Dr. Wallis thought the diftinction of these three perfons was only modal; which feems, fays Dr. Doddridge, to have been Tillotson's opinion alfo. If fo, they were both of them nothing more than Sabellians, whom all the antients claffed with unitarians.

In the fame clafs alfo ought to be ranked Dr. Thomas Burnett, who maintained "one "felf-existent and two dependent beings, but "afferted that the two latter are fo united to, " and inhabited by the former, that, by virtue of "that union, divine perfections may be ascribed, " and divine worship paid to them*." This, too, was evidently the opinion of Dr. Doddridge himself, and probably that of a great number of those who were educated under him, and perhaps also that of Dr. Watts. But, in fact, this fcheme only enables perfons to use the language, and to enjoy the reputation of orthodoxy, when they have no juft title to either. For the divinity of the Father dwelling in, or even fo intimately united to, what is confeffed to be a creature, is ftill no other than the divinity of the Father in that creature, and by no means any proper divinity of its own.

Befides, whatever we may fancy we can do by words, which are arbitrary things, and which

we can twist and vary as we please, the properties and prerogatives of divinity cannot be communicated. The Divine Being cannot give his own fupremacy, and whatever he can give, he must have a power of withdrawing, so that if he fhould communicate any extraordinary powers to Chrift, or to the Holy Spirit (fuppofing this to have been a distinct being) he can, whenever he pleases, withdraw thofe powers; and for the fame reason, as he voluntarily gave them their being, he must have a power of taking away that alfo. How then can they make two parts of a proper Trinity in the divine nature, and be said to be equal in power and glory with the Father?

Chriftians fhould be afhamed of fuch unworthy fubterfuges as thefe. The moft fearless integrity, and the trueft fimplicity of language, become christians, who wish to know, and to propagate truth. Certainly, if men be deceived, they are not inftructed. All that we can gain by ambiguous language is to make our readers, or heapers, imagine that we think as they do. But this is fo far from difpofing them to change their opinions, or to lay afide their prejudices, that it can only tend to confirm them. As to inconveniences that we may bring upon ourfelves by an undisguised avowal of whatever we apprehend to be the truth; we may affure ourfelves, that the God of truth, whom we honour by our conduct, will reward us, at least with

any

that

that inward peace of mind, which can never be enjoyed by those who fo miferably prevaricate in a business of such moment as this. And what are all the honours and emoluments of this world, without that fatisfaction of mind?

Light having thus, at length fprung up in the christian world, after fo long a season of darkness, it will, I doubt not, increase to the perfect day. The great article of the unity of God will, in time, be uniformly profeffed by all who bear the chriftian name; and then, but not before, may we hope and expect, that, being also freed from other corruptions and embaraffinents, it will recommend itself to the acceptance of Jews and Mahometans, and become the religion of the whole world. But fo long as christians in general are chargeable with this fundamental error, of worshipping more Gods than one, Jews and Mahometans will always hold their religion in abhorrence. As, therefore, we wish to see the general spread of the gofpel, we should exerc ourselves to restore it to its pristine purity, in this refpect.

THE

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

Corruptions of Christianity.

PART II.

The Hiftory of Opinions relating to the Doctrine of Atonement.

THE INTRODUCTION.

As the doctrine of the divine unity was

S

infringed by the introduction of that of the divinity of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit (as a perfon diftinct from the Father) fo the doctrine of the natural placability of the divine being, and our ideas of the equity of his government, have been greatly debased by the gradual introduction of the modern doctrine of atonement, which reprefents the Divine Being as withholding his mercy from the truly penitent, till a full fatisfaction be made to his juftice; and for that purpose, as fubftituting his own innocent Son in the place of finful men.