A Synopsis of Quakerism, Error 1
1. Errour. That One God does not ſubſiſt in Three Perſons.
THree things I muſt neceſſarily premiſe before I come to the proof of the Propoſition; which the Quakers deny.
1. I muſt neceſſarily explain the word Perſon, the uſual Definition is, Rationalis naturoe individua Subſtantia; or an individual Subſtance of a rational Nature, which Aquinas deſends, ſum. Par. 1. Q. 29. art. 2. but ſome think it lyable to ſome Exception, as whereby the humane Soul ſeparated from the Body, and the humane Nature of Chriſt, are made Perſons, and therefore add to it, Quoe nec eſt pars alterius, nec ab alio Suſtentatur, i. e. which is neither the part of an other, nor is upheld by an other. I ſhall not interpoſe my Judgment in the caſe, as remembering, that I write for the Unlearned. I ſhall chuſe to borrow that of the Learned Wottan, on John 1. verſ. 1. 2. pag. 29. which is the plaineſt, and will not be gain-ſaid I ſuppoſe by any Learn… Man. A Perſon is an individual Subſiſtence [or Subſiſtent rather] in an intellectual Nature; or a ſeveral or ſingular thing, that ſubſiſts by it ſelf, in a nature indued with Ʋnderſtanding.
1. The thing which we call a Perſon, is by nature indued with Reaſon and Underſtanding. A man we call a Perſon, but we give not that name unto a bruit B…aſt [An individual or ſingular Creature of that kind, is called in the Schools Suppoſitum.]
2. A Perſon notes ſome one indued with Reaſon and Underſtanding, which is ſeveral and diſtinct by himſelf from another. And hereby we exclude, 1. Qualities or Vertues, as Fortitude, Temperance, &c. from being Perſons, though found in a rational Nature, and diſtinct one from another, becauſe they ſubſiſt not by themſelves, but in a ſubject. For a Perſon is entire of it ſelf, and muſt not depend on any thing as a property thereof. And hereby we exclude, 2. The Soul ſeparated from the Body; for the Soul is a part of the humane Species, or of mans Nature, and Retinet naturam unibilitatis (as Aquin…s ſpeaks, Sum. p. 1. Q. 29. art. 2.) is to be looked upon as a part ſtill in its Separation (the Separation of it from the Body being a violence offer'd to it) and therefore can no more be called a Perſon, than the hand or foot …ut off the Body, [or then a part, the foot, for inſtance of a Beaſt can be call'd a Suppoſitum.]
2. That the word perſon, cannot properly be attributed to Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, becauſe they do not ſubfiſt in a ſeveral and diſtinct Nature of the ſame kind: for if each of them had a ſeveral, and not one individual Nature, then they ſhould be not only Three Perſons, but Three God…, which need not be a wonder; for, as Divines ſay, Deus & creaturae nihil habent commune praeter nomen. God and the Creature have nothing common to them both, but names which Rule muſt be underſtood, with the Limitation that other Rule ſuggeſts, Nomina de De…, & creaturis non univoce nec pure aequivoce, Sed analogice dicuntur ſecundum analogiam Creaturarum ad ipſum. Aquinas, Sum. par. 1. Q. 29. Art. 3. That the names common to God and the Creatures, do not ſignifie ſimply the ſame thing, nor wholly different; but ſomething wherein the Creature bears ſome Analogy to God.
3. Yet may this word perſon be uſed by us (and tis uſed in the Scripture, of the Father, Heb. 1. 3.) to expreſs the diſtinction of Father, Son, and Spirit in the God-Head, and one from another. And the reaſon why it may be uſed, is this, becauſe a perſon ſignifies that which is moſt excellent and perfect in Nature; and what the Scripture hath revealed to us, concerning that diſtinction in the God-Head, cannot be apprehended by u…, under any other Notion, or Reſemblance, which therefore we Attribute to God, ye… after a moſt excellent manner.
For the nature of Man being finite, may be multiplyed into many ſeveral Men or Perſons of the ſame kind or Nature. But the divine nature being infinite, cannot poſſibly admit of a Multiplication. (For that there ſhould be two infinite Natures, implies a Contradiction) Therefore when Father, Son, and Spirit are ſaid to be Three, and yet but one God, we know not what to call thoſe three, but Perſons; for there is that aſcribed to them, (viz Properties and Operations,) which cannot agree, but either to Three Gods, or Three Subſiſtents (that is, perſons, though not ſtrictly, yet proportionably, or Analogically ſo call'd) in the God-Head.
And thus I think I have in effect anſwered all the Arguments of the Antitrinitarians, before I meddle with them. For their foreign, or grand Errour is, that becauſe the word perſon is not praedicated of Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoſt, and of the Creature vnivoce; that is, the ſame word does not ſignifie wholly the ſame thing in God and the Creature.
Therefore they deny Perſonality of Son and Spirit: whereas, though the name perſon does not agree to them in the ſence of it's firſt Impoſition, yet it does, as to what we intend to ſignifie thereby, anſwerable to the notion the Scripture hath Impreſſed on our minds, Vid. Aquin. Sum. Q. 29. art. 3. p. 1.
In the next place, I ſhall propoſe one Scripture, and from thence gather ſome Concluſions, the proof whereof, will be all I ſhall offer, and as much as will be needful for private Chriſtian's Confirmation in the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity.
1. John 5. 7. For there are Three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy-Gho…t; and theſe Three are One.
The cauſal Conjunction for, implies a re…ſon of ſomewhat foregoing, (viz) That Jeſus Chriſt was the Son of God, verſ. 5. And ſo theſe words contain an Argument drawn from indubitable Teſtimonies. And from them we may deduce,
Prop. 1. That there is but one God, one in this verſe is explained as meant of God, verſ. 9. The Witneſs of God is greater, referring to the Witneſs concerning Chriſt, verſ. 7. not to verſ. 8. for none of thoſe Witneſſes are God.
Prop. 2. That Father, Word, and Spirit are Three Subſiſtents [or perſons.]
1. He attributes the Act of bearing Record to them; now all Witneſſes [properly ſo call'd] are Perſons.
2. That is not all, but the Apoſtle joyns Word and Holy-Ghoſt, with the Father (whom all acknowledge a Perſon) as Witneſs of the ſame kind; ſo that if he be a Perſon, then are they alſo Perſons.
3. I add, that the attributes of God the Father, or inſtance Omniſcience, which cannot agree but to a Perſon, are alſo aſcribed to the Word (or Son) and to the Spirit. Jeſus knew all things, Joh. 2. 22. Acts 5. 9. of which ſee the Fifth Propoſition: I know that this proves their Deity too, but I produce it only to prove their Perſon…lity.
Prop. 3. That Father, Word, or Son, and Spirit, are Subſiſtants, or Perſons of the ſame Order, In Heaven, as to the Father; notes the Seat of his Glory and Majeſty (as appears by the uſe of that phraſe in the Lords Prayer) and why not then, as to Word and Spirit? And ſome ſtamp of Divinity more than ordinary is intended, for otherwiſe there are many Witneſſes and Perſons in Heaven; the Angels, who from Heaven bore Record of Chriſt, Luke 2. 10, 13.
Prop. 4. That the Father, Word (or Son) and Spirit, are diſtinct one from another, appears from the Text, in Conjunction with the ſtory to which they refer Mat. 3. 17. where the Father and Spirit bear Record concerning the Son, … one diſtinct from them both. And John 8. 18. the Word did bear Record of himſelf: And theſe did bear Record in a different manner: The Father by a Voice from Heaven; the Spirit by aſſuming the ſhape of a Dove; The Son by Word of Mouth on Earth. Put all together, here were Teſtimonies given from diſtinct places, Earth, Heaven; to diſtinct Sences, Ear, Eye; by diſtinct actions, ſpeaking, aſſuming a ſhape. Then theſe Witneſſes muſt needs be diſtinct.
Again, it appears, the Father, Son, and Spirit, are diſtinct one from another.
1. From their Incommunicable Properties; The Father begets, and is not begotten; the Son is begotten, and does not beget, Heb. 1. For unto which of the Angels ſaid he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, verſ. 5. The Apoſtle ſpeaks of an Eternal Generation of the Son of God, declared and made manifeſt in time, by the Reſurrection of Chriſt from the dead: ſee Acts 13. 33. compared with Rom. 1. 4. John 1. 18. Chriſt is called the only begotten Son of God. The ſpirit proceeds from the Father, John 15. 26. and Chriſt ſays, I will ſend from the Father; a miſſion implies a pr…ceſſion from both.
2. From their Order, which may be collected from thoſe properties: The Father muſt needs be firſt in order of Original, (as in time alſo, a Father is among men) and the Son next, for Relata ſunt ſimul Naturae. The Father and Son are together in Nature: and then the ſpirit proceeding from both, muſt needs in order, be after both.
3. From their manner of Oper…tion, one place will ſuffice; …ut when the Comforter is come, whom I will ſend unto you from the Father, &c. Joh. 16. That Miſſion was but a manifeſtation of the preſence of the Spirit, by a new effect, viz. or a clearer Revelation of Chriſt, and the order, is, the Son ſends from the Father, or the Father ſends by the Son, the Spirit, to teſtifie of Chriſt.
Prop. 5. To be proved is, that every one of theſe Three diſtinct Perſons, are truly God. verſ. 9. He calls the Witneſſe, given by Three in in Heaven, the Witneſſe of God; therefore each Witneſs is God, not to ſpeak of the names God given to them, which is more lyable to cavil (as being ſometimes given to Creatures.
1. It appears by the properties of the God-Head, given to Son and Spirit (as for the Father, he is acknowledged to be God, on all hands.)
1. From their Omnipreſence, Lo, I am with you always to the end of the World, Math. 28. ult. ſpoken of Chriſt, Pſal. 139. 7. Whither ſhall I go from thy ſpirit? or whither ſhall I flee from thy preſence?
2. Omniſcience, John 2. 24. Jeſus knew all men, Acts 5. 9. Why have yee agreed together to Tempt the ſpirit of the Lord, i. e. to try whither he could diſcover your Hypocriſie. There are other Inſtances of Divine properties, but let theſe ſuffice
2. By the Works or Operations proper to God, as 1. Creation, Eccleſ. 12. 1. Remember thy Creators, ſo the He…. foreign, Heb. 1. 2. By whom alſo he made the World: Tis ſpoken of God the Father, with reference to Chriſt, and … …implies, that the Son of God joyned with his Father in making the World, as an efficient Cauſe equal in Power; not as an Inſtrument, for there can be none in Creation; becauſe, to make ſomething out of nothing, requires Infinite power; and between a finite power and nothing, there is no proportion, Job 33. 4. The ſpirit of God made me. 2. Preſervation, Heb. 1. 3. Ʋpholding all things by the Word of his Power, ſpoken of the Son (or Chriſt) Gen. 1. 2. And the ſpirit of God moved upon the face of the Waters, foreign. Commovens in cubans, uſed of Birds brooding their Yong, Deut. 32. 11▪ and ſo applied me…aphorically to the ſpirits Operation in conſe…ing the Chaos.
3. That Son and Spirit are truly God, Iſa. …. 8. by the Right they have to be Objects of Divine Worſhip: And let all the Angels of God Worſhip him. Spoken of the Son, who is call…d God, and ſaid to have a Throne or Seat of Majeſty, to the perſon whereon Worſhip is given, Heb. 1. 6, 8. and Rev. 1. Grace, Mercy, and Peace from him, which is, and is to come, and from the ſeven ſpirits, (i. e. the ſpirit that is manifeſted in Variety of Gifts) which are before the Throne, and from Jeſus Chriſt.
Though John ſpeaks in the Third Perſon, yet …t is a Prayer, and ſo in effect, an add…eſs to the Perſons; as if he had ſaid, O Father, …, and ſpirit, Grant theſe Churches Grace, Mercy, and P…ce. Cant. 4. ult. Awake thou North Wind, and come thou South, i. e. O Bleſſed ſpirit, bre…th into my heart; ſpirit compared to Wind, Jo…n▪ 3. 8▪ the ſame Word ſignifies both foreign. And to the ſon, Acts 7. 59. Lord. Jeſus receive my ſpirit.
Prop. 6. That theſe Perſons are not divided on… from another, ſo as to be Three Gods; but on… God▪ appears from the Text, in that, … call… the Witneſs of Three, the Witneſs of one; viz▪ in natu…e or eſſence, which is verſ. 9. ſaid to b… God; not Three Divine natures, but one is predicated of the Three Witneſſes.
And thus a way is made to an Anſwer to W. P s. Arguments.
Arg. 1. If there be Three diſtinct Perſons, then Thr… diſtinct Subſtances.
Anſ. I deny the Conſequence; becauſe, as … ſhewed before, the Word Perſon is not p…d… cated of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, and … the Creature univoce; that is, the ſame Wo… does not ſignifie wholly the ſame thing in God and the Creature▪ But in God, Three Perſo… notes a ſubſiſting of Three in one Individu… Nature; in Man, a ſubſiſting of (Three) Pet… James, and John; ſuppoſe for inſtance, i… Thr…e divided, or ſeveral Natures of the ſam… kind.
Arg. 2. Either the Divine Perſons are Finite … Infinite; if Infinite, then Three diſtinct Infinites, and ſo three Gods.
Anſ. 1. We may deny the Disjunction, finit… neſs and infiniteneſs are not Perſonal, but Eſſential properties: For in the Notion of the Nature, theſe properties are coutained, before you conſider that Nature as in a Perſon. So finiteneſs in reſpect of man, and infiniteneſs in reſpect of God. And hence, though all the properties of the Divine Nature, whereof, infinit… neſs is one, agree to each Perſon ſubſiſting in that Nature, yet will it not follow, that there are three …nfinites, but only one; becauſe there are not three Divine Natures, but only one; of which one Nature, Infiniteneſs is a property.
Anſ. 2. Suppoſe we grant that theſe three Perſons may be ſaid to be Infinite, tis no more in effect, than to …ay, that theſe three Perſons are God; we may as well attribute to the Perſon, the property included in the Divine Nature, as the Divine Nature, which includes the property (the Nature and Property b…ing one, re, though not ratione.)
Anſ. 3. Yet will it not follow, that Father, Son, and Spirit, be three diſtinct Infinites; or which is all one, three diſtinct Gods (the property and Nature being really one, though different, according to our way of apprehenſion, as I ſaid above) becauſe thoſe three ſubſiſt not in three ſever…l, but in one Individual Nature.
Arg. 3. If each Perſon be God, and that Go… ſubſiſts in Three Perſons; then in each Pe…ſon ar… Three Perſons, or Gods, and ſo from Three, they will increaſe to nine.
Anſ. 1. If he underſtands the Terms; God, … we do (in the Antecedent) of God eſſentially no ſuch conſequence will follow, no more than i… this inſtance.
If Peter, James, and John, each Perſon b… Man, and that Man ſubſiſts in thoſe three Perſons, then in each of thoſe three Perſons, … three Perſons, or Men, and ſo from three, the will increaſe to nine. Take Man here, not ſo a Perſon, but the Nature as we do God, in th… Antecedent of Pens Hypothetical Syllogiſm… and tis evident that we mean no more, then th… the name Man may be attributed to Peter, Jame and John, becauſe the ſame humane Nature (… mean ſpecifically) agrees to them, and ſo is th… name God attributed to each Perſon, becauſe th… ſame Divine Nature ſubſiſts in each of them, (… rather, each of them ſubſiſts in the ſame (num… rically) Divine Nature.) There is no Conſ… quence in Pens Argument, unleſs we held, th… each perſon in the God-Head, ſubſiſts in … perſons (which he goes about unworthily, to i… finuate).
Anſ. 2. I rather think he hath catched at ſom… what in our Writers, which he did not well u… derſtand, which he would repreſent as our Judgments, (and thence deduce his abſurd Conſe quence) (viz) that Nature and Perſon in the God-Head, or God, are one thing. For the Nature of God is ſo ſimple, that it admits of no parts or Accidents. The three Perſons are not three parts, either eſſential or Integral of the God-Head; nor can the relative properties begetting, being begotten, proceeding, be accidents, but ſubſtantial attributes, as the abſolute properties, Wiſdom, Merey, Juſtice (for inſtance:) yet will it not follow, that there are three Perſons in each Perſon, that is, that the Perſons includes each other, any more, then that theſe, three abſolute Attributes., include, each other.
For the Conception or Notion that we have of the Father (ſuppoſe) as a ſubſiſtent or Perſon, is in…dequatus conceptus, in reſpect of the Divine Eſ…ence, conſidered as affecta Subſiſtentia, or ſubſiſting in divers manners, and ſo does not include the Son and ſpirit, who ſubſiſt in two different manners from him. And as we cannot ſay, that he Notion of Juſtice does include Mercy, or the Notion of Mercy include Juſtice, though the Divine Eſſence, or God, be the ſame with both thoſe properties; ſo 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 he Father; though each of thoſe Perſons are he Divine Eſſence, or God, [and ſo, nor does he Father nor Son include the Spirit, or the Spirit include them by the like Reaſon] which w… may thus Ill…ſt…ate, and indeed confirm, by comparing the Acts of thoſe abſolute Attributes, and the properties of thoſe relative Attributes. A… puniſhing, is not an Act of Mercy; nor ſparing, … Act of Juſtice; nor does the one Act include th… other: So, nor does the Attributes of Mercy and Juſtice include each other. So as begettin… is not being begotten, nor being begotten is … begetting; ſo nor does the Notion of the Fath… include the Son, nor of the Son, include the F… ther.
4. The fourth is anſwered in the anſwer to t… ſecond; and we do not affirm the Perſon in the God-Head, to be finite, but infinite.
5. If thoſe three diſtinct Perſons are one wit… the God-Head, then are they each one with another: That's the ſum, though he multiplie… words.
Anſw. That Argument is grounded (though … does not expreſs, nor perhaps underſtand it) upon that rule, Quae conveniunt in uno tertio, con… niunt inter…ſe Thoſe things which are one … ſome third thing, are one among themſelv… ▪ And I anſwer, That rule is to be underſtood that they are one among themſelves, only in r… ſpect of that wherein they agree, not ſimply. … in this plain inſtance, David was a Man, and S… lomon was a Man, they two agree in a third thin… viz. in the humane nature; Will it therefore f… low, that they are one Perſon? nothing leſ… ▪ … though the Father be God, and the Son God, it will not follow that they are one Perſon; for in perſonality, or manner of ſubſiſtence, they differ; but only it will follow, that they are one God, or one in that Divine nature, in which third theſe two meet.
And now I ſhall take notice of my Anſwer to his Queſtion, mentioned p. 10. of his Sandy Foundation ſhaken, and his reply thereto. Where firſt, the Reader is to know, that W. P. conceals his ignorance or falſhood in denying that Perſon was a Scripture term, and his front, in demanding an inſtance with that eagerneſs, as if none could be given, when I gave him that, Heb. 1. 3. Again, whereas he relates my Anſwer to his Queſtion, of whom Chriſt was the expreſs Image; that Chriſt was the expreſs image of Gods ſubſiſtence or manner of being, he does me wrong: for, my anſwer was, that Chriſt was the expreſs image of God, the Fathers Perſon. That which I ſpake of a ſubſiſtence or manner of being, was in anſwer to his queſtion: What a Perſon was▪ From whence he then infer'd, that if Chriſt was the image of his Fathers Perſon, he muſt be the image of a mode or manner of being; to which, he received this reply, that Chriſt was the image of the Father, ſubſiſting in the divine nature, not of the perſonality or manner of the Fathers being, nor yet of the divine nature in the abſtract, (which was illuſtrated by the Childs bearing the image of his Father.) And ſo my anſwer to his two abſurd conſequences, will be needleſs. But if he thinks them deducible from this anſwer I gave him, I reply thus to them. To the firſt, It makes God a Father only by ſubſiſtence, that if he means, that the relation of a Father ariſes from a perſonal, not an eſſential act, I ſee no abſurdity, the immanent act called begetting, is not an act of God abſolutely, but relatively conſidered; that is, of the firſt Perſon ſubſiſting in that God-head. To the ſecond, That Chriſt is then a Son without a ſubſtance. I anſwer, that though the Son, as God, is from himſelf; yet as God the Son, he is from the Father, the perſon and ſubſtance being inſeparable. As for the place, he refers me to Col: 1. 15. Who is the Image of the inviſible God, I ſee not how it oppoſes my expoſition. God is taken there perſonally for the Father, not eſſentially for the God-head, or divine nature, which I prove, becauſe Chriſt is ſaid to be the Image of God; which if meant of God eſſentially, then Chriſt muſt be the image of himſelf, which cannot be. And that Chriſt is God by nature, appears by v. 16. where he is ſaid to be the firſt cauſe, and laſt end of all things. For the tranſlation, it is good enough, foreign is uſed by the Greek Phyloſophers for foreign, which Ariſtotle uſes for ſubstantia prima and ſecunda, the the former of which is, when the common nature expreſſed in the definition, is reſtrained by certain proprieties to an individual, which is called Perſon…, or a Perſon, when the nature is indued with reaſon. Suppoſitum, when it is not. And ſo foreign may by a Metalepſis; yea, muſt be rendered, Perſon or ſubſiſtent, or ſome word to that effect, becauſe Chriſt, as God, is of himſelf, and ſo is not the image of any other, there being no multiplication of the divine nature, but of Perſons in the nature three.
Vid. Amyrald. de myſt. Trin. p. 462, &c. And he that reads Juſtin Martyr, who flouriſhed about A. D. 150. will finde that he applies foreign and foreign to the Father, Son, and Spirit, which anſwers W. P. s cavil, that 'tis foreign, not foreign, which is uſed, Heb. 1. 3. and that the word foreign was not uſed in that ſenſe, till Athanaſiu's time.