rejected the plurality of perfons in the Godhead, and charged the orthodox, with Tritheifm, or the worship of Three Gods.

That the Deity exifting in three Hypoftafes, and yet One God, is a myftery, and an incomprehenfible one too, is the lefs to be wondered at, when we reflect upon the fcanty limits of the human understanding; and if all around us, if all within us, is fo, how infinitely more inconceiveable muft HE be, a very small part of whom the highest Seraphim can underftand.

The Incarnation of the Son of God is a mystery never to be comprehended. There are fome feeming not real repugnancies in it. Self-existence is another mystery, of which we know little; for we can conceive very imperfectly of an uncaufed caufe of all things. Eternity is fo vaft a myftery, as we are utterly loft in the contemplation of it. Eternity paft, confounds the most acute understandings.

So the belief of three perfons, every one fingly God, and altogether one God, is a cafe where the terms of

the

"In the beginning of all things, before ever the earth or the world ་་ was made, there exifted a very glorious and excellent creature (fince "called the Word) the Oracle of God, and Revealer of his Will. "That excellent perfon, the firft whom God of his good pleasure and "free choice, gave being to, was with God the Father; and he was "God, another God, an inferior God, infinitely inferior, but, yet truly "God, as being truly partaker of Divine Glory then, and fore-ordained "to have true dominion and authority in God's own time. God em"ployed him as an Inftrument, or under-Agent, in framing and fashion"ing the world of inferior creatures; and approved of his services fo "well, as to do nothing without Him."

The fum of the opinions of the Arians are these: viz. Jefus Chrik was a very glorious Creature, deriving his Being by the Will of God from the Father; exifted infinite ages, before all worlds, yet not eternal; was of confequence inferior to the Father, in his existence, substance, and perfections, being mutable as a creature, though rendered unchangeable, by the decree of God. Yet as deriving from, and partaking of his Father's Divinity, he was entitled to a degree of worship, not fupreme, but fubordinate; not abfolute, but relative, &c.

N. B. I have drawn my information refpecting the tenets of these Herefiarchs, from the pureft fources. See Mofheim's Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, with Mc Lean's Notes.

the propofition carry ideas with them feemingly, but not plainly, repugnant. Another inftance of this may appear in God's foreknowing events depending on uncertain causes: Ahab was exprefsly foretold by the infpired prophet, that he should fall at Ramoth Gilead, and dogs fhould lick his blood; but this event depended on a man, fpontaneously discharging an arrow, from feemingly no motive, and apparently having no object in view: yet he mortally wounded the devoted Prince.-That Jezebel, fhould be eaten by dogs, in the middle of a crowded city; and that her ignominious death fhould arife from her ill-timed farcafm upon Jebu; and yet that fuch was to be her end, feemingly depending on the capricious will of that furious Captain, is altogether unaccountable by us.Still more fo is that, where the whole councils of God, refpecting the redemption of mankind, were laid in profpect of Adam's fall, when his honour, intereft, and moral powers, all confpired to fecure perpetuity in his happy ftate. So is it with our belief in the Holy Trinity; we know what we mean when we fay every one, as clearly as if we faid any one is God; a perfon having fuch and fuch effential perfections. We fee not perfectly how this is reconciled with the belief of one God, as we fee not how the divine prescience is reconciled with future contingents. Yet we believe both, not doubting but that there is a connexion of the ideas, though our faculties cannot fully ascertain that connexion a.

But I am still afked, if we worship a Trinity of perfons, are we not chargeable with Tritheifm; I fay no, and our defence is as follows: by comparing Scripture with Scripture, we plainly find that the divine Unity is not an Unity of Person; we obferve that there are more perfons than one, dig

a See Dr Waterland's Defence of the Divinity of Chrift, p. 314. A work that never was anfwered, and likely never will.

dignified with the fame high titles of Lord, God, &c. as I obferved before. Yet the Scripture never tells us of three true Gods; but conftantly afferts that God is One. We read that the Father is Jehovah, the Son is Jehovah, and the Holy Ghost is Jehovah, and yet the Lord Jehovah is one Jehovah. The Father creates, the Son creates, the Holy Ghoft creates, and yet there are not three Creators. We worship the Father, Son, and Spirit; and yet there are not three objects of worship. The obvious conclufion from these premifes is, that these three divine Perfons are one God; and thus the Scripture notion of Unity is of more perfons than One, in the fame Godhead. Yes, there is a medium between Sabellianifm and Tritheifm. We affert not three abfolute, original, co-ordinate Divinities, like the Marcionites of old; we hold a distinction, and even a fubordination in the offices of the Perfons, not in nature. We feparate not the Perfons from each other, with the Arians; if we did any of thefe, there might be fome colour for the charge of Tritheifm. But we acknowledge with the Scriptures one God, the Father with his co-effential Son and Spirit, one head and fountain of all, the three Divine Perfons being one in nature, one in knowledge, in presence, in operation and energy; never separate, never asunder, diftinct without divifion, united without confufion. If this be Tritheifm, it is what the Scripture has taught us, and what the Bleffed God, who beft knows his own nature, has recommended to us. Such too were the fentiments of the wisest and best of men in every age of the Church. And it is remarkable that Divine Providence has carefully upheld this doctrine, though all imaginable artifices have been from the beginning employed to overthrow it; and God has vifibly blafted all attempts against the Eternal Godhead of his Bleffed Son.

But

But with all the difficulties that attend this tremenduous and fublime doctrine, it would be but fair and candid in its opponents to propose to us a better a. This equitable requifition was made by the Philofopher b to his opponents, in his belief of the immortality of the Soul; but all the comfort they gave him was, that "when he "died, he would ceafe to be." So I am afraid that thefe fubtile difputers of this world would act by us, as when Shishack King of Egypt, took away all Solomon's golden fhields, Rehoboam, that wife man, (as Hales of Eaton ironically calls him) put in their room, fields of brafs; and that the charge they bring against Trinitarians, of Tritheism, will, from their own principles, recoil upon themselves.

The

a I prefume my readers will not be difpleafed with the following anecdote, which is not more furprifing than it was true.-A fociety of Gentlemen, moft of them poffeffed of a liberal education, and polished manners, but, unhappily, had been feduced from a belief in the Sacred Scriptures, ufed to affemble alternately in each other's houfes, on the banks of the Tweed, for the purpose of ridiculing Revelation, and hardening one another in their infidelity. At laft they unanimously formed a refolution, folemnly to burn the Bible, and fo to be troubled no more with a book which was fo hoftile to their principles, and difquieting to their confciences. The day fixed upon came, a large fire was prepared, a Bible was laid on the table, and a flowing bowl ftood ready, to drink its dirge. For the execution of their plan, they fixed upon a young Gentleman, of high birth, brilliant vivacity, and elegance of manners; but whofe name I conceal from a regard to his honourable and truly worthy family. He undertook the task; and, after a few enlivening glaffes, amidft the applauses of his jovial compeers, he approached the table, took up the Bible, and was walking refolutely forward to put it in the fire. He happened to give it a look.-All at once, he was feized with trembling, paleness overspread his countenance, and his whole frame feemed convulfed. He returned to the table, and laying down the Bible, faid, with a strong_affeveration, "We will not "burn that Book, 'till we get a better." But

Men may LIVE fools, but fools they cannot DIE.

YOUNG'S NIGHT THOUGHTS.

I have only to add, that this fame gay, and lively young Gentleman, came to die; and, on his death-bed, got fincere repentance, deriving unfhaken hopes of forgivenefs, and of future bleffednefs, from that Book he was once going to burn.-This anecdote I had from several Minifters, who attended him during his dying moments.

b Cicero de Senectute.

The disciples of Arius, uniformly maintained that the Father was the Alone Supreme God; that the Son was God too, very GOD, God by nature; but deriving his existence from the Father muft be inferior to him: fo alfo is the Holy Spirit, being derived from both. They held that One divine perfon is equivalent to One God, and Two to Two Gods, and Three to Three Gods. The cafe is plain, the confequence unavoidable. One Supreme, and two Inferior Gods, is their avowed doctrine; and certainly, the afferting Three Gods (whether co-ordinate, or otherwife) is Tritheism, against the First Commandment, against the whole tenor of fcripture, and the principles of the primitive church a.

And as their religious tenets were, fo was their worship" abfolute, fupreme honour, is plainly appropriated "to the perfon of the Father only, as the abfolute fupreme "being, or the one God." This was a leading tenet from which the Arians, antient and modern, never fwerved b. They held that ultimate, abfolute, fupreme, fovereign WORSHIP is due to the Father only; Mediate, relative, inferior worship may be paid to creatures. The Father therefore being confidered as alone fupreme; fupreme, abfolute, fovereign. worship is due to Him only; Chrift, being a Creature, (according to them) derived, inferior, dependant, yet is to be worshipped, but with a proportionable degree of veneration and honour, which must be inferior, relative worship. As the Object and Nature of divine worship, (for I exclude the idea of civil refpect, which may be paid to creatures) are of the laft confequence for us to know, let us for a moment look into the fcriptures, and fee if there is the leaft veftige of foundation for this distinction in religious Adoration.

Prayer

a Dr Waterland's Defence, page 336. See Dr Clarke's Scripture Do&trine of the Trinity-Modeft Plea, &c.

page 94th.