QUERY XXX.

Whether, fuppofing the Cafe doubtful, it be not a wife Man's part to take the fafer Side; rather to think too highly, than too meanly of our Bleffed Saviour; rather to pay a modeft deference to the Judgment of the Antient and Modern Church, than to lean to one's own Understanding?

PON the Question, whether it be not fafer and better (fuppofing the Cafe doubtful) to think too highly, rather than too meanly of our Bleffed Saviour; you answer, queftionless it is; which one might think a very fair and ingenuous Confeffion; and you need not have added a word more. You go on to fay, that this is our most plausible Pretence; in which, I think, you do it a deal too much Honour. I did but just hint it; and left it fhould not be of force fufficient, immediately ftrengthen'd it with another Confideration, which I am perfwaded will bear, if this fhould not, and the rather, because you have not thought fit fo much as to take notice of it. I must however follow you, upon the former Point, that plausible Pica, and which is so just, that you feem your felf to give into it. Yet, I know not how, by fome peculiar turn of Thought, you at length come to fay, that it proves as weak and falfe as any other they

ever alledge. If it prove no weaker, I fhall be fatisfied. Let us hear what you have to say. Your Argument is this: Since Revelation is the only rule in the Cafe, if we go beyond, or if we fall fhort, are we not equally culpable? I am very glad to hear from you, that Revelation is the only rule in the Cafe. Abide by That, and Matters may easily be adjusted. To the Argument I anfwer: That you equivocate in the word Equally, and make a Sophiftical Syllogifm with four Terms; Equally culpable, fignifies, either that one is culpable as well as the other, or that one is culpable as much as the other; equally a Fault, or an equal Fault. Our difpute is about the latter, and yet all that you really prove is only the former. Revelation undoubtedly is the Rule, and to go beyond it is certainly culpable, as well as it is to fall fhort of it; and yet not culpable (at least not in this Inftance) in the fame Degree. Is there no fuch Thing as an Error on the right Hand (as we say) or a Fault on the right Side? Of two Extremes, may it not often happen, that one is more dangerous than the other? This I affert to be the Cafe here: And I will give you my Reasons for it. Our Bleffed Lord hath done great and wonderful Things for us. If our Respect, Duty, and Gratitude happen, through our Ignorance and exceffive Zeal, to rife too high; this is the overflowing of our good-natured Qualities, and may feem a pitiable Failing. But, on the other Hand, if we hap

pen

pen to fall fhort in our Regards, there is not only Ingratitude, but Blafphemy in it. It is degrading, and dethroning our Maker, Preferver, King, and Judge; and bringing Him down to a level with his Creatures.

Befides; we have many exprefs Cautions given us in Scripture, not to be wanting in our Refpects and Services towards God the Son; but have no particular Cautions against Honouring Him too much. We know that we ought to Honour Him, even as we Honour the Father; which, if it be an ambiguous Expreffion, we are very excufable in taking it in the best Senfe, and interpreting on the fide of the Precept. We know that by difhonouring the Son, we do, at the fame Time, difhonour the Father: But we are no where told, that the Father will refent it as a difhonour done to Himself, if we fhould chance, out of our fcrupulous Regards to the Father and Son Both, to pay the Son more Honour than strictly belongs to Him. On these, and the like Confiderations (especially when we have fo many, and fo great Appearances of Truth, and fuch a Cloud of Authorities to countenance us in it) the Error, if it be one, feems to be an Error on the right Hand. Now you fhall be heard again. Can any Man think to please the Son of God, by giving that to Him, which He never claim'd or could claim? Pofitive enough. But will you please to remember that the Query fuppofes the Cafe doubtful (which was abundantly civil to you) Ii 3 doubt.

In

doubtful whether the Son of God has claim'd it, or no; and the whole Argument runs upon that Suppofition. This therefore discovers either fome want of Acumen, or great Marks of Hafte. You add: It can be no Detraction from the Dignity of any Perfon (how great foever that Dignity be) to forbear professing Him to be that which He really is not. I perceive, your Thoughts are ftill abfent; and you do not reflect, that you are begging the Queftion, instead of anfwering to the Point in Hand. You are to fuppofe it, if you please, doubtful, who, or what, the Perfon is. fuch a Cafe, it may be better to give Him what He does not require, than to defraud Him of what He does: It is fafer and more prudent to run the Risk of one, than of the other. You go on: It may well become ferious and fincere Chriftians to confider, whether it is not poffible that while, adventuring to be wife beyond what is written, they vainly think to advance the Honour of the Son of God, above what He has given them Ground for in the Revelation, They may dishonour the Father that fent Him, &c. I am weary of tranfcribing. Confider, on the other Hand, whether it be not more than possible, that, while others adventuring to be wife beyond what is written (teaching us to profefs three Gods, making the Creator of the World a Creature, inventing new unfcriptural Diftintions of a fupreme and a fubordinate Wor

fhip, with many other Things equally unfcriptural and unwarrantable) They vainly think to bring down Myfteries to the level of their low Understandings, and to fearch the deep Things of God; They may not difhonour both Father and Son, and run into Herefy, Blafphemy, and what not; and Sap the Foundavery tions of the Chriftian Religion. You proceed: It may become Them to confider what They will answer at the great Day, Should God charge Them with not obferving that Declaration of His, I will not give my Glory to another. They may humbly make Answer, that They understood that His Glory was not to be given to Creatures; and therefore They had given it to none but his own Son, and his H. Spirit, whom They believed not to be Creatures, nor other Gods; and whom Himfelf had given his Glory to, by commanding all Men to be baptized in their Names, equally with his own; and ordering particularly, that all Men Should Honour the Son, even as They Honour the Father. If They happen'd to carry their Refpect too high; yet it was towards those only, whom the Father principally delighteth to Honour; and towards whom an ingenuous, grateful, and well difpofed Mind can hardly ever think He can pay too much. Upon thefe and the like Confiderations They may humbly hope for Pity and Pardon for a Mistake; fuch an one as the humbleft, most devout, and moft confcientious Men might be the apteft to fall into.

Ii 4

But