whatsoever lies hidden deep in the sacred mines of the word of God, and must be digged thence with much learning and study, much toil and labour of reasoning, and can be drawn out only by long chains of laborious argument, these things can never be designed of God for the fundamental articles of our religion, nor ought they to be esteemed or imposed as such by weak and fallible men.

2. A second reason I have to persuade me, that no particular explication of the Trinity, and the "modus" of it is necessary and fundamental, is this; that there have been many, and very different explications of this doctrine embraced by some persons of most exemplary piety: Such persons as have most firmly believed the general doctrine itself, and such, concerning whom I could even venture to say, May my soul be where theirs is in the other world! Some have asserted one substance, one conscious mind, inconceivably and necessarily distinguished into three personal agents. Others have supposed, three distinct substances or minds, and yet all intimately, and essentially, and necessarily united in one godhead. Some have maintained the son-ship of Christ, and procession of the Spirit, to be essentially and eternal necessary to the divine nature. Others would account for the generation, and procession, and every thing that looks like derivation, some other way, rather than let it belong to godhead. And yet the writings and conversation of all of them, have been famous for a savour of piety; they have all paid divine honours to Father, Son and Spirit, and lived and died to the glory of God their Saviour: Some of them were certainly mistaken on earth, in their particular explication of this mystery, because they differed so widely; and they were taken to heaven before they could agree in this point of controversy; thence it plainly follows, that an agreement and certainty in this point is not necessary in our way to heaven.

3. Another argument I would use to prove, that the particular explications of this doctrine of the Trinity, cannot be necessary to salvation, is this, that the duties which we are obliged to pay to the Father, Son and Spirit, in order to our own salvation, do not depend upon any particular modes of explication, in what manner they are one, and in what manner they are three; but upon their divine all-sufficiency to fulfil and sustain their several offices and characters, that are attributed to them in the word of God. But this I shall enlarge upon more in some following propositions. I shall conclude this head, with calling in the testimony of some authors to support this proposition, whose zeal for the sacred doctrine of the Trinity, can never be called in question.

The first, is the reverend, learned and pious Doctor Owen, to whose name and memory I pay as great a veneration as to most of the writers of the last age. In his little Treatise of the

"Doctrine of the Trinity," third edition, 8vo. p. 18. he hath these words. "The sum of this revelation in this matter is, that God is one; that this one God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost; that the Father is the Father of the Son; and the Son the Son of the Father; and the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Father, and the Son; and that in respect of this their mutual relation, they are distinct from each other. This is the substance of the doctrine of the Trinity, as to the first direct concernment of faith therein." And a little after, "This is the whole of faith's concernment in this matter, as it respects the direct revelation of God made by himself in the scripture, and the first proper general end thereof. Let this be clearly confirmed by direct and positive divine testimonies containing the declaration and revelation of God, concerning himself, and faith is secured as to all its concerns. For it hath both its proper formal object, and is sufficiently enabled to be directive of divine worship and obedience. The explication of this doctrine unto edification, suitable unto the revelation mentioned, is of another consideration."

And page 75. when he has finished his proofs of the godhead and personality of the sacred Three, he sums up all in these words, viz. "Our conclusion from the whole is; that there is nothing more expressed in the scripture, than this sacred truth is; that there is one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; which are divine, distinct, intelligent, voluntary, omnipotent principles of operation and working, which whosoever thinks himself obliged to believe the sorpture, must believe; and concerning others in this discourse, we are not solicitous. This is that which was first proposed; namely, to manifest what is expressly revealed in the scripture, concerning God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; so as that we may duly believe in him, yield obedience unto him, enjoy communion with him, walk in bis love and fear, and so come at length to be blessed with him for evermore. Nor doth faith for its security, establishment and direction, absolutely stand in need of any farther exposition or explanation of these things." And after the author has given a brief explication of essence, substance, unity, distinction, personality, &c. in a few pages he adds page 79," Nor are those brief explications themselves before-mentioned, so proposed as to be placed immediately in the same rank and order with the original revelations before insisted on, but only are pressed as proper expressions of what is revealed, to increase our light, and further our edification."

The next authors I shall cite on this subject, are the "four Loudon ministers, who stated and defended the doctrine of the blessed Trinity," in a book lately published by their concurrent labours, and who are persons of undoubted piety and zeal for the christian faith.

In page 18, their words are these: "Section 6. We do not purselves pretend to say, how these three are distinguished from each other: That we leave to those, who are bold enough to speak, even upon such a point as this, without, if not against what the scriptures themselves any where have said: We only say, that there they are distinguished."

"Section 7. We farther add, that though these three are in the scriptures distinguished from, and therefore not to be confounded with each other; yet we have learned nothing there, either of their being compounded, or divided: Nor do we therefore undertake to shew explicitly, and in particulars, how they are three; nor how, though three, yet they are one. What we assert again is only, that they are three, some way or other; and though in some respect three, yet but one God.

Section 8. "Nay, though these three are in the holy scriptures spoken of under the names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and as begetting, begotten, and proceeding: Yet still we leave it to those who are wiser, or at least more daring and bold than we, to say that this does, and to shew afterward how it does relate to the divine essence.* For we have no notion of a greater or lesser in the godhead, do think, that wherever that does belong, it must equally belong: And consequently, that it is not any one of the three, that is, exclusive of the others; but that these three are the one supreme God.

"Section 9. Let it be added, before we produce our proofs, that these three are not merely three names: And that these names do not every where in scripture, if they do any where, bear one and the same meaning.

Section 10. We shall now only venture to say once more, that whatever the distinction is between these sacred Three, or wherein soever it does consist; as on one part it does not destroy the unity of the divine nature, so on the other, it is such, so real and so great, as is just and sufficient ground to support whatever is distinctly said of the one or the other of them in the holy scriptures. So as that the person of the Father is not the Son; nor

Though these authors agree entirely with Dr. Owen, in not making the knowledge of any particular explication of the doctrine of the Trinity necessary to salvation, yet they differ in this; that Dr. Owen in several parts of his Treatise, supposes the vulgar explication of Father, Son and Spirit as three eternal, necessary, personal differences in the very essence of God, to be a certain and unavoidable consequence of the doctrine itself: But the writer of these sections is not certain, that these differences of Father, Son, Spirit, generation, procession, &c. do relate to the divine essence itself; and in this point I ask leave to differ from that great man Doctor Owen, and join with these later writers; for, in maturer years, I am not ashamed to profess my ignorance in a subject so sublime, and to abate some degrees of my younger confidence as to the modes of explaining this mystery.

the Son, the Father; nor either of these the Holy Ghost. Thus far the serious plain christian, may venture into this awful mystery of the blessed Trinity." But as these reverend authors, in the following words, do not by any means advise the unlearned and private christian to search farther, so I cannot see any great necessity that he should.

PROP. XVI.-Yet it is our Duty to believe the general Doctrine of the Trinity, viz. that these Three personal Agents, Father, Son, and Spirit, have real Communion in one Godhead, although we cannot find out the precise way and manner of explaining it.

I would have it observed here, that I do not absolutely determine the sacred doctrine of the Trinity to be incapable of all explications: For though many past attempts may have been weak and insufficient, yet it does not follow that all future attempts shall be so too. Who can assure us that God will never give to any favourite christian, the happy turn of thought, that may lead him, as by an easy clue, into the knowledge of this mystery? Daniel foretels, that towards the latter end of the world, many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased Dan. xii. 4. By a mutual commerce of the sentiments of men of learning and piety, and by the assistance of the divine Spirit, there may be some glorious spark of light cast upon this obscure article of faith, which former ages despaired of: Even as the great Sir Isaac Newton in our age has traced the nature, bulk, and motions of the heavenly bodies, beyond what all former ages knew, or what men on earth could ever have hoped for.

But suppose this sacred doctrine, as to the manner of it, could never be explained by us, or to us in this present mortal state, yet all the cavils of our adversaries hitherto have never been able to prove, that this doctrine itself, free from all human additions and incumbrances, is really impossible; and therefore we are bound to believe this article, so far as God has plainly and evidently revealed it, though it should be to us inexplicable.

There is, I confess, a certain pride in the mind of man, that is ready to resist divine truth, if it does not lie level to our understanding, submit to our reasonings, and come within the compass of our clear and comprehensive ideas. It was this criminal pride, that has tempted some of the Socinian writers to say, that if the doctrines of the divinity and satisfaction of Christ were never so plainly expressed in scripture, yet they would not assent to them in the literal sense, because they could not understand them, or because, according to the judgment of their reason, it could not be approved. Therefore they are wont to twist

and turn the plain expressions of scripture by the arts of criticism and metaphor, to signify something else. Socinus himself says, that in such cases, "any the greatest force is to be used with words rather than take them in the obvious sense." "Epistola secunda ad Balcerim."

But surely it must be acknowledged that in the nature, works and ways of God, there are many things which are above the reach of our present understandings; many things which are true, and yet we know not how to reconcile them to one another. And whatsoever doctrines of this kind God shall plainly reveal to us in his word, we are bound under the penalty of his high displeasure, to receive and believe, though we cannot reconcile them.

But some will object and say, "Must we believe things that are inconsistent and assent to contradictions?"

Answer. There is a great deal of difference between a seeming and a real contradiction. If we can suppose, that it could ever have been said in scripture, that three Gods are one God, or three persons are one person, there had been reason indeed to disbelieve it in the literal sense, and to have found out some more consistent interpretation of it, according to the rules of speech: For neither reason or religion can require us to believe plain inconsistences:

But when we assert that Father, Son and holy Spirit, are three distinct agents in our salvation, such as we usually call persons; and when we again assert that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, and yet that there are not three Gods, but one God; there is no real contradiction in all these, though we could not find the plain, and certain way to reconcile them: And since these propositions are of such importance in our religion, since the sense of them is evidently contained in scripture, though not the express words; since they seem to lie plain and open to the view of any common reader, that has never been prepossessed with other notions, I think we may venture to say, God requires the belief of them where the bible is known and read.

Here some persons will be ready to say, "We cannot find these doctrines in the bible, we cannot see them written there with sufficient evidence, and therefore we believe them not, nor can we be required to believe what we cannot see revealed."

But these objectors would do well to ask themselves solemnly, as in the sight of God," Whether or no they should not think them plainly and sufficiently revealed, if they could but reconcile them by reason to their own satisfaction?" If so, then it is plain, that the impediment of belief does not lie in the want of evidence, but in faulty prejudices and reluctance of the mind,