In Answer to Mr. Edwards.

MR. Edwards after having written some trifling Books, some indifferent ones, di­vers good ones; and one excellent Book, his Demonstration of the Existence and Providence of God; found an Inclination in himself, that he could not resist, of contriving a New Religion, or rather Impiety; and of imputing it to the Socinians. By whom he means (it appears) the Unitarians.

Those in England, who call them­selves Unitarians, never were in the Sentiments of Socinus, or the Socini­ans. Notwithstanding, as our Oppo­sers have pleased themselves in calling us Socinians, we have not always de­clined the Name: because in inter­preting many Texts of Scripture, we cannot but approve and follow the Judgment of those Writers, who are confessed by all, to be excellent Cri­ticks, and very judicious. As particu­larly (and chiefly) H. Grotius; who, it must be granted, was Socinian all over: and D. Erasmus, who, tho he lived considerably before Socinus, com­monly interprets that way; and there­fore is charged by Cardinal Bellarmine, as a downright Arian. Non poterat, says the Cardinal, Arianam causam manifestius propugnare. ‘ Erasmus could not more openly espouse the Arian side, than he has done, in his Notes on the Fathers, and the principal Texts of Scripture.’ Pref. ad Libros 5. de Christo. But tho, as I said, we are not Socinians, nor yet Arians; see­ing Mr. Edwards has contrived a Creed for us, under the Name of Socinians: I will answer both directly and sincere­ly, concerning the several Articles of the Creed, which he pretends to be ours.

As to the References, unto places in particular Authors; where Mr. Ed­wards would have it thought, the Ar­ticles of that Creed are affirmed: I have examined some of his principal References, and can say of 'em; they are either Perversions, or downright Falsifications, of what the Authors (re­ferred to) did intend. Dr. Wallis, whose dishonest Quotations out of the Socinians, have been detested by eve­ry Body, is hardly more blamable in that kind, than Mr. Edwards; saving that the Doctor being, as one rightly tells him, somewhat more than a Soci­nian, did but foul his own Nest, by his Forgeries; but we cannot certainly say, what is the Opinion of Mr. Ed­wards in the great Article, in question among us. But come we to the Creed, which he says, is ours. As I promised, I will answer to every Article of it, sin­cerely, and directly.

[Page 4]I. ‘I Believe, concerning the Scrip­ture; that there are Errors, Mis­takes, and Contradictions, in some places of it. That the Authority of some Books of it is questionable: yea, that the Whole Bible has been tampered with, and may be suspect­ed to be corrupted.’

That ‘there are Errors, Mistakes, and Contradictions in the Bible; was never said, by any that pretended to be a Christian; if by the Bible, you mean the Bible, as it came out of the hands of the (inspired) Authors of it.’ As on the other hand, that there are Er­rors, Mistakes, or Contradictions in the vulgar Copies of the Bible, used by the Church of Rome, for instance, or the English Church, was never questioned by any Learned Man, of whatsoever Sect or Way; and least of all, can Mr. Edwards say it. He has published a Book, concerning the Excellency and Perfection of Scripture; in which Book he finds great Fault with our En­glish Bible: he saith of it, in the Title of his 13th Chapter; ‘It is Faulty and Defective, in many places of the Old and New Testaments; and I offer all along in this Chapter, par­ticular Emendations, in order to ren­der it more exact and compleat.’

As to the Hebrew, and Greek Copies of the Bible; 'tis well known, some are more perfect, and some less: they differ very much; for in the Old Testa­ment, the Hebrew Criticks have noted 800 various Readings; in the New, there are many more. Mr. Gregory of Oxford, so much esteemed, and even ve­nerated for his admirable Learning, says hereupon; and says it, cum Licentia Superiorum: ‘There is no Book in the World, that hath suffered so much by the hand of time, as the Bible.’ Preface, p. 4. He judged, and judged truly; that tho the first Authors of the Bible, were divinely instructed Men: yet the Copiers, Printers, and Pub­lishers in following Ages, were all of them Fallible Men; and some of them ill-designing Men. He knew that all the Church-Historians, and Criticks have confessed, or rather have warned us, that some Copies of the Bible, have been very much Vitiated by the hands, as well of the Orthodox, as of Here­ticks: and that 'tis matter of great Dif­ficulty, at this distance of time from the Apostolick Age, to ascertain the true Reading of Holy Scripture, in all pla­ces of it.

Yet we do not say hereupon, as Mr. Edwards charges us; that the Bi­ble, much less (as he imputes to us) the Whole Bible, is corrupted. For as to the faulty Readings, in the com­mon Bibles of some Churches, and in some Manuscript Copies; the Provi­dence of God has so watched over this Sacred Book, that we know, what by Information of the antient Church-Historians, and the Writings of the Fathers, what by the early Translations of the Bible into Greek, Syriac and Latin, and the concurrent Testimony of the more Antient Ma­nuscript Copies; both who they were that introduced the corrupt Readings, and what is the true Reading in all Texts of weight and consequence. In short, as to this matter, we agree with the Criticks of other Sects and Deno­minations; that tho ill Men have often attempted, they could never effect, the Corruption of Holy Scripture: the an­tient [Page 5] Manuscripts, the first Translati­ons, the Fathers, and Historians of the Church, are sufficient Directors, con­cerning the authentick and genuine Reading, of doubtful Places of Holy Scripture.

Farther, whereas Mr. Edwards would intimate, that we reject divers Books of Scripture. On the contrary, we re­ceive into our Canon, all those Books of Scripture, that are received, or owned, by the Church of England: and we reject the Books, rejected by the Church of England. We know well, that some Books, and Parts of Books, reckoned to be wrote by the Apostles, or Apostolical Men, were questioned; nay were refused, by some of the Antients: but we concur with the Opinion of the present Catholick Church, concerning them; for the Reasons given by the Catholick Church, and which I shall mention by and by, in the Reply to my Lord of Chichester.

If Mr. Edwards would have truly re­presented the Opinion of the Socinians, concerning the Scriptures; he knew where to find it, and so expressed, as would have satisfied every body. He knows, that in their brief Notes on the Creed of Athanasius; they have de­clared, what is their Sense, in very un­exceptionable Words, viz. ‘The Ho­ly Scriptures are a Divine, an In­fallible, and Compleat Rule, both of Faith and Manners.’ Br. Notes, p. 1. The Church, neither requires, nor de­sires, that they should say more.

II. ‘I believe, concerning God; that he is not a Spirit, properly speaking: but a sort of Body; such as Air, or Aether is. That he is not Immense, Infinite, or every where present; but confined to certain Pla­ces. That he hath no Knowledg of such future Events; as depend on the Free Will of Man: and that it is impossible, such things should be foreseen by him. That there is a Succession, in God's eternal Durati­on; as well as in Time, which is the measure of that Duration, which be­longs to finite Beings.’

That Almighty God is Incorporeal, Omni-present, and Omni-scient; has not only been confessed, but proved, by the Unitarians of this Nation, in divers of their late Prints. As to the other, that all Duration; that of God, as well as of Creatures; consists in a Succession, is affirmed by some learned Men of all Perswasions and Ways, as well as by the Unitarians. It should seem, Mr. Edwards holds; that God possesses eternal Life all at once: that Eternity is, to God, one standing per­manent Moment. St. John is of ano­ther Mind, for he describes the Durati­on of God, by a Succession; by was, is, and is to come. ‘Grace be to you, and Peace, says he; from him who is, was, and is to come, Rev. 1.4.’ 'Tis undeniable by any, but affected Wranglers, that here the Duration of God, his Continuance in Being, is di­stinguished by the threefold Succession (was, is, and shall be) which is com­mon to all other Beings. Eternal Life possessed all at once, is one of the mon­strous Paradoxes, which our Opposers maintain; for all that I see, merely from a Spirit of Contradiction: for it has no manner of ground, either in Reason or Holy Scripture. I desire to know of 'em, how the Duration of [Page 6] God, is the less perfect; because 'tis said to consist in a Succession, or what is the same, to be distinguished by was, is, and shall be: seeing 'tis confessed, on all hands, that he carrieth all Perfections, into every Succession of his Duration.

But is it not a Scandal, that some U­nitarians of foreign Parts, have denied the Spirituality (or Incorporeity) of God; his Omnipresence, and Omni­science: saying, and contending for it, that he is a Body, with such Configu­ration of Parts as Men have; conse­quently, that he is in Heaven, inspect­ing indeed and governing all things, but by the Ministry of the several Or­ders of Angels; and that he doth not foresee contingent Events; but only such Events as are necessarily (not ar­bitrarily) produced by their Causes? Doubtless; but no more a Scandal to the Unitarians, than to their Oppo­sers: for they are Errors, which some of the Fathers (even the most Antient, Learned, and Pious of them) have de­fended as Truths. Nay, it should seem; they were sometime the prevail­ing Opinions, in some Places: namely, when the Anthropomorphite Doctrine was so zealously espoused; that the Hermits and Caenobites could not in­dure their Bishops, if they but suspect­ed 'em of Origen's Doctrine, that God is a Spirit, without Parts, or Passions. And in denying the Spirituality and Omni-presence of God; they must needs be understood, not to believe his (cer­tain and absolute) Prescience, of con­tingent Events. About the Year 400, when almost every body concerned themselves in condemning, and depart­ing (as far as possible) from the Opi­nions of Origen; the Anthropomor­phite Doctrine, and its Consequences, were the Standard-Orthodoxy of many Places, and were Heresy no where. Even St. John Chrysostom, at Constanti­nople, hardly defended the Fratres lon­gi from the Prosecutions of Theophilus, Archbishop and Patriarch of Alexan­dria; who was a profest Anthropomor­phite, and had expelled the Fratres longi for adhering to Origen's Doctrine, of the Spirituality and Omni-presence of God.

But as I said, we not only dislike, but utterly reject the dangerous Do­ctrine; that God hath a Body, is like to Man: together with its Conse­quences; that he is neither Omni-pre­sent, nor Omni-scient. It may as well be said, he is not at all: nay this latter, tho the Anthropomorphites see it not, seems to be implied and included in the former. But we condemn not the Sche­chinah, or glorious Appearance of God in Heaven, which learned Men hold, neither the spiritual Body of Christ.

III. ‘I believe farther, concerning God; that there is no Distinction of Persons, or Subsistencies, in God. And that the Son, and Holy Ghost, are not God: the former of them, being only a Man; the latter, no other than the Power, or Operation of God. That there was nothing of Merit, in what Christ did, or suf­fered; that therefore he could not make Satisfaction for the Sins of the World.’

But Mr. Edwards too much mistakes. The Question is not at all concerning three Persons, or three Subsistencies, in God: but whether there are three In­finite Substances; three eternal Minds, [Page 7] and Spirits? We deny the latter, with the whole Catholick Church, against the Realists: We never questioned the former, Persons or Subsistencies; but on­ly as Persons and Subsistencies are taken for Spirits, Minds, and Beings. Who­ever denies this to be the true Faith, is (himself) a Heretick, and out of the Catholick Church. But of this, more hereafter, in my Reply to the Bishop of Chichester, and to the Bishop of Worcester.

But we say, Christ is only a Man; and the Holy Spirit, only the Power of God. No, we say; the Lord Christ is God, and Man. He is Man, in re­spect of his reasonable Soul, and hu­man Body; God, in respect of God in him. Or more scholastically, in respect of the Hypostatical (or Personal) Uni­on, of the Humanity of Christ, with the Divinity. By which, the Catho­lick Church means, and we mean: the Divinity was not only occasionally assist­ing unto, but was (and is) always in Christ; illuminating, conducting, and actuating him. More than this, is the Heresy of Eutyches; and less, we ne­ver held: tho we confess, that careless, or less accurate Expressions, may have been used by both Parties; of which, neither ought to take Advantage, against the other, when it appears there is no Heterodox Intention.

That by the Spirit of God, is some­times meant (in Holy Scripture) the Power of God, cannot be denied: but concerning the three Divine Persons, we believe, as the Catholick Church believes; that they are relative Sub­sistencies, internal Relations of the Dei­ty to it self. Or as the Schools explain this; Original unbegotten Wisdom or Mind, reflex or begotten Wisdom, and the eternal Spiration of Divine Love. But we do not think these Terms fit to express that Sense.

But do you not say; ‘There was no Merit, in what Christ did, or suffered: and that he could not make Satisfaction for our Sins?’ He may for our Parts be Anathema, that teaches, or believes that Doctrine. We believe, that the Lord Christ by what he did, and what he suffered, was, by the gracious Acceptance of God, a true and perfect Propitiation for Sinners, that repent, and turn to the good ways.

IV. ‘In the next Article, he makes us believe a great many things; as that the first Man was not created in a State of Ʋprightness.’ As if it were possible, that Men in their right Senses, should think; the first Man was created a Sinner.

That ‘by his Fall, Adam did not lose Righteousness and Holiness, which are (part of) the Image of God.’ As who should say, that by being a Sinner, he did not sin, or become unlike to God.

That ‘ Adam's Posterity have re­ceived no hurt, or stain, by his Apo­stacy.’ As if you should say; that neither his bad Example, nor the Curse that made the Earth so much less fruit­ful, was any hurt: and that the Re­bellion of an Ancestor, no not against God, is no blot in his Family. I shall grow quite out of Conceit, with these Unitarians; if they say many more, such weak things. But in very deed, I imagine, Mr. Edwards had a mind to have charged 'em more home; when he does, we shall consider what to an­swer. [Page 8] I am of opinion, that in this part of the Article, he is somewhat ashamed of his own Doctrine: and that he feared to make himself, and Party, ridiculous; by a clear and distinct Representation of their Opi­nion.

That ‘Mankind, notwithstanding Adam's Fall, have by Nature an Abi­lity to desire and imbrace all spiritu­al Good; and to avoid all that is sin­ful or vitious.’ They are bold Bri­tans. What, imbrace all the Gospel-Precepts, by mere Nature: When 'tis not possible, so much as to know divers of them, but by Revelation Divine? And can they avoid too all that is viti­ous, by only Nature? In good truth, they are better, and stronger, by Na­ture, than ever I hope to be, in this Life, by the (super-added) Grace of the Gospel. But here again, he did not strike home; he intended more than he durst say: and he durst not say it, lest we should ask him; whether he believes the just contrary?

That ‘there is no need of the Spi­rit, to repent, believe, and perform religious Acts.’ 'Tis a serious Point. We answer with St. Paul; the Spirit HELPETH our Infirmities, Rom. 8.26. But we judg, for all that; the Holy Scripture giveth no occasion to any, to turn Enthusiasts: and to re­solve the whole Duty we owe, and must perform to God, and to our Neigh­bour; into praeternatural Impulses, as if we were Machines, and not Men. Or Puppets, moved by invisible Wires; not Men, that act by their own Rea­son, and Choice.

That ‘Men are Righteous before God; not, by the Merit of Christ: but, by their own good Works.’ We answer, with all but Antinomians, and the more rigid Calvinists: the Me­rit of Christ is not reckoned to us, with­out good Works of our own. But I am not certain, that the Calvinist or Antinomians would not assent to this Proposition, or not allow it to be Or­thodox.

V. Another Branch of our Creed, according to Mr. Edwards, runs thus: ‘I believe concerning a future State; that the Souls of the Deceased have no Knowledg, or Perception of any thing: they are not sensible of any Rewards, or Pains; and their very Nature is absorpt.’

That at Death, the Soul as well as the Body sleeps, was an Error of some of the most antient Fathers, as well as of some Unitarians. But neither of them said, as Mr. Edwards pretends, that in Death the very Nature of the Soul is absorpt: they both held, that there is a Resurrection of the Soul, as well as Body. But why does Mr. Ed­wards impute that Opinion to us; when he had read (for he quotes the Book) in the first Part of the Considerations on the Explication of the Trinity, what is our Sense of this Matter? The Words there, at p. 33. are these: ‘This Error was common to Socinus, with some of the Fathers. The learned Mr. Du. Pinn has noted, in his Abridgment of the Fathers; that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Minutius Foelix, and Ar­nobius, were in this Sentiment. There was no Reason to object this, to So­cinus; as if it were a peculiar Opi­nion of his: much less to the English Unitarians, who never defended it; [Page 9] nor (that I know of) do any of them hold it.’

VI. He says next; ‘I believe we shall not rise with the same Bodies, that we now have: but that another Matter or Substance, shall be substi­tuted in their Place.’ I see, most of our Opposers have affected to mistake our Meaning, concerning the Resur­rection of the Body: We hold no­thing, that is singular in the case; we differ not from the Catholick Church, about it. We say with St. Paul, 1 Cor. 15.35. How are the Dead raised; and with what Bodies do they come? —Thou sowest not the Body that shall be. The Body that is raised, is not in all respects, the same that was commit­ted to the Earth: in divers, perhaps in the most, it is. We rise not Infants, or decrepit old Men, or lame, or deaf, or any way distorted; tho many so lived, and so died. Nay, as to the Passions, resulting from the Complexion of the present Body; and therefore to be reckoned the Modifications (and as it were, Parts) of our Body: we rise not, with them; it is not the same Bo­dy, in respect of those Passions, that it here lived. For instance, some are (by Complexion) very cowardly, or pensive, or cholerick, or jealous; the Body that shall be will not be such: it will be conformed to the Likeness of the glorious Body of the Lord Christ; that is, be freed from all (both exter­nal and internal) Imperfections. Far­thermore, our present Body (Physici­ans and Philosophers say) is in a conti­nual Flux: all the Parts of it, internal as well as external, continually decay; and are continually renewed. They decay, by the Perspiration, that is con­tinually caused by the internal Heat; and are continually renewed, by the Nourishment taken in, and converted into Blood, Spirits, Flesh, and Bones. 'Tis said by the Learned in these Mat­ters; that no Man's Body is the very same, as to the Matter and Substance of it, this present Year, that it was the last Year, and will be the next Year: 'tis wholly new-built, by the Nourish­ment of the present Year. We say therefore, there shall be a Resurrection of the Body; and as some of the anti­ent Creeds spoke, of the same Body; as truly, and as properly, as N. N. is the same Man this Year, that he was one, or seven, or twenty Years ago. If Mr. Edwards requires us, to say more; he exacts more than the Church believes: for by the Resurrection of the same Body, the Church intends only; that 'tis as truly the same, as a Man (not­withstanding the Flux of his Parts) is now the same N. N. that he was seven, or ten Years past; yet not altogether the same, because inconceivably better: that is, without any external, or in­ternal Deformities or Weaknesses.

VII. ‘I believe, that at the Day of Judgment, Men shall not be required to give an Account of their Actions; the most flagitious Sinners shall not be examined, concerning any thing of their past Life: only they shall be punished; and their Punishment is this, to utterly cease, or perish, for ever. The unquenchable Fire is no­thing but Annihilation.’

I do not know, that the Scriptures, or the Catholick Church, do require any to believe; that Sinners shall be [Page 10] examined concerning their past Life, at the Day of the General Judgment. To what purpose, I pray? Doth the all­knowing Judg need to be informed, concerning the Particulars of their Guilt? If every Person is to be several­ly examined, concerning the Particu­lars of his transacted Life; the Day of Judgment will extend it self to many Millions of Ages more, than the whole Duration of the World, from its Be­ginning to its Consummation. It should seem, Mr. Edwards thinks, that be­cause the Scriptures speak of the great Judgment by God, in the Terms and Language of Men, and of humane Ju­dicatories; such as Trumpets, the Throne of the Judg, a formal Sen­tence, the Pleadings of the Guilty, the Answers of the Judg: that therefore in very deed, we are to expect such a Scene, at the Judgment by God, as at a common Assize. I conceive, on the contrary; that all such Expressions and Words, wheresoever they are found in Scripture, are not intended as real De­scriptions: but as Comparisons, or Re­semblances; by which, the Capacities of the Vulgar may be assisted, and their Affections wrought upon. All that is intended by such Expressions, is only this: that every one shall be so re­compensed, at the Resurrection; as is worthy of the Holy Judg, and com­passionate Father of the World.

But we hold, he saith; that the Pu­nishment of the Wicked, is only Ex­tinction: their Life shall be destroyed for ever, by the (unquenchable) Fire, into which they are cast. Which Opi­nion, that it may look ridiculous, he words (for us) thus; ‘The unquench­able Fire is, nothing but Annihila­tion.’ What the Scriptures have said, concerning the Punishment of the Wick­ed after the Resurrection, is not so clear; but that the Opinions of Learn­ed Men, Fathers and Moderns, have been very different, about it. Some, (of which Number is Origen, the most considerable of the Ante-Nicenes) held, that not only wicked Men, but the ve­ry Devils, will repent, and reform, un­der the Punishments they indure: that therefore they will be pardoned; be admitted to a new Trial of their Beha­viour, and may attain to Blessedness. These say, that Man being a reasona­ble, is therefore a docile, or teachable Creature; and it not looking proba­ble, that the Wisdom of God will lose any part of his Creation, but will bring it to the Perfection, and upon that to the Blessedness, of which 'tis capable: therefore, what by Instructions, what by Punishments, and Encouragements, God will reclaim the Bad, will perfect and confirm the Good; and so in the long-run of things, be acclaimed the Saviour of All.

Others, among whom have been some (it may be, the most) of the fo­reign Unitarians, have thought; that the Righteous are rewarded with an everlasting Life of Blessedness; and the impenitent Wicked punish'd, by that un­quenchable Fire, which will wholly de­stroy their Being. They believe, this is the Reason; why the Punishment by Hell-fire is called eternal Death in Ho­ly Scripture. But the more current Opinion, among all Denominations of Christians, is; that the Punishment of the Impenitent in Hell-fire, is called Death: not because it utterly destroys the Life of the Sufferer; but because [Page 11] 'tis a continual and endless Dying. The extreme Pains of Hell may well be called, an everlasting Dying, or an eter­nal Death; tho the Sufferer is never extinct.

I do not find any thing in the Books of the English Unitarians, concerning these Opinions; they may hold as va­riously concerning them, as the Chri­stians of other Denominations. But if I may answer for them, by what I judg of 'em, by Conversation with 'em: I would say, We approve the Doctrine delivered by Archbishop J. Tillotson, in a Sermon before her late Majesty, of happy Memory, March 7, 1689. on Mat. 25.46. which Sermon was printed by their Majesties special Command.

VIII. ‘I believe, as to Christianity it self; that every thing in it, is to be submitted to the Dictates of hu­man Reason; and that there are no Doctrines in it, that are mysterious.’

Neither of these was ever said, by any Unitarian; and all our Prints, more particularly those in the English Tongue, are express: that there are many things, as well in Religion, as Nature, that are far above the Capacity of the hu­man Reason, to declare or understand the manner of 'em; or how they should be what, we either see, or are infallibly taught, they are. We never pretend­ed, that the human Reason is the Mea­sure of Truth; as Mr. Edwards and Mr. Norris charge us; so that what our Reason does not comprehend, we will not believe on any other Evidence whatsoever. We never said it, or thought it; we reject no Doctrines, but such as are contrary to Reason: and of that, I will speak fully, in the An­swer to Mr. De Luzancy.

IX. ‘As to Divine Worship, I be­lieve; it may be given to another, besides God: to Christ, who is but a Creature.’

But we have disavowed nothing more, in all our Prints, than giving Divine Worship to any, but only God: that 'tis a marvel to me, that Mr. Edwards should impute to us, such a Doctrine; we have scarce an English Print, where we do not expresly oppose it.

Nor do we reckon of the Lord Christ, as but a Creature: I have said before, He is God, and Man. The Divinity doth so inhabit the Humanity of Christ; doth so exert in it, the most glorious Effects of Omnipotence and Omnisci­ence: that if others have been called God, because they represented God; Christ is to be so called, because he ex­hibits God.

X. ‘I believe, Prayer was not re­quired, under the Old Testament. The Lord's Day is a ceremonious Observance, abolished by the Go­spel. There is no spiritual Blessing conferred in the Use of the Sacra­ments. Baptism is an useless Rite; and the Baptism of Children, alto­gether vain. There is no distinct Function or Office of Ministers, in the Christian Church: the very Lord's Supper it self may be admi­nistred by a private Person.’

I think, Mr. Edwards is in the right, against those (if any such there were) who denied, that Prayer was a Duty or Precept of the Old Testament, and the Law; when he says, it is included and implied in the general Precepts of [Page 12] Fearing, Serving, or Worshipping God. But he is as much out, in the next Ar­ticle; that some have said, that the Lord's-day is abolished by the Gospel; for it was never taught by any. He meant, I suppose, that the Seventh Day, or Sabbath, is abolisht: and I take it to be the Doctrine of the Catholick Church, that the Seventh-day-Sabbath was Ceremonial, and is abolisht. It may better however be said, that the Sabbath is transferred, from the Se­venth, to the First Day; than that 'tis absolutely abolisht, or taken away. In short, the English Unitarians hold no private Opinion, about either the Sab­bath, or the Lord's-day; but as well in Principle as Practice, concur with the Catholick Church.

It is too loosly said; that ‘there is no spiritual Blessing conferred, in the use of the Sacraments.’ For there is no Ordinance of God, but the seri­ous and devout Performance of it, draws a Blessing on the Doer. For all that, many exceed, in ascribing to the Sacraments certain Powers and Ener­gies, without competent Warrant from the Word of God. I do not know, that Baptism is any thing more than a federal Rite, by which we are initi­ated, into the Christian Religion; or the Holy Supper any thing more, than a Commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ; offering himself to God, as an Atonement for repenting Sinners. I know not to what purpose so many su­perstitious Books are written; to teach People, how to prepare themselves for the Memorial Supper: when an ho­nest Intention, and a reverent Perfor­mance, are sufficient both Prepa­rations, and Qualifications, for, and in all Gospel-Ordinances. The Apostle says; ‘He that eateth that Bread un­worthily, or unworthily drinketh that Cup, is guilty of the Blood of Christ; nay, eateth and drinketh Judgment to himself.’ But he also warns 'em, what he means by unworthy Partaking; namely, their not tarrying for one another: and withal, eating and drinking, with so little regard either to God or Men, that some of 'em made themselves drunk with the Sacra­mental Wine, while others could not so much as taste of it. Briefly, their as­sembling to this solemn Commemorative Sacrifice, was more like a Carousal, than a Celebration, of the Holy and Blessed Memory, of a dying Saviour. These were the Disorders, and Irregu­larities, concerning which they were to examine themselves; and thereby avoid an unworthy Communicating, and the Consequences of it.

We do not say, ‘Baptism is an use­less Rite: or that the Baptism of Children is altogether vain.’ What the Wisdom of God has appointed to all Nations, is not to be esteemed use­less; tho we our selves knew not the Uses of it: and it is Use enough, that this Sacrament is an initiating Rite.

Nor is it a good Exception, against this Sacrament's being continued still, that now People are Christians by Edu­cation: seeing there is the same Reason for its Continuance, as for its Institu­tion; namely, a solemn, publick and formal Initiation, into the Religion of Jesus.

And this may in some sense be done in Infancy, by the Intervention of Un­dertakers, commonly called Godfa­thers; and how it can be done with­out [Page 13] 'em, I see not. But it is without all reason, that Parents should not be admitted to be Undertakers; when others cannot, or cannot easily be had. It were well, methinks, if the Mini­ster and Church-wardens (together with the Parents) were obliged to be Undertakers ex Officio, or ratione Officii, by their Place and Office; and it were yet better, if the whole Church under­took for the Infants. Moreover, where Infant-Baptism is the Custom of the Church; Confirmation (or the Person's taking upon himself the Covenant and Promises, that were made in his Name, by his Undertakers) ought to be as lit­tle neglected as Baptism: nay the Per­son cannot be said, to be a compleat Christian, or to be Christianly bap­tiz'd, till he is Confirmed; that is, has publickly taken upon himself, his Bap­tismal Engagements.

Lastly, As to that, ‘I believe there is no distinct Function or Office of Ministers: and the very Lord's-Sup­per may be administred by a private Christian.’

I answer for my self, and the many Unitarians; there is a threefold Di­stinction of Church-Officers, by them­selves modestly called Ministers: name­ly, Bishops, Presbyters (call'd Priests) and Deacons. The former were of Divine Right: the other of Apostolical Institution only; and that too (as appears from Acts 6.3, 4.) not by any particu­lar Inspiration, but meerly on Motives of Prudence and Charity. These three Orders are of that Antiquity, and Universality; that as soon as, and where­ever, Christianity was professed, the Churches were governed after this Form. A Form received among all the Sects of Christians, as well as by the sounder part of 'em, called the Church; till Mr. Calvin, in a Case of Necessity, introduced a new sort of Church-Ad­ministration. These are they, to whom only (except in Case of Necessity, such as the Reformation was) it belongs to administer the Sacraments; and to in­struct and exhort publickly. But what makes a Case of Necessity, is a Question by it self; on which I am not obliged to enter: I wish the Church had not given, and may never give cause to the Unita­rians; either by Exclusion, or Persecu­tion, or unlawful Terms of Commu­nion; to have recourse to Mr. Calvin's Expedient.

XI. ‘As to Moral Points, I believe that Officious Lies are lawful; the Motions of Concupiscence, not viti­ous; idle or obscene Words, Glut­tony, Drunkenness, Riot, Luxury, and impure Desires and Lusts, were not forbidden till Christ's time.’ By Offi­cious Lies are meant those Falsities, that do good to some, without doing any hurt to others. As when the Hebrew Midwives made Pharaoh believe, that the Hebrew Women were so quick, that they were (commonly) deliver'd of their Children, before the Midwife could come to them; and therefore there was not Opportunity to strangle their Children, as they came forth, from the Womb. So also, when Da­vid escaped from Saul, by the Contri­vance of his Wife Michal; and Saul was therefore angry with his Daughter Michal: She said, David threatned to kill her, if she did not agree to, and assist his Escape. And Jonathan excu­sed the Absence of David, by feigning [Page 14] that David had asked his leave, to assist at the yearly Sacrifice, made by his Family, 1 Sam. 19.17. 1 Sam. 20.6, 28, 29. Exod. 1.19. To Officious Lies, belong also Compliments; very low Bowings, and respectful Carriage, to­wards Persons for whom we really have not the Kindness, or Regard, of which we make show by those external (and false) Significations. I think, it may excuse Volkelius, whom Mr. Edwards cites upon this part of his Charge; that the Officious Lies of the Midwives, of Michal and Jonathan, are related in Scripture, without blaming them: they are not censured by the Inspired Writers; they are told by the Prophets ( Moses and Samuel) without the least Signification that they were Sins. Vol­kelius might infer from hence, that the Texts which forbid Lying and False­ness, are intended of such Lying as is hurtful, and prejudicial to another: and that what does no hurt, can be the Sub­ject of no Law. To forbid what helps some, even to the saving of Life, or Goods, without any wrong or hurt to another; why should any Lawgiver forbid it? Notwithstanding, I think, Mr. Edwards says well; ‘If once such Doctrine is commonly taught, all Lies will be reckoned some way or other Officious; and Truth and Sincerity will be banisht from the Earth.’

‘The Motions of Concupiscence, are not vitious or sinful.’ By Concu­piscence is meant some unlawful Desire, or Inclination, arising in the Mind, but not consented to, or put into practice. Methinks, so far forth as such Motions in the Mind, are involuntary; they should rather be called Frailties, than Sins: and the disapproving, and re­sisting them, shall be rewarded by God.

Concerning ‘obscene Words, Riot, Gluttony, Drunkenness, impure De­sires, not forbidden by the Law, and not strictly unlawful, till prohibited by the Gospel:’ We are not much concerned, in such a Dispute; it being confest on all hands, that they are forbid in the Writings of the New Testament. Notwithstanding, I wonder, that any should say, they are not prohibited in the Mosaick Law. Some of them were punishable with Death, by that Law: as Gluttony and Drunkenness, by the Law at Deut. 21.20. Luxury, Riot, Lust, and such like, are contrary to the Good of a Man's Children, and of him­self; or of his Neighbour, and the Commonwealth: and therefore are (implicitely) forbid by that Command­ment, at Lev. 19.18. which requires, that a Man should love his Neighbour, as himself. I do not love my Neigh­bour, as my self, if I am guilty of Luxury or Riot, by which my Heir, and the Poor are defrauded: or if I am guilty of Ambition, Covetousness, or Lust; by which I spoil, or grind, or wrong my Neighbour. Nay, Lust, Riot, Excess, Covetousness, do unfit us, and very much, for the Service of God, and for the honest and honoura­ble Discharge of our Station, whatso­ever that be, in the Commonwealth; therefore they are implicitely forbidden, by all those Commandments of the Law, that require either the Fear, Re­gard and Service of God, or the Wel­fare and Esteem of our Neighbour, or selves.

[Page 15]XII. ‘Concerning Magistrates, I believe, 'tis not lawful for them, un­der the Gospel, to inflict Capital Punishment (Death) on any Offen­ders, no not on Murderers.’ This was the Doctrine, of divers of the Fa­thers, of the 3 first Ages; scarce any of them believed otherwise. Nay, they added, it is not lawful to go to War, as a Souldier; or to assist at Ex­ecutions; or even to defend a Man's own Life, by any such resistance, as will take away the Life of the (injuri­ous) Aggressor. The Reason they gave for this last was; that by killing a Per­son, who attempts to murder me, he is dispatched out of the World without Repentance, and therefore is certainly damned: but the Christian by being killed, loses only this Life; and enters upon a blessed Immortality. Some Unitarians have been of this mind; while others have written against the whole Doctrine. In short, it is not their Doctrine as Ʋnitarians; for some of them have held it, while others (I believe the most) disallow it.

XIII. ‘Concerning some other Points, I believe, as the Church of Rome believes; for we agree with them, in several Points of Doctrine.’ What these Points are, he tells us at Ch. 9. from p. 201. namely that some things were said by our Saviour, by way only of Monition or Counsel, not of Com­mand. That we Merit, by a good Life; and may be perfect. That all Sins are not damnable. That the Prayers of the Living may help the Dead. Nay the Author of the Consi­derations, on the Explications of the Trinity, speaks favourably of Tran­substantiation.

Let us begin at the foot of this Ac­count. The Author of the Considerations, is no otherwise favourable, to the Do­ctrine of Transubstantiation, than by saying of it: ‘'tis only a Philosophi­cal Error, or Folly; not an Impiety, page 21.’ And again, at page 22. ‘'Tis a Mistake, into which the Papists have been cozened, by the Philoso­phy of Aristotle.’ Would Mr. Ed­wards think, a Man favoured the Do­ctrines, in his Books; if he called them Mistakes, Errors, and Follies? Mr. Ed­wards finds Impiety, Irreligion, Athe­ism, and what not, in all Doctrines, and all Authors, he dislikes: We are not so dextrous. We sometimes think, that we spy an Error, or Mistake; and sometimes it seems so gross, as to de­serve the Name of a Folly: but to call it Impiety, Irreligion, Abnegation of Christianity; how much soever Mr. Ed­wards delights in it, and makes it his constant Practice, as well in Preaching as Writing; we cannot approve the Example, it being always contrary to Charity, Good Manners, and Truth.

‘The Prayers of the Living may help the Dead.’ There is no Exam­ple in Scripture, nor (I think) any so­lid ground in Reason, for such a Belief. Mr. Edwards quotes for it, but one So­cinian Writer, nor is that Author po­sitive, in the Case. He only says; ‘Those who believe a middle State of the Dead, do well to pray for them.’ That is, in case you suppose, besides Hea­ven and Hell, some middle place, where Souls may repent and reform, or where they have not yet received their Doom: it is Charity, to intercede by our Pray­ers, [Page 16] for them; as much as we would for the Living. I believe, he is the only Writer of his Sect that can be charg­ed with any such thing: but we have it (in Print) concerning a late Arch-Bi­shop of Canterbury, Dr. Sheldon; that he prayed for the Dead, in his daily Prayers. But what one particular Man does, or says, ought not to be imputed to his whole Party; and reported to the World as an Article of their Creed.

‘All Sins are not damnable. A Christian may Merit, by his good Works; and may be perfect.’ Me­rit and Perfection may be truly, or falsly said, of the Works and Life of a Christian Man; according as you interpret the Terms, Merit and Per­fection. Taking 'em in the sense, that Protestants use them; no Man can me­rit of God, the infinite Recompences of Heaven, and of Blessedness everlasting: nor was any Man perfect, or without Sin; but only that Lamb of God, who taketh away the Sins of the World. But Merit and Perfection are sometimes used in a popular Sense; namely, for that (tho imperfect, yet) sincere Obedience to God's Commandments, to which God has graciously appointed the recompence of everlasting Blessedness in Heaven: and for universal Obedience, as it is opposed (not to Oversights and Frailties, but) to a wilful Indulging our selves, in par­ticular Sins. In this Sense, every sin­cere Christian both merits, and is per­fect. Yet I own, divers Unitarian Writers have spoke either too loosly, or too incorrectly on the Point of Per­fection; but they have been as much opposed, by some of their own Num­ber. The same cannot be said, con­cerning the distinction of Sin, into Mortal and Venial; for our People are positive and unanimous, that as St. John words this Matter, there is Sin, which is not unto Death, 1 John 5.16. God Almighty, they say, hath not appoint­ed Hell-fire for our Frailties and Inad­vertencies; but for our Contempts, and advised Breach of his Laws.

‘Some things said by our Saviour, are Counsels, to such as would be perfect; not absolute indispensible Commands, to all the Faithful with­out exception.’ He quotes for this, an obscure Passage of one single Soci­nian Writer; who never was espoused, in that matter, by any of his Party. We judg, the distinction of Counsels and Commands, is a great and very dangerous Presumption; a Back-door, by which to escape from (almost) a Man's whole Duty. The two Do­ctrines of Counsels for the Perfect, and probable Opinions, will furnish the most profligate Wretch in the World, with Defences, for his very greatest Enor­mities.

‘Lastly, after all I believe, tho the aforesaid Articles are all necessary, to make a Man a Socinian: yet the Be­lief of only one, is enough, to make a Man a Christian: and that one Ar­ticle is, that Jesus is the Messias. In which, it is not included, whether he be God, or Man; or whether he satis­fied Divine Justice for our Sins by his Death: but only, that a Man of Nazareth was ordained, and sent of God, to be a Saviour.’ I see, all Mr. Edwards's Colts-teeth are not yet out of his Head; he cannot forbear, dealing sometimes in Railery and Wit: [Page 17] but I must (seriously) desire him, to name me any Socinian or Unitarian Writer, that ever said; no more is re­quired to make a Christian, but only that he believe, that Jesus is the Mes­sias. The Truth of the matter is this; Mr. Edwards has been lately very much foiled, first by a Learned Gen­tleman, then by a Divine of the Church of England, upon this Question: ‘Whether it be of the Essence of a Christian, as a Christian, to assent to more than this one Article, that Jesus is the Messias, sent by God to instruct and save the World?’ They do not doubt, that 'tis a Christian's Duty, to learn (by degrees) all the other Articles of the Christian Creed, and to believe them; but if he hath attained, or (by occasion of Impedi­ments of any sort, that were not caus­ed by his own Negligence, or Pervers­ness) he can attain, to no more Know­ledg, or Faith: yet this one Article doth make him a Christian. It doth not satisfy Mr. Edwards, that upon all the Points in question, they have de­clared themselves to be Anti-Socinians: he resolves for all that, they shall be Socinians; and this Opinion which they maintain against him, a new Ar­ticle of the Socinian Creed. It may be one way, he thinks, to reduce them to Silence; if he calls their Opinion, Socinianism: and if after that, they will not pull in their Horns, in his next Book it shall be Irreligion, or downright Atheism; or at least, Ab­negation of Christianity, or Popery; his other Compliments to those, whom he is pleased to attack.

I have now answered, concerning all the Articles of our Religion, with Sin­cerity; without any the least disguise, or reserved, or unusual Meaning, or Meanings. And I am not sorry, that Mr. Edwards (almost) constrained us, to explain our selves, concerning these Points. For as unsincere and untrue, as his Imputations are; and as scurri­lous, as his manner of representing 'em, and discoursing upon them, sometimes is: the Retortion (or Answer) here made, will be judged by indifferent and discerning Persons, to be home, and satisfactory. As to the Man himself, Mr. Edwards has been serviceable, to the common Christianity, by some learned Books; therefore I wish to him whatsoever Good, himself desires to himself; these Concertations between us notwithstanding.

In Answer to the Vindication, of four Sermons, of his Grace, Arch­bishop J. Tillotson; by my Lord the Bishop of Chichester.

HIS Lordship's Preface is, for the bigger part of it, an angry Per­version of the Respects, paid to the Archbishop, and other Persons of Dignity and Learning, by the Author of the Considerations, through his whole Answer to them. But I doubt, as to that, we must always hold our selves content: for in the Holy War, against reputed Hereticks, what in poor Laicks would be censured as want of Urbani­ty, and Charity; in Ecclesiasticks is the Zeal of thy House—.

In one Place of his Preface, his Lord­ship objects to the Considerer; that there was a time when Paulus and Pho­tinus, Unitarian Archbishops, flourish­ed: and their Followers abounded eve­ry where. Well, what then? Why, he will tell it us, as a Secret; they did not treat the Trinitarians, as Fathers their Children, but like tyrannical Judges. Violences and Outrages, Fire and Faggot, were in Fashion among them; Bishops were deposed, exiled, and slain; and the whole Roman Em­pire put into a Combustion, by these infamous Practices. His Lordship does well, to tell us this, as a Secret; for 'twas never heard of, till he published this Vindication of the Archbishop's Sermons. I desire him, to name the Au­thors, from whom these Calumnies have been taken up: and because I am per­swaded he has none to cite; I will ad­venture to say, he cannot avoid the Im­putation of too hasty taking up a Re­proach. Paulus and Photinus were in­deed, as his Lordship says, Unitarian Metropolitans. The former succeeded, tho not immediately, to the Apostle St. Peter, in the Patriarchal Chair of Antioch: The other was Primate of Il­lyricum. It is true also, what his Lord­ship adds; that their Followers abound­ed every where. In the time of the first Nicene Council, or the Year 325. they had their Bishops and Presbyters, their Deacons and Deaconesses, like other Denominations and Sects of Chri­stians; as is intimated in the 19th Ca­non of that Council. But they never were Persecutors; but the persecuted. Paul and Photinus were both of them ejected, out of their Bishopricks; Paul by a Pagan Emperor, at the instance of a Council of Heretical Bishops, who denied Homo-usios: Photinus by an A­rian Emperor, at the Request of a Coun­cil of Bishops no less heretical; for they contended for Homoi-usios. And for their Followers, the other Unitarians; it never was in their Power, to be Per­secutors: for they never were the pre­vailing Party, but always lived sub Cruce; they chearfully took up, and imbraced the Cross, in hopes to inherit the Promises. Whereas his Lordship pretends, that Fire and Faggot were in fashion, when the Followers of Paulus and Photinus abounded, and (as he would have it thought) prevailed every [Page 19] where: 'tis certain, that sort of Church-Discipline was not known to the Anti­ents, whether Trinitarians or Unitari­ans; it was not introduced till about the Year 1216, and was exercised first on the Albigenses, by Domi­nic, Founder of the Order of the Do­minicans.

He concludes his Preface, that he will not ask Pardon, for what he has imputed to us; that we have been great Persecutors, even as far as Fire and Faggot. And I answer, when he proves his Imputations, we will ask his Par­don; and besides, will most willingly undergo any Penalty, or Shame, how great soever.

The Body of his Lordship's Book, is divided into two (very unequal) Secti­ons: the first, concerning the Divinity of our Saviour; the other, concerning his Incarnation. The Section concern­ing our Saviour's Divinity, is part of it laid out, in asserting the Authority of St. John's Gospel; the rest, on some Texts (cited by the Archbishop) either for the Divinity of our Saviour, or for his Pre-existence. I will first say some­thing in general, concerning the Blessed Trinity; the Deity of our Saviour, and his Incarnation: and then, make Ap­plication of it, to his Lordship's Vindi­cation.

Of the Trinity; Divinity, and Incarnation, of the Lord Christ.

I Am perswaded, that the Questions concerning the Trinity, the Divini­ty of our Saviour, and the Incarnati­on; so long controverted, between the Church and the Unitarians; are a Strife, mostly about Words and Terms, not of Things and Realities. And this Discovery is owing, to the Sagacity and Dexterity of the English Ʋnitarians: who having (first) distinguished those that pretend to be the Church, into Nominal Trinitarians and Real Trinita­rians; or if you will, into Trinitarians and Tritheists; they (next) prove their Agreement with the former of these, the Nominals; and (then) that the No­minal Party is what ought to be called the Church. That the Nominal Party is the Church, is incontestably proved; because their Doctrine, or Explication of the Trinity, has been directly (and in Terms) espoused by General Coun­cils, and the contrary (the Explication or Doctrine of the Realists) as expresly and directly censured and condemned by the same Authority.

The Realists believe, that the Trinity is three distinct infinite Substances, Minds, and Spirits; all of them co-eternal, of like Dignity, Power, Wis­dom, and all other Divine Attributes. And as to three such Persons being one God; they say: ‘Because they im­meate, or are (inseparably) in one another, therefore they are called one God; tho each of them (distinctly considered) is perfect God. Yet this Perichoresis, Immeation or In­existence, is not such an In-being of these three Spirits or Substances in one another; but that they really re­main as distinct Substances, Minds, [Page 20] Spirits, and Beings, as three Angels, or three Men are.’

But the Nominals abhor this, as per­fect Tritheism; they see plainly, and proclaim it aloud to every body, that three infinite Spirits, tho as Spirits they may, and as infinite Spirits they must be supposed to immeate (or inexist in) one another: yet they are no more made to be one God, by such alternate Penetration; than if they were at ne­ver so great a Remotion from one ano­ther. The Reason is; because not­withstanding their mutual Inexistence, neither their Understandings, or Wills, or other Powers, nor their Substances, become continuous or identified, but remain truly distinct, several, and di­vers. They are supposed indeed to be in one another; but as distinctly, and without Confusion either of their Sub­stances or Powers: as three Angels (while they occupy the same Space, and exclude not one another) are. Or to use another, perhaps a better, Com­parison; as these three Divine Spirits themselves, are in all things, in the whole Creation; and the whole Crea­tion in them. Such an Inexistence as this, every one sees, is so far from ma­king three (eternal infinite) Spirits to be one God; that we can possibly have no other Notion of three Gods. For what is the Conception that any Man has, or can have of three Gods; but this: viz. so many infinite Spirits, which so pervade or inexist in one ano­ther; that (notwithstanding) their Sub­stances, Faculties, and Attributes, re­main distinct and divers?

This is such a Reason, and so obvi­ous; that the Nominals utterly reject, and with the greatest Abhorrence, the Doctrine of three infinite Spirits; and explain the Trinity, or three (Divine) Persons, in a metaphysical way.

They say; we are not to conceive of the three Divine Persons, as we do of created Persons: the Conception we ought to have of their Personalities, or what they are as they are Persons, is as different from the Personalities of crea­ted Beings, whether they be Angels or Men; as the Perfections of the Divinity are superiour, to Human or Angelical Perfections. God is but one Being, but one Substance, Mind, or Spirit; with one only Will, Understanding, Energy, or Power of Action: nor are the Divine Attributes multiplied, or re­peated in the Deity; for there is in God no more than one Omnipotence, Om­niscience, or other Divine Perfection. It is only God, that physically and pro­perly exists, as a vital Being, or a com­pleat Spirit and Mind: the Persons are only the Substance of God (his infinite, spiritual, and most perfect Substance or Nature) with the three Properties, to be of none, to be begotten, and to pro­ceed.

Some are yet more particular, in de­claring or explaining, what the Perso­nalities and Persons are. These consi­der in God, first original Mind, or original Wisdom; this is the Person of the Father. Then, reflex Wisdom; e­ven the Logos, or Wisdom, that result­eth from God's contemplating or know­ing his own Perfections; or (what is the same) the perfect Image, that is ge­nerated or begotten, by God's knowing and understanding himself: which is called the Son. Lastly, the (immanent) Act of LOVE, by which God willeth or loveth himself; his eternal Spiration [Page 21] (or as it were, Breathing) of Love to­ward himself: this is named the Holy Spirit.

In short, the Trinity believed by the Realists, is three distinct infinite and pre-eternal Spirits; each of which is a perfect God: and all of them but one God, by their mutual Inexistence, or that they are in one another; but with­out Confusion, or identifying their Sub­stances, or their Powers. The Trinity believed by the Nominals, is one living eternal infinite Spirit; consider'd under this threefold Distinction, Unbegotten, Begotten, and Proceeding; or Origi­nal Mind which is unbegotten, reflex Wisdom which is generated, and Di­vine Love which proceeds. Original Mind being unbegotten, is therefore named the Father; reflex Wisdom be­ing (manifestly) generated by original eternal Mind, is called the Son; the last being a Spiration of God, has there­fore the Appellation of Holy Spirit. And tho the Nominals use sometimes other Terms, in speaking of the Trini­ty; such as Modes, Relations, relative Subsistences: yet no more, or other is meant by them, than has been already said.

This Trinity of the Nominals is most directly (as I said) and explicitly af­firmed, by divers General Councils; in whom only it is, to declare the Faith, and to pronounce what is to be deemed Heresy. And this also is the Explica­tion, that has been followed without any Variation, by all particular Wri­ters, whether Reformed, or Roman Catholicks, or of the Greek (or Ori­ental) Church; since the Year 1215.

But if this be the Catholick Faith, as it certainly is; the Unitarians are as sound Catholicks, as any other De­nomination of Christians whatsoever. They believe the Trinity before-said; even ‘ one infinite spiritual Substance, with its three Properties, Unbegot­ten, Begotten, and Proceeding. One eternal Spirit, under the triple Di­stinction of Original Mind, Reflex Wisdom, and Divine Love. They approve of it, that the first of these being unbegotten, the second genera­ted, and the third a Spiration; they be therefore called Father, Son, and Spirit.’ Indeed the Terms Trinity, and Person, are unscriptural; but we accept them, according to the Ex­plication by the Church: that is, as the Catholick Church has (in the manner abovesaid) explained her self concerning the three Persons of the Tri­nity. We have therefore no Difference with the Church; but only with the Realists, who are a few English Writers, that have departed from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church.

It was a strange Imputation, on his Grace the late Archbishop; that he was an Unitarian: his Grace was a Realist. He understood by Persons in the Deity, not Persons in a metaphysical Sense; as the Nominals do, and as was before ex­plained: but Persons in a physical Sense of the Word, or such Persons (name­ly, as vitally subsisting, and as really distinct) as three Angels, or three Men are. According to the Modes of Speak­ing, now in use; only compleat Beings, not Properties or Faculties, or imma­nent Acts, are called Persons: and his Grace expresly declares, that he means by Persons, ‘such Persons as we usu­ally intend when (in common Dis­course) we speak of so many Persons, [Page 22] or such and such Persons.’ But let us, for avoiding Cavils, take his Sense in his own Words; he saith, p. 120. ‘Here I fix; that there are three Diffe­rences in the Deity, of which the Scriptures speak by the Names of Fa­ther, Son, and Holy Ghost; and farther, speak also every where of them, as we use to do, of three di­stinct Persons. Therefore I see no Reason, to abstain from the word Persons; tho I remember, St. Jerom desires (somewhere) to be excused from it.’ It is certain, that in com­mon Discourse, or (as his Grace speaks) usually, we mean by three or more Per­sons, so many compleat Beings; and if those Beings are spiritual, we always mean so many Spirits. As for Proper­ties, immanent Acts, mere relative Sub­sistences, Modes; tho formerly (and properly) they were, yet now they are not called Persons; but are consider'd and spoke of, as only the Affections of Persons. It cannot therefore be denied to his Grace, that he was a Realist; the three Divine Persons (or the Tri­nity) according to him, are three such kind of Persons as are usually meant in common Discourse: namely, so many compleat Beings; and because these Be­ings are infinite and spiritual, there­fore three several infinite Spirits.

My Lord of Chichester having under­taken, to write a Defence of his Grace's Sermons; 'twere not unreasonable to suppose, that he espouses also the Arch­bishop's Notion of the Trinity. But however that be, we must put it to him, either to profess the Archbishop's Explication; which would commit him with the Oxford-Heads of Colleges, who have decreed it to be Heresy: or to say, that by Persons in the Deity, he understands only three Properties, or relative Subsistences, considered with the Substance in which they are; and par­ticularly unbegotten Mind, reflex Wis­dom, and Divine Love; and then we desire much, to know, why he hath written against the Unitarians, who believe that Trinity as much as other Catholicks do.

I know not, whether it be necessary to take notice of my Lord of Sarum's (unlucky) Trimming, between the two Parties of the Nominals and Realists. He represents it, as a very inconsidera­ble Difference; that ‘some Trinitari­ans in their Explications of these My­steries, so much adhere to the Ʋnity of the Deity, that their Trinity seems unconceivable: while others assert such a Trinity, as seems incon­sistent with the Ʋnity.’ By the for­mer of these, he means the Nominals; by the other, the Realists. He declares, that as different as their Explications are; their Religion is the same. Just (says he) as some Protestants believe the Consubstantiation; others, a real Presence; and others, only a figurative one: or as some believe, that the De­crees of God are grounded on his Pre­science of future Events, while others think, that the Decrees of God are the fixed Causes of all Events; and yet this Dissent notwithstanding, the Litigants on both sides truly have the same Reli­gion. Bishop of Sarum 's Letter, to Dr. Williams, p. 85, 86.

I observe, that some Men overflow with Charity; and have a Catholick and boundless Latitude, in their Prin­ciples: but then they dispense both the one and the other, wholly by Motives [Page 23] of Policy. Sometimes (namely, when both Parties are powerful) they will comprehend the Pharisees, with the Sadduces; otherwhile the Breadth of a Philactery, shall be an intolerable Dis­sent: but the one and the other, as the Maxims of secular Policy, and the Air of Popularity, shall invite. His Lord­ship could afford to write a Pastoral Letter to his Clergy, against the Uni­tarians, as Hereticks, whose Principles are destructive of the common Christia­nity: but the Nominal Trinitarians, who hold neither more nor less than the Unitarians, differ so little (he saith) from the other Trinitarians; that they not only have the same Religion, but they ought not to be at all offended at one another, p. 86.

But the Parties concerned, are of a very contrary Judgment to his Lord­ship. The Oxford-Heads declare, that the Doctrine of three infinite Spirits, Minds, or Substances, is Impiety and Heresy. Dr. Sherlock and his Fellow-Realist answer that, ‘What the Ox­ford-Heads have condemned, as He­retical and Impious, is the very Ca­tholick Faith: and that this Decree or Declaration censures the Nicene Faith, and the Faith of the Church of England, as Heresy; and exposes both, to the Scorn and Triumph of the Socinians.’ Examination of the Oxford- Decree, pag. 46. And who indeed, but he that wilfully shuts his Eyes, can avoid seeing it; that to af­firm but one infinite Mind and Spirit, and to say there are three such Minds and Spirits, is a Difference as weighty, as 'tis unreconcileable? They who say the former, and they who contend for the latter, can no more be said to be of the same Religion; than Paganism and Polytheism can be pretended to be the same with Judaism or Christianity. ‘But what I chiefly insist on, is this; that his Lordship being so indifferent, whether we hold one or three eternal and infinite Spirits; yet he publishes his Invectives against the Unitarians, as undermining (he saith) and ru­ining the main Articles of Christia­nity: while the whole that can be ob­jected to 'em, is, that they believe (with all the Nominal Party) but one infinite and eternal Spirit.’

The Archbishop was of Opinion, that ‘the Trinity is three such Per­sons, as we usually intend, when in common Discourse we speak of Per­sons.’ Namely, compleat intelligent Beings, distinct from every other Be­ing; not Properties, Relations, or other Affections of Beings. My Lord of Sa­rum, on the contrary, says expresly; ‘by a Person in the Trinity, is not meant such a Being, as we commonly understand by that Word: namely, a compleat intelligent Being; but on­ly, that every one of the blessed Three, has a peculiar Distinction, by which he is different from the other two.’ The Bishop contradicting in Terms, the Doctrine of the Archbishop; the latter believing three such Persons of the Deity, as we usually mean by Persons in common Discourse; the other denying expresly, that there are any such Persons in the Godhead as we commonly understand by the word Per­sons, and particularly not three distinct compleat Beings: it was very expedi­ent, a necessary piece of Prudence, that the Bishop (in the Letters he di­rects to his Clergy) should endeavour [Page 24] to possess 'em; that his Difference with his Metropolitan, is a mere Trifle; and that it matters not, whether we hold three distinct compleat (infinite) Beings and Spirits, or one such Being only. I am perswaded however, that there are great Numbers in the Salisbury-Dio­cess; that cannot be so imposed on: they will see, that their Diocesan, in pursuit of the Principles laid down in his Letters to them, should have cau­tioned them against the Archbishop's Sermons; not against the Unitarians, whose Doctrine perfectly agrees with his own. Saving that (with the Ox­ford-Heads) we believe it to be Here­sy, to profess the Faith of more than one infinite Being, which is a compleat Being distinct from all other Beings; but his Lordship holds it to be indiffe­rent, whether we affirm or deny three infinite Beings and Spirits.

His Lordship proposed, to write with that Caution and Guard, that no Body should be able to attack him; and by Trimming between the Nominals and Realists, to set up for a Healer of the Breaches, a Mediator of Peace. But the Event wholly fails him. He utter­ly disobliges the Realists; by denying, in Terms, what the Archbishop (with all other Realists) had affirmed, in Terms; and the whole Realist Party look upon as a Fundamental Article. The Nominals are as much displeased with him; because he sets no Value on the Catholick Faith, but represents it as a very indifferent Truth, that may be as orthodoxly denied, as affirmed. The Unitarians complain of him, as having pretended to Principles of Lati­tude, and a true Catholick Charity; but using neither, but perhaps as the turns of Popularity, and Rules of secular Po­licy, ingage him.

But this was a Digression. Let us take up our Point again, that the Uni­tarians hold the Faith of the Catholick Church, or Nominal Party: that is, they believe but one eternal and infi­nite Spirit; and as to three Divine Per­sons, they admit the Church's Do­ctrine ( viz. that they are relative Sub­sistences, Properties of the Divine Sub­stance) concerning them. They agree, that there are three Distinctions in God, which may be fitly called Original Mind, Reflex Wisdom, and Divine Love: the first unbegotten and Genera­ting, and therefore named the Father; the other Generated, and therefore (in the Language of Men) called the Son; the third a Spiration, and therefore stiled the Holy Spirit. Whether you call these, Properties, Modes, Relati­ons, Persons, relative Subsistences, or ought the like; we will not contend with the Church: for it being agreed that they are not distinct Beings, di­vers Spirits and Minds, several Sub­stances; but one infinite Substance, Mind, Spirit, and Being, with one on­ly Understanding, Will, and Energy; it is plain, that the Unity of God is preserved; and that the Terms used are only obsolete and odd, but imply no Falshood, nor any real Innovation in Religion. And I say hereupon, that unless my Lord of Chichester will pro­fess three Divine Beings, Spirits, Sub­stances, and Minds, contrary to the Decisions of divers General Councils; the Consent of Writers, since the De­termination in the Council of Lateran, Anno 1215. and the late Decree of the University of Oxford: I say, if he will [Page 25] not contravene all these; neither ought he to have defended the Archbishop's Sermons, nor could he oppose the Con­siderations, that were not (for all that I see) written against the Doctrine of the Church, but the Error of the Rea­lists.

As we accord with the Catholick Church, in the Article of the Trinity; so also in that of the Incarnation, or the Divinity of our Saviour. For when the Church says, the Lord Christ is God, when she worships him, invocates him, imputes to him the Creation of all things; and for all this, alledges Authorities, and Examples, out of Ho­ly Scripture: nothing of all this is in­tended of his Humanity, or to his Hu­manity; but to the indwelling Divi­nity. In short, she means, that as the Cloud of Glory, in the Times of the Old, Testament, was called God, and was worshipped, because God dwelt in it after an especial manner: so, and much more, may we call the Lord Christ, God and Creator, and the rest, because of the Godhead dwelling in him after an ineffable unexplicable manner, and without measure; but whatsoever of Divine, is said of him, is said merely in respect of the inhabiting Divinity, and not of the Humanity. The Com­munication of Idioms, as Divines speak, is merely verbal, not real: Christ is God, and the Creator, is worshipped and invocated, because of the Deity in him; for tho these things are said of the Man Christ Jesus, they are said only in respect of the Divinity, and are intended only of that.

If any say, no Indwelling (or, as the Church speaks, Incarnation) in what soever manner or measure, can give to such Person the Name of God; much less of Creator. So indeed Nestorius thought; and therefore refused, to call our Saviour God, or to ascribe to him either the Works or Attributes of God: and many learned Men have contend­ed, that Nestorius was as rashly con­demned, as he was (afterwards) bar­barously used. Yet upon serious weigh­ing the matter, it appears not necessa­ry, to litigate about Terms and Words, on which the Authority that imposes them, puts an honest Sense and Mean­ing. The Church would never have obliged Nestorius, to call the Man Christ Jesus, God and Creator; but declaring at the same time, that tho it is the Man that is called God, he is so called only in respect of the Indwelling of God in him: which Indwelling is after a man­ner so extraordinary, so abundant, or rather so ineffable; that Christians may with greater Right call him God, than the Cloud of Glory is so named, because of the Angel (in it) who represented God; or than any other Appearance of God (whatsoever, or in what manner soever) mentioned in the Old Testa­ment. The Brightness of the Cloud of Glory, was only from the Power of the inhabiting Angel; yet because the Angel represented God, the bright Ap­pearance between the Cherubims, was named Jehovah and God: How much more may the Lord Christ be so called, in whom the Divinity it self did dwell; not as a Man in his House, but as the Soul in the Body: that is to say, con­stantly illuminating, conducting, and actuating him; nay and exerting in him the most glorious Effects of Omni­science, and Omnipotence, the princi­pal Attributes of the Divinity? 2 Kings [Page 26] 19.15. Hezekiah prayed, and said; O Lord God of Israel, which dwellest be­tween the Cherubims: thou art God, even thou alone. 1 Chron. 13.6. David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah; to fetch thence the Ark of GOD, JE­HOVAH that dwelleth between the Cherubims, whose Name is called on it. It cannot (I think) be denied, that here the bright Appearance between the Cherubims; because God was in it, tho only by his Angel, not by the Ex­ertion of any miraculous Acts, by no Acts of Omniscience or other Divine Attribute; is named Jehovah, God, and only God, or alone God. The Church never required of Nestorius, to say, the Lord Christ is Creator, or God; without this Explication, in re­spect of God in him: which seeing Ne­storius owned, and having the Prece­dent of the Jewish Church and Wri­ters of the Old Testament, who cal­led the Appearance between the Cheru­bims by all the Names and Titles of God; he needed not to have contended, but should have consulted the Churches Peace; for no words are to be refused, when the Authority that imposes 'em, interprets 'em to a sound Sense.

This is what the Unitarians believe concerning the Trinity; and concern­ing the Divinity of our Saviour, or the Incarnation. We have no Contest with the Catholick Church, concerning either of these: we do not indeed ap­prove the Churches Language, or Terms, because they are unscriptu­ral, and liable to Heretical Interpre­tations; but we embrace her whole Meaning and Sense.

1. The Church says, and we assent to it; that there is one only eternal (in­finite and all powerful) Spirit or Mind: and this Mind or Spirit, is what we call God, or the Divinity.

2. But whereas in God, the Church owns also a threefold distinction, which she calls three Persons, or more expli­citly, original unbegotten Wisdom; the Logos, or begotten reflex Wisdom; the Procession, or Spiration of Divine Love: and these, for the Reasons above-mentioned, are also named Fa­ther, Son, and Spirit; three Relations, three Properties, Modes, and divers the like. We cry; remove your Jar­gon, and give us only the Words of Scripture. The Church answers; No, you shall submit to these Terms, be­cause as much as they seem improper, being now out of common Use; they were once as proper and apposite, be­cause in common Use; and you admit the whole that we intend by these (antiquated) Words and Phrases. We submit.

3. Then, as to the Incarnation; or that the Lord Christ is God, and Cre­ator, is to be invocated and worshipt: the Church professes, that this is said, or required, only in respect of God in him. How in him, is the infinite God commensurate to a finite Manhood? No, but in respect of God in him, that is, Illuminating, Conducting, Actuating, and (as much as Infinite can inhabit Finite) dwelling in, Him; as intimate­ly, immediately, and powerfully, as the Soul the Body. Nay, exerting in him the Divine Attributes, Omniscience or the Knowledg of the Future, and of the Thoughts, and Omnipotence or Mira­culous Actions. If the Angel that on­ly represented God, and the Cloud il­luminated by that Angel, have all that [Page 27] often said of 'em, in Holy Scripture; that is wont to be said of, or to God: how much more, when 'tis for Peace; and with Liberty, of declaring your Meaning; may you call the Lord Christ, whatsoever they are called? Here again, we would willingly demur, as Nestorius did: but Charity and Peace are two such great Goods; that we will not Non-conform, for the sake of (dangerous) Terms, honestly explain­ed.

It is by this Declaration of our Meaning, that all our Books (past or to come) are to be interpreted. We never intend to oppose any Body, in the Article of the Trinity; but the Tritheists (or Realists) who are Here­ticks to the Church, as well as to us: nor in the Article of the Divinity of our Saviour, but the Eutychians, who make the Communication of Idioms to be Real, and not only Verbal; which is an Heterodoxy condemned in divers General Councils. When we oppose the Doctrine of the Trinity; 'tis only the (Chimerical) Trinity, of three In­finite All-perfect Spirits: when we deny, the Lord Christ is God, the Cre­ator, may be invocated, or worshipt; we mean not this, of the Divinity in him, but of the Humanity. The inha­biting Divinity, or Christ in respect of God in him, is God over all, all things were made by him; and God is un­doubtedly to be worshipt and invoca­ted.

If his Lordship assents not to these things, he contravenes the Doctrine of the Catholick Church; and espouses Philoponus, Joachim, Gentilis, and Eu­tychius: but we do not in the least sus­pect that this Learned Prelate will dis­own the Catholick Doctrine; or be of Party to Hereticks, that have been con­demned by so many General Councils.

If any object to us, that as much as we now claim to be Catholicks; and profess to assent to the Churches Do­ctrine, tho we wish she would discharge her humanly-invented Terms and Phra­ses; yet we have been always disowned, and opposed, nay persecuted by the Church; and by that very Party of Nominals, whom we pretend to be the Catholick Church. I answer; there has been an unhappy Misunderstand­ing, between the genuine Members of the Catholick Party. The Ʋnitaries (who dislike nothing, but the Liberty that is taken, to use any other but Scripture-words and Language, in de­claring the Faith) and the Nominals (who also wish, that all would return to, and content themselves with, the Simplicity of Scripture) have pelted one another as Enemies: but upon such a gross Mistake, as the two German Cavaliers are noted for, in the be­ginning of the Reformation; who quar­relled, and challenged one another up­on difference of Religion, one of them being a Martinist, and the other a Lutheran. I doubt not, that the Au­thor of the Discourse concerning the Nominals and Realists, has convinced all Learned and Ingenuous Men; that Dr. S—th for instance, and Dr. Wallis, and other Nominals, had no more Rea­son to fall foul on the Unitarians, than the Lutheran on the Martinist: and the Mis­understanding between them being dis­covered to proceed from a Mistake of one anothers true Opinions; they ought now to own each other, as Brethren. If the Nominals are shy, of closing [Page 28] with us, and owning us for Orthodox; we seek not their Patronage: and the common Opposers of both, the Rea­lists, will always tell 'em; that the No­minals and Unitarians differ just as the Martinists and the Lutherans.

On the rest of his Lordship's Book; and an Application of what hath been said.

FOR the rest of his Lordship's Book; one great part of the first Section is imployed, in finding out Answers, to the Arguments of some of the antient Unitarians: who pretended to prove, that St. John was not the Author of the Gospel, or the Revelation; which now bear his Name. The Remainder of the Section, is an Endeavour to wire-draw the first Verses of that Gospel to a purpose (in my Judgment) very contrary to the true Intention of the Evangelist; and to impress some other Texts, into the Service of the Realists.

The present Unitarians, whether in England or elsewhere, receive the Go­spel of St. John, as his. But as Faith has degrees, or is not always such a Plerophory of Assent as to be without all Alloy of doubt: so we wish, this Gospel had never been questioned; and that the Reasons of the Alogians, who imputed this Gospel and the Revelati­on to Cerinthus, were incontestably sa­tisfied. We cannot take his Lordship's Answers, or Arguments; as at all sa­tisfactory: because his Reasonings are (oftentimes) very Inaccurate; and be­cause (as often) they are contrary to notorious Matter of Fact. For in­stance, who can bear it; when he says: ‘ Cerinthus taught, that Christ was a mere and a late-born Man: but St. John tells us, the WORD al­ways was; and came down from Heaven, and was made Flesh. There­fore Cerinthus could not be Author, of the Gospel of St. John; without most plainly contradicting himself.’ For it is certain, on the contrary; that Cerinthus never said, that Christ was a mere and late-born Man, but an eter­nal and impassible Spirit. In the Person of our Saviour, Cerinthus distinguish'd Jesus and Christ; he called the Huma­nity by the Name of Jesus: but Christ or the WORD, according to Cerinthus, was a certain Divine and Impassible Spi­rit; which descending on Jesus at his Baptism, dwelt in him, and forsook him not till the very moment of his Death; when he cried out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Iren. Lib. 1. c. 25. I do not see, how this Ac­count contradicts any thing in St. John; whose Gospel the Alogians said was written by Cerinthus. But I will not dispute with his Lordship, about this matter; for as I said, the Unitarians do receive that Gospel and the Revela­tion, as St. John's: as they receive the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of St. James, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of St. John; all which were sometime doubted of, nay rejected, by divers Catholick Writers and Churches, but have at length been owned by the whole Church. Tho the Catholick Church now owns these E­pistles, and some Chapters and Sections [Page 29] in the Gospels; as written by the Apo­stles, whose Names they bear: yet not with the degree of Assurance; that she receives those Parts of Scripture, that were never controverted. The Assu­rance cannot be equal, where the Grounds of Assent are unequal: but the Grounds of Assent, to the Writings of which we are speaking, cannot be said to be equal; because in Matters whether of Record or Fact, what was always al­lowed and granted by all, is more au­thentick and credible, than what has been questioned, and even rejected by divers of the Antients ( Writers and Churches) who were Catholicks. In short, concerning all Books, and Secti­ons of Books, of the New Testament; sometime doubted of, by some of the Antients: the Unitarians acquiesce in the Judgment of the Catholick Church; and for the Reasons, given by the Church. As first; because tho they were questioned, and even rejected by some, Writers and Churches; yet it appears, they were approved by many more; by so considerable a Majority, that in a short time they were admitted by all. We see in Epiphanius, that even Paulus Samosatenus, and Photinus, receiv­ed the Gospel of St. John. Secondly, because not only they contain nothing that is certainly contrary to the unque­stioned Parts of Scripture; but they are written with the same kind of Spi­rit, that the undoubted Portions of Scripture are: there is a Likeness in the Thoughts, Expressions, and what­soever else recommends to us the other Books of Scripture, as written by A­postles and Apostolical Men. These are sufficient Motives of Assent, and ought to prevail with us; tho there are some Difficulties, not easy to be re­moved: we submit to the weight of these Arguments; tho we confess, that what has been alledged by the Alogians and others, is not despicable or ridicu­lous. To conclude, we receive, with the Catholick Church, the controverted Books; without censuring in the mean time, much less condemning those An­tients, or Moderns, who were or are of another Mind.

What remains of his Lordship's first Section, is a Scuffle with the Considerer, on behalf of the Arch-Bishop's Expli­cation of the first Verses of St. John's Gospel, and of some other Texts al­ledged by his Grace, to confirm his said Explication. To all which, I an­swer. There is no Form of Words, that were not conceived designedly to preclude all Exception, but is liable to cavil; nay our Lawyers scarce obtain their purpose, when in Deeds and Con­veyances they imploy the whole Art of Grammar, to ascertain the Meaning and Intent of the Conveyance or Deed: it is not therefore to be wondred at, that Persons, highly interested by their Education, Honour and Parties, can (and with some colour) interpret ob­scure or ambiguous Texts, to a Sense, not intended by the Original Author. If People are not disposed to be ingenu­ous; a little Wit, some Learning, and a long Practice in the Polemics, will enable 'em to maintain a Squable till Doomsday, about the Sense of any (ordinary and familiar) Context. I do not think therefore, that the Con­tention between the Unitarians and the Realists, will ever be healed by that Pretence of either Party, that theirs is the only Interpretation or Sense, of [Page 30] which the litigated Texts are capable, in the Court of Grammar and Criticism. But towards a Coalition, it will be ne­cessary to agree in some common Princi­ples, confessed to be clearly asserted in Scripture; by Consonancy to which Principles, all otherwise doubtful Texts and Contexts of Scripture, and their Interpretations, shall be judged of. This Rule of interpreting, is very certain; none can distrust it, without supposing, either that the Sacred Scripture contra­dicts it self: or that the human Under­standing is not capable of judging the Agreement, or the Dissonance of Scrip­ture with it self. No Body, I believe, will say the former; that the Scripture contradicts it self: and if any say the other, that we cannot judg of the Dis­sonance, or Agreement of Scripture with it self; or of particular Interpre­tations, with Principles that are yield­ed to be found in Scripture; all Dispu­tation is at an end, on both sides. But if the Rule be allowed, that some com­mon agreed Principles are to be esta­blisht; by which, all obscure (that is, all controverted) Texts must be interpret­ed: the Questions and Interpretations debated between us, being thus brought before the Bar of Reason and common Sense, will soon be judged of.

Is there but one only God? Or if this be a Principle of too much Latitude, and capable of more Senses: Is there more than one (numerical or self-same) eternal and infinite Spirit? meaning by one eternal and infinite Spi­rit, one eternal and spiritual Substance, with one only Ʋnderstanding, Will, and Power of Action. If it be agreed, as a Principle manifestly laid down in Scripture, as well as certain in Reason, that there is but one such Spirit; either we shall all presently accord, in inter­preting this famous Context of St. John, and other obscure and doubtful Passages of Scripture: or our difference in in­terpreting it, or them, will no way af­fect any Article of our Creed: so that there will be no real Controversy left. The Unitarians are far from denying the Trinity of Divine Persons, the In­carnation of God, the Divinity or Sa­tisfaction of our Saviour; provided that those Doctrines be interpreted to a Consistency, with this Principle of Holy Scripture and of the Catholick Church, that ‘there is but one infi­nite Spiritual Substance, with one only infinite Understanding, Will, and Energy.’ Or more briefly, thus; but one infinite and eternal Spirit.

Either his Lordship says, there is but one such Spirit; and therefore in­terprets the Term Persons, and the Words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not to be so many distinct Spirits, but one Spirit distinguished by three Rela­tive Properties; in explaining the Na­ture of which, the Church has always indulged some Variety and Latitude: and if so, we have no controversy with him, nor he with us; and he may (for us) interpret the first of St. John, and the other Texts on which he insists, as him­self shall please. Or he saith, there are three eternal and infinite Spirits; and that the Divine Persons are so many spi­ritual Substances, Minds, and Beings: and if so, we shall to our Power de­fend the Doctrine of Holy Scripture, and of so many General Councils, as have decreed the Doctrine of three Di­vine Substances and three infinite Spirits to be Heresy. Let him therefore be [Page 31] pleased to speak out, and to declare himself categorically and explicitly; when we certainly know, what his Opi­nion is, we promise to take into Consi­deration, not only what he has writ­ten, but what he shall write, on the controverted Texts: till then, 'tis to no purpose to discuss, what he has so generally and loosly discours'd; that we know not, whether he is for us, or against us. He cites, and inlarges on a great many Texts, to prove the Deity of our Saviour, his Pre-existence, and his Incarnation: if he means only, that our Lord Christ is God, and did pre-exist, in respect of his Godhead, that is in respect of God in him, as the Scrip­tures speak; and that God did inhabit after an extraordinary peculiar and un­exampled manner in the human Nature of the Lord Christ, which the Church calls the Incarnation of God; the Uni­tarians neither now, nor in any time past did question any thing of this: they never intended to oppose the Churches Doctrine, but only the Heresy of the Realists, viz. that an (imagined) Second Infinite and Eter­nal Spirit, (for the Tritheists hold three such Spirits) was incarnate in the Lord Christ: and that God is a Trinity of Spirits, not of Persons, in the philo­logical and physical Sense of the term Persons.

I meddle not therefore, with the rest of his Lordship's Book: no not with the Discourse concerning the little My­steries (as he fancies them to be) of the Tritheistick Scheme; and the great ones (as he represents them) of our Sy­stem of Religion. For the Author of the Considerations, has so solidly esta­blisht what he said on those Subjects, in the Considerations themselves: that there is no manner of Fear, that his Lordship's Bellows should blow out the Sun.

There follows a Letter of the Bp. of Sardis, to Dr. Williams, which we are next to consider: and it will give oc­casion, more fully to discuss all these great Points.

On the Letter of the Bishop of Sarum.

HIS Lordship through this whole Letter, writes like one extreme­ly netled, very angry, and acted by a Spirit of Revenge. At length, the Cause of the great Offence he has taken, appears; at p. 98, 99. it is this. After having weighed what his Lord­ship says, in several Places of his Pasto­ral Letter; concerning the Divinity, the Incarnation, and Satisfaction of our Saviour; the Considerer concludes with this: that ‘he submits to his Lord­ship's whole Doctrine; which differs in nothing, from what the Unitari­ans ever professed, in all their Wri­tings.’ His Lordship assures the Con­siderer; that he takes this, as the heavi­est of all Imputations. And taking oc­casion at so great a Slander as (he pre­tends) this is; he hath thought no Hardness of Expression, and no Impu­tation either so scandalous or so dange­rous, as to forbear it toward the Consi­derer. Whether Cause was given by the Letter, to say, that the Doctrine of it, is perfectly Unitarian; I will now examine, by an Induction of what is there said on the Points, in Controversy between us and the Realists.

The Doctrine of the Pastoral Letter, concerning the Trinity.

WHen we speak of a Trinity, eve­ry body knows; the Question is not, concerning the term Trinity, or three (divine) Persons: but concerning what we should mean by the word Per­sons, or Trinity. If you make the Tri­nity (or three divine Persons) to be on­ly three Attributes of God; Wisdom, Goodness, and Power: as some do. Or if you say, they are only three ex­ternal Relations of God, to his Crea­tures; viz. that he is their Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier: as others have taught, and were applauded also for it. Or if the three Persons are called three relative Subsistences, rela­tive Modes, or Relations: which are not so many distinct Beings, Spirits, [Page 33] or individual Substances; but only Pro­perties, or Affections of a Spirit, Being, or Substance; as generally they are named, and described. Or (if yet more particularly) they are original Mind, reflex Wisdom, and the eternal Spiration of Divine Love; as some of the Fathers, and the Divines of the Schools, have affirmed. Or if Men will in effect say nothing at all, but only name them three somewhats; or the three, or the Holy three: which are Words without any certain Sense. Hi­therto, 'tis plain, there is no Contro­versy with the Unitarians; for none of these Explications of a Trinity, are any way contrary to the Unity of God, as believed by them: they them­selves admit all, or any of these Expli­cations. The Controversy of the Uni­tarians, with some that are called Tri­nitarians, but should be called Trithe­ists, is this: ‘Whether, in saying three Divine Persons, we should in­tend by the word Persons, so many distinct Beings; three spiritual Sub­stances, in Number, tho called one Substance in respect of Sameness of Properties; three Minds, with so many distinct Understandings, Wills, and Powers of Action?’ Or to say all this, in Words understood by all; three eternal and infinite Spirits? He that affirms, or denies, any of these; doth (therein, and thereby) affirm, or deny all the rest. For instance, he that affirms three (distinct) Spiritual Beings, affirms three Minds, and three spiri­tual Substances distinct and divers in Number: and he that denies the Di­vine Persons are distinct Beings, denies also they are so many Minds, Sub­stances, or Spirits. This is not con­tested; therefore let us see, what kind of Trinity the Letter teaches: whether it doth not expresly declare against that Trinity, which is denied and op­posed by the Unitarians; and is the only Trinity, that it ever was in their Thoughts to oppose or deny?

At p. 96. he says: ‘By Person, in these Questions, is not meant such a Being, as is commonly understood by that word; namely, a compleat intel­ligent Being, distinct from every o­ther Being.’ He needs say no more; for if the Trinity of Divine Persons are not such Persons, as are commonly meant and designed when we use the word Persons; and if, as he farther adds, they are neither distinct, nor compleat, nor intelligent Beings: what Contentions soever he may affect to raise, with the Unitarians; they will never have any with him, concerning the Trinity. They oppose no other Trinity of Persons, but such as are cha­racter'd to be distinct, and compleat, and intelligent Beings; in a word, such Persons, as are commonly intended by the word Persons: which Trinity, we see, his Lordship expresly disavows. And 'tis certain, that so also does the Catholick Church; especially since the Lateran Council, Anno 1215.

In very deed, to be a true Unitarian, he needed only to say; that the Divine Persons are not three intelligent Beings, they are but one intelligent Being: for this being granted, the Unitarians have gained all they contend for; because by but one Divine Person, they mean but one intelligent Being. But when his Lordship adds, the Divine Persons are not distinct Beings; nor such Persons as we commonly mean, when we use the [Page 34] word Persons: it is evident, that his writing against the Unitarians was a mere Act of Zeal. He is now got con­siderably into the Interests of the Church; and that it may appear (to the Men of little Faith) that he is a Bishop in Heart, as well as in Name: therefore he attacks, in one Book, all the Church's Enemies; without stay­ing to be informed, whether they are Enemies indeed, either to the Church, or to himself.

Let us take another Paragraph, out of the (before-cited) Discourse to the Clergy; which will farther evince his Lordship's Syncretism with the Unita­rians. Pag. 98, 99. ‘The Fathers in divers Places so express themselves, concerning the same Substance or Es­sence, as if they meant the same Be­ing, in a general Sense; even as all human Souls are of the same Sub­stance, that is, are the same Order or sort of Creatures. And they [the Fathers] seem to intitle the Divine Persons, to different Operations; not only in the Oeconomical way, but so that one of them does that, which the other does not. This indeed was easily apprehended, but it seemed directly to assert three Gods; which is very contrary to the most express Declarations, of the Old and New Testaments: in which, the Unity of God is so often held forth; that others took another way of explaining the Trinity, viz. by making their Foundation, that the Deity is one (numerical) Being. These latter ob­served; that the Sun, besides his own Globe, had an Emanation of Heat, and another of Light: which have different Operations, and all from the same Essence. Also that the Soul of Man hath Intellection, and Love; which flow from its Es­sence. So they conceived, that the primary Act of the Divine Essence, was its Wisdom, by which it saw all things; and in which, as in an in­ward WORD, it designed all things: this, they thought, might be called the Son, as being the Generation of the eternal Mind. While from that Fountain-Principle [eternal Mind] together with this inward WORD or Wisdom, there did arise a Love, that was to issue forth, and was to be the Soul of the Creation; but more especially to animate the Church. This was rested on; and was afterwards dressed up, with a great deal of dark Nicety, by the Schools: nay, it grew to be the uni­versally-received Opinion.’

Is this he, that writes against the U­nitarians; and has no better Compli­ments for 'em, but irreligious profligate Villains? The World knows, what the Doctrine of the Unitarians, is; name­ly, that the Deity is one (numerical) Being; one Substance (not as some of the Fathers, who are therefore blamed by his Lordship, said, one Substance on­ly in a general Sense, but) in Number, with one only Understanding, Will, and Power of Action: and this is what they call one Person; they deny the Deity to be three Persons in no other Sense, but of three numerical intelli­gent Substances. What now does his Lordship say? Why, that some of the Fathers indeed thought otherwise; they took the Deity to be three such Persons, that they are three (spiritual intelligent) Substances, not indeed for [Page 35] sort or kind, but in Number, three di­stinct Beings that have different Opera­tions: but, saith his Lordship, 'tis con­trary to the most express Declarations, of the Old and New Testaments. A­gain, he saith; the universally received Explanation of the Trinity, and which is the Explication of the Divines of the Schools, is; that from eternal Mind, as a Fountain-Principle, have proceed­ed Wisdom, and Love: Wisdom is the first Act of Mind; and being as it were generated by Mind, is therefore called the Son. So that eternal origi­nal Mind, the immanent Act of Wis­dom generated thereby, and the issuing forth (or Spiration) of Divine Love, are by his Lordship's express Confessi­on, what the Divines of the Schools (after St. Austin and other Fathers) have called the Trinity of Divine Per­sons, or Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Nay, this is the universally-received Ex­plication of the Trinity. But did the irreligious Villains ever oppose this Tri­nity, universally (as his Lordship says) received? Do they deny eternal origi­nal Mind; the everlasting immanent Act of Wisdom, generated by it; or the perpetual Spiration of Divine Love, proceeding from original Mind, and the inward Logos or Wisdom? He knows the contrary; he knows we are Brethren: for I hope, that himself be­lieves the universally-received Explicati­on. But then, why are we out of his Favour? why irreligious Villains, against whom and their Doctrine, 'tis so neces­sary to caution and instruct the (poor ignorant) Clergy of the Diocess of Sa­lisbury? The Question, I doubt, can­not be answered; but by saying: here his (fresh) Episcopal Zeal, for Holy Mother Church, in the Interests of which he is got to be a considerable Part, was by much too forward. As Dr. Wallis, who is a Socinian and an half, could publish I know not how ma­ny Letters, and Sermons, against the Socinians; aspersing also (in the most bitter, and false manner) the very Per­son of his Patriarch Socinus: So his Lordship, not expecting to be rightly informed of their Doctrine and Opini­ons, calls those irreligious Villains, who hold and maintain the universally-re­ceived Explication; and professes to take it as the very heaviest of all Im­putations, when the Considerer said, in Terms of Respect, the Ʋnitarians sub­mit to his Lordship's Doctrine.

Methinks, no Man ever had less Oc­casion given him, to answer so unhand­somly, I had almost said inhumanly, as his Lordship has done. It is easy to see, in the Air and Spirit of his Wri­ting; that the Considerer (had he not affected the contrary) could have chose such Expressions and Terms, concern­ing his Lordship's Doctrine; as should have wakened, and drawn down upon him, all the Enemies he has in the World. The least of those many things, that a Person so well versed in these Questions, as the Considerer ap­pears to be, could have said; the least and softest of his Imputations, might have been this: that his Lordship is not so Catholick, or Orthodox, in any of these (depending) Questions; as the Unitarians are. But let us go on.

On the Account, given in the Letter, of the Incarnation, and Divinity of our Saviour.

COncerning the Trinity of Divine Persons, his Lordship (we have seen) believes; they are not compleat, nor distinct Beings; nor such Persons as are commonly meant, when we use the term Persons: we were best, he saith, to call them in general terms, the three, or the blessed three; and thereby silence all Opposition and Dis­pute. And for the term Son, he inti­mates at p. 99. ‘it doth not belong at all to any of the three; but only to our Saviour as he was the Messias.’ That is, as he was the Man Jesus. And hereby, he says again, all the Spe­culations concerning an eternal Genera­tion, are cut off. This he says at p. 100. Agreeably to this (as I said, more than Ʋnitarian Doctrine, for the Unitarians allow the eternal Generation of the Lo­gos, Son, or Wisdom) he explains also the Incarnation, or Divinity of our Sa­viour. He makes the Incarnation of God in the human Nature, to be such, and to have like Effects; as God's in­habiting the Cloud of Glory, during some part of the Old-Testament Ages: for this Cloud was worshipped, he saith; and he might have added, is called God, because of God in it. But in his Letter, he contends; that the Indwelling of the Godhead in Christ, was a vital Indwelling, like that of the Soul in the Body; and not an assisting Indwelling, like that of Inspiration, or the Gift of Tongues, or of Miracles. This must be candidly interpreted, or it is the Apollinarian Heresy; con­demned in so many General Councils: but I am perswaded, he meant no He­terodoxy by a vital Indwelling. He meant not, that the Humanity lives, by its Union with the Divinity; which was the Doctrine of Apollinaris: he in­tends only, that ‘the Humanity of the Lord Christ is entirely under the Im­pressions, and Conduct of the In­dwelling Divinity; and receives con­stant Communications of Light, and Impulse, from it.’ So I find him speaking at p. 107. And in the next Page, thus; ‘The eternal WORD assumed the Man into an inward Oe­conomy; so as always to illuminate, conduct, and actuate it. This is the clearest Thought, we can have, of the human Nature's subsisting by the Subsistence of the WORD; that is, of the Incarnation, or Hypostatical Union.’

This is far enough, to be Orthodox: but the Unitarians believe somewhat more; they are a degree or two more Catholick and Orthodox. They be­lieve indeed, with his Lordship, not only that God did inspire our Saviour; or so far communicated himself, that the Lord Christ wrought Miracles by the Virtue that was always in him, and not by a Power bestowed only occasio­nally and incidentally: but that our Saviour's Humanity was constantly illu­minated, conducted, and actuated by God in him; and had unfading Com­munications of Light, and Impulse, from the Divinity; he was entirely un­der [Page 37] the Impressions and Conduct there­of. Yet, as his Lordship also adds at p. 107. ‘still leaving to the inferiour Mind [to the rational Soul of Christ] its own Liberty, and all its natural Powers.’ And we reflect also on it; that 'tis with much more Justice and Propriety, that our Saviour is called God, on the account of such Indwel­ling of God: than Moses, or Solomon, or even than Angels themselves; who can be called Gods but only by Repre­sentation, or at most on the account of God's assisting, and inspiring them, as occasion hapned to require. But the Unitarians, as I said, believe somewhat more. They do not appropriate the Incarnation, to merely the WORD. They hold, that the whole Deity (or Godhead) dwelt in our Saviour; all the Fulness of the Godhead, as St. Paul speaks, and not only the WORD, dwelt in him bodily: Not that the whole Essence of the Infinite God, be­came commensurate to a finite Man; or that there followed hereupon a real Communication of Idioms, as some have (heretically) conceited, which is in ve­ry deed a Revival of Eutychianism: but only as God is every where whatsoe­ver he is; he is God, perfect God, in one Place, in any Point of Space, no less than in the whole interminable Ex­tension of Place or Space.

This being the Unitarian Doctrine concerning the Incarnation, hypostati­cal or personal Union, and Divinity of our Saviour; always believed, and pro­fessed by 'em: his Lordship had no Reason, to snatch at so many Occasions of venting his Choler on the Consi­derer; as if he were in danger of losing his Bishoprick, by occasion of the Growth of Unitarianism; which he mistakes to be a Departure, from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church; when 'tis nothing but an Opposition, to the Heresy of the Realists. Of which this Prelate has made it appear, he has not the least Tang.

Of the Satisfaction, as 'tis stated in the Letter.

THE Unitarians differ somewhat, from some other Catholicks, in ex­plaining the Doctrine of the Satisfacti­on; but they approve of his Lordship's Notions, concerning that Subject. There are two Accounts, given of the Satis­faction. One of them supposes; there was a Necessity, that an adequate Satis­faction should be made, to the Justice of God, for the Sins of Men: and that otherwise, God could not dismiss us of the personal Punishment, due by the Divine Law to our Sins. The other supposes; there was no Necessity, of an adequate Satisfaction, on our Be­half: there being no such vindictive Justice, essential to God; whereby he is obliged to punish, unless a full Satis­faction be given for Offences and Offen­ders. The greater Number of the more learned Catholicks, whether they be Protestants or Romanists, hold the latter of these; as well as the Unitari­ans do: they believe, ‘It was neither necessary, nor (perhaps) possible; that a Satisfaction should be given to the Divine Justice, every way equal to the eternal Punishment, of an in­finite [Page 38] Number of Sinners.’ As my Lord of Sarum argues, at p. 35. ‘The Acts of Christ, tho infinite in Value, have not a strict Equality; with all the Sins of so many Men, every one of which is of infinite Guilt.’ He confesses hereby, that an adequate Sa­tisfaction was not only, not necessary; but not possible in the nature of the thing: unless there had been as many Redeemers, not only as there are Sin­ners, but as there are Sins.

But let us consider, yet more particu­larly, what his Lordship's Doctrine is.

He saith: ‘The Lord Christ was loaded with all the ill Usage, that malicious Men could invent; he suf­fer'd inexpressible Agonies, both in Body and Mind; and last of all, was crucified. But in all this, he willingly offer'd himself, to suffer upon our Account, and in our stead: which was so accepted by God, that he not only raised him from the Dead, and exalted him on High; but gave to him, even as he is Man, all Power both in Heaven and Earth, and offers also to the World Pardon of Sin.’

Of this Account of the Satisfaction, the Considerer said; the Unitarians have ever professed it. His Lordship (in the Letter) replies; that the Racovian Ca­techism, and the first Writers of the Socinians, expresly deny the expiatory Virtue of the Sacrifice of Christ, on the Cross: but he owns, that some Socini­ans are come off from that Error, and do own the expiatory Virtue of that Sa­crifice. He adds; that Dr. Outram's learned Performance on this Subject, is universally applauded and acquiesced in: and all, he saith, may be satisfied by Dr. Outram's Book, what is the Do­ctrine generally received in the Church of England. But as to the poor Wretch the Considerer, he is a Stranger, his Lordship pronounces, to the History of this Controversy.

His Lordship frequently discovers his great Passion for the Considerer, often bestows on him his (formed) Compli­ments: and this particular Compli­ment, I suppose, has the Property of most other Compliments; that is to say, the Speaker knows 'tis more than measure while he gives it for just mea­sure. I shall leave him, and the Consi­derer, to their Monsigneurisms; and answer to the thing it self. Whereas he says, the Racovian Catechism de­nies the expiatory Virtue of the Sacri­fice of Christ: 'tis so far from being true, that this Catechism calls the Death and Oblation of Christ, on the Cross, Sacrificium piaculare, an expiatory Sa­crifice. As for the first Writers of the Socinians; whom also his Lordship ac­cuses, as denying that the Sacrifice of Christ was expiatory: those first Wri­ters, he may please to know, were the very Authors of the Racovian Cate­chism. This Catechism, which is an Abridgment and Defence of the Soci­nian Doctrine, was first written by Smalcius, and other first Writers and Preachers among the Socinians; and has been improved by continual Addi­tions, till last of all it was published about 16 Years since by Benedict Wisso­watius, with the Annotations of all the most considerable Writers of the Soci­nian way.

But the Unitarians must needs be glad, to hear his Lordship, who so well understands the History of this Con­troversy, [Page 39] refer us to Dr. Outram's Book; as an applauded and generally-received Performance, and containing the un­doubted Doctrine of the Church of England, concerning the Sacrifice of Christ. For the Explication of the Doctrine of the Satisfaction, first hint­ed by Grotius in his Notes on his Books, de Jure Belli & Pacis, and (again) on the New Testament; and more ful­ly explained by Ruarus and Sclichtin­gius, in their Epistles: I say, the Ex­plication of the Doctrine of the Sa­tisfaction, by these leading Unitarians, is so plainly asserted, and so fully vin­dicated by Dr. Outram; that 'tis good News, that the Church of England (as his Lordship, and I believe very truly, assures us) doth not only universally receive, but applaud it. Dr. Outram was as much an Unitarian, in the Do­ctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Satisfaction, as the Compilers of the Racovian Catechism: but to establish his Doctrine, he saw it was necessary, to set it on another Foun­dation; and to express it in other Terms, than Socinus and Crellius had done. He no more believed, that the Oblation of the Lord Christ on the Cross, was an adequate Satisfaction to God's Justice, for the Sins of Men; than even Socinus, or Crellius, did. Tho he contends that the Lord Christ underwent poenam vicariam, i. e. a Pu­nishment in our stead; which Expres­sion, as it is intended by the more rigid Calvinists, was disliked and opposed by Socinus and Crellius; yet it never en­ter'd into his mind, that Christ so suf­fered in our stead, as to be consider'd by God as having our Guilt, or as undergo­ing a Punishment equivalent thereto. On which two Points (and not on the Words in our stead, as his Lordship imagines) our whole Controversy with some others, especially the Calvinist Writers, turns.

In short, his Lordship, Dr. Outram, and other Catholick Writers who ap­prove not the Notions of some School-Divines, and some rigid Calvinists, be­lieve neither more nor less concerning the Sacrifice by the Lord Christ; than the Men of the Racovian way do. All these (alike) consider our Saviour, as well in the Sufferings of his whole Life, and in his extraordinary Agonies in the Garden, as in his Passion on the Cross, as suffering for us, and in our stead: his Life and Death had both of 'em the expiatory Virtue, which his Lordship thinks the Unitarians deny of both. And all these no less agree, against some Calvinists, and divers Metaphy­sicians who follow the Schools; that the Oblation made by Christ was not an adequate Satisfaction, to God's Justice, it was rather an Application to his Mercy. They agree, he did not so suffer, in our stead; as to take on him our Guilt, or to undergo a Punishment equivalent to our Sins: no nor to under­go Punishment properly so called; but only in a popular Sense of the Word Punishment. For Punishment properly so called, ‘is the Evil of Suffering, inflicted on a guilty Person, for the evil of doing: but the Lord Christ having done no Evil, nor being in any Sense a guilty Person; he cannot pro­perly be said to be punisht, but to suf­fer.’ And for the Suffering in our stead, this also is rather tolerable and passa­ble, than proper; but it may be well admitted in this Sense, which is the [Page 40] Sense of the Catholick Church, viz. that ‘If the Lord Christ had not suf­fered; we (the actual Offenders) should have been punisht.’ Briefly, his Lordship has imagin'd a Controver­sy, where there is really none: and while he is a Catholick, he must con­tinue an Unitarian.

In Answer to the Four Letters, by Mr. H. De Luzancy. To the Publisher.

I Have read the 4 Letters of Mr. De Luzancy, against the Unitarians; and as you desire, will make some Answer to them.

His Preface makes two Attacks; tel­ling them, 1. The Consent of the whole Christian World, must be a strong In­ducement to a modest Unitarian; to mistrust all his Arguments. To op­pose all that has been, or is great and good in the Church of God, is too much for the most presuming Disputant.

The Case then, as Mr. L. states it, is; one side has Argument, the other has Authority or Number. The Side or Party that has nothing but Argu­ment, ought not to presume on their Reasons; against the Authority of the whole World: or as he corrects himself, upon second Thoughts; all that is great and good in the Church.

If Mr. L. has no better way, of deciding these Controversies; how do I fear, they will never be ended. The Unitarians will surely deny, that all the Christian World, or so much as all that is great and good in the Church, is a­gainst them: they will pretend that themselves are a part of the Chri­stian World; and for great and good they need not to say it of themselves, the Ablest of their great and good Op­posers have often said it of them. They will say farther; that in a Clash between Argument, and Number; the whole World, and all that is great in it, when weighed against but one Argu­ment, is, as if you had put nothing at all into the Scale: they will certain­ly abide by it, that Argument can be repelled by nothing but Argument; as Diamonds are cut, only by Dia­monds.

I advise Mr. L. who urges against us all the World; to consider a little of this Passage, which he will find in a Trea­tise, in the 2d Tome of the Works of Athanasius. ‘They are to be pitied, who judg of a Doctrine, by the numbers of those who profess it. Phineas, Lot, Noah, St. Stephen, had the Multitude against 'em; yet what honest Man would not rather be of their side, than of the World's? —When you object to me, Multi­tude; you do but show the great ex­tent of Wickedness, and the great number of the Miserable.’

2. His next Blow is; that, ‘Faith and Reason are two things: what is the Object of Faith, cannot be [Page 41] the Object of Reason. Nor is it suffer­able to reject the Belief of the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation; be­cause our narrow and corrupted Reason starts Contradictions, in a Subject so much above our Capacities. It looks indeed like Charity, but is certainly an Inadvertence, to answer the So­cinians in their own Way: that is, to run with them upon the same false Scent, of reasoning on things, which we ought to believe, and a­dore.’

But in very Deed are Faith and Reason two things; so that what is the Object of Faith, cannot be the Object of Reason; as Mr. L. here affirms? I had thought Faith had been nothing else, but ‘ an Assent gi­ven to Propositions or Facts, upon reasonable Proof made of them.’ And when the Apostle defines Faith to be [...], the Proof or Demonstration (or, as our Translation has it, the Evidence) of things not seen: he teaches, not only that the Object of Faith and of Reason is the same; but that there cannot be Faith without Reason; and that, Faith is the Product of Reason.

It is surely a very rash Proposition, that ‘what is the Object of Faith, cannot be the Object of Reason.’ For hath Faith no other Objects, but ei­ther unintelligible Mysteries, or flat Non-sense? All other things are the proper Objects of Reason.

The short of what Mr. L. advances, is; the Trinity and Incarnation are Scripture-Mysteries: therefore if a thousand Contradictions be implied in the Belief of them; yet we must believe them, on the Authority of Scripture.

It is certain to me, this learned Gentleman does not believe, accord­ing to this loose Scheme. I crave leave, to ask him a few Questions.

Would he himself believe a Contra­dictory Proposition, or that so seemed to his Reason; if he found it taught in Scripture? Would he believe, that One and Two are not Three, if the Scrip­ture said it? Why does he calumni­ate Reason, the Light set up in us by God himself; under the Names of nar­row and corrupted; when he himself would make this same narrow and cor­rupted Reason the Supream and last Judg of any Proposition, that seemed to him plainly contradictory, or flatly impossible? Is there one Law for him, and another for the Unitarians? Are the Unitarians obliged to believe Con­tradictions, while Mr. L. is exempt from that (absurd and impracticable) Law? Mr. L. may pretend what he pleases, upon hope that we cannot look into the Recesses of his Heart; but I will not accept any Man's Oath for it, that he would assent to a Proposition or Doctrine that seemed to him a flat Contradiction, if it were affirmed in Scripture. But if so; if neither Mr. L. nor any Man else, will believe a Doctrine that seems to him to be plainly Contradictory: it follows that the Unitarians rightly require, that the Contradictions they find in the No­tion and Belief of a Trinity, as 'tis stated by the Realists, be (tolerably) satisfied; and that to reason upon these Questions, is not (as Mr. L. pretends) to run upon a false Scent.

This therefore is the first Question [Page 42] that I desire Mr. L. to resolve; will he believe a Doctrine, that seems to him to imply manifest and incontestable Con­tradictions, if such Doctrine or Propo­sition were indeed found in Scripture? Would he not say, that to establish the Credibility of any Record or Book, these two Qualifications are equally re­quisite: that it hath the external At­testation, of sufficient Witnesses to it; and the internal, of being consistent with it self, and to confest and indubi­table Truths; that is, that it be free from Contradictions and Impossibili­ties? If this, or such like, is the An­swer he would make, he must be con­tent, to argue these Questions about the Trinity and Incarnation; not from Scripture only, but from Reason also: nay, from Reason chiefly, and ulti­mately.

Secondly, I ask, again; if Mr. L. will believe what seems to his Reason, a flat Contradiction, supposing it to be found in Scripture: yet does he advise us to believe clear Contradictions, that are not clearly revealed in Scripture? Three infinite and eternal Spirits, each of them (singly; and by himself) a most perfect God, and yet all of them (together) but one God; this seems to me, a most clear Contradiction: am I bound to believe it, if 'tis not as clearly and incontestably revealed, as 'tis incontestably and clearly a Con­tradiction?

Whatever Mr. L. may think fit to answer here, I judg that most People will be of Opinion; that the Reve­lation for it ought to be most clear: so clear, that a fair and ingenuous Rea­soner will not contest the Positiveness and Evidence of the Revelation. But now the Texts, and Contexts, that are alledged, to prove three eternal and in­finite Spirits, each of them a perfect God, are clogged (Mr. L. knows) with abundance of Ʋncertainties. 'Tis deni­ed (he knows) with great Vehemence; by the ablest Criticks of the Trinita­rian Perswasion, that some of these Texts were originally so read, as they are now published in our common Bi­bles; nay some of them were not read at all, in any Bible, till 5 or 600 Years after the Decease of the Apostles, and other sacred Penmen. But whe­ther antiently read, or thus read, yea or no; there is none of them but is most fairly capable of a Sense, consist­ent with the Unity of God, as 'tis taught by the Ʋnitarians and Nomi­nals, and is actually so interpreted by divers of the most allowed and cele­brated Interpreters of the Church. Who sees not here, that to introduce and believe Monstrosities, on such a craz'd Foundation as this; is to give up common Sense, without a tolerable Cause for it: whenas indeed there can be no Cause so great, as may induce us to part with it? 'Tis to admit, and defend Contradictions, and that in a capital Article of Religion; when we need not: 'tis to sacrifice the clearest, and most important dictates of Rea­son; not to any Necessity, but to our secular Interests, or our Wantonness. From which, for my part, I desire to be ever clear.

Again, I would know of Mr. L. who so despises (those poor Trifles) Contradictions, and Impossibilities; and thinks them to be no Blemishes to [Page 43] Religion, nor any Hindrances of Faith: whether, in sober Sadness, he believes, that a contradictory, either Proposition, or Doctrine, can be true? It seems to me, that what is contra­dictory, is impossible: and 'tis agreed, I think, by Divines of all Perswasi­ons; that Impossibilities and Contra­dictions (whether they be Propositions or Facts) cannot be verified, by the Divine Omnipotence it self.

‘If a Doctrine or Proposition, that consists of contradictory Parts; such as, three infinite Spirits, each of which is a perfect God, and all of them but one God; can be true: there will be no such thing as Falshood.’ For we therefore say, such a Doctrine or Proposition is false; either because 'tis an absolute Nullity; or because we perceive, that the Parts of it contradict one another, or they contradict some other Proposition or Doctrine, that is a certain and agreed Truth. If once 'tis granted, that two Truths may con­tradict one another; or what is the same, that contradictory Propositions or Doctrines may be both of 'em true; when shall any Proposition (but a mere Nullity) be yielded to be false? see­ing (as I said) Falshood is nothing else, but a Contradiction to what is true. And if Propositions that imply Contra­dictions to one another, may yet both of them be true; they must both be true, while they are also both false: for while they contradict one another, and yet both of them are true; each denies the other to be true.

In short, I intreat Mr. L. to answer; would he believe a Doctrine said to be revealed in Scripture, which Proposi­tion or Doctrine himself judged to be a clear and certain Contradiction? Or if he would, yet are clear and incon­testable Contradictions to be believed, that are not clearly and incontestably re­vealed; but are founded on Authori­ties of very disputable Credit and Veri­ty, and most uncertain Sense; in the Judgment of some of the ablest (Or­thodox) Criticks and Interpreters? And lastly, can a Doctrine, consisting of contradictory Parts, be true? is it Truth, or is it Falshood, that contra­dicts certain Truth?

I would not have Mr. L. to hope, he may elude the first and last of these Questions; by saying: that real Con­tradictions, or Doctrines that consist of Propositions really contradictory, cannot be true; but it may happen, that what shall seem to us, to our cor­rupted and narrow Reason, a Contra­diction, is not so. As for Instance, three eternal Spirits, each (singly, and by himself) a perfect God, and all of them (together) but one God; seems indeed a Contradiction, to our cor­rupted Reason, but is therefore not a real Contradiction, because 'tis reveal­ed in the Word of God.

For, 1. He says, ‘ Three infinite Spi­rits, each of them a God, are all of them but one God: This is no real Contradiction; because 'tis found in Holy Scripture.’ Suppose now, he should also say; ‘ Three finite Spirits, each of them an Angel, are all of them but one Angel.’ Is it not a Contradiction, in what Book soever Mr. L. may pretend to discover it? If this latter is a real Contradiction, so (of necessity) is the former: because the two Propositions, as to the formal Reason of them, are identically the [Page 44] same; they differ only in their Appli­cation. One is falsly affirmed of God; the other, not more falsly, affirmed of an Angel: but the thing that makes them to be false, every one sees, is this; that concerning one and the same Subject, we affirm different Numbers, one and three. 2. Mr. L's only Elusi­on, to so much sound Sense as the Uni­tarians object to him, is; that human Reason is narrow and corrupt: and therefore we must not make it a Judg, of what is revealed in Scripture; but silently adore and believe the Scrip­tures, notwithstanding all the idle Clat­ter made by Reason, concerning Con­tradictions and Impossibilities. I an­swer;

First; If the Question were, con­cerning something that is expresly deli­vered in Holy Scripture; it might be plausibly alledged, that our narrow and (as Mr. L. pretends) corrupted Reason should silently submit, to the Revelation of God, infinitely wise. If it were said in express Terms, ‘There are three eternal infinite Spirits; and tho each of them is a perfect God, yet all of them are but one God; Mr. L. might colourably object the Narrowness of the human Reason, when Men offer'd to reject the express Declaration of God, as if it implied some obvious Contradictions.’ But the case is otherwise; it is this:

‘Some People require us to believe, there are three infinite Spirits, each of them a God, and all of them but one God.’ It seems to us, a Belief contradictory to it self; and inconsistent with the numerical Ʋnity of God, deli­vered every where in Scripture. To the first part of this Exception, that the Belief propounded to us by some that (falsly) call themselves the Church, is contradictory to it self; Mr. L. an­swers: No Matter for that; for the human Reason is narrow and corrupted, and therefore must not be allowed to judg of what God has revealed to us, in his Word. We challenge this An­swer of Mr. L. and others, of mani­fest Impertinence; because it supposes that we pretend to charge with Self-contradiction a Revelation or Decla­ration of God, and that we reason against something delivered expresly in Holy Scripture, which is the Word of God. If Mr. L. could show us the Belief he exacts of us, set down in ex­press Words, in the Word of God; his Answer were just, and to the pur­pose: but seeing it is confessed to be only an Inference, that some Men draw from Scripture, Mr. L. in vain insists on the Narrowness or Corruption of the human Reason, by occasion of our de­nying what is only an Inference from Scripture. I do not think he will say, that the Reason of the Unitarians is narrower or more corrupt than their Neighbours; if not, what Trifling is it, to urge the Narrowness or Corrup­tion of the human Reason: for if Mens Reason, being so narrow and corrupt as Mr. L. pretends, is not to be trusted in judging of, or arguing upon a Divine Revelation; may it not be as fallible in drawing Inferences from Scripture, as in judging the Consistency or the Self-Contradiction of those Inferences? Brief­ly, let Mr. L. show me these Words in Scripture; ‘There are three eternal and infinite Spirits: And again, these Words; three infinite Spirits, each of which is perfect God, yet all of [Page 45] them but one God.’ He will say, he cannot show me these very Words; but there are in Scripture other Words, from whence those Propositions may be rightly inferred: and the human Rea­son is too corrupted and narrow; that it may be set up as a Judg, of what is delivered in the Word of God; whatsoever Contradictions or Self-Contradictions Reason pretends to find in the Doctrines of Scripture, it is too fallible (because 'tis both narrow, and corrupted) to be heard against the infi­nite Wisdom of God, speaking in his Word. We reply; let the human Reason be as corrupted and narrow as Mr. L. and others fancy it to be: yet still it will be as able and fit to judg, of the Consistency, or Self-Contradi­ction, of Doctrines or Propositions not expresly contained in Scripture, but on­ly inferred by Reason, from Scripture; as it is to infer or draw those Proposi­tions or Doctrines from Scripture. If Reason may not be trusted, to judg of Doctrines that are but only Mens In­ferences from Scripture; it can as little be trusted, to frame or draw those In­ferences from Scripture: its Narrow­ness and Corruption must be distrusted, as much in the one case, as in the other. If Mr. L. hopes to set aside the Contra­dictions, that Reason finds in this Creed, there are three infinite Spirits, &c. we claim it as our Right, to set aside that Creed, because 'tis only an Inference drawn from Scripture, by the human Reason, which is altogether corrupted (he saith) and extremely narrow. Does Mr. L. deny, that the Contradictions we find in this Inference which some make from Scripture, ‘There are three infinite Spirits, each of them a perfect God, all of them but one God; are real Contradictions, to the human Reason as we now have it?’ No; but he says, our Reason, because 'tis so narrow and corrupt, is not to be heard against God. Right; but we expect, it may be heard against Men: that is, concerning the Possibility or Consistency of mere Inferences made by Men, from God's Word. In a word; we contend, that the human Reason is as qualified, to judg of Inferences, as to frame them.

We insist upon this, as a full An­swer to this usual Subterfuge; and great, nay only Defence of all our Op­posers: We call every body to wit­ness, that 'tis not only frivolous, but wholly impertinent. When they have declamed never so long, upon the Cor­ruption and Narrowness of the human Reason: if it may not be a Judg of Inferences from Scripture; neither should it presume to make, contrive, or draw any such Inferences. Our Opposers dare not say this latter; therefore neither can they, with Con­sistency to themselves, say the former.

But because this is a famous Topick; I will say something farther upon it.

Secondly; When they infer Doctrines from Scripture, which, by their own Confession, imply manifest Contradicti­ons; that is, seem to our Reason as it now is, to imply manifest Self-Contra­dictions: and these Inferences, when once made, become so sacred with 'em, that they must not be judged of, no not by that human Reason that made 'em. I say, when this is the case; do they not say hereby, that ve­ry Reason is infallible, which in the same Breath they decry as corrupt, nar­row, [Page 46] and uncapable of making a right Judgment? The Doctrines inferred by Reason, from the Word of God, are certain and sacred; they say: but when the (malepert) Unitarian offers to examine the Consistency or Possibi­lity of those Doctrines, which Reason inferred from Scripture; all on the sudden, they surprize us with a con­trary Pretence, that Reason is narrow and corrupt, and therefore has no Right of Suffrage in things of this na­ture; they are above Reason, not to be judged by it. Methinks, there can­not easily be a more apparent Contra­diction, than this very Defence of our Opposers, implies: they give, and take back, in the same Cause and Thing. They exclude Reason, from a bare Suffrage; and yet make it a Judg: they allow it to stamp an infallible and sacred Character, on the Inferences it makes; but will not permit, it should re-examine those very Inferences; or should review its own Acts, to see whe­ther they are consistent, yea or no. Reason, according to them, is all Eye; and at the same time, 'tis Cimmerian, or Egyptian Darkness. When 'tis wire-drawing Doctrines from Scrip­ture, its Deductions are as sacred and certain, as their Divine Original: but it loses all its happy Dexterity and A­bility, so soon as it presumes to re-exa­mine those Deductions, whether they are consistent with themselves; or are truly made.

But this once more. How strangely has the Divine Wisdom dealt with Men, in the Hypothesis of these Gen­tlemen? He requires us in his Word, they say, to believe ‘there are three eternal and infinite Spirits; and that tho each of them is a perfect God, yet all of them are but one God:’ but he has set up in us another Light, even Reason, that shows us the quite contrary; namely, ‘That there can be but one infinite all-perfect Spirit; and that if there were three such Spirits, there would be three Gods, and not one only: that is, he re­quires us, by the written outward Word, to believe; and by the inward Word, to disbelieve: he imploys the Authority of his Revelation, to tell us one thing; and makes Faith impossi­ble, by clearly showing us the contrary by Reason.’ It is a most certain Truth in Heaven, they say; what on Earth seems an over-grown Absurdity; the most dangerous, as well as the flattest and most obvious Contradiction.

I grant, Divine Revelation is infal­lible; and the human Reason some­times fallible, by Accident: as when it makes too much haste, in judging; and when it soars to Objects, that are above it. But it has always been held, that the Veracity of God is concerned in it; that our Faculties should be true, and be able to judg truly of what they distinctly and clearly perceive. And if this be de­nied, the Doctrine of our Opposers is upon no better bottom, not only than ours; but than the most Chimerical Figments, that Fancy or Invention can advance. They can have no degree of Certainty, in the clearest Inferences that Reason at any time makes, either from the Nature, or Revelation of God; and consequently also, not of their Trinity of the three eternal and infinite Spirits: there will always lie this Exception; that the Deductions made, are indeed clear and distinct, [Page 47] but they are concerning Objects, above the human Reason.

Besides, it ought to be consider'd; that how much soever an Object may be above us; yet the things affirmed, or denied concerning it, may lie within the Sphere of Reason; and be as sub­ject to its Cognizance, as any other Matters are. God is infinitely above me; I am infinitely far from knowing all that God is: but if I am taught ei­ther in express Terms, or in Words that imply it, that there are three Gods, and not one only; I can as easi­ly judg of those Words and Expressi­ons, and as certainly, as if they were said of a finite Being. I can as cer­tainly know, that to say three eternal and all-sufficient Spirits, or to say, three Spirits, each of which is a perfect God; amounts to this, or implies this, there are three Gods, and not one on­ly: as I can know, three Angelical Spi­rits, or three human Beings, implies or amounts to this, three Angels, and three Men.

The mere Sublimity of an Object, doth not annul, or so much as weaken the Certainty of those Affirmations or Negations concerning it; that are com­mon to such Object, with other Ob­jects that are the proper and immedi­ate Subjects of Reason. If the Defini­tion of God, even this, an eternal and all-perfect Spirit, is multiplied, by our saying, three eternal all-perfect Spirits: We thereby as truly, and also as plain­ly and certainly multiply Gods; as when we multiply the Definition of the Sun or Earth, or other created and fi­nite Beings, we thereby multiply Suns and Earths. In a word, Propositions that are eternal Verities, are also infi­nite Verities; and are as much a Rule, by which to judg unerringly concern­ing an infinite Object, as concerning a finite.

As for the rest of Monsieur De Lu­zancy's Book, or four Letters: I know not, whether we are concerned in it; till I know more certainly, in what Sense he holds a Trinity of Divine Per­sons, and the Divinity and Satisfaction of our Saviour. He pretends to exa­mine the late Prints of the Unitarians. Those Prints are of two sorts, or have two Parts; one part of 'em contains the Arguments from Holy Scripture, or from Reason, which evince the Ʋni­ty of God, by which we mean, that there is but one all-perfect Spirit: ano­ther part considers the Texts of Scrip­ture, that are objected by some, against the Belief of the Unity of God; or for a Trinity of all-perfect Spirits, that is, a Trinity of Gods. To the Prints, or Parts of Prints, of the first sort; Mr. L. has said nothing at all: What he has said upon the other part of our Books; tho we do not approve of it, yet we might admit (or tolerate) his Interpretations, if we certainly knew (as I said but now) what kind of Trinity he holds, and in what Sense he believes the Divinity and Satisfacti­on of our Saviour. If he directly says, the Meaning of his Interpretations, is; that there are three eternal Minds, three infinite Substances, three all-per­fect Spirits: his Doctrine is condemn­ed in terms, as heretical and impious, by the late Decree of the Heads of Colleges at Oxford; in which Univer­sity, if I mistake not, he was once a Student. And if by the Divinity of our Saviour, he intends; that the se­cond [Page 48] of three infinite Spirits became incarnate in the Humanity of Christ; or that the Divinity was so incarnate, that there followed a real (and not on­ly a nominal) Communication of Idi­oms: it is doubly heretical. For the Catholick Church owns but one infinite Spirit. And for a real Communication of Idioms, whereby God (actually, physically, or properly) became a par­ticular Man, or a particular Man real­ly became God Almighty: 'tis the Eu­tychian Heresy, condemned in so ma­ny General Councils. He is also an Eutychian, if he pretends; that when he finds, or thinks he finds, that our Saviour (in Scripture) is called God, has an Omniscience or Omnipotence, or an Omnipresence attributed to him, or is said to have created or made all things: I say, he would be an Euty­chian, if he pretended to ascribe these things to the Person of our Saviour, in any other Sense but this; to God in him, i. e. to God, who did inhabit after an ineffable manner, in the Humanity of Christ. As to the Satisfaction; if he will have it, that Jesus Christ made an adequate Satisfaction, and therefore (in Equity) not refusable; to the Divine Justice, for the Sins of Men: he were best to consider the Computations of the Bishop of Salisbury, to the contra­ry. For us, we believe, with the Ca­tholick Church; that the Lord Christ did truly satisfy Almighty God, for the Sins of Men; not by paying our Debt, to the Divine Justice, but by his unblemish'd and perfect Life, his willing and exemplary Death; the which, the Mercy of God accepted, on our Behalf, tho it was a refusable Pay­ment.

This, Sir, is what I thought needful to be sent to you; by way of Remarks on Mr. L. his four Letters, which he was pleased to publish, against the U­nitarian Prints. He has written after a civil and obliging manner: I own, that he may claim it as his due; that we be ready upon all occasions, to make to him like Returns. Whether it were his Prudence, or his Candor, or both; he was not (I see) willing to lose the Esteem of his Erudition, and Wit; by a snarling, sordid, and clownish way of Writing; against us. It may be, he consider'd; that Gene­rosity, and Gallantry, in this kind, is not only no Blemish or Hindrance to a Writer, but serves to recommend his Performance to his very Opposers, as well as to his Party and Friends.

Whereas he blames some of our Prints, as deficient in point of Respect to some of our Antagonists; he should first have read the Books, to which those Prints make answer: he would have seen, there was a Provocation gi­ven; that we could not, with any Pru­dence, but take some notice of it. For it cannot escape a Man so discerning as Mr. L. is; that there is a Patience, which is the Vertue of a Christian: and there is also a Patience, which is the Vertue of an Ass.

On the Vindication by the Bp. of Worcester.

AND I have read, Sir, as you also desired, the new Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, by the Bp. of Worcester. I think, what a Man can say of it, who would speak in short, is; ‘He has heartily chode with the Socinians, for the Terms: and has entirely yielded the things, in question; to the Unitarians.’ He is such another Anti-Unitarian, as our Father Wallis is an Anti-Socinian; who made himself famous, for almost a whole Year, for his Vindication of the Atha­nasian Creed, and his Letters and Ser­mons against Socinus and the Socinians: and has been as remarkable ever since, for a Discovery made upon him; that himself is wholly Socinian, in those very Sermons, Letters, and Vindicati­on that he opposed to the Socinians.

'Tis a Mystery this, that Men who give up Dr. Sherlock; nay argue pro­fessedly against him, and his Hypothe­sis of three infinite Substances, three All-perfect Minds and Spirits: 'tis, I say, a Mystery, that they should write Vindications also against us; who are in no other Heresy, as to these Mat­ters, but ‘the Heresy of one infinite Substance, one Eternal, All-perfect Mind and Spirit.’ Perhaps Father Wal­lis's Opposition, was the Effect of weak­ning Age; but his Lordship is not su­perannuated, and he has read our Books, and (particularly) makes di­vers Quotations out of the Discourse concerning the Nominal and Real Tri­nitarians: where our Consent with the Catholick Church, in the Articles of the Trinity, and the Divinity of our Saviour, is declared, and cleared. There was therefore some other reason, why the Catelines fall to work against the Cethegi; and 'tis no hard matter to guess at it, nay to ascertain it. But of that, hereafter.

The Structure of the Vindication, is in the Form and Way of modern Ser­mons, of the present Mode and Cut of the Church; of all others, as some think, the worst. The Speaker openly professes his Method; that he will prove first, then Secondly, Thirdly, then Fourthly, and Fifthly. After this Declaration, comes the Subdivision (or new Divi­sions) of these Firsts, Seconds, Thirds, &c. and Lastly, that well-known, "And now Beloved, First of the First. Men of Wit pretend, it is not Method, but Confusion; for these Firsts, Se­conds, Thirds, having their Subdivi­sions into other Firsts, Seconds, Thirds; and they again (most commonly) into farther Underling-Divisions: about the middle of a Discourse, but especially toward the end of it, the Hearer or Reader is quite lost; he knows not what Second, Third, or Fourth is meant; or on what part of the Sub­ject, the Speaker (or Writer) now is.

But of all Imperfections, Obscurity (when a Doctrine is to be explained, or a Point to be argued) is the most offensive and ungrateful. When a Man enters into most of the Books of the true Unitarians: the Subject is so clear [Page 50] of it self, that it seems, as if one came into a well-furnisht Room, hung round with radiant Lights; which show eve­ry thing in it, very distinctly, and ve­ry agreeably. A Man sees, perfectly, every Object; and with this Advan­tage, that the clear Light about it, shows it more lustrous, and more pleas­ing. But on the other hand, the Books (whether they be Answers, or Attacks) of the Men of superiour Learning and Wit, as his Lordship compliments him­self, and Friends, at p. 45. of his Pre­face; bless me, how like old German Monastries, or Inquisition-Prisons, do they look! such is the Intricacy of the Subject. How dusky, dim, and dark, are the Rooms, and Passages? Between Obscurity, and Ruggedness, a Man cannot forbear, to hug himself; so soon as he is got out: and while he is within, he can discern nothing; or however, not with ease to himself, or Satisfaction in the thing. I cannot but complain, that his Lordship's Vindica­tion, is somewhat of this Nature; for tho it has much of that same superiour Learning and Wit, yet when he argues, or answers, but especially when he ex­plains; I do not take his meaning, under two or three Readings. And when I have strained my Jaws, and ha­zarded my Teeth; to break the Shell: most commonly, it proves nothing but a Shell; that I am tempted, to renounce Nuts for ever.

As to the Contents of his Book, he shows; that neither Antiquity, nor Reason, nor Scripture is at all for us; they are all against us. He has, up and down, some Offers, at an Expli­cation of the Trinity; the which, we throughly approve. We judg him to be as Catholick and Orthodox in that matter, as any of our own number. Tho he has called us as many Names, and imputed as many bad things to us; as Dr. Wallis himself (whether in his Letters, or Vindication) did: he is, for all that, no more our Enemy in Doctrine, than Father Wallis himself is, or than our Brother S—th. Farther, he takes up the Quarrel between Dr. S—th and Dean Sherlock; he shows, that they are both of 'em good Ca­tholicks; the one in Intention, the other in Reality and sober Sadness. 'Tis a very reconcilable Difference, accord­ing to his Lordship; whether it be said (namely, in words only, while the Intent is Orthodox and Catholick) that there are three Divine Persons, who are three eternal Spirits, three All-perfect Minds, three infinite Substances; with so many distinct Understandings, Wills, and Omnipotencies, which is the Do­ctrine of Dean Sherlock: or whether it be said, there are three Divine Per­sons, in the Metaphysical and Critical Sense of the Term Persons, that is, which are but one infinite All-perfect Spirit, with one only Understanding, Will and Omnipotence; one self-same infinite Substance or Essence, with the three Properties, to be of none, to be begotten, and to proceed. I will go over these parts of the Vindication; in the order I have proposed them.

Of Antiquity.

OF Antiquity, we claim in the first place, the vast Period; from A­dam to our Saviour: being a Tract of 4000 Years: That is, two parts in three of all Time. The Patriarchs are ours, the Prophets ours; Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Sem, Abraham, Moses, David, ours; so ours, that they are yielded to us, on all hands: 'tis not so much as pretended, that these believed otherwise than the Unitarians do, con­cerning God. 'Tis an Argument of our Opposers themselves; that ‘if Adam or the Antediluvian Patriarchs bad believed, or known the Trinity (understand here, of the Realists, namely, three Almighty Eternal Spi­rits;) it would have descended to Noah, to Sem, and from Sem to A­braham; from Abraham to Isaac and Jacob, and their Posterity the Jewish Church, especially to Moses. But it appears clearly by Scripture, that Moses, or the Church of the Jews, knew it not; therefore neither did the afore-mentioned Patriarchs, whe­ther Antediluvians or Postdiluvians.’

But Dr. Bull and the Bp. of Worce­ster, fearing that such an Advantage as the whole Old Testament-time on the side of the Ʋnitarians, should furnish them with unanswerable Arguments and Con­siderations, for the Doctrine they main­tain, answer; That tho the Trinity does not appear to have been known to the Patriarchs, or the Jews, by any of the Books of the Old Testament: it is to be remembred, that the Jews had also a Kabbala or Oral Tradition, de­rived to them from Moses and from God; and the Trinity was a part of this Kabbala. Where is Conscience; or is Religion nothing but a Name? Do the Bp. and Dr. Bull, believe the Kabbala; that 'tis derived from Moses, and from God? No more than they believe the Alchoran; that it was given by Angels: as the Impostor, the Author of it, pretends. They contend for the Trinity, and the Kabbala; 'tis certain, that they believe not the latter: how then will they now perswade any Man, that they believe (inwardly) the for­mer? They dare to set up a Fiction of the Pharisees, and which (one cannot imagine but) they believe to be a Fi­ction; as of Divine Original, and as the unwritten Word of God: after such a Prevarication, who shall take their Words for what they pretend to be­lieve, or not to believe? I scorn to ar­gue with 'em, about the Truth of the Kabbala; for which they have nothing to alledg, and the Credit of which is eter­nally overthrown, by the Author of the Answer to Dr. Bull: I shall only mind 'em, that if they are Jews (or rather if they are Pharisees, for the sounder part of the Jews, the Karaites, disclaim the Kabbala) they disown their being Protestants; for 'tis a Fundamental Article of Protestantism, that ‘there is no other Word of God, but only his written Word.’

Well, but supposing the Kabbala; doth it say any thing of a Trinity, or an eternal Son of God? Not the least Word. Why then is it alledged? [Page 52] Because the Chaldee Paraphrases speak of the WORD, as God; and how should those Paraphrases come to know the WORD, or speak of him as God, but out of the Kabbala? But if the Kab­bala has nothing of the Trinity, or the WORD, how should the Paraphra­ses take what they say of the WORD, from the Kabbala? But after all, what is it, that the Paraphrases say of the WORD; do they call him God, or speak of him as a Person? Of the Pla­ces produced by the Bp. at p. 128, 129. not one of them does so much as seem to the purpose, but only the first. They speak, either of the Ten Com­mandments; or of the Law; or of the Command or Order of God to Mo­ses; or of the Power of God, which (in the Books of the Old Testament) is expressed by the Word, or Mandate of God; because God effects whatso­ever he wills, by only willing, com­manding, or saying, that it shall be. But the first Text, alledged by his Lordship, I know not what to say of it; for he quotes Gen. 20.21. when there are but 18 Verses in that whole Chapter; nor is there any thing in the whole Chapter, that bears the least Re­semblance to what he quotes out of it. Therefore so much for Chaldee, and Kabbala; despised by all Learned Men, Jews as well as Christians; and never used, but when the People are to be gull'd, with noisy Nothings.

The next, is the important Period, from our Saviour's beginning to preach, to the taking of Jerusalem by the Ro­mans, under the Conduct of Titus Ve­spasianus. Our Opposers controvert with us, this Period; but seeing the whole History of it, as to the Point in question, is set down in the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, of the New Testa­ment: every Body, that will be sin­cere, may be informed from those Holy Scriptures themselves; whether they teach, that God is a Spirit, or on the contrary, that there are three Infi­nite, Eternal, and All-perfect Spirits?

A little before the Investing of Jeru­salem, by the Roman Army under the leading of Vespasianus; the Jewish Chri­stians were warned by their Prophets, to retire out of Jerusalem, and remove to Pella, and other Parts (of Judea and Galilee) remote from the Seat of War. These Christians of the Jewish Nation were called Nazarens; and the Author of the Answer to Dr. Bull has proved, that they were Ʋnitarians. His Lord­ship is so ingenuous, as to grant it, at p. 12, 13. tho the Concession in the Opinion of Dr. Bull, amounts to an ab­solute yielding the whole Controversy, to the Unitarians: but what should he do; the thing being so incontestably proved in that Answer to Dr. Bull, the Bp. saw, it would be cried out up­on as meer affected Wrangling, not to give way to so clear a Demonstration, as is there made of it. Dr. Bull com­plains to no purpose, that, ‘if the Nazarens were Unitarians, our Cause can be no longer defended: and the Ʋnitaries must be granted to have been the only Guardians, and Con­servators of the true Faith.’ Judic. Eccl. p. 41, 42.

Whereas the Bp. insinuates after­wards, that there were two sorts of Nazarens; viz. the main Body of the Jewish Christians, who (after the Investing of Jerusalem) settled first at Pella, and afterwards dilated all over [Page 53] Palestine, Moab, Arabia, Syria, nay all over Asia; who were all Ʋnitarians: and another lesser Party of them, who after the taking of Jerusalem, by Ve­spasian, were suffered to inhabit Jeru­salem together with the Gentiles, and abode there under 15 successive Bishops, even to the second Siege, and second taking of Jerusalem, by the Emperour Adrian; and these (his Lordship thinks) were not Ʋnitarians. This Di­stinction of two sorts of Nazarens, or Jewish Christians, is a pure Figment; for all the Antients who mention the Jewish Christians or Nazarens, say of them, they were all Unitarians: and that the only difference among them, was; some of them said, Jesus was the Son of Joseph and Mary by Genera­tion, and the Son of God by Holiness and Adoption; others said, he was the Son of Mary only, begotten of her by the Adumbration of the Holy Ghost, or Power of God.

The Alogians were ours; he does not offer to contest it: neither does he deny to us the particular Fathers, claimed by us in the Answer to Dr. Bull; saving that he is willing to ex­cuse Hegesippus, Theodotion, Paul of Samosatum, and Photinus.

We will yield, Hegesippus to his Lordship, when he satisfies the Rea­sons in the Answer to Dr. Bull, page 41, 42. which he will do, when he de­fends his Sermon about Mysteries, against the Exceptions of the Consider­er.

St. Hierom assures us, that Theodo­tion was an Unitarian: his Lordship would fain deny it, on the (mistaken) Authority of Eusebius. He ought to know, that because Theodotion came over from the Pagans to the Jewish Christians; therefore Eusebius calls him a Jewish Proselyte. And this he might have learned, from the Place of Eu­sebius which himself quotes: for 'tis there said, that ‘the Ebionites [a Branch of the Nazarens] following Theodotion and Aquila, contend that Jesus was the Son of Joseph and Mary.’

Photinus and Paul of Samosatum have been always censured by Church-Historians, as undoubted Unitarians. And though his Lordship rightly says, that what they seem to have held con­cerning the Person of our Saviour, is somewhat different from the Belief of the modern Unitarians: it is not to our present Inquiry; which is concern­ing the Trinity, not concerning the Person of our Saviour. That in the Article of the Trinity, Paul and Phe­tinus, were not Unitarians; his Lord­ship will never prove, nor ever at­tempt to prove it.

A great many Bishops assembled (riotously and schismatically) against their Primate Paul of Samosatum, and condemned his Person and Doctrine; tho he was favoured by (the Heroina of that Age) Queen Zenobia; who then ruled in those Parts. His Lord­ship infers from hence; that 'tis not meerly from Fears, Aws and Interest, that the Orthodox have maintained the Doctrine of the Trinity: no, we see, they assembled against and con­demned Paul; in the Dominions of a Princess, who favoured his Doctrine. Granting now that Q. Zenobia favoured Paul; and that Antioch (where Paul was Bishop, and where the Schisma­ticks convened against him,) was under [Page 54] the Authority of Zenobia; which last (be sure) is false, whatever the first is: yet how will this Instance evince, what his Lordship would draw from it? For these Bishops were, not only Schisma­ticks, but Hereticks: they rejected Homo-usios, or that the Divine Persons have the same Substance. If they be­lieved a Trinity, it was not the Trinity of the Orthodox or the Catholick Church: the Council of Nice, and this Conventicle of Schismaticks, were of contrary Minds; the Conventiclers would not admit of Homo-usios, which Paul contended for, the Council of Nice put it into the Creed.

I had almost forgot, that whereas Lucianus, so much celebrated by An­tiquity, is claimed by us; from the Authority of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria: his Lordship alledges, that Cardinal Baronius conjectures, that Alexander mistook the Opinions of Lucianus. But in very deed, what A­lexander says of Lucianus, is too well circumstantiated to be shaken, by the Conjectures of a Person, who lived a­bove 1200 Years after him. For A­lexander not only says, that Lucianus espoused the Cause of Paul of Samosa­tum, against the Schismatical Bishops, who had caballed against him: but farther, that whereas he thought them to be Hereticks, as well as Schismaticks; he separated from the Communion of the Bishop, and his two Successors, that were put into the Chair of Paul, and held also separate Meetings.

But his Lordship urges, that the A­rians in a Council at Antioch Anno 342. produced a Creed; that was contrary to the Doctrine of Paul of Samosatum, and agreed with the Arian Doctrine: and yet the Arians said, this Creed was wholly written by Lucianus. But the Historian quoted by his Lordship, makes doubt whether this Creed was really written by Lucianus: or whether the Arians, to shelter them­selves under the Authority of so great a Man, had not feigned it. To say, as his Lordship does; they would not impute a Creed to Lucian, that was so remarkably contrary to his Doctrine; in a City, where it must needs be well known, what had been the Doctrine of Lucian, and Paul of Samosatum, whom we pretend that Lucian follow­ed: I say, to argue after that manner, is to be unmindful; that Forgers do not bethink them of all the Circum­stances, that may betray their fraudu­lent Dealing; if they did, there would be no Forgeries.

To add no more; his Lordship con­fesses, that D. Petavius and H. Valesius, the exactest Criticks we have in Church History, disapprove the Conjecture and Reasons of Cardinal Baronius; and give up Lucian to the Unitaries.

This is all (that is considerable) that his Lordship has offer'd from Antiqui­ty; I proceed to

Scripture and Reason.

HIS 8th and 10th Chapters are imployed, in opposing (and, as he thinks, in exposing and ridiculing) some Interpretations (of a few Texts) [Page 55] of Scripture, by the Unitarians; and in attacking a few Paragraphs, in Mr. Toland's Book, Christianity not mysteri­ous. I know not what it was to his Lordship's Purpose, to fall upon Mr. Toland's Book. But if he would needs attack the Book; he should have dealt fairly: he should have discussed the main Argument in it, and not carpt only at a few Passages; and those too, so mangled and deformed by his Repre­sentation of them, that I dare to af­firm, Mr. Toland does not know his own Book in the Bishop's Representa­tion of it. I do not perceive, to speak truly, but that the Book still stands in its full Strength; if it hath not also acquired a farther Reputation, by oc­casion of this (so) unsuccessful nibling at it. But suppose the Bishop had dis­armed the Gentleman; what is that to us? do we offer this Book, against the Trinity of the Realists; was it written, with intention to serve us; doth it con­tain any of our Allegations from Rea­son, against the Trinity of Philaponus, Joachim, and Gentitis? We desire him to answer to the Reasons in our Books, against the Trinity of the Tritheists; but to these, he saith not a Word, but only falls upon Mr. Toland's Book: in which, or for which, we are not in the least concerned; nor do I think the (Learned and Ingenious) Author will hold himself to be interested, to defend that Christianity not mysterious, which his Lordship presents us with.

As to his Exceptions against some Interpretations of Scripture, which he finds in some Books of the Unitarians: we should have enough to do, if we went to the Press (to vindicate what has been already so well establisht;) every time that an angry Litigant is in a humour, to write against us. His Lordship had a Mind to shew his supe­riour Learning and Wit; and casting the Dice, to determine what Subject he should choose: up comes the Trinity, and the Books of the Unitarians; upon these, he will gain immortal Honour. We wish him Luck; but not being at lei­sure, to wipe off every small Soil, that may happen to be scattered on our Books, our Opposers may safely (for us) enjoy their Victories. We care not for Proselytes, that have no manner of Sense; and for Persons that have any, we dare trust them with whatsoever Vindications, we have yet seen: we only desire them, to read our Arguments (whether from Reason, or Scripture,) as they stand in our own Books; not as they are disguised in Vindications. The Exempts of the Church, who are discharged from the mean Drudgery of Preaching the Gos­pel; and are concerned only, in the noble Imployment of Commanding: how easy is it for them, to come out now and then, with a magisterial Book; seeing, whether 'tis home to the Purpose or not, is solely at the Buyer's Peril? In short, if his Lordship has baffled the In­terpretations of the Unitarians, against which he has concerned himself, in the Opinion of any Reader: he shall, for me, enjoy his Success; for my part I am enough perswaded, without further arguing the Matter, that he has spent his Breath against a Rock.

His Lordship's Explication of the Trinity.

AFter his Lordship has taken so much Pains, to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity; let us see, what kind of Trinity, he believes and contends for. For Mr. Biddle also wrote a Book for the Trinity: his Lordship's Title bears, A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity; but Mr. Biddle far more spe­ciously and zealously, The Apostolical Opinion of the Holy Trinity asserted. Ay, but his Lordship's Trinity is the Athanasian Trinity; he has a whole Chapter in Vindication and Explicati­on of the Creed of Athanasius. Well, but Father Wallis too published a Book, intituled, An Explication and Vindica­tion of the Creed of Athanasius. They both of them interpret the Athanasian Creed; and then believe it: that is, believe it according to their own Sense of it. And so do we; that is, we be­lieve it, according to the Sense they make of it. But his Lordship believes and contends for that Trinity; which the Unitarians deny, and oppose. I'll give thee my Cap then; what Proof do you make of his believing that Trinity, which we deny? Why, he has wrote two whole Books against you; one concerning the Satisfaction, the other concerning the Trinity. But my Bro­ther S—th also wrote two (bigger) Books; in both which, he blames and quarrels the Unitarians, as abomina­ble Hereticks: and yet we so little think, that we have any real Difference with him, that we intend him an emi­nent Place in the Company of Ʋnitari­ans, at our next General Assembly.

His Lordship has a whole Chapter; 'tis that remarkable Chap. 6. beginning at pag. 68. and ending at p. 101. the longest, or one of the longest, in his Book: to state the Notion of the Tri­nity; and to vindicate it from Contra­dictions. He begins with observing;

1. ‘We must distinguish, between the Being of a thing, and a thing in Being. Or, between Essence, and Existence.’

2. ‘Between the Unity of Nature or Essence, and of Existence or In­dividuals of the same Nature.’

3. ‘Between the Notion of Per­sons, in a finite Substance; and in a Being uncapable of Division, or Se­paration. After he has spoken, first of the first; he comes to say;’

2. ‘We must now distinguish the Unity which belongs to the common Nature, from that which belongs to Individuals in actual Being. And farther, the Unity of Existence may be consider'd:’

(1.) ‘Either, where the Essence and the Existence are the same; as they are in God.’

(2.) ‘Or, where the Existence is contingent, as in Creatures. More­over, the Unity of Existence may be considered;’

1st. ‘Either as to it self; and so it is Identity.’

2dly. ‘Or, as to others; that is, as every one stands divided from every other Individual of the same kind, altho they all partake of the same common Nature or Essence. [Page 57] The clearing of this, he adds, is that main Point; on which, the whole Notion of these Matters, depends: so in order thereto, we must consi­der;’

1. ‘What that is, whereby we per­ceive the Difference of Individuals?’

2. ‘What that is, which really makes two Beings of the same kind to be different from each other?’

(1.) ‘As to the Reason of our Per­ception of the Difference between Individuals of the same kind; it de­pends,’

1st. ‘On the Difference of outward Accidents; Feature, Age, Meen, Ha­bit, &c.’

2dly. ‘On the Difference of inward Qualities; which we may perceive by Observation, and which arise from Constitution, Education, Com­pany, acquired Habits, &c.’

(2.) ‘As to the true Ground of the real Difference, between the Ex­istence of one Individual from the rest; it depends on the separate Ex­istence which it hath from all others. For that which gives it a Being di­stinct from all others, and divided by individual Properties, is the true ground of the Difference between them; and that can be no other but the Will of God.—But we are not yet come, by a good way, to the bottom of the Matter.’ Truly I am sorry for it; for I am half tired alrea­dy; and quite lost, in this Labyrinth of 1, 2, 3; 2, 1. 2; 1, 2, 1, 2, 2: but let's go on, since we needs must. ‘As to Individuals, (so he proceeds, to­wards the bottom) there are these things to be considered.’

1. ‘Actual Existence in it self; which hath a Mode belonging to it. And otherwise the human Nature of Christ, could not have been united to the Divine, but it must have had also the personal Subsistence; and consequently, there must have been two Persons in Christ.’ I suppose, it may be Kabbala; or Chaldee: but Sense it is not.

2. ‘A separate and divided Ex­istence from all others; which arises from the actual Existence, but may be distinguished from it. As the human Nature of Christ, altho it had the Existence proper to Being; yet had not a separate Existence, after the Hypostatical Union.’ Be not abash'd, Sir; the Meaning only is: some things exist separately, others in Union or Composition. But deep Men (as his Lordship somewhere says of his Party) must express themselves deeply; to keep up the Reputation, of what they (falsly) call Learning: for were their Theorems deliver'd in plain Eng­lish, they would be thought to be childish Trifles.

3. ‘The peculiar manner of Sub­sistence, which lies in such Proper­ties, as are incommunicable to any other: and therein consists the pro­per Reason of Personality. Which doth not consist in a mere intelligent Being; but in that peculiar manner of Subsistence in that Being, which can be in no other. For when the common Nature doth subsist in Indi­viduals, there is not only a separate Existence; but something so peculiar to it self, that it can be communi­cated to no other.’ The downright English is this: Tom hath something so peculiar to himself, that tho he is a Man, yet he is not Will or Ned, but only Tom.

4. ‘There is a common Nature, which must be joined with this man­ner [Page 58] of Subsistence, to make a Person; otherwise it would be a mere Mode: but we never conceive a Person, without the Essence in conjunction with it. But here appears no man­ner of Contradiction, in asserting se­veral Persons in the same common Nature.’ In English, thus: Tallness, or Leanness, or such like Modes, do not alone make a Person: there must be some Essence, Nature, or Substance, added to the Mode of Tallness (sup­pose, or Leanness) else mere Tallness will not be a Person. And hence it is clear, as the Sun; that there is no manner of Contradiction, in asserting several Persons, (such as Tallness, Lean­ness, Dulness, when joined to some Es­sence or Substance) in one and the same common Nature: as suppose, of Humanity. We shall consider this poor Elusion, by and by.

5. ‘The Individuals of the same kind are said to differ in Number, from each other; because of their different Accidents, and separate Ex­istence.’ Or, thus; Tom and Ned are two Men, not one Man; because they are several Men, and have seve­ral different Qualities. I think, the Critick might have left out the diffe­rent Qualities: for tho the Qualities of Tom and Ned were the same; yet by only being several Men, they would be two Men, and not one.

6. ‘There must be a Separation in Nature, where there is a Difference of Individuals of the same kind. I do not say, an actual Separation or Division, as to Place; but there is, and must be, in Nature, where one common Nature subsists in several In­dividuals. For all Individuals must divide the Species, and the common Nature unites them.’ Or, Will is not Harry; the human Nature is di­vided in these two Persons; yet they are both of them Men: they are not Camels, nor yet Dromedaries, for they are united in the human Nature, not in the Camel or Dromedary-Nature.

3. This 3dly comes but oddly after 6thly; but let us hear what it is. ‘We are now to inquire, how far these things will hold, as to the Per­sons in the Trinity?’ I shall answer in short; they will not hold at all: and that, for this demonstrative Rea­son; which, the Builder of this intri­cate Labyrinth, hath unhappily over­look'd. These 1, 2, 3; 2, 1, 2; 1, 2, 1, 2, 2; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 3, are so ma­ny Boxes; with each of 'em a Mystery in it: but here is the Misfortune. They speak of such Natures, as have no Ex­istence but only in our Conception; mere abstracted Natures, such as hu­man Nature, Camel-Nature, Angelical Nature, that have not a real Existence, but only an imaginary: for there is really no such existing thing, as hu­man Nature, or Camel-Nature; but they are Notions only of the Mind, framed by our Understandings, while they are imployed in considering where­in (or in what Properties) all Men do agree. They all agree (for instance) in Rationality, and Risibility; and therefore these two have been named by Metaphysicians the human Nature. As the Natures, of which the afore­said Boxes speak, are only abstracted notional and imaginary Natures; not really existing Natures: so (on the contrary) the Persons in them, are not mere Metaphysical Persons, or such re­lative Properties, that several of them do or can subsist in the same rational Being; but they are such Persons as necessarily suppose distinct Substances, [Page 59] as well as distinct Properties. For in­stance, the Properties that make the Personalities of Harry and Charles, re­quire distinct Substances, to make the Persons of Harry and Charles: those Properties, if they existed only in a common Nature, as the Humanity, and had not also distinct Substances; they would never make distinct Persons. In short, the Boxes speak of imaginary Natures or Essences; and of Persons, who are so many real Substances. They will not therefore hold at all in the Question of the Trinity. For the Blessed Trinity is of a just contrary Nature, to the Mysteries in the Boxes. In the Trinity, the Nature is a really existing Nature, 'tis a spiritual Sub­stance, and indued with a great Num­ber of Divine Attributes; not an ab­stracted, or mere notional imaginary Nature: and the Persons are as unlike to the Persons in the Boxes; for the Divine Persons are not distinct Sub­stances, or real Beings; but Properties only in a real Being, and in an infi­nite Substance.

To argue, as his Lordship does; from imaginary Natures, to a real Nature: and from Persons that are distinct Beings, and distinct Substances; to Persons which, he dares not but say, they are only relative Properties in the same (intellectual) Substance and Being. I say, to argue after that fashion, is to shoot as wide of his Mark; as the Natures and Persons, of which he is to discourse, are different: which is no less than infinitely. The Pains therefore he has taken in this long sixth Chapter; which was design­ed for the Strength of his whole Book, are lost: and he has all things to begin anew.

You will say; Have we done then, with our explaining and vindicating the Trinity? No, Sir. When his Lord­ship had wrote his Book; and upon a Review of it, perceived, that he had not sufficiently (no nor tolerably) ex­plained his Notion of the Trinity: nor yet what is meant, either by Persons, or Personalities; which must be ex­plained and distinguished, or we shall dispute about we know not what, and with we know not whom. I say, his Lordship perceiving his Oversight, wrote a Preface of 62 Pages; chiefly to declare himself upon, and to clear these Matters. I will lay together what he hath said, up and down, in his Preface; which I may rightly call, his Book upon second Thoughts.

The Trinity in Unity is ‘ one indi­vidual Substance, under three diffe­rent Modes of Subsistence, p. 13. Or 'tis three peculiar Properties, in one and the same Divine Nature, p. 14.’

But more particularly; as to Perso­nality and Person: ‘A Personality is no more but a different Mode of Sub­sistence, in the same common Na­ture, p. 14.’

‘In created Beings, every Persona­lity doth suppose a distinct Substance. But not from the Nature of Persona­lity, but from the Condition of the Subject (or Substance) in which it is, p. 15.’ But I do not advise him, to explain too particularly the latter part of this Theorem; lest the Realists should turn it into Ridicule: 'tis a ve­ry obnoxious Proposition.

‘But when we come to consider a Divine Essence; there can be no way of Distinction conceived in it, but by different Modes of Subsistence: or (what is the same) relative Pro­perties in the same Divine Essence.’ p. 16.

[Page 60]In short then; a Personality is only a particular Mode of Subsistence; and in the Divine Nature, Essence or Sub­stance, 'tis most properly called a rela­tive Property. For instance: Paternity, or active Generation; Filiation, or pas­sive Generation, or begotten. So much for Madam PERSONALITY, now for Sir PERSON.

‘The Notion of a Person, besides the relative Property, comprizes the Divine Nature, together with it, p. 17.’ And again, in his Book, at p. 119. ‘They agreed in the name Persons, to express their Meaning; which was: That there are three which have distinct Subsistences, and incommunicable Properties; but one and the same Divine Essence.’ You are to wot here, Sir; that by the Di­vine Nature, or Divine Essence, they mean the Deity it self: that is, the Di­vine Substance with its several Attri­butes, Omniscience, Omnipotence, in­finite Justice and Goodness, and the rest. These (namely, the Divine Sub­stance, and Attributes) are called the Divine Nature, or Essence: and be­cause herein are three relative Proper­ties, unbegotten, begotten, a proceed­ing; therefore each of these Proper­ties, when consider'd with the Divine Essence and Attributes, is called a Per­son.

But here his Lordship is in bodily Fear, lest this Explication of the Tri­nity, or three Divine Persons, should be taken for Sabellianism; and there­fore be understood to be an entire yielding the Cause to the Unitarians. The Men from whom he fears this Im­putation, are the Realist Party; chiefly Dr. Cudworth; who saith of this Ex­plication, that it is ‘the Philosophy of Gotham; a nominal Trinity; and three such Persons as cannot be in Nature.’ But see now, how dexte­rously his Lordship comes off.

‘It is not Sabellianism, to teach; that every Divine Person is a Person, as he hath the Divine Nature [Es­sence or Substance] belonging to him. For Sabellianism is the assert­ing such relative Persons, as have no Essence at all.’ p. 18, 19. So that if the Unitarians do but confess, that the three Properties (unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding) which are here called RELATIVE PERSONS, subsist (or are) in the Divine Essence, or Nature; they are not Sabellians, but Catho­licks: they should be Sabellians, if they said, these Properties are in no Essence at all. But I think, they must be called Fools, as well as Sabellians; if they asserted relative Properties, or any Properties that were in no Essence. I perceive, his Lordship and we shall agree. But let us hear also how he goes on.

‘Farthermore it is to be noted, that there is a Communication of the Divine Essence, to each Divine Person, p. 19. For each Divine Per­son has an absolute Nature, distinctly belonging to him; tho not a distinct absolute Nature, p. 9. The eternal Father is, and subsists as a Father; by having a Son, and by communi­cating his Essence to another. The Relation between Father and Son, is founded on that eternal Act; by which the Father communicates his Divine Nature [Essence or Substance] to the Son.’ p. 10. Lastly, he adds, at p. 112. of his Book: ‘The Divine Persons are distinct, as to personal Properties; [he means, the Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Holy Spirit (neither begetting, nor [Page 61] begotten, but) proceeding:] but they are not distinct, as to essential At­tributes: i. e. they have not distinct Omnisciencies, or Omnipotencies; they have but one Intellect, and one Energy.’

You will say, Sir, this last is very sound: that unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding, are distinct Properties, in the Divine Essence; and that there is but one Omniscience, and Omnipo­tence, but one Omniscient and Omni­potent, not three Omniscients or three Omnipotents. But may there not be a Snake in the Grass, in what is said, that there is a Communication of the Divine Essence; and that the Father by an immanent and eternal Act, com­municates his Divine Nature to the Son? By no Means; for you shall hear from the Bishop of Sarum, and the Di­vines of the Schools; nay (for greater Surety and Caution) from Dean Sher­lock, and the Fathers; what that eter­nal Act is, by which the Father com­municates the Divine Essence to the Son, and both of them to the Spirit; as also what is meant by Father, Son, and Spirit: nothing I assure you, that any Unitarian ever questioned; but what we believe, as sincerely, as Bi­shops and Deans do. I pray, Sir, ob­serve; we are inquiring what is the eternal Act, by which the Divine Es­sence is communicated to the Divine Persons: and what those Persons are? Let us first hear Dr. Sherlock, who saith, he hath all the Fathers of his side.

He affirms, 1. ‘It is essential, to an eternal Mind, to know it self; and to love it self. 2. Original Mind, or Wisdom, or Knowledg of it self, and Love of it self, and of its own Image, are distinct Acts; and can never be one Act. 3. These three Acts being so distinct, that they can never be the same, must be three substantial Acts in God; that is, the three (Divine subsisting) Persons. 4. These then are the true and pro­per Characters of the distinct Per­sons in the Trinity; the Father is Original Mind or Wisdom. The Son is the reflex Knowledg of himself, [namely, of Original Mind] or the perfect Image of his own Wisdom: that is, of the Wisdom of Original Mind. The Holy Spirit is that Di­vine Love, which Father and Son have for each other.—All Men who know the Fathers, know that this is their constant Language.’ Vindic. of the Trin. p. 130. To make this Testi­mony the more considerable, the Au­thor intimates in the last Paragraph but one of his Preface; that in writing this Book, he must thankfully own, he was divinely assisted. If you will not take the Word of Dr. Sherlock, and the constant Language of the Fathers; then hear the Bishop of Sarum, with all the School-Divines, and the universal Church. ‘They conceived, that the primary Act of the Divine Essence, is its Wisdom; this they thought might be called the Son, as being the Generation of eternal Mind. From this Fountain-Principle, eternal Mind, and the inward WORD, or Logos, or Wisdom; a Love did issue forth, which was to be the Soul of the Creation, and more particularly of the Church.—This was rested on, and became the universally-re­ceived Explication of the Trinity; and was dressed up by the Schools with a great deal of dark Nicety.’ Discourse to Clergy, p. 99.

Now, Sir, lay your hand on your Heart; and answer, like a true Unita­rian. [Page 62] Do you your self, or know you any of the Denomination, that question this Trinity; the Trinity, our very Opposers say, of the Schools, the Fa­thers, and the universal Church. Name­ly, 1. One Divine Nature, Essence, or Substance; with one only Omni­science and Omnipotence: and conse­quently, with one only Intellect, and Power of Action. 2. Three Properties, called (by the Bp. of Worcester) RE­LATIVE PERSONS, viz. Ʋn­begotten eternal Mind, Reflex or begot­ten Knowledg or Wisdom, and Divine Love proceeding from both. This, from themselves, is what they mean by Persons, in the Trinity; and Commu­nication of the Divine Nature without Division or Separation, by immanent and Eternal Acts.

I confess, I fear much; that were Dr. Cudworth alive, that great Divine and Philosopher, would either reason, or laugh us out of this Gibberish: he would constrain us, to return to the Language of Scripture, about these Matters. And it is most true, that these Terms are not to be found, either in Holy Scripture; or in the Creeds, or (received) General Councils, of the Catholick Church. They were first advanced by some particular Fathers, especially St. Austin in his 15 Books de Trinitate; were taken up (from them) by the Divines of the Schools, that is, of the middle Ages; and have been confirmed by the constant Use of the Moderns, or Divines of the two last Ages. We declare openly, and therein consists our whole Heresy, that we like 'em not; not only as they are unscriptural, which (in matter of Faith) is a most just Exception for divers very weighty Reasons; but because by their dange­rous Ambiguity, they give occasion to Heresy; not only among the People, but even among Learned Men. These are the Terms that have occasioned the Heresy of the Realists, or Tritheists; maintained at this time, by divers Learned Men among us. Yet for Peace sake, we admit the Terms; interpret­ed in the known Sense of the Church: which Sense, we acknowledg, the Bps. of Worcester, and Sarum, Dr. S—th, and the Oxford-Heads, have (as we have seen already) rightly understood, and (especially Dr. S—th, in his La­tin Letters, under the Name of a Trans­marine Divine) dextrously declared. I may pass, I think, to the last thing to be considered.

The Conciliation of Dr. S—th and Dean Sherlock.

DR. Sherlock, in his Books against the Unitarians, had taken this for his Ground and Foundation; that the three Divine Persons are three eternal infinite Spi­rits, each of them a God: but the three Gods are made up again into one God, by being internally conscious to one anothers Thoughts, and Operations.

Dr. S—th, in two (English) Books, by him written, and in three Latin Letters, excepts against this Explication of the Tri­nity; as false, heretical, and directly intro­ducing three Gods. He saith, as we do; that the Deity is one numerical individual Nature, Substance, Mind, Spirit; with one only Understanding, Will, and Energy. As to the Divine Persons, they are the one individual Nature or Essence of God, with three Relative Properties: each Property consider'd with the Divine Essence, is called a Person. What these Properties and Per­sons are, hath been said already.

The Bp. of Worcester, seeing in what dan­ger an old Friend is, undertakes; first, to [Page 63] excuse Dr. Sherlock, from the Imputation of Heresy: and then, to reconcile him to Dr. S—th and the Nominals. He inlarges himself, on these three Points.

1. That Dr. Sherlock's Explication, not only will do no manner of Service, to­wards clearing the Difficulties in the Do­ctrine of the Trinity; but that ‘it intro­duces a specifick Divine Nature: which is inconsistent with the Divine Perfections.’ Pref. p. 29.

He adds, at p. 30. ‘'Tis impossible to conceive, that the same individual Sub­stance should be in three Persons; as the Catholick Church teaches: if those Persons have peculiar Substances, of their own; as Dr. Sherlock affirms and contends.’ Imme­diately he cites an excellent Reasoning of Maimonides, by which to know, when Men affirm three Gods; and concludes, that Dr. Sherlock's Explication differs not from what Maimonides proves to be an introdu­cing more Gods, p. 30. He forbears not to own, at p. 31. that he thinks it ‘impossi­ble to reconcile (Dr. Sherlock's) three in­dividual Essences or Substances, with (the Catholick Churches) one individual Divine Essence: and that the former looks too like asserting three Gods, and yet but one.’

2. But now, how to save his Friend, from the secular Arm? He says, in short; Dr. Sherlock holds the Article of the Trinity, and only mistakes in the Explication of it: but it is not Heresy, he saith, when a Man assents to a Fundamental Article; and only mistakes in the Explication, Interpretation, or Sense of it. Pref. p. 22, 23.

But I fear, our Brother S—th. is too quick-sighted, to let this pass; he will as­suredly say: that an Article, whether fundamental or not fundamental, and the Explication or Sense of such Article, are the very same thing; and that an Article falsly interpreted or explained, is by no means the Article, but a Contradiction to the Arti­cle. He will certainly laugh out, that his Antagonists can be no way excused from He­resy; but by giving up, at once, the whole Doctrine of the Catholick Church. For the Doctrine of the Church, is most certainly yielded up, if once it be granted; that a Man believes her Articles, while he ex­pounds or takes them in a wrong Sense of them. At this rate, will he say, Philopo­nus, Joachim, and Gentilis, were good Ca­tholicks: for what makes a Catholick, is not holding the Article in the true Meaning of it; but in any Meaning, in a false Meaning, or a contrary Meaning. I shall leave Dr. S—th, to argue it out with the Bp. and pass to the next.

3. He alledges, last of all; that tho Dr. Sherlock affirms three individual Essences, three eternal Minds, three infinite Spirits; which is Heresy: yet he also says, ‘the Father communicated his Divine Na­ture or Essence, wholly and intirely, to the Son and Spirit, without Division or Separation; which is Orthodoxy.’ We ought therefore to say, Dr. Sherlock has only con­tradicted himself, but is not a Heretick: He holds what indeed is Heresy, three Substances, three Minds, and three Spirits; but he holds also the Truth, one individual Substance, one Deity. His Lordship touches upon this, di­vers times; as well in his Book, as in his Preface: nay he is so satisfied with it, that at p. 107. he cannot (he saith) now see; what is the difference, between Dr. S—th and his Nominals, and Dr. Sherlock and the Realists.

The short of this Defence, is; that if one part of a Contradiction is true and orthodox, the other false and heretical: the Person af­firming it, shall be denominated, not from his Heresy; but from the orthodox Part of his Contradiction. For my part, I very readily agree, to this (charitable) way, of bringing off the Dr. but then, let the Charity be truly Catholick; let us extend it to others, as well as to him; and else it is not Charity, but Par­tiality. A Motley of Heresy and Orthodoxy, his Lordship says, is to be named a parte po­tiori; from the sound part, without reckning at all of the unsound: but then, I pray, let Philoponus, Joachim, and Gentilis, be judg­ed by the same Law. For they said, as the Doctor does; three infinite Substances, three eternal Minds and Spirits: and they asserted also, as he does, one Deity, one Essence, and one Substance, by the mutual Inexistence [Page 64] of the Persons; the Subordination of the second, and third, to the first; and the con­currence of all of them to the Making and Government of the World; while Dr. Sher­lock resolves the whole Unity of the Deity, and of the Divine Substance, into only the mutual Consciousness of the three Personal Gods. And this, not only in all his former Books; but in his last Pamphlet, or the Di­stinction between Nominal and Real Trinitari­ans examined, in Answer to the Disinterested: A Book so monstrously erroneous, that if it escapes all other hands; I think verily his Second against the Jesuit Sabrand, would take up Arms against him; the Foot-boy would detect, and expose, his gross Hete­rodoxies.

We have heard his Lordship's way of end­ing all Controversies, concerning the Bles­sed Trinity; that is to say, among Friends, Persons of the same Church and Commu­nion: namely, if they will but say, what all have always said, even Arius, Philoponus, Dr. Sherlock and Socinus; that there is but one Deity, and one Divine Substance: let 'em contradict this, as much as they will, provi­ded they do not (absolutely, and in Terms) renounce it; they shall be Catholicks. Dr. Pain, in his Letter to my Lord the Bp. of R. has much the same Salvo. For af­ter he had said ( Postscr. p. 25.) that God or the Trinity is an Original Eternal Mind; with an Eternal Logos (Wisdom) or Sub­stantial Ennoia or Knowledg; and an Eternal Divine Spirit proceeding from both: He concludes ( p. 26.) that ‘whosoever believes this Trinity, whether with or without Explications, whether with right or with wrong Explications; he is undoubtedly Orthodox.’ And at p. 11. he commends the wise Bishops of the Roman Church; who, tho they have Plenitude of Ecclesiasti­cal Authority, suffer the Jesuits and other Learned Men, to vent their different Senti­ments in these high Questions: ‘without interposing, much less censuring either Party; so long as they subscribe, and con­sent to the general Doctrine of the Church.’ They allow their Writers to say, there are three Gods, in a Personal Sense; or three Per­sonal Gods: and to profess, three Eternals, and three Omnipotents. But then he saith, this Favour is extended, only to Friends, to one another; to Sons of the Church: for if Men of another Communion, make the least Trip in explaining what is above all Explication, nay is incomprehensible and unintelligible; immediately they shall be charged with Blasphemy, and Atheism. He (not obscurely) intimates; that the like Christian Charity, Love, and good Will, (so he speaks p. 13.) should be used among Pro­testants, especially among Clergy-men, who are of the same Faith. If our Friend S—th accords to this, so will we: for we are of the same Faith with the English Church, for the Church of England never believed or taught three Eternal All-perfect Minds and Spirits; the denial of which, is the only Heresy of which we are guilty: we submit to all other Explications of the Trinity, tho (as we have said) we utterly dislike some Words and Ways of expressing them.

His Lordship has also reprinted his Book, concerning the Satisfaction; with a new Pre­face, to it. What he hath affirmed there, concerning that Point; more than has been granted, and assented to, in these (and 20 more publick) Papers; is not the Doctrine, either of the Catholick Church, or of the Church of England: 'tis only the (unautho­rised) Opinion and Fancy, of particular Writers; who are as various about those Mat­ters, as they are about most others.

My Conclusion, Sir; seeing we have been so roughly, as well as unjustly, treated by these Antagonists; shall be only to your self: That I am,