Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	day_n	great_a	holy_a	12,790	5	4.8317	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

before whether this doth not make a fourth For as he was not fifty years old this had not reference to his Divine Nature as is confessed But then where in pag. 36. The generation of the Son must be Eternal the Son being so they say How is his Personallity with reference to his being begotten denyed to be Infinite in pag. 45. What gross and apparent Contradictions are these And as to his instance Matt. 3.16 17. how that Jesus went up out of the Water and the Spirit descended like a Dove and lo a Voice from Heaven to prove a distinction of all the Three Persons the Son was cloathed in Flesh the Spirit in the shape of a Dove the Father was in the Voice he saith c. Let the Reader but mark how far short of proving his Distinction this instance is Surely he will not say That the Son was cloathed in Flesh from Eternity nor the Spirit in a bodily shape like a Dove from Eternity for if their Personallities did consist in these visible Appearances how were they Coeternal Coessential Coequal with God c And surely Personallity doth not consist in the shape of a Dove neither do we read of the Person of a Dove besides the Spirits appearing in a bodily shape like a Dove doth not prove that the Spirit was a distinct or separate Person from Jesus for he had the Spirit in him and was not separate from the Spirit though that appearance like a Dove was for a Confirmation to John's belief of him John 1.32 33. T.V. Isa. 6.3 Holy holy holy is the Lord of Hosts the three Holies signifies the three persons the Lord of Hosts the One God I must confess I never heard this Argument before if each Holy signifie a Person how then are they spoken to the One God And if so many Holies as are given in praise to him do signifie so many distinct Persons in him then they will amount to a great many Trinities for it is said Rev. 4.8 They rest not day nor night saying Holy holy holy Lord God Almighty c. Now if all the Holies they give day and night to him be so many Persons then they will amount to Persons ad infinitum but the absurdity of this Argument who cannot but see As also his Argument from the distinct Names is little better for God is denominated under many Names more than Three And also his arguing from John 14 15 16. chap. from personal Acts as he calls them as sending the Comforter his speaking and guiding c. Where doth the Scripture call them Personal Acts Were they not Spiritual Acts of the Divine Spirit and Power of God And was there any Act but what was brought forth in time And was the Father's begetting the Son a Personal Act however was it not an Act in time if so how sayes T. V. That the Generation of the Son must be Eternal What distracted confused work is here And as to that Cavil in pag. 40. at the word ONE as not being in the Hebrew in all those Scriptures Isa. 40.25 chap. 48.17 Psal. 71.22 where Holy One is mentioned in the English which to Cavil at shews little prudence whilst Holy One and the Lord being One and the Only Wise God is often mentioned elsewhere see Zac. 14.9 which W. P. quotes is it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovah echad ushemo echad i. e. Dominus unus nomen Ejus unum One Lord and his Name One. And see Deut. 6.4 how its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovah echad One Lord but where the word Echad is not expressed whether it be not understood Besides T. V. himself pag. 33. useth these words The Lord of Hosts the One God so that he might have spared his Contradictory Cavil about it And if their distinctions be in regard of the Personallity and not of the Essence then I ask Are they three Persons both distinct among themselves and also distinct from the Essence or Being of God and so not infinite or neither finite nor infinite as most Absurdly and Contradictorily is laid down in their 44 45 46 pages as before has been mentioned And as to W. P. his Cloudy Brain Conceptions as it 's called which is so difficult to find out as they say and his Phrases so uncouth and his Reasonings so odly joynted together Indeed neither T. V. nor T. D. have shewen any such Brightness nor strength of Argument as to expel or drive away these cloudy Conceptions if they be such it must be another thing that must unvail him and overthrow what he hath said than their grosse Confusion and many apparent Contradictions which I am certain that W. P. is so far unvail'd as to have a sight and discovery of though this dark ridged Presbyterian Spirit hath sought by Persecution false Reports and Slanders to vail and obscure both him and others in whom any degree breakings forth or glimerings of true Light have appeared where they could not do it by slandering grossely villifying and traducing them they would endeavour to bring Persecution and Cruelty and outward Restraint upon them to their Power And as for their taxing W.P. for instancing Irenaeus Justin Martyr Tertullian Origen Theophil and others as appearing forreign to the matter in Controversie c. they telling us The Doctrine of the Trinity is plainly enough to be gathered from several passages in Irenaeus lib. 1. ch 2. Ecclesia accipit fidem quae est in unum Deum Patrem Omnipotentem in unum Christum filium Dei incarnatum in spiritum Sanctum qui per Prophetas praedicavit And then our Opposers ask Do not these words hold forth a distinction of those three persons To which I say However he gathers or imagines such a distinction of their being three Persons he does but beg the Question in calling them three Persons which their words no not prove nor so call them but God the Father Omnipotent Christ the Son of God and the Holy Ghost in whom the Faith of the Church is Neither do the latter words prove any thing for this purpose which mention the God of all things making and governing all things by his word and Spirit If he had asserted no otherwise herein then Irenaeus hath done there had not been this Controversie between us and them And as for the rest of the Authors they mention I do not find that they called them three distinct separate persons as T. D. did in all these Passages mentioned and quoted by them And it s known that W.P. his Controversie was principally against them for unscriptural Doctrine of the God-head subsisting in three distinct and separate persons which also their own Instance of Theophil lib. 1. Com. in Evang. doth contradict viz. Margarita pretiosa est Sancta Trinitas quae dividi non potest nam in unitate consistit the Holy Trinity is a precious Jewel which cannot be divided because it consisteth in Unity To which I say then the Glorious

then sayes suppose as a subsistent or Person c. But which of these terms it is this Notionist hath not declared to us in his 13th page And this Notionist goes on in the said 13th page and sayes Nor can we say that the Notion of the Father as one Person in the God-head includes the Son nor the Notion of the Son as one Person in the God-head includes the Father Reader Didst thou ever hear the like This is but a Notion of the Father and a Notion of the Son indeed And are these Presbyterian Priests like to interpret Scripture with their Notions Conceptions and Suppositions no no. No one knows the Father but the Son and he to whom the Son reveals him Nor none knows the Son but the Father and to know God and Jesus Christ is Life Eternal and none can call him Lord but by the Holy Ghost And so this Knowledge is beyond all your false Conceptions Suppositions and Notions And if the Holy Ghost the Saints bodies be the Temple of it which Holy Ghost leads them into all Truth And if the Holy Ghost be a Person then have not the Saints a Person in their bodies And why did not the Apostle say That their bodies were the Temples of a Person according to your Doctrine and Rule the Holy Ghost is a Spirit and so let us see that Scripture which gives the Holy Ghost the Name of a Person And he speaks again in his 14th page of Three distinct Persons are one with the God-head Now Reader is not here Four to wit Three Persons and the God-head But Reader we charge him to give us Chapter and Verse for this Doctrine for we must order him with the Rule And then he tells us of a Notion of the Father and including the Son it 's but his own Notion for if he had known him he would have spoken in a form of sound words whereby he might not have been reproved And again the Presbyterian sayes the Three Persons are distinct and the Rule is to be understood that they are One among themselves only in respect of that wherein they agree not simply Answ. Reader take notice he sayes The Father and Son and Holy Ghost which he calls Three Persons doth not agree simply Is not this contrary to Scripture What agreement is this which is not simply What! separate distinct Persons not agreeing simply Come what is this agreement then if it be not an agreeing simply Tell us what it is by Chapter and Verse thou sayes the Scripture is the Rule Where doth the Scripture say That the Father Son and Spirit doth not agree simply Didst thou not say That God was so simple that he admitted of no parts what agreement is this if it be not simple What is it then tell us Dost thou not abuse the Father Son and Spirit and Scriptures clear thy self and make this good That the Father Son and Spirit doth not agree simply if not simply then tell us how and give Chapter and Verse for it out of the Scriptures or else acknowledge thy self to be of a Sandy Foundation Seeing thou sayst A Man is a Person and God is a Person and the Scripture saith God is a Spirit and Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost the begotten of the Father Was Christ the Image of the Father as he was of the Generation of Abraham or David or Adam or according to the Spirit Whether of these was he the express Image of his Father's substance because thou calls the Father a Person And the Scripture sayeth He suffered according to the Flesh which he did not die as he was God and the Scripture calls him Son of Man and Son of God and he being the express Image of his Fathers substance see the Old Translations And dost thou not in thy 16th page of thy Synopsis bring the Greek Philosophers to prove the Persons Yes How now Presbyterian Priest thou hast run beside thy own Directory and Scripture both but the Greek Philosophers must be thy Rule and Leader surely People will not alwayes have their Eyes blinded by you Christ is come to open them And in the 17th page of his Book the Presbyterian saith that Hypostasis must be rendred Person or Subsistent or some word to that Effect he sayes So People see it must be some word but what it must be he knows not and so in this manner they are giving Names to Christ and God besides the Rule of Scripture we charge thee shew us a Verse in Scripture that speak such Language and where one word may be put for another by Metalepsis and so leave People in Doubts and Questions you are going beside your Scripture and Rule that at last People shall not know what to call God and Christ. So the Presbyterians and Independants must give us Scripture For we will not be satisfied with your Notions and Whymsies and false Conceptions which you have from Aristotle and the Greek Philosophers and the Papists and Cardinals We do command you to give us Scripture Chapter and Verse Presbyterians and Independants for these things plainly seeing you are of late perked up in a way of scolding against us not like the Holy Men of God Patient and Meek and apt to Teach as you may see in the latter end of your Brother Vincent's Book Is that the Language of a Christian No He hath declared what spirit you are of Rabshecha's spirit railing and speaking evil of the way of Truth he thinks to overcome by Railing and complaining not by Love nay the Lamb must have the victory Whether or no was Christ's Blood shed for All men and by it Justifies All men they living in their sins and not believing in it are they saved by their saying they believe in the Blood and not believing in the Light which Christ Commands and become Children of the Light and they say they believe and yet not pass from Death to Life and from sin that brings Death And whether or no any are cleansed from all sin by the Blood of Christ but such as walk in the Light of Christ as in 1 Joh. 1. And so whether or no are those Justified who believe not in the Light of Christ nor passes from Death to Life nor walks not in the Light whether or no are those Justified by Christ's Blood and have not the Testimony of Justification in them as in the accompt to God Christ's Blood was shed for All men but for a man to come to partake of this Justification is it not to feel the Blood sprinkling the Heart and Conscience For the outward Jewes in the Figure had Blood sprinkled upon them in the outward Offerings Come answer us by Scripture Do not daub up People with untempered Mortar do you know the Mortar that is tempered Whether or no was Christ an Offering for the sins of the whole World and died for the sins of the whole World Whether or no all the sinners and ungodly of the whole World

the Eternal Word And as to thy telling of another Comforter i. e. Another as to subsistence or manner of being What manner of being and wherein can it differ from Christ's spiritul manner of being Had he another manner of being distinct from his own Who cannot see the ignorance and confusion of thy blind distinction For it appears that thy distinction of three distinct Persons subsistences or manners of being is attributed to the Father Son and Holy Ghost before Christ's Bodily or Personal Appearance in the form of a Servant thou telling us they being of an infinite nature are three persons Is this a good Argument for thy turn whereas T.V. saith Christ as man was not fifty years old pag. 31. whilst thou argues from John 14.16 for their being three distinct persons subsistences or manners of being For were they three distinct Comforters of an infinite nature Or three distinct separate persons of an infinite nature And was Christ's manner of being in the Flesh of an infinite nature Or was he therein a Fourth Person Surely when Christ had taken upon him the form of a Servant and that he said My Father is greater than I now W.M. confesseth that the form of God was his divine nature which is above the form of a Servant and he being in the likeness of sinful flesh made a little lower than the Angels in respect of his Sufferings humbling himself to the Death of the Cross. In this manner and in these capacities he was not declared to be from Eternity but as he was equal with God in his Glory before the World was neither can three coeternal coequal distinct persons be argued from thence for the Controversie runs higher as before they being of an infinite nature are three increated persons he should rather have said are one divine substance or being which is of an infinite nature But in plain Contradiction these Presbyterians tells us in their 45. pag. That in the abstract infiniteness is not aplicable to the subsistence what then is become of their three infinite increated persons or subsistences Are they now chang'd from infinite to finite What sad work is this Where are the Blasphemers now Are they not herein found guilty of that which most unjustly they have charg'd on us viz. Of that which is plainly derogatory to the Glory of the Infinite God by going to fasten the limitations of finite Creatures upon him For if there be a subsistence or personallity or manner of being as he defines subsistence in the God-head which is not infinite then something finite is in God which is no less than blasphemy to affirm And if there be three such distinct subsistences in the relative Property of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as W. M. saith pag. 19. to which infiniteness is not aplicable Then have they denied the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Infinite and by this the Reader may see what their unscriptural distinctions of Persons and Subsistences in the Deity amount to and how most derogatory to the Glory of the Infinite God they are But the remarkableness of their gross Contradictions is so obvious that he that runs may read it for one while the Father Son and Holy Ghost being of an infinite nature are three distinct persons three increated persons which renders them three distinct Infinite and so Three Gods Another while infiniteness is not aplicable to them as such or as subsistences which renders them under the limitations of finite Creatures Do you think that the wiser sort either among Papists or Protestants or Church of England own these men's management of this matter or will their Work stand them in any stead or be to the advancement of the Christian Faith in other Nations If these men should go into Turkey and also among the Indians and pretend to Preach the everlasting God or the Father the Word and Spirit under such Names Terms and Distinctions as being three distinct and separate persons or subsistences to which infiniteness is not aplicable what would be the effect and consequence of such Preachings do you think Would it not bring a reproach upon the Name and Profession of Christianity and render the Christians as believing and expecting Salvation from finite Persons or Creatures Or else if they should Preach them to be three distinct or separate Persons as being of an infinite nature might not they reasonably conclude that they were Preaching three Gods Would not this kind of Preaching more stumble the Jewes and Turks from believing in Christ than ever and the more strengthen the Heathen in their Idolatrous Imaginations especially whilst they oppose the Light within as an Idol for whilst a Doctrine is Preached implying three Gods may they not suppose many more As also how have many ignorant People in the time of Darkness been begotten into vain Imaginations touching the God-head by such Doctrine aforesaid contrary to Scripture-language as to think God to be like unto a Man or Person whereas he is a Spirit he is Invisible even that Eternal Word or Spirit which made all things and Christ is the Image of the Invisible God not divided nor separate from him whose Image he is And though in the World there are Gods many and Lords many yet to us there is but One God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and One Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him 1 Cor. 8.6 So that it was never any Design or Plot of ours to endeavour to prejudice the minds of any against the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost as falsely and blasphemously we are accused by this our prejudiced Opposer W. M. 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 it was no begging the Question And in their 39. pag. it 's said viz. The word Separate Person I disown any further then we may conceive it to signifie no more then dictinct Answ. It appears then that T. D. and their using the word separate persons was to explain their meaning of distinct persons for it was used after distinct viz. distinct and separate persons which word separate persons they know I chiefly reflected upon at the Dispute I proving the contrary from Scripture viz. both the Oneness and Inseparability of the Father Word and Spirit but seeing they own no such separation as to destroy the Unity of the Divine Essence why did they make use of the word Separate at all in the case telling us the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct and separate persons which they confess are of one divine Essence Now they disown separate any otherwise then it signifies distinct but they should not have own'd it at all in this case Is it not sad Doctrine that supposeth any Separation Finiteness or Limitation in this Divine Being

in this matter as he argues viz. If the Divine Essence or God head can be but One and the Father is God the Son God the Holy Ghost God and they three distinct Subsistents or Persons then they are three distinct Subsistents or Persons in the same single Divine Essence but the Essence can be but One and the Father is God the Son God c. and they are three distinct Subsistents or Persons therefore there are three distinct Subsistents or Persons Let the moderate Readers but mark this Argument and whether it carries any matter or weight of any proof or Argumentation along with it any more than an Empty Assertion Tautologies begging the Question in the sequel of the Major and so along still taking the matter in Controversie for granted which cannot be without better proof and more convincing Arguments than T.V. hath patched up and produced But as for the beginning of his Argument That the Divine Essence or God-head can be but One and this in each of the Three we never denied and T. V. has confessed it is not denied by us pag. 28. But as for the rest of his Argument it runs in the substance of it thus If they be three distinct subsistents or persons then there are three distinct subsistents or persons But they are three distinct subsistents therefore c. Or if they be so then they are so but they are so therefore they are so I shall not need to say much to shew what mean Logick this is since it is from a Person whom Reason has so far failed that he can neither clear nor demonstrate that to himself which thus pitifully he has assayed to demonstrate to others And so let the Readers judge if he be not such an one as he tells of that by attempting to bring that Mystery to the Modal of his Reason hath lost the sight and sunk into grosse Apprehensions And as for his fierce Railing against W. P. and calling him wretched Blasphemer accusing him with denying that the Lord Jesus Christ is God and with denying the Divinity of Christ and Holy Ghost and with thrusting the Lord Jesus Christ off from the Throne of his God-head c. I have not yet perceived any strength or weight of Argument from either T.V. or his Brethren that has convicted W. P. as guilty herein but rather the more they strive with him and thus grossely revile him and rail against him the more their Folly Confusion and Weakness appears And indeed if W. P. be supposed to be so grossely Erroneous as he is represented it must be more Competent Antagonists than T. V. or such Railers as he that must Convince him But his shewing the absurdity of T.V. his Doctrines and both unscriptural and unreasonable Distinctions and his denyal thereof is neither a denyal of the Son nor Spirit nor the Divinity of either but the apparent falseness of these railing and slanderous Accusations before with the Consequences thereof against W. P. in this thing touching the Divinity of Christ c. appears in his own Book pag. 14 Of Christ being the only God and the Divine Nature being inseparable to each whom they call Person have the whole Divine Nature the Son in the Father and the Spirit in the Son unless the God-head be as incommunicable to the Person so called as they are reported to be among themselves saith W.P. Doth not W.P. herein own the Divinity of Christ and Holy Spirit let the indifferent judge how T.V. has wronged him And then W. P. his Admonition pag. 15. saith Apply thy mind unto the Light and Grace which brings Salvation that by obedience thereunto those mists Tradition hath cast before thy eyes may be expel'd and thou receive a certain knowledge of that one God whom to know is Life Eternal not to be a divided but ONE pure intire and eternal Being who in the fulness of time sent forth his Son as the true Light which enlightneth every man that whosoever followed him the Light might be translated from the dark Notions and vain Conversations of men to this Holy Light in which onely sound Judgment and eternal Life are obtainable he testified the virtue of it and has communicated unto all such a proportion as may enable them to follow his Example thus far W.P. Now mark whether herein he has not owned the Divinity of the Son when thus plainly he hath confessed to his Light both as to its Extent and Virtue And so as for T. V. his railing against us so bitterly calling us black-mouth'd Blasphemers accusing W. P. with Heathenism abominableness foulness falsely comparing him to Arius c. These are but mean Arguments to Convince W. P. and doth but shew the malice and rancor of T. Vincent's Spirit and what an implacable persecuting Spirit appears among these Presbyterian Priests What cruel work would they make if they had power in their hands to persecute such as cannot be tyed up to their narrow Spirits and Principles which is the same old persecuting Spirit that cryed for Fire and Faggot after it put these names Blasphemer and Hereticks upon the Martyrs And indeed if any should be so disingenious and drowned in their understandings by prejudice as to think that the Absurdities that W. P. draws from his Adversaries Principles are his own they may be apt to charge him with Blasphemy and what not though falsely But farther how evidently hath W.P. in his 18 19 21 pag. owned and confessed Christ the Son of God and his Light and Grace both for Remission of sins Reconciliation Salvation of men Life Eternal and as he is the only begotten of the Father the Gift and Expression of Eternal Love for Salvation Now can any thing have or work these Effects that is not Divine Is not Christ's Divinity Virtue Divine Light and Power plainly confest by W.P. herein as also to his being God pag. 21. How grossely have these angry Presbyterians wronged him in so hidiously charging the contrary upon him and are not they rather justly chargeable herein with denying the Divinity of Christ in setting so slight by his Light in every man as they have done one calling it an Idol another Cautioning not to follow its guidance But the Divinity of Christ and the Honour due to him far be it from us to deny as these men have done and the Scripture-instances in that case we both know and own Joh. 3.13 Rom. 9.5 Phil. 2.6 Heb. 1.8 Joh. 2.17 Heb. 1.3 Joh. 14.1 Phil. 2.10 Col. 1.16 17. Joh. 8.58 But we are not convinced that mens invented distinctions put upon Christ does add any thing to his Honour but rather diminish from it And where in pag. 31. it is said In regard of his humane Nature the Jewes spoke true Thou art not yet fifty years old as Man he was a Son of Abraham and born many generations after him c. Now I ask if he was not a Person as Man and so born And if there were three Coeternal Persons

Believers and if he loves his Image in his People freely then he is satisfied in his own Image and that which brings to know and injoy this Image and the renewing of it within is that which brings into Love and Union with God which is his Divine Spirit and Power that renews man into the Heavenly Image and Righteousness of the Everlasting God which they that injoy have the acceptable Sacrifice and from thence can present Living Sacrifices unto God to his Eternal Praise And to T. V's saying That if Christ were not punished for us to satisfie God's Justice it would follow from W. P 's words that Christ should be a sinner and that he was punished for his own sins Reply That 's a blasphemous Consequence indeed but not truly charged upon W. P. for he never intended by his words to render Christ a sinner nor that he was punished for his own sins for he never sinned but he was Punished and Suffered by sinners who by wicked hands and so by their injustice put him to Death and under the buden and weight of their Transgressions he Suffered as also his tender Spirit that made Intercession and suffered for Transgressors from a fore-sight of the Wrath that should come upon the Rebellious and was not the Wicked the Instruments that wounded bruised and afflicted him and that oppressed his Righteous Soul And did not his Innocent Life and Righteous Soul suffer under a great oppression and weight of man's Transgression when he was in his Agony and sweat drops of Blood before his being Crucified And so was not his Suffering two-fold both Inward and Outward And then if so that the pure Life and holy Spirit suffered as bearing the burthen of their sins and if the God-Head being in Christ so nearly united as to bear up the Manhood under the Suffering as is confessed How then can it be deemed that God inflicted the punishment of Eternal Wrath or Vengeance on his Son Surely his permitting wicked men by their wicked hands to punish him with a Temporal Suffering and Death could not be his Eternal Wrath or Vengeance which is supposed to Answer and Satisfie Divine Justice for man and so to acquit man Living and Dying in sin a great Error from Eternal Wrath whereas Christ Jesus was the Son of his Love were it not inconsistent to say That God's Justice did punish or execute Wrath upon his Love Seeing that it 's confest That Grace and Justice are very well consistent and that there is a free Exercise both of Justice and Love without force or compulsion How does T.V. his matter hang together let the moderate judge But had he stated it in the Language and sense of the Scriptures of Truth there had not appeared this Contrariety nor Opposition either between us or with himself For Scripture-accounts concerning Christ and his Sufferings for sinners both inward and outward I do own and Confess to and have a reverend Esteem of all his Sufferings and the worth thereof and do greatly prize his Meekness and Humility who hath freely condescended according to the Good Will and Pleasure of God not from Wrath nor Compulsion to offer himself a Lamb without spot to God to bear our griefs and sorrows yet saith the Prophet Isaiah chap. 53 we did esteem him stricken smitten of God and afflicted but he was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our Peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed he was oppressed he was afflicted yet he opened not his mouth he was brought as a Lamb to the slaughter he made his Grave with the wicked and with the rich in his Death because he had not done no violence neither was any deceipt in his mouth yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him he hath put him to grief when thou shalt make his Soul an Offering for sin he shall see his seed he shall prolong his dayes and the Pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand This is he that hath been despised and rejected of men This is he who hath been as a Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World This is he men have evilly entreated and evilly requited for his kindness and good Will that he hath shewed forth towards them This is he whom they have caused to suffer by their iniquities and so thereby have shewed great unworthiness and ingratitude towards him and his Father whose Pleasure and Good Will he came to perform both in his being delivered up to undergo Afflictions and Bruises and many hard Sufferings for Mankind and surely God was in him Reconciling the World even in and through that low and suffering state which the Righteous Seed and renowned Plant of the Lord hath undergone but now what effect hath all this Love Tenderness and Compassion of God in and through Christ upon and in man whilst Sin Transgression and Imperfection term of Life is pleaded for by the Priests Surely they herein do not make a right use of Christ's Suffering but both reject him and the End thereof and this was not the use that the true Ministers did make thereof for they witnessed that he died for all that as many as lived should not live unto themselves but unto him that died and rose again 2 Cor. 5.15 and his own self bare our sins in his Body on the Tree that we being dead to sin should live to Righteousness this was not a living to sin nor pleading for Imperfectiom as T. V hath done who farther adds viz. The 7 th 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 pag. 66. Reply Is this such a childish shameful or brainless Consequence that the Debt remains still to Christ Has not T.V. herein shewed his Ignorance of Scripture for ought nor Christ to be obeyed who is the Author of Eternal Salvation to them that obey him Heb. 5. and we are not under the Law to God but under the Law to Christ and to what end is his spiritual Law written in the Heart and his Spirit in the inward Parts but to be obeyed and we are Debtors not to the Flesh to live after the Flesh Rom. 8.12 to what then but to live after the Spirit and through it to mortifie the Deeds of the Body vers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. The Apostle was far from pleading for sin and Imperfection as Priests do for which God will judge them by Jesus Christ to whom all Judgment is committed who hath Power to proclaim the Day of Vengeance as well as the acceptable year of the Lord. The truth of it is T.V. has Confessed to what W. P. has writ in many places but to his own Contradiction but here he falls a Railing and vilifying him with such terms as Abominable Worm c. He has not at all dealt fairly or honestly

thereby being to his satisfaction how can men continuing in their sins truly plead they are fully acquitted at once without them and they onely in the implicite belief thereof received from the ridged Presbyters rest satisfied in their sins all their life time And where doth T. D. prove his Doctrine of Christ's being holy by a true inherent righteousness of the humane Nature pag. 25. what Scripture hath he for this or these Expressions was not his Righteousness from the Divine Nature and was it not Everlasting but is not that which is humane Finite And T. D. saying that the Socinians vomit the Quakers have now lickt up pag. 27. herein hath he spoken scornfully and falsly against us which will not at all tend to convince Socinians if they were as bad as rendred but to that they can answer him And his saying the Elect whilst Sinners in state where proves he this that the Elect are Sinners in state seeing the state of the Elect is a sanctified and chosen state out of the World and its wayes chosen in Christ through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the Truth 2 Thes. 2.13 the impossibility of deceiving the Elect is signified Matth. 24.24 where the Calling and Election is made sure they shall never fall 2 Pet. 1.10 And that Christ was made surety of a better Covenant Heb. 7.22 And came to do his Fathers Will Hebr. 10.7 And that his being a Surety is an Act of Grace pag. 28. This we confess and own more then you that contend for Sin for the Will of God is our Sanctification and the better Testament and Covenant which Christ is the Surety Mediator and Establisher of is that of Righteousness Life and Peace wherein Sins and Transgressions are done away and wherein true Believers live to God And as for T. D. his so often comparing God to a Creditor Christ to the Surety and Sinners as the Debtors telling of God being considered as a Creditor and as a private Person pag. 32. But where doth the Scripture so call him Reply He does not speak from a true sence of God or Christ or of Gods Covenant but a Notion he hath learned by Tradition and as to Sinners their case is worse then meerly Debtors they not onely owing obedience to God and Christ but are disobedient and rebellious as the case of Fellons Traytors and other Malefactors is worse then that of Debtors yet Christ is our Surety Mediator and Intercessor to make agreement between God and man and to deliver man from the Punishment and Wrath to come by delivering from Sin the cause of it and destroying the Devil the Author of Sin not for us still to live in Sin and daily both contract more Debt and incur tribulation and anguish upon our Souls Howbeit the Wayes of God extend beyond T. D's comparison his Wayes are not as man wayes nor his Thoughts as mans thoughts for as the Heaven is higher then the Earth so are my Thoughts higher then your thoughts saith the Lord whose graciousness also to poor deceived lost man for his restoration is infinitely beyond mans legality and exactions as the Lord said I will not execute the fierceness of mine Anger I will not return to destroy Ephraim for I am God and not man the Holy One in the midst of thee Hosea 11.9 But is there not perfect obedience now for men to perform must they all live in Sin and Imperfection tearm of life and say all our Debts is paid and if all their Debts be paid why are they not out of Prison Are not all that are in Sin and Bondage of Corruption in Prison and would it be glad Tydings to tell them that though Christ has paid all their Debts and procured their release and ransomed them that they must not expect personal freedom out of Prison nor out of their Chains and Fetters so long as they lived here or if one should tell the Slaves in Turkey that they are ransomed and yet they must not expect personal freedom from their Vassalry and Slavery so long as they live here would this be glad tydings no sure but rather sad news and is just like these Presbyterians and Independants preaching to people and the tendence of their Gospel and pretence of Satisfaction Redemption Ransom c. whilst they hold none of them in Truth nor Righteousness nor in the same Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures of Truth and Testimonies of Christ or his Apostles T. D. pag. 29. He is satisfied and the debt paid too by his Intercession which being grounded upon his Satisfaction supposes it to be what it pretends full and compleat Observ. Here it is to be observed that notwithstanding this his Assertion of the Satisfaction both by payment and punishment being compleatly made and the debt fully paid yet he confesseth to Christ's Intercession but what does he ever live to make Intercession for if all be fully done paid satisfied at once by Christ's personal subjection and obedience must there ever be an intercession for that which is already so fully and dearly paid for as they reckon Christ hath done and God hath granted how will this hold consistent But then it appears it supposes it to be what it pretends full and compleat saith T. D. pag. 30. So here is now supposition and pretence put upon Christ's Intercession and Satisfaction what sorry shallow work is this but it appears But to proceed from one that hath followed his own conceptions notions weak judgement and humane understanding as also one that by his Logick and Traditional borrowed Notions and Doctrines goes about to make People to believe that from him that he hath no Scripture phrase for as that of God being a private person and other things And therefore like a Lawyer is fain to patch up his work as well as he can though in many things it be very inconsistant and repugnant to it self And whereas our confessing Christ both in Life and Suffering to be a perfect and real Example is so much struck at by these Priests and Professors we still withal confessing both to his Power and Living Effects through all and of all his Sufferings Afflictions Death and Life which we reverently esteem touching which I testifie in the Lord that if Christ be not really owned and confessed as he was a real Example both in Life Conversation and in Patient Suffering neither the Fellowship of his Suffering nor the Power thereof is truly known or experienced for they who would partake of the Benefit and blessed Effects of Christ's Death and Sufferings and yet will not own him for their Example shall never enjoy him therein seeing that Christ also hath suffered for us leaving us an Example that we should follow his steps who did not sin neither was guile found in his mouth 1 Pet. 2.21 22. Again Forasmuch then as Christ hath Suffered for us in the Flesh arm your selves likewise with the same mind for he that hath sufferred

they may be made perfect in one c. And God said Let us make man in our own Image after our likeness Gen. 1 26. Now if by us here is intended Father Son and Holy Ghost which is called Trinity then it follows that he was made in the likeness of all three and yet we do not read that God did consist in three distinct Persons nor that man was made in the Image of three Persons nor yet that three distinct and separate persons dwelt in him though God did promise after the Fall to dwell in his people and he and his Son and Spirit we do really own confess to and have a living sence and experience of to our Souls Comfort and everlasting peace So when we cannot well resent nor accept of mens invented terms put upon the Father Son and Holy Ghost it is unreasonable and injurious to accuse us with opposing any of them or denying their Divinity and the Unity of the Deity And where John Owen in pag. 91 92. to prove the Holy Ghost a Person and an existing Substance which he calls also a distinct and divine Person he quotes many Scriptures as Gen. 1.2 the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters Psalm 33.6 by the Word of the Lord the Heavens were made and all the Host of them by the Spirit of his Mouth these with many he urgeth for proof of the Personallity of the Holy Ghost So according to his Principle and terms which he puts upon the Holy Ghost as a distinct Person c. and according to J. O's meaning we must read the Scripture thus the Person of God moved upon the face of the Waters By the Person of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Host of them by the Person of his mouth and so likewise upon Job 26.13 by his Person he hath garnished the Heavens and in like manner upon the rest of the Scriptures he bringeth in this case Now let the Reader judge whether such a meaning alteration put upon the Scriptures doth either look clear or sound well and whether it be not a corrupting Scripture and addition contrary to the plain innocent Language thereof and if such corruption and alteration upon Scripture may be admitted of how are they the only Rule or great Rule of speaking and treating about spiritual things J. Owen and his Brethen had better refer people to the Scriptures and leave them to a naked attention to what Scripture asserts rather then thus to pervert them or puzle and darken peoples minds with their humane inventions and Scholastick terms imposed in the time of Apostacy and Popery And concerning the Son of God and some accounting him the Light within men this J. O. numbers among the monstrous imaginations pag. 87. Wherein he hath not only struck at us who testifie to Christ as the Light of the World that lighteth every man and as being in the true Believers both their Light Life and Salvation but also J. O. hath herein opposed both the former Saints and Scriptures of Truth who testified unto Christ the Light as we do as also he owned himself to be come a light into the World and to be in his Followers He that is with you shall be in you I in them and they in me c. Pag. 103. J.O. queries how can the Power of God or a quality be said to be sent to be given to be bestowed on men Answ. Yes very well it may be so said Christ gave them power to become the Sons of God who believed on his Name and was not this God's Power had Christ any thing but what was Gods and the Saints knew the Power of God to work mightily in them so that this Doctor hath shewed himself very ignorant of the Power of God and its work which doth beget and restore man into the Image Righteousness and true Holiness of God and this is given and bestowed on such as believe in the Light within the Light of the Divine Power of God which giveth unto us all things appertaining to Life and Godliness And now touching their distinctions of Persons or Personal Subsistances in God J. O. saith pag. 114. The distinct apprehension of them and their accurate expression is not necessary unto Faith as it is our Guide c. nor are those brief explanations before mentioned so proposed as to be placed immediately in the same rank or order with the original Revelations Answ. If they be not necessary unto Faith nor yet to be placed in the order with Revelations meaning Scripture why then are these men so strict in going about to impose their terms expressions and explications which they have not in the Scripture upon peoples Faith and Conscience as if it were a matter of damnation not to receive a Faith concerning God under their traditional notions and terms However we believe what the Scriptures saith both of God Christ and holy Spirit who are one laying aside all these mens invented confused amusing Sophistry Cavils and their darkning terms as distinct and separate Personallities Substances Subsistances Modallities c. of which they themselves are guilty though J. O. accuseth others therewith pag. 116. And whilst these pretended accurate expressions are not necessary unto Faith why doth J. O. press them as proper expressions of what is revealed to encrease our light pag. 115. What apparent contradiction is this not necessary unto Faith as our Guide and yet proper to encrease our light as if the encrease of light had not a necessary relation unto both Faith as Guide and Principle both in and unto religious worship but to be sure that instead of encreasing light their dark invented scholastick Heathenish and Popish terms have encreased much darkness in the minds of people and kept many in great ignorance both of God and the mystery of godliness And whereas J. O. gives order or instruction that they that deny or oppose their explications are to be required positively to deny or disapprove the oneness of the Deity or to prove that the Father or Son or Holy Ghost are not God before they be allowed to speak one word against the manner of the explication pag. 115. Answ. A very unreasonable imposition and requiring to require any to deny the oneness of the Deity or to prove the Father Son or Holy Ghost not to be God because they may except against such invented explications as J. O. and his Brethren have brought out of their Heathenish Store-houses and Chambers of Imaginary and hath not he herein imposed upon the Objecters and begged the question taking it as granted that their explications are as true as the oneness of the Deity or as true as that the Father Son and Holy Ghost are God as if he had told us it is all one as true that they are distinct severed Persons as it is that they are God which it is not we have not ground to believe their explications herein to be equal for the Unity

of the Godhead or Divinity of Christ or his Spirit we never denied nor scrupled Therefore for J. O. to require any that except against their terms and inventions positively to deny the Unity of the Deity is both sad Doctrine and unreasonableness as also shews an imperious lording spirit though its probable among the Independants and Professors he can make a shew of more humility then he did formerly for he now wants Cromwel to promote him However he and others of his Fraternity might by this time have in reallity learned more lowliness and humility then yet appears in them towards such as cannot be screwed up to their way and method of expressing the Invisible things of God which are Heavenly Divine and Spiritual as his being and properties are absolutely above the comprehension of J. O's reason as is confest pag. 128. We cannot by searching find out God we cannot find out the Almighty to perfection And yet vain man would be wise and imploy his natural reason and fallen wisdom both to find and set out God to evince him and his things unto the natural reason of others which still falls short both of any true knowledg and spiritual understanding for vain by nature is every man and ignorant of God It is the spiritually minded who are begotten to God who are spiritually and immediately taught by his Spirit that have a true and spiritual understanding of Divine Matters and Mysteries Pag. 118. J. O. Every person hath distinctly its own Substance But then in contradiction he adds for the one Substance of the Deity is the Substance of each Person but each Person hath not its own distinct Substance Reply A strange Riddle and invention that each person hath distinctly its own Substance and yet not its own distinct Substance what Scripture hath he for this Critick and nice distinction how is a person then an individual Substance of a rational nature that is not upheld by another if it hath not its own distinct Substance whilst yet it hath distinctly its own Substance but the Divine Substance of the Deity of the Father the Word and Spirit is but one as often hath been granted so then the Holy Ghost though confessed to be a Substance pag. 101. yet I say not a Personal Substance distinct from the Father and the Son as there is ignorantly asserted But then J. O. to tell us pag. 118. That all Divine properties such as to be infinite is belong not to the Persons on the account of their Personallity but of their nature c. Observ. Then it appears they are not three Infinite Persons but one Infinite God and yet those Persons are the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost were it not both Blasphemy and contradiction to say they are finite and what better have our Opposers said but at other times they are Eternal God Eternal the Eternal Son and Eternal Spirit and thus they wheel about and say and unsay Answ. It were better for them nakedly to apply themselves to the plain Language of Scripture and keep to it to lay aside and avoid confusion and absurdities about distinct finite personallities which the Scripture does not put upon the Infinite God in whom there is neither finiteness nor variableness I am God I change not saith he the Lord is one and his name one from Everlasting to Everlasting he is God unchangable And the Father Son and Holy Ghost being one Divine Infinite Substance are one Infinite God Away with your vain babling and invented erroneous distinctions of finite Persons in him who is infinite you are not worthy therein to talk of God nor to take his holy precious and pure Name in your mouthes who are in your sins and pollutions corrupting your selves in your carnal conceptions and imaginations about those things that you know not who are gone a whoring after humane inventions invented words names terms and distinctions such as neither the Holy Ghost nor the Scriptures ever taught you Pag. 117. And as for them that will keep to their Cavils and Sophisms about terms and expressions I know not who J. O. may intend hereby but if he intend us called Quakers because we do not own but oppose his and their dark unscriptural terms and expressions which darken both counsel and knowledge we do reject his Accusation and Charge herein for Cavils and Sophisms are rather his and his Brethrens who have been trained up in Sophistry and School-craft in order to be furnished to a Trade of Preaching to make a Trade of the Scriptures corrupting them by their dark meanings and School-terms and Philosophick distinctions by which poor people have been kept even learning that they might be always paying them Pag. 117. But then J. O. addeth against such as he supposeth will keep to their Cavils and Sophisms That all further debate or conference with them may justly and ought both conscientiously and rationally to be refused and rejected Reply If herein he may intend us as it s probably he may as well as others among whom he has numbred us though unrighteously as his debating or conference is of little value or esteem with us whilst it proceeds neither from a sence of God's Divine Power nor from any Living experience of God or his work within but from humane inventions and traditions So J. O. and his Brethrens work in these matters whether they go on in it or stop from further debate it will be of very little weight to us since we see to the far end of their subtilty and beyond their spirits and confusion however J. O. laying it as their duty not to debate any further with such as he censures as before he hath brought himself and those that own him under a Law and Limitation that if they further contend with us they must either not accuse us with Cavils and Sophisms or else not debate nor contend any further with us for if they do so accuse and censure us and yet further debate or contend with us they transgress their own Law so strictly here urged by J.O. and by the same reason when he and they are found guilty of Cavils and Sophisms may not others as much slight him and them therein But however he or they judge or censure us I hope we shall not be backward nor negligent to vindicate the Truth and clear our innocency from reproaches and scandals of men of perverse and envious spirits when we have occasion given us thereby J. O. These sacred Mysteries of God and the Gospel are not lightly to be made the subject of mens contest and disputations Observ. It is very true that sacred Mysteries of God and Gospel are not lightly nor yet slightly to be made subjects of contests nor yet ought they to be medled with by light airy minds nor by perverse and prejudiced spirits which are apt to bring forth perverse disputes as it is too common to men of corrupt minds who are destitute of the Truth But why then do

demonstration then clear Scripture surely whilst they cannot clear it and their distinctions to themselves they are not like to clear them unto others but instead of Scripture proof and demonstration we must either aquiesce with what their humane understandings can produce from Aquinas Wotton and Aristotle c. or else we are like to be most bitterly railed against by these our Opposers T.V. The three Holies Isa. 6.1 signifie the three persons Contradiction the Lord of Hosts the One God pag. 33. Contr. J. O. Contradicts T. V. pag. 45. where he saith That of Isa. 6.1 2. three Holy Holy Holy is the Lord of Hosts the whole Earth is full of his glory applyed unto the Son Joh. 12.41 42. Obs. How palpably one Contradicts another one saying the three Holyes signifies three Persons the other viz. J.O. saith They are applied to the Son who is but One. This Doctor Owen should correct his Brother Vincent T.V. The Son being Eternal this Generation must be Eternal the personal property of the Son is to be begotten pag. 36. Contr. T. V. They are three distinct persons from their distinct personal Acts Contradiction again Infiniteness is not applicable to the three distinct personallities pag. 45. The Son of God is God is infinite in Power in Wisdom and Goodness and Eternal pag. 30. Obs. Here manifest Contradiction to himself shews it self as much as to say That either the Son of God is eternal and yet not infinite or else That the Son of God being eternal is not a person distinct from God if a Person be not infinite but yet the Son of God is infinite in Power Wisdom Goodness c. How ever these can be reconciled I leave to the ingenious to judge T. V. The Father Word and Holy Ghost are three subsistences pag. 13.43 not three substances pag. 13. They are three distinct subsistents pag. 27. A person is one individual subsistent rather T.D. pag. 2. Obs. Here they are now put to it what to call them being not three substances as T. V. saith they call them three subsistences But now it must be subsistents rather But then in Contradiction to both Doctor Owen saith The Holy Ghost is a substance a personal subsistence What differs now between substance and subsistence T. D. What the Scripture hath revealed to us concerning that distinction in the God-head cannot be apprehended under any other Notion or Resemblance which therefore we attribute to God pag. 3. We know not what to call those three but persons Contr. T.D. Of the Father Word and Spirit c. from 1 Joh. 1.7 Now all Witnesses properly so called are persons pag. 5. Then these Witnesses must needs be distinct pag. 7. Obs. Why is not that Scripture produced all this while if there be such as reveal your distinctions and notion of persons in God And why do you not know what to call those three in Heaven but Persons when T.D. knows how to call them Witnesses What ignorance and Contradictions are here T. V. From Matth. 3.16 17. Herein is a distinction of all the three persons The Son cloathed in Flesh The Spirit in the shape of a Dove The Father in the Voice c. pag. 34. Contr. W.M. The Father Son and Holy Ghost being of an infinite Nature are three Persons Co-essential Co-equal Co-eternal pag. 29. Contr. T.V. The Son being Eternal his Generation must be Eternal the personal property of the Holy Ghost is to proceed from the Father and the Son pag. 36. Obs. Quest. But was Christ being cloathed with Flesh or the Spirits appearing in the shape of a Dove or being sent from Eternity are these pertinent proofs of their distinct personalities which are reckoned Co-eternal c. And whether or to whom was the Spirit sent from Eternity T.V. The Holy Ghost is God which W.P. doth deny pag. 32. his denyal of the Divinity of Christ is plain pag. 28. Contr. T.V. The Unity of the God-head is not denyed by the Adversaries I have to do withal pag. 28. Obs. So here the same person that is accused for denying the Divinity of Christ is in these latter words cleared as not denying that Unity of the God-head and to be sure he doth confess the Father the Word and the Spirit to be One being one Divine Substance and so One God T. V. The Son is God co-essential co-equal co-eternal with the Father Christ is infinite in power wisdom and goodness eternal pag. 29 30. T. V. In regard of his humane Nature the Jewes speak truth Joh. 8.57 Thou art not yet fifty years old as he was a Son of Abraham and born many generations after him pag. 31. Obs. Quest. And was not he a Person as he was a Son of Abraham not fifty years old if he was as I never heard any yet deny and your Doctrine supposes a Trinity of distinct Persons as being co-eternal co-equal c. doth not this then render Christ as a Son of Abraham to be a fourth person 2. Touching Pardon and Satisfaction T. V. That God never doth nor will nor can pardon any sinner without Satisfaction made to his offended Justice for their sins because his Holiness Righteousness and Truth obligeth him to take Vengeance upon all that have transgressed his Law pag. 54. T. V. Christ the eternal Son of God the second person of this glorious Trinity the Doctrine of Satisfaction depending upon this person The Lord Jesus Christ proved to be God equal with the Father pag. 54. Contrad T. D. Many of us do not affirm any impossibility of forgiveness without Satisfaction and for my part though I know some worthy Persons do deny W. P 's affirmative yet I cannot joyn with them therein for to me it is evident that God is free in his Determinations what Attribute he will manifest pag. 17 18. Contrad T. V. God proclaims himself to be gracious and merciful pag. 60. He is exalted upon the Throne of his Mercy ready to forgive sinners pag. 60 61. God was at the Charges of his own Satisfaction Job 33.24 pag. 62. Obs. Then it appears That God had Power to shew himself Gracious he willeth not the Death of sinners but rather their return and Merciful ready to forgive sinners upon Repentance he being at the Charges of his own Satisfaction as is said in giving his Eternal Son who is confessed to be God equal with the Father all which in the best sense amounts to this That God satisfied himself with his own Gift and without performing his own Will he could not be satisfied And who ever doubted or made question or Controversie of that if it were so taken but this proves not their unscriptural terms phrases and notions of Law supposed in the case nor yet that God took vengeance on Christ instead of all Transgressors and they to go free and yet still sin T. V. It was necessary that the Person that should make Satisfaction should be a Man because none but a Creature