the fairest bloffoms of greater reformation. So much for history.

What remains is, to inform the reader, that with great brevity I have difcuffed, and endeavoured a total enervation of those cardinal points, and chief doctrines fo firmly believed, and continually impofed for articles of Chriftian faith: 1. The trinity of feparate perfons, in the unity of effence. 2. God's incapacity to forgive, without the fulleft fatisfaction paid him by another. 3. A juftification of impure perfons, from an imputative righteousness. Which principles let me tell thee, reader, are not more repugnant to fcripture, reason, and fouls-fecurity, than most destructive to God's honour, in his unity, mercy, and purity.

Therefore I beseech thee to exterminate paffion from her predominancy, in the perufal of this difcourfe, fince it was writ in love to thee; that whilst it is thy defire to know, love, and fear God Almighty above mens precepts, thou mayeft not mifs fo good an end, by the blind embraces of tradition for truth. But in the nobility of a true Berean, fearch and enquire; letting the good old verity, not a pretended antiquity, (whilft a mere novelty) and folid reason, not an over-fond credulity, fway the balance of thy judgment, that both ftability and certainty may accompany thy determinations. Farewell.

A fhort confutation by way of recapitulation, of what was objected against us at Thomas Vincent's meeting.

IF

F difputations prove at any time ineffectual, it is either to be imputed to the ignorance and ambiguity of the difputants, or to the rudenefs and prejudice of the auditory all which may be truly affirmed of T. V. with his three brethren, and congregation.

The accufation being general, viz. that the Quakers held damnable doctrines, George Whitehead on

their behalf stood up, and, as it was his place, willingly would have given the people an information of our principles, which, if objected againft, he was as ready to defend by the authority of fcripture and reafon; but inftead of this better method, T. V. as one that is often employed in catechistical lectures, falls to interrogatories, begging that himself, he in his flander had taken for granted, to wit, the knowledge of our principles.

The queftion was this, Whether we owned one "God-head, fubfifting in three diftinct and separate per'fons,' as the refult of various revifes and amendments; which being denied by us, as a doctrine no where fcriptural, T. V. frames this fyllogifin from the beloved difciple's words.

"There are three that bear record in heaven, the "Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft; and these "three are one."

These are either three manifeftations, three operarations, three fubftances, or three fomethings else befides fubfiftences.'

But they are not three manifestations, three operations, three fubftances, nor three any thing else • befides fubfiftences:'

Ergo, Three fubfiftences.

G. W. utterly rejected his terms, as not to be found in fcripture, nor deducible from the place he inftanced: wherefore he defires their explanation of their terms, inasmuch as God did not chufe to wrap his truths up in heathenith metaphyficks, but in plain language: notwithstanding we could not obtain a better explanation, than perfon; or of person, than the mode of a fubftance; to all which G. W. and myself urged several scriptures, proving God's complete unity: and when we queried how God was to be understood, if in an abstractive fenfe from his fubftance, they 'concluded it a point more fit for admiration than difputation. But a little to review his fyllogifm; the man

• John v. 7.

ner

ner of it fhews him as little a fcholar, as it's matter does a Chriftian; but I fhall overlook the first, and fo much of the fecond, as might deferve my objection to his major, and give in short my reason, why I flatly deny his minor propofition. No one fubftance can have three diftinct fubfiftences, and preferve its own unity: for granting them the most favourable definition, every fubfiftence will have its own fubftance; fo that three diftinct fubfiftences, or manners of being, will require three distinct fubftances, or beings; confequently three Gods. For if the infinite God-head fubfifts in three feparate manners or forms, then is not any one of them a perfect and complete fubfiftence without the other two; fo parts, and fomething finite is in God: or if infinite, then three diftinct infinite fubfiftences; and what is this but to affert three Gods, fince none is infinite but God? and on the contrary, there being an infeparability betwixt the substance and its fubfiftence, the unity of fubftance will not admit a trinity of incommunicable or distinct fubfiftences.

T. D. being afked, Of whom was Chrift the express image, from his alledging that fcripture in the Hebrews; answered, Of God's fubfiftence, or manner of being from whence two things in fhort follow as my reply, It makes God a Father only by fubfiftence, and Chrift a fon without a fubftance. Befides 'tis falfly rendered in the Hebrews, fince the Greek does not fay Χαρακτήρ προσώπε, but Χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποςάσεως, the character of fubftance.

And if he will perufe a farther discovery of his error, and explanation of the matter, let him read Col. "who is the image of the invifible God."

i. 15.

And because G. W. willing to bring this ftrange doctrine to the capacity of the people, compared their three perfons to three apoftles, faying he did not understand how Paul, Peter, and John could be three perfons, and one apostle, (a moft apt comparison to detect their doctrine) one Maddocks, whose zeal out-ftript his knowledge, bustling hard, as one that had fome neceffary matter for the decision of our

con

controversy, instead thereof (perhaps to fave his brethren, or fhew himself) filences our farther controverting of the principle, by a fyllogiftical, but impertinent reflection upon G. W's. perfon. It runs thus: He that fcornfully and reproachfully compares our • doctrine of the' bleffed trinity of Father, Son, and • Spirit, one in effence, but three in perfons, to three finite men, as Paul, Peter, and John, is a blasphe· mer. But you G. W. have fo done. Ergo,'

A ftrange way of argumentation, to beg what cannot be granted him, and take for granted what still remains a question, viz. that there are three distinct and separate perfons in one effence: let them first prove their trinity, and then charge their blafphemy: but I muft not forget this perfon's felf-confutation, who, to be plainer, called them three Hes, and if he can find an He without a fubftance, or prove that a fubfiftence is any other than the form of an He, he would do well to justify himself from the imputation of ignorance.

And till their hypothefis be of better authority, G. W. neither did, nor does by that comparison defign mens invention fo much honour.

For it is to be remarked, that G. W. is no otherwise a blafphemer, than by drawing direct confequences from their own principles, and re-charging them upon themselves: fo that he did not fpeak his own ap prehenfions by his comparifon, but the fenfe of their affertion; therefore blafphemer and blafphemy are their own.

The trinity of diftinct and separate perfons, in the unity of effence, refuted from scripture.

AN

ND he faid, Lord God, there is no god like "unto thee, to whom then will ye liken me? or fhall I be equal, faith the Holy One?—I am the "Lord, and there is none else, there is no God be

• 1 Kings viii. 23, Ifa. xl. 25. Chap, xlv. 5, 6.

<<< fides me.

Thus faith the Lord thy redeemer, the "Holy One of Ifrael, I will alfo praife thee, O my "God; unto thee will I fing, O Holy One of Ifrael, "Jehovah fhall be One, and his name One." Which with a cloud of other teftimonies that might be urged, evidently demonftrate, that in the days of the first covenant, and prophets, but One was the Holy God, and God but that Holy One.-Again, "And "Jefus faid unto him, why calleft thou me good? "there is none good but One, and that is God. And "this is life eternal, that they might know Thee " (father) the Only true God. Seeing it is One God " that fhall juftify. There be gods many, but unto "us there is but One God, the father, of whom are "all things. One God and father, who is above all

things. For there is One God. To the Only-wife "God be glory now and for ever."" From all which I shall lay down this one affertion, that the testimonies of fcripture, both under the law, and fince the gospel difpenfation, declare One to be God, and God to be One, on which I fhall raise this argument:

If God, as the fcriptures teftify, hath never been declared or believed, but as the Holy One, then will it follow, that God is not an Holy Three, nor doth fubfift in Three diftinct and separate Holy Ones: but the before-cited fcriptures undeniably prove that One is God, and God only is that Holy One; therefore he cannot be divided into, or fubfift in an Holy Three, or Three diftinct and feparate Holy Ones.-Neither can this receive the leaft prejudice from that frequent but impertinent diftinction, that he is One in fubftance, but Three in perfons or fubfiftences; fince God was not declared or believed incompletely, or without his fubfiftences: nor did he require homage from his creatures, as an incomplete or abftracted being, but as God the Holy One, for fo he should be