.2Io PREFACE. doctrine are not always so deficient in their charity as they are too often represented. I know there are some things will be objected to these dissertations,viz. Objection I. Since I have several morediscourses byme already finished, it will be naturally demanded, " Why I have not published their at once? Why I have given the worldat present only these three ?" To this I answer, That these three essaysenter not so far into the particulardistinctions between the sacred persons, but chiefly maintain their communion in the same god- head : I thought therefore it was muetsmore proper to send these abroad first ; hoping that if my labours of this 'kind find acceptance among my friends, I might thenbe better encouraged to publish the rest in a fewmonths time ; insome of which I found myself constrained to speak more largely, and particularly of the " distinctionof persons in the sacred Trinity." But on the other hand; if the general doctrine of the communion of Christ in the deity ; or the union of two natures in one person, or divine worship paid to Christ the Mediator, cannot be supported, our particular modesof explaining the distinction of the divine persons are all destroyed and rendered useless. II. It will be censured as a'fault by many, " that I repeat the same things." Truly the reason is, because these essays were written at distant times : And besides, in such a controversy it is necessary sometimes toset the some things before-the view of the reader, which would have but little force, or perhaps be forgotten, if they were only intermingled with other parts of the controversy, and by that means were out of sight. . III. Some will make it a matter of offence and scandal, that " I do-not "write with that full assurance of every thing as others would do in the like To this I answer, That since the studies of these last yearsI think I tin established afresh ,in the, belief of- the'deity of Christ, and -the blessed Spirit, and assured of it upon -sufficient grounds, that they are one with the Father in godhead, though they are represented inscriptureas distinct persons. But as to the various particular explications of this doctrine, and incidental arguments that attend it, I-desire to believe and towrite with a humble con- sciousness of my own ignorance, and togive my assent but in proportion to the degrees oflight and evidence. I am persuaded, ,ifevery manwould pro- portion his assent by the same rule, much of our modern assurance wouldbe abated; we should have but few degmatists amongst ms, even in some im- portant doctrines ; and by this method perhaps the most positive and confi- dent assertors of their own opinions would become the most doubtful and modest of all men. Besides, when I consult the scripts re, or human writers, on so sublime a ..subject, I do not come with all my opinions fixed and determined, but I read inorder to receive further light, and therefore I would write as one who may be- mistaken, and who is honestly seeking truth. I know the weakness of human understanding, and how easily we, are led into error. I have often seen occasion toretract my. former sentiments, and correct themby further discoveries; and I esteem a modest and cautious manner óf speech, in most of the controverted points, to be one excellence of a fallible writer, and re- traction of an error to be yet a superior attainment : And though this is made sometimes a matterof scoff among vulgar souls, it is always a Leong among the wise. IV. " Some think, that I do not write with indignation and zeal enough, and that I treat the adversaries of the divinity of Christ with too much gen- tleness for any man who professesto be a friend to that sacred article, and a loverof the blessed Saviour." I might make several replies to such an objection. As, Answer I. -If myblessed Saviour has loved'his own enemies to as to die
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=