believes all necessary truths, and practises all the necessary duties relating to God and Christ, and his own soul.

You may perhaps object and say, that he that believes the soul to be corporeal, by consequence does not believe it to be immortal; or he that believes God to be infinitely extended in length and breadth, by consequence does not believe God to be a spiritual being, who can know and judge human affairs: And thus in the same manner by the consequence of his own suppositions, the man that holds these doctrines may perhaps be proved to be a brute and an atheist. I reply, And must all the consequences that can be drawn from the mistakes of any man be imputed to that man as his own opinions; This would make dreadful work in the christian church. The Arminian would reduce the Calvinist into blasphemy and atheism; and likewise the Calvinist the Arminian. By this uncharitable method each of them would be called Atheists and blasphemers, and be utterly excluded from christian communion by such a perverse practice as this.

I would add yet further, that by such uncharitable constructions as these, the Cartesian christian might say, I cannot join in worship with Dr. More, and his followers, for we have not the same object of worship: I worship a God who is a pure spirit, a pure thinking being, without extension or dimension; but they worship a being infinitely extended, that is, infinitely long, broad and deep. The Morist might cry with the same zeal, I cannot worship with a Cartesian, for we worship not the same object He adores a God that is properly in no place; but I worship that God who penetrates all things and places; and is expanded through all. Now if such objections as these are indulged and supported, no two persons could join together in any part of divine worship who had such different ideas of the divine essence or attributes, lest they should imagine they worship two distinct or different deities. And if this were admitted, where could we find two persons who had so exactly the same ideas of God as to hold communion in one worship?

This wretched practice of imputing all the distant consequences of any man's opinions or mistakes to him, is quite contrary to our Saviour's general rule; Mat. vii. 12. What you would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. Let these objectors be pleased to consider that doubtless they them selves in some parts of their religion are guilty of some errors or mistakes in their opinions; for no man's knowledge is perfect: And if those errors should be pushed home to their utmost consequences, perhaps they might terminate in blasphemy, atheism, or mere nonsense: But no man would be willing to be treated in this manner himself, viz. to have all the utmost consequences of his mistaken opinions be imputed to him, therefore he ought not

to treat his brothers so; according to that universal rule; What ye would that men should do unto you, that do ye also to them; Mat. vii. 12. Now to apply these things to the present case:

Suppose, for instance, Timon and Pithus both believe Christ to be the true God: but Timon supposes him not to be self-existent, because he saith, he is a Son, derived from the Father by an eternal generation. On the other hand, Pithus believes him to be self-existent because he is God. Now has Pithus reason to say, that because Timon doth not believe the self-existence of Christ, therefore by consequence he does not believe his divinity? Or, should Timon be permitted to conclude, that because Pithus believes the self-existence of Christ, therefore by consequence he does not believe his sonship? Would it be agreeable either to the reason of a man, or to the charity of a christian, that these two men should anathematize one another, or seclude each other from christian communion because of the consequences of their opinions, while they both profess to maintain that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and has such communion in and with the eternal godhead, as that both of them profess him to be true God, and both pay him divine worship.

Now what I would infer from hence is this, that since the different explications of the doctrine of the Trinity may be so abused to give such occasions for contest, where christians are not wise and charitable, I would rather exclude all the particular modes of explication from the terms of christian communion, than I would exclude one christian from the church of Christ.— Where a man professes that there is but one God, and yet that Father, Son and Spirit, have such a distinction from each other, and such a communion in and with this one godhead as renders them all-sufficient for the characters and offices which they sustain in the gospel, and pays proper honours to them accordingly, I would never constrain him to determine any farther upon these difficult points of the union and distinction of the sacred three; of the self-existence, the eternal generation, or eternal procession of the Son and holy Spirit. Nor whether they are three natures united in one godhead, or whether one individual nature only.

To sum up the whole, it is evident to me, that the holy scripture itself, as I have already proved elsewhere, lays the stress of our salvation upon a belief that Christ is the Messiah, the appointed all-sufficient Saviour, a trust in the proper atonement or sacrifice of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, a depen⚫ dence on his grace and Spirit for light and holiness, and a submission to his government, much more than it does upon any precise and exact notions or hypotheses concerning his divine and his human nature; even though the union of the divine and the human nature in him are in my judgment necessary to render

his salvation complete. Scripture teaches us to concern ourselves about regeneration and grace to be received from the blessed Spirit, more than about the nature or essence of that Spirit which regenerates us. It makes our eternal interest depend upon the glorious characters, offices and operations of the three persons of the blessed Trinity, and our respective honours paid to them, rather than upon our philosophical and exact acquaintance with their inmost essence or essences, and their personal distinctions. I must believe that the great God will make merciful allowances to sincere souls for their different sentiments, or for their ignorance and darkness in so sublime and mysterious an article, which almost all parties allow to contain some unknowables and inconceivables in it.

SECT. II. Yet where God is pleased to give greater degrees of light and knowledge, if we can further explain these mysteries of christianity in clear ideas and proper language, it is a piece of excellent service done to the gospel of Christ." A clear and happy explication in what manner the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are to be conceived as three personal agents, and as having communion in one godhead, would carry in it many desirable advantages.

1. This would be like a ray of sacred light let into some of the most dark and difficult passages of the word of God. This would help us to unfold many scriptures which at present lie sealed in obscurity; or at least it would afford us the true sense of several texts which by reason of the various expositions of them have hitherto given but an uncertain sound and doubtful notices of divine truth. It would clear up a large part of the word of God to our understandings, and teach us to read the sacred transactions of the Father, Son and Spirit in the bible with more abundant edification.

2. This might teach us to perform our various duties of adoration, faith, love, and obedience to the sacred Three, so far as scripture requires it, in a more distinct and rational manner than we have hitherto done. The humble christian would view and adore his heavenly Father, his Saviour and his Sanc ́tifier with much more inward pleasure, when he should be enabled to do it with much clearer and more explicit ideas of their divine unity and distinction.

3. Such a happy explication of the mystery of the blessed Trinity would vindicate this doctrine against the cavils of the unbeliever as well as against the scoffery and insults of the profane world. This would make it appear how the Son and the Spirit might be true God without injury to the divine honour of God the Father. There have been some Antitrinitarian writers who have denied the possibility of the godhead of the Son and Spirit in any sense or modus at all; and have pretended to prove

that every model and manner of explication of this doctrine hath some absurdity and inconsistency belonging to it. Now it would be certainly of considerable service to the truth to exhibit some scheme, some manner of explication to the world, wherein it is fairly consistent with the reason of things and the language of scripture, that the Son and Spirit may have communion in true godhead as well as the Father: And that though there be but one God, yet the divine names and attributes may be ascribed to the sacred three, as having communion in this one godhead.

4. This would be a glorious means of vindicating the pro. testant religion against the charges which are brought by the papists, who tell us, that we refuse their doctrine of transubstantiation because it seems inconsistent to sense and reason, and yet we believe the doctrine of the Trinity which is charged with the same inconsistency. We often find fault with them for making the words mystery and supernatural an asylum and refuge whereby to screen themselves from the charge of a most absurd opinion, that is," of bread becoming flesh, and yet retaining the properties of bread at the same time." They in the like manner find fault with us for making the same words mystery and supernatural a refuge for ourselves, while we profess three distinct persons in one God.

I confess there are many things to be said, and that with great justice, to vindicate the conduct of protestant writers in the doctrine of the Trinity, which can never serve to defend the popish doctrine of transubstantiation for one is a theme or subject that concerns the deep things of the divine nature; the other relates but to flesh and bread, which are objects that fall entirely within the compass of our senses and our reasoning powers; and we can much better judge and determine what is and what is not a real inconsistency in the one than in the other. Yet after all it would be a vast advantage in the defence of our religion against the assaults of the papists, and it would vindicate christianity most gloriously in the eyes of Jews, heathens and all infidels, if we could find some plain, easy, natural and obvious account of this matter how the sacred Three which are represented in scripture under distinct personal characters have a communion in one godhead.

5. I add farther, that if it were possible to exhibit a scheme of explication which should be so plain, so easy, so agreeable to the light of nature, and yet so happily correspondent with scripture as to captivate the assent of the learned and unlearned at the very proposal of it, what a glorious advantage would the church of Christ obtain by this means towards its unity and peace! What a blessed end would be put to those shameful quarrels and contentions on this subject, that have in every age

more or less divided the christian world and laid it bleeding with many wounds?

There are some difficult parts of our holy religion which have been so far explained by the united labours and prayers of pious and learned men, that controversies about them are well nigh ceased, and the disputes brought to an end. The humble believer has been enlightened and taught to understand the articles which he professes: The profane caviller and the subtile critic have been baffled by the mere force of argument set in a clear and easy light and why may we not hope for the same success in this sacred article of the Trinity, by humble and laborious enquiries into the word of God, with a dependence on the aids of the divine Spirit, who is promised to guide us unto all truth? John xvi. 13.

It must be acknowledged indeed, there has no public-received scheme been yet so successful to explain this doctrine but what has several difficulties attending it, and has left too much room for the cavil of unbelievers. Nor have any of these schemes hitherto very much assisted the unlearned christian in the practice of his devotions, or blessed him with much clearer and juster ideas of the matter than his own reading of the bible had given him before.

And it must be confessed also with sorrow and shame, that some writers have invented or enlarged special explications of the sacred doctrine with too great a neglect of scripture in their studies. They have affected to be wise in words without ideas. They have set forth their own learned explications of the doctrine of the Trinity, in sounding scholastic phrases and hard words, with great assurance; and have helped men to talk roundly on this sublime subject with a great exuberance and fluency of such language as has been established into orthodoxy. This sacred doctrine has been too often dressed up by authors in abundance of metaphysical phrases borrowed from the popish schools, but without any clearer conceptions of the truth than their primitive predecessors had attained, or than their meaner brethren possess without that learned language.

But though nothing has hitherto been done so effectually as one could wish, to remove all difficulty and confusion, yet he is a bold man that will venture to lay an everlasting bar upon our fervent prayers and humble study of the scripture, and upon allthe labours and hopes of the present and future christian ages, merely because the ages past have not been favoured with those happy hints whereby to unfold these sacred mysteries, and to reconcile the difficulties that attend them.

SECT. II" But after all, whatsoever light or knowledge we may suppose ourselves to have attained in the explication of this sublime doctrine, we ought not to be over solicitous to proseVOL. VI. Нн