kind of reasoning, in favour of any cause. But it will have its weight with cool and considering men: who, reflecting that religion is not a thing to be coined and recoined every month; that it has been thought on so long and well, and by persons blessed with as good a share of understanding, and as great sincerity, as any are, or have been; and that the generality of the wisest and most excellent men have hitherto gone on in such a way, and that too after a strict and severe examination, being well apprised of the objections made against it; I say, who, reflecting thus, will be very cautious of contradicting what seems to have been so well and so deliberately settled; and will be rather willing to suspect their own judgment, and modestly decline what looks like leaning too much to their own understandings. However, such considerations may be of use to those who, not having leisure, inclination, or patience to examine throughly into this controversy, (as perhaps few have,) must be content to judge as they can: and since they find the same Scriptures so very differently interpreted by the contending parties, till they can themselves enter into the very heart of the controversy, how can they do better than close in with those who have been in possession of this faith for so many centuries, and have had, in a manner, in every age, for at least fourteen hundred years, I will venture to say sixteen, the most eminent lights and ornaments of the Christian Church to support and defend it? This I mention as the safest way; and such as will be taken by modest, humble, and discreet men; being what they can best answer to God and their own consciences, even though, at length, it should prove erroneous; which yet has not hitherto, nor ever will be, I am persuaded, made appear. As for those who choose to go out of the common road, and to run counter to all that has hitherto been called and reputed Catholic, or orthodox; let them look to it, and be it at their own peril. They must believe that the ancient heretics were the soundest Christians; that the first general council which met from all parts

of Christendom, and having no bias, so far as appears, to determine them this way or that, either did not know what was the faith of their respective churches, and what had been handed down to them by their predecessors, or else wilfully and unanimously agreed to corrupt it; and that too in a very material article, in which the sum of the Christian religion is contained; and in which the nature and object of our worship is very nearly concerned. They must believe farther that the churches, in general, throughout the Christian world, through every age, (and even since the Reformation, upon which matters were strictly looked into and carefully reexamined,) have fallen into the same error; and so continue, even to this day; some few private men only, here and there, showing their dislike of it. Now, they who pretend this, must bring some very strong proofs to make good their pretences. If they have not something very weighty and momentous to urge; something that carries the force and evidence of demonstration with it, they are first very unreasonable in calling us to attend to what so little deserves it; and next very inexcusable in their attempts to draw others into their precarious sentiments, and to raise doubts and perplexities in the minds of simple well meaning men. But I pass on to

QUERY XXX.

Whether, supposing the case doubtful, it be not a wise man's part to take the safer side; rather to think too highly, than too meanly of our blessed Saviour; rather to pay a modest deference to the judgment of the ancient and modern Church, than to lean to one's own understanding?

UPON the question, whether it be not safer and better (supposing the case doubtful) to think too highly, rather than too meanly of our blessed Saviour; you answer, "questionless it is;" which one might think a very fair and ingenuous confession; and you need not have added a word more. 66 You go on to say, 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 lest it should not be of force sufficient, immediately strengthened it with another consideration, which I am persuaded will bear, if this should not; and the rather, because you have not thought fit so much as to take notice of it. I must however follow you, upon the former point, that plausible plea, and which is so just, that you seem yourself to give into it. Yet, I know not how, by some peculiar turn of thought, you at length come to say, that it "proves as "weak and false as any other they ever allege." If it prove no weaker, I shall be satisfied. Let us hear what you have to say. Your argument is this: "Since Revela"tion is the only rule in the case, if we go beyond, or if "we fall short, are we not equally culpable?" I am very glad to hear from you, that Revelation is the only rule in the case: abide by that, and matters may easily be adjusted. To the argument I answer; that you equivocate in the word equally, and make a sophistical syllogism with four terms. Equally culpable, signifies, 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 dispute 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 short of it; and yet not culpable (at least not in this instance) in the same degree. Is there no such 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 assert to be the case here: and I will give you my reasons for it. Our blessed Lord hath done great and wonderful things for us. If our respect, duty, and gratitude happen, through our ignorance and excessive zeal, to rise too high; this is the overflowing of our good-natured qualities, and may seem a pitiable failing. But, on the other hand, if we happen to fall short in our regards, there is not only ingratitude, but blasphemy in it. It is degrad

ing and dethroning our Maker, Preserver, King, and Judge; and bringing him down to a level with his crea

tures.

Besides; we have many express cautions given us in Scripture, not to be wanting in our respects 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 expression, we are very excusable in taking it in the best sense, and interpreting on the side of the precept. We know that by dishonouring the Son, we do, at the same time, dishonour the Father: but we are nowhere told, that the Father will resent it as a dishonour done to himself, if we should chance, out of our scrupulous regards to the Father and Son both, to pay the Son more honour than strictly belongs to him. On these and the like considerations, (especially when we have so many and so great appearances of truth, and such a cloud of authorities to countenance us in it,) the error, if it be one, seems to be an error on the right hand. Now you shall be heard again. "Can any man think to please "the Son of God, by giving that to him which he never "claimed or could claim?" Positive enough. But will you please to remember that the Query supposes the case doubtful, (which was abundantly civil to you,) doubtful whether the Son of God has claimed it, or no; and the whole argument runs upon that supposition. This therefore discovers either some want of acumen, or great marks of haste. You add; "It can be no detraction from the "dignity of any Person (how great soever that dignity "be) to forbear professing him to be that which he really " is not." I perceive your thoughts are still absent; and you do not reflect, that you are begging the question, instead of answering to the point in hand. You are to suppose it, if you please, doubtful, who or what the Person is. In such a case, it may be better to give him what he does not require, than to defraud him of what he does: it is safer and more prudent to run the risk of one, than of

the other. You go on; " It may well become serious and "sincere Christians to consider, whether it is not possi"ble, that while, adventuring to be wise 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 sent him," &c. I am weary of transcribing. Consider, on the other hand, whether it be not more than possible, that, while others adventuring to be wise beyond what is written, (teaching us to profess three Gods, making the Creator of the world a creature, inventing new unscriptural distinctions of a supreme and a subordinate worship, with many other things equally unscriptural and unwarrantable,) they vainly think to bring down mysteries to the level of their low understandings, and to search the "deep "things of God;" they may not dishonour both Father and Son, and run into heresy, blasphemy, and what not; and sap the very foundations of the Christian religion. You proceed; "It may become them to consider what they "will answer at the great day, should God charge them "with not observing that declaration of his, I will not

66

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 Holy Spirit, whom they believed not to be creatures, nor other Gods; and whom himself 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 happened to carry their respect too high, yet it was towards those only whom the Father principally delighteth to honour; and towards whom an ingenuous, grateful, and well-disposed mind can hardly ever think he can pay too much. Upon these and the like considerations they may humbly hope for pity and pardon for a mistake; such an one as the humblest, most devote, and most conscientious men might be the aptest to fall into.