villian," "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 themselves, nor suffer it in others. But looking upon George Whithead'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 might 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) endeavor 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 1 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 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 accompa ny thy determinations. Farewell.

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

Ir 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 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 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.

"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

his truths up in heatheni-h 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 flatly 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,