other Apoftles, and that he had robbed other Churches to do them Service, I Cor. ix. 6. 2 Cor. xi. 9. which he did only to ftop the Mouths of the falfe Apoftles, that (as the Quakers do by Minifters now) took occafion to blaft his Miniftry, because of his receiving Money from them, as if he had fought only his own gain, by his Preaching, v. 12. and he tells us, he boafted in it, which he would have had no reason to do, if he had only refufed the exacting of that which was none of his Due. And therefore, what he did then upon prudential Confiderations, and which he called an abafing himself, and reckoned among his Afflictions, 2 Cor. xi. 7.-vi. 4. is not to be a Precedent to others at all Times: And the other Apoftles did not fo then; and he himself did otherwife at other Times and Places; fo that this does really make against the Quakers. And they have little Reason to rail at others for their taking Money for Preaching, when they themselves that are the Preachers among them, grow generally fo Rich by it; and there are fo few of them who work with their own Hands, and none of them that are not chargeable to others; and some of them, especially of their travelling Preachers, well maintained out of their publick Stock, which they keep for the Service of the Truth, as they are pleased to call the propagating of their Religion through the Nation, and to other Foreign Parts.

SECT. VIII.

Queft. Are People bound to believe whatever their Minifters preach to them, who do not pretend to be immediately infpired, and

infallibly guided by the Spirit in all they teach?

Anf. Though People are to have a great Regard for their lawful Teachers, whom God has fet over them; yet they are not bound to believe whatever they preach to them, fhould they pretend ever fo much to immediate Infpiration, and Infallibility in all they teach, without first trying it by the infallible Rule of the Scripture, which we are fure was given by immediate Infpiration. For nothing is to be received as an Article of Faith, that is not either exprefly contained there, or may not by good Confequence be proved thereby.

Queft. Is it any where faid in Scripture, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are three Perfons, though they be three in Manifeftation, or three Manifeftations or Operations of the fame God?*

*G. W's

P. 94.

p. 10.

Anf. It is no where faid in Scripture, that Divinity they are three in Manifeftation, or three Ma- of Chrift, nifeftations or Operations of the fame God. Fr. HowAnd if they were three in Manifeftation only, gill, p. they could be no wife three diftinct from 308. Eternity, for there were no Manifeftations of mael, one or more of them from Eternity. And if the Son be only a Manifeftation of the Father, then it may be faid of the Father, as well as the Son, that he was Incarnate, and died; for a Manifeftation could neither be Incarnate, nor die; which is to overthrow the great Fundamentals of Chriftianity. But though it is no where exprefly faid in Scripture, that they are three Perfons, yet it may by good Confequence be proved thereby: For the Scripture diftinguishes them, as we do three Perfons, though not in these express Words, yet in Words equivalent thereto; as

by

G. W's

by the perfonal Characters, of I, and thou, and he; and by introducing the Father as fpeaking to the Son, and the Son as speaking to, and of his Father, and of the Holy Ghoft; and by calling the Father another Witness from the Son, and the Holy Ghost another Comforter, from both the Father and the Son; and by feveral other personal A&ts and Properties of Relation incommunicable; as the Father's begetting and fending his Son, and the Son's being begotten and fent of the Father, and the Holy Ghoft's proceeding from the Father, and by confequence from the Son, as being the Spirit of the Son, as well as of the Father, and fent by the Son, as well as by the Father; for no Perfon can beget or fend himfelf, but he must be a different Perfon from him that is begotten, or fent, Pfalm cx. 1. John v. 31, 32. — xiv. 16, 17. — xv. 26.

xvi. 7, 13, 28. And feeing the Father is in Scripture exprefly termed a Perfon, in diftinction from the Son, who is called the exprefs Image of his Father's Perfon, and therefore another Perfon from the Father; and by confequence, the Holy Ghoft another Perfon from both the Father and the Son; we know no Word more agreeable to the Scripture, to express their diftinction by, than by calling them three Perfons, Heb. i. 3.

Queft. Have not the Quakers owned, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, to be not only nominally, but really diftinct, in respect to their Properties of Relation, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft? *

Quakers Anf. Yes. They have fome of them fomeplainness, P. 24, 33. times done it, but in contradiction both to themselves, in their own former Writings, wherein they have opposed their being distinct

p.

from

P. 2.

from one another, by any incommunicable property. And alfo in contradiction to o-t G. W's ther of their moft approved Authors, whom Truth defending, they will not cenfure nor condemn, who call it damnable Doctrine to fay, that Chrift must be diftinct from the Father and the Holy Ghoft. And if they will own them now, Fr. How to be really distinct in respect to their proper- gil, p. 184. ties of Relation, they must in good confeSandy quence, own them alfo, to be three diftinct Foundati Perfons, to be the Subjects of these three on. Relations, for no Properties can be without their proper Subjects.

Queft. Is it not the Word Perfon only they object against, as too grofs to exprefs the holy Three? +

W. P's

+ Switch,

Anf. No. For in their Writings, they have p not thought it too grofs, to ufe the Expreffion of the Perfon of the Father, and of the Perfon of the Son, and the Person of the Holy Ghoft. And therefore, if they own them + G.F. to be the Holy Three, it cannot be too grofs G. M. p. to own them to be the Holy Three Perfons, 247., unless they will have them all Three to be R. Hub. only one Perfon, under three different Names W. P's and Manifeftations.

P. 49.

Sandy

Queft. If the Father, Son, and Holy Foundati Ghoft, be three Perfons, will it not make on, p. 15. them three Gods, contrary to the Scripture?

Anf. No. Their being three Perfons, will not make them three Gods; for we do not fay, they are three feparate Persons, as three Angels, or three Men are, having three separate Existences; but only three distinct Persons, of the fame undivided Nature or Effence, infeparably coexifting in and with each other. For, as the Scripture diftinguishes them from

each other, by their peculiar perfonal Properties; fo it gives to each of them, the Effential Attributes of God; and therefore each of them is God; and feeing there cannot be three Gods, they must be therefore all three together but one God. And this we muft undoubtedly believe, when it is revealed to us in the Holy Scripture, by God himself, tho' we cannot understand or fully comprehend the Manner how it is; unless we will pretend with our fhallow finite Reafon, to comprehend the infinite Nature of God, and know all the poffible Distinctions that may be in the Godhead, confiftent with the Unity thereof; than which nothing can be more vain. For what innumerable things are there even in created Nature, which we all undoubtedly believe to be, tho' we cannot fully comprehend the Manner how they are.

Queft. If the Manner of the Unity, and Diftinction of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, how they are three, and yet but one, is not exprefly declared to us in Scripture; why does the Church determine the Manner thereof, and make it an Article of our Creed, that they are one in Subftance, but three in Perfons or Subfiftences; an impertinent Distinction, *W. Pen's and abfurd Blafphemy? * Sandy Foundati

An. The Church might well determine the on, p. 12. Manner of their Unity, fo far as to their being one in Substance, which is but a neceffary confequent of their being one God, feeing it is the divine Subftance that makes God, and that can be but one, and cannot be separated or divided. And the Church might also determine the Manner of their Diftinction, fo far as to their being three in Persons or SubGiftences, for the Reasons already mentioned.

Dueft.