AND as to the manner how this One is Three,

in

• and how thefe three are one- I answer the Words of Bishop Burnet, (i) It is a vain Attempt to go about to prove this by Reason.

• AND that (k) it is an inexplicable Thing, and we cannot have any clear Idea how it truly is.

OUR Opponent acknowledges p. 112. that, Some of the Quakers have owned the Father, Son, and holy Ghoft, to be not only nominally, but really, distinct, in respect to their Properties of Relation, as Father, Son and Holy Ghoft. Whence it appears, that the Quakers are willing to diftinguish,as far as they can perceive the Scripture does; but that they therefore contradict either themselves or other of their Authors, when they oppose fuch Distinctions as are not fcriptural, does by no means follow, of which Sort is his Term Incommunicable Property; it would therefore be unreasonable to cenfure or Condemn any for refufing to use it. Nor is there any good Confequence in his faying, If they will own ⚫ them now to be really diftinct in respect to their Properties of Relation, they must own them alfo to be three diftinct Perfons to be the Subject ⚫ of these three Relations, for no Properties can be without their proper Subjects.' because though no Property is without a Subject, yet a Variety of Properties may be in one and the fame Subject. 'Tis therefore nothing to his Purpose that fome have used the Word Perfon, fince 'tis not true that any of them have used the Expreffion, he would deceive his Reader with, of the Person of the Father,

.

(i) Expofit. of 39 Articles, 5. Art. 1. p. 36. (k) Ibid. p. 37.

ther, and of the Perfon of the Son, and the Perfon of the Holy Ghost: An Expreffion of his own making, patched up from three different Authors, who have used the Word Perfon on different Occafions. And whereas in p. 113. he cites Francis Howgil, p. 184, as calling it Damnable Doctrine to fay, that Christ must be distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghoft, we have examined that Page in the Collection of Francis Howgil's Works, but can find no fuch Expreffion there, nor any thing like it. nor do we know of any fuch Saying of.his at all.

HIS following Distinction, p. 113. viz. We 'do not fay, they are three feparate Perfons, as three Angels, or three Men are, having three feparate Existences; but only three diftinct Perfons, of the fame undivided Nature or Effence, infeparably coexifting in and with each • other,' seems to us as unintelligible, as a Trinity of Perfons in the Godhead is inexplicable.

LET it therefore fuffice that we believe, according to the Text, 1 John v. 7. That there are three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. Tho the Manner of it be incomprehenfible. This, to ufe out Opponent's own Words, We muft undoubtedly believe, when it is revealed to us in the Holy Scripture by God himself, though we ⚫ cannot underftand or fully comprehend the < Manner how it is; unlefs we will pretend with our finite Reafon to comprehend the infinite Nature of God, and know all the particular Diftinctions that may be in the Godhead confiftent with the Unity thereof, than which nothing ⚫ can be more vain.' In this he fays well, but against himself, who hath vainly attempted to impofe

L 2

impose on us his Diftinction of three Persons, not revealed to us in wholly Scripture, nor proved by him to be confiftent with the Unity of the Godbead.

HE fays, p. 114. that The Church might • well determine the Manner of their Unity, fo far as to their being one in Substance and the Manner of their Distinction, so far as to their being three in Perfons or Subfiftences.'

A Diftinction, which W. P. might well call impertinent, but that he fays, 'tis abfurd Blafphemy, we find not.

'

6

OUR Adversary, p. 115. admits it, to be generally fafeft to confine our felves to the Ufe of the Scripture Terms only, in expreffing Articles of Faith; but adds, It may be neceffary fometimes, in expreffing Articles of Faith, to ufe other Words than the Scripture uses, to give the true Sense of the Scripture Words, or else there can be no interpreting of Scripture, which ⚫ cannot be done but in other Words.' But how does that agree, with his Affertion, p. 78. of the Scripture it felf being its own beft Interpreter.' He then attempts to fhew the Neceffity the Church was under of departing from Scripture Terms, in expreffing the Doctrine of the Trinity, in Oppofition to the Arrians and Sabellians. But had the Church kept to the Plainnefs of Scripture Expreffion, fhe had efcaped that miferable Rent and Divifion, which the introducing unfcriptural Terms occafioned. (1) For the first three < hundred Years from the Birth of Chrift, fays • R. Claridge

(m) R. G's Life and pofthumous Works, p. 394, 395.

R. Claridge, till the Arrian Controversy was ftarted, this Doctrine of the Holy Three was generally received and treated of, as it is plainly laid down in the Scriptures, and in the Creed called the Apoftles. But in the Beginning of the fourth Century, when the Difpute arofe about the Trinity, between Alexander Bishop of Alexandria,and Arrius a Presbyter of that Place, then new Words and unfcriptural Terms began to be invented, to defend one another's several Opinions. And from this Controversy, being managed with a blind and furious Zeal on both Sides, grew contentious Tumults, railing and reviling each other; fo that the People, fome taking Part with Alexander, and fome with Arrius, were divided into Factions, and a miferable Rent was made in the Church, about a • Difpute of Words, and a Doctrine inexplicable, as (m) Conftantine the Emperor calls it, in his Epiftle to Alexander and Arrius, wherein he ⚫ alfo terms it a certain vain Piece of a Question, ill begun, and more unadvisedly published: A Question which no Law or Ecclefiaftical · Canon defineth, a fruitlefs Contention, the Product of idle Brains, a matter fa nice, fo obfcure, and fo intricate, that it was neither to be explicated by the Priefts, nor understood by the People, but moft dangerous when taught left it introduce Discord and Blafphemy; for it concerned not the Subftance of Faith, or the Worship of God, nor any chief Command⚫ment of Scripture; but was vain, and a Toy, in refpect of Peace and Charity. And therefore he advises them to ceafe contending • and keep their Opinions to themselves, ask one L 3 ⚫ another

(d) Eufebius in vita Conftantini. 1. 2. c. 67, 70, 71.

another Forgiveness, and exercife mutual Tole

⚫ration.

THIS is the Subftance of Conftantine's Letter, by which we may fee what his Judgment was of this new started Controverfy, he looked upon it to be a Question, not of Faith, but of Nicety of Difpute, as (2) Dr. Taylor well obferves; and (0) Socrates gives this Character of the Letter, viz. That it contained admirable and prudent Advice.

C

OUR Opponent adds, p. 116. And it were eafy to fhew what a Number not only of unfcripture Words, but contrary to the Scripture, the Quakers use, to exprefs their Faith in the main Articles of Religion.' And then, under pretence of producing Inftances, packs together certain Expreffions; fome of them perhaps taken out of their Writings, others probably of his own forming, as the Caution he takes to conceal himfelf gives juft Caufe to fufpect; fince he has not mentioned one Author for any of them. And that thofe Expreffions are main Articles of their Religion, is a mere groundless Afsertion, feeing they never called any of them fo; and fome of them, till he produce better Authority, we fhall continue to think they never ufed.

Quest. Is not the Doctrine of a Diftinction of • Perfons in the Godhead, a fpeculative Subject,

(*) Lib. of Prophecying, Sect. 2. N. 26.

(0) Ecclef. Hift. 1. 1. c. 8.

the