God in the 4. verse and him whom he calleth God in the 4th verse he calleth the Spirit of the Lord in the ninth verse How is it that ye have agreed to tempt the Spirit of the Lord II. 1 Cor. 12. 4 5 6. Now there are diversities of gifts but the same spirit and there are differences of Administrations but the same Lord and there are diversities of operations but it is the same God which worketh all in all He that is called the same Spirit in the 4th verse is called the same Lord in the fifth verse and the same God which worketh all in all in the sixth verse and that what is spoken of Administrations and Operations in the fifth and sixth verses is attributed to the Spirit as appeareth by the seventh verse where they are called The manifestation of the Spirit given to every man to profit withal and more plainly verse 11. But all this worketh that one and the same Spirit dividing unto every man severally as he will And what can be more plain to prove that the Holy Ghost or Spirit is God when he worketh all in all and distributeth spiritual gifts unto men according to his own good pleasure III. Isa. 6. 1. I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne c. v. 2 3. Above stood the Seraphims and cryed Holy holy holy is the Lord of Hosts The three Holies signifie the three Persons the Lord of Hosts the one God ver 8. I heard the voice of the Lord ver 9. And he said Go tell this people Hear ye indeed but understand not c. This must needs be spoken of God and it is by the Apostle applyed to the Holy Ghost Act. 28. 25. Well spake the Holy Ghost go to this people and say hearing you shall hear c. IV. 1 Cor. 2. 10. For the Spirit searcheth all things yea the deep things of God None is omniscient to know all things yea whatsoever is in the unsearchable minde of God but he that is God and therefore the Holy Ghost is God I might speak further of his divine Works as Regeneration Ioh. 3. 5. guiding Believers into all truth Ioh. 16. 13. Sanctification and the like of our being baptized by him Mat. 3. 11. and in his name Mat. 28. 19. and his being called One that is one God where he is numbred up amongst the three Persons that bare record in heaven 1 Ioh. 5. 7. All which undeniably prove that the Holy Ghost is God co-essential and co-equal with the Father and the Son 5. The fifth and last thing is to prove That Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct Subsistents or Persons Concerning the name Person I shall not speak of it because Mr. Danson intendeth to vindicate that word from the cavils of W. P. in answer to what concerneth him p. 10. That there are three such distinct Persons in one Divine Essence is evident from the Scripture See Math. 3. 16 17. And Iesus when he was baptized went up straightway out of the water and to the Heavens were opened unto him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a Dove and lighting upon him And lo a voice from Heaven saying This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased Here is a distinction of all the three Persons the Son was clothed in flesh and came up out of the water the Spirit was in the shape of a Dove which came down from heaven the Fa was in the voice saying This is my beloved Son Another Scripture which holdeth forth this distinction is Ioh. 16. 17. I will pray the Father and he shall give them another Comforter even the Spirit of Truth The Son prayeth the Father giveth The Spirit of Truth is the Comforter that is given I shall adde a third Scripture 1 Ioh. 5. 7. There are three that bare record in heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one They are the distinct Persons but one undivided Essence But further to confirm this truth denied by the Adversaries I shall prove from the Scripture that there are three distinct Persons in one Divine Essence 1 From the distinct Names given to them 2 From their distinct personal Acts. 3 From their distinct personal Properties 1. From their distinct Names they are called Father Son and Holy Ghost Math. 28. 19. Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Father Word and Holy Ghost in Ioh. 5. 7. before cited These names do evidence a distinction not of nature and essence for they are one therefore of personality 2. From their distinct personal acts I mean such acts as can be ascribed unto none but such as are persons 1 Giving the Comforter is ascribed to the Father Ioh. 14. 16. I will pray the Father and he shall send you another Comforter it is proper onely to a person to give this act requiring both understanding and will 2 Sending the Comforter is ascribed to the Son Ioh. 15. 6. When the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from the Father and it is proper onely to a person to send 3 Guiding into all truth speaking what he heareth is ascribed to the Holy Ghost Ioh. 16. 13. Howbeit when he the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all truth for he shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak And who can deny that these are personal acts The distinction of the persons in these acts is evident in all these places where the Son speaketh of himself in the first person I will pray I will send he speaketh of the Father and the Spirit in the third person which persons he evidently distinguisheth one from another by the preposition from speaking of the Spirit whom I will send from the Father Surely he must wink very hard that doth not perceive a distinction of the persons of Father Son and Spirit in these places 3. That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons is evident from these distinct personal and incommunicable Properties 1. The personal property of the Father is to beget the Son Heb. 1. 5. Vnto which of the Angels said he at any time thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee and the Son being eternal as hath been proved this generation must be eternal 2. The personal property of the Son is to be begotten of the Father Ioh. 1. 14. We beheld his glory the glory as of the onely begotten of the Father 3. The personal
Scripture teacheth us otherwise that the great end of Gods giving his Son and Christs coming and laying down his life was to purchase remission and salvation for us Therefore though W. P. telleth us the Scripture is silent in reference to the doctrine of satisfaction it is a sign his Eares are dull and his Eyes closed if he have not a conviction of this doctrine undeniably proved from the Scripture and it is not our asserting but his denial of Satisfaction that doth reflect Indignity upon God and is repugnant to the Nature Conditions and Tendency of the second Covenant The Absurdities and grosse consequences as W. P. termeth them which follow from this Doctrine do shew the absurdity and grossness of this mans Conceptions to the first I have shewn the consistency of Grace and Satisfaction To the second I have given an undeniable reason why man must in some cases forgive without Satisfaction and God will not but how absurd and Blasphemous is it this supposed to say man is more capable of extending mercy than God when Gods mercy to us which this satisfaction of Christ doth make way for the exercise of is so great that all our mercies are Cruelties in comparison and the Lord takes no more Satisfaction from those he extendeth his especial mercy unto then we do which freely forgive private injuries The third Absurdity as he calleth it in words we own it to be sound Doctrine which appeareth to be gross to none but such whose reason is depraved and therefore I am sure W. P. can have no right reason to refute this doctrine He argueth If Christ satisfied Gods justice he did it either as God or as Man or as both God and Man But he did it not as God nor as Man nor as both God and Man Therefore he hath not satisfied Gods justice at all I shall not here argue against his conclusion but deny his minor asserting that Christ did satisfie Gods justice as God-man and it doth not follow if his proofe should be good that he could not do it alone as God or alone as Man that therefore he could not do it as God-Man neither is it true as be obscurely phraseth it that where two middle positions are inconsistent with the nature of the end for which they are brought their Conjunction doth rather augment than lessen the difficulty of their accomplishment For as the Soul cannot see without the Body for want of an Organ nor the Body cannot see without the Soul for want of a visive faculty yet the man can see and so both Soul and Body can do that in Conjunction which neither can do in Separation Therefore though God separately cannot satisfie from a better reason than any he bringeth because he cannot suffer and man separately cannot satisfie because the satisfaction would not be of Infinite value yet as God-man he satisfied the Manhood suffering and the God-head putting a value upon it The consequences which he further deduceth from this Doctrine of Satisfaction he very fitly stileth irreligious and irrational but I deny they are deducable from this Doctrine To the First Who do ascribe more Grace and Mercy to God then we who do apprehend it in his Son How then do we say it is unlawful and impossible he should be gracious To the Second What compaltion or force doth this Doctrine inser to be laid upon God in the exercise of his justice when he doth exercise his justice freely as he doth love his Image in his people freely yet both are necessary because natural and neither forced and compeld by any external Agent To the Third What a wretched audacious sinner is this to fasten unworthiness upon God if he punished an innocent person and required satisfaction where nothing was due when the Son did voluntarily undertake to be our surety and was punished as bearing our sins and satisfied for us and not himself what unworthiness in God to change the persons and put his Son to death to save us alive Is it not unworthiness and abominable baseness in any of the Children of men to open their mouths against God for this And if it were unworthy to punish an Innocent person and it is certain Christ was punished if he were not punished for us to satisfie Gods justice it will follow from W. P's words that Christ should be a sinner which is Blasphemy and that he was punished for his on sins W. P's fourth Consequence is abominably false and the contrary true this Doctrine doth the best answer the real intent of Christ's Life and Death The fifth Consequence is as impious as unreasonable when the Love and Compassion of the Father and the Son is alike the one in sending the other in coming to redeem lost Sinners The sixth Consequence is ridiculous that Christs satisfaction should rob God of the gift of his Son for our Redemption who seeth not but some blind Moles that our Doctrine doth ascribe God the greatest glory for this gift The seventh consequence is childish and a shame that a man that pretendeth to any brains should mention it That though Christ hath satisfied for us the debt remaineth still to Christ as if when one man dischargeth for another the debt should still abide The eighth Consequence is so abominable that it might make the Reader tremble and wonder that a Worm whom the Lord could easily crush should open his mouth thus against the glorious Iehovah as to say that it Gods justice be satisfied by Christ then Man is no ways beholding or the least Obliged to God as if we were not beholding to God for giving his Son for accepting this Satisfaction for giving us a share therein are not we beholding to God for all though Christ hath purchased all The ninth Consequence that God should hereby lose all power of enjoyning Godliness and punishing Disobedience doth not in the least follow for Godliness is enjoyned upon all though not in order to the meriting Eternal Life and God threatneth to punish the Disobedient whom if they continue to the end in their Impenitency and Unbelief he will punish eternally in Hell notwithstanding this Satisfaction of Christ in which they have no share but Believers that are interested herein God as he hath brought them out so he hath engaged to keep them out of a course of Disobedience and if they do transgres in some particulars he hath threatned to chastise them which is not inconsistent with Christ's satisfying his justice for their sins since Chastisment is not an act of Vindicative Justice but Fatherly Love W. P. concludes with a Caution wherein he laboureth to perswade People not to entertain this Principle concerning Christ's Satisfaction which is in effect to perswade them to cast off the Christian Religion and turn Turks and Mahomitans for what is there in the Christian Religion if there be not Satisfaction by Christ the Foundation of all other priviledges Take away Christ's Satisfaction and you take away Gods Favour Remission