The Foundation of God Standeth Sure, Chapter 3
CHAP. III. An Answer to the 11. page of W. P's pernicious Pamphlet, by W. M.
ANd because G. W. willing to bring this strange Doctrine] This Doctrine is strange to none but such as are strangers to God, and ignorant of the Scriptures, whose eyes the God of this world hath blinded, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the Image of God, should shine into them, 2 Cor. 4. 3, 4. but as Ephraim when joyned to idols, counted the great things of Gods Law a strange thing, Hos. 8. 12. so these men having prostituted themselves to an Idol of their own brains, The Light within, which is their Christ and Savior, count the Doctrine of the true God, a strange Doctrine.
[To the capacity of the people] You mean, to the scorn, and contempt of the people; for his design was not to explain, but to expose the Doctrine, and it is absurd to imagine, that he could facilitate that to the understanding of others, which he himself neither derstands nor believes.
[Compar'd their three Persons to three Apostles] By their three persons, you mean the three increated Persons of the ever blessed Trinity, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. Of the insolency and wickedness of this Comparison you shall hear by and by, onelyonly here let me tell you that we have endeavoured to make them ours, by a fiducial application of them to our selves, and it is no dishonor to us, though it be a blasphemous reflection on them, that they are in reproach called our three persons, because we appear in vindication of them, [saying, he did not understand how Paul, Peter, and Iohn, could be three persons, and one Apostle.] Neither did we assert it, either directly, or by consequence; For though we call the father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three Persons, or He's, according as they are held forth in the Scriptures, yet we say, there is a vast and infinite difference between three created, and the three increated persons; for three created persons, are so many distinct and separate Essences, as they are persons: but all the increated persons have the same simple and unseparated essence of God, Ioh. 10. 30. I and my Father are one, 1 Joh. 5. 7. These three are one, not one in person, for so the Father is foreign, Another from Christ, Ioh. 5. 32. There is Another, &c. and the Holy Ghost is foreign, Ioh. 14. 16. Another Comforter, i. e. Another, as to subsistence or manner of being, but one in nature and essence; so that though Paul, Peter, and Iohn, being of a finite nature, cannot be three persons and one Apostle, yet I am sure from the Scripture, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, being of an infinite nature, are three persons, and yet but one God; and till you can prove, that finite and infinite, or God and the Creature are all one, it will be in vain to make such a comparison, for the shaking of this Foundation-truth:—
[A most apt comparison to detect the ridicult of their doctrine.] Or rather to discover the monstrous blindness, hardness, and unbelief of his own and your hearts, who dare so boldly spit in the face of God, like men that have cast off all fear and reverence of God, as well as of men.—
[One Maddocks, whose zeal out-stript his knowledge, busling hard, as one that had some necessary matter for the decision of Controversie,] These extravagant expressions, designed to cast disgrace on my person, I purposely overlook, because I contend not for mine own honor, but for the honor of God.
[In stead thereof, perhaps to save his brethren, or shew himself, There was no need to save my Brethren, for I do not remember one word, either of Scripture, or right reason, that was opposed to what they asserted and proved; so that it was neither to save my Brethren, nor to shew my self, that I then appeared, but to stop a blasphemer's mouth, and to make manifest his wickedness, that he might proceed no further, 2 Tim. 3. 8, 9.
[Silences our further controverting the Principle,] Your further reproaching and reviling it, you mean; for if you would have disputed it, without your wicked comparisons and reflections, I would not have interposed.—
[By a Sylogistical, but false and impertinent Reflection upon G. W. his person, it runs thus: He that scornfully and reproachfully compares the Doctrine of the Trinity, of Father, Son, and Spirit, to three finite men, as Paul, Peter, and John, is a Blasphemer: But you G. W. have so done, Ergo,] That this is a false, and impertinent reflection on G. W. his person, you assert, but prove not; I shall therefore prove the contrary. And first, that the minor is not false, nor impertinent, appears by his words, and your confession; for you acknowledge that in scorn to the Doctrine of the Trinity, he compar'd it to three finite men, viz. Paul, Peter, and Iohn, which you call a most apt comparison to detect the ridicule of our Doctrine: Secondly, that the major is not false, nor impertinent, as is manifest; for foreign, to hurt or blast the fame of another, is all one, as to blaspheme him, and hence the perverse disputings and railings of men of corrupt mindes, that consent not to wholesom words, and the Doctrine that is according to Godliness, are called foreign, blasphemies, 1 Tim. 6. 4. And what can be more derogatory to the glory of the infinite God, than to fasten the imperfections and limitations of finite creatures upon him, and to assert three separate essences, as the necessary consequent of three distinct persons? this was the old Arian Plot, whereby he and his followers endeavored to prejudice the mindes of well meaning, but simple men, against the Deity of Christ, and the Holy Ghost; and this is to blaspheme God and the Scriptures.
[A strange way of argumentation, to beg what cannot be granted, and to take for granted what still remains a question, viz. that there are three distinct and separate persons in one essence,] What you mean by separate, I know not; if you mean so separate, as to destroy the unity and simplicity of the Divine Essence, I own no such separation; if you take it to be all one with distinct, then I say it was no begging of the question; for it had been sufficiently proved, that there are in the Divine Essence three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.—
[Let them first prove their Trinity, and then charge their Blasphemy.] It is not for want of proof, that this Doctrine is rejected and blasphemed, and still called our Trinity, in a way of reproach; assure your self the day is coming, when you will wish you had made it yours also: but you have a way to scorn all that is offered in defence of it, as mens lo here Interpretations, and lo there, and to brand all the determinations of Councels, Fathers, &c. concerning it, as the issues of Faction, Prejudice, and Cruelty; and there is little hope that any Arguments, though never so strong, will convince men of such proud & insolent humors: this Doctrine is more than hinted in the first line of the Bible, Gen. 1. 1. foreign the Verb of the singular number, signifies the Unity of the Divine Effence, and the Noun of the plural number, denotes the Trinity of persons, God that created Heaven and Earth is God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: Read also Iob 35. 13. God thy Makers, Heb. Consult Mr. Caryl on the place, Eccles. 12. 1. Remember thy Creators, &c. Isa. 54. 5. My Makers is thy husband, Heb. in all which Texts the Trinity of persons is denoted by words of the plural number: See also Isa. 42. 1. where you have the Father choosing and upholding the Son, and the Spirit put on him (as Mediator) three persons spoken of Mat. 3. 16, 17. and 28. 19. Ioh. 14. 16. there is Christ praying the Father, and he giving another Comforter, the Spirit of Truth; what can be more plain than a Trinity of persons in this Text? So Ioh. 15. 26. the Spirit sent by Christ from the Father, and Act. 2. 32, 33. 2 Cor. 13. 14. 1 Ioh. 5. 7. for brevity sake I onelyonly name the Texts: I might also adde, that the names, properties, or attributes, works, and worship of God, are frequently in the Scripture given to each of these three Persons, so that they are one and the same perfect and infinite Essence, each of them God, and one God by nature, but three persons. And now having proved the Trinity, W. Pen must either deny Moses and the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles, and God himself speaking from Heaven, or else confess the Blasphemy.
[But I must not forget this persons self-confutation, who to be plainer called them three Hee's. But what self-confutation it is to call three persons three Hee's, you neither do, nor can tell; that each of them is frequently spoken of in the Scripture as a distinct he, is so plain, you cannot deny it, and expressed by the Pronouns foreign. Ioh. 1. 2, 3. and chap. 16. ver. 8. 13, 14. 27. and I called them three Hee's, to try if you would own the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost under any Title, and you by refusing to call them three Divine Hee's, have made it manifest that your Quarrel is not with the word Person (as some then apprehended) but with the Doctrine or Fundamental Truth expressed by the three persons, viz. the modal distinction and essential union or one-ness of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which is no less than to deny and reject God; for though you pretend to own God the Father, yet in rejecting the Son, you reject the Father; for saith Christ, he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me, Luke 10. 16 and the beloved Disciple telleth us, that whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father, 1 Ioh. 2. 23.
[If he can finde a he without a substance, or prove that a subsistence is any thing else than the form of a he, he will do well to justifie himself from the imputation of ignorance.] That my calling the three persons, three Hee's, implies a He without a substance, is the first thing that you would here insinuate, but this is your gross ignorance of this great mystery: For each of these Hee s is by nature God, and hath the entire undivided nature, substance, or essence of God, and all that you can say to the contrary, is but like childrens shooting Paper-pellets against a Rock; your latter phrase discovers your ignorance of Philosophy, as much as the former doth of Divinity; for a subsistence is not the form of a he (as you suppose it to be) but it is foreign the manner of his being, the form of God the Father is his divine nature, but his subsistence is his manner of being in the relative property of the Father, and the form of God the Son is the same divine nature, but his subsistence is his manner of being in the relative property of a Son; and the form of God the Holy Ghost, is the same divine nature, but his subsistence, is his manner of being in the relative property of the Holy Ghost, as proceeding from the Father and the Son: and now having found a subsistence, that is not the form of a he, I hope I shall be justified from the imputation of ignorance, at least, as to this particular.
[And till their Hypothesis be of better authority, G. W. neither did, nor doth design mens inventions so much honor] What authority our Hypothesis is of, is at present left to the Reader to judge, but shall certainly be proved one day to be of such authority, as neither G. W. nor W. P. shall be able to withstand: But what you mean by designing mens inventions so much honor, is not easie to to conjecture, unless you would have us to think it is an honor to be reproached by G. W. and it is not impossible that they who thrust all expressions of true honor out of the world, should account their incivilities an honor to those on whom they bestow them.
[For it is to be remarked, that G. W. is no otherwise a Blasphemer, then by drawing direct consequences from their own Principles, and recharging them upon themselves.] What direct consequences did he draw from our Principles: his telling the people that this Doctrine was the cause of those gross apprehensions that ignorant people have of God the Father, as if he were an old man, and of Christ like a little childe, &c. and his comparing the three increated persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to three Apostles, Paul, Peter, and Iohn; and his asserting the separate essences in God, as the result of three distinct persons, are no direct consequences from our Principles: but these are the things for which he is justly charged with Blasphemy; and if it be Blasphemy to say that man is equal with God, I know not how it can be any thing less than Blasphemy, to say that God is but equal with man, either as to his essence, or subsistence, and that because three distinct men are three distinct substances, which was the meaning of his comparison, but is boldly asserted by you in your Pamphlet, page 13. Reas. 1. I tremble to see and read such black lines.
[So that he did not speak his own apprehensions, in this comparison, but the sense of their assertion.] Our assertion will bear no such sense; For though according to the Scripture, we call them Persons, or He's, in respect of their manner of subsistence, yet we still remove all imperfections, limitations, and separation from the Divine Essence.
[Therefore Blasphemer and Blasphemy are their own.] Your premises being disproved, your conclusion necessarily falls to the ground; he that made that unfit Comparison, and drew those reproachful consequences from this Scripture-truth, with a design to blast and overthrow the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost, he is the Blasphemer, and his is the blasphemy, but that was G. W. and W. P. therefore you are the Blasphemers, and yours is the Blasphemy: The Lord convince you both of this your wickedness, and give you repentance, that you may recant those damnable speeches, whereby you have not onelyonly blasphemed God your selves, but endeavored to provoke others to do the like: Now to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, the one Holy, and onelyonly Wise God, be glory now and ever.