upon Ditheism, in like manner as the Arian had upon Tritheism,) and have brought it still nearer to Sabellianism. After all, when men have run their course from orthodoxy to Arianism, from Arianism to Socinianism, and from thence to Sabellianism; if they will but give themselves leave to reflect and look back, they may perhaps perceive, at length, that Catholicism is the only Scriptural, as well as the ancient scheme; liable to the fewest difficulties, and best guarded against objections. It is therefore no wonder that the bulk of Christians, learned and unlearned, have, for as many centuries upward as we have any clear records extant, espoused it. It is an easy matter for men of wit and fancy to find fault with any thing: but it requires thought and judgment to settle things upon their true bottom. Let those who are displeased with the received doctrine show us a better; and make any other consistent scheme, (consistent with Scripture and with itself,) if they can. Wise and good men will be always willing to reform, if but they will not be forward to pull down what appears to be founded on a rock, in order only to build upon the sand. It is some satisfaction to the Trinitarians to observe, how long some great wits have been new modelling Christianity; and have not yet been able to agree in any one certain scheme. The Arians fall upon the Sabellians, and the Sabellians again upon them: one defends the personality, and the other the divinity of the Aóyos, or Word, and cannot yet be brought to any agreement. "Betwixt them, the principles of the Catholic Church are supported, and they condemn each other, in the very things which the Church condemns in both. If I may give a judgment of the two schemes, the Sabellian appears to be the neater of the two, and most consistent with itself: the Arian is more pious and modest, tender

there be cause for it :

Uterque hostis Ecclesiæ res Ecclesiæ agit: dum Sabellius Deum ex natura in operibus prædicat; hi vero, ex sacramento fidei, Filium Dei confitentur. Hil. p. 919.

of degrading the Son of God too far. As men grow bolder and more learned in heresy, they will, very probably, be drawing nearer and nearer to the Sabellians. Two of the ablest and acutest men of the later Unitarians (one here, the other abroad) have preferred the Sabellian way: and as they have given proofs of their learning, so have they sufficiently shown their boldness also, by treating so sublime and tremendous a subject in the way of scoff and ridicule. To return: you are pleased to say, that you "have answered for Dr. Clarke's notion not being Sa66 bellian, and have proved that it is not Tritheistic." But give me leave to say, that you are deceived in both: the ground is Sabellian, and the superstructure Tritheistic; and the whole contrived in such a way, as to hang loosely together.

It is obvious, at first sight, that the true Arian or Semi-Arian scheme (which you would be thought to come up to at least) can never tolerably support itself, without taking in the Catholic principle of a human soul to join with the Word. If you come thus far, it will then be easy to perceive that the Sabellian scheme is the simpler and plainer; besides that it better answers the high things spoken of the Word; in respect of which your scheme is as much too low, as before too high. But then again, the arguments for the distinct personality of the Word and Holy Spirit, bear so full and strong, that there will appear a necessity for taking in another Catholic principle; and that will completely answer all. And why then should not the Catholic doctrine (so apparently necessary to make Scripture consistent) be admitted? The case, in few words, appears to be only this. You cannot understand how three can be one; you see no reason, a priori, why, if the Son and Holy Spirit be coeval and consubstantial, they should not be coordinate too; you know not why the Father might not as well be said to be begotten, as to beget; to be sent, as to send; or the like. Very true: but you may see a reason, a priori, why creatures, of yesterday, may not be able to search

66

the "deep things of God:" you may know how well it becomes them to submit their fancies, or presumptions, to divine revelation; content to "see through a glass darkly," till the time come to know God more perfectly, and to" see him as he is." This may be a sufficient answer to a pious and humble mind, in all cases of this nature; where the difficulty is owing only to our imperfect and inadequate conception of things.

I was obliged to pass over some remarks you had in your notes, for the sake of method: but it will not be too late to consider them here. I had made no use of John x. 30. ("I and my Father are one,") but you had a mind to bring it in, to let us know how well you could answer it, from the primitive writers. I am always willing to defend those good men, and to rescue them out of the hands of those, who either knowingly or ignorantly abuse them. You begin thus, triumphantly: "The defenders of the scholastic explication of the Tri"nity in unity, though they pretend much that the most "ancient writers of the Church are on their side, yet, in "expressing their notion of the unity in the divine Per"sons, they do not only leave Scripture and reason, but

plainly run against the whole stream of antiquity also. "The text on which they so much rely (John x. 30.) "is understood by Tertullian himself of the unity of love, "and consent, and power." You go on to cite Tertullian and others, from Dr. Clarke. But writers in a cause are very often known to represent things by halves. You shall see, presently, what little reason you have to talk of the "whole stream of antiquity." The text, which you speak of, has all along been made use of by the Catholics, in two respects; first, in proof of our Lord's real divinity, against as many as denied it; and secondly, in proof of his real distinction from the Father, against the Noëtians or Sabellians. There was very little occasion to insist much upon unity of substance, with those who

X Page 106.

had carried unity of substance so high, as to make but one Hypostasis. It might be sufficient, in dispute with those men, to observe, that that text did by no means prove an identity of person, unless Paul and Apollos were one person, which is absurd. Whatever the text might otherwise prove, it certainly did not prove, what the Sabellians pretended, an unity of person. This the PostNicene Fathers frequently observe, against the Sabellians, (as the Ante-Nicene had done before;) though at the same time that text might be of good use against the Arians; as it had been all along against the impugners of Christ's divinity. For your clearer apprehension of this matter, I shall set down, y in two distinct columns, the

sentiments of the primitive writers on this head; that you may perceive how they defended such an unity as