Now, if we review all these considerations, and join the force of them together, perhaps it will appear, that the explication of the Trinity, by the idea of a divine being with his two divine powers, will allow such a personality to the Word and holy Spirit, as may be sufficient to answer the representation given of them in scripture.

Yet I will by no means contend for the use of the word person to express the divine nature of Christ, or the Holy Spirit. I have often asserted, and repeat it again, that when I express the doctrine of the Trinity by three persons being one God, I mean no more, than that there "are three, who have sufficient communion in one godhead to have proper divine names, titles and attributes ascribed to them, and sufficient distinction from each other to sustain the various characters and offices that are assigned to them in scripture."

Yet,

1. Perhaps the word person may be the best word we have to express the character of God the Father, or of Christ as Godman, in his complete constitution, as a complex being: perhaps, it may not be the very clearest and happiest term that could possibly have been found to express the characters of the Word and Spirit in a philosophical manner, considered as mere distinctions in the divine nature. But let it be remembered, that it is not the custom of scripture, nor the design of the great and blessed God, to represent either heavenly or earthly things to us in their own philosophical nature, where our concern in them does not depend upon a philosophical knowledge of them: And therefore in these matters God is pleased to accommodate his language to the sentiments of the bulk of the people to whom they were first written. So the scripture speaks of the motion of the sun, of the fixation, or establishment and foundation of the earth, of the pillars of the heavens, of the heart and reins giving instruction, as being the seat of the soul, according to the Hebrew opinion, though these things are not literally and philosophically true. Now since our salvation does not depend upon the knowledge of the precise points of unity and distinction, between Father, and Son, and Spirit; or whether the Word and Spirit be proper powers, or proper persons in their own sublime nature; but upon their divíne all-sufficiency to fulfil their offices, and support their relations to us: It is very probable that God condescended to talk to his people according to their own way of thinking and talking, and to represent himself as acting by his divine powers under the character of persons, without giving us any account of the real philosophical distinctions in his incomprehensible essence, how great or how little they are: And the reason of this his conduct may be, because an exact and just philosophical account of these things is, perhaps, too transcendent for our conceptions in the present state, or that it was not

necessary to meliorate our temper and practice, or promote our salvation.

Let it be further observed, that though the term person has been long and generally used in the christian churches to express the distinctions in the divine nature, yet it has not been universally made use of for this purpose; nor has the doctrine been confined only to this word, either in elder or in later times. Several centuries had run out after the beginning of christianity, before this word was publicly and frequently used. Justin Martyr, a very early writer, calls the distinctions in the Trinity, different manners of being, Toño Tag. Others of the Fathers call the Logos, or eternal Word, a power of God, according to the language of the ancient Jews.

πρόσωπα.

"

The programma" of the emperor Justin, to which all the churches gave their consent, as Evagrius witnesses, "IIistoriæ Ecclesiasticæ, libro v. capite 4." saith, "We adore the Trinity in unity, and the unity in Trinity; an unity as to essence, or godhead, a Trinity as to properties or persons, idiotas to gora. Here person is explained by property. St. Austin, who uses the term person, explains the Trinity by modes or powers of the divine nature; representing the Father, Son, and Spirit, as mind, wisdom, and love; or God considered as an original eternal mind, knowing and willing himself. J. Damascene, the first of the fathers that collected a regular system of divinity, defines a person in the holy Trinity, to be an eternal mode of eternal subsistence ; ο αναρχει τροπο της αιτίας υπάρξεως.

Thus also later christian writers, use the words mode and property, to describe a divine person, and that sometimes even in confessions of faith. The Wirtemberg confession calls the sacred three, properties as well as persons. The confession of the Greek church, 1453, calls the Father, Son, and Spirit, three properties, which are as it were the principles of all the other properties of God, and which are named three subsistences or persons. The Polish confession, 1570, says, "They are three in their subsisting properties and dispensatory offices, yet these three are one." The same divine essence considered in a particular mode of subsistence, is the common way wherein a divine person hath been represented by most of our modern theological writers. The sacred Trinity is usually described by them as the divine essence with three relative properties.

The great Calvin, one of the chief glories of the reformation, describes the Son and Spirit as the wisdom and power of God the Father; and yet he calls them persons. But he resolves not to quarrel with any man merely because he will not admit word person. See Institutionum, libro i. capite 13." I might cite many authors to this purpose, who, though they use

the word person, yet do by no means make it necessary: And there have been some who have rather disliked the word than approved it. St. Austin himself, who uses the term with great freedom, declares, "It is not because he finds it in scripture, but because the scriptures do not contradict it, and that we use it by a kind of necessity, as labouring under a want of words," libro vii. de trinitate. And as Calvin has cited him, "Institutionum, libro i. capite 13." he declares, "It is not so much to express what is the real divine distinction, but that we might not be utterly silent how the Father, Son and Spirit, are three."

Since therefore, neither scripture itself applies the term person to the Word or Spirit, nor the elder nor later writers of the church, have confined themselves to the use of this term, I can see no necessity of the confinement of ourselves, or others to it, when we are speaking of the pure distinctions in the divine nature. And when we are endeavouring to explain them in a rational manner, and to form and adjust our clearest ideas of them, I think we may use the term divine properties, or rather divine powers, for this end: Perhaps this word powers comes nearest to the genuine ideas of things, so far as we can apply human words to divine ideas; and this word powers makes the distinction greater than properties, and I think it is so much the better. But we have several precedents for the use of both these terms among ancient writers.

And yet after all, since the scripture has represented the Father, the Word, and the Spirit in a personal manner, aud exhibited these divine ideas to us as three distinct personal agents concerned in the works of creation and salvation; and since it has been the general custom of the christian churches, for above a thousand years, to apply the word person to the sacred three, I think we may infer, that it may be safely and conveniently used in discoursing on this subject. Perhaps an introduction of any new terms into our common and popular discourses on this doctrine, would give a greater uneasiness and confusion to the minds of christians, than would be easily counterbalanced by the advantages we might expect from any unusual words, which might be introduced under a pretence of clearer ideas.

It is true, that when we are constrained by opposers of the truth, to explain these things in a rational and philosophical manner, we may then distinguish names more accurately: We may then shew how the term person may be more properly and literally understood, when it is applied to God the Father, or to the complete person of Christ, the Mediator, as the scripture, perhaps, has applied hypostasis and prosopon: But that the same term person may be metaphorical and figurative when applied to

the Word and Spirit, considered as mere distinctions in the divine nature.

Yet as the scripture frequently speaks in this figurative way, and the great God, who indited it, foreknew that multitudes of christian readers would be ready to form personal ideas under his own inspired words, I cannot think it a matter of so great importance, as that we would change all our usual forms of popular discourse on this subject. The scriptural representations, are, doubtless, sufficiently adapted both to instruct and incite us to perform all our necessary duties to the Father, Son, and Spirit, as our Creator, our Redeemer, and our Sanctifier; and it is on these depend our peace and pardon, and our hopes of everlasting happiness. And if these are well secured, let not terms and phrases engage the fury and contention of those who profess the gospel of peace. He that "dotes about vain questions, and strifes of words, incurs the censure of the Apostle, that he is proud, knowing nothing. This is the way to stir up envy, strife and railings, with evil surmises, and perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds," 1 Tim. vi. 4. It is time for christians to have done with all these: It is time for us to seek the truth in love, and to "follow after the things which make for peace, and the things whereby one may edify another." Rom. xiv. 19. We believe in God the Father our Creator, in the Son our Redeemer, and in the eternal Spirit our Sanctifier. Let us glorify the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, by all due honours, unfeigned obedience, and everlasting praise. Amen.

DISSERTATION VII.

Of the Distinction of Persons in the Divine Nature; or, a humble Essay to illustrate the Doctrine of the Trinity, viz. three Persons and one God.

SECTION I.-The Introduction.*

WHILE I am discoursing on the sublime article of the sacred Trinity, I would always endeavour to maintain the just distinction between the general doctrine itself, and the particular modes of explication; and therefore I would first mention what I call the scriptural doctrine.

By what I have delivered in the foregoing dissertations I have in some measure anticipated the design of this, though this was written before those. Yet since this dissertation exhibits the ideas of the sacred three, viz. the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, in a closer connexion and mutual respect to each other, and gives a more simultaneous view of my scheme of explication, I thought it not improper to place it here, that I might lay the better foundation for an answer to those objections which have been made against the doctrine of the Trinity.

By a careful perusal of the Word of God, I hope I am arrived at a just and reasonable satisfaction in this general truth, that "there are three which are called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who are represented in scripture as personal agents, sustaining different offices and characters in the transactions of God with his creatures; and that these three having divine titles, properties and attributions given to them, must have such communion in the one godhead, or divine nature, as to lay a just foundation for these ascriptions." This is the general doctrine of the Trinity, which has been professed by the greatest part of the christian world, and this is what I mean when I say more briefly, "there are three persons who are one God."

Now, since this doctrine appears to carry in it a seeming inconsistency, it has been the labour of christians in all ages, to find out some particular schemes of explication, whereby the difficulties may be removed, and the seeming oppositions reconciled, whereby we may attain some clear conceptions, how one God may be exhibited under three personal characters.

Among the several schemes which have been proposed in order to reconcile the seeming inconsistencies of this doctrine, there is not any one of them that has given so plain, full and satisfactory a solution to all the difficulties that arise, as to render all further attempts needless. There is yet room therefore for the employment of study and prayer, and humble endeavours to obtain clearer light.

Having surveyed the probabilities, and the inconveniences which attend the several hypotheses which I have seen I have ventured to indulge some degrees of assent to one particular sort of explication, which seems to me more correspondent to every part of scripture, and bids fairest for the reconciliation of some of these difficulties with which other schemes are encumbered.— But I am far from having arrived at an assurance herein, nor dare I be peremptory, or positive in the assertion of it; for even to this hour I look upon all these hypotheses but as particular human and fallible explications of that doctrine, which in general is divine and true.

No, though the knowledge of any of these particular schemes is by no means necessary to our salvation,, yet if divine grace will assist us us to set these things in a reasonable light, it will add a sensible pleasure even to our inward devotions, when we behold the great God, the object of them, in a more distinct and conspicuous view. And if by this means we can better defend the true scriptural doctrine of the Trinity from the objections of men, we shall do some honour to the truths of God and his gospel, and perhaps, by this means we may have the happiness of establishing the faith of christians.