But I would purfue this Argument a little, under fome more parallel Inftances.

The learned World well knows what corporeal Notions the famous ancient Father Tertullian had of the Soul of Mar; what im material and refined Opinions Des Cartes and his Followers have entertained concerning the Prefence or Place of Spirits; and what were the contrary Sentiments of Dr. Henry More and his Admirers.

Now may not a Tertullianift take proper care for the Salvation of his Soul, tho' he thinks the Nature of it be Corporeal? May not the Soul of a Cartesian find the right Way to Heaven, tho' he believes his Soul has no Relation to Place, and exifts no where, or in no certain Place? May he not worship God with Acceptance in Spirit aud in Truth, tho' he conceive God himself, as an infinitely wife and powerful Mind void of all Extenfion, and who hath no relation to Place? and tho' he suppose his Omnipresence to be nothing else but his univerfal Knowledge and Power and Agency, thro' all Times and Places? And may not a Morift with the fame Acceptance worship the fame God, tho' he believes him to be infinitely extended and penetrating all Bodies and all poffible Spaces?

What is there in thefe philofophical Pár ticularities, that forbids a Man to be truly pious, while he believes his Soul to have an immortal

N

immortal Being after this Life, and while' he supposes God to have all the requifite Properties and Powers for a Creator and Governor, and Judge of the World?

You will fay, fome of thefe Perfons hold grofs Inconfiftencies, and believe Impoffibles, while they fuppofe a corporeal Soul to be immortal; or a God infinitely extended thro' Length, Breadth and Depth, who is a pure Spirit ; and therefore fuch a Soul cannot be immortal, and fuch a God cannot know, or govern or judge.

I answer, It may poffibly be fo: These may be great Inconfiftencies; and yet a Man may fincerely believe them both, who does not fee the Inconfiftency of them. And if we must be condemned to Hell for believing Inconfiftencies, then Wo be to every Son and Daughter of Adam. What Man is there in the World free from all Error? And yet every Error which he holds, is perhaps inconsistent with fome Truth which he believes: It's hard to write Anathema upon a Man's Forehead, because of fome Inconfiftence in his Opinions, while he believes all neceffary Truths, and practifes all the neceffary Duties relating to God and Chrift, and his own Soul.

You may perhaps object and fay, That he that believes the Soul to be corporeal, by Çonfequence does not believe it to be immortal; or he that believes God to be infinitely extended in Length and Breadth, by Confequence

docs

does not believe God to be a fpiritual Being, who can know and judge human Affairs: and thus in the fame manner by the Consequence of his own Suppofitions, the Man that holds thefe Doctrines may perhaps be proved to be a Brute and an Atheist.

I reply, And muft all the Confequences that can be drawn from the Mistakes of any Man be imputed to that Man as his own O pinions? This would make dreadful Work in the Chriftian Church. The Arminian would reduce the Calvinift into Blasphemy and Atheism and likewife the Calvinist the Arminian. By this uncharitable Method each of them would be called Atheists and Blafphemers, and be utterly excluded from Chriftian Communion by fuch a perverse Practice as this.

I would add yet further, that by fuch uha charitable Conftructions as thefe, The, Cartefian Chriftian might fay, I can't join in Worship with Dr. More, and his Followers, for we have not the fame Object of Worship: I worship a God who is a pure Spirit, a pure thinking Being, without Extenfion or Dimenfion; but they worship a Being infinite ly extended, i. e. infinitely long, broad and deep. The Morift might cry with the fame Zeal, I cannot worship with a Cartefian, for we worship not the fame Object: He adores a God that is properly in no Place; but I worship that God who penetrates all Things and Places, and is expanded thro' all. Ni

Now

Now if fuch Objections as thefe are indulged and supported, no two Perfons could join together in any part of Divine Worship who had fuch different Ideas of the Divine Effence or Attributes, left they fhould imagine they worship two diftin&t or different Deities. And if this were admitted, where could we find two Perfons who had fo exactly the fame Ideas of God as to hold Communion in one Worship?

This wretched Practice of imputing all the diftant Consequences of any Man's Opinions or Mistakes to him, is quite contrary to our Saviour's general Rule, Matt. 7. 12. What you would that Men fhould do to you, do ye even fo to them. Let thefe Objectors be pleased to confider that doubtless they them felves in fome Parts of their Religion are guilty of fome Errors or Mistakes in their Opinions;, for no Man's Knowledge is perfect: and if thofe Errors, fhould be pushed home to their utmost Confequences, perhaps they might terminate in Blafphemy, Atheism, or mere Nonfenfe: But no Man would be willing to be treated in this manner himself, (viz.) to have all the utmost Confequences of his mif taken Opinions be imputed to him, therefore he ought not to treat his Brothers fo; according to that univerfal Rule, What ye would that Men fhould do unto you, that do ye al fo to them.

Now to apply these things to the prefent Cafe. Suppose,

Suppofe, for Inftance, Timon and Pithus both believe Chrift to be the true God: but Timon fuppofes him not to be Self-exiftent, because he faith, he is a Son, derived from the Father by an Eternal Generation. On the other hand, Pithus believes him to be Self-Exiftent, because he is God. Now has Pithus Reason to fay, that because Timon doth not believe the Self-Existence of Chrift, therefore by Confequence he does not believe his Divinity? Or, fhould Timon be permitted to conclude, that because Pithus believes the Self-Exiftence of Chrift, therefore by Confequence he does not believe his SonShip? Would it be agreeable either to the Reafon of a Man, or to the Charity of a Christian, that these two Men fhould anathematize one another, or feclude each other from Chriftian Communion because of the Confequences of their Opinions, while they both profefs to maintain that Jefus Chrift is the Son of God, and has fuch Communion in and with the Eternal Godhead, as that both of them profefs him to be true God, and both pay him Divine Worship.

Now what I would infer from hence is this, that fince the different Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity may be so abused to give fuch Occafions for Contest, where Chriftians are not wife and charitable, I would rather exclude all the particular Modes of Explication from the Terms of Chriftian

N 3

Com