I hear with concern from persons of undoubted credit, that you are wavering, if not quite gone off from some of the peculiar and important doctrines of Christianity, particularly the proper Deity of Christ and his I say, equality with the Father. wavering, for I still hope that you are not so far gone as to be irreclaimable, or unwilling of a reconsideration.

*

"When I first entered upon the ministry, my lot was providentially cast among this people, with whom I have now continued above fifty years. I found some among those who attended at our meeting who denied the doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. Their sentiments they imbibed from an ejected minister in the neighbourhood, a professed Socinian, and a gentleman of considerable parts, learning and sobriety, under whose care and instructions they had been for some years, but he had then wholly laid aside the ministry, being deprived in a great measure of his hearing, which I suppose was the occasion of some of them attending at our place of worship.

"Coming immediately from the academy, and not having studied the controversy, I was so greatly discouraged on that account, and the shattered condition I found the church and congregation in, that I soon determined to return to my native country; but being over-persuaded to make trial for a time, I at last settled among them, and with great solicitude and seriousness set myself assiduously and impartially to inquire into and study the controversy, not without importunate prayer to God that he would lead me into the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus, by his spirit, without whose gracious influences I knew all my endeavours would nothing avail.

* Mr. C. mentions not the name of Manning, but he doubtless referred to him. Mr. M lived in the neighbourhood of Walpole, and was contemporary with Mr. C. at least seven or eight years, Mr. C. being there prior to August, 1704, and Mr. M. dying in February, 1711.

"I not only examined the Scripture, but read authors on both sides the question; had Mr. Emlyn's tracts put into my hands, and those of other Unitarians; had frequent conferences with some of them that were most strenuous for their opinions, and very zealous and industrious to propagate them. I consulted several divines, among others Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Calamy, of London, and the Rev. Mr. Parkhurst in the neighbourhood, an eminently pious divine of the Church of England, with whom I had a great intimacy, who, when I argued in their favour the plausible profession they inade of religion, replied (he being acquainted with them) that what good was in them they received before they imbibed those notions, which in themselves, he said, had no tendency that way.

"The result of my inquiry was a confirmation of my faith in the forementioned doctrines (for which I hope I shall eternally bless God); and it pleased God to make my ministry instrumental to bring off some from the Socinian scheme, who joined they with our church, and declared " never had any peace and comfort in Others their former sentiments." indeed there were that retained their notions to their dying day, but it pleased God they'died with them, and spread no further.

"I have given you this long narraamong tive, Sir, to acquaint you other things) how my faith was shaken, as I suppose, yours may be, that I may offer to your serious consideration a few things that were of use to me, and which I hope, with the blessing of God, may be of some service to you in settling you in that, which I apprehend to be the truth.

"Though the doctrine of the Trinity is so nearly connected with the proper Deity of Christ, that one cannot be believed without believing the other, yet I shall, in what I have to offer, confine myself to the latter."

"N. B. I know the Unitarians (as

+ Of Yoxford. At my first coming to Framlingham, he was spoken of in terms of high commendation by some of my aged friends, and some single sermons printed by him were put into my hands.

380

Some Account of Mr. William Manning.

they call themselves) have prudently quitted the Socinian scheme and embraced the Arian, as much more plausible and defensible, but there is no essential difference between them, both denying Christ's divine nature, and acknowledging him to be no more than a made or created Godthe Arians holding him to be an older-the Socinians a younger God, having no existence before he was born of the Virgin."

I think it probable that there were Arians in the congregation at Walpole in Mr. Crompton's latter days. I knew and visited an elderly gentleman of that denomination among them, and often heard Mr. Walker speak highly in his commendation for reading, information, good sense, firmness of mind and power in argu

mentation.

Mr. C. proceeds, " And here, 1. I considered with myself, that the proper Deity of Christ must either be an important truth or an important error; either one side is guilty of blasphemy or the other of idolatry. 2. If Christ be not, God by nature, I could not see how with any propriety, there could be attributed to him the incommmunicable names and titles of God. 1.)

"But after all, my reason opposed the doctrine. Here are two, the Father and the Son (I may add three, and the Holy Ghost) distinguished from each other by personal properties, acts and operations, and yet all three partaking of the Godhead, or communicating in the same divine infinite, nature, whereas both Scripture and reason assure me, there is but one only living and true God,' so that I was ready to cry out with Nicodemus, How can these things be? Hic labor, hoc opus est! Here I found the greatest difficulty, and indeed a very painful one, which I would gladly have got rid of. What shall I do Often did I spread my case before the Lord, pleading with him to set me right in this important point, for I looked upon my eternal interest to be concerned therein, and therefore dreaded leaning to my own understanding. And that which at last gave me satisfaction, to the settling of my mind, were such as the following considerations

"1. Supposing only the doctrine of

the Trinity to be true, and expressed in the most clear, plain and intelligible terms imaginable, yet it is not possible we should have clear and distinct ideas of it for want of faculties equal to the object.

"2. I thought it highly unreasonable to reject a doctrine (for which there is so much evidence) on account of insuperable difficulties attending it, specially when those very difficulties naturally and unavoidably arise from the sublimity of the doctrine, and the weakness and scantiness of our capacity, which is here the case.

"3. I further considered that we ought to distinguish between the doctrine itself, and the evidence of it.

"The doctrine may be of so sublime and mysterious a nature, that it may be very difficult to conceive of it, and yet the evidence clear and full Pure faith is founded only on testimony. When once therefore it is made to appear that, thus saith the Lord,' reason ought to be silent, and give place to faith.

"I have, Sir, enlarged the more on this head, because I think it is of great importance in deciding this and other points of, revealed religion, though I think not duly attended to by many of the present age, who would have all things demonstrated by reason.

"I speak my own experience, having observed in conversation with those of the opposite opinion, that all their arguments from Scripture centred here. The doctrine is contrary to reason, and therefore cannot be true, What is the consequence? Why, such an interpretation is to be put upon the text as is consistent with their reason, Yea, I have been told to my face by my antagonist, when pinched with an argument from Scripture, that were the proper Deity of Christ delivered in the most plain and express terms imaginable, he would not believe it, because contrary to all reason, and this by a person who professed a great reverence for the Scriptures, and a willingness to be determined by them in this point. This, you will say, was plain dealing, but knowing the man, his meaning was, as I charitably believe-the doctrine is contrary to all reason, i. e. to his reason, and therefore it is not at all revealed in

Scripture, and consequently whatever
the cripture says about it, is to be
understood in some other sense.
“Do not mistake me, dear Sir, I
only tell you what I have met with,
and therefore would not have any
thing I have said, construed to your
disadvantage.

"4. I was very sensible that reason is a proper judge, whether we have the divine testimony in the Scriptures for this important doctrine, or not; and upon examination I thought it was apparent that we had, from a multitude of texts of Scripture.

"5. I could not but believe it was the design of God in revealing any important doctrine, that it should be received, and that we are not left to our libert whether we will believe it or not, and consequently that it is expressed in such intelligible terms, that his mind may be known therein by the lowest class of Christians.

6. I also thought we ought to distinguish between the doctrine itself and the explanation of it.

"The explanation is not of the same authority with the original revelation. To instance in the doctrine of the Trinity-the original revelation is, that there is one living and true God —that this one God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost, or that these three equally partake of the same divine nature of Godhead; but that there is nevertheless expressed in Scripture stich a distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, as that each of them take a part in the economy of our redemption, and have personal properties, &c. &c. ascribed to them. Now these propositions being the principal object of our faith, there is no heed of any farther explication, &c.

"I know it is usual for those who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, to arge the distinction against the Unity, and the Unity against the distinction, as inconsistent, and here they make, their strongest efforts against the doctrime; but whether they be inconsistent, let the Scripture determine, since one is as expressly revealed as the other, and therefore both ought to be believed--but after all, if there be an inconsistency, the Holy Ghost (not we must account for it, on whose bare authority and testimony we solely rely.

"7. 1 considered that if my reason

be nonplused, in the apprehension of this important point, it is no more than I may expect, since we are told, it is a mystery, and that without' controversy. I was always afraid of using such boldness, as to trifle with or ridicule the term mystery, for fear of grieving the Holy Ghost and provoking him, &c.

"8. I considered, that the excellency of a divine faith lies in resting upon the bare testimony of God in the face of difficulties; yea, the greater and more difficulties it has to struggle with, arising from natural and carnal reason, the more God is honoured by it.

9. I considered (which, indeed, as a moral argument was of great weight with me) that the church of God has been in possession of this doctrine ever since the apostles' times, if any eredit may be given to ecclesiastical history. However, the very adversaries of it cannot deny, but she was possessed of it for above 1500 years, and it is certain that at the time of the reformation from Popery, the churches of Christ in Germany, &c. &c. harmonized in it. Now whence is it they should all fall into the same way of thinking, so very different from those who glory in the new light they have received, and this in a doctrine so very mysterious? The truth is, they better understood the nature of faith, paid a just and reverent regard to the authority of God in his word, resigning up their understandings to him as a Rasa Tabula, &c. We are told it was a common saying of Luther,

Reason, thou art a fool! hold thy peace and let truth speak. Must they all then pass for fools and madmen? Be it so. It was, however, no small comfort to me, that if I be in an error, it is with good company! I therefore was unwilling, though a hard task to proud nature, to sacrifice my purblind reason to faith founded upon the unerring testimony of God, and backed with such a cloud of witnesses as a corroborating evidence.

"10. I considered that Christ, in his highest capacity, must either be a finite or infinite Being, there being no possible medium between, and consequently the error must be great on

* Is not this an error in the copy, and should it not be read, willing ?

.