THE Foundation of God standeth sure. OR, A Defence of those Fundamental, and so generally believed Doctrines Of 

The Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence.  
The Satisfaction of Christ the second Person of the Real and Glorious Trinity.  
The Justification of the Ungodly by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ.   Against the Cavils of W. P. I. a Quaker, in his Pamphlet, Entitled, The Sandy Foundation shaken, etc.  
Wherein his and the Quakers Hideous Blasphemies, Socinian and damnably-heretical Opinions, are discovered and refuted; W. P's ignorance, weakness, falsehoods, absurd arguings, and folly, is made manifest unto all.  
With a Call unto all such who in the simplicity of their hearts have been deluded by the Quakers, to come out from amongst them.  
And an Exhortation to all Christians, as they desire their Salvation, to beware of their damnable Doctrines, and not to come near the Tents of these enemies of Jesus Christ, lest they be swallowed up in their ruin.  
By Thomas Vincent, sometime Minister of Maudlin's Milk-street, London.  1 Joh. 5. 7. For there are Three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are One. Mat. 20. 28. The Son of Man came to give his life a ransom for many. Rom. 4. 5. To him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his Faith is counted for Righteousness. 
LONDON, Printed in the Year 1668.   

CHAP. I. The INTRODUCTION.  
WILLIAM PENN Entitleth his Pamphlet, The Foundation shaken; which however he termeth a Sandy Foundation, he acknowledgeth to be, at least, our Foundation: In the beginning of his Epistle to the Reader, he doth inveigh against Human Tradition; amongst which he numbereth not only those things which are Circumstantial, but also those Doctrines which Protestants generally believe to be Essential: And at the latter end of his Epistle he confesseth, the Doctrines of the Trinity, Satisfaction, and justification by imputed Righteousness, to be cardinal Points, and chief Doctrines, firmly believed as Articles of Christian Faith, which he telleth us he hath endeavoured the total enervation of. It is plain then, that this man striketh at the Root, and laboureth to overthrow the Foundation of Christianity, as we have built upon it, that he might overthrow the faith of weak and unestablished Christians: But the Foundation of God standeth sure; the great Fundamental Truths concerning our Lord Jesus Christhis Godhead, being the second Person of the Trinity, equal with the Father; his satisfaction which he made to God's Justice for Man's sin; and justification by his imputed Righteousness; are like a Rock which cannot be moved; against which, what ever waves do arise and beat, for removal of, though the noise and clamours be great, yet the attempts will be in vain; the Rock remaineth where it was, and the waves of opposition are broken to pieces▪ It is possible indeed that the Faith of some may suffer shipwreck by such assaults, because, they were never well grounded, fastened and fixed in the principles of Religion; because, they never received the truths of the Word either with true saving Faith, or true sincere Love; and therefore, the Lord hath threatened to give such up unto strong delusions to believe a lie, that they might be damned, 2 Thes. 2▪ 10, 11, 12. These are the persons who hear Christ's Word, and do not practise accordingly; therefore, our Saviour compareth them to fools that build their house upon the sand, upon which the rain descendeth, and the floods come and the winds blow and beat, and it falleth, and the fall therefore is great, Mat. 7. 26, 27. This is the Sandy Foundation which W. P. and the Quakers may shake, and overthrow, and be instrumental to pull down into the same ruin and destruction with themselves: But such who have built upon the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only true Foundation, 1 Cor. 3. 11. Such who have built indeed upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, whereof jesus Christ himself is the chief Cornerstone. Eph. 2. 20. They have built upon the Rock, (upon which whosoever stumbleth and falleth, will be broken to pieces; but upon which whosoever buildeth, is safe) therefore are not tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine; neither is it possible (because of Christ's care and undertaking for them) that they should be overthrown by any of the blasts of Satan, or any of his instruments, Math. 24. 24, If it were possible they shall deceive the very, Elect. The Quakers, however, some of them, and those of the chiefest and Ringleaders, have at sometimes let fall from their Black-mouths most hideous Blasphemies, and vented most damnably-heretical Doctrines: as for instance, George Fox positively affirmed thus, I am equal with God; this was deposed at a general Sessions in Westmoreland. james Nayler said in the hearing of Mr. Baldwin, a man of eminent trust and integrity, That he did witness, that he was as holy, just, and good, as God. In the Quakers book called, Saul's Errand to Damascus, it is asserted, That there is no distinction of Persons in the Godhead. Nayler and others have spoken to this effect, That whosoever expects to be saved by him that died at jerusalem, shall be deceived. I might mention many other such Blasphemies and Heresies; See The perfect Pharisee, by the Newcastle Ministers at the beginning. I say, though the Quakers have sometimes spoken out their blasphemies and corrupt Doctrines, yet for the most part they are so subtle, that they do not suffer the inward shape of their mind to appear so plainly abroad, lest every one should run from them with loathing and abhorrency; and however the import of their words be blasphemy and heresy, yet they shrowded their meaning under ambiguous phrases; and especially at their first assault and endeavours to gain proselities and followers, they cover the hook with the pleasing bait of sugared words and fair speeches, whereby they deceive those that are unskilful in the word of Righteousness, and in the method of their erroneous ways; whence it is that many ere they are aware, and not knowing whither they are going, are drawn into their pernicious ways, by reason of whom the way of truth is evil spoken of.  
But W. P. being himself a Quaker, and speaking in their name and vindication, as himself telleth us, p. 36. and they dispersing his books, and calling for an answer; and he being counted amongst them one of their chief, because of some smattering of learning which they conceit he hath, and which he himself seemeth to have a high conceit of (which how groundless it is, shall be discovered in the places where he doth attempt to show something of a Scholar) doth in his Pamphlet plainly assert and stand up for those Quaker-Doctrines which I shall prove to be blasphemous and damnable Heresies. And hath openly made it known to the World, that the Quakers in those three great points which he doth militate against, and endeavour the refutation of, are Rank Socinians, who more grossly err in the Fundamentals of Religion, than the Papists themselves. And because W. P. doth take occasion from the meeting with me and others in disputation (if it might be so called, where nothing was directly answered) to put forth his Pamphlet; and because he giveth but a lame, and in somethings a false account of transactions; therefore, I shall 1. give a true and brief Narative of what passed at the Meetting or Conference, with answer to his Postscript, 2 Establish the truths he objecteth against, by Scripture and Argument; 3 Answer his objections against those truths. Lastly, apply myself to deluded Quakers, for the recalling of them, and to all other Christians for the cautioning and establishing of them against the attempts of such as would draw them aside into the dark and dangerous path, which doth as certainly lead to Hell as the broad way of Profaneness.   

CHAP. II. A brief Narrative of T. V's meeting with some Quakers in Spittle-yard, with the occasion and transactions there, and some exceptions to the account which W. P. hath given thereof.  
MY first meeting with the Quakers was upon desire at the house of a friend in Hounds-ditch, in der to the preserving of some who were tempted to go amongst them; I met there several Quakers, two of which were the chief speakers: It would tyre the Reader, as I believe it did the hearers, to give relation of all their wild and impertinent discourse; I could not get them to speak out, and plainly to assert some of their Principles, through fear it is likely lest their mouths should be stopped before the people; yet after many words, they asserted the perfection of Saints in this Life, and the place of Scripture which they brought for the proof of their assertion was, 1 job. 3. 9 Whosoever is born of God, doth not commit sin. Unto this I answered, That the words in the Original were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (one of them interrupted me at the mention of the Original words, saying, It was the smoke of the bottomless pit) that the signification was, doth not make it his business to sin; and the meaning was, that such as were born again, did not make a trade of sin, did not go on in a course of sin; or did not commit sin, that is, with the full bend of the will as the wicked do; But that it could not be understood of not committing sin at all; because, the same Apostle in the same Epistle, Chap. 1. 8. telleth thus, If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. There he speaketh of himself and others that were born again, and plainly acknowledgeth they were not without sin. It was further urged, that if all that were born of God were perfectly free from sin; than it would follow, that who ever found any sin in them, were not born of God, consequently in state of nature, and so if they should die with any sin remaining, they would certainly go to Hell, and so none there, yea none in the world would be saved. Moreover I appealed to the experience of the best of them, whether they could say they were wholly free from sin, whether they had no irregular thoughts nor affections: this they would not affirm, neither did they absolutely deny: when they pleaded the perfection the Apostle Paul speaketh of, Phil. 3. 15. I replied, that the same Apostle v. 12. acknowledgeth that he had not as yet attained, neither was yet perfect; and if the Apostle Paul who had arrived to so great a height in grace that he was (how ever as some think little in bodily stature) yet taller by the head and shoulders than others in regard of his grace and spiritual attainments; how could Audacious Quakers (who if Quakers indeed because of their damnable opinions, I am confident have not the least degree of true grace) boast of perfection, as if they had got above the Apostle himself. I told them that all true Believers were perfect in a sense, they were Evangelically perfect, but not legally, not absolutely perfect; they had perfection of parts, but not perfection of degrees; and in this sense the work of Grace, though the work of God was not perfect in regard of ourselves, but by degrees was carried on unto further perfection. After this, when they could give no answer to the Arguments urged against them, they burst out into a clamour, and talking all altogether, opening their mouths as wide as they could, and shutting their ears as hard as they could, repeating the same things over and over again; You make yourselves the Patrons of sin; He that committeth sin is of the Devil; And whilst they pleaded, That all which were born of God were without sin, they discovered themselves to be none of those that were born of God by the sin which they were palpably guilty of in the multitude of their words, especially in their wresting the Scripture from its genuine sense & meaning, and in the perverse dispute of their corrupt minds. Our discourse was to this effect, wherein they discovered so much of their rotten Tenants, so much of their folly and weakness, being unable to maintain what they had asserted, that one said to them, An't please God I will believe you no more. Others that were wavering before, were confirmed against them, and established in the ways of Truth, and so continue still to this day.  
The next week after this meeting I went into the Country for a fortnight, and in my absence, two of my friends (Mother and Daughter) went off to the Quakers; the Daughter was the first whose inclinations and humour carried her that way for some time before; for the preserving of whom from the Quakers delusions upon the request of the Mother, I had several discourses with her; I gave several reasons against their tenants and ways, unto which she could give no answer, nor any ground of her liking their ways, which was not answered; only a perverse will (which I am informed her Mother hath so much indulged in other things, unbefitting a parent, that in this, it is like to prove the distinction both of mother and child) did lead her this way, against all reasons and persuasions; I acknowledge I did say, It was worse to go to the Quakers meetings than to a Bawdy-house; because the defilement of the soul with their damnable erors, which there she was likely to contract, was more deep and more hardly to be washed off, than the defilement of whoredom or adultery; and what our Saviour said of the Pharisees, I may say of the Quakers, that harlots go into the Kingdom of Heaven sooner than they: moreover I told her that, If there stood a cup of poison in the window, I would rather drink it than suck in their damnable Doctrines, because poisoning of the body was not so bad as the poisoning and damning of the soul. I said further (not that I would give her up) but that, if she went again, God might give her up to believe a lie that she might be damned: the former is come to pass, and the last is most likely to follow; and now let W. P. call my zealous endeavours to keep a poor soul out of the dark path, which leadeth to utter darkness, peevish zeal, and railing accusations, and what he pleaseth, I am sure I neither did, nor spoke any thing unbecoming a Minister of the Gospel. W. P. chargeth me with cautioning the Pater-familias to exercise his authority, etc. This is false, and the Master of the Family I am confident will not a verr it, and why he should charge it I know not, except that he might usher in those expressions, Forgetting that they hold their liberty by connivance and the many appeals made by their nonconforming brethren for indulgence; unto which I say that we do not forget it, neither would we be unthankful either unto God or man for it; and if by the appeals made by our nonconforming Brethren for indulgence, he doth mean and reflect upon the grateful acknowledgement, which some of them lately made unto the Supreme Magistrate, under the protection of whose government we all do live. He discovers little of a Christian spirit, if he finds fault with it, since we have a command, 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. That supplications, prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty; and therefore as we make conscience to pray for our Sovereign, so we look upon ourselves, as obliged to give thanks both to God, and unto him when through his clemency and favour, we have liberty to live peaceable and quiet lives in all Godliness and honesty. But to proceed in the narrative: the daughter had such influence upon the mother, that she was instrumental to draw her into this pernicious way, which when I heard of, I went to their house to use my endeavours for the reducing of them; where I had not been long, but the two men I had before discoursed with in Hounds-ditch came in; amongst other things they flatly denied that there were three persons in the Godhead, and that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost was a threefold variety or manifestation of God. I did not think fit to enter into a dispute concerning that and other points then; because it was so late, and because I desired to have witnesses on my side, as well as theirs. This was the occasion of my meeting with the Quakers at my House, which W. P. speaketh of, and was present at, but it is false (what he saith) that I bespoke my usual Auditory, an hour before the Quakers were appointed to come, for I neither gave public notice, neither spoke to any of a sooner time than I sent sent word to the Quakers of. W. P. chargeth me for bringing not only a second, but a third and fourth, lest I should incur a nonplus, etc. That I should bring one with me was appointed when the Meeting was promised, that our number might be the same, with the two that were to dispute with us, and whom we two had met with before; but if other two of my brethren were present, it was without any desire of mine, but only their our inclination brought them thither for some time after our discourse began; and if they spoke any thing, it was not because they thought I stood in any need they should help me out, but because of G. W's confused discourse and indirect answers to my Arguments, they attempted to bring him to some order, and to have gained an answer from him, that the dispute might more intelligibly and successfully have proceeded.  
When the assembly was come together I began with prayer, which was no sooner ended, but (the other two Quakers who promised to meet with, us not appearing,) George Whitehead began to speak, and declared that he was there come to defend the Quakers opinions, which I had asserted were damnable; and when he would have first discoursed of the light within them; I told him and the people that I owned my charge of damnableness on the Quakers opinions, and though I did not decline to dispute about the light he spoke of, and other errors of the Quakers, yet I thought it most proper to begin with the Doctrine of the Trinity, denied by the Quakers I last met with, who directly affirmed that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were not three distinct persons, but a threefold variety or manifestation, and this I asserted to be a damnable error, and would prove it to be so, and therefore I asked him whether his opinion was the same with theirs, unto which M. Danson added, that he had asserted the Quakers to have an infallible spirit, so that what was the opinion of one, must consequently be the opinion of all, and therefore that he must either own this opinion, or disown them for Quakers. G. W. at first did neither plainly assert nor directly deny the opinion, but filled his mouth, and the people ears with a multitude of words, wherein was so much ambiguity and obscurity, that the sentiments of his mind were not easily to be perceived. But W. P. standeth up, falsely and blasphemously reflecting on the Doctrine of the Trinity, as an error sprung up three hundred years after Christ, and directly denied that there were three distinct persons in the Godhead, with three distinct incommunicable properties. Then I asked G. W. whether he owned W. P. for a Quaker, and not being disowned, I urged an argument against his assertion.  


If the Father be another from the Son, and the Son another from the Father, and the Holy Ghost another from each, and all three are God; and the property of the Father is to beget the Son, and the property of the Son, to be begotten of the Father, and the property of the Holy Ghost, to proceed from the Father, and the Son; then there are three distinct persons in the Godhead, with three distinct incommunicable properties.  
But the Father is another, etc.  
Therefore there are three, etc.    
When I had propounded my argument, W. P. shrunk, saying he did not come thither to dispute, but left it to G. W. who neither would repeat my syllogism, nor give any direct answer, either to the Major or Minor; I could have multiplied words as G. W. did, and applied myself to the people, instead of speaking to the purpose, but this I forbore propounding my argument Sylogistically, and the distinction of three persons being denied, though no direct answer given to the argument urged to prove it; I added another argument from 1 job. 5. 7. There are three that bare record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. 

The Father, Word, and Holy Ghost are either three substances, or three manifestations, or three operations, or three persons, or something else.  
But they are not three substances, nor three manifestations, nor three operations, nor any thing else.  
Therefore they are three persons.    
G. W. maketh no direct reply to this syllogism, but findeth fault with the terms, and W. P. telleth us that God did not use to wrap his Truths in Heathenish Metaphysics, but in plain language; but let the Reader judge whether there be the heathenish Metaphysics he speaketh of in this syllogism, wherein there is not a word but what is to be found in the Scripture; not but that some words may be made use of, in explaining Scripture Truths, which are not in the Scripture themselves, so they express the thing which the Scripture doth signify (in other Phrases more proper to the languages, the Scripture were wrote in) and I could make it evident out of the Books of the Quakers themselves, that they use many words which are not in the Scripture. No answer could be obtained to my argument in the Meeting, but W. P. taking the argument into further consideration, attempteth at length in his Pamphlet to make a reply, and first taxeth me to be as little a Scholar, in regard of the manner of my syllogism, as a Christian in regard of the matter of it. My syllogism was urged to prove the three glorious persons in the Godhead, the denial of which doth necessarily infer the denial of Christ to be God equal with the Father, and let any judge who approveth himself most a Christian, either W. P. in denying this, or I in asserting and proving it. As to the manner of my syllogism, some Quakers (it may be) who know not what a syllogism is, may believe that it bespeaks me to be little a Scholar, but no Scholar will judge so from that syllogism, which they know to be according to rule, and to carry a firm proof in it drawn from the Induction of particulars, but W. P. discovereth himself to be that which he taxeth me for, namely, little a Scholar, and though he hath been at the University, yet that either he never read Logic, or never understood Logic, or hath forgot Logic, or that purposely he hath laid aside Logic, that herein he might be like to the Quakers in answering nothing to the purpose; for besides his finding fault with my syllogism, his reply to it doth most of all detect his want of Learning and gross absurdity, for which he would have been hissed out of the Schools, had he done it in the University; for though he telleth us he will give his reason, why he will deny my Minor, yet most ridiculously and ignorantly he argueth against my conclusion. The Minor as he repeateth it is: But they are not three manifestations, three operations, three substances, or three some things else, besides subsistences.  
The conclusion, Therefore three subsistences.  
If he had indeed denied the Minor, he must have asserted that they were either three substances, or operations, or manifestations, or something else; but he mistaketh the conclusion for the Minor, and argueth that they are not three subsistences. No one substance can have three distinct subsistences, etc. W. P. argueth against the Trinity of persons in the unity of Essence, behold the Christian! he argueth against the conclusion of a syllogism calling it the Minor, behold the Scholar! yet because his argument is against our Doctrine, therefore I shall give answer thereunto, and his other cavils together in the sixth chap. After this, he reflected upon Mr. Madox in the 11. page, whose answer you have in the following Chapter.   

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 joined to idols, counted the great things of God's Law a strange thing, Host 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.  
[Compared 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, only here let me tell you that we have endeavoured to make them ours, by a fiducial application of them to ourselves, and it is no dishonour 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 john, 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, joh. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Another from Christ, joh. 5. 32. There is Another, etc. and the Holy Ghost is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, joh. 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 john, 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 maddock's, whose zeal outstripped his knowledge, bustling hard, as one that had some necessary matter for the decision of Controversy,] These extravagant expressions, designed to cast disgrace on my person, I purposely overlook, because I contend not for mine own honour, but for the honour of God.  
[In stead thereof, perhaps to save his brethren, or show 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 show myself, 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 compared it to three finite men, viz. Paul, Peter, and john, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to hurt or blast the fame of another, is all one, as to blaspheme him, and hence the perverse dispute and rail of men of corrupt minds, that consent not to wholesome words, and the Doctrine that is according to Godliness, are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 endeavoured to prejudice the minds 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, than 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 yourself 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 men's lo hear Interpretations, and lo there, and to brand all the determinations of Counsels, Fathers, etc. 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 humours: this Doctrine is more than hinted in the first line of the Bible, Gen. 1. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 job 35. 13. God thy Makers, Heb. Consult Mr. Caryl on the place, Eccles. 12. 1. Remember thy Creators, etc. Isa. 54. 5. My Maker's 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 joh. 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 joh. 15. 26. the Spirit sent by Christ from the Father, and Act. 2. 32, 33. 2 Cor. 13. 14. 1 joh. 5. 7. for brevity sake I only name the Texts: I might also add, 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 he's. But what self-confutation it is to call three persons three he'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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. joh. 1. 2, 3. and chap. 16. ver. 8. 13, 14. 27. and I called them three he'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 he'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 joh. 2. 23.  
[If he can find 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 justify himself from the imputation of ignorance.] That my calling the three persons, three he'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 He 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 children's 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 men's inventions so much honour] 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 men's inventions so much honour, is not easy to to conjecture, unless you would have us to think it is an honour to be reproached by G. W. and it is not impossible that they who thrust all expressions of true honour out of the world, should account their incivilities an honour 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 child, etc. and his comparing the three increated persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to three Apostles, Paul, Peter, and john; 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 only blasphemed God yourselves, but endeavoured to provoke others to do the like: Now to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, the one Holy, and only Wise God, be glory now and ever.   

CHAP. IU. The Conclusion of the Narrative, with an Answer unto W. Pen's Postscript and Cavils against T. V's Sermon.  
TO conclude the Narrative of our meeting with the Quakers in Spittle-yard; when I saw I could get no answer to the Arguments I had urged for the proof of the Trinity, and the day was now worn away, I thought it would be but lost time, and imposing upon the Auditory, to hold them longer there in discourse with such rambling Disputants, (who expressed cunning in nothing more than in putting by the thrusts and dints of Arguments with diverting speeches, which if they had received the force of with direct reply, their weakness would quickly have appeared to the people, by their falling down before them) therefore calling for silence, I did shut up the Discourse with prayer; and here W. P. puts forth the sting of the serpent, and discovereth the profaneness of his spirit, in terming my prayers strangely affected Whines; What more opprobious terms would the Damn Blades of the times, or the most wicked Scoffers of God and Godliness have used? and whether I falsely accused them for Blasphemers unto God, let the Hearers of their Discourse, and the Readers of his Pamphlet, with the Answer, judge. That there was stigmatising the Quakers with the name of Blasphemers, is owned and proved; the other of Impudent Villain, as also that there should be striking, I am confident is a falsehood, for I never either saw it, or heard any complain of it; and it is well known that in all our meetings there is peace, and if there were any rudeness it was when the Quakers came amongst us. I am sure it was very rude in them to stay and make such a bawling amongst the people after a dismiss was required, & when those which could have answered (I cannot say stilled) them, were retired. W. P. tells the Reader, that T. V. came palely down stairs. I fear W. P. hath some defect in his eyesight, and indeed if the eyes of his body were no clearer than the eyes of his mind, he might easily mistake; T. V. had more reason to blush to hear the hideous Blasphemies which were vented by them; surely he had no reason to look pale through fear of any big Arguments which they had used against the truth, lest they should have knocked him on the head as he came down stairs. W. P. chargeth T. V. with a promise of another meeting with them; the promise was not absolute, as several can witness; if it had been, it could not be called a breach of promise, if he sent them word he would meet with some of them, as G. W. W. P. and a few others, since points might more calmly be debated, and truth might in likelihood be better sifted before a few, than before such a multitude.  
And as to that which W. P. speaketh of clearing themselves from their Accusations (of Blasphemy he meaneth) I wonder he should ever think to wipe off the name of a Blasphemer, except he should renounce his error, there being Blasphemy in the very denial of the Doctrine of the Trinity; so that the greater the multitude, the greater would have been his shame; but he hath taken a course to proclaim himself a Blasphemer and Heretic before more than that Auditory; and if such a vindication of himself doth yield them any satisfaction, he hath it. W. P. further informeth the Reader of his visiting my Meeting on a Lecture-day, and that I (showing both injustice and cowardice) shamefully slunk away, & so baulked a defence of my own Principles. Unto this I answer, that they gave me no notice before of their coming; that I had engaged before by promise to meet with some friends about business, so soon as I had done; that I did not think it fit to dispute with Quakers after preaching a Sermon, and my purpose is never to do it, because I look upon it as the devil's plot, hereby to steal away the precious seed of the Word out of the minds of the people, that so it may prove unfruitful. Further I told W. P. there was a Letter in the house in order to a meeting with him for discourse of the Principles, wherein was proposed some conditions, viz. that they would dispute Sylogistically, that they would plainly assert their principles before, which we should dispute of, four were named, with desire to know whether they would own them; But when I perceived that they made such a noise, and would not receive my answer why I did not think fit to stay, and discourse with them at that time, I went away from them, but neither shamefully nor cowardly, except in the apprehensions of such who take any occasion, to fasten reproach upon the Ministers of the Gospel. And yet whatever reason I had then to retire, & though no answer were given in the dispute before to either of my arguments; some have not spared to report in the Town, that I was worsted by the Quakers, which how unreasonable it is, those which read this narrative, may easily judge. And whereas W. P. at the conclusion of his Book, doth charge us for want of zeal for our Principles, want of Love to our Reputation, and want of Conscience in our Promises, because he said we have evaded the many opportunities offered for treaty. I answer, that these are false aspersions cast upon us without any good ground, there were indeed Letters passed, and the conditions before offered not being in full accepted, M. D. and myself intended, and accordingly I sent them word, to meet with them and fully to conclude together upon the conditions, and the time, and place of meeting; but at that time Mr. D. had some extraordinary occasion that called him out of Town and could not be there; I was at home expecting him every minute, till the time was almost slipped; when W. P. and another came to my house, whom I gave to understand that Mr. D. was not yet come, but I thought it was somewhat extraordinary that kept him away; W P. required his presence elsewhere: about two or three days after, Mr. D. came to Town and to my house, and we both of us resolved to meet with them that week, but before I could send W. P. word, I had information of a Book he had in the Press against me; and then I judged that a meeting with him would not be of such signification as to give answer to him in the same way as he hath written against me and the truth, therefore I did forbear to meet, and began to write. And now let any judge whether W. P's calumnies are deserved. Before I shut up this Chapter, I shall give a brief reply unto W. P's Postscript of animadversions, on some particulars in my Sermon which he heard, of which he took notes, not for his edification as others do, but that he might pick out something to cavil at, and reproach the Doctrine withal; He termeth them contradictictions, serting them in columns, one over against another. And here he doth shamefully again discover his weakness and want of learning; if he had known what a contradiction is, surely he would have blushed to give that term to the things he there maketh mention of, which have not so much as an inconsistency together, except the line he putteth between them should make it; What contradiction or falsehood is it for a Person to overcome the world, and the victory in this life to be imcompleat? Were not the Canaanites overcome by the children of Israel, their force subdued? and yet the victories they had over them were not so complete, but that some remained amongst them, who were like pricks & thorns that did them mischief, and sometimes rose up in rebellion against them. What contradiction is it for Persons to be in Christ and cast off the Old man, etc. And this, that worldly lusts cannot be extirpated out of God's people in this world. May not? have not worldly lusts a being and some power to oppose in God's people, where they have lost their rule, and their Iron yoke is taken off from their necks? will not the experience of all God's people bear witness to this, and what else meaneth that of the Apostle, Gal. 5. 17. The Flesh lusteth against the spirit and Rom. 7. 22. I see another Law in my members warring against the Law of my mind, etc. was not the Apostle one of God's people? what contradiction is this much like the former God's people overcome their lusts, & this their lusts sometime take them captive? Doth not the Apostle add, Rom. 7. 22. that the Law in his members did lead him captive? may not a conqueror be lead captive sometimes? may not a man be victus in praelio & victor in bello, overcome in some skirmishes, and yet a conqueror in the war? the Heathen will tell you this, and should it then seem so strange in Divinity? what contradiction is it for sin to Tyranizeover believers, but not to have dominion, it's in captivity in chains? as if a slave in chains might not sometime break loose, and tyrannise for a while, and yet not be said to have dominion, because he hath no settled rule, but is quickly brought under, and fastened in his bonds again; what Bedlam-distinction then is it (as W. P. calleth it) between the tyranny and the dominion of sin? if his common sense (he sayeth it is against,) were like all sincere Christians common sense & experience, he would not thus groundlessly cavil: what contradiction is it, you must Overcome the world, or the world you, and If you fight you will overcome them; or this▪ He leadeth them captive, and They sometime take him captive. Can you forbear smiling at the man? he calleth these things contradictions, But instead of my Sermons deserving the imputation of contradictory, his cavils do justly lay him under the imputation of weakness and absurdity.   

CHAP. V. The Doctrine of the Trinity of distinct persons in the unity of the Divine Essence, asserted and proved.  
THe Trinity of Persons in the unity of the Divine Essence, and the unity of the Divine Essence in the Trinity of Persons, that three should be one, and one should be three; that three should be distinguished, but not divided; that one should not be another, the first should not be the second, nor the second third, nor the second or third the first, and yet the first, second, and third the same; that the first should be in the second, and the second in the first, and both first and second in the third, and that without composition, without confusion, all related to one another, and all distinguished one from another by incommunicable personal properties, and yet all one and the same in regard of one individual Essence, this is such a mystery as doth exceed the weak and narrow understanding of the most enlightened and clear sighted Christians fully to comprehend: some by gazing too long upon the Sun become blind; and some by prying too much into this mystery, and attempting to bring it to the standard and module of their reason have lost the sight thereof and sunk into gross apprehensions, and denied either the unity of the Godhead, affirming the three persons to be three distinct Gods, or denied the Trinity, affirming the Godhead to be without three distinct persons; thus while they have professed and conceited themselves to be wise, they have proved themselves to be fools, & void of true understanding, by changing the glory of God into that which is unworthy of him. But we, having a sure word of Prophecy in the Scriptures, which is like a light shining in a dark place, aught to give heed thereunto, and conform all our conceptions of God according to the discoveries which he hath made of himself in his word; God knoweth himself better than any creature can know, and what he hath spoken of himself, must needs be so because he cannot represent himself otherwise than he is, and if there be a mystery in him which we cannot reach, we add folly to our weakness if we do in the least question it: reason, it may be, will leave us in our search after the Deity in the Trinity, and the Trinity in the Deity; but where reason faileth, Faith must supply its room; the proper object of Divine Faith is such things as we purely do assent unto upon Divine authority; such are not only Histories and Prophecies, but also Mysteries, which reason cannot demonstrate unto us: in this mystery of the Trinity we must exercise our Faith though we cannot clear it to ourselves by demonstration: not as if we were to lay reason quite aside in this thing, or trample it under foot; not as if we should put out the eye of reason that we might see more clearly with the eye of Faith; for though this mystery be above reason, yet it is not against reason; yea there is the greatest reason in the world that we should assent unto that for truth which God hath revealed of himself in his word, because he is a God of truth, and nothing is more true than that which God hath spoken. Wherefore if the Scriptures have revealed that there are three distinct persons in one Divine Essence, it is a certain truth, and it is reason and duty that every one should assent unto it though the mystery of it, there being no such thing to be found in nature, cannot be fully comprehended. Here than I shall propound my assertion, and prove it out of Scripture.  
My assertion according to the generally believed Doctrine of the Church of God, is this, That there are three distinct subsistents or persons in the same single Divine Essence or Godhead.  
The argument bottomed upon the Scripture to prove my assertion is this: 

If the Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one, and the Father is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, and the Father, Son and Holy Ghost be three distinct subsistents or persons; then there are three distinct subsistents or persons, Father; Son, and Holy Ghost in the same single Divine Essence or Godhead.  
But the Divine Essence or Godhead is, and can be but one, and the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct subsistents or persons.  
Therefore there are three distinct subsistents or persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the same single Divine Essence or Godhead.    
The consequent of the major proposition is plain and firm, that no man of reason can in the least question or deny.  
The minor proposition is that which must be proved, and there are five things in the proposition to be proved: 1. That the Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one. 2. That the Father is God. 3. That the Son is God. 4. That the Holy Ghost is God. 5. That the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct subsistents or persons.  
1. The Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one, Deut. 6. 4. Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord, Isa. 44. 6. Thus saith the Lord, I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God, Isa. 45. 21, 22. There is no God else besides me, a just God and Saviour, there is none besides me; look unto me and be ye saved all the ends of the Earth, for I am God and there is none else. And it cannot be otherwise for if there were more than one God, than the Godhead might be divided, it might be limited, and by consequence would be finite and so not God, because God is infinite. I need not insist upon this because the unity of the Godhead is not denied by the adversaries I have to deal withal.  
2. The Father is God, 1 Cor. 8. 6. To us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him. I need not multiply places of Scripture, nor add arguments to prove that the Father is God, since it is generally acknowledged by all that acknowledge a Deity and the Scriptures.  
3. The Son is God, this William Penn plainly denieth, he denieth that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, wretched blasphemy! that would thrust the Lord Jesus Christ off from the Throne of his Godhead? His denial of the Divinity of Christ, as well as the Divinity of the Holy Ghost is plain enough. I shall repeat his words as they lie in his first argument against the three distinct persons in the Godhead, page 13. And since the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God (which their opinion necessitates them to confess) then unless the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct nothings, they must be three distinct substances, and consequently three distinct Gods. I shall answer the argument in its proper place, only observe here that he denieth the Son and Spirit to be God, by a plain consequence, for first he telleth us that our opinion necessitates us to acknowledge that the Father is God, and the Son God, and the Spirit God, which showeth that his opinion is otherwise that the Son and Spirit are not God; especially it followeth from the scope of the argument, which is to prove that if the Father be God and the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, than there are three distinct Gods; but W. P. having plainly asserted his belief that there is but one God, he must of necessity deny by his argument, that the Son and Holy Ghost are God, for neither he nor any Socinian of them all, will deny that the Father is God. Behold here the Christian! that hath offered such an affront and indignity unto the Son and Spirit, as to divest them (what in him lieth) of their Divinity; is not this a treading of the Son of God underfoot, and doing despite to the spirit of grace? and should not this cause the hearts of all sincere Christians who have any zeal for their master's honour, to arise with indignation against such Black-mouthed blasphemers, and to abhor their opinions and ways? but more of this in the exhortation at the latter end; the Heathenism, abominableness and foulness of this opinion, being such a blasphemy and reproach of the eternal Son of God, may excuse a little disgression to express my abhorrency thereof.  
The thing to be proved is, that the Son is God, I do not mean nominal, so as those are that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth; but really so, that he is God coessential, coequal, coeternal with the Father: The only proof of this is to be drawn from the Scripture.  
I. Joh. 1. 1. 3. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. By the Word we are to understand the Essential, not the written Word, namely, the Son, the only begotten of the Father, which is Christ, it being the same whom john came to bear witness of, ver. 7. the same which was made flesh, and dwelled amongst them, ver. 14. Now that this Word, or Son of God, is God, is evident from this place, where 1. He is called God, The Word was God. 2. It is said, All things were made by him. So Col. 1▪ 16. For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things were created by him, and for him. Whence it followeth, 1. That he himself was not made, for than he must be made by himself, which is absurd and impossible; and if he were not made, than he is no creature, and if no creature, than God; all things that have a being, being divided into God and his creatures.  
2. It followeth hence that all things being made by him, that he is the Creator, that he is Infinite in Power and Wisdom, and Goodness, as his works of Creation do demonstrate.  
3. It followeth that all things being made by him, that he was before all things, as it is said expressly, Col. 1. 17. And he is before all things; that he was before the beginning of time, when creatures received their beings, it being necessary that he which made creatures, should be before the creatures he made, and therefore he must be eternal, and by consequence that he must needs be God, none being eternal a part ante in respect of heretofore, but God.  
II. Joh. 8. 58. jesus said unto them; Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was I am. That the Jews did apprehend him to assert himself to be God, is evident by their taking up stones to cast at him for the Blasphemy, which they through their unbelief of his Deity, did think he had spoken. And that he did really hereby assert himself to be God, is evident from the words themselves: I Am is the Name whereby God made himself known to Moses, and the children of Israel, Exod. 3. 14. And God said unto Moses, thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel; I Am hath sent me unto you. I am doth signify infinite, eternal, necessary, independent Being, & this Christ doth apply to himself, therefore he is God. Moreover, in our Saviour's saying, Before Abraham was I am, it must needs have a reference to his Divine Nature; for in regard of his humane nature the Jews spoke truth, v. 57 Thou are not yet fifty years old; as man, he was a son of Abraham, and born many generations after him; therefore his Being before Abraham (yea before the world, by the former Scriptures proved) hath a reference to his Divine Nature and Godhead.  
III. Joh. 3. 13. And no man hath ascended unto heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven. That Christ was not in heaven at that time, as man, is evident because he was upon the earth speaking to Nicodemus, yet he telleth him, He is in heaven, that is, as God he filleth both heaven and earth.  
IV. Rom. 9 5. Whose are the Fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever, Amen, Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, that setteth forth his humane nature. Who is over all God blessed for ever, that evidently doth prove his Divine Nature. The Title of God with universal Sovereignty, and eternal Blessedness, cannot without blasphemy and absurdity be ascribed unto any creature, as it is here unto Christ.  
V. Philip. 2.6. Who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God. In this Scripture there are two Proof that Christ is God: 1 He is said to be in the form of God: by the form of God we can rationally understand nothing but the Essence of God; and to be in the form of God, is to subsist in the Essence of God, Christ subsisting eternally in the Essence of God, must needs be God. 2. It is said, He thought it no robbery to be equal with God, that is, he was equal with God without robbing God of his honour, without any detraction from the Deity; And none can be equal with God, but he that is God, and such is Christ.  
I might here add for the proof of Christ's Divinity, all those Scriptures which ascribe the same divine Attributes to Christ, as Eternity, Heb. 1. 8. Unto the Son he saith▪ Thy Throne O God, is for ever and ever. Omniscience, joh. 21. 17. Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee. Omnipresence, Math. 28. 20. Lo, I am with you always. Omnipotence. In making all things, as before, and upholding all things by the word of his power, Heb. 1. 3: As also those Scriptures which ascribe the same honour and worship to Christ, which is due only to God. In him we must believe, Joh. 14. 1. In his name we must be baptised, Math. 28. 19 Upon his name we must call, 1 Cor. 1. 2. At his name we must bow, Phil. 2. 10. None can reasonably question Christ's Deity, who give credit to the Scriptures Authority.  
4. The fourth thing is to prove that the holy Ghost is God, which W. P. also doth deny, and this also I shall prove from Scripture.  
I. But Peter said, Act. 5. 4, 3. Ananias why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the holy Ghost, to keep back part of the price of the Land? etc. Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. Him whom the Apostle calleth Holy Ghost in the 3d. verse, he calleth God in the 4. verse; and him whom he calleth God in the 4th verse, he calleth the Spirit of the Lord in the ninth verse. How is it that ye have agreed to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?  
II. 1 Cor. 12. 4, 5, 6. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same spirit; and there are differences of Administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. He that is called the same Spirit in the 4th. verse, is called the same Lord in the fifth verse; and the same God which worketh all in all in the sixth verse, and that what is spoken of Administrations and Operations in the fifth and sixth verses, is attributed to the Spirit, as appeareth by the seventh verse, where they are called, The manifestation of the Spirit given to every man to profit withal; and more plainly verse 11. But all this worketh that one and the same Spirit, dividing unto every man severally, as he will. And what can be more plain to prove that the Holy Ghost, or Spirit, is God, when he worketh all in all, and distributeth spiritual gifts unto men, according to his own good pleasure?  
III. Isa. 6. 1. I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, etc. v. 2, 3. Above stood the Seraphims, and cried Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts. The three Holies signify the three Persons; the Lord of Hosts, the one God, ver. 8. I heard the voice of the Lord, ver. 9 And he said, Go tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not, etc. This must needs be spoken of God, and it is by the Apostle applied to the Holy Ghost, Act. 28. 25. Well spoke the Holy Ghost, go to this people, and say, hearing you shall hear, etc.  
IV. 1 Cor. 2. 10. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God. None is omniscient to know all things, yea whatsoever is in the unsearchable mind of God, but he that is God, and therefore the Holy Ghost is God. I might speak further of his divine Works, as Regeneration, joh. 3. 5. guiding Believers into all truth, joh. 16. 13. Sanctification, and the like; of our being baptised by him, Mat. 3. 11. and in his name, Mat. 28. 19 and his being called One, that is, one God, where he is numbered up amongst the three Persons that bare record in heaven, 1 joh. 5. 7. All which undeniably prove that the Holy Ghost is God, coessential, and coequal with the Father and the Son.  
5. The fifth and last thing is to prove, That Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct Subsistents, or Persons. Concerning the name Person, I shall not speak of it, because Mr. Danson intendeth to vindicate that word from the cavils of W. P. in answer to what concerneth him p. 10. That there are three such distinct Persons in one Divine Essence, is evident from the Scripture, See Math. 3. 16, 17. And jesus when he was baptised, went up straightway out of the water, and to the Heavens were opened unto him; and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a Dove, and lighting upon him; And lo a voice from Heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. Here is a distinction of all the three Persons, the Son was clothed in flesh, and came up out of the water; the Spirit was in the shape of a Dove, which came down from heaven; the Fa- was in the voice, saying, This is my beloved Son.  
Another Scripture which holdeth forth this distinction, is joh. 16. 17. I will pray the Father, and he shall give them another Comforter, even the Spirit of Truth. The Son prayeth, the Father giveth; The Spirit of Truth is the Comforter that is given. I shall add a third Scripture, 1 joh. 5. 7. There are three that bare record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. They are the distinct Persons, but one undivided Essence.  
But further to confirm this truth denied by the Adversaries, I shall prove from the Scripture that there are three distinct Persons in one Divine Essence, 1 From the distinct. Names given to them. 2 From their distinct personal Acts. 3 From their distinct personal Properties.  
1. From their distinct Names, they are called Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Math. 28. 19 Baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Father, Word, and Holy Ghost, in joh. 5. 7. before cited. These names do evidence a distinction, not of nature and essence, for they are one; therefore of personality.  
2. From their distinct personal acts, I mean such acts as can be ascribed unto none but such as are persons. 1 Giving the Comforter is ascribed to the Father, joh. 14. 16. I will pray the Father, and he shall send you another Comforter; it is proper only to a person to give, this act requiring both understanding and will: 2 Sending the Comforter is ascribed to the Son, joh. 15. 6. When the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from the Father: and it is proper only to a person to send. 3 Guiding into all truth, speaking what he heareth, is ascribed to the Holy Ghost, joh. 16. 13. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into all truth, for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak. And who can deny that these are personal acts? The distinction of the persons in these acts is evident in all these places, where the Son speaketh of himself in the first person, I will pray, I will send; he speaketh of the Father, and the Spirit in the third person, which persons he evidently distinguisheth one from another by the preposition from speaking of the Spirit, whom I will send from the Father. Surely he must wink very hard that doth not perceive a distinction of the persons of Father, Son, and Spirit, in these places.  
3. That the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons, is evident from these distinct personal and incommunicable Properties.  
1. The personal property of the Father is to beget the Son, Heb. 1. 5. Unto which of the Angels said he at any time, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? and the Son being eternal, as hath been proved, this generation must be eternal.  
2. The personal property of the Son is to be begotten of the Father, joh. 1. 14. We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.  
3. The personal property of the Holy Ghost is to proceed from the Father and the Son, joh. 15. 26. And when the comforter is come, whom I will send from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.  
I shall conclude the proof of the distinction of the persons of the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost, in the unity of the Divine Essence, with the two arguments made mention of before in the disputation; which because no answer was given unto, they remain in force.  
The first argument is this against W. P's plain assertion, that there were not three distinct persons in the Godhead, with three distinct incommunicable properties. 

If the Father be another from the Son, and the Son another from the Father, and the Holy Ghost another from each, and all three be God; and the incommunicable property of the Father is to beget the Son, the incommunicable property of the Son to be begotten of the Father, and the incommunicable property of the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son; then there are three distinct persons in the Godhead, with three distinct incommunicable properties:  
But the Father is another, etc.  
Therefore there are three distinct persons in the Godhead, with three distinct incommunicable properties.    
The consequence of the Major none can with any reason deny, because another and another, and another do signify plainly a distinction of those persons; and begetting, being begotten, and proceeding are real not imaginary properties.  
The Minor also is firm in all the parts of it. 

1. The Father is another from the Son, joh. 5. 32. There is another that beareth witness of me, joh. 8. 18. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.  
2. The Son is another from the Father, because the Father is another from the Son.  
3. The Holy Ghost is another from each, joh. 14. 16, 17. I will pray the Father and he shall give you another comforter, even the spirit of truth.  
4. That Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are God, hath been proved.  
5. The incommunicable properties of each person also hath been proved.  
Therefore it undeniably followeth that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead, with three distinct incommunicable properties.    
The second argument out of 1 joh. 5. 7. to prove that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons was this. 

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are either three substances, or three manifestations, or three operations, or three persons, or something else.  
But 

1. They are not three substances, because in the same verse the three are called one, that is in regard of substance or Essence.  
2. They are not three manifestations, for all the attributes of God are manifestations, and so there would be more than three; hence also it would follow that one manifestation should beget and send another, which is absurd.  
3. They are not three operations, for the same reason, namely, that there are more than three operations; and it would be very improper to asribe personal properties, either to manifestations or operations.  
4. They are not any thing else.    
Therefore the proposition remaineth firm and sound: That Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct subsistents or persons in one Divine Essence or Godhead.   The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet they are nor three Gods, but one God, the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct, but the Godhead is the same, not specifically the same, as the same humane nature is in all individual men, but numerically the same, so as no similitude or comparison is to be found in the creatures to set it forth. The fools gathering his skirt into three folds and pulling them abroad into one; the affections of One, Good, True in Being; The understanding will and executive power in the Soul, and the like similitudes may a little help the understanding in the conception of this mystery, but all comparisons fall short, and cannot square in every respect hereunto: Yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is so hath been proved from Scripture, and it is one great fundamental point of our Christian Faith, which all Christians are bound to believe, because of the authority of God.   

CHAP. VI Ananswer to part of the 10, the 12, 13, 14, and 15 pages of W. P's Pamphlet, which he entitleth the Trinity of distinct separate persons in the Unity 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 allegeth 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 firm 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 citys three texts, namely, Isa. 40. 25. chap. 48. 17. Psal. 71. 22. to prove God's 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one, in the Hebrew, only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou Holy of Israel: in the new Testament he allegeth some Scriptures which the Socinians do make use of to prove that Christ is not God, one is Math. 19 17. jesus 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 goodness, 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 joh. 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 only thee to be the true God, but thee to be the only true God, and so it may be applied to the Son, and jesus Christ whom thou baste sent to be the only true God, which is signified in that place and expressed 1 job. 5. 10. we are in him that is true, even in his Son jesus 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 forementioned 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 allegeth 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 profess our belief 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 joh. 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 signified 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 subsistence, nor did require homage from his creatures as an incomplete and abstracted being, etc. which is a most egregions non sequitur, besides that he fasteneth that on us which neither we nor any Orthodox Christian ever yet affirmed, viz: that God was ever declared or believed incompleatly without his subsistence, or as an incomplete and abstracted Being; we know no such thing as the essence of God without a subsistence; 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 subsistence: but the Divine essence is worshipped as subsisting in the three persons, and so the blessed Trinity is not our nor any man's fiction (as he impiously speaks,) but this foolish 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 itself to be crooked and depraved reason, and the arguings from it are called the perverse dispute 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 Metaphysics 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 oddly 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 syllogism before mentioned) wherein he argueth only 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 its own substance, and therefore Father, Son, and Spirit either are three distinct nothings; or if persons, than 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, than 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 subsistence; 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 subsistence will have it's own substance, unless 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 its 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 its 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 add 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 complete 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 complete 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 infiniteness is not applicable to the subsistence: 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, than 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, only 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 infiniteness is not ascribed, yet there being but one and the same single Essence in all the three persons, unto which infiniteness 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, than it is denied that either finiteness for infiniteness 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 increasing 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 leisure 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, than they are not incommunicable amongst themselves, but so much the contrary to be in the place of one another, for if the only God is the Father, and Christ be that only 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 only 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, joh. 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 subjoins, 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 itself 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 sanctified reason. And whereas W. P. asserteth that it is not from Scripture, he must not think to impose this upon Christians who have looked into the Word, any more than what he further asserts as to the first three hundred years, upon those that have looked 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 lies.  
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 heretics 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 blasphemer 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, etc. 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 bitterness, 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 Schoolmen, 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, etc. and yet giveth no reason why the Reader should be prejudiced 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 dictator would impose upon the understanding of the weak; and indeed weak they must needs be, and blind 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 allegeth for the maintaining of this Blasphemy and Heresy, or oppugning our received, and never to be shaken Foundations.  
And here W. P. who had discovered before his skill in Logic, 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 God's 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 grossly as in the two former attempts, doth signify 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 find in the Errata it is corrected Theophilus) with many other, who appear wholly foreign to the matter in controversy. But who ever will peruse these Authors W. P. maketh mention of, with others who writ in those times, will find 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 spoke 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Title of this Book being concerning faith in the holy Consubstantial Trinity, showeth he was not a stranger to this Doctrine. Read some of his words▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 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. add Ortho. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 joined 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 spoke 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 jewel, which cannot be divided, because it consisteth in unity.  
Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in preaemio and Cap. 2. I am informed by a learned Author, doth express his Faith in this Doctrine, but I have not that Peice of Origen by me (as I have the rest) to consult. I could add 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 falsehood of W. P. who telleth us, that these Fathers were strangers to the Doctrine of the Trinity; wherefore the weakness, absurdity, falsehood, 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.   

CHAP. VII. The Doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ, the second person, of the real and glorious Trinity asserted and proved.  
IF the doctrine of the ever glorious Trinity or three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in one Godhead had been overthrown by W. P. or could be indeed shaken by the Sociniant, which with all the argument they can device, in vain, they do endeavour, if he or they could prove (which they never can) that there is but one person in the Godhead; than it would follow that Christ could not be the eternal Son of God, the second person of this glorious Trinity (as W. P. most blasphemously, styleth him the second person of the imagined Trinity,) and by consequence the Doctrine of satisfaction depending upon this person, would fall to the ground, and might by invincible argument be refuted, it being impossible for any mere finite creature to make plenary satisfaction to the infinite Justice of God; But the Doctrine of the Trinity being established by Scripture Testimony, and the Lord Jesus Christ proved to be God equal with the Father, the Doctrine also of satisfaction dependent upon this second person of the real and ever glorious Trinity, will remain firm against all Quaker and Socinian attempts to overthrow it: and before I give answer unto the objections and cavils against this Doctrine. I shall briefly assert and prove the doctrine by the Word of Truth in the Holy Scripture.  
W. P. in his title The impossibility of Gods pardoning offin, without a plenary satisfaction refuted, seemeth to insinuate that he denyeth only the impossibility of Gods pardoning sin without satisfaction; but whoever readeth his arguments shall find them to be the very same, which the Socinians use against Satisfaction itself, and that he plainly denyeth the thing; therefore I shall not concern myself, to inquire what God could or might do, if he pleased; but what he hath decreed and determined to do, and declared in the Scripture to be his will; and here I affirm  
1. That God never doth, nor will, nor can pardon any, sinner without satisfaction made to his offended justice for their sins. And that because his holiness, righteousness, and truth, obligeth him to take vengeance upon all that have transgressed his Law; the Lord is so Holy that he hateth all the workers of iniquity, Psal. 5. 5. and what is God's hatred, but Percatum pro merito suo velle punire, as Bradsh. de Iust. his will to punish sin and sinners according to their desert? His Justice doth engage him by no means to clear the guilty, Exod. 34. 7. and his truth would be infringed, if he should not curse every one that centinueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them, Gal. 3. 10.  
II. That no sinners themselves by any thing they can do or suffer in this life, can give satisfaction unto God's justice for their sins. And the reason is because whatever good they do is no more than duty, wherein also they must have Divine help to enable them, and when they have done their duty, their works are but imperfect and they unprofitable servants, and this can make no compensation for their faults before, Luk. 17. 10. When have done all the things commanded, say we are unprofitable servants, etc. Our righteousnesses are as filthy rags, Isa. 64. 6. And what ever sinners suffer in this life, it is infinitely short of what their sins have deserved; God's Justice is infinite and requierth an infinite satisfaction; sinners are finite and therefore there is no porportion between any thing they can bring, and what Gods Justice doth require for satisfaction.  
III. That jesus Christ being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and Man in one person, was only fit to make, and hath actually made satisfaction unto God's infinite and offended justice for the sins of Men.  
It was necessary that the person that should make satisfaction should be man, because none but a creature could suffer, and none but a man could be a fit Highpriest to offer up Sacrifice, and make reconciliation for the sins of Men, Heb. 2. 17. It was necessary he should be God, because none but God so nearly united, could strengthen the manhood, to bear up under such a pressure of wrath, and break thorough such sufferings as had taken hold on Christ for man's sins; and if he had not been God as well as man, the sufferings and satisfaction would have been but finite, and so no proportionable satisfaction, but through the infinite dignity of his person, the satisfaction is of infinite value. That Christ hath actually made satisfaction unto God's Justice for the sins of men, is the great Doctrine which I shall prove from the Scripture.  
1. We read in the Old Testament, of the many Sacrifices which were offered up unto God, for the appeasing of his wrath, and the procuring remission for men's sins, all which of themselves could not in the least attain that end, for the Apostle telleth us plainly, Heb. 10. 4. that it was not possible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sin; but these Sacrifices did typically refer unto the Sacrifice, which Christ should offer of himself unto God, whereby satisfaction should be made unto God, and remission obtained for men.  
2. In the New Testament, the Scriptures are plain which prove the satisfaction, which Christ made to God's Justice, for man's sin by his death on the Cross.  
Math. 20. 28. The Son of Man came to give his life a ransom for many. and 1. Tim. 2. 6. He gave himself a ransom, the price which Christ did pay for the ransom of men, doth evidently prove that it was for satisfaction; From what did Christ ransom many, if it were not from the vengeance of God, which their sins did expose them unto? and how could his giving his life ransom them, if he did not hereby give satisfaction unto the demands of God's Justice?  
Rom. 5. 6. In due time Christ died for the ungodly, and how did Christ die for the ungodly? was it only for their good, and so give them an example? was it not in their stead, and that by his death in their room he might satisfy offended justice? we are said to be reconciled to God by the death of his Son, v. 10. And could this be, if he died only for an example? Can we say that we are reconciled to God by the death of any Saints, whose death is exemplary? Was not Christ an innocent person? And would the Father have delivered him up unto death had it not been in the room of others? He died for sin indeed, not his own, he being perfectly free from sin, but for our sins.  
1 Pet. 2. 24. Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the Tree: And how did he bore our sins, but by bearing the punishment due for them? He was wounded for our transgressions, etc. Isa. 53. 5. And wherefore did he bear the punishment of our sins, but that he might give satisfaction unto God's justice?  
Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, etc. so 1 job. 1. 2. Christ was set forth to be a propitiation or propitiatory sacrifice, which doth plainly imply that God was angry with sinners, and that Christ by the propitiatory sacrifice of himself, did appease God's anger, by giving satisfaction here by unto his Justice. And therefore also Christ is called an offering and sacrifice. Eph. 5. 2. As Christ hath loved us, and given himself for us an offering unto God for a sweet smelling savour, and Heb. 9 22. He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, etc. How could Christ put away sin by this sacrifice, if this sacrifice were not for satisfaction?  
Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us. How could Christ redeem us from the curse of the Law, and deliver us from the wrath to come, part of the curse due to us for sin, if he had not (by being made a curse for us, and thereby undergoing the punishment our sins deserved) made satisfaction unto God's justice?  
4. It is only through this satisfaction which Christ hath made, that remission of sins, and reconciliation unto God is attained, or attainable by any of the Children of men. The three former propositions are the reason of this last, which doth necessarily result from them, and in this the Scripture also is clear, Eph. 1. 7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. So Col. 1. 14. and Verse 20. Having made peace by the blood of his Cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself. Rom. 5. 10. If when we were enemies we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son. My small Tract will not permit inlargements in urging all the Scripture-arguments, which may be brought to prove this great Doctrine of Christ's satisfaction, nor to vindicate the Scriptures that prove it from all Socinian exceptions. If any would read more largely this subject handled in answer to the Socinians, Dr. Owen his Mystery of the Gospel vindicated, and Socinianism examined, I would commend to them as a Book of great worth and use in this day, when Socinians begin so much to put forth the head; as also for a lesser and later piece, I would commend to them, Mr. Ferguson's justification only upon a satisfaction. The Texts I have quoted and urged, may satisfy the sober and considering Christian, who I believe doth wonder at W. P's. confidence in asserting that there is nothing in the Scripture that doth look towards a satisfaction.   

CHAP. VIII. An Answer to W. Ps cavils against the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction.  
THe Apostle Peter telleth us, 2 Pet. 3. 16. Of some unlearned & unstable persons who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction. W. P. hath plainly discovered himself to be such a one whom the Apostle doth speak of, as will appear in the review of the Scriptures he allegeth against Christ's satisfaction, wherein I shall show how they are wrested by him.  
Exod. 34. 6, 7. The Lord passed by, etc. proclaimed The Lord, the Lord God gracious and merciful, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin. If W. P. had read and considered, and believed the following words in the same 7. verse. And will by no means clear the guilty; the beams of God's justice and holiness might have shined with such a lustre in his face, as that he should not have dared to offer such an affront and indignity thereunto, and incur the guilt which God there threateneth, he will not clear men of (without the supposition of a satisfaction to his offended justice) to set up his mercy and love as inconsistent herewith; and what blasphemy as well as absurdity is this to say, that God could not be gracious, should he exact the utmost farthing, when he is so much the more gracious unto men in exacting nothing from them, but taking his whole satisfaction at the hands of Christ, whom of free grace he sent into the World to die, and hereby to satisfy his justice in their stead. God indeed proclaims himself to be gracious and merciful, whereby he declares what he is in his Son, whom he had before promised to give, and in whom alone all Nations of the Earth that ever should obtain his favour were to be blessed. 2 Chron. 32 9 If you turn again to the Lord, the Lord is gracious and merciful, etc. I deny the consequence from this Scripture, that God's remission is grounded on men's repentance, but his grace and mercy through Christ is the reason of his invitation of sinners to repent and turn unto him, as is evident from that Scripture, Eph. 1. 6. that we are made accepted only in the beloved, without whole satisfaction and intercession, the repentance and reformation of sinners would not in the least avail for remission and acceptation.  
Neh. 9 17. Thou art a God ready to pardon, etc. Isa. 55. 7. Let the wicked forsake his way, etc. Let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, etc. Jer. 31. 34. I will forgive their iniquity. Mic. 7. 18. Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, etc. These and the like places prove God to be gracious and merciful, ready to forgive, and that he hath engaged himself to do it: And who is there that denyeth all this? But where is the inconsistence between this and Christ's satisfaction? Yea, where would have been the exercise of any grace and mercy towards us, if it had not been for Christ's satisfaction? He hath promised to pardon sin in the new Covenant, but was not that Covenant ratifyed with the blood of Christ? and doth not the Apostle tell us plainly, Heb. 9 22. That without shedding of blood there is no remission? So that our opinion, or rather belief is not strange, but his consequence is so; and his denial of satisfaction doth destroy the design of the Covenant of grace (which cannot be of force without it) and not our asserting of it; And though God be exalted upon the Throne of his mercy to forgive sinners, that by faith are interested in the merits and satisfaction of his Son; yet W. P. and all Quakers and Socinians which deny Christ's satisfaction, and thereby ipso facto, exclude themselves from all share in it, will find at the length, that God is exalted upon the Throne of his judgement, to take vengeance upon them all, that will not be beholding to his Son to appease his wrath. Math. 6. 12. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. From whence W. P. argueth, that which is forgiven is not paid. I answer, that which is forgiven is not paid by us, but it is paid by Christ, and it is free to us, though it cost Christ dear. He further argueth, that we are to forgive without satisfaction, and therefore God doth; I answer, that God doth forgive without satisfaction from us; and as those that do injure us, we ought to forgive them freely without satisfaction, because vengeance doth not belong to us, but unto the Lord, who in our room, as it were, will have satisfaction one way or other from them, and hath threatened to recompense every injury upon their heads; so the Lord doth freely forgive us, and yet so, as that still he doth preserve the honour of his justice in taking satisfaction from Christ.  
Joh. 3. 16. God so loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, etc. This Scripture is nothing to W. Ps purpose, but strongly against his error, because if we be saved only by faith in Christ, than it must need be in Christ, as a sacrifice for sin, as fulfilling the Law and bearing God's wrath, and by consequence, as making satisfaction: I grant that God's love of benevolence, or electing love is not the effect of Christ's satisfaction, from whence it was that he sent his Son into the World for our salvation, but his love of complacency is the effect of Christ's satisfaction, Math. 3. 17. He is well pleased with us only in Christ.  
Rom. 8. 31, 32. Carrieth the same argument, and therefore may have the same answer, neither is it any absurdity to say that God should be at the charges of his own satisfaction. Job 33. 24. I have found a ransom.  
Act. 10. 34. Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. This place is grossly wrested and perverted by W. P. since remission is through faith in Christ, called faith in his blood, Rom. 3. 25. And how in his blood, but as his blood is the price of our redemption? but W. P. calleth faith only a believing of his testimony; yea, he addeth obeying his precepts, as a concurring cause of remission, which is rank Popery, importing justification by works.  
2 Cor. 5. 18. That God himself reconcileth sinners to himself by Christ is most true, and most strongly argueth against his error, and for our cause; for how doth God reconcile us to himself by Christ, but by the blood of his Cross? Col. 1. 20. And what doth this import, but satisfaction by this blood, without which there is no reconciliation?  
Eph. 1. 7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his grace. This place is an invincible argument for Christ's satisfaction, redemption through Christ's blood on our part, clearly importing satisfaction through Christ's blood on God's part, and therefore this with other places, which W. P. mentioneth against the truth, do prove to be for the truth, and cut the throat of his own tenants, who most childishly (God infatuating of him) bringeth arguments to the destruction of his own cause. His arguing that grace is not justice, because forgiveness is according to the riches of God's grace is very weak, for though grace be not formally justice, yet grace and justice are very well consistent, as Rom. 3. 24. Being justified freely by his grace, etc. vers. 25. To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins, vers. 26. That he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth. As God is just (in respect of Christ) he pardoneth them that believe, because of his satisfaction, though all be free grace in regard of us.  
1 Pet. 5. 10. But the God of all grace that hath called us, etc. This hath the same consequence, as the other, and therefore needs no other answer.  
1 job. 4. 9 In this was manifested the love of God, etc. I have granted it is out of love that God sent his Son, but it doth no way follow, that therefore his Son did not make satisfaction to his justice; and therefore though W. P. in enumerating some of the ends of Christ's mission into the World, doth reach no higher than his setting him forth as a perfect example, which is the Socinian doctrine, yet the Scripture teacheth us otherwise, that the great end of Gods giving his Son, and Christ's coming and laying down his life, was to purchase remission and salvation for us. Therefore though W. P. telleth us the Scripture is silent in reference to the doctrine of satisfaction, it is a sign his Ears are dull, and his Eyes closed, if he have not a conviction of this doctrine, undeniably proved from the Scripture; and it is not our asserting, but his denial of Satisfaction that doth reflect Indignity upon God, and is repugnant to the Nature, Conditions, and Tendency of the second Covenant.  
The Absurdities and gross consequences, as W. P. termeth them which follow from this Doctrine, do show the absurdity and grossness of this man's Conceptions; to the first I have shown the consistency of Grace and Satisfaction. To the second I have given an undeniable reason why man must in some cases forgive without Satisfaction, and God will not; but how absurd and Blasphemous is it (this supposed) to say man is more capable of extending mercy than God, when God's mercy to us (which this satisfaction of Christ doth make way for the exercise of) is so great that all our mercies are Cruelties in comparison, and the Lord takes no more Satisfaction from those he extendeth his especial mercy unto, than we do which freely forgive private injuries. The third Absurdity (as he calleth it) in words we own it to be sound Doctrine, which appeareth to be gross to none but such whose reason is depraved, and therefore I am sure W. P. can have no right reason to refute this doctrine. He argueth, If Christ satisfied God's justice, he did it either as God, or as Man; or as both God and Man. But he did it not as God, nor as Man, nor as both God and Man.  
Therefore he hath not satisfied God's justice at all. I shall not here argue against his conclusion, but deny his minor asserting, that Christ did satisfy God's justice as God-man; and it doth not follow, if his proof should be good that he could not do it alone as God, or alone as Man, that therefore he could not do it as God-Man; neither is it true, as be obscurely phraseth it, that where two middle positions are inconsistent with the nature of the end for which they are brought, their Conjunction doth rather augment than lessen the difficulty of their accomplishment. For as the Soul cannot see without the Body for want of an Organ, nor the Body cannot see without the Soul for want of a visive faculty, yet the man can see, and so both Soul and Body can do that in Conjunction which neither can do in Separation. Therefore though God separately cannot satisfy, (from a better reason than any he bringeth) because he cannot suffer, and man separately cannot satisfy, because the satisfaction would not be of Infinite value, yet as God-man he satisfied, the Manhood suffering, and the Godhead putting a value upon it.  
The consequences, which he further deduceth from this Doctrine of Satisfaction, he very fitly styleth irreligious and irrational; but I deny they are deducable from this Doctrine.  
To the First, Who do ascribe more Grace and Mercy to God, than we who do apprehend it in his Son? How then do we say it is unlawful and impossible he should be gracious?  
To the Second, What compaltion or force doth this Doctrine infer to be laid upon God in the exercise of his justice? when he doth exercise his justice freely, as he doth love his Image, in his people freely, yet both are necessary, because natural, and neither forced and compelled by any external Agent.  
To the Third, What a wretched audacious sinner is this! to fasten unworthiness upon God, if he punished an innocent person, and required satisfaction where nothing was due; when the Son did voluntarily undertake to be our surety, and was punished as bearing our sins, and satisfied for us, and not himself; what unworthiness in God to change the persons, and put his Son to death to save us alive? Is it not unworthiness and abominable baseness in any of the Children of men, to open their mouths against God for this? And if it were unworthy to punish an Innocent person, and it is certain Christ was punished, if he were not punished for us to satisfy God's justice, it will follow from W. P's words, that Christ should be a sinner (which is Blasphemy) and that he was punished for his on sins.  
W. P's fourth Consequence is abominably false, and the contrary true, this Doctrine doth the best answer the real intent of Christ's Life and Death.  
The fifth Consequence is as impious as unreasonable, when the Love and Compassion of the Father and the Son is alike; the one in sending, the other in coming to redeem lost Sinners.  
The sixth Consequence is ridiculous, that Christ's satisfaction should rob God of the gift of his Son for our Redemption; who seeth not (but some blind Moles) that our Doctrine doth ascribe God the greatest glory for this gift?  
The seventh 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, as if when one man dischargeth for another, the debt should still abide.  
The eighth Consequence is so abominable, that it might make the Reader tremble and wonder, that a Worm, whom the Lord could easily crush, should open his mouth thus against the glorious jehovah, as to say, that it God's justice be satisfied by Christ, than Man is no ways beholding, or the least Obliged to God; as if we were not beholding to God for giving his Son, for accepting this Satisfaction, for giving us a share therein; are not we beholding to God for all, though Christ hath purchased all?  
The ninth Consequence, that God should hereby lose all power of enjoining Godliness, and punishing Disobedience, doth not in the least follow; for Godliness is enjoined upon all, though not in order to the meriting Eternal Life, and God threateneth to punish the Disobedient, whom if they continue to the end in their Impenitency and Unbelief, he will punish eternally in Hell, notwithstanding this Satisfaction of Christ in which they have no share; but Believers that are interested herein, God, as he hath brought them out, so he hath engaged to keep them out of a course of Disobedience; and if they do transgress in some particulars, he hath threatened to chastise them, which is not inconsistent with Christ's satisfying his justice for their sins, since Chastisement is not an act of Vindicative Justice, but Fatherly Love.  
W. P. concludes with a Caution, wherein he laboureth to persuade People, not to entertain this Principle concerning Christ's Satisfaction, which is in effect, to persuade them to cast off the Christian Religion, and turn Turks and Mahomitans; for what is there in the Christian Religion, if there be not Satisfaction by Christ, the Foundation of all other privileges? Take away Christ's Satisfaction, and you take away God's Favour, Remission of sin, Peace of Conscience, Immunity from the Curse and Condemnation of the Law; Take away Satisfaction, than the Word and Spirit and we are false Witnesses thereof; then is our preaching vain, and your Faith also is vain, than you are all yet in your sins, than you must all of you of necessity be damned and punished eternally. Take away Satisfaction, and you take away Christ; and you take away all. And therefore let not W. P. think to easily to persuade people to let go this Principle, which whosoever doth it, hath made Shipwreck of his Faith, and of necessity must fall into the Ocean of God's Wrath, which none can escape without this Satisfaction.  
And therefore I would here caution W. P. with more reason than he doth the people, and speak to him according to the Words of the Apostle Peter, to Simon Magus, Acts 8. 21. 22, 23. I perceive thou hast no part in this matter (namely Christ's Satisfaction which thou deniest) neither is thy heart right in the sight of God; but hereby evidently dost declare thyself to be in the Gall of Bitterness, and the bond of Iniquity; yet repent of thy wicked Blasphemies, and Abominable heretical Assertions, if perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee.   

CHAP. IX. The justification of the ungodly, by the imputed Righteousness of Christ asserted and proved.  
HAving proved and vindicated the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction from the Cavils of W. P. The Doctrine of Justification by Christ's imputed Righteousness, doth evidently follow from it; for since there can be no Remission of sin (therefore no Justification) without Satisfaction to God's offended Justice, as hath been proved; and since this Satisfaction cannot be given to God by Sinners themselves, and Christ only hath given it, which also hath been proved, there is no way imaginable how we can be justified, but by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us, 2 Cor. 5. 21. For he hath made him to be Sin for us who knew no Sin, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him. As Christ was made sin for us, though Innocent, by the Imputation of our sin to him, for which he was condemned and punished: So we are made the Righteousness of God in him, though guilty, by the Imputation of his Righteousness unto us, whereby we are justified. And what other meaning than justification by Christ's imputed Righteousness can that Scripture have, which speaketh of the Blessedness of the Man, unto whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness without Works, Rom. 4. 6. That this Blessedness spoken of, is justification, appeareth from the scope of the place which is to prove the Doctrine of justification, and the following words also do evince it, vers. 7. Blessed is the Man whose Iniquities are forgiven, etc. That this Righteousness is not a man's own is evident, because it is a Righteousness without Works, and then whose Righteousness can it be, but the Righteousness of Christ? and that this Righteousness is imputed are the words of the Scripture, therefore the proof is firm, that we are justified by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness. Unto which Scripture, I may add for the further clearing and Confirmation of this Doctrine of justification by Christ's Imputed Righteousness, this Argument grounded upon Scripture. 

If there be no other way for Sinners to be justified, but by Faith in jesus Christ, than justification is by the Imputed righteousness of Christ.  
But there is no other way for Sinners to be justified, but by Faith in jesus Christ.  
Therefore justification is by the imputed Righteousness of Christ.    
The Consequence of the Major is evident, because Faith justifieth only with a respect to Christ's Righteousness without us called therefore Righteousness by Faith, distinguished from our own Righteousness, Phil. 3. 9 and how is this Righteousness by Faith, but as it is applied by us, and imputed by God to us through Faith; Faith cannot justify as a work, because all works are excluded in the matter of Justification, therefore it must Justify as an Instrument applying Christ Righteousness, which being without us, can be made ours no other way than by Imputation.  
The Minor, that Sinners are justified only by Faith in Jesus Christ, is as clear as any Doctrine in the whole Book of God; it being the design of the Apostle Paul, to prove this expressly, in the first part of Epistle to the Romans, and in the second and third Chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians. How many times doth he say, we are justified by Faith without Works? and how strongly doth he Argue the necessity of justification this way, because of the universal Gild upon Mankind, and deficiency of Righteousness inherent, therefore that they must seek for a Righteousness without themselves, which is Christ's Righteousness, therefore that they can be justified only by Faith; which Faith he putteth in opposition to all works, not only of the Ceremonial and Moral Law; but also to all Works wrought in Faith (which are works still) such as Abraham's Works, and David's Works were, who yet were not justified upon the account of any of their Works, that all Boasting might be excluded. Rom. 4. 2. And the Apostle telleth us plainly vers. 5. That God justifieth the ungodly, no Persons being the Subjects of Gospel justification but as ungodly, that is as having sinned, and as having no Works, no Righteousness of their own to procure Justification for them; The sense is that God findeth every one Ungodly, Guilty, Filthy, whom he doth justify freely by his Grace, through the Redemption and Righteousness of Christ; but he doth not leave them Ungodly; where he removeth the guilt of sin, he removeth also the filth of sin, justification and Sanctification being inseparable Companions; and though Justification be altogether distinct from Sanctification, yet it is never without Sanctification; which if W. P's cloudy Brains had rightly apprehended, it would have given an answer, in the making of them, to most of his Objections, which he hath brought against this Doctrine, where he argueth from the Concomitant unto the Cause, and his deductions or most pitiful non sequiturs. I intended to have run thorough them all, and given particular Answers to them, but that Mr. Danson who is concerned to reply to something in his Book, Intendeth to answer him in this Point, and withal, to give a Synopsis of Quakerism in other points (besides these three) Namely, their asserting: 1. Good Works to be the Meritorious cause of our justification. 2. That a State of Freedom from sin is attainable in this life. 3. That there is a leight in every Man, sufficient to guide him to salvation. 4. That the Scripture is not the Word of God, nor a standing rule of faith and life. 5. That there is no resurrection of the body. 6. That there is no need or use of Ordinances, Baptism, Lord's Supper, etc. The book he intendeth will be small, but the use of it may be great, (in this day when the Quakers are so busy to gain proselytes) for the establishment of Christians in the truths and ways of God.  
In W. P's conclusion, by way of caution, he teleth us, he doth not disown Father, Word, and Spirit to be one, but he disowneth them to be three Persons, which hath been proved out of the Scripture; that the Trinity (as he saith) hath not a foundation in the Scripture; that its original was three hundred years after Christianity was in the World, hath been proved to be false. What he speaketh concerning the Council of Sirmia, That the controversy concerning the Trinity should not be remembered, because the Scriptures made no mention thereof, is also falsely alleged; for by that very Council the Doctrine of the Trinity is expressly asserted as a chief article of the Christian faith; and the distinction of Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, plainly employed in the Anathema, which was pronounced upon those that asserted they were but one Person; that which W. P. citeth is concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in which this Council was heterodox, as it might well be, when so much influenced by the Emperor Constantius, who himself was infected with Arianisme. But W. P. should have looked into the Councils more ancient and authentic, than the Sirmian, namely the first Nicene Council, which condemned the Arian heresy, blasphemously denying the Son to be coeternal and coessential with the Father: the first Constantinopolitan council which condemned the Macedonian heresy denying the Deity of the Holy Ghost. The Council of Ephesus Chalcedon, who with other approved ecumenical Councils, generally assented to the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Consubstantiality of the three Persons.  
What W. P. further addeth concerning the occasion of Idolatry, is groundless; the scandalising of Turks, etc. is no wonder, when the preaching of Christ crucified was such a stumbling-block of old. After he confesseth that Christ offered unto God a Satisfactory Sacrifice, and yet he denieth Christ's Satisfaction and Justification by his imputative Righteousness; all which three Doctrines being Fundamental, established by the Word of Truth, W. P's attempts to subvert them are in vain, and have discovered him to be both a Blasphemer and an Heretic.  
Since I began my Answer to W. P. there came to my hands a Pamphlet, subscribed by Solomon Eccles, styled The Quakers Challenge, wherein amongst others he challengeth me at two Weapons (as he calleth them) to Fast seven days and seven nights; and to Wake seven days and seven nights, and that hereby trial shall be made who are in the truth.  
Though the Pamphlet be ridiculous, yet I was unwilling to let it pass without any remark; and my Answer is, when the Lord hath appointed these ways for trial of the Orthodox and Heretics, I shall undertake them; but not finding any such Command, or Warrant in the Word to forbear Food or Sleep so long; but on the contrary, because it is a tempting of God, and a breach of the sixth Commandment, which requireth all lawful endeavours for the preservation of our own life, as well as the lives of others, therefore it would be a God-provoking sin, to endanger self-murder by such Weapons. The Scripture Instances of Fasting many days together were miraculous, and not for our imitation; others I have heard of that have lived as many days together as he speaketh of, without meat, or drink, or sleep, but they have been distracted people, amongst whom this man deserveth to be numbered: and if I should answer him in the way he challengeth, I should be accounted by the sober as mad as himself. His Lie he venteth concerning me, is refuted already in my Narrative.   

CHAP. X. The Call, and Exhortation.  
HAving asserted and proved the three great Doctrines of the Trinity, Satisfaction, and justification, denied by W. P. I shall further add by way of premise to the Call and Exhortation (what was before intimated) that these three are great Fundamental Truths of the Christian Religion, necessary to be believed in order to Salvation; the unbelief and denial of which, will bring unavoidable damnation.  
1. The Doctrine of the Trinity of distinct Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence is a Fundamental Truth, because the Godhead in the three persons is the proper object of saving Faith and right Worship, and those that do not savingly believe, and rightly worship God, cannot possibly be saved; besides, the denial of the three distinct persons in the Godhead, doth necessarily infer the denial of the coeternal coessential Deity of the Son and Holy Ghost, which is Blasphemy and damnable Heresy, so accounted by the most ancient and authentic Councils, and by the true Church of God in all Ages.  
II. The Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and Justification by his imputed Righteousness, are Fundamental Truths also, without which there can be no Redemption, Reconciliation, Remission, and consequently no Salvation.  
This being premised, I shall now apply myself first to the Quakers, and then to others.  
To W. P. and other Quakers who believe these and other Quaker damnable errors, I shall propound these four Queries, which I shall answer according to truth.  
Que. 1. Do you know what you are?  
1. You are strangers to Christ, (whatever your fancy be of Christ within you) and I am confident that none of you all that believe these errors, have had experience of the new birth and forming of Christ's image upon your hearts, since there never is a work of regeneration and uniting the souls of any to Christ, that leaveth them in such darkness and error, as you are left and bound up in: No, had you been ever truly regenerated, you would have been humbled and emptied of yourselves, you would have seen yourselves lost in yourselves, and your need of Christ's satisfaction and imputed Righteousness, without which you would have been assured that there is no possibility God's anger should be appeased, and your souls saved; It is not turning Quaker, that is turning from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to Christ: but on the contrary it is a turning from light to darkness, and from Christ to Satan, and what will be the issue hereof? not remission of sins and salvation, but the fastening of guilt upon you, and eternal destruction.  
2. You are enemies to Christ; and I believe that Jesus Christ hath scarcely greater enemies under the Sun than you▪ who are greater enemies to Christ, than those who deny his eternal Deity? (as I have proved to be the plain consequence of W. P's words, and of the denial of the Trinity) who are greater enemies to Christ, than those that deny his Satisfaction and Justification by his merits? who are greater enemies to Christ, than those that oppose his faithful Ministers and Ambassadors, and that lie in wait to deceive and misled Christians? you are enemies to his truths, and ways, and ordinances, and cause, and interest, and Ministers, and true Disciples; and all this with Christ in your mouths, and I am confident the Lord doth hate and abhor you for such hypocrisy.  
3. You are Children of the Devil; and the works of your Father you do, and will do; you are his more close and subtle agents, that in a seeming more refined way, do all you can to enlarge the bounds of his Kingdom; and like Satan when the Sons and Daughters of God assemble themselves to worship their Father, some of you will appear amongst them to disturb them; I wonder how you can have the face to pretend Religion, when it is so apparent that you are more than ordinarily acted by the Devil to oppose it.  
4. You are Serpents and a generation of Vipers, full of deadly poison, poison in the head, the poison of damnable errors, from whence poison doth drop forth at your lips and into your pens; you are Serpents putting forth your stings where ever you come, hissing at all those who are not of your brood: If our Saviour were on Earth to preach to you as he did to the Pharisees, he would with as great reason thus style you, as he did them.  
Que: II. Do you know where you are?  
1. You are in the Devil's School; he is training you up in some of the deepest mysteries of his Kingdom; some amongst you are but raw Scholars, and in the lower form, but you that I speak to are arrived to some proficiency, and are well instructed in some of the chief principles of the Devil's Catechism, so that you are able also to instruct others in the Devilish Doctrines you have learned of him. Your master is a liar from the beginning, and the Father of lies, and you have learned and believed some of his lies, as if they were certain truths.  
2. You are in the Devil's arms; he huggeth you so fast, that it is more difficult to pluck you from thence than the most wicked and profane.  
3. You are in the Devil's chains, whereby he is leading you captive at his will, they are chains of darkness and error, which he hath upon you, whereby he is dragging you towards the regions of eternal darkness  
Que: III. Do you know what you are doing?  
1. You are dishonouring God; in dishonouring the Son, you dishonour the Father, in reproaching Gods Ambassadors, you reproach the King that sent them; you are spots, and blemishes to Religion, and render it ridiculous to the profane world.  
2. You are murdering your own Souls, embruing your hands in your own blood, you are poisoning, wounding, killing yourselves; and you are some of the greatest soul-murderers of others, of any that live upon the Earth.  
Que. IU. Do you know whether you are going?  
You are going the certain way to Hell; your way is not in the common rodewith others, but it is a by-way and dark path, in which you often stumble and fall, and at length it will meet with the great road of the world, at the Gate of Hell, in which you will as certainly enter at last, if you go on in this path, as Cain and judas, that are there already. And here I might sound a peal of Judgement in your ears, and forewarn you of the wrath to come (to escape which, one day, you would give ten thousand worlds for an interest in Christ's Satisfaction and imputed Righteousness, when it will be too late,) but for the present most of you are Judgement-proof and Sermon-proof; and so prejudiced against us Ministers, who are employed as Watchmen by the Lord, to forewarn the people of their danger) that our reproofsand warnings are rejected, and railing language is the return of our admonitions.  
Yet in the name of the Eternal and Living God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, whose I am, and whom I serve in the work of the Ministry, I call upon you that are eluded by the Quakers, and have not as yet sucked in all their poisonous principles, which they have cunningly concealed from you, but now have made manifest to the world, that without any further delay, you would come out from amongst them, and separate yourselves; that you would save yourselves from this untoward generation; that you would deliver yourselves as a bird out of the snare of the fowler, and as a Roe out of the hand of the hunter, praying to the Lord to grant you repentance, (for going amongst them) unto the acknowledgement of his truths (which they deny) and that you may be recovered out of the snare of the Devil, who hath hitherto led you captive; considering that if you go in this way, your steps will certainly take hold on Hell; O then hasten, hasten, poor captived deluded Souls! hasten for the Lords sake, for your poor souls sake, hasten from these Soul-murderers unto the Lord Jesus the Soul-Savior, and into the ways of life and salvation, which he hath prescribed in his word.  
Lastly, I shall in a word bend my speech unto all (as yet undeluded) Christians, by way of exhortation to steadfastness in the truths and way of the Lord, and as they desire their salvation to beware of the Quakers damnable Doctrines. There are two ways, whereby God doth try his people, the one is by persecution, and other is by heresy, and the Apostle telleth us, 1 Co. 11. 19 that it is necessary heresies should, arise that they which are approved might be made manifest; this later way doth sometimes discover more unsound Professors than the former; the approved and elect of God I am sure will stand, and if any go out from us, it is a sign they were not of us, for if they had been of us, no doubt they would still have continued with us, 1 joh. 2. 19 And here I shall again repeat what I did before assert, that it were better for you to drink a cup of poison, than to suck in the Quakers damnable opinions; Take heed of this infection which is worse than poison and plague, more dangerous and destructive. For this end labour to get on the girdle of truth, let the truths of the word be fastened about the loins of your minds, that is, get the principles of Religion fixed in you; which that they may, mingle them with faith and love, and live under the powerful influence of them: And that you may be the further off from danger, avoid the Company and Meetings of the Quakers, (lest coming thither out of novelty, being out of God's way, you be left by God, and as too many have been, you be caught by the Devil in the snares which there he layeth) and come not near the Tents of these enemies of Jesus Christ, lest you be swallowed up in the same ruin which is coming upon them. If you would save yourselves from their plagues, you must keep yourselves out of their ways. I shall shut up all with the exhortation of the Apostle Peter, having told believers of the unlearned and unstable, who did wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction (as do the Quakers,) he exhorteth them, 2 Epist. 3. cap. 17. 18. v. Ye, therefore beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also being lead away with the error of the wicked fall from your own steadfastness; but grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ; Now to God the Father, to God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, be glory and honour, both now and for ever. Amen.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
THe speeding of the sheets off the Presses, hath caused too many both literal Erratas and in the sense too, the chiefest found out in a hasty reveiw you have as follow, and are desired to mend.  
Page 9 line 21 read destruction, p. 11. l. 25 read own, p. 15 l. 11. read understands, p. 16 l. 30 r. redicule, l. 32 r. heart, p. 17 l. 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 18 l. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 12 job 35. 10. l. 2 my l. 14 for my r. thy, l. 18 r. for 18, 28 p. 20 l. 3 for the r. three l. 10 after substances, add therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct substances, or three distinct nothings, p. 23 l. 27 blot out, W. P. required his presence else where, p. 27 l. 18. blot out Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, p. 28 l. 17 r. blasphemer, p. 34 l. 28 r. Three, p. 35 l. 33 r. their, p. 40 l. 6 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 23 r. true, where ever you find subsistence read subsistence, p. 42. r. foolish l. last, r. reasonings, p. 45 l. 15 r. there p. 48 l. 18 r. W. P's. p. 51 l. last r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 52 l. 1 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 12 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 17 r. Praxean l. 28 for thee r. the p. 53 l. 8 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 34 r. arguments p. 54 l. 27 r. much concern myself. l. 29 r. but chiefly, p. 55 l. 2 r. peccatum, l. 7 r. when ye have etc. p. 56 l. last r. to give, p. 59 l. 31 r. out of.