Images de page

What remains, is to inform the reader, that with great brevity i have discussed, and endeavored 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 seperate 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 tell thee, reader, are not more repugnant to scripture, reason, and souls-security, than most destructive to God's honor, 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 mayest not miss so good an end, by the hlind 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 whut 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 and 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 rea

But instead of this better method, Thomas Vincent, as one that is often employed in catechistical lecfures, falls to interrogatories, begging that himself, he in his slander had taken for granted, to wit, the knowl'edge of our principles.

The question was this : “ Whether we owned one God-head, subsisting in three distinct and separate peisons, as the result of various revises and amendments. Which being denied by us, as a doctrine no where scriptural, Thomas Vincent frames this sillogism from the beloved desciple'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.

6 These are either three manifestations, three operations, three substances, or three somethings else beside subsistences.

“ But they are not three minifestations, 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 deducible from the place he instanced. Wherefore he desires their explanation of their terms, inasmuch as God did not use to wrap

[ocr errors]

his truths up in heathenih metaphysics, but in plain language. Notwithstanding we could not obtain a better explication than person, nor of person, than the mode of 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 fatly deny his minor proposition. No one substance can have three distinct subsistences, and preserve its own unity. For granting them the most favorable 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 betwixt the substance and its subsistence, the unity of substance will not admit a trinity of incommunicable or distinct subsistences.

Thomas Danson being asked “Of whom was Christ the express image?” from his alleging that scripture in the Hebrews; answered : “Of God's subsistence,

[ocr errors]

or manner of being." From whence two things in short follow as my reply: It makes God a Father only by subsistence, and Christ a Son without a substance. Besides it is falsely rendered in the Hebrews, since the Greek does not say KARAKTER PROOSPOU, but KARAKTER TES UPOSTASEOS, the character of substance.

And if he will persue 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 he 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 sollogistical, 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 & subsistence is any other than the form of an He, he would do well to justify himself from the imputation ef ignorance.

And till their hypothesis be of better authority, George Whitehead neitheir did, nor does by that comparison design men's invention so much honor.

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.

The trinity of distinct and separate persons, in the

unity of essence, refuted from scripture. "And he said Lord God, there is no God like unto thee." Kings viii. 23.-_ To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal ? saith the Holy One.” Isa. xl. 25.-“ I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is BO God besides me." ch. xlv. 5. 66 Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." ch. xlviii. 17.—“I will also praise thee, O my God; unto thee will I sing, O Holy One of Israel.” Psal. lxxi. 22,-" Jehovah shall be One, and his name One.” Zec. xiv. 9.-Which with a cloud of other testimonies that might be urged, evidently demonstrate, that in the


[ocr errors][merged small]
« PrécédentContinuer »