A53669:194
A brief declaration and vindication of the doctrine of the Trinity as also of…
A brief declaration and vindication of the doctrine of the Trinity as also of the person and satisfaction of Christ / accommodated to the capacity and use of such as may be in danger to be seduced, and the establishment of the truth by J. Owen.
London: printed by R.W. for Nath. Ponder, 1669
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Answ. We say, the only true God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We never say, the Scripture never says, that the Father only is the true God, whence it would follow, that he that is the true God, is the Father. But we grant the Father to be the only true God: and so we […] is the Son also. And it doth not […] all thence follow, that the Son is […] Father. Because in saying the […] the true God, we respect ⟨p. 121⟩not his paternity, or his paternal Relation to his Son; but his Nature, Essence and Being. And the same we affirm concerning the other persons. And to say, that because each person is God, one person must be another, is to crave leave to disbelieve what God hath revealed, without giving any Reason at all for their so doing.
Answ. We say, the only true God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We never say, the Scripture never sayes, that the Father only is the true God, whence it would follow, that he that is the true God, is the Father. But we grant the Father to be the only trne God: and so we 〈…〉 is the Son also. And it doth not 〈…〉 all thence follow, that the Son is 〈…〉 Father. Because in saying the 〈…〉 the true God, we respect ⟨p. 121⟩not his paternity, or his paternal Relation to his Son; but his Nature, Essence and Being. And the same we affirm concerning the other persons. And to say, that because each person is God, one person must be another, is to crave leave to disbelieve what God hath revealed, without giving any Reason at all for their so doing.
But this Sophism being borrowed from another, namely Crellius, who insisted much upon it, I shall upon his account, and not on theirs, who as far as I can apprehend, understand little of the intendment of it, remove it more fully out of the way. It is proposed by him in way of Syllogism, thus, The only true God is the Father; Christ is the only true God; therefore he is the Father. Now this Syllogism is ridiculously Sophistical. For in a Categorical Syllogism the Major Proposition is not to be particular, nor equipollent to a particular. For from such a Proposition, when any thing communicable to more is the