ken up, it then becomes not only convenient, but neceffary, to understand nothing that makes against it. And this is truly the prefent cafe. But, in the mean time, where is ingenuity, and love of truth?

And thus I have, with all the clearnefs and brevity I could, fearched to the very foundations of this new interpretation of this paffage of the Evangelift, upon which the divinity of the Son of God is fo firmly established; and likewise of the grofs mifinterpretations of feveral other texts to the fame purpose in this Evangelist, and in other books of the New Teftament. All which interpretations I have endeavoured to fhew to be not only contrary to the fenfe of all antiquity, of which as Socinus had but little knowledge, fo he feems to have made but little account, but to be alfo evidently contrary to the perpetual tenor and ftyle of the holy fcripture.

Before I go off from this argument, I cannot but take notice of one thing wherein our adversaries in this caufe do perpetually glory, as a mighty advantage which they think they have over us in this point of the divinity of the Son of God, and confequently in that other point of the bleffed Trinity, namely, that they have reafon clearly on their fide in this controverfy; and that the difficulties and abfurdities are much greater and plainer on our part than on theirs.

Here they are pleafed to triumph without modefty, and without measure and yet, notwithstanding this, I am not afraid here likewife to join iffue with them, and am contented to have this matter brought to a fair trial at the bar of reafon, as well as of fcripture, expounded by the general tradition of the Chriftian church: I fay, by general tradition; which, next to fcripture, is the beft and fureft confirmation of this great point now in queftion between us, and that which gives us the greatest and trueft light for the right understanding of the true fenfe and meaning of fcripture, not only in this, but in moft other important doctrines of the Christian religion.

I am not without fome good hopes, I will not fay confidence; (for I never thought that to be fo great an advantage to any caufe, as fome men would be glad to make others believe it is; hoping to help and fupport a weak argument by a strong and mighty confidence. But

furely

furely modefty never hurt any caufe; and the confidence of man feems to me to be much like the wrath of man, which St James tells us, chap. i. 20. worketh not the righteoufnefs of God; that is, it never does any good, it never ferves any wife and real purpose of religion :)

I fay, I am not without fome good hopes, that I have in the foregoing difcourfes clearly fhewn, that the tenor of fcripture and general tradition are on our fide in this argument; and therefore I fhall not need to give myself the trouble to examine this matter over again.

Now, as to the point of reafon, the great difficulty and abfurdity which they object to our doctrine concerning this mystery, amounts to thus much, that it is not only above reafon, but plainly contrary to it.

As to its being above reafon, which they are loth to admit any thing to be, this, I think, will bear no great difpute; because, if they would be pleased to speak out, they can mean no more by this, but that our reafon is not able fully to comprehend it. But what then? Are there no myfteries in religion? That I am re they will not fay; becaufe God, whofe infinite nature and perfections are the very foundation of all religion, is certainly the greatest mystery of all other, and the most incomprehenfible but we must not, nay they will not, for this reafon deny, that there is fuch a being as God. And therefore, if there be myfteries in religion, it is no reafonable objection against them, that we cannot fully com prehend them; becaufe all myfteries, in what kind foever, whether in religion or in nature, fo long and fo far as they are mysteries, are for that very reafon incomprehenfible.

But they urge the matter much farther, that this par ticular mystery now under debate, is plainly contrary to reafon. And if they can make this good, I will confefs, that they have gained a great point upon us. But then they are to be put in mind, that to make this good against us, they must clearly fhew fome plain contradiction in this doctrine; which I could never yet fee done by any.. Great difficulty, I acknowledge, there is in the explication of it; in which the further we go, beyond what God has thought fit to reveal to us in fcripture concerning it,

E 2

the

the more we are intangled: and that which men are pleafed to call an explaining of it, does in my apprehenfion often make it more obfcure; that is, lefs plain than it was before; which does not fo very well agree with a pretence of explication.

Here then I fix my foot, that there are three differences in the Deity, which the fcripture fpeaks of by the names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, and every where peaks of them, as we ufe to do of three diftinct perfons: and therefore I fee no reason, why in this argument we fhould nicely abftain from using the word perfon, though I remember that St Jerome does fomewhere defire to be excufed from it.

But

Now, concerning thefe three, I might, in the first. place, urge that plain and exprefs text, 1 John v. 7. There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft; and these three are one. upon this I will not now infift, becaufe it is pretended, that in fome copies of greatest antiquity this verfe is omitted; the contrary whereof is, I think, capable of being made out very clearly. But this matter would be

too long to be debated at prefent.

However that be, thus much is certain, and cannot be denied, that our Saviour commanded his apostles to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft and that the Apoftles, in their epiles, do,. in their mot ufual form of benediction, join these three together. And it is yet further certain, that not only the name and title of God, but the most incommunicable properties and perfections of the Deity, are in fcripture frequently afcribed to the Son and the Holy Ghost; one property only excepted, which is peculiar to the Father, as he is the principle and fountain of the Deity, That he is of himfelf, and of no other; which is not, nor can be, Laid of the Son and Holy Ghost.

ex

Now, let any man fhew any plain and downright contradiction in all this; or any other difficulty befides. this, that the particular manner of the exiftence of thefe three differences or perfons in the divine nature, preffed in fcripture by the names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, is incomprehenfible by our finite underftaadings, and inexplicable by us. In which, I do not

fee

see what abfurdity there is, fince our adverfaries cannot deny, that many things certainly are, the particular man-ner of whofe existence we can neither comprehend nor explain.

Let us now fee, whether the opinion of our adver faries hath not greater difficulties in it, and more palpable abfurdities following from it. They fay, that the Son of God is a mere creature; not God by nature,, and yet truly and really God by office,, and by divine appointment and conftitution; to whom the very fame. honour and worship is to be given, which we give to him who is God by nature.

And can they difcern no difficulty, no abfurdity in this? What! no abfurdity in bringing idolatry by at back-door into the Chriftian religion, one main defign whereof was, to banish idolatry out of the world? And will they in good earnest conteft this matter with us,, that the giving divine worship to a mere creature is not idolatry? And can they vindicate themselves in this. point any other way, than what will in a great measure: acquit both the Pagans and the Papists from the charge: of idolatry?

What! no abfurdity in a God as it were but of yefterday; in a creature-god; in a God merely by positive: inftitution and this in oppofition to a plain moral precept of eternal obligation, and to the fixed and immu table nature and reafon of things?

:

So that, to avoid the fhadow and appearance of a plurality of deities, they run really into it, and for any thing I can fee, into downright idolatry, by worshipping a creature befides the Creator, who is bleed for ever,, Rom. i. 25.

They can by no means allow two Gods by nature :: no more can we. But they can willingly admit of two Gods; the one by nature, and the other by office; to whom they are content to pay the fame honour, which is due to him who is God by nature. Provided Chrifti

will be contented to be but a creature, they will deal more liberally with him in another way than in reafon is fit.

And do they fee no abfurdity in all this: nothing that is contrary to reafon and good fenfe; nothing that:

F 3

feels

feels like inconfiftency and contradiction? Do they confider how often God hath declared, that he will not give his glory to another? and that the Apostle defcribes idolatry to be the giving fervice, or worship, to things which by nature are no gods? Gal. iv. 8.

Surely, if reafon, guided by divine revelation, were to chufe a god, it would make choice of one who is declared in fcripture to be the only begotten of the Father, the first and the laft, the beginning and the end, the fame yesterday, to day, and for ever, much rather than a mere creature, who did not begin to be till about feventeen hundred years ago.

I only propofe thefe things, without any artificial aggravation, to their most serious and impartial confideration; after which I cannot think that thefe great mafters of reafon can think it fo eafy a matter to extricate themselves out of these difficulties. The God of truth lead us into all truth, and enlighten the minds of those who are in error, and give them repentance to the acknowledgement of the truth, for his fake who is the way, the truth, and the life.

And thus much may fuffice to have faid upon this ar gument, which I am fenfible is mere controverfy: a thing which I feldom meddle with, and do not delight to dwell upon. But my text, which is fo very proper for this feafon, hath almoft neceffarily engaged me in it; befides, that I think it a point of that concernment,that all Chriftians ought to be well inftructed in it. And I have chofen rather once for all to handle it fully, and to go to the bottom of it, than in every fermon to be: flirting at it, without faying any thing to the purpose against it: a way which, in my opinion, is neither pro-per to eftablish men in the truth, nor to convince them of their error.

I fhall only at prefent make this fhort reflection upon the whole: That we ought to treat the Holy Scriptures as the oracles of God, with all reverence and fubmiflion of mind to the doctrine therein revealed; and to interpret them with that candour and fimplicity which is due to the fincere declarations of God, intended for the inftruction, and not for the deception and delufion of men: 1 day, we fhould treat them as the oracles of God, and

not.