God and the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us Concerning this place we were come to this Issue with our former Answerer at his p. 9. If by Word be meant a Person pre-existent to Christs Incarnation by the Virgin Mary and by God be meant the True God or God Almighty then this place is to our purpose for else he tells us St. John writes Nonsense Now that St. John writes Non-sense I suppose he will not say whatever he thinks because he pretends a great Reverence for Scriptures and doth not take it kindly that I should suspect the contrary Whether of the other two points he would stick to he did not think fit to tell us For indeed his business was not to tell us what he would have but what he would not have and concludes nothing thereupon but that the place is obscure he knows not how to make it serve his turn and that it may so seem he indeavours to cast what dust he can into the Spring and then to say The Water is not clear I have given him my Reasons and I think they be cogent why I judge the place clear enough as to both points And should I admit as I think I may that by Word is meant somewhat else as he tells us in forty other places this is nothing to the purpose For we are not here enquiring what by the word Logos is meant in Aristotle or what in Plato or what in forty other places but what is meant by the Word in This place Nor what by Gods is meant in Psal. 82. 6 7. I have said ye are Gods but ye shall die like Men But what by God is here meant where it is said The Word was with God and the Word was God Nor is here any need of a Rhetorick Lecture to inquire by what Trope or Figure or with what Allusion Christ is here called The Word It is enough that 't is Christ who is here so called And after all his toil I do not find that himself hath the confidence to Deny though he doth not think fit to grant it but that here by the Word is meant Christ and that God here mentioned is God Almighty and consequently If St. John do not write Non-sense as he is pleased to phrase it the place is to our purpose Now our new Answerer seems to me to quit the first of these points and chooseth rather to act the Arian than the Socinian as taking that to be more defensible pag. 11 14 17. And doth admit that by the Word here is meant the Person of Christ and pre-existent to his Incarnation as by whom the World was made at least as by an Instrument and doth allow him to be God though not the same God but that the Father and the Word are Two Gods p. 17. and can allow him the Character of Being over all God blessed for ever and can so be as liberal of the Title of God to Christ as any Trinitarian whatever p. 16. So that now the dispute is reduced to this When it is said The Word meaning Christ was with God and the Word was God whether by God be meant the True God God Almighty Of which we are to say more anon Another grant we have pag. 3. where he doth admit that a thing may be Unum and Tres One and Three in several respects And that 'T is true indeed he cannot say that there is a Contradiction in holding that there may be Three Persons in God And in granting this he grants what I undertook to prove For he knows very well that the business which I undertook was not to discourse the whole Controversy at large but so stated the question as to confine it to this single Point Whether it be an Impossibility or Inconsistence with Reason that there may be Three somewhats which we call Persons which are but One God And when he grants me that there is in it no Contradiction or Inconsistence with Reason all the rest is beside the Question I know very well that both this and the former Answerer have made it their business to change the state of the Question And if what I bring to prove what I undertake do not prove the task they set me they glory as if they had the better But the Lawyers tell us that when Issue is once joined if we prove the thing in Issue we carry the Cause and what is more than so is over and above or to spare And a Mathematician if he prove what he proposeth concludes with quod erat demonstrandum he hath proved what he undertook to prove if he prove more than so 't is more than he was obliged to do And if a Logician prove propositionem negatam the Proposition which is incumbent on him to prove he hath done his work and if he prove more than so it is more than he need to do And accordingly when this Answerer doth acknowledge that I have proved what I undertake to prove that there is no Impossibility there is no Contradiction nor Inconsistence with Reason that Three somewhats may be One God he ought to acquiesce therein and acknowledge that I have done my Work For when the Controversy was divided into two Branches Whether the thing be True and whether it be Possible and it was the latter of the two that I undertook If I have shewed It is not impossible which this Answerer doth grant that I have done I have done the work that I undertook And if this be once agreed it goes a great way as to the other Branch That the thing is True For I find the last Result of our Adversaries when they are close pressed is commonly this It is Impossible It is Absurd It is Non-sense It is Inconsistent with Reason and therefore it cannot be True And that therefore a Force no matter how great must be put upon the Words which do how expresly soever affirm it to make them signify somewhat else than what they plainly do signify then to admit it And if I have as is now confessed destroyed this last Reserve let them press this point no more Or if they will retract this grant let the next Answerer keep to this point to prove it Impossible or Inconsistent with Reason and not ramble out into other discourses which are nothing to the purpose of what I proposed to prove Amongst his other Concessions I shall reckon that in pag. 14. where he argues from Joh. 16. 13. That there is between the Father Son and Holy Ghost a Distinction so great as that they may not unfitly be called Three Persons where I observe also that he owns the Personality of the holy-Holy-Ghost as of the Father and of the Son 'T is true indeed he seems to make the Distinction between them Greater than I do But I thus far agree with him That there is in Truth a Distinction and that more than Imaginary or what depends only upon our Imagination and Greater than that of
of the First Commandment as he doth and perhaps more He would have us shew if we can p. 9. where this Commandment is Abrogated I say No where It was never Abrogated Never Repealed It remains I grant still in its full force And therefore we own no other God but the Lord God of Israel And this Lord God of Israel we say is One Lord One God and no more Gods than One. We say indeed there is a Wise God a Powerful God an Almighty God an Eternal God a Just God a Merciful God God the Creator God the Redeemer God the Sanctifier a God who in the beginning created the heaven and the earth a God who in the beginning laid the foundation of the Earth and the Heavens are the work of his hands a God of Abraham a God of Isaac a God of Jacob a God who brought the Children of Israel out of Egypt a God who brought them out of the North Country a God who is our Mighty Redeemer a God who is a Saviour of all that trust in him a God who doth create in us a clean heart and doth renew a right spirit within us a God who gives us a heart of Flesh a God who gives us a New Heart who putteth his Fear in our Hearts who writes his Law in our inward parts a God who searcheth the Heart and trieth the Reins a God who hath Visited and Redeemed his People and hath raised up a mighty Salvation for us But we say the Lord God of Israel is all this and in being all this he is but One God and that there is no other God but One. And we grant that whoever owns any other God as a true God or Worships a false God breaks this Commandment I do not know what he would have us Grant more upon this Commandment I wish He do not think we have Granted too much He says p. 3. We vitiate this Commandment by bringing in New persons by Adding several Persons to our One God No We Add no Persons to our God We say that God the Creator God the Redeemer God the Sanctifier or in other words the Father Son and holy-Holy-Ghost ARE this One God not added to him Nor are they new Persons added to God but are God and ever were so He would have us think p. 17. that the Father only and not the Son or holy-Holy-Ghost is the Only true God because of Joh. 17. 3. The words are these This is Life Eternal to know Thee not only Thee the only True God to be that God beside which there is no other true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent And we say the same that is here said The Father is the only True God the Lord God of Israel beside whom there is no other true God The Son is also not another God as the Arians say and this Answerer p. 17. but the same only true God the Lord God of Israel and he is expresly so called Luk. 1. 16 17. And the Holy-Ghost likewise for these Three are One 1 Joh. 5. 7. And the words without any force put upon them may be thus read To know Thee and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ to be the only True God For the word only is not a restrictive to Thee but to the True God And this is not only a new Querk or Criticism which is the only Answer he gives to this Defence but is the true sense of the place For the same Writer doth in another place say the very same thing of God the Son 1 Joh. 5. 20. We are in him that is True even in his Son Jesus Christ This is the True God and Eternal Life Now if Scripture must interpret Scripture as he tells us p. 16. certainly S. John in his Epistle 1 Joh. 5. 20. understood what himself said in his Gospel Joh. 17. 3. And that what he said of the Father's being the Only True God was not exclusive of the Son to whom himself gives the same Title This is the True God and this is Eternal Life And this I think is a full Answer to what he would urge from this place or from what he joins with it 1 Cor. 8. 4 5 6. To us there is but One God Which is no more express to his purpose than This is Nor doth he pretend that it is but puts them both together p. 17. There is one place more which comes under consideration which because he finds it pinch he would fain shake off p. 17. It is that of Joh. 1. 1 2 10 14. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God The World was made by him All things were made by him And without him was not any thing made which was made And the Word was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us The former Answerer would fain shuffle off this place in his p. 9. upon one of these three Points for otherwise he grants it is for our purpose either that by the Word is not meant Christ or by God not the True God or else that S. John writes Non-sense Now the last of the Three I suppose our New Answerer will not say because he pretends a great Reverence for Scriptures The first he Quits and doth admit according to the Arian sense which he looks upon as more defensible than that of the Socinians that by the Word is here meant the Person of Christ who was afterward incarnate of the Virgin Mary and that he was pre-existent to his Incarnation as by whom the World was made at lest as by an Instrument And that he was with God the True God at least in the beginning of the World if not sooner and that he was God All the doubt is whether these Two Gods for so he calls them to wit the Father and the Word be One p. 17. Now if he be God he must be either a True God or a False God That he is a False God methinks they should not say And if he be a True God he must be the same God with the Father who is the ONLY True God Joh. 17. 3. That he is to be Worshipped with Religious Worship both the Arians and the Socinians do allow And if he be God as the Arians and this Answerer do affirm this Worship must be Divine Worship And he must be then the Lord God of Israel or else they break that Precept Thou shalt Worship the Lord Thy God the Lord God of Israel and Him ONLY shalt thou serve Mat. 4. 10. If he be the Lord God of Israel but not the same Lord God of Israel How doth this agree with that Deut. 6. 4. Hear O Israel the Lord Our God is One Lord And if he be another God whether True or False then do they break the Great and First Commandment Thou shalt have No Other God but me no other God True or False Great or Little Equal or Unequal but the Lord God of Israel On which Commandment this Answerer
be Three Persons in God And if there be no Contradiction in it why should we be afraid to say what in Scripture is said so plainly Or why should we set up Two Gods where One will serve and when the Scripture says There is but One He 'll say perhaps God made the World by Christ. And we say so too But not as by a Tool or Instrument as he would have it p. 17. but rather as by his Power or Wisdom But the Power and Wisdom of God are not Things diverse from God himself but Are Himself Much less are they different Gods from God himself And even amongst us the Power and Wisdom of a Man are not Things distinct from the Man in that sense wherein the Words Thing and Mode are contra-distinguished much less are they distinct Men from the Man whose Power and Wisdom they are The Man and his Wisdom the Man and his Power are not distinguished ut res res as the Schools speak but ut res modus And Power and Wisdom in the same Man ut modus modus For though a Man may subsist without Wisdom but God cannot yet Wisdom cannot subsist without somewhat that is Wise nor This Man's Wisdom without the Man and therefore this Wisdom according to the School-distinction must be Modus and not Res. And the like of Power So that if we say that Christ is the Power of God or the Wisdom of God as he is called 1 Cor. 1. 24. and that God by his Power and Wisdom made the World it doth not follow that this Power or Wisdom of God is another God from God himself but God and his Wisdom or God and his Power are God himself Consonant to this it is where it is said Col. 2. 3. In him are hid all the treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge And perhaps it is this Divine Wisdom who tells us Prov. 8. 22 23 27. The Lord possessed Me in the Beginning of his ways I was from Everlasting from the beginning When he prepared the Heavens I was there and much more to the same purpose So the Holy Ghost is called the Power of God Luk. 1. 35. The holy-Holy-Ghost shall come upon Thee and the Power of the Highest shall over-shadow Thee Now shall we say Because God is Wise in heart and Mighty in Strength Job 9. 4. or Because by his Wisdom and Power he made the World Therefore his Wisdom and his Power are distinct Gods from himself Or if we should say that God as the Fountain of Being may be called the Father and the same God as the Fountain of Wisdom be called the Son and as the Fountain of Power be called the holy-Holy-Ghost There is nothing of this that is Inconsistent with Reason but very Agreeable with the common Notions of Humane Reasoning and yet all these however under divers Considerations are but One God But here I must caution again for I find people are willing to Mistake or mis-apply what I say That I do not set down this as the Adequate Distinction between the Three Persons for this I do not pretend throughly to Understand but only that it is not Inconsistent with Reason that it May be so And that there is no necessity upon this account to set up Another God Or we may say much to the same purpose that God by his Word and Spirit made the World and yet that his Word and his Spirit are not therefore Distinct Gods from Himself And we have them all mentioned in the story of the Creation God created the Heaven and the Earth Gen. 1. 1. The SPIRIT of God moved upon the face of the waters ver 2. And God SAID or spake the Word Let there be Light c. Ver. 3 6 9 11 14 20 24. And Ver. 26. Let US make Man And Psal. 33. 6 9. By the WORD of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Host of them by the SPIRIT or BREATH of his Mouth He SPAKE and it was done He Commanded and it stood fast And to the like purpose Psal. 148. 5. Job 26. 13. Yet are they not Three Gods but rather Three somewhats which are but One God I have insisted the longer on this because I do not know but that through the Grace of God such a discourse as this may have a like effect on him or some of his Party as that of Wittichius had on his Friend Sandius And I have Argued it Calmly I have used no scurrillous Language nor given any Reproachful terms I do not oppress him with the Authority of Fathers or Councils but with Scripture only and Plain Reason And it seems to me so clear that if they cannot see it it is from some other reason than from want of Clearness As to what I have said for Explication of the Athanasian Creed though I cannot expect he should approve of that Creed while he retains his Opinion I do not find that he takes any great Exceptions to what I say of it He doth not like the Words Trinity in Unity as Foreign and Unscriptural p. 19. He may if that will please him better put it into plainer English and call it Three in One and then the Words are Scriptural These Three are One. The Possibility of Gods being Incarnate he doth not Deny Only he likes the Arian Incarnation better than Ours He seems well pleased p. 19 20. That I do not possitively Affirm This Creed to be written by Athanasius That I do not Anathematize the Greek Church That I do not Damn all Children Fools Madmen and all before Christ as he tells us some Rigid Irinitarians I know not who have done too often That I own the word Person to be but Metaphorical which at p. 7. he did not like which I will not disoblige him by Unsaying Where it is that I have blamed the Fathers I do not remember For I think the Fathers do concur in this That there is a Distinction between the Three which we call Persons greater than that between the Divine Attributes but not such as to make them Three Gods And that by calling them Persons they mean no more And I say the same I shall conclude with this Observation upon the whole He was at the Beginning of his Discourse a Direct Socinian Dreading the guilt of Idolatry in having more Gods than One as contrary to the First Commandment And therein I agree with him But Denied the Divinity of Christ as the Socinians do And thus he continues till toward the end of p. 10. But then begins silently to tack about and after a while doth with as much earnestness Affirm the Divinity of Christ as he had before Denied it that Christ was God from the Beginning before the World was that he was afterward Incarnate and became Man and as God and Man Redeemed us c. And here he is Orthodox again But then tells us that this God is not the same God or Co-equal with the Father but another God And at length tells us plainly that there are at least Two Gods to wit the Father and the Word for now the Fear of having more Gods than One is over with him and is by this time a perfect Arian And he who from a Socinian is thus turn'd Arian may at the next turn for ought I know turn Orthodox In order to which I would advise him to keep to the sound part of his first Opinion while he was a Socinian namely That we ought to acknowledge and Worship but One God And the sound part of his second Opinion when he was turned Arian namely That Christ the Word was God from the Beginning before the World was that he was afterward Incarnate and so became God and Man that as such he Suffered Died and wrought out our Redemption that the Merits of his Sufferings are founded on his Godhead which otherwise would not have been meritorious if he were only a Man however extraordinarily assisted by God And when he hath so joined these two together as to make them Consistent he will be therein Orthodox And if to these Two he add a Third which he owns also namely that there is no Contradiction in holding there may be Three Persons in God he will then be able to Answer all the Cavils which either the Arian or the Socinian shall bring against it FINIS
doth deservedly lay so great a stress as we heard before What was it made for if not to prevent Polytheism How shall it be done but by denying many Gods If not to deny Personal Gods it is made to no purpose How is it consistent with that First Commandment that solemn and set Precept of the First Commandment that was delivered by God himself written by the Finger of God and never Abrogated to bring in New Persons to Add Persons one or more to this Only God though particularly prohibited and not Break it What! Is the Divinity of Christ implied in the New Testament It is denied in the First Commandment if he be not the same God who is there meant And Pray what Scripture shall we regard in competition with this Commandment With more to the same purpose Whether he will make use of the Popish distinction of Latria and Doulia for his Two Gods not Co-equal I cannot tell But the Commandment says expresly Thou shalt have NO OTHER God but Me Equal or Unequal Nor doth this Error end here as he proceeds For our Adversaries are not always so lucky as to see Consequences For should some Revelation such as he says is not impossible deify more Men than ever the Heathen did here 's no fence left Here 's room enough to thrust in his Jupiter Bacchus Venus c. of which he tells us p. 8. And 't is in vain he tells us in such a case to pretend that the number would be of offence to us For if we consider aright there is no more reason for one number than another And he thinks that if there be more than one it is more honourable they should be Infinites because all between one and infinite is Imperfect With much more of like nature Of all which I know not what better to think than that he had forgot all this when afterwards at p. 17. he will have these two Gods as he calls them to wit the Father and the Word not to be One but Two and Separate Nor will it excuse the matter to say That this Other God is not Co-equal with the Father For at this rate the Polytheism or many Gods of the Heathen would be excused as out of the reach of this Commandment For they did not make All their Gods Co-equal to their great Jupiter nor perhaps any of them Equal to Our God But Jupiter was their God Paramount and the rest were either Middling Gods or Lesser Gods But yet this did not excuse them from Polytheism and Idolatry within the reach of the First Commandment For that Commandment that Unrepealed Law forbids All other Gods whether Equal or Unequal The Leeks and Onions in Egypt which are said to have been there Worshipped as well as the Calves at Dan and Bethel Nor is it less Idolatry nor less within the reach of this Commandment to Worship the god of Ekron because not Co-equal to the God of Israel We therefore chuse to say That Christ is indeed God as he is expresly called Joh. 1. 1. The Word was with God and the Word was God and Hebr. 1. 8. Thy Throne O God endureth for ever And in many other places and not only a Man extraordinarily Assisted by God as this Answerer grants also at p. 14. That he was in the Beginning and in the Beginning was with God Joh. 1. 1 2. and therefore was pre-existent before his Incarnation and did not then Begin to Be. That he was in the Beginning and All things were made by Him and without him was not any thing made that was made that the World was made by Him Joh. 1. 3. 10. and is therefore the same God who in the beginning Created the Heaven and the Earth Gen. 1. 1. That of Him it is said Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the Earth and the Heavens are the Works of Thy hands Heb. 1. 8 10. cited out of Psal. 102. 25. and is therefore the same God to whom that long Prayer Psal. 102. was made and of whom so many great things are there said and which cannot belong to any but the Supreme God And no doubt but when this was there said by the Psalmist he meant it of that God who in the beginning created the Heaven and the Earth Gen. 1. 1. That he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Being above All things or the Supreme Being God Blessed for ever or the Ever-blessed God Rom. 9. 5. which are Titles too High for any lower than the Supreme God That what is said of God indefinitely as contra-distinguished from Christ in particular Rev. 1. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From him which Is and which Was and which is to Come or which Shall be and from Jesus Christ c. is particularly applied to Jesus Christ as his Character Ver. 8. I am Alpha and Omega the Beginning and the Ending saith the Lord he that Liveth and was Dead and Liveth for evermore Ver. 16. which Is and Was and is to Come the Almighty That he is the True God 1 Joh. 5. 20. and therefore the same God with the Father who is the Only True God Joh. 17. 3. and no other True God but what he is That He and the Father are one Joh. 10. 30. That the Father and the Word and the Spirit these Three are One 1 Joh. 5. 7. And Christ not another God but the same God manifested in the Flesh justified in the Spirit seen of Angels preached unto the Gentiles believed on in the World received up into Glory 1. Tim. 3. 16. Now I know not well what could be said more at least what more need be said to make the Point clear Or what Character he can reasonably desire more by which to describe the Almighty Supreme God and the same God with the Father He is God the True God the Only true God for there can be but One God that is the Only true God One with the Father One with the Father and Holy-Ghost the Eternal God who Is and Was and Shall be who when the Heavens and the Earth shall wax-â—old as a Garment He is the same and his years shall not fail the Almighty the Mighty God the Eternal Father the God who in the beginning made the World who made All things and without whom not any thing was made that was made who in the beginning laid the foundation of the Earth and the Heavens are the works of his hands who is the Son of God the Begotten of the Father the Only-begotten of the Father and therefore of the same Nature with the Father however not the same Person or not under that Consideration Nor can he say This is Impossible a Contradiction or Inconsistent with Reason and that therefore though the Words be Clear and Plain yet we must seek out some Other sence to be Forced upon them For this Point is already Gained and he doth Confess it p. 3. that there is no Contradiction in holding that there may
what we call the Divine Attributes And therefore we reckon the Persons to be but Three but the Attributes to be more And we do admit amongst the Persons a certain Order or Oeconomy such as in the Scripture we find assigned to them But do not own the Distinction so great as to make them Three Gods And that also of p. 13 14. where he argues that Christ is indeed God not only a dignified Man That God in Christ was tempted suffered and died not Man only That the Merits thereof are founded on the Godhead In plain terms saith he if Christ were only a Man extraordinarily assisted by God and thereupon merited by his Sufferings and Death 't was the Man redeemed us by His Blood and not God And p. 16. the like from Rom. 9. 5. Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came who Is over all God Blessed for ever And asks If I ever knew an Unitarian especially an Arian deny him that Character And from Heb. 1. 8. To the Son he saith Thy Throne O God endureth for ever a Scepter of Righteousness is the Scepter of thy Kingdom c. He argues That it is not the Humanity of Christ that is here spoken of For what Is the Humanity of Christ called God Is the Humanity preferred before Angels Or did the Humanity frame the World Indeed he says they are apt to clog it with a Limitation as not acknowledging him Co-equal with the Father But under that restriction they can be as liberal of the title of God to Christ as any Trinitarian whatever Where I take what he grants And as to the Co-equality shall discourse it afterwards More of this kind I shall have occasion to mention afterward Yet do not blame him for taking this advantage of shifting the Person where he sees cause to Grant what was before Denied But our new Answerer hath yet another Art When he seems to cite what I say he takes the liberty very often to vary therein according as he thinks fit both from my Words and from my Sense And therefore I desire the Reader not to take all as Mine which seems to be cited as such but so much only as he finds to be truly cited It would be too long to mention all the places where I am so used I shall only give instance in some of them He tells us pag. 4. That I indeavour to illustrate the Trinity by an Example in a Cube or Die and so far he says true But not so in what follows where three sides he says make one Cube and which Cube he says is not to be made without all the three sides But certainly he can no where find these to be my Words I confess I am no great Gamester at that Sport but I always thought till now that a Die had six sides and not only three I have said indeed that in a Cube or Die there be three Dimensions Length Breadth and Thickness But I never called these the three sides of a Cube nor have I any where said that a Cube hath but three sides I am represented pag. 5 6 7 8. as maintaining three personal Gods But he knows very well this is not my Language but that the three Persons are One God not three Gods nor a Council of Gods as he calls it So where he would ask the Doctor p. 17. Whether these two Gods to wit the Father and the Word be one He knows my Answer must be that these two not these two Gods are one God And that I do no where call them two Gods but one and the same God according to that of Christ himself I and the Father are One. So where he talks of adding several Persons to our one God pag. 3 8. For he knows that is not my Language but these three Are God not that they are Added to God much less that Bacchus and Venus c. may be thrust into the number And p. 8. one of your Gods We have but One God 'T is He and his Arian that own two Gods p. 17. Not we Another there is which runs through most part of his whole Discourse wherein he willfully mistakes the state of the Question And then what is brought to prove one thing he mis-applies as brought to prove another And then makes a great out-cry that it doth not prove what it was never brought to prove And this he calls cross purposes He knows very well that the question was by me clearly stated not as to the whole Doctrine of the Trinity at large but as to the Possibility That whatever the Socinians pretend there is no Impossibility Non-sense or Inconsistence with Reason that three somewhats which we call Persons may be One God And this he owns to be the state of the Question p. 1. to prove the same agreeable to the common notions of humane Reason And it is done by shewing that according to the common notions of humane Reason nothing is more common than that what in one consideration are Three or Many is yet in another consideration but One. Thus in one Cube there be three Dimensions length breadth and thickness So the Understanding Will and Memory in one Soul So the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Power to Know to Will and to Doe in the same Intelligent Agent and the like 'T is therefore not Inconsistent with Reason and this Answerer doth allow it for one to be three nor is it Non-sense to say these three are one or I and the Father are One or that three somewhats may be One God The former Answerer complains of these Resemblances as impossible to be apprehended by the common people and desires some more Familiar Parallel than that of a Cube or Die that the Tankard-bearer may apprehend in his p. 8 9. Yet I believe his Tankard-bearer is not so dull of apprehension as he would have us think For if he have ever seen a Die as most of them have or shall now be shewed one he may be able to apprehend without a Metaphysick or Mathematick Lecture That in a Die there is length breadth and thickness and that it is as broad as it is long and as thick as either and yet it is not three Dies but one Die However to gratify his request I have given him some other as that the same Man may have three Dignities or three Kingdoms and sustain three Persons or three Relations without thereby becoming three Men with other like With this our new Answerer is not pleased He is Ashamed he doth Blush for me c. How much am I obliged for this his great Compassion But all this is but Banter it is not Argument and no sober Man will be more of his Opinion for this Language And much less for that of St. John's writing Non-sense of a lying Revelation of a three-headed Monster p. 3 5. and other such Indecent Language of God and the Scripture But why so displeased with these Simile's These