conceive of them merely as two attributes of the divine nature; " fo that, I have not, in the leaft, mifrepresented him: and must leave it to him to reconcile fuch an inconfiftency.

k

I

Since I wrote, Mr. Watts having taken occafion to speak of feveral heterodox schemes of the Trinity, has declared, his full perfuafion, that the Sabellian explainers have not hit upon the true folution of the difficulties attending this doctrine, but have gone into mistaken extremes: by this it is evident he does not apprehend himfelf, to have advanced any thing tending towards Sabellianifm. I wish, he had fhew'd, that there is no resemblance between that scheme and his, for nothing could more have tended to have removed the diflike, which the generality of Chriftians have fhew'd to his differtations. am afraid, if we knew more of what Sabellius taught, we fhould find a great deal more likeness, between his hypothefes, and that embraced by our author, than I could wifh, or he may be willing to think. In the account which Epiphanius has left us, of the heresy of Sabellius, he has told us, the opinion of him and his adherents, was to this purpose, "That the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit are the fame, that these three names belong to one perfon, as there are in man, body, foul, and fpirit; that the body denotes, as it were, the Father, the foul, as it were, the Son, and the Spirit in man, the Spirit in the Godhead1". If this account is ge

* Pref. to Mr. Scott's Sermon. p. vli.

i

ท

1 Δογματίζι γδ έτος, κ οἱ ἀπ' αὐτῇ Σαβελλιανοί, ἳ αὐτὸν εἶναι πατέρα, τ' αυτὸν υἱὸν, ἢ αὐτὸν εἶναι ἅγιον πνεῦμα· ὡς εἶναι ἐν μιᾷ υπο τάση τρεῖς ὀνομασίας, ἢ ὡς ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ σῶμα καὶ ψυχὴ ἢ πνεῦμα· καὶ μὲ τὸ σῶμα ὡς εἰπεῖν τὸν πατέρα, ψυχὴν ἢ ὡς εἰπεῖν τὸν υἱὸν, τὸ πνευμα ἢ ὡς ἀνθρώπε, ἔτως ἢ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἐν τῇ θεότητι. Epiphanius. Haer. lxii. Sect. 1. Vol. I. p. 513. Ed. Par.

nuine, as there is no reason to question, it comes to much the fame, with the hypothefis advanced by Mr. Watts. Allowance must be made for fome clum finefs, in the ancient Sabellians way of talking; by body they, in all probability, meant the fubftance, or perfon of man; for the word, which we render body, as is well known, is fometimes used in fuch a fenfe; and it is generally agreed, that, formerly, foul and fpirit were not used, to exprefs two different fpiritual fubftances, but different faculties of the fame fpiritual being; fo that the Sabellians thought it a proper way, to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, to make the substance of man, to denote the Father, and the intellectual powers, or faculties, to exprefs the Son and the Spirit. How little this fcheme differs from Mr. Watts's any one may judge: nay, it is plain, that the Sabellians did not pretend, to defcribe, what they call'd the Son, and the Spirit, by the faculties and powers of the human foul, exactly, but only by way of analogy: in which, they aim'd at the fame thing, which he has endeavour'd after.

If any fhould think this is invidious, I cannot help it; if it is matter of fact, there can be nothing invidious in it. If Mr. Watts's scheme is fcriptural, it is not the worfe, for having been formerly call'd Sabellianism; if it is not fcriptural, it is not the better, for being call'd by the name of one, who has a reputation for piety. When a scheme is advanced, which is unfcriptural, it cannot be difagreeable to fuch, as value the ancient faith, to find, that it has fhew'd its head in the world formerly, but has been dazzled and confounded, by the prevailing light of truth, fhining forth in its native fimplicity.

Our

m

Our author has, in a fermon on the doctrine of the Trinity, endeavour'd to put his fentiments. in a lefs offenfive drefs; but he goes no farther than to fay; the Son is fpoke of as a perfon, and the Spirit is reprefented in a perfonal manner, as a divine perfon; that the facred three are feveral times reprefented in a perfonal manner, and are fpoke of as three perfons: all this is confiftent enough with the notion of a figurative, or theatrical, perfonality; fo that, for what I can fee, the charge against him, of denying the proper and real perfonality of the Son and the Spirit, remains ftill in force.

n

I was much furprized, when I found Mr. Watts declaring, in the " preface to the third volume of his fermors, that his end, in publifhing this particular difcourfe on the Trinity, "was to let the world know, that he never changed his belief and profeffion of any important part of this facred article." The reafon of my wonder was, what I formerly met with, in the preface to the fecond part of his differtations: He there fuppofed, as well he might, it would be objected to him, that he had not, in thofe differtations, exprefs'd the doctrine of the perfonality of the Son and Spirit, fo ftrong, as he had done, a few years ago, in his book call'd, the Chriftian doctrine of the Trinity. To this exception among other things, he there anfwer'd, in the P following words. "I think it proper to acknowledge, that I was, at that time, inclined to fuppofe thofe perfonal reprefentations in Scripture (especially fo far as relates

See p. 420, 423, 426, 434. of the 3d Volume of Mr. Watts's Sermons. n Pref. p. ix, x.

. p. xii.

Pp. xiv.

to

;

to the blessed Spirit) were really to be understood in a more proper and literal sense, than I now find neceffary; and on that account, I did then express the doctrine of three perfons, or three diftinct intelligent agents, in terms a little stronger and more unlimited, than my judgment now approves of; for fince that time I have more carefully confider'd the Jewish idioms of speech, wherein powers, virtues, and properties are frequently perfonalized, or reprefented in a perfonal manner. This answer to the objection, and the other anfwers, with which I am not concern'd, he has introduced with a pathetic harangue, against persons being obftinately attach'd to old opinions, in which he has thefe a words "I thank God, that I have learned to retract my former fentiments, and change them, when, upon ftricter fearch and review, they appear lefs agreeable to the divine ftandard of faith." How it is poffible to reconcile all this, with his declaring he had never changed his belief and profeffion of any important part of this facred article, I confefs is beyond my understanding: all I can make of it is; either, that Mr. Watts, when he wrote his preface to his fermons, had forgot what he had faid in the preface to his differtations; or elfe, that he looks upon the doctrine of the perfonality of the Son and the Spirit, whether real or figurative, to be a matter of no importance; and if fo, I think it was hardly worth his while, to introduce the retractation of what was no way important, with so much 'folemnity and formality.

I am fenfible, that Mr. Watts has borrow'd feveral of his fancies, relating to the person of 9 Pref. p. xiii.

Christ

Chrift God-man, from the late Mr. Fleming the younger: I wonder he should find any pleasure or fatisfaction, in reading fuch an author; if he has had the patience to perufe his Christology carefully over, he is the fitft that I have heard of, who ever did. I fhould have been glad, if that gentleman, in his enquiries, had made out his claim to modefty, as well, as he did to freedom. He was a man who had read a great deal, but not with fo much judgment, as might have been wifh'd; he was a great projector in divinity, and took delight in unrevealed, and, confequently, in unprofitable curiofities; and I believe an impartial and judicious fearcher after truth, upon reading his books on Chrift's perfon, would no more commend him for making any great progrefs in light and facred knowledge, than fo good a poet as Mr. Watts, would reckon him an ingenious man, merely from reading his paraphrafe of Solomon's fong.

Perhaps Mr. Watts may think, as Mr. Fleming did, he is as much at liberty, to coin new hypothefes relating to the perfon of Chrift, as others are, to embrace the common doctrine of his eternal generation, because he may say, that is not reveal'd in Scripture. I grant, the explications with which fome have fetter'd this point, are not reveal'd, but I am more fully fatisfied than ever, that the Scripture has declared Chrift's Sonship, as to his divine nature; how elfe could he be filed God's own proper Son, or call God" his own proper Father; befides as a Son, faithful over his own house, he is op

See the following treatife, p. 60, 61. al. 62, 63. and my true Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 177-180.

Rom. viii. 32.

John v. 18.

W Heb. iii.

posed