The Foundation of God Standeth Sure, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. Ananswer to part of the 10, the 12, 13, 14, and 15 pages of W. P's Pamphlet, which he intituleth the Trinity of distinct separate persons in the Vnity of essence, refuted from Scripture, right reason, with information and caution in the close.
THe word separate person, I disown any further than we may conceive it to signify no more than distinct, (and so W. P. was told again and again in the meeting,) I need speak no more of that, since his endeavours are to refute the distinction not the separation of persons in the glorious and ever blessed Trinity. And his first attempt is to refute this Doctrine by Scripture. The Scriptures which he alledgeth to overthrow the Doctrine of the Trinity of persons, are such as prove the unity of the essence, that there is but one God, which we do not in the least deny, but have and do assert with as firme belief as he or any in the world can do; but though the Godhead, or Divine essence be but one, this is not inconsistent with the plurality and distinction of the three persons in the same Godhead.
And here it is very remarkable how W. P. doth discover weakness and want of learning in the proof of the unity of the Godhead by Scripture, for however he doth attempt to show something of a Scholar in quoting one Hebrew text in the margin, as if he were well acquainted with the original Hebrew tongue, so as to be able to read and understand it without punets, yet most ignorantly and rediculously he cites three texts, namely, Isa. 40. 25. chap. 48. 17. Psal. 71. 22. to prove Gods unity, in all which the Hebrew maketh no mention of it; the translation indeed is Holy one, and Holy one of Israel, and he very sillily writes ONE in great letters as if one did bear the emphasis of the place, when there is no such word as foreign one, in the Hebrew, only foreign Holy, and foreign thou Holy of Israel: in the new Testament he alleageth some Scriptures which the Socinians do make use of to prove that Christ is not God, one is Math. 19. 17. Iesus said unto him why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God. Whence no Socinian can rationaly infer that Christ is not God, any more than that he is not good; for his question doth not infer a denial of his Divinity or goodnesse, but is propounded according to the young man's apprehension of him, and by way of probation. For in other places (as hath been shown) Christ's Divinity is clearly enough declared. Another Text is Ioh. 17. 3. This is life eternal that they might know thee (Father) the only true God. In this place Christ excludeth not himself from being God, but, only, excludeth all false Gods; and if you mark it, the word only, as also the word one, doth belong to the predicate God, and not to the subject Father, it being not onelyonly thee to be the true God, but thee to be the only true God, and so it may be applyed to the Son, and Iesus Christ whom thou bast sent to be the only true God, which is signifyed in that place and expressed 1 Iob. 5. 10. we are in him that is true, even in his Son Iesus Christ, this is the true God and eternal life.
The other Scriptures prove that there is one God essentially in opposition unto all that upon any other account are called Gods, not being Gods by essence, all which do but assert that which is acknowledged and hath been already proved in the former Chapter that there is but one God. In the argument which W. P. draws from the fore-mentioned Scriptures, he doth again show his ignorance, if he know not that in several of these places the word one is not in the Hebrew; or his deceitfulness, if he know and dissemble it, and thinks by laying stress on the word one, to impose upon the understandings of the vulgar, as if there were some great force in his argument from those places, when indeed they prove not in the least what he alledgeth them for.
But allowing W. P. to draw his argument from those places, which do prove the unity of God; though God be declared and believed to be but one, it will not follow that the Divine nature doth not subsist in three persons; the Scripture indeed doth hold him forth as one God, but there it speaketh of his essence; and yet withal doth elsewhere sufficiently declare that in this one essence there are three distinct persons; therefore we professe our beleif of the Holy three (persons) as well as the Holy one God, and both according to the plain Scripture before urged for proof hereof, 1 Ioh. 5. 7. There are three that bare record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. But this distinction of one God and three persons so plainly signifyed in that Scripture, W. P. most impudently and blasphemously calleth impertinent: and the reason he giveth is, because God was not declared and believed incompleatly, or without his subsistance, nor did require homage from his creatures as an incompleat and abstracted being, &c. which is a most egregions non sequitur, besides that he fastneth that on us which neither we nor any Orthodox Christian ever yet affirmed, viz: that God was ever declared or believed incompleatly without his subsistance, or as an incompleat and abstracted Being; we know no such thing as the essence of God without a subsistance; we know the Divine nature only in the three persons, not abstracted from them, or being any way out of them, and so God is not manifested or worshipped without that which is absolutely necessary to himself, namely without his subsistance: but the Divine essence is worshipped as subsisting in the three persons, and so the blessed Trinity is not our nor any mans fiction (as he impiously speaks,) but this folish and absurd notion is his own fiction, or the fiction of some of his Socinian brethren.
After W. P's. vain attempts to refute the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Scripture, he fronts his other arguments with the swelling but false title Refuted from right reason, false I say, for besides that what ever attempt reason doth make for the refuting of any Scripture truth, which is the object of faith, as this is concerning the Trinity of persons in the unity of, the Divine essence, it doth hereby discover it self to be crooked and depraved reason, and the arguings from it are called the perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth. 1 Tim. 6. 5. compared with the fourth verse; W. P. (who before had charged me, for using Heathenish Metaphysicks in disputing for the Truths of God, though my terms were either Scripture-words, or carried Scripture-sense) doth here most Heathenishly make use of Metaphysical terms, in arguing against the truth, but that so weakly, that his Argumentation is so far from deserving the name of right reason, that more properly it may be called no reason, as shall be made evident in the Answer unto his Arguments, which if they seem crabbed, it is not because of the strength, but because of the obscurlty of them, for some of the phrases are so uncouch, and his reasoning are so odly jointed together; (to avoid that part of a Scholar, in putting them into a Sylogistical form,) that it is more difficult to find out what his cloudy brains conception and meaning is than to give answer unto any of his cavilling Arguments. And here having promised to reply to his reason, p. 10. why he flatly denied my minor proposition, (in the Sylogism before mentioned) wherein he argueth onelyonly against the conclusion, endeavouring to prove that there are not three subsistences, and the argument he useth being the same in sense and scope with his first argument under that which he calleth a Refutation from right reason; I shall answer both together, and omit nothing in his argument, that hath any show of cogency in it. His argument is thus: No one substance can have three distinct subsistances, and perserve its own unity, and not to repeat all his words in the obscure way that he propoundeth his arguments, but to help him in the methodizing of them; his consequence is, that every distinct Subsistance will have its own substance, and consequently that three distinct subsistances will require three distinct substances; consequently, if the Doctrine of the Trinity of subsistences were true, there would be three Gods. And in his first argument he argueth that every person is inseparable from it's own substance, and therefore Father, Son, and Spirit either are three distinct nothings; or if persons, then three distinct substances, and consequently three distinct Gods.
Answer: If Substance be taken here for Essence (as it must be,) otherwise it will conclude nothing against us, then the proposition is most false: that no one substance can have three distinct subsistances, and preserve it's own unity; for though a created Essence being finite, limited, and divisible, cannot be communicated unto any more than one subsistance; yet it followeth not that the divine Essence which is infinite and indivisible, cannot be communicated to several subsistances; neither doth W. P's. reason prove the contrary, viz: that every subsistance will have it's own substance, unlesse he can prove that each distinct subsistence must necessarily have it's own substance, (in God as well as Creatures) distinct from what the other subsistences have; For one and the same singular nature or substance may be, and is the substance or nature subsisting in each person of the Trinity; and so every subsistence hath it's own substance, and yet not distinct, but one and the same, and therefore as three Essences, so three Gods cannot be concluded from hence; and though every person in the Trinity be inseparable from it's substance, yet it doth not follow that the substance must be distinct in every person, though the persons be distinct, neither doth it follow that the persons are either three distinct nothings, (as W. P. blasphemously reproacheth the ever glorious Trinity,) or three distinct Gods, because the distinction is in regard of the personality, and not in regard of the Essence, and whereas Pag. 10. he seemeth to adde another reason, why the infinite Godhead cannot subsist in three manners or forms, (he means the three persons) because then one of them could not be a compleat subsistence without the other two, and so parts, and something finite would be in God; or if infinite, then there would be three distinct infinite subsistences, and by consequence there would be three distinct Gods.
Answer: Each person is a compleat person or subsistent without the personality or subsistence of the other two, that is, distinct from the other two; but not without the substance of the other two, which is the same in all three, from whence it doth no ways follow that parts or something finite is in God nor that there are three infinite subsistences, for though in the concrete every subsistent is infinite, yet in the abstract infinitenesse is not applicable to the subsistance: of which more in answer to the second argument, which is to the same purpose with the close of this page 13.
2. Arg. The Divine persons are either finite or infinite; if finite, then something finite is in God; if infinite, then there would be three distinct infinites, and consequently three Gods.
Answer: The Divine persons or subsistents are infinite in the concrete. The Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Ghost is infinite, the Father is omnipotent, the Son omnipotent. and the Holy Ghost omnipotent, and yet three are not three infinites, or three omnipotents, but one infinite, one omnipotent; and the reason is because these and all other essential attributes agree to the persons, onelyonly in regard of the Essence from whence they flow, and therefore though person or subsistent in the concrete be infinite, omnipotent, and the like, in regard of the Essence included therein; yet this can not be properly ascribed to the subsistence or personality, therefore though there be three distinct personalities, unto which infinitenesse is not ascribed, yet there being but one and the same single Essence in all the three persons, unto which infinitenesse is attributed, it doth not follow that there are three infinites, or the consequence that there are three Gods. But W. P. in his arguings confoundeth the person with the personality, the subsistent with the subsistence, the concrete with the abstract, taking the former for the latter; but if he should understand the person in the abstract for the personality or subsistence, then it is denied that either finitenesse for infinitenesse doth properly belong unto it; it being altogether improper to ascribe the property of the nature, to the subsistence of that nature in the abstract; as immortality and mortality do not agree to any particular subsistence as such, but to the nature in which it doth subject; or to instance in the subsistence of a man, it would be improper to ascribe the properties that belong to him unto his subsistence, to say that his subsistence in the abstract is either a learned or unlearned subsistence, a great one, or a small one; a white one or a black one; and so it is improper to say that either of the persons in regard of their personality, or subsistence, are finite or infinite, but in regard of their Essence in the concrete they are infinite, which Essence being but one in each, there is but one infinite, and by consequence but one God.
W. P's. third Argument is this: If each person be God, and that God subsists in three persons, then in each person there are three persons or Gods, and so from three they would increase to nine, and so in infinitum.
Answer: W. P. confoundeth again the concrete and the abstract together; it is granted that each person is God in the concrete, and that God (not in the concrete but in the abstract God essentially or the Essence of God,) doth subsist in three persons, from whence, it doth not at all follow that there be three persons in each person, but that there are three persons in one Godhead, and so his consequence of the persons encreasing to nine, and ad infinitum, is both ridiculous and absurd.
W. P's. fourth argument being built upon the supposition that we deny the persons to be infinite, which we have affirmed, it proveth nothing, and therefore requireth no answer; and I have not leasure to trace him with remarks upon his absurd arguings upon a false supposition, which he conceived we might have.
W. P's last argument is this: If these three distinct persons are one, then they are not incommunicable amongst themselves, but so much the contrary to be in the place of one another, for if the onelyonly God is the Father, and Christ be that onelyonly God, then is Christ the Father, and so round.
Answer: Though the three persons be one, that is, one Essence, yet it doth not follow that they are not incommunicable amongst themselves, and that they are in the place of one another. Here W. P. confounds again the persons and the personalities, the concrete and the abstract; the persons are in the one Essence or Godhead, and agree among themselves, yet these persons in regard of their personal properties, are incommunicable to each other; the subsistents are the same in regard of the Essence, the subsistences are not the same; and therefore though the only God be the Father, and Christ that only God, yet it followeth not that Christ is the Father, because Christ is the onelyonly God Essentially, that is, hath the Nature and Essence of God, and so hath the Holy Ghost, and yet both are personally distinguished from the Father.
The next thing that followeth under that head I need not repeat, it being nothing against us, we acknowledge the Divine nature to be inseparable from the three persons, and communicated to each, and each person to have the whole Divine nature; and likewise the Father to be in the Son, and Son in the Father, Ioh. 14. 10. and the Spirit in the Son; and we know no absurdity that followeth from hence, these persons being in each other by reason of the Essence, which is the same in every of them: and therefore the consequences he draweth from the denial hereof we have nothing to do with, so that W. P. more justly may take shame and ridiclousnesse unto himself.
W. P's. reasonings against the ever Blessed and Glorious Trinity falling to the ground, let us look into his Information and caution which he subjoyns, whether any thing of truth and congency be there to be found. There he pretends to inform the Reader concerning the original of this doctrine, and first he would have the Reader assure himself, that it is neither from Scripture nor reason. But I suppose most Readers will be more wise and cautious than to build their assurance upon the bold assertions, and crude reasonings of this presumptuous and Heaven-daring disputant. That this doctrine is not from reason, will be easily granted, yea that it is contrary to corrupt reason, such as W. P. hath plainly declared it self to be; it is a mystery which flesh and blood cannot reveal, but the Father which is in Heaven; yet so as it is not contrary to right and truly sanctifyed reason. And whereas W. P. asserteth that it is not from Scripture, he must not think to impose this upon Christians who have look't into the Word, any more than what he further asserts as to the first three hundred years, upon those that have look't into the writings of the ancient Fathers. The Doctrine of the Trinity is as old as the Scriptures themselves, and hath been proved out of the first Chapter of Genesis and other places of the Old Testament, by Mr. M. Chap. 4th. and abundantly out of the New Testament Chap. 5. The Readers that search and believe the Scriptures, will never believe W. Penn.
That the Doctrine of the Trinity came into the world above three hundred years after the first preaching of the Gospel by the nice distinctions, and too daring curiosity of the Bishop of Alexandria, is one of W. Pen's loud lyes.
It was indeed opposed by Arius about that time, who denied Christ to be equal to, and of the same substance with the Father, yet not first opposed by him, but by other hereticks before him; one of whose disciples (if not worse;) W. P. hath in his Pamphlet sufficiently proved himself to be; and if it were opposed before, sure it was known before, so that W. P. might have derived the pedigree of his abomination and blasphemy, (if he had consulted Church History) higher than from Arius. The miserable end of which blasphemour and dishonourer of the eternal Son of God, who voided his entrails with his excrements in a place of easement, and so died by an unheard of death, should caution all others from offering the like indignities unto the Son, as to disrobe him of his Deity, and number him amongst creatures like themselves, lest he stretch forth the arm of his Almighty power, and make them feel him (if they will not otherwise acknowledge him) to be God by bringing some remarkable destruction upon them in this world.
W. P. Thus was it conceived in ignorance brought forth and maintained by cruelty, &c. What a strange composition is here of impudence and folly! thus boldly and blasphemously to assert this great fundamental truth to be conceived in ignorance and maintained by cruelty, and yet in the next breath he owns persecution to be as well on the Arians side, as the other, and so by his own confession the Arian Doctrine was maintained by cruelty, and with how great cruelty and bitternesse, those which look into the Histories of those times may easily see. To say nothing of W. P's. so proud censuring so eminent a champion of Jesus Christ as Athanasius was, when he shall produce the grounds of his suspecting the Creed, commonly called The Athanasian Creed, to be the Results of Popish School-men, it will be time enough to answer that Clause.
Next W. P. cautioneth the Reader to take heed of embracing the Determinations of prejudiced Councils, &c. and yet giveth no reason why the Reader should be prejudic'd against them, except the belying of the Scripture testimony be a reason, which I suppose was the ground of their Determinations in this point; and no further are any Councils to be heeded than they do agree in their Results with the Scriptures. I hope the Reader will rather take heed of embracing such damnable Doctrine as this peremptory Dictatour would impose upon the understanding of the weak; and indeed weak they must needs be, and blinde too, and either renounce the Scriptures, or their own senses, that will suffer their assent to these great Scripture-truths, to be in the least enfeebled by any thing that this raw Disputer alledgeth for the maintaining of this Blasphemy and Heresie, or oppugning our received, and never to be shaken Foundations.
And here W. P. who had discovered before his skill in Logick, by arguing against the conclusion of my Syllogism, telling us he opposed the Minor; his skill in the Original Tongues, in noting the Holy ONE in great letters to prove Gods Unity, when the word One is not to be found in the Hebrew Text; doth make a third attempt to show something of a Scholar, but is as unhappy as before, and as grosly as in the two former attempts, doth signifie to all that understand Learning, that he is a proud boaster, and pretender to that which he never attained unto. He telleth us the Doctrine of the Trinity was never believed by the Primitive Saints, nor ever thus stated by any he hath read in three first Centuries, particularly Irenaeus, Just in Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Theophilus, (Theophilact, who lived several hundred after Athanasius, was cited by W. P. but I finde in the Errata it is corrected Theophilus) with many other, who appear wholly forreign to the matter in controversie. But who ever will peruse these Authors W. P. maketh mention of, with others who writ in those times, will finde both his lies to be very great, and his reading to be very little, notwithstanding this vain flourish and boasting.
The Doctrine of the Trinity is plainly enough to be gathered from several passages in Irenaeus, Lib. 1. Cap. 2. Ecclesia accepit fidem quae est in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem, & in unum Christum filium Dei incarnatum, & in Spiritum Sanctum, qui per Prophet as praedicavit. The Faith which the Church hath received, is in one God the Father omnipotent, and in Christ the Son of God, who was made flesh, and in the Holy Ghost, who spake by the Prophets. Do not these words hold forth a distinction of these three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? And cap. 19. Omnium Deus per verbum & spiritum omnia faciens, & gubernans. The God of all things, making and governing all things by his Word and Spirit. Here the making and governing of all things are attributed to the Word and Spirit, as well as to the Father; and as the former place doth show that he believed they were three distinct persons, so this latter place that he believed they were but one God.
Iust. Martyr foreign. The Title of this Book being concernig faith in the holy Consubstantial Trinity, sheweth he was not a stranger to this Doctrine. Read some of his words▪ foreign foreign. When as the Father doth beget the Son of his substance, and of the same doth produce the Holy Ghost, most rightly they do partake of the same Essence, and are dignified with one and the same Godhead. What can be more plain? And he goeth on foreign, &c. How can any say that he which begetteth, doth not differ from him which is begotten? that he which proceedeth doth not differ from him from whom he proceedeth? Here is Unity of Essence, and Trinity of distinct Persons asserted plainly. I shall add but one place more of many, in Resp. 17. ad Ortho. foreign Therefore there is but one God, in one indistinct Essence, and three Persons with distinction of their Persons, or Subsistences.
Tertullian Lib. de Trinitate adversus Proaxnean, doth express his faith in this doctrine throughout the whole Book, and argueth it strongly from the Scriptures.
Cap. 12. Si te adhuc numerus scandalizat Trinitatis quasi non connexae in unitate simplici, interrogo quomodo unicus & singularis pluraliter loquitur Faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram, Adam factus est tanquam unus ex nobis? quia adhunc adhaerebat illi Filius secundae persona, & tertia Spiritus, ideo pluraliter pronunciavit Faciamus, nostram nobis. If the number of the Trinity doth offend thee, as if it could not be joyned in the simple unity, I ask thee, how thee one and single (God) doth speak pluraly: Let us make Man after our Image, Adam is become like one of us? because the Son the second person and the Spirit the third, did adhere to him therefore he spake pluraly: Let us make, our, us, Chap. 13. Pater Deus, & Filius Deus, & Spiritus Sanctus Deus, the Father is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, Chap. 31. Pater, Filius, & Spiritus Sanctus tres crediti unum Deum sistunt. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost the three we are to believe in, bold forth but one God.
Theophilus Lib. 1. Com: in Evang:, doth acknowledge the Trinity. Margarita pretiosa est Sancta Trinitas quae dividi non potest nam in unitate consistit. The Holy Trinity is a precious Iewel, which cannot be divided, because it consisteth in unity.
Origen foreign in preaemio and Cap. 2. I am informed by a learned Author, doth expresse his Faith in this Doctrine, but I have not that Peice of Origen by me (as I have the rest) to consult. I could adde the testimony of other Fathers, who lived before the time W. P. maketh mention of, but it is enough to cite these for the detection of the falshood of W. P. who telleth us, that these Fathers were strangers to the Doctrine of the Trinity; wherefore the weakness, absurdity, falshood, and folly of this man being made manifest, I suppose people will be more cautious than to follow him and the guidance of the light which W. P. saith is communicated unto all, and forsake the true Light of the Word and Spirit, which alone can guide men into all truth.