clare that which our eyes have seen, our ears heard, and which our hands have handled of the eternal word," in opposition to the private opinions, conjectures, and interpretations of men concerning God and religion, that all people might thereby be reduced to faith in, and obedience to the universal grace which brings salvation; which as it only can restore sound judgment concerning God, and effect redemption from iniquity, so its being relinquished by men, was the very ground both of their division in judgment, and corrup

tion in manners.

That this has been, and is our case, I shall produce an instance, which is indeed the occasion of this treatise.

Two persons lately of Thomas Vincent's auditory in SpittleFields, (who goes under the notion of a Presbyter,) being desirous to prove all things, and to hold fast the best, visited our meeting, to understand if we were as really deserving blame, as represented by our enemies; where it then pleased divine goodness to visit them with the call of his Light, from the inventions, carnal observations, will-worship, and vain conversation of those to whom they were formerly related, that they might be made children of the day. And though its appearance might be small, yet sufficient to discover them to have been inhabitants of the night, and can never be rejected, but it shall bring that condemnation which will further testify it to be of God.

But their relinquishing his congregation, so incensed this Presbyterian preacher, that his peevish zeal transported him beyond, not only the moderation of christianity, but the civility of education, venting his folly and prejudice much to this purpose: "That he had as lieve they should go to a bawdy-house, as to frequent the Quakers' meetings, because of their erroneous and damnable doctrines." And pointing to the window, said: "If there should stand a cup of poison, I would rather drink it, than suck in their damnable doctrines." He further expressed himself in this manner to one of them: "If ever you go again, I will give you up, and God will give you up, that you may believe a lie, and be damned." Which storms of foul and railing accusations, proving ineffectual to shipwreck that little grain of faith, his hearers, as forgetting they hold their preaching by connivance, and the many appeals made by their non-conforming brethren, for an indulgence, came with this caution to the pater-familias, (or he that was both husband and father to the concerned parties,) that he would exercise his authority, as well to refuse them to all Quaker visitants, as prohibit them the liberty of their consciences in frequenting our meetings.

All which we could not for the truth's sake, let pass in silence, and therefore did require him to let us have a public meeting, in which we might have liberty to answer on the behalf both of ourselves and principles; which after some demur, was granted, the day he appointed, and at the second hour in the afternoon. But that he might not want the applause of many voices, and doubtless to prevent our friends, as, I am informed, bespoke his usual auditory to be there at one. And, as a man that would not overspend himself,

or incur a non-plus for want of seconds, he had his third and fourth, to wit, Thomas Danson, Thomas Doolittle, and Maddocks, who at their times (and often out of them) did interpose, to whom George Whitehead mostly answered; nor had there any thing been spoken by another, but from their own example.

The matter in controversy, will be related in the beginning of this treatise, as a necessary preludium, or introduction to the following discourse. The manner of it was so gross, that I know not how to represent it better, than by the levity and rudeness of some prize; laughing, hissing, shoving, striking, and stigmatizing us with the opprobrious terms of "confident fellow," "impudent villain," blasphemer," &c. And, as the usual refuge of shallow persons, when they have little else to say, to prepossess their hearers with prejudice against the principles of such as oppose them, he questioned much whether I was not some Jesuit; not remembering, or at least unwilling to let the people know, that none have been, nor are more instant in the vindication of that doctrine he and his brother did assert, to wit, God subsisting in three distinct persons, than the Jesuits. So that if I should not as well reflect a scandal upon their learning by a comparison, as he did upon my principle, I could more truly invert" Jesuitism" upon himself. In short, they neither would keep to scripture terms theinselves, nor suffer it in others. But looking upon George Whitehead's explanation of their terms, and reduction of their matter, (if possible,) to a scripture sense, thereby fitting it to the auditors' apprehension, to be an indirect way of answering, (as that which nakedly exposed their traditional folly to the vulgar, Thomas Vincent, in an abrupt manner, fell to his prayer, in which he falsely, and with many strangely affected whines, accused us for blasphemers unto God. And that he night prevent the clearing of ourselves, he desired the people, when he had finished, to be gone, giving them an example by his and three brethren's retreat. But we being desirous further to inform the people of our innocency, they did not only (as before) endeavour to pull us down, but put the candles out, though several persons, of good esteem, continued whilst we spoke in vindication of ourselves, from the invectives of our adversaries.

The people still remaining undispersed, Thomas Vincent came very palely down the stairs, having a candle in his hand, requiring their dismission, at which time he promised us, at our request, another meeting. But as one that knew not well what he said, or never purposed to perform what he promised, he has given us since to understand, he cannot in conscience spare us so much time; yet to satisfy George Whitehead and myself, in private, he could agree; which surely cannot be termed another meeting, since then it must relate to the preceding one. But how near the relation is betwixt an accusation before hundreds, and a satisfaction before none, must needs be obvious to every unbiassed person.-Our right should have been altogether as public as our wrong.-For which cause we were necessitated to visit his meeting, where, on a lecture day, after a continued silence during all his worship, we modestly intreated we

might be cleared from those unjust reflections before his congregation, leaving a disputation, if he could not then attend it, to some more seasonable opportunity. But as one, who resolved injustice to men's reputation, as well as cowardice, in baulking a defence of his own principles. he slunk most shamefully away; nor would any there, though urged to it, assume his place to vindicate his practice towards us, or his doctrines then delivered.

Reader, what is thy opinion of this savage entertainment? Would Socrates, Cato, or Seneca, whom they call heathens, have treated us with such unseemly carriage? I suppose not. And well is it for the truly sober and conscientious, they are not liable to those severe lashes, and that peevish usage, which are the inseparable appendix to a Scotch directory, whose cold and cutting gales ever have designed to nip and blast the fairest blossoms of greater reformation. So much for history

What remains, is to inform the reader, that with great brevity I have discussed, and endeavoured a total enervation of those cardinal points, and chief doctrines so firmly believed, and continually imposed for articles of christian faith: 1. The trinity of separate persons, in the unity of essence. 2. God's incapacity to forgive, without the fullest satisfaction paid him by another. 3. A justification of impure persons, from an imputative righteousness. Which principles let me teli thee, reader, are not more repugnant to scripture, reason, and souls-security, than most destructive to God's honour, in his unity, mercy, and purity.

Therefore I beseech thee to exterminate passion from her predominancy, in the perusal of this abridged discourse, since it was written in love to thee; that whilst it is thy desire to know, love, and fear God Almighty above men's precepts, thou mayst not miss so good an end, by the blind embraces of tradition for truth. But in the nobility of a true Berean, search and inquire; letting the good old verity, not a pretended antiquity, (whilst a mere novelty,) and solid reason, not an overfond credulity, sway the balance of thy judgment. that both stability and certainty may accompany thy determinations. Farewell.

A short Confutation by way of Recapitulation, of what was objected against us at Thomas Vincent's meeting.

If disputations prove at any time ineffectual, it is either to be imputed to the ignorance ad ambiguity of the disputants, or to the rudeness and prejudice of the auditory. All which may be truly affirmed of Thomas Vincent with his three brethren, and congregation.

The accusation 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 against, he was as ready to defend them by the authority of scripture and reason. But instead of this better method, Thomas Vincent, as one that is often employed in catechistical lectures, falls to interrogatories, begging that himself, he in his slander had taken for granted, to wit, the knowledge of our principles.

The question was this: "Whether we owned one God-head, subsisting in three distinct and separate persons,” as the result of various revises and amendments. Which being denied by us, as a doctrine no where scriptural, Thomas Vincent frames this syllogism from the beloved disciple's words.

"There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."1 John v. 7.

"These are either three manifestations, three operations, three substances, or three somethings else beside subsistences. "But they are not three manifestations, three operations, three substances, nor three somethings else beside subsistences: Ergo, Three subsistences."

George Whitehead utterly rejected his terms, as not to be found in scripture, nor deduceable from the place he instanced. Wherefore he desires their explanation of their terms, inasmuch as God did not use to wrap his truths up in heathenish metaphysics, but in plain language. Notwithstanding we could not obtain a better explication than person, nor of person, than the mode of a substance. To all which George Whitehead and myself urged several scriptures, proving God's complete unity. And when we queried how God was to be understood, if in an abstractive sense from his substance; they concluded it a point more fit for admiration than disputation. But a little to review his syllogism. The manner of it shews him as little a scholar, as its matter does a christian. But I shall over-look the first, and so much of the second, as might deserve my objection to his major, and give in short my reason, why I flatly deny his minor proposition. No one substance can have three distinct subsistences, and preserve its own unity. For granting them the most favourable definition, every subsistence will have its own substance; so that three distinct subsistences, or manners of being, will require three distinct substances or beings; consequently three Gods. For if the infinite God-head subsists in three separate manners or forms, then is not any one of them a perfect and complete subsistence without the other two; so parts, and something finite is in God. Or if infinite, then three distinct infinite subsistences; and what is this but to assert three Gods, since none is infinite but God? And on the contrary, there being an inseparability be

twixt the substance and its subsistence, the unity of substance will not admit a trinity of incommunicable or distinct subsis

tences.

Teas Danson being asked " Of whom was Christ the express image?" from his alledging that scripture in the Hebrows; answered: “ Of God's subsistence, or manner of being." From whence two things in short follow as my reply: It makes G Father only by subsistence, and Christ a Son without a Susance. Besides it is falsely rendered in the Hebrews, since the Greek does not say Χαράκτης προώσπε, but Χαρακτηρ της izes, the character of substance.

And if he will peruse a farther discovery of his error, and explanation of the matter, let him read Col. i. 15. « Who is the image of the invisible God." Heb. i. 3.

And because George Whitehead, willing to bring this strange doctrine to the capacity of the people, compared their three persons to three apostles, saying, he did not understand how Paul, Peter, and John could be three persons, and one apostle, (a most apt comparison to detect their doctrine,) one Maddocks, whose zeal out-stript his knowledge, bustling hard, as one that had some necessary matter for the decision of our controversy, instead thereof, (perhaps to save his brethren, or show himself,) silences our farther controverting of the principle, by a syllogistical, but impertinent reflection upon George Whitehead's person. It runs thus: "He that scornfully and reproachfully compares our doctrine of the blessed trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit, one in essence, but three in persons, to three finite men, as Paul, Peter, and John, is a blasphemer. But you George Whitehead have so done. Ergo."

A strange 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 persons in one essence." Let them first prove their trinity, and then charge their blasphemy. But I must not forget this person's self-confutation, who to be plainer, called them three "He's," and if he can find an He without a substance, or prove that a Subsistence is any other than the form of an He, he would do well to justify himself from the imputation of ignorance.

And till their hypothesis be of better authority, George Whitehead neither did, nor does by that comparison design men's invention so much honour.

For it is to be remarked, that George Whitehead is no otherwise a blasphemer, than by drawing direct consequences from their own principles, and recharging them upon themselves. So that he did not speak his own apprehensions by his comparison, but the sense of their assertion; therefore blasphemer and blasphemy are their own.