affenting to the truth of it, it would be fo throughout, in the things of nature, as well as in the things of religion: I would here further demand of you why you are fo particularly fhy of admitting incomprehenfible things in religion, why is it there only that you feem fo ftiffly and zealously to adhere to your maxim of believing nothing but what you can comprehend? Since there are fo many inconceivable things, or if you please, mysteries, in the works of nature and of Providence, why not in religion? Nay where should one expect to find myfteries if not there, where all the things that are revealed are revealed by God himself, and many of them concerting himself and his own infinite perfections? And what deference do we pay to God more than man, if either we suppose that he cannot reveal truths to us which we cannot comprehend, or if we will not believe them if he does? Nay, may it not be rather said that we do not pay him fo much, fince we think it adviseable to receive many things from our tutors and mafters upon their authority only, though we do not comprehend them ourselves; and juftify our doing fo by that well-known and in many cafes very reasonable maxim, difcentem oportet credere. But as there is no authority like the divine, fo if that motto become any school, it is that of Chrift.

7. Now it is in this fchool that you profess to be scholars, and why then will you be fuch opiniative and uncompliant disciples as to refufe to receive the fublime lectures read to you by your divine and infallible Mafter, merely because they are too high for you, and you cannot conceive them, when at the same time any one of you that is not a mathematician (pardon the supposition) would, I doubt not, take it upon the word of him that is fo, that the diameter of a square is incommenfurable to the fide, though he did not know how to demonftrate, or fo much as conceive it himself. Since then you would exprefs fuch implicit regard to the authority of a fallible, though learned man, fhall not the divine weigh infinitely heavier with you; and fince you would not stick to affent to things above your conception in human and natural fciences, why are you fo violently fet against myfteries in religion, whereof God is not only the author, but in great measure the object too?

8. You know very well that in the great problem of the divisibility of quantity, there are incomprehenfibilities on both fides, it being inconceivable that quantity fhould, and it being also inconceivable that it fhould not be divided infinitely. And yet you know again, that, as being parts of a contradiction, one of them

must neceffarily be true. Poffibly you may not be able with the utmost certainty, and without all hefitation, to, determine which that is; but however you know in the general, that one of them, indeterminately, must be true; (which by the way is enough to convince you that the incomprehenfibility of a thing is no argument against the truth of it) and you must also further grant, that-God, whofe understanding is infinite, does precifely and determinately know which of them is fo. Now fuppofe God fhould reveal this, and make it an article of faith. It is not indeed likely that he will, it being so much beneath the Majesty, and besides the end and intention of revelation, whofe great defign is the direc tion of our life and manners, and not the improvement of our fpeculation. But fuppofe, I fay, he fhould, would you not believe it? If not, then you must fuppofe either that there is no neceffity that either of the two parts (which yet are contradictory) should be true, or that though one of them be true, yet that God does not know which is fo, or that though he does know which is fo, yet he does not deal faithfully in revealing that which is the right, all which are extravagant fuppofitions, and fuch as men of your sense and reason can never allow. But then if you say (as you must) that you would believe it, then I pray what becomes of your maxim of believing nothing but what you can comprehend, and why do you soʻftiffly plead the incomprehenfibility of an article of faith against the belief of it, and why must there be no myfteries in religion? I fay in religion, where if any where our reafon might expect to find things above its measure, unreachable heights, and unfathomable depths, and where God is not only the revealer (as in the cafe now supposed) but also the object revealed. For is it not reafonable to fuppofe that there are things more incomprehenfible in God than in nature, and if you would receive an incomprehenfible revelation of his concerning his works, how much rather ought you to admit the fame concerning himself?

9. And this gives me occafion to fay fomething to you concerning the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. This great article of the Chriftian faith you have a particular prejudice against, and will not believe, and that because it so utterly tranfcends the force of reafon to conceive how the fame undivided and numerically One fimple effence of God fhould be communicated to Three really diftinct Perfons, fo as that there fhould be both a Unity in Trinity, and a Trinity in Unity. This however, as inconceivable as it seems, fome will not yield to be fo far above reason

but that a rational and intelligible account may be given of it, which accordingly they have effayed to do by several hypotheses. But I decline at present all advantage that may be had from them, or any other that may be invented to render this an intelligible article. You know I reafon all along upon the contrary fuppofition, that thofe articles of the Chriftian faith which we call mysteries, are really incomprehenfible, and only go to invalidate the consequence that is drawn from thence in prejudice of their belief. Well then for once we will give you what you ftand for, that the doctrine of the Trinity is indeed utterly above reafon. You have our leave to fuppofe it as incomprehenfible as you pleafe. But then you are to confider (befides what has hitherto been difcourfed concerning the nullity of the confequence from the incomprehenfibility of a thing to its incredibility) that this is a revelation of God concerning himself, and do you pretend to comprehend the nature and effence of God? understanding is as infinite as the divine. the incomprehenfibility of this mysterious objection with you against the belief of it, fince if it be, you must be driven to say that you comprehend the nature of God, which I hope you have too much religion as well as reafon to affirm.

If you do, then your But if you do not, then article ought to be no

10. And indeed if we meet with so many infuperable difficulties in the fearch of nature, much more may we in the comtemplation of its author; if the works of God do fo puzzle and baffle our understandings, much more may they confefs their deficiency when God himself is their object; and if we are not able to explain. creation, or give an account how the material world iffued in time from the great Fountain of being, much less may we be supposed able to explain the eternal and ineffable generation of his divine and consubstantial word. But what then, fhall we not believe it? Or rather shall we not fay upon this occafion, with the pious and ingenious Mr. Wesley *,

"Ineffable the way, for who

"Th' Almighty to perfection ever knew?

"But he himself has faid it, and it must be true."

Nay, to go lower yet, if there be so many things relating to extenfion, motion and figure (of all which we have clear ideas) which we cannot comprehend, and there refult from them propo

Life of Chrift, p. 184.

6

fitions which we know not what to make of, with how much greater reafon may we expect to find what we cannot understand in the nature of an infinite Being, whereof we have no adequate idea. And indeed we meet with fo many incomprehenfibles in the school of nature, that one would think we should be too much familiarized to them to think them ftrange in that of religion, and God feems on purpose to exercise and difcipline our understandings with what is above them in natural things, that fo we might be the lefs furprized to find what paffes our conception in his own infinite effence. Here then at leaft you may confefs your ignorance, and that without any reproach to your understandings, which were indeed intended for the contemplation, but not for the comprehenfion of an infinite object. You need not therefore here be backward to own, that you meet with what you cannot comprehend (it would indeed be a mystery if you should not) nor think it any difgrace to have your eyes dazzled with that light at the infupportable glory of which even the seraphin veil and cover theirs.

11. You may perceive by this that your denial of the doctrine of the Trinity, because of the incomprehenfibility of it, proceeds upon no good confequence; but you are alfo further defired to confider the very bad one that it naturally leads to. You refufe to receive this article, becaufe you cannot comprehend it; but befides that your reafon for this your refufal is not good unless you could be fuppofed to comprehend every thing, even "the "deep things of God." Pray confider what the confequence will be if you purfue your principle to the utmost, and conduct yourfelves entirely by its meafures. Will it not inevitably lead you to the denial of all religion? This, perhaps, may startle you, but think again. Will not this neceffarily lead you to the denial of God, the foundation of all religion? For if you will not believe the trinal diftinction of perfons in the divine effence, becaufe you cannot conceive how fuch a thing can be, then may you not for the fame reafon refufe as well to believe the divine effence itself, fome of whofe incommunicable attributes, such as his felf-existence, eternity, immenfity, &c. are as incomprehenfible as any thing in the notion of the Trinity can be. So that if you will but follow your measure from the denial of three, you may be quickly brought to deny even one. So directly does your principle of believing nothing but what you can comprehend lead to Atheism, and that with such swift and wide ftrides, that were

f

it not for the affiftance of the fame expedient, your friends the Deifts would be hardly able to follow you.

12. And now, Sirs, what do you think of your principle'? Is it not a goodly one, and richly worth all the paffion and zeal you have expreffed for it? You know very well that M. Abbadie, in his excellent treatife of the divinity of Chrift, has shewn you that upon one of your grounds (viz. the denial of that article) the Mahometan religion is preferable to the Christian, and indeed that you are obliged by it to renounce Chriftianity, and turn Mahometans. This truly was a home-thruft. But yet you fee the confequence of your general principle reaches further, as leading you not only out of Chriftianity, but out of all religion, whether natural or revealed, even beyond deism, even into atheism itself. If it does not actually lead you thither, the fault is not in the principle, whofe connexion with that confequence is natural enough; but it is because you are not fo confiftent with yourselves as to follow it. And indeed it is a great happiness that you do not, (fince if you were here better logicians, you would be worse men) though it would be a much greater, if for the danger of being more consistent with it, you would be perfuaded to lay it down.

13. And that you may be fo, be pleased further to confider, that though this principle of yours does not eventually carry you as far as Atheism, because perhaps the horridness of the conclusion may be a counterweight against the force of the premises, (though you fee it naturally tends that way) yet there is very great danger of its leading you effectually into Deism, that not being accounted now-a-days fuch a very frightful thing. For as long as you hold, that what is above human reafon is not to be believed, and upon that account reject the Chriftian myfteries, because they are above reafon; you lie at the mercy of that argument that shall prove to you that these mysteries are indeed revealed, and that the genuine and natural sense of the facred text 'declares for them. For if you once come to be convinced of that, you will then be obliged, in confequence of your principle, to renounce that religion which reveals fuch incredible things that is the Chriftian, which will be a fhrewd (indeed an invincible) temptation to you to throw up all revealed religion, and fo to turn perfect Deifts. And I pray God it may not have that effect upon you.

14. But as to the parting with Chriftianity, that you will be further tempted to do upon another account. For when you