Person are three Persons or Gods and from three they will increase to nine and so ad infinitum 4. But if they shall deny the three Persons or Subsistencies to be infinite for so there would unavoidably be three Gods it will follow that they must be finite and so the absurdity is not abated from what it was for that of one substance having three subsistences is not greater then that an infinite Being should have three finite modes of subsisting But though that mode which is finite can't answer to a substance that 's infinit yet to try if we can make their Principle to approach common sense Let 's conceive that three persons which may be finite separately make up an infinite conjunctly however this will follow that they are no more incommunicable or separate nor properly subsistences but a subsistance for the infinite Substance can't find a bottom or substance in any one or two therefore joyntly And here I am also willing to over-look finiteness in the Father Son and Spirit which this Doctrine must suppose 5. Again if these three distinct Persons are one with some one thing as they say they are with the God-head then are not they incommunicable among themselves but so much the contrary as to be one in the place of another for if that the only God is the Father and Christ be that only God then is Christ the Father So if that one God be the Son and the Spirit that one God then is the Spirit the Son and so round Nor is it possible to stop or that it should be other wise since if the Divine Nature be inseparable from the three Persons or communicated to each and each Person have the whole Divine Nature then is the Son in the Father and the Spirit in the Son unless that the God-head be as incommunicable to the Persons as they are reported to be amongst themselves or that the three Persons have distinctly allotted them such a proportion of the Divine Nature as is not communicable to each other which is a like ridiculous and shameful Much more might be said to manifest the gross contradiction of this Trinitarian Doctrine as vulgarly receiv'd but I must be brief Information and Caution Before I shall conclude this Head it 's requisite I should inform the Reader concerning it's Original thou may'st assure thy self it 's not from the Scriptures nor Reason since so expresly repugnant although all Broachers of their own Inventions strongly endeavour to reconcile them with their Holy Record Know then my Friend 't was born above three hundred years after the Antient Gospel was declared and that through the nice distinctions and too daring curiosity of the Bishop of Alexandria who being opposed by Arius their Zeal so reciprocally blew the fire of Contention Animosity and Persecution till at last they sacrific'd each other to their mutual revenge Thus it was conceiv'd in ignorance brought forth and maintain'd by cruelty for though he that was strongest impos'd his Opinion persecuting the contrary yet the Scale turning on the Trinitarian side it has there continued through all the Romish Generations and notwithstanding it hath obtain'd the name of Athanatian from Athanatius an opiniated man witness his carriage towards Constantine the Emperor because suppos'd to have been most concern'd in the framing that Creed in which this Doctrine is asserted yet have I never seen one Copy void of a suspition rather to have been the results of Popish School-men which I could render more perspicuous did not brevity necessitate me to an omission Be therefore caution'd Reader not to imbrace the determinations of prejudic'd Councils for Evangelical Doctrine to whom the Scriptures bear no certain testimony neither was believ'd by the Primitive Saints or thus stated by any I have read in the first second or third Centuries particularly Ireneus Justin Martyr Tertullian Origen Theophilact with many others who appear wholly forreign to the matter in controversie But seeing that private Spirits and those none of the most ingenious have been the Parents and Guardians of this so generally receiv'd Doctrine let the time pass suffice and be admonish'd to apply thy mind unto that Light and Grace which brings Salvation that by obedience thereunto those mists Tradition hath cast before thy eyes may be expel'd and thou receive a certain knowledge of that God whom to know is Life Eternal not to be a divided but ONE pure intire and eternal Being who in the fulness of time sent forth his Son as the true Light which enlightneth every man that whosoever follow'd him the Light might be translated from the dark Notions and vain Conversations of men to this Holy Light in which onely sound Judgment and eternal Life are obtainable who so many hundred years since in Person testified the virtue of it and has communicated unto all such a proportion as may enable them to follow his Example The Vulgar Doctrine of Satisfaction being dependent on the Second Person of the imagin'd Trinity refuted from Scripture THat man having transgress'd the Righteous Law of God and so expos'd to the penalty of eternal Wrath it 's altogether impossible for God to remit or forgive without a Plenary satisfaction and that there was no other way by which God could obtain satisfaction or save men than by inflicting the penalty of infinite wrath and vengeance on Jesus Christ the Second Person of the Trinity who for sins past present and to come hath wholly born and paid it whether for all or but some to the offended infinite justice of his Father 1. And the Lord passed by before him Moses and proclaimed The Lord the Lord God merciful and gracious keeping mercy for thousands forgiving iniquity transgression and sin From whence I shall draw this Position that since God has proclaim'd himself a Gracious Merciful and forgiving God it 's not inconsistent with his Nature to remit without any other consideration than his own Love otherwise he could not justly come under the imputation of so many gracious Attributes with whom it is impossible to pardon and necessary to exact the payment of the utmost farthing 2. For if ye turn again to the Lord the Lord your God is gracious and merciful and will not turn away his face from you Where how natural is it to observe that God's remission is grounded on their repentance and not that it 's impossible for God to pardon without a Plenary satisfaction since the possibility nay certainty of the contrary viz. his Grace and Mercy is the great Motive or Reason of that loving invitation to return 3. They hardened their Necks and hearkned not to thy Commandments but thou art a God ready to pardon gracious and merciful Can the honest hearted Reader conceive that God should be thus mercifully quallified whilst executing the rigor of the Law transgrest or not acquitting without the Debt be paid him by another I suppose not 4. Let the wicked forsake his way and
Objection to his Major and give in short my Reason why I flatly deny his Minor Proposition No one Substance can have three distinct Subsistances and preserve its own Unity for granting them the most favourable definition every subsistance will have its own Substance so that three distinct Subsistances or manner of beings will require three distinct Substances of 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 compleat subsistance without the other two so parts and some thing finite is in God or if infinite then three distinct infinite Subsistances and what 's 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 subsistance the Unity of Substance will not admit a Trinity of incommunicable or distinct Subsistances T.D. being ask'd of whom was Christ the express Image from his alleadging that Scripture in the Hebrews answered of Gods Subsistance or manner of being from whence two things in short follow as my Reply It makes God a Father only by subsistance and Christ a Son without a Substance Besides it s falsly rendred in the Hebrews since the Greek does not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Character of Substance And if he will peruse a farther discovery of his Error and explanation of the Matter let him read Col. 1.15 Who is the Image of the Invisible God And because G.W. willing to bring this strange Doctrine to the capacity of the People compar'd 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 the ridicule of their Doctrine one Maddocks whose Zeal out-stript his knowledge busling hard as one that had some necessary matter for the decision of our Controversie instead thereof perhaps to save his Brethren or show himself silences our farther controverting of the Principle by a Syllogistical but false and impertinent reflection upon G.W. his 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 G.W. have so done Ergo. A strange way of Argumentation to beg what can't 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 persons self-confutation who to be plainer called them three Hee 's and if he can find a He without a Substance or prove that a subsistance is any other than the form of a He he would do well to justifie himself from the imputation of Ignorance And till their Hipothesis be of better Authority G.W. neither did nor does by that Comparison design mens Inventions so much honour For 't is to be remark'd that G.W. 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 sence 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 To whom then will ye liken ME Or shall I be equal saith the Holy ONE I am the Lord and there is NONE else there is no GOD besides ME. Thus saith the Lord thy Redeemer the Holy ONE of Israel I will also praise THEE O my God unto THEE will I sing O Holy ONE of Israel Jehovah is ONE and his Name ONE Which with the Cloud of other Testimonies that might be urg'd evidently demonstrate that in the dayes of the first Covenant and Prophets but ONE was the Holy God and God but that Holy ONE Again And Jesus said unto him Why callest 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 shall justifie 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 Wise God be glory now and ever From all which I shall lay down this one Assertion that the Testimonies of Scripture both under the Law and since the Gospel-Dispensation declare ONE to be God and God to be ONE on which I shall raise this Argument If God as the Scriptures testifie hath never been declar'd or believ'd but as the Holy ONE then will it follow that God is not a Holy THREE nor doth subsist in THREE distinct and separate Holy ONES but the before-cited Scriptures undeniably prove that ONE is God and God only is that Holy ONE therefore he can't be divided into or subsist in a Holy THREE or THREE distinct and separate Holy ONES Neither can this receive the least prejudice from that frequent but impertinent distinction that he is ONE in Substance but THREE in Persons or Subsistences since God was not declared or believed incompleatly or without his subsistance Nor did he require homage from his Creatures as an incompleat or abstracted Being but as God the Holy ONE For so he should be manifested and worshipped without that which was absolutely necessary to himself A most absurd Blasphemy So that either the Testimonies of the aforementioned Scriptures are to be believ'd concerning God that he is intirely and compleatly not abstractly and distinctly the Holy ONE or else their Authority to be denied by these Trinitarians and on the contrary if they pretend to credit their Holy Testimonies they must necessarily conclude their kind of Trinity a Fiction Refuted from right Reason 1. If there be three distinct and separate Persons then three distinct and separate Substances because every person is inseparable from its own Substance and as there is no person that 's not a Substance in common acceptation among men so do the Scriptures plentifully agree herein and since the Father is God the Son is God and the Spirit is God which their Opinion necessitates them to confess then unless the Father Son and Spirit are three distinct Nothings they must be three distinct Substances and consequently three distinct Gods 2. It 's farther prov'd if it be consider'd that either the Divine Persons are finite or infinite if the first then something finite is inseparable to the infinite Substance whereby something finite is in God If the last then three distinct Infinites three Omnipotents three Eternals and so three Gods 3. If each Person be God and that God subsists in three Persons then in each
actually a breaker of it is excluded as not justifying before God If you fulfil the Royal Law ye do well so speak ye and so do as they that shall be judg'd thereby 8. If ye live after the flesh ye shall die but if ye through the Spirit do mortifie the deeds of the Body ye shall live No man can be dead and justified before God for so He may be justified that lives after the flesh therefore they only can be justified that are alive from whence this follows If the living are justified and not the dead and that none can live to God but such as have mortified the deeds of the Body through the Spirit then none can be justified but they who have mortified the deeds of the Body through the Spirit so that Justification does not go before but is subsequential to the mortification of lusts and sanctification of the Soul through the Spirits operation 9. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God are the Sons of God How clearly will it appear to any but a cavelling and tenatious Spirit that man can be no farther justified then as he becomes obedient to the Spirits leadings for if none can be a Son of God but he that 's lead by the Spirit of God then none can be justified without being led by the Spirit of God because none can be justified but he that is a Son of God so that the way to Justification and Son-ship is through obedience to the Spirits leadings that is manifesting the holy Fruits thereof by an innocent life and conversation 10. But let every man prove his own work and then shall he have rejoyceing in himself alone and not in another Be not deceived for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he reap If rejoycing and acceptance with God or the contrary are to be reaped from the work that a man soweth either to the Flesh or to the Spirit then is the Doctrine of Acceptance and ground of Rejoycing from the works of another utterly excluded every man reaping according to what he hath sown and bearing his own burden 11. Was not Abraham our Father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his Son upon the Altar Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by Faith only He that will seriously peruse this Chapter shall doubtless find some to whom this Epistle was wrote of the same Spirit with the Satisfactionists and Imputarians of our time they fain would have found out a Justification from Faith in the Imputation of anothers Righteousness but James an Apostle of the most high God who experimentally knew what true Faith and Justification meant gave them to understand from Abrahams self-denying Example that unless their Faith in the purity and power of God's Grace had that effectual Operation to subdue every beloved lust wean from every Dallila and intirely to resign and sacrifice Isaac himself their Faith was a Fable or as a Body without a Spirit and as Righteousness therefore in one person cannot justifie another from unrighteousness so whoever now pretends to be justified by Faith whilst not led and guided by the Spirit into all the Wayes of Truth and Works of Righteouness their Faith they will find at last Fiction 12. Little Children let no man deceive you he that doth Righteousness is Righteous as God is Righteous but he that committeth sin is of the Devil From whence it may be very clearly argued that none can be in a state of Justification from the Righteousness performed by an other imputed unto them but as they are actually redeemed from the commision of sin For if he that commits sin is of the Devil then cannot any be justified compleatly before God who is so incompleatly redeem'd as yet to be under the captivity of lust since then the Devil's Seed or Off-spring may be justified but that 's impossible It there follows that as he who doth Righteousness is Righteous as God is Righteous so no farther is he like God or justifiable for in whatsoever he derrogates from the works of that Faith which is held in a pure Conscience he is no longer Righteous or justifi'd but under condemnation as a Transgressor or dissobedient person to the Righteous Commandment and if any would obtain the true state of Justification let them circumspectly observe the Holy Guidings and Instructions of that Unction to which the Apostle recommended the Antient Churches that thereby they may be led out of all ungodliness into Truth and Holiness so shall they find acceptance with the Lord who has determined never to justifie the wicked Refuted from right Reason 1. Because it 's impossible for God to justifie that which is both opposite and destructive to the purity of his own Nature as this Doctrine necessarily obliges him to do in accepting the wicked as not such from the imputation of anothers Righteousness 2. Since man was justified before God whilst in his native Innocency and never condemned till he had err'd from that pure state he never can be justified whilst in the frequent Commission of that for which the Condemnation came therefore to be justifi'd his Redemption must be as intire as his fall 3. Because sin came not by Imputation but actual Transgression for God did not condemn his Creature for what he did not but what he did therefore must the Righteousness be as personal for acceptance otherwise these two things will necessarily follow first that he may be actually a sinner and yet not under the curse secondly That the power of the first Adam to death was more prevalent then the power of the second Adam unto life 4. It s therefore contrary to sound reason that if actual sinning brought death and condemnation any thing besides actual obedience unto Righteousness should bring Life and Justification for Death and Life Condemnation and Justification being vastly opposite no man can be actually dead and imputatively alive therefore this Doctrine so much contended for carries this gross absurdity with it that a man may be actually sinful yet imputatively righteous actually judged and condemned yet imputatively justified and glorified In short he may be actually damned and yet imputatively saved otherwise it must be acknowledged that obedience to Justification ought to be as personally extensive as was disobedience to condemnation In which real not imputative sense those various tearms of Sanctification Righteousness Resurrection Life Redemption Justification c. are most infallibly to be understood 5. Nor are their words Impute Imputed Imputeth Imputing used in Scripture by way of application to that which is actual and inherent as the Asserters of an Imputative Righteousness do by their Doctrine plainly intimate but so much the contrary as that they are never mentioned but to express men really and personally to be that which is imputed to them whether as guilty as remitted or as righteous for instance What man soever of the house of Israel that killeth
and yet impossible for him unless the Debt be fully satisfied 2. That the finite and impotent Creature is more capable of extending Mercy and Forgiveness than the Infinite and Omnipotent Creator 3. That God so loved the World he gave his onely Son to save it and yet that God stood off in high displeasure and Christ gave himself to God as a compleat satisfaction to his offended Justice with many more such like gross Consequences that might be drawn Refuted from right Reason But if we should grant a Scripture-silence as to the necessity of Christ's satisfying his Fathers Justice yet so manifest would be the Contradictions and foul the Repugnances to right Reason that who had not vail'd his understanding with the dark suggestions of unwarrantable Tradition or contracted his Judgment to the implicit apprehensions of some over-valued acquaintance might with great facility discriminate to a full resolve in this point for admitting God to be a Creditor or he to whom the Debt should be paid and Christ he that satisfies or payes it on the behalf of man the Debtor this question will arise Whether he paid Debt as God Man or both to use their own tearms Not as God 1. In that it divides the Unity of the God-head by two distinct Acts of being Offended and not Offended of condemning Justice and redeeâ—â—â—â— Mercy of requiring a satisfaction and then paying of it 2. Because if Christ payes the Debt as God then the Father and the Spirit being God they also pay the Debt 3. Since God is to be satisfied and that Christ is God he consequently is to be satisfied and who shall satisfie his infinite Justice 4. But if Christ has satisfied God the Father Christ being also God 't will follow then that he has satisfied himself which can't be 5. But since God the Father was once to be satisfied and that it 's impossible he should do it himself nor yet the Son or Spirit because the same God it naturally follows that the Debt remains unpaid and these Satisfactionists thus far are still at a loss Not as Man 6. The Justice offended being infinite his satisfaction ought to bear a proportion therewith which Jesus Christ as Man could never pay he being finite and from a finite cause could not proceed an infinite effect for so man may be said to bring forth God since nothing below the Divinity it self can rightly be stiled Infinite Not as God and Man 7. For where two mediums or middle Propositions are singly inconsistent with the nature of the end for which they were at first propounded their conjunction rather does augment than lessen the difficulty of its accomplishment and this I am perswaded must be obvious to every unbyas'd understanding But admitting one of these three mediums possible for the payment of an infinite Debt yet pray observe the most unworthy and ridiculous consequences that unavoidably will attend the impossibility of Gods pardoning sinners without a satisfaction Consequences Irreligious and Irrational 1. That it 's unlawful and impossible for God Almighty to be Gracious and Merciful or to pardon Transgressors then which what 's more unworthy of God 2. That God was inevitably compel'd to this way of saving men the highest affront to his incontroleable Nature 3. That it was unworthy of God to pardon but not to inflict punishment on the Innocent or require a satisfaction where there was nothing due 4. It doth not onely disacknowledge the true Virtue and real Intent of Christ's life and death but intirely deprives God of that praise which is owing to his greatest love and goodness 5. It represents the Son more kind and compassionate than the Father whereas if both be the same God then either the Father is as loving as the Son or the Son as angry as the Father 6. It robs God of the gift of his Son for our Redemption which the Scriptures attribute to the unmerited love he had for the World in affirming the Son purchas'd that Redemption from the Father by the gift of himself to God as our compleat satisfaction 7. Since Christ could not pay what was not his own it follows that in the payment of his own the case still remains equally grievous Since the Debt is not hereby absolv'd or forgiven but transfer'd only and by consequence we are no better provided for Salvation than before owing that now to the Son which was once owing to the Father 8. It no way renders men beholding or in the least oblieg'd to God since by their Doctrine he would not have abated us nor did he Christ the last farthing so that the acknowledgments are peculiarly the Sons which destroys the whole current of Scripture-Testimony for his good will towards men O the infamous portraiture this Doctrine draws of the infinite Goodness Is this your retribution O injurious Satisfactionists 9. That God's Justice is satisfied for sins past present and to come whereby God and Christ have lost both their power of injoyning Godliness and prerogative of punishing Disobedience for what is once paid is not revokeable and if punishment should arrest any for their Debts it either argues a breach on God or Christs part or else that it has not been sufficiently solv'd and the penalty compleatly sustain'd by an other forgetting that every one must appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ to receive according to things done in the body Yea every one must give an account of himself to God But many more are the gross Absurdities and Blasphemies that are the genuine Fruits of this so confidently believed Doctrine of Satisfaction A Caution Let me advise nay warn thee Reader by no means to admit an entertainment of this Principle by whomsoever recommended since it does not only divest the glorious God of his sovereign Power both to pardon and punish but as certainly insinuates a licentiousness at least a liberty that unbecomes the nature of that antient Gospel once preached among the Primitive Saints and that from an apprehension of a satisfaction once paid for all Whereas I must tell thee That unless thou seriously repent and no more grieve God's Holy Spirit placed in thy inmost Parts but art thereby taught to deny all ungodliness and lead into all Righteousness At the Tribunal of the Great Judge thy Plea shall prove invalid and thou receive they reward without respect to any other thing than the Deeds done in the Body Be not deceived God will not be mocked such as thou sowest such shalt thou reap which leads me to the consideration of my third Head viz. Justification by an Imputative Righteousness The Justification of impure Persons by an imputative Righteousness refuted from Scripture THat there is no other way for sinners to be justified in the sight of God than by the imputation of that Righteousness Christ long since performed Personally and that Sanctification is consequential not antecedent 1. Keep thee far from a false matter and the Innocent and Righteous
an Ox and bringeth it not to the door of the Tabernacle to offer unto the Lord Blood shall be imputed unto that man or charg'd upon him as guilty thereof And Shâ—mei said unto the King Let not my Lord impute Iniquity unto me for thy servant doth know that I have sinned 6. But sin is not imputed where there is no Law From whence it is apparent that there could be no imputation or charging of guilt upon any but such as really were guilty Next it is used about Remission Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity or as the foregoing words have it Whose transgression is forgiven Where the non-imputation doth not argue a non-reality of sin but the reality of God's pardon for otherwise there would be nothing to forgive nor yet a real pardon but onely imputative which according to the sence of this Doctrine I call Imaginary Again God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them Where also non-imputation being a real discharge for actual trespasses argues an imputation by the reason of contraries to be a real charging of actual guilt Lastly it 's used in relation to Righteousness Was not Abraham justified by works when he offered Isaac and by Works was Faith made perfect and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for Righteousness By which we must not conceive as do the dark Imputarians of this age that Abraham's offering personally was not a justifying righteousness but that God was pleased to account it so since God never accounts a thing that which it is not nor was there an imputation of anothers righteouss to Abraham but on the contrary his personal obedience was the ground of that just imputation and therefore that any should be justified from the imputation of anothers righteousness not inherent or actually possessed by them is both ridiculous and dangerous Ridiculous since it is to say a man is rich to the value of a thousand pounds whilst he is not really or personally worth a groat from the imputation of another who has it all in his possession Dangerous because it begets a confident perswasion in many people of their being justified whilst in captivity to those lusts whose reward is condemnation whence came that usual saying amongst many Professors of Religion That God looks not on them as they are in themselves but as they are in Christ not considering that none can be in Christ who are not new Creatures which those can't be reputed who have not disrob'd themselves of their old Garments but are still inmantled with the corruptions of the old man Consequences Irreligious and Irrational 1. It makes God guilty of what the â—criptures say is an abomination to wit that he justifieth the wicked 2. It makes him look upon persons as they are not or with respect which is unworthy of his most equal Nature 3. He is hereby at peace with the wicked if justified whilst sinners who said There is no peace to the wicked 4. It does only imply communion with them here in an imperfect state but so to all eternity for whom he justified them he also glorified Therefore whom he justified whilst sinners them he also glorified whilst sinners 5. It only secures from the wages not the dominion of sin whereby something that is sinful becomes justified and that which defileth to enter God's Kingdom 6. It renders a man justified and condemned dead and alive redeemed and not redeemed at the same time the one by an imputative Righteousness the last by a personal unrighteousness 7. It flatters men whilst subject to the Worlds lusts with a state of Justification and thereby invallids the very â—â—d of Christs appearance which was to destroy the works of the Devil and take away the sins of the World a quite contrary purpose then what the Satisfastionists and Imputarians of our Times have imagined viz. to satisfie for their sins and by his Imputed Righteousness to represent them holy in him whilst unholy in themselves Therefore since it was to take away sin and destroy the Devils works which were not in himself for that Holy One saw no corruption consequently in man-kind what can therefore be concluded more evidently true then that such in whom sin is untaken away and the Devils works undestroyed are strangers notwithstanding their conceits to the very end and purpose of Christs manifestation Conclusion by way of Caution THus Reader have I lead thee through those three so generally applauded Doctrines whose confutation I hope though thou hast run thou hast read and now I call the Righteous God of Heaven to bear me Record that I have herein sought nothing below the defence of his Unity Mercy and Purity against the rude and impetuous assaults of Tradition Press and Pulpit from whence I daily hear what rationally induceth me to believe a conspiracy is hold by Counter-plots to obstruct the exaltation of Truth and to betray Evangelical Doctrines to Idle Traditions But God will rebuke the Winds and destruction shall attend the Enemies of his Anointed Mistake me not we never have disowned a Father Word and Spirit which are ONE but mens Inventions for 1. Their Trinity has not so much as a Foundation in the Scriptures 2. That its Original was three hundred years after Christianity was in the World 3. It having cost much blood in the Council of Sirmium Anno 355. it was Decreed That thenceforth the controversie should not once be remembred because the Scriptures of God made no mention thereof Why then should it be mentioned now with a Maranatha on all that will not bow to this abstruse Opinion 4. And it doubtless hath occasioned Idolatry witness the Popish Images of Father Son and Holy Ghost 5. It scandalizeth Turks Jews and Infidels and palpably obstructs their reception of the Christian Doctrine Nor is there more to be said on the behalf of the other two for I can boldly challenge any person to give me one Scripture Phrase which does approach the Doctrine of Satisfaction much less the Name considering to what degree it 's stretched not that we do deny but really confess that Jesus Christ in Life Doctrine and Death fulfilled his Fathers Will and offered up a most satisfactory Sacrifice but not to pay God or help him as otherwise being unable to save men and for a Justification by an Imputative Righteousness whilst not real it 's meerly an imagination not a reality and therefore rejected otherwise confest and known to be justifying before God because there is no abiding in Christ's Love without keeping his Commandments I therefore caution thee in love of whatsoever Tribe or Family of Religion thou mayest be not longer to deceive thy self by the over-fond imbraces of humane apprehensions for Divine Mysteries but rather be informed that God hath bestowed a measure of his Grace on thee and me to shew us what is good that