20$ PREFACE. myself obliged to enter the lists with any antagonist whatsoever, upon matters of dispute and intricacy, either now or hereafter. Yet since I had promisedsomeoccasional dissertations on this subject, I found it was much expected by theworld, that I should then take some no- tice of this author and his work, which I have now done in several of the discourseswhich I have written, and, endeavoured to lay a foundation for the support of the common doctrine of the Trinity, by obviating some of his most plausible objections. And since I never designed to give a largeand particular answer tò the " Sober Appeal," for the reasons alreadymentioned, I think it proper here to make a tèw general remarkson, the styleand manner of that'writing. And first I acknowledge my obligations to theauthor, forthe terms of de. ceney and respect, and the language of friendship with which he treats me both in the prefaceand in the greatest part of bis book. I receive them as the un- merited civilities of a courteous stranger: And had I the happiness of know- ing his name, perhaps I should find dustoccasion to make an equal return, But while I am permitted to learn his character no otherwise but from his writing, lcan only treat my unknown friend with all that esteem which his writing deserves. For .1 must confess, how superior soever others may appear in learning and, argument, yet I am not willing any writer should exceed. me in the practices of a christian temper. But I hope my respondent will not take it ill, if 1'mentiion a few instan- ces, wherein he seems to have been awakened by his zeal to forget his usual style : Aswhen he takes occasion to pity me and all my friends, for the shifts we are put to in the defence of our doctrine. When he tells me he will not triumph over the weakness of my arguments, and yet affects a triumph in several places ;. with some other such superior airs, which he assumes io the course of the debate. This language carries a sort of sovereignty and contempt in it, but adds neither force nor ornament to the paragraph or the cause. Again, He seems to indulge the same insulting strain, when he repeats sooften the words resistless and over-bearing, which I think I had never'used but once or twice atmost. This represents me as though Í had supposed every single argument of mine to be over-bearing and resistless whereas in those places where I use either of these words, they refer chiefly to the whole strength, of all the arguments put together, and which, I confess, still I cannot resist ; and multitudes of Christians have confessed the same. if I any where use such language on slighteroccasions I receive the reproof. He seems again to forget his usual candour, when he construes my words inhis preface, and his appendix, as casting damnation on allthose who disbelieve the eternal deity of Christ, by my citing the words of the apos- tle; 2Pet. ii. I. "Damnable heresies, denying the Lord that bought them," page 489. I must confess, 1 do not think that scripture particularly refers to those that deny thegodhead of Christ; but rather to those that deny him as áHoly Governor of his people: Or else it reproves in general all those that deny Christ in any of those powers, properties, offices, or characters, the belief of which is made necessary to salvation. Now when the first part of mybook is spent in proving the -deity of Christ and the Spirit, the second part of it in declaring their personality, and the third or last pact in surveying their several offices and relations in which they stand to os, and upon a.recapi- tulation Í make this conclusion, " That there are such things as damnable heresies, when persons deny the Lord that bought then, " this should, with much more justice, be referred, asI designed it, to the denial of all or any of these preceding properties, characters, or offices of Christ, the belief of which thescripture makes necessary to salvation, and not merely be confined to the single doctrine of hisdeity.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=