THE ACTS OF Great Athanasius WITH NOTES, By way of Illustration, On his CREED; And Observations on the Learned Vindication of the Trinity and Incarnation, by Dr. WILLIAM SHERLOCK.  
Printed in the Year, MDCXC.   

The Acts of Great Athanasius, &c.  
THOu shalt have no other Gods but Me, saith God himself, in the words of the First Commandment: and again by the Prophet, Hosea 13.4. Thou shalt know no God but Me. The same Plain Truth is as expressly delivered in the New Testament; Mark 12.32. There is One God, and there is none other but He. 1 Cor. 8.4. There is none other God but One. Gal. 3.20. God is One. This therefore is the Scripture-Proposition, that there is no other God but One; or that God is One. But to this some novelists have opposed a contrary Proposition, that there is more than One, who is God; or that God is Three. There is, say they, a Father, his Son, and a Holy Spirit, distinct from both, each of which is God, and a God.  
Now since the first of these Propositions has been judged by God himself to be so important, and so necessary to be believed and professed; that He has made it the very first of his Commandments to Men, and since the other is inconsistent with it, and contradictory to it: We must have as clear a Commandment and Revelation from God, to believe and profess the second( which is to suppose, that God can make contrary Revelations, concerning an unchangeable Truth) as 'tis evident we once had for the first. And we the rather demand this, because those whom the novelists have superadded to the One true God, are in holy Scriptures as plainly denied to be Gods, or God, as the Father is affirmed to be that one true God: Mark 10.18. Why callest thou me Good( saith our Lord Christ) there is none Good save One, that is God. Ephes. 4.4, 5, 6. There is one Spirit,— one Hope, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all. In the first of these Texts, the Lord Christ denieth himself to be God; in the other, the one Spirit and the one Lord, being without doubt the Holy Ghost or Spirit, and the Lord Christ; and they being here distinguished from, and opposed to the One God, 'tis evident they are as much denied to be the One God, as the one Hope, one Faith, or one Baptism are denied to be that one God.  
The truth is, the holy Scriptures are so copious and plain in this matter, that the more learned Trinitarians confess, that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not founded on the Scriptures, but on the Tradition of the Church; so say all the catholic Doctors. Some of them have not scrupled to own, that this Doctrine is contrary to Reason; and that such as have pretended to prove it by Scripture, suo artificio vincuntur, are beaten at their own Weapon, by their Adversaries the Unitarians; so saith D. Petavius, the most learned Writer of the most learned Order.  
Dr. Serlock, tho a Protestant, is not willing that this Question about the Unity of God, should be decided by the Scriptures only, but extols the Doctrine of the Trinity, as the Traditionary Faith of the Church, p. 31. He scornfully, calls the Scripture( p. 29.) the Note-maker's infallible and complete Rule of Faith, which also he repeats more than once; intimating thereby( for, what else can he mean?) that 'tis not Dr. Sherlock's Rule of Faith, at least not a complete and infallible Rule, in his Opinion. At p. 151. he first puts this case; suppose that the natural Construction of the words of Scripture import such a sense, as is contrary to some evident Principle of Reason? Then he resolves his irreverent Supposition in these words, Then I won't believe the Scripture. Neither did this drop from him unawares; for he goes on there in these farther words, How! not believe Scripture? No, no, I will believe no pretended Revelation, which contradicts the plain Dictates of Reason, in which all Mankind agree. But all or very near all Mankind hath more than once agreed in Idolatry and Polytheism: it seems the Vindicator, had he lived in those times, would not have believed the Scripture, against the agreed sense of Mankind, but would have departed from the one true God, to Idols and more Gods. The Socinians are of a contrary mind. Hath the Holy Scripture, that is, hath God said it? They will believe, tho all Men and Angels contradict it: They will always prefer the infinite Wisdom of God, before the infallible Dictates of human, or angelic Reason: Rom. 3.4. Let God be true, and every Man a Liar. 1. Cor. 1.25. The Foolishness of God is wiser than Men.  
Well, but tho the Scriptures are not, by their own Confession, so favourable to them, as to their Adversaries the Socinians; yet I hope they are civil, and do not expressly deny the Scriptures: No, but what is next to it, they elude the plainest Texts by scholastic and Metaphysical subtleties; and then framing their Creeds out of these last, they absolutely refuse a Subscription to the Scriptures, and require Men to subscribe and swear to their Creeds, that are contrary to the first Commandment of Scripture, and to the Apostles Creed.  
The most famous of their Creeds, is that of Athanasius. I will first say something of the Man, and then subjoin the Notes that have been made on his Creed by another hand.  
Athanasius his first Preferment was Deacon to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria; which, as the Discipline of the Church then was, is as much as now to say the Bishop's Man. Accordingly he waited on his Master to the Nicene Council, which assembled to judge of the Questions between Arius and the said Alexander. In this Council, Athanasius sometimes interposing, was noted to talk both so impertinently and so erroneously, that the Council thought fit to check him, and censure his Heterodoxy.  
When the Council was ended, Alexander returned to Alexandria, where he died in the Year 326. The See of Alexandria, the second in the World for Authority and Riches, being thus vacant, there was a long Contention by several Competitors, for the Succession; and the People were so wearied with expectation, that at length a part of the Rabble cried up Athanasius, and he and they getting into the Church of St. Dionysius, forced two Bishops there and then( being the Night-time) to ordain him Bishop of the Patriarchal See of Alexandria.  
The Bishops of Egypt, who were convened on this occasion to Alexandria, and without whose approbation, no Election to the Patriarchal or Metropolitan See was valid, by the Canons and Customs immemorial of the catholic Church; the Bishops( I say) of Egypt, not only disapproved this Election and Ordination, but immediately anathematized Athanasius. But Athanasius, and his Homoousians were too crafty for the honest and legal Party. For they presently dispatched a Messenger and Letter to the Emperor Constantine, in which they notify to him the Election of Athanasius by the Alexandrians, and pray his Majesty's Ratification thereof. Constantine knowing nothing of Athanasius, and thinking the Letter to be written by consent and direction of such as had the Right of Election; approved by his Letters again the Election of Athanasius by the Alexandrians, and orders him to be owned Bishop and Patriarch of Alexandria. Athanasius immediately presents the Imperial Letters to the Vice-Roy or governor of Egypt, and especially to his Opposers, who durst now make no further words of the matter. Thus, as was said of one of the Popes, Intravit ut Vulpes. But how did he govern? Why, he out-did the rest of that Pope's Character, Regnavit at lo.  
First; He procured the governor to force the People to hear him, and to communicate with him. He put several of the Alexandrian Clergy into Prison, and even into Irons. He beat some of the Egyptian Bishops with his Fists; he came into the Churches of others, where he broken the Altar and Communion-Cup, burnt the common Bible and( finally) demolished the Church itself. He deposed some Bishops, and put into their room Persons who had been degraded for their flagitious Lives by his Predecessors. He conspired with one Philumenus against the Emperor, and consulted how to stop the yearly Fleet of Corn from Egypt, on which the Armies and Constantinople depended. He committed Fornication, and that with a Nun. These and abundance the like, and greater Enormities, provoked at length the Bishops of Egypt to writ to Eusebius, Arch-bishop of Nicomedia, to apply the Remedy provided by the Canons, a Council of Bishops.  
Hereupon a Council was called at Cesaria, and the forementioned Crimes were sworn against Athanasius by the Clergy of Alexandria, and Bishops of Egypt: the Names of some of the Bishops were these, Eusion, Eudemon, Callinicus, Is●hyras, Eupsus, Pachomius, Isaac, Achilles, Hermeon, Adamantius, Arbathion, Annubion, Peter, Theodorus. The Council summoned Athanasius to appear, and to answer concerning the manner of his Election, and to the objected Irregularities: but he, knowing his Guilt, thanked them for their Love, and stayed at home. Therefore the Council petitioned Constantine to command Athanasius to appear and answer: Constantine sends forthwith his Letters Mandatory to Athanasius, to present himself to the Council, which he appointed to be held at Tyre the next Year, being the Year after 335.  
At Tyre Athanasius appeared, and brought with him some Bishops of the Homo-ousian Faction: He denied all that had been objected to him, and hired a Whore to accuse Eusebius, President of the Council, of Fornication with her: But Eusebius entrapped and convinced her in such manner, as Dr. Sherlock( out of the Lives of Dr. Cave) has ascribed to Athanasius, at p. 31. of his Vindication. So many Accusations were daily brought into the Council against Athanasius; that the Fathers thought fit to search into the very bottom of Athanasius his Matters; and therefore sent a Deputation of six Bishops into Egypt, to inform themselves by sight, and from the mouth of all Persons concerned about the Election and whole Carriage of Athanasius. These came back loaded with such and so many Accusations, charged by Oath on Athanasius; that the Council for the Honour of the Christian Name, and to purge the Church of such a Scandal, first synodically declared his Election and Ordination voided; and then ordered, that he should no longer live at Alexandria to infect the place.  
What should a lost Man do? His desperate Case admits of nothing but a desperate Remedy; and however that happen to succeed, he cannot be worse of it than he is: Therefore Athanasius takes Post for Constantinople, applies himself to some great Courtiers of the Homo-ousian Faction, and by them represents to the Emperor, that the Council of Tyre was wholly Arian; that they had believed all things against him, merely out of hatred to him for his Zeal to the Nicere Faith; that therefore it was reasonable his Cause should be heard by some other judge or Judges.  
Constantine willing to do Justice, and desirous also to find Athanasius innocent, because himself was an Homo-ousian, calls the Cause to his own hearing, summons the Witnesses on both sides, and begins the whole Cause anew, being assisted by a Council of Bishops whom he called to Constantinople. But both He and the Council having heard the Accusers, and the Defence made by Athanasius and his Friends, he not only approved the Sentence of the Council of Tyre, but banished Athanasius to Treves in Germany. It was thought it should seem, he could do least hurt in this City; he being a Greek, and the City Latin and German, distant from Alexandria more than two thousand Miles, and the utmost Border of the Roman Empire on the barbarous Nations.  
From this time forward, Constantine became an Unitarian; for having discovered so much Wickedness in the chief Asserter of the Nicene Faith; he began more strictly to examine the Reasons of that Faith, and finding them invalid, and that all Antiquity was on the other side, before he died he made Profession of the Unitarian Doctrine, and was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, Principal of the Unitarians. The Death and Baptism of Great Constantine happened in the Year 337. As for Eusebius, he also was by Church-men called the Great, for his Piety, Miracles, and such a sweetness and dexterity in Business, that he lived and died Chief Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs, to the Emperors Constantine and Constantius. In the Person of this Eusebius ceased the Power of Miracles in the Christian Church. There was at the same time another Eusebius, an Unitarian also, Arch-Bishop of Cesaria, he is called the Learned Eusebius, and is Author of the celebrated Ecclesiastical History, and other Works. Cujus erudito nomini& olim& body assurgit totus pene Orbis literarius, saith the late, Author of the Historia Literaria Scriptorum Eccles. p. 129. But to return from these admirable Men, to the no less admirable Athanasius.  
Constantine the Great was succeeded by his three Sons, Constantine, Constans, and Constantius: Constantine had for his share France, Spain and Great britain; Constans had Italy, Sicily and Africa: Constantius had Asia, Egypt, Greece, and part of Illyricum. Of these Constantine and Constans, in the West, were Homo-ousians; Constantius in the East was an Unitarian. I said the two first were Homo-ousians, I use that term, because there was yet no such thing as a Trinitarian, the Divinity of the Holy Ghost not being yet believed by any. Upon the Death of great Constantine, all banished Men( by the accustomend Clemency of new Princes) were permitted to return to their Homes; therefore Athanasius also returned to Alexandria. But he behaved himself so much worse than ever, that the Alexandrians wrote to Constantius, humbly and most earnestly petitioning, that Athanasius might be either put to death, or banished. Upon this Constantius called a Council at Antioch, in the Year 341, at which were present 99 Bishops; these again deprived Athanasius, and substituted in his room Gregorius.  
Athanasius fled to Rome to Pope Julius, who being a great Asserter of the Nicene Faith, wrote to the Bishops of the East, that Athanasius might return to his Episcopal Charge at Alexandria. The Eastern Bishops therefore convened to Antioch, and return Answer, That they are very sorry Juliu● should take part with Murderers, Demolishers of Churches, Corrupters of holy Virgins, Robbers of the Church-plate, inventors of unscriptural Words and Forms in matters of Faith, Traitors to the Emperor, and to their Native Country; they said the whole East was witness of these things, and therefore desire Julius not to transgress the Canons of the Church, by receiving or favouring such Persons.  
In the mean time the Homo-ousian Brothers, Constantine and Constans fall out; Constantine was vanquished and killed, and Constans immediately seized his part of the Empire, and added it to his own: so now Constans was Emperor of the whole West, and Constantius of the East. Athanasius applied himself to Constans, tells him, that he had suffered so much and so long for the Nicene Faith, that all the rest was Calumny intented by Adversaries, and believed in the Councils because the Fathers were Arians; and therefore preys that he may be restored to his See and Authority. Constans upon this writes to his Brother Constantius, that a Council might be held at Sardica in Illyricum, that should consist of the Bishops both of the East and West. Accordingly a Council is called there, Anno 347. The Western Bishops arrived first, and knowing the mind of Constans, took Athanasius, and all other deposed and excommunicated Bishops into Council with them, and even communicated also with them, contrary to the Canons of the Universal Church. Therefore when the Eastern Bishops arrived, before they would enter into the Sessions place, they desire of the Westerns, that Athanasius and other condemned Persons might withdraw, and not sit in Council as Judges, or as having right of Suffrage, till they should be legally and juridically restored. But the Western Bishops having committed a fault, resolved to stand in it; and accordingly answer, That they knew no fault by Athanasius and the rest, and therefore would not remove them from their Session. The Easterns replied, that then the Eastern Bishops would hold a Council by themselves, and admonish the Westerns:  
1. That it was contrary to Canon and Custom, that an Eastern Bishop( as Athanasius confessedly was) should be judged by any but the Easterns.  
2. That it was strange they should know no fault by Athanasius, whom all the World knew to stand deprived by the Councils of Tyre, Constantinople and Antioch, and by Great Constantine.  
3. That Athanasius would not have dared to appeal from these Sentences, but that his Person and the proofs of his Crimes were unknown to the Western Bishops, and many of his principal Accusers either so far distant in place, that they could not be called, or after so long time( twelve Years) wholly withdrawn by Death. Notwithstanding,  
4. They offered, that a Deputation of Western and Eastern Bishops should be sent into Egypt, to examine all matters afresh. And whereas six Bishops had been formerly deputed by the Tyrian Council, and had brought back the Testimonies and Evidences of the Crimes charged on Athanasius, five of these Bishops( the sixth being dead) offered to be condemned and deprived, without appealing either to the Emperor or to a Council, if the new deputed Bishops( that should be appointed by the Western as well as the Eastern Bishops, and should consist of both) did not confirm the whole Charge formerly brought out of Egypt, and on which Athanasius was condemned by Great Constantine, and by the Tyrian and Constantinopolian Councils.  
But the Western Bishops knew the mind of their Emperor Constans, and therefore refused this, and all other Offers; nay, they proceeded so far, as to procure a menacing Letter from Constans to the Eastern Bishops, to terrify them into compliance with him, and with the Westerns. But the Letter had no effect upon them.  
For the Eastern Bishops assembled in Council in a place by themselves, and protested against the Western Conventicle, as made up( for the most part) of Persons uncapable of Session or Vote in Council: afterwards they declared Julius of Rome, Paulus of Constantinople, Athanasius of Alexandria, Hosius of Cordub●, excommunicate and deposed, and wrote an Encyclical Letter of all their Decrees, to all Bishops and Churches. The Proceedings of the Eastern Bishops, and their Offers and Reasons had been so fair and clear, that all Men were satisfied with them; and therefore all the Churches everywhere owned the Eastern Bishops to be the true and only Council of Sardica. Even St. Austin does more than once profess, that he knew no other Council of Sardica, but that of the Arians: For he was( it should seem) ashamed to call that Convention of Western Bishops( who had observed no Conciliary Method, and had trampled upon all the Canons) a Council.  
For all this, the Western Bishops went on in their design, or rather the design of their Emperor Constans, which was, to pick a Quarrel with his Brother Constantius. They restored all the deposed and excommunicated Bishops, and chiefly Athanasius; and made those famous Decrees and Canons, on which all Learned Men know, that the Supremary of the Bishops of Rome is solely founded, and which from that time forward the Bishops of Rome have ever practised. So that at the same time, these Fathers restored Athanasius, and set up Anti-Christ. I challenge Dr. Sherlock in his next, to deny( if he can) that the Popes Supremacy was first decreed and ordained, by this Sardican Conventicle of Western Bishops, that restored Athanasius, and consequently, that Popery and Athanasianism were introduced at the same time, and by the same Persons.  
This Conventicle having done what their Master required of them, Constans not long after wrote this complimental Brotherly Letter to Constantius.  
AThanasius has proved, that the bishopric of Alexandria belongeth of right to him: Therefore let him be by you restored, or I will restore him by Arms.  
Constantius being at that time inagaged with the Persians, judged it not for the safety of his Empire, to have to do at the same time with them, and with his Brother; and therefore agreed, that Athanasius should return to Alexandria. The next Year( being the Year after Christ 350,) God raised up an Enemy to Constans; for Magnentius slay him, and possessed himself of the Western Empire. But Anno 353, the Emperor Constantius, in revenge of his Brother, fought and overcame Magnentius, and made himself absolute Lord both of the East and West Empires. The same Year a Council was held at Arles, in which Athanasius was again condemned. And in the Year 355, the Council of Milan, consisting of 300 Bishops, did also condemn Athanasius and his few Adherents. So Athanasius fled from Alexandria, and St. George is appointed by the Council to succeed him.  
This is that St. George, the Honorary Saint of England, whose Anniversary Day is here kept on April 23; some of our late Kings have chosen to be crwoned on his Day. The sovereign and Knights of the most noble Order of the Garter, are from him called Knights of Sr. George. Many honourable Families of this and other Nations, are surnamed from him. His Memory is yet so famous over all the East, that the very Turks do honour to him, as an Hero and a Saint, by the Name of Gerges. He died a Martyr under the Reign of Julian the Apostate.  
George was born a Gentleman, and was in his younger Years a soldier; and having been a very brave Officer, was in time of Peace advanced to be Treasurer of the Imperial Exchequer at Constantinople. He is commonly pictured on Horse-back, armed and fighting with a Dragon in defence of a Virgin Lady; because when he was a Tribune or Colonel, he had rescued a Maiden Lady from a Dragon, with his Spear and Sword. But some turn this part of St. George's Story into a Moral, and say, this Victory was obtained by George in his old Age. The Dragon( say they) was Athanasius, and the Virgin was the Church of Alexandria, which he by his Eloquence, Learning and Piety defended from the venomous and mortal Breath and Corruptions of Athanasius.  
But however that be, 'tis certain our George applied himself very hard to his Study, after he was made Treasurer of the Exchequer; and gained the Reputation of the most learned of all Men of his time, in the Trinitatian Questions. When therefore he came to Alexandria, sent by the Council of Milan; he was received with so much Honour and Respect, that the Emperor Constantius was extremely pleased, and wrote a Letter to the Alexandrians, in which he calls, their Bishop, the most Venerable George, a Man( saith he) the most skilful of all Mortals in these Questios. In whom the noble Alexandrians may conside, as in a Sacred Anchor. Then the Emperor thanks them for deserting( they are the very words of his Letter) that Impostor, and Conjurer Athanasius, and for adhering to holy George. He assures them, he should think himself in a fault, if he did not exceed their Founder, Great Alexander, in Kindness to and Esteem of their Royal City, and their Persons. But to resume the History of Athanasius and his Doctrine.  
In the Year 357, a General Council was called at Syrmium; here Hosius( who had been President of the Nicene Council, and of the Sardican Conventicle) and the other Fathers who had composed the Nicene Council, and that were Authors of the Nicene Creed, did now make a contrary Creed; in which they forbid all mention of Homo-ousios, and declare that the Son had a Beginning, and was inferior to the Father in Godhead, Power, and all other respects.  
In the Year 359, all the Bishops of the World assembled to the Council of Ariminum. And whereas it had been hitherto said by some, that the Son is Homo-ousios, i.e. of like and equal Nature and Substance with the Father: by others that he is Homoi-ousios, i.e. tho not of equal, yet of like Nature and Substance with the Father, because he has a spiritual, and in some sense a Divine Nature; the Council at Ariminum did not think fit that the Son should be at all compared with God, nor yet mere and common Creatures, and therefore rejected both Homo-ousios, and Homoi-ousios, and required that it be only said, The Son is not a Creature like unto other Creatures. This was the very Doctrine of Arius, and seems to have been taken out of his Writings; for in his Letter to Alexander, he saith of the Son, He is a perfect Creature of God, but not like any of the rest. And again, Made, but not like other things that are made.  
But the Reader will say, This is a Tale of Athanasius, so every way contrary to that of Dr. Sherlock in his Vindication; that of necessity one of them is not only false, but a wilful Forgery, at least in the first Authors; and 'tis not obvious, how an unlearned Man should judge with any certainty, which of them is true, and which false. I answer; A Judicious Person may fully satisfy himself without being at the trouble of a laborious Search. For,  
1. The Offer of the Eastern Bishops at Sardica, while the Emperor Constans was yet alive, That a new Deputation of Bishops should be sent into Egypt, and if they found that the Depositions brought to the Tyrian and Constantinopolitan Councils were in any particular false, that then the five surviving Bishops would be deposed without appeal●ng to caesar, or to a Council. This Offer, I say, was such, as did then satisfy all honest and considering Men, and in all Ages to come will satisfy all such. It also demonstrates the falsehood of what Dr. Sherlock, from his Legendary Authors, says, That at the Council of Milan, Constantius drew his Sword, and scared the Fathers into compliance. For what need that, when the Evidence against Athanasius was so undeniable, that Constans and the Conventicle of Sardica durst not suffer the Cause to be re-examined, or permit a Deputation of Bishops to be sent into Egypt, but acquitted Athanasius without any Trial, only because the Emperor Constans wanted a Quarrel with his Brother Constantius?  
2. Who that considers at all, can give Credit to one or two partial Historians of the Nicene Faction, and who lived an Age after Athanasius and all these Councils, against Constantine the Great, a Prince the most just and honourable that( perhaps) ever managed the Roman Empire, and an Homo-ousian( by Confession of all Parties) at what time he condemned Athanasius, an banished him to Treves; also against so many and great Councils of learned and holy Bishops, in some of which Councils the President and all the Nicene Fathers were present and consented: Lastly, against Historians that were contemporary to Athanasius and to these Councils? Dr. Sherlock's Calumny, that the Fathers at Ariminum were in a manner starved into Compliance, is so false; that all the ancient Historians, of both Parties, witness, that the Emperor not only bore the whole Charges of all the Bishops to and from the Council, but also allowed to each of them a very honourable salary, during all the time of their being there. But the Nicene Faith being given up at Ariminum, by the Nicene Fathers themselves, it was necessary for the Men of that persuasion in after-Ages, to device something to ward off so great a Blow, as the Authority of the greatest Council that ever was; a Council consisting of all the Bishops of the whole World.  
3. Whereas this is the Question between Dr. Sherlock and the Author of the brief Notes, Whether or no Athanasius was as vicious in his Life, and his Doctrine as erroneous, as is pretended in the brief Notes; and whether the before-mentioned Councils did freely so judge? I say, this being the Question, Dr. Sherlock because he cannot deny the matter of Fact, that Athanasius was often condemned by these Councils, and that his and the Nicene Doctrine was not only rejected, but a contrary Doctrine advanced, therefore he pretends that the Fathers in these Councils were for the most part good, honest, catholic Bishops, and only awed into Compliance by the Emperor Constantius. To this I say therefore, let the Doctor take his Option, either Athanasius was thought as guilty, and his Doctrine freely judged as erroneous, as the Author of the brief Notes has said; or all Dr. Sherlock's good, honest catholic Bishops were a pack of the greatest Villains in nature, in condemning a Person whom they believed to be most innocent, and a Doctrine which they held to be fundamental and necessary to Salvation. In a word, the Doctor must either give up his dear Athanasius, or the Bishops of the whole World, whom he pretends to have been catholic.  
But this shall suffice concerning Athanasius, and the counteance which he and his Doctrine found in the catholic Church of that Age, in answer to the fair Tale Dr. Sherlock has  told in his Vindication, out of that accurate and faithful Historian Dr. Cave. Let us now consider the Creed, that they have imposed on us by the name of St. Athanasius his Creed.   

Brief Notes on the Creed of St. Athanasius.  
Crreed. WHosoever will be saved, before all things, 'tis necessary that he hold the catholic Faith.  
Notes. A Good Life is of absolute necessity to Salvation; but a Right Belief in these Points that have been always controverted in the Churches of God, is in no degree Necessary, much less Necessary before all things. He that leads a profane or vicious Life, sins against a plain acknowledged Rule, and the express unquestioend Words and Letter of the Divine Law, and the Dictates of Natural Conscience; He wilfully refuses to advert to these Monitors, and therefore can no ways palliate or excuse his Wickedness. But he that errs in a Question of Faith, after having used reasonable Diligence to be rightly informed, is in no fault at all; his Error is pure Ignorance. Not a culpable Ignorance; for how can it be culpable, not to know that, of which a Man is ignorant after a diligent and impartial Inquiry?  
Creed. Which Faith except a Man keep Whole and Undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.  
Notes. By keeping this Faith Whole and Undefiled, must be meant( if any thing be meant) that a Man must believe and profess it, without Adding to it, or Taking from it. If we take ought from it, we do not keep it Whole; if we add any thing to it, we do not keep it Undefiled: and either way we shall perish everlastingly.  
First, for Adding. What if an honest plain Man, because He is a Christian and a Protestant, should adds this Article to the Creed? I believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, to be a Divine, an Infallible and complete Rule, both for Faith and Manners. I hope no Protestant would think a Man shall be damned for such Addition: And if so, then this Creed of Athanasius is at least an Unnecessary Rule of Faith.  
Then for taking ought from this Creed; the whole Greek Church( diffused through so many Provinces▪) rejects, as Heretical, that Period of it, The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son: contending that the Holy Spirit is from the Father only. Which also they demonstratively prove, as we shall see in its proper place. As for the Menace here of Athanasius, that they shall perish Everlastingly; they laugh at it, and say, He was drunk when he made this Creed. Gennad. Shol. A. Bp. of Constantinople.  
Creed. And the catholic Faith is this.  
Notes. catholic Faith, is as much as to say in plain English, the Faith of the whole Church. Now in what Age was this which here follows, the Faith of the whole Church? Not in the Age of Athanasius himself; who for this Faith, and for Seditious Practices, was banished from Alexandria in Egypt( where he was Bishop) no less than four times; whereof the first was by Constantine the Great. He was also condemned in his own Life-time by six Councils, as an Heretic, and Seditious Person: Of these Councils, that at Milan consisted of 300 Bishops; and that of Ariminum of 550, the greatest Convention of Bishops that ever was.  
For the times Before and After, the curious Reader may see Chr. Sandius his Ecclesiastical History: in which the Learned Author gives a large account, by what and whose means the Athanasian and Trinitarian Faith did at length prevail, against the Ancient Belief of but One God, or but One who is God. Therefore quae●e, With what Forehead the Author of this Creed, calls this, the catholic Faith? when 'tis certain it has been so in no Age, and least of all in the( pretended) Author's.  
Creed. The catholic Faith is this, That we worship One God in Trinity; and Trinity in Unity.  
Notes. He means here, that we must so worship the One true God, as to remember He is Three Persons; and so worship the Three Persons, as to bear in Mind that they are but one Substance, or Godhead, or God. So the Author explains himself in the next Articles, which are these;  
Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance; for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost: But the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one. Therefore all these Articles make indeed but one Article, which is this; The One true God is Three distinct Persons; and Three distinct Persons( Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) are the One true God.  
Plainly, as if a Man should say, Peter, James, and John, being Three Persons, are One Man; and One Man is these Three distinct Persons, Peter, James, and John. Is it not now a Ridiculous Attempt, as well as a Barbarous Indignity, to go about thus to make Asses of all Mankind, under pretence of teaching them a Creed, and things Divine, to despoil them of their Reason, the Image of God, and the Character of our Nature: But let us, in two words, examine the parts of this Monstrous Proposition, as 'tis laid down in the Creed itself.  
Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.  
But how can we not confounded the Persons, that have( they say) but One numerical Substance? And how can we but divide the Substance, which we find in Three distinct divided Persons?  
There is one Substance of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost.  
Then the Son is not the Father, nor is the Father the Son, nor the Holy Ghost either of them. I shall not need to prove this Consequence, not only because 'tis evident, but because 'tis acknowledged by the Trinitarians. But if the Father is not the Son, and yet is( by confession of All) the One true God; then the Son is not the One true God, because He is not the Father; the reason is self-evident; for how can the Son be the One true God, if he is not He who is the One true God? After the same manner it may be proved, that( on the Athanasian Principles) neither the Father nor Holy Spirit are, or can be God, or the One true God; for neither of them is the Son, who is the One true God according to Athanasius, and all Trinitarians: For they all say, the Father is the One true God, the Son is the One true God, the Holy Ghost is the One true God: Which is a threefold Contradiction, because there is but One true God, and one of these Persons is not the other. But if it be a Contradiction, 'tis certainly false; for every Contradiction being made up of Inconsistencies, destroys itself, and is its own Confutation.  
Creed. The Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all One; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.  
Notes. The meaning of the last Clause is, That the Glory and Majesty of the Son and Holy Spirit, is equal to the Glory and Majesty of the Father; or the Son and Holy Spirit are equally Glorious and Majestical with God the Father.  
Therefore I ask, Whether the Glory and Majesty, with which the Son and Spirit are Glorious and Majestical, be the same in Number( that is, they very same) with which the Father is Glorious and Majestical; or only the same for Kind and Degree? If it be not the same in Number, then the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, is not( as this Creed teaches) all One; and they are not one and the same God: for two Infinite and Distinct Glories and Majesties, make two Gods, and three make three Gods; as every one sees, and( to say true) the Trinitarians themselves confess. It remains therefore that, they say, the Glory and Majesty of the Son and Spirit, is the same in Number, or Numerically the same, and not for Kind and Degree only, with that of the Father: but then it follows, that the Glory and Majesty of these Persons is neither Equal nor Coeternal. Not Equal, for 'tis the same, which Equals never are: nor Coeternal, for this also plainly intimates that they are Distinct; for how Coeternal, if not Distinct? Do we say, a thing is Coeternal or Contemporary with itself? Therefore this Article doth also impugn and destroy itself. Besides, if the Glory and Majesty of the Three Persons be numerically the same, then so are all their other Attributes; from whence it follows, that there is no real Difference between the Three Persons; and that they are only three several Names of God; which is the Heresy of the Sabellians.  
In the next place this Creed teaches, that The Father is Incomprehensible, Uncreate, Eternal, Almighty; the Son is Incomprehensible, Uncreate, Eternal, Almighty; the Holy Ghost is Incomprehensible, Uncreate, Eternal, Almighty: Also that each of these Persons by himself is God and Lord; so that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God: yet there are not Three Gods or Lords, nor Three Incomprehensibles, nor Three Almighties, nor Three Eternals or Uncreated.  
Now if in imitation of this, a Man should have a mind to say; The Father is a Person, the Son is a Person, and the Holy Ghost is a Person, yet there are not Three Persons, but one Person. I would know, why this were not as good Grammar and arithmetic; as when Athanasius says, the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God; yet not Three Gods, but one God: or when he says, the Father Uncreated, the Son Uncreated, the Holy Ghost Uncreated, yet not Three Uncreated, but one Uncreated. And so of the rest.  
Doth not a Man contradict himself when the Term or Terms in his Negation, are the same with those in his Affirmation? If not, then it may be true, that the Father is a Person, the Son is a Person, the Holy Ghost is a Person; yet there are not Three Persons, but one Person: For all the fault here is only this, that in the last Clause the Term Person is denied to belong to more than One, when in the first it had been affirmed of no fewer than Three. For the same reason, it must be a Contradiction to say, The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God, yet there are not three Gods, but one God: for the Term God is at last denied to belong to more than One, tho in the first it was affirmed of Three. Will they say, that in these words, there are not Three Gods, but One God? the Term God is not denied to belong to more than One, or is not appropriated to One. If so, then there are not Three Persons, but One Person; and again, there are not Three Men, but One Man: Then( I say) these Propositions do not deny the Terms Person and Man to belong to more than One, or appropriate them to One only; which yet every Body confesses they do.  
But here is an Arithmetical, as well as Grammatical Contradiction. For in saying, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; yet not Three Gods, but One God: A Man first distinctly numbers Three Gods; and then in summing them up, brutishly says, not Three Gods, but One God.  
To these things, it will perhaps be answered, That when we say, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; or thus, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God: the Term God is used Personally: but when 'tis said, There are not Three Gods, but One God: the Term God is used Essentially, and therefore comprehends the whole Three Persons: so that there is neither a Grammatical, nor Arithmetical Contradiction. But this Remedy is worse( if possible) than the Disease: for it owns that there are Three Personal Gods, though there is but one Essential God; and that otherways the Propositions of which we are speaking, would imply all the aforesaid Contradictions. This Remedy, I say, is worse than the Disease. For, 1. Three Personal Gods, and one Essential God, make Four Gods; if the Essential God be not the same with the Personal Gods: and tho he is the same, yet since they are not the same with one another, but distinct, it follows, that there are Three Gods, that is, Three Personal Gods. 2. It introduces two sorts of True Gods; Three Personal, and One Essential. But the Christian Religion knows and owns but One True and most High God, of any sort. And I would know of the Trinitarians, whether they dare say in express words, There are two sorts of True Gods?  
Creed. For like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity, to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord, &c.  
Notes. By the Christian Verity, I suppose are meant, the Sacred Books which contain the Christian Religion, that is, the Books of the Old and New Testaments. But do these Books, and does that Verity compel●us to the acknowledgement of Three Persons, each of which is by himself supreme God and Lord, and yet all of them but One God? Doth, I say, the Holy Scripture compel us to this Contradictory acknowledgement? Is there any Text alleged from Scripture, which all the Unitarians, and some or other of the most learned Trinitarians, do not easily interpret in such sense, that the Unity of God is preserved; and no more than one Person( even the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ) acknowledged to be God? See the History of the Unitarians. But if there is no Text of Scripture, but what is in the Opinion of some or other of their own Learned Men, fairly capable of a sense contrary to the Faith delivered in this Creed: then we are not compelled to acknowledge this Faith. And the truth is, the Contest between the Unitarians and Trinitarians is not, as is commonly thought, a Clash of Reason with Scripture: but it layeth here, Whether, when the Holy Scriptures may be understood as teaching only One God, or but One who is God, which agrees with the rest of Scripture, and with Natural Reason; we must notwithstanding, prefer an Interpretation of it which is absurd, and contrary to itself, to Reason, and to the rest of Scripture, such as the Trinitarian Interpretation( expressed in this Creed) appears to be? In a word, the Question only is, Whether we ought to interpret Holy Scripture when it speaks of God, according to Reason, nor not; that is, like Fools, or like Wise Men?  
Creed. The Son is of the Father alone, not Made, nor Created, but Begotten.  
Notes. Here, and in the next Period, Athanasius is got into his Altitudes, or Profandities, which you will. Here 'tis that the Ignorant think, they are taught the Inmost Secrets of Theological knowledge: but High and Low are no more contrary, than the things which are here affirmed as Equal Truths.  
If the Creed-maker had spoken here of the Generation of the Son by the Divine Power on the Virgin Mary, it would have been true, that, the Son is neither Made, nor Created, but Begotten: but then the first part of the Article would be false, that the Son is of the Father alone; for He that has a Father, and a Mother, is of Both. But since He speaks of the( pretended) Eternal Generation, the latter part of the Article is false, and inconsistent with the first part of it. Every Novice in Grammar, and proper speaking, knows, that Begotten, when 'tis distinguished from Made and Created, always supposes two Parents, a Mother as well as a Father: 'tis therefore a Contradiction to say, the Son is of the Father alone, not Made, nor Created, but Begotten; for if he is Begotten, he cannot be of the Father alone; and if He is of the Father alone, He is not Begotten, but either Made, or Created.  
Creed. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither Made, nor Created, nor Begotten, but Proceeding.  
Notes. The first fault here is, that the Holy Ghost is said to proceed from the Father, and from the Son. To which Heresy the Greek Church have ever opposed those clear words, John 15.26. When the Comforter is come, whom I will sand unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of me.  
Secondly, He saith here, that the Holy Ghost is not Begotten, but Proceeding: He adds shortly after, that He who will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity: Therefore surely Begotten and Proceeding differ very much, and very clearly; else 'tis an harsh Sentence, that we shall be damned if we do not conceive, besides all other unconceivable Mysteries of this Creed, that the Holy Ghost is not Begotten, but Proceeds. Yet after all, 'tis confessed by the most Learned Trinitarians, that Begotten, and Proceeding, differ nothing at all; for they acknowledge that it is rightly said, The Son proceeds from the Father, and that the Holy Ghost is generated of Both; directly contrary to this Creed. It follows, that Athanasius has damned the whole World, for not distinguishing where no Distinction can be made, at least with any certainty. And perhaps this Damning Humour of his, has justly provoked some to writ him, not S. Athanasius, but( drawing the S a little nearer) Sathanasius.  
Creed. So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; One Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts.  
Notes. In consistence with what goes before, He should have said, Two Fathers; Two Sons; and Three Holy Ghosts, or Spirits. For the Second Person is the Son of the First, and the Third proceeds( which is nothing else but is generated) from the First and Second, which makes Two Fathers, and Two Sons; and all Three of them are Holy Spirits; for the Father is an Holy Spirit, and so is the Son, no less than the Third Person. But this is not the first time in this Creed, that Athanasius has discovered He could not count.  
Creed. In this Trinity, none is Afore, or After other; none is Greater, or Loss than another.  
Notes. Yet the Son himself saith, John 14.28. My Father is greater than I. And for the other Clause, None is Afore or After other; 'tis just as true as that there is no difference at all between Afore and After. I ask, Whether the Son doth not, as He is a Son, derive both Life and Godhead from the Father? All Trinitarians grant, He does; grounding themselves on the Nicene Creed, which expressly calls the Son, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; Begotten, not Made. But if the Father gave to the Son Life and Godhead; He must have both before he could communicate or give either of them to the Son, and consequently was Afore the Son was. No Effect is so early as its Cause; for if it were, it should not have needed, nor had that for its Cause. No Proposition in Euclid is more certain or evident than this.  
Creed. The right Faith is, That we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and Man.  
Notes. Then the Lord Christ is Two Persons. For as He is God, He is the second Person of the( pretended) Trinity: and as He is Man( a perfect Man, as this Creed afterwards speaks) He is also a Person: for a Rational Soul, vitally united to an Human Body, is a Person, if there be any such thing as Person upon Earth; nay, 'tis the only thing upon Earth that is a Person. Let the Athanasians therefore either say, that the Lord Christ is two Persons; which is the Heresy of Nestorius, condemned in a General Council: Or, that He is not a Man, contrary to 1 Tim. 2.5. There is One God, and One Mediator between God and Man, the Man Jesus Christ: Or, that He is not God, which is the Truth.  
Creed. Who, altho He be God and Man; yet He is not two, but one Christ. One, not by Conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God: One, not by Confusion of Substance, but by Unity of Person.  
Notes. But because these words, One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God; and again, One, not by Confusion of Substance, but Unity of Person; cannot readily be understood by themselves: the Creed-maker explains them in this following Article; For as the Reasonable Soul and Flesh is one Man; so God and Man is one Christ: That is, as a Soul united vitally to a Body, maketh one Person, called Man, without confounding the two Substances of Soul and Body; for the Soul remaineth what it was, and so also does the Body: So God the Son being united to a Reasonable Soul and Body, doth, together with them, make one Person, called Christ, without confounding the Substances of the Divinity or Humanity; for the Divinity remains, without the least Change, what it was, and and so doth the Humanity, or Reasonable Soul and Body. This is the only Offer at Sense, that is to be found in this whole Creed; but so far from explicating, that it farther perplexes the difficulty of the( pretended) Incarnation; as will appear by these two Considerations.  
1. In the Personal Union of a Soul with a Body, the Union is between two Finite Things: but in the( pretended) Personal Union of God to Man, and Man to God, the Union is between Finite and Infinite: which( on the Principles of the Trinitarians) is impossible. For we must either suppose, that Finite and Infinite are Commensurate, that is, Equal; which every one knows is false: or that the Finite is united but to some part of the Infinite, and is disjoined from the rest; which all Trinitarians deny and abhor.  
You will say, If they admit neither of these, how do they show the Possibility of the Incarnation, or Union of God to Man? They tell you, God indeed is Infinite, and every Reasonable Soul and Body( even that of Christ) is Finite; yet the whole God and whole Man are united; because, As the whole Eternity of God doth coexist to a moment of Time; so the whole Immensity of God is in every Mathematical Point of Space. The very Truth is, they cannot otherways defend the Incarnation, or Personal Union of an Infinite God to a Finite Man: but withal it must be owned, that then the Doctrines of the Trininty and Incarnation do infer, imply, and suppose all the Contradictions, that Mr. Johnson has objected to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, in that little Golden Tract, so deservedly esteemed by All. His whole Book and all his Demonstrations are founded on these two Suppositions, that a longer time doth not all of it coexist to a shorter; nor is a greater Extension constipated or contained in a less, much less in a Mathematical Point. Therefore all his Book, and all that he hath so well said and argued in the Preface concerning the Authority and Judicature of Reason in Matters of Religion, equally and effectually destroys the Doctrines of the Trinity and Transubstantiation. If the Reader would have an excellent Book, let him procure that. But Oh! were the Press as free for the Unitarians as 'tis for other Protestants; how easily would they make it appear, that the Follies and Contradictions so justly charged on Transubstantiation, are neither for Number, Consequence, nor Clearness, any way comparable to those implied in the Athanasian Creed; and that the Trinity hath the same, and no other Foundation with Transubstantiation; so that we must of necessary admit both or neither. If the Church is to interpret Scripture for us, we must admit both; but if Reason, we can admit neither, and this( I think) the Trinitarians will not deny.  
But secondly, In the( pretended) Incarnation or Union of God with Man, the Union cannot be Personal, as 'tis between the Soul and Body; it cannot, I mean, be such an Union as to make but one Person. The Union of the Soul and Body may be properly Personal, that is, may constitute or make one Person; because 'tis not the Union of two Persons, but only of one Person( the Soul) to a thing otherways without Life, Reason, Memory, or Free-will. The Body is but as it were the Garment of the Soul, and is wholly acted by it, and depending on it. But in the( pretended) Union of God with Man, there are two distinct and very different Lives, Reasons, Memories and Freewills: which utterly destroys a Personal Union; for that supposes but one Life, one Reason, one Memory, one Free-will: for if these things which constitute a Person, are found more than once, there is no longer one Person, but two, and consequently no Personal Union in the sense of which we are speaking.  
Creed. This is the catholic Faith; which except a Man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.  
Notes. By Believing, Athanasius doth not mean bart Believing, but he includeth also therein Profession: for he saith a little before, The right Faith is, that we Believe and Confess, &c. So that a Man cannot be saved, unless he Believes and Professes as this Creed directs him.  
First, For Believing. What if a Man cannot believe it? Are we obliged under the Penalty of the loss of Salvation, to believe it, whether we can or no? Doth God require of any Man an Impossible Condition, in order to Salvation?  
Secondly, As for Professing under pain of Damnation. What if it be against a Man's Conscience to profess it? The Scripture saith, Whatsoever is not of Faith, is Sin: if therefore a Man professes against his Conscience, he sins; and if notwithstanding this, a Man must either profess, or be damned, then God requires some Men to sin in order to their Salvation: but this we are sure is false, and therefore that the Menace in the Article is vain.  
And now I appeal to all Men, that have any freedom of judgement remaining; Whether this Creed is fit to be retained in any Christian, much less Protestant and Reformed Church? Since it subverts the Foundations, not only of Christianity, but of all Religion; that is to say, of Reason and Revelation: there being no Principle in Reason and Scripture more evident, than that God is One; or that there is one Almighty, only-Wise and Good Person, or Father of all. If we cannot be sure of this, then Religion and Christianity are built upon Fancy only, and have no solid Foundation.  
This Creed may be professed by the Roman Political Church; because it gives countenance to their Absurd Transubstantiation, and Cunning Traditions added to Scripture; as those Doctrines do to the gaining of Veneration, and consequently Dominion and Riches to their Clergy: But in a Reformed Church, where the Scripture is held to be a complete Rule of Faith and Manners; and also to be Clear and Plain in all things necessary to Salvation, even to the meanest Understanding, that reads it or hears it with Sobriety and Attention; such a Confession of Faith is( I think) intolerable, as being utterly inconsistent with those Principles, and reducing us back to the Roman Bondage.  
Besides, Nothing has been or is more scandalous to Jews and Mahometans, than this Creed, the chief Article of whose Religion it is, that there is one onely God. The Evidence of which Principle is such in Nature, as well as Scripture, that it has propagated Mahometism among greater Numbers, than at this Day own Christianity: For the sake of that one Truth, so many Nations have swallowed all the Errors and Follies of the Alchoran, or Book of Mahomet; as on the other Hand, Christianity has been rejected and detested among them, on the account of the Vulgar Christians Three Persons, who are severally and each of them God.  
But the Mischiefs of this Creed do not stay here, it is leveled not only against the true Faith, but is also destructive of that Love and Charity, which is the Spirit and Life of Christianity; and without which, Faith is but a Lifeless Body. For as if it would effectually inspire all its Believers with a Spirit of Judging, Damning, and Uncharitableness; it pronounces the Sentence of Eternal Damnation, in the Beginning, Middle and Conclusion, upon all that do not both Believe and Profess this Faith, and keep it Whole and Undefiled; that is, upon the whole Greek Church, and other Churches in the East; and upon at least five parts of six of all that profess Christianity in the World, whose Understandings cannot possibly reach to the Sense and Coherence, which some pretend to find in this Creed.  
Thus the Christian Religion is destroyed, in both the Essential Parts of it, Faith and Love. Hence have proceeded many and endless Controversies and Wars among Christians: and at length the more Fierce and Violent, the more Deceitful and Sophistical Part, have attained a Tyrannical Domination over their Opposers; and have introduced and settled, a Christianity shall I call it, or, a Superstition, or a Polity, quiter contrary to the Doctrine and practise of our Blessed Lord, and his Apostles?   

THE Notes upon the Creed of Athanasius have been already printed by themselves, and were received and approved by several Learned Men, both of London and in the Country. Dr. Sherlock has thought fit to oppose to them a large Book, in which at Pag. 142. he saith, My Undertaking is to vindicate the Athanasian Creed, and the Doctrine of a Trinity in Unity.  
Yet in this Vindication, he hath given up to his Adversary, all the ancient Defences of this Creed and of the Trinity; on which his Predecessors in this Controversy were wont to insist; and has advanced in their room, an Hypothesis or Explication, never so much as name or heard of before. He pretends to salue by these two words, Self-consciousness and Mutual-consciousness, all the Difficulties of this Great Mystery; so sufficiently and evidently, that the Notion of a Trinity in Unity, is now( He saith) as clear and easy, as that of but One God. But this is too much for any Man to take on his bare word, or without carefully examining what He has said.  

1. Concerning the Divine Substance, Nature, or Essence: for in this Question these are Equivalent Terms, both with the Vindicator, and with the Author of the Notes.  
2. How doth he describe the Three Persons; and how is each Person one with itself; and how are they distinguished each from other.  
3. How are they united with one another; and how do they All make one God.   

First; Concerning the Divine Substance, or Essence, or Nature.  
In his Discourses concerning the Divine Substance, or Essence; the Vindicator seems sometimes to be a perfect Hobbist, to deny all Spiritual and Immaterial Substance; or that there is any other Substance but Matter, or Body.  
He saith( for example) at Pag. 69. We can frame no Idea of Substance, but what we have from Matter. When we conceive of God as a Substance( he saith there) We find it impossible to conceive, how there should be Three Divine Persons, without Three distinct Infinite Substances.— A Person and an Intelligent Substance are Reciprocal Terms; and therefore Three distinct Persons, are three distinct Numerical Substances; and one Numerical Substance, is but one Numerical Person. He says, that these are all Carnal Reasonings, which arise from our conceiving of God as a Substance; of which we can have no Idea, but what is Material. He concludes in the same place, and often elsewhere, We must not seek for any other Substance in God, but Infinite Power, Wisdom and Goodness. But as if he had been a little too liberal in that, he says, at P. 72. Wisdom and Truth are the true Nature and Essence( or Substance) of God. He often exhorts his Reader, particularly at P. 70. To set aside all these Material Images of Essence and Substance; and to contemplate God as Eternal Truth and Wisdom, and then the Notion of God is very plain and easy. He adds, at P. 138. That which has confounded this Mystery( of the Trinity) has been the vain Endeavour of reducing it to Terms of Art, such as Nature, Essence, Substance, Subsistence, Person, Hypostasis, and the like.  
He presumes to say, at P. 139. The Fathers nicely distinguished between Hypostasis or Person, and Nature, or Essence, or Substance; saying, that there are Three Persons, and but one Nature or Essence, or Substance. but then, when Men curiously examined the signification of these words, they found, that upon some account or other, they were unapplicable to this Mystery. For what is the Substance and Nature of God? How ca● Three distinct Persons have but one Numerical Substance? What is the distinction between Essen●● and Personality?  
Now I ask, Is this to vindicate the Athanasian Creed, as the Doctor undertook to do; or to slight and overthrow it? The chief Business of the Athanasian Creed, is to distinguish between the Substance and Persons in God, to show that the Persons are Three, and the Substance but One. The Vindicator could not have more effectually given up the catholic Doctrine to the Note-maker, than by thus frequently denying, there is any real Divine Substance at all,( which is more than his Adversary required, and than he will accept) and by saying, Men have unduly used these Terms by their applying them to God. The pretence of the Brief Notes is no other, but what the Vindicator( we have seen) often grants: that there is no difference between Substance and Person in God; and that therefore Three Divine Persons and One Divine Substance, is a senseless Contradiction.  
But then 'tis as senseless to deny the Divine Substance, and to reduce the whole Notion of God to Wisdom and Truth; for these are properties that cannot subsist, but in some Substance. Nor do I think, that the Trinitarians will for go their old Explications, by Persons and Substance; for the Doctor's new Wind-mills of Self-consciousness and Mutual-consciousness. They will certainly abide by the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, which suppose a Real Divine Substance, in which do subsist Three Divine Persons. It will be always Heresy with them, to deny Homo-ousios, or that Christ is of Like and Equal Substance with the father.  
I must not dismiss the Consideration of the Vindicator's Doctrine, about the Divine Substance, without noting, that his Contradictions to himself, are as frequent as his Heterodoxies. For tho he has spoken so often, so expressly, and so much, against Substance and Persons in God: yet when the Metaphysical Humour is upon him, he talks of these as of most Certain and Real Things. He says at P. 47. The Three Persons are Three Real Substantial Beings. And again, The Three Persons are sabstantially distinct. Now this is to say, the Three Persons are Three distinct Substances: for that is the only possible meaning of, Three Real Substantial Beings, substantially distinct. Thus God at last is not only a Substance, but he is Three Real distinct Substances. This was the Heresy of Valentinus gentiles, that the Three Persons are Trees Spiritus substantiali numero differences. I wish the Vindicator better Success with his Doctrine, than Valentinus met at Geneva and barn. But the most pleasant of all is, that after the Vindicator had there said, The Three Divine Persons are substantially distinct; he immediately subjoins, the in one Undivided Substance. Is it possible a Man should give so little heed to what he says in so Great and Nice a Question? He has not a sensible Friend in the World, that will not tell him, that 'tis as much as to say, The Persons are Three distinct Substances, and yet are but one Undivided Substance. The first alone is Heresy, the other superadded to it, makes a gross Contradiction. But there are greater Matters, about which I must speak with the Vindicator.   

Secondly; Of the Persons, their Unity, and their Distinction.  
As to the Divine Persons, and the Unity or Oneness of each Person with itself, and its Distinction from the other two Persons; he says as follows.  
Pag. 67. A Person is such a Being, as has Understanding, Will, and Power of Action.  
P. 66. They are Three distinct and Infinite Minds.— Three Intelligent Beings.  
P. 258. They are Three Holy Spirits.  
P. 67. These Three Infinite Minds are distinguished just as Three Finite Created Minds are, by Self-consciousness.— Each Divine Person has a Self-consciousness of its own, and knows and feels itself, as distinct from the other Divine Persons. The Father has a Self-consciousness of his own, whereby he knows and feels himself to be the Father, and not the Son or Holy Ghost; The Son feels himself to be the Son, and not the Father or Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost feels himself to be the Holy Ghost, and not the Father or Son.  
P. 104. The Persons are as really distinct, as Three human Persons, or Three Men are.  
P. 105. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are as really distinct Persons, as Peter, James and John.  
P. 149. We must believe Three distinct Divine Persons, each of which is God.  
P. 98. We must allow each Person to be a God. So also at P. 47. and elsewhere.  
He not only contends each Person is God, and a God, but 'tis his Belief( in some places of his Vindication) that each Person is a most consummate and absolutely perfect God: For he ascribes to each of them a Personal absolutely perfect Wisdom, Goodness, Justice and Power. I say, a personal perfect Wisdom, &c. besides the Wisdom, Goodness, &c. common to them all by their Mutual-consciousness. His Words are these:  
P. 81. There is no Contradiction, that three Infinite Minds should be absolutely perfect, in Wisdom, Goodness and Power; for these are Perfections that may be in more than One.  
P. 84, 85. The Father has his own Personal Wisdom, and by Internal Consciousness, all the Wisdom of the Son and Holy Ghost. The Son has his own Personal Wisdom, and by the same Consciousness, the Wisdom of the Father and Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost has his own Personal Wisdom, and all the Wisdom of the Father and Son.  
At P. 78. He denies there is in God an Infinite Wisdom, Goodness, Power, &c. but only perfect Wisdom, Goodness, &c.  
He acknowledges at P. 97. and frequently else-where; that if the Divine Persons were distinct and separate Persons, they would be Three Gods: but they are, he saith, distinct, but not separate Persons: Yet he saith there, each of these Persons is {αβγδ} singly and by himself, God, though not separately God.  
P. 48. A Finite Spirit's Numerical Oneness can be nothing else, but every Spirit's Unity with itself, and its distinct and separate Subsistence from all other Created Spirits. And this Self-unity can be nothing else but Self-consciousness; or that it is conscious to its own Thoughts, Reasons, Passions, &c. which no other Finite Created Spirit is conscious to, but itself.  
Let us put this remarkable Doctrine concerning the Three Divine Persons into a short Creed, and then make Brief Notes upon it.   

Dr. Sherlock's Creed.  
I Believe there are Three distinct Intelligent Infinite Beings, Minds, Spirits, and Persons; distinguished just as Three Finite Created Minds or Spirits are, as really distinct as three Men, or as Peter, James and John: Each of them has a Self-consciosness, whereby he knows and feels himself, as really distinct from the other two Divine Persons. Also each of them has his own absolutely perfect( for there is no Infinite) Wisdom, Goodness, and Power: and by a Mutual-consciousness, each Person of these has the whole Wisdom, Power and Goodness of the two other Persons. Each Person has his own Understanding, Will, and Power of Action. Finally, each of these Beings, Minds, Spirits, Persons, is God, nay each of them singly by himself is a God.  
This Creed is not only the Vindicator's Sense, but his very Words, which he has often repeated in his Book. Let us deliberately, and minutely consider, whether it be the Faith of Christians, or consistent with Scripture or Reason?  
I believe there are Three Infinite Spirits, Minds and Beings. 'tis the first time I ever heard so in my Life: That God is u●●● summum Ens, one supreme Being; that he is Animus, Mens, Spiritus, {αβγδ}, a Mind, a Spirit, is the Voice not only of Scripture, but the agreed Doctrine of all christians. Let the Vindicator show me, either in Holy Scripture, or in any catholic Writer, that these words are used of God in the Plural Number. Do any of them, like this Doctor, call God Animi Mentes, {αβγδ}, Minds, Spirits, Beings? Himself is the first who has dared thus to speak in express words; and the reason is, because he saw not what they all saw, that three Infinite Minds, Spirits, or Beings, are Three Gods: For if one Infinite Mind, or Spirit, is One God, Three Infinite Minds, must be Three Gods; else we cannot distinguish between One and Three; nor discern, that the Definition being multiplied, the thing defined is also multiplied.  
God, saith our Saviour( at Joh. 4.24.) is a Spirit. No, saith the Vindicator( at p. 258, and p. 66.) God is Three Spirits, Minds, or beings; and to teach the contrary, is both Heresy and Non-sense. Before a Man bestows such compliments, he ought well to consider on whom they may reflect● for tho he thinks, that such as Socinus, and the Note-maker deserve not, that common Humanity and good Manners be shown them; yet he should have had some regard for his Saviour.  
Well; but what if Holy Mother Church be in the same Nonsense and Heresy? Mr. Savage, who has also written against the Brief Notes, will tell him( at p. 4. of his Answer) that the Lateran Council hath defined, that the Three Divine Persons are not Three Beings, but that all together they make Unum summum Ens, One Being. And I will tell him, that the fourth Council of Lateran often repeats it, that God is not Aliud& Aliud, more Beings or Things; but Una quaedam Res, One Thing or Being. Mr. marlowe in his late Book concerning the Trinity, written ( as should seem by the Preface) on occasion of the Brief History and Brief Notes, describeth God at p. 64. One single Being, he adds there, More than one Infinite Being cannot subsist. But it were endless to city particular Authorities in this matter: therefore in a word, all Catechisms, Systems, Institutions of Theology, Christian Writers( and even Jews and Mahometans) that have spoken of God, do with our Saviour, define him a Spirit, one Mind, one Being; never three Spirits, three Minds, or three Beings.  
I dare not ask it of the Vindicator, because he always answers according to the present Exigence only; but I would ask any other learned and sensible Man, What is the adequate Notion, or true definition of Three Gods? I make no doubt, every such Person would answer without any the least Hesitation; three Infinite Spirits, or Minds, or Intelligent Beings, are three Gods: Which is the Vindicator's Definition of one God.  
But to involve himself yet more; he believes, These Three Infinite Spirits, Minds, Beings and Persons, are distinguished just as Three Finite Created Minds, or Spirits are; they are as really distinct as three Men, or as Peter, James and John. This is Polytheism, or Plurality of Gods with a witness. 'tis as gross Polytheism, as the Greeks or Romans were ever guilty of. If a Man had asked the Greek Philosophers, suppose porphyry and Hierocles, What Conception we ought to have of the three great Objects of graecian Worship, Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto? They would have answered, as the Vindicator does concerning his Trinity, they are three Divine Beings, Minds, or Spirits, distinguished as really, and just as three Men, or as Peter, James and John. This was their Polytheism: not that they believed or worshipped a false God, for that was simplo Idolatry, but that they distinguished the Divinity into three or more Minds, and Beings as really and just as they distinguished three Men, or as Peter, James and John.  
The Vindicator will not be able to give a Rational and Intelligible Account, why it should not as much be Polytheism in him to distinguish as really, and just as the Heathens did. It will not excuse him, to say, that Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto, were but supposed Divine Persons, but his are really Divine Persons; for granting so much to him for this time, yet to mistake the Object of their Faith and Worship, was only Idolatry; their Polytheism consisted in distinguishing the Object of Worship, the Divinity, into more Minds or Beings as really, and just as the three Men, Peter, James and John are distinguished.  
Therefore the more Learned Trinitarians have been so far from saying, the three Divine Persons are distinguished just as Peter, James and John, that they never durst say, they are really distinct, but modally; something more distinguished,( they say) between one another, than from their common Essence; yet not really distinct. They considered that real Distinction makes Alterity and Diversity; but the Unity of God does not permit that he should be Alter, Another, either from Himself, or from any thing that is Himself. Since the Essence of a thing is that, by which it is what it is; whatsoever things are really distinct things, must also be essentially distinct; but now the three Divine Persons having but One Numerical Undivided Essence, by Confession of all Trinitarians; therefore they cannot be Essentially distinct, and therefore not Really, but Modally only. I suppose therefore the Vindicator's Friends will prevail with him, to abate( in his next) very much of his as really distinct, and distinguished just as these three Men, Peter, James and John.  
Each of these Divine Persons has a Self-consciousness, whereby He knows and feels himself as distinct from the other two Divine Persons. This Assertion implies what he afterwards adds, that each of them has his own proper Understanding, Will, and Power of Action. Now I say, this is so great and clear an Alterity, or Diversity, that no greater can be supposed between any sort of Intelligent Beings. God and his Creatures are not more truly divers, than by having each their own proper Understandings, Wills, and Powers of Action, and by really Being, and Knowing, and Feeling themselves as distinct from one another.  
Intelligent Beings may indeed be farther differenced by Essential Perfections, or by Degrees of Perfection in the same Nature; as Angels are differenced from Men by Essential Perfections, and Peter from John by Degrees of Human Perfection, and God from his Creatures both by Essential Perfections, and by Degrees of those Perfections that are common to him and them: But the mere Alterity or Diversity of Intelligent Beings, or Minds, is no other but what the Vindicator has imputed to the Divine Persons themselves; namely that each such Being has his own Understanding, Will and Power of Action; and both is and knows himself as really distinct from all others. Persons or Spirits so distinct are as really divers, or are no more one another, than the Angel Michael is the Man Peter; or than Peter is Charles, the Lion in the Tower.  
The Vindicator has discoursed all along so inconsequently, that I have no hopes he can advert to a Demonstration, that requires any Attention of Mind: but I cannot doubt that others of his Party will readily own, he has very much overshot himself; and that there cannot be such Alterity or Diversity in God, the most simplo of all Beings. Can there be any thing in God as divers and distinct, as Michael and Peter; nay, as God and his Creatures? They will not say it; for 'tis to deny his Simplicity and Unity, and to compound him not only of several and divers Parts, but of divers and several Beings, which is too manifestly both Heterodox and Impossible. Can He be most simplo and Uncompounded, who is made up of three distinct Understandings, Wills, and Powers of Action; and who is constituted of three Beings, or Minds, that know and feel themselves distinct from one another, as distinct as Michael and Peter, and even as God and his Creatures? If so, then it may also be said, that God and his Creatures are One most simplo Uncompounded Being. That is the next Paradox the Vindicator has to defend. As for his Mutual consciousness, I shall demonstrate in its proper place, that it does not only not heal these Breaches, but incurably widens them, because( I shall show) 'tis so far from being, or effecting any real Unity and Simplicity, that it implieth and supposeth an Essential Diversity, and a separate Existence of the Three Persons.  
Also, each of these Persons has his own Personal absolutely perfect( for there is no Infinite) Wisdom, Power and Goodness, and by a Mutual-consciousness, each of them has all the Wisdom, Power, and Goodness of the two other Persons. This is still somewhat a clearer Explication of his Doctrine of Three God's, than any we have yet had: For since each of these Spirits, Minds, or Beings has his own Personal absolutely perfect Wisdom, Power and Goodness; and that besides the Consciousness and Sensation of the absolutely perfect Wisdom, Power, &c. of the other two; there can be nothing wanting to make each Person of them an absolutely perfect God. If there be indeed three really distinct Spirits, or Persons, each of which has his own Personal absolutely perfect Wisdom, &c. and therefore is an absolutely perfect God, I doubt whether there be a Man in the World( besides the Vindicator) who will not acknowledge upon that Supposition, that there are three really distinct and absolutely perfect Gods. But as far as he seems to be sunk in his Incogitance, I will put to him one Argument.  
'tis the most general and allowed Proof that there is but One God; because one God, or one Infinite Wisdom, Power, and Goodness, is sufficient, as sufficient as a thousand; and there cannot be in God any thing that is needless, useless, or in vain. Therefore I say, if any one of the Vindicator's Divine Spirits, Minds, Beings, or Persons, as suppose the Father has a Personal Infinite( or absolutely perfect) Wisdom, Power and Goodness, there can be no need or occasion for any other Divine Mind, Spirit, Being, or Person; more such Minds were needless, useless, and in vain. And from hence it clearly follows, that the Unitarians have the very same Evidence, that there is but one absolutely perfect Mind, Spirit, Being and Person, and but one absolutely perfect Wisdom, Power and Goodness, that there is for but One God.  
And whereas Mutual-consciousness makes the Beginning, Middle and End of Dr. Sherlock's Answer to the Brief Notes; I would know, of what use it can be? What Perfection can it be to any of the three Divine Persons, to be conscious to the other two, when nothing is gained by it, no Wisdom, no Power, no Goodness? For without such Mutual-consciousness, each Person has his own Personal absolutely perfect Wisdom, Power and Goodness. The Vindicator has found out a new Attribute in God, Mutual-consciousness, but will never be able to tell how 'tis any Perfection: Nay, it seemeth to be an Imperfection; for to know the same things over and over and over by Mutual-consciousness, which were before fully known by Self-consciousness, is the same in knowledge, that Tautology is in Speech; they are both needless Repetitions, and therefore the first can no more be in God, than the other in wise Men.  
At p. 78, and 79. he contends, that 'tis not well said, that God is an infinite Being, or Spirit, or has Infinite Wisdom, Justice, Power or Goodness; because no Being can know what is not to be known; no Goodness or Justice can go beyond the measure, that is, can do excessive or unjust things; no Power can do impossible things. But this is a weak Allegation, tho he proposes it with his usual Confidence and Disdain, to bear him out in this new and impious Heresy, that the Perfections of God are not Infinite. For things Unjust or Excessive are not the Objects of Goodness or Justice; and 'tis as Ridiculous as 'tis Heretical, to pretend that the Goodness and Justice of God cannot be Infinite, because He cannot do things that are either Excessive or Unjust; for this is a chief Reason why we ascribe to God Infinite Goodness and Justice, even because he can do nothing at all that is Excessive or Unjust. I cannot doubt, but that upon second thoughts, the Vindicator himself will discern, that it was sillily urged, The Justice of God is not Infinite, because He cannot do unjust things. As for things not knowable and not possible, they are Nullities, and no more the Objects of Wisdom and Power, or of any other Faculty, than things Unjust are of Justice; and therefore 'tis as vainly and impertinently required, that God should know or do such things by his Infinite Wisdom and Power, as that He should do unjust things by his Infinite Justice.  
But I will farther tell this Opposer of the Divine Perfections, why it is said the Goodness, Justice, Wisdom, and Power of God are each of them Infinite. It is so said, because there is in God an inexhaustible Fountain of Goodness and Justice; that is, he hath an indefectible Propensity, and an Infinite Inclination of doing always and to all that which is just and good. Also the things he knoweth, and which he has and can do, being innumerable and without End, his Wisdom and Power are also Infinite, or without End.  
Finally, He believes each of these Beings, Minds, Spirits, Persons, is God, nay, each of them singly by himself is a God. He grants, and says, at p. 87, and 97. That if the Divine Persons were separate Persons as well as distinct Persons, they were without doubt three Gods. But now are not they separate Persons, each of which is singly and by himself a Person, and God; for what is a separate Person, or a separate God, but he who singly and by himself is a Person or God? Single, separate, and by himself, are equivalent Terms with all Men but the Vindicator. By himself is the very English of the Latin separatus, or separate; therefore in saying here, that each Person by himself is God, he hath granted that each Person is separately God; which is the thing he all along denies and abhors, as a giving up the Question to his Adversary.  
But he says expressly, each of these Persons is a God. None of his Party ever said so; they will say each of these Persons is God, or is the God, because each of them has the Divine Essence, which is common to all three; but that each Person is a God, is without doubt an heretical Form of Speech, and necessary introduces three Gods. For the before a Substantive, denotes the Unity of the thing spoken of, but a always supposes more things of the same kind. Thus we say the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, because there is but one Sun, one Moon, one Earth; and for the same reason we say God, or the God; but we say a Spirit, a Man, a Person, because there are more Spirits, Men, and Persons. Therefore he that says, there are three Persons, each of which is a God; or that says, the Father is a God or the Son is a God, or the Holy Ghost is a God; such an one( I say) professes to believe more Gods. I appeal in this matter to all learned Men, of what persuasion soever; and even to all who do but understand Grammar. But I must profess my wonder, that some Trinitarians in ther Explications of their( supposed) Trinity, are no more careful of avoiding such open Polytheism, it being a Guilt next to Atheism.   

Thirdly; Of the Unity of the Persons, and how they make but one God.  
Last of all; As to the Unity of the three Divine Persons with one another, and how they all make but one God: He largely describeth it in his 4th Section, from Pag. 46, to p. 86. But the sum of all is this.  
A Finite Spirit's Unity or Oneness with itself, is no other thing but its Self-consciousness, or that it knows and feels its own Thoughts, Actions, and Passions. But if either Finite or Infinite Spirits, Minds, or Persons are mutually conscious; that is, are internally and universally conscious to one anothers Thoughts, Wills, Actions, and Passions, this maketh them to be truly and properly Numerically One Spirit; for( p. 49.) they are hereby as much one with each other, as every Spirit is one with himself; and( p. 56.) they are hereby united to each other, as every Man is to himself. To make three Spirits, or Persons numerically one, it is not enough, that one of them is perfectly conscious to all the rest: they must all of them be mutually conscious; that is, each of them perfectly conscious to all the rest. Thus God is conscious to all his Creatures, to all their Thoughts, Actions, and Passions, as fully conscious as themselves are; but they are not hereby made one with him, because they not being conscious to his knowledge and Will, there is not a Mutual-consciousness, between God and them. The Mutual consciousness of the three Divine Persons, is the Perichoresis and Circumincession mentioned by the Fathers and the Schools. For Perichoresis, or that the Father is in the Son and Spirit, and the Son in the Father and Spirit, and the Spirit in the Father and Son, is nothing else but their universal Mutual-consciousness. We ought not to etertain a gross material Idea of the Perichoresis, as if the three distinct Divine Persons were in one another by a mutual Contract of Parts, for they have no Parts; the only Union and Perichoresis of Minds and Spirits is, that they are conscious each to others Thoughts and Wills, as perfectly and inwardly as to their own. And thus also it is, that the three Divine Persons are one God; they are one God, and in one another by perfect Mutual-consciousness.  
The Vindicator often says, that this Explication of the Trinity, maketh a Trinity in Unity as easy and intelligible as the Notion of One God, or but one who is God. But being ware that 'tis not enough that an Explication be intelligible, if it be not also the true Explication; therefore he pretends to prove this Mutual-consciousness of the Father, Son, and Spirit, from Joh. 1.18.& 10.15, 30.38.& 16.14, 15. 1 Cor. 2.10, 11. Then for the Fathers, tho they do not once name Mutual-consciousness, yet he thinketh they meant it. He alleges a few Passages out of Gregory Nyssen and St. Austin, who are all the Fathers he quotes, and his Citations are not only not to his purpose, but some of them clearly overthrow it. I shall show him the respect, to consider what he hath said.  
1. Whereas he saith, that Mutual-consciousness maketh the three Divine Spirits, to be as truly and properly numerically one; and as much one, as each Spirit and every Man is one with himself. If this were indeed true, it would as much evangelio what the Vindicator expects from it, as he thinketh all former Explications are short of their Design. For the Unitarians desire no more, than that it be owned, God is as truly and properly numerically one, as every Spirit and Man is one with himself; for every Spirit and Man is so one with himself, as to be but one Person.  
Had the Vindicator no way to defend the Athanasian Creed, but by running into Heresy? could he make out the Unity of the Trinity, no other way but( as the Creed speaks) by confounding the Persons, or by making them but one Person? I challenge him, or any other for him, to avoid this Consequence of his Doctrine. He saith in above twenty places, this Mutual-consciousness maketh the three Divine Spirits and Persons as much one with one another, as any Spirit or Man is one with himself; then say I, they are but one Person; for that is the Oneness or Unity( the only Unity) of every Spirit or Man with himself. No Spirit or Man has any other but a Personal Unity with himself.  
2. Mutual-consciousness cannot be a good Explication of the( pretended) Trinity, because it will equally salue the most absurd Doctrine of the Transubstantiation. For as, according to the Vindicator's Doctrine, the Godhead, or the One true God, is numerically One, tho there are three Infinite Persons, each of which is God, and a God; because these three Persons are mutually conscious to, or have an inward Sensation of one another: So will a Papist say, there is but one Body-head, or but one Numerical Body of Christ; but in the Unity of this Body-head or Body, there is first the Original Body of Christ, and then abundance of Sacred Hosts in divers places, each of which is a true Body of Christ, and is by Mutual Sensation and Consciousness( for there is no Sensation without Consciousness) numerically one Body with the Original Body in Heaven. 'tis true, the Body in Heaven is the Source and Fountain of the rest, as the Father is of the other Divine Persons, but they are all substantially and numerically one Body, by Mutual-consciousness or Sensation. And this mutual inward Sensation or Consciousness they must needs have, because they are all of them Personally united to one Infinite Spirit or Person, who( as all Trinitarians say) is Whole and All everywhere present, Totus in toto,& totus in qualibet parte. By this Explication or Hypothesis, all Mr. Johnson's Demonstrations against the Transubstantiation, are made to vanish into Smoke. All his Objections from the nature of Time and Extension are nothing; they are all salved by Mutual-consciousness of the Hosts with the Body in Heaven; for Dr. Sherlock has assured us, that Mutual-consciousness or Sensation, doth make an Essential, Substantial and Numerical Unity or Oneness between any number of Persons or Things. The Reason holds for Things as well as Persons, and for a thousand as well as for three.  
3. If, as the Vindicator often says, Mutual-consciousness is the only Union of Spirits or Minds, such a Mutual-consciousness by which they are universally, or wholly, or perfectly conscious to each other; this would as much prejudice the Incarnation, or Hypostatical Union, as the Vindicator hopes it will help the Doctrine of the Trinity. The Vindicator confesses at p. 269, and 270, that the Human Nature, or Reasonable Soul of Christ, is not universally, or wholly conscious to the Divine Person of the Son; yet he says, in perhaps forty places, that a Mutual-consciousness to all one anothers Thoughts and Wills and Actions, is necessary to make an Union of Minds or Spirits. I say, it follows from these Premises, that the Reasonable Soul or Spirit of the Lord Christ is not united to the Divine Person of the Son. If universal Consciousness is the only possible Union of Spirits, 'tis impossible there should be an Incarnation, or an Hypostatical or Personal Union of the Divine and Human Spirits in Christ.  
The Vindicator seems to have been, in some measure, ware of this Objecton. For in the Conclusion of his Book, when he comes to the Doctrine of the Incarnation, or Hypostatical Union, he says, Where different Natures are united into one Person, this universal Consciousness is seated only in the Superior Nature; and in the Inferior, only so far as the Nature is capable, and as the Personal Union requires. But I will forgive the Vindicator, if he can so, escape from me.  
First; If, as he says, a partial Consciousness in the Inferior Nature be sufficient to effect an Hypostatical or Personal Union, it will follow, that all pious Men are hypostatically or personally united to the Holy Ghost. For the Holy Spirit is universally conscious to all their Thoughts and Actions, and they are partially conscious to his Suggestions and Motions, and that by such an Internal Stusation as they are to their own Thoughts and Inclinations. They cannot discern one from the other.  
Secondly; If a Partial Consciousness between two or more Spirits, where but one of them is universally conscious to the rest, will make them numerically one Person, or( what is the same thing) will effect an Hypostatical or Personal Union; then certainly where two or more Spirits are universally conscious to one another, it must much more make them numerically one Person, or effect an Hypostatical or Personal Union. From whence it will follow, that the three Divine Persons being universally conscious to one another, are numerically one Person, and are hypostatically and personally united. But this every one knows is Heresy, and contrary to the Athanasian Creed, which forbids us to conf●●nd the Persons.  
Thirdly; But the truth is, a Partial Mutual-consciousness in one of the Spirits( though the other be universally conscious) is not sufficient to make a Personal Union, or to make two or more Persons to be numerically one Person. The Reason is this, since universal Mutual-Consciousness is therefore said( by the Vindicator) to make more Spirits to be numerically one, because in every one of them it amounts to as much as, and is equivalent to the Self-consciousness or Self-unity of each Spirit with itself; for it makes more Spirits as conscious to one another( and therefore as numerically one) as every Spirit is to itself: from hence it necessary follows, that a Mutual Consciousness which is not universal in both Spirits, cannot effect a Personal Union, or make them numerically one Person, because 'tis undeniable that one of these Spirits( the inferior Nature or Spirit) has not such a Mutual-consciousness with the other Spirit, as is equal to its own Self-consciousness, which makes it Self-unity.  
Hitherto I have so argued, as to suppose, with the Vindicator, that such a Mutual-consciousness as he has described when 'tis universal, may have the effect he supposeth; that is, may effect a Numerical Oneness or Unity, and have only shown, that however it has several such Heretical Consequences, that it must not be admitted by him or any other. For we have seen it maketh the three Divine Persons to be but one Person, because( he saith) it makes them as much one, as each Spirit, Person, or Man is one with himself. Also this Hypothesis will do as much Service to the Transubstantiation, as to the Trinity; for it will make as Substantial and Numerical an Unity between the Hosts and the Body in Heaven, as between the three Divine Spirits. Farther, it destroys the Hypostatical Union; for 'tis plain that a Partial Consciousness between the Human and Divine Spirits in the Lord Christ, cannot make a Personal Union, or make them numerically one Person, because in his Human Spirit 'tis not equal to that Self-consciousness, which the Vindicator affirms to be the Self-unity of every Intelligent Being. But now I shall prove, that,  
4. Mutual Consciousness, notwithstanding the Vindicator's confident Affirmation, and frequent Repetition of it, doth not indeed make the three Divine Persons to be numerially one, or so one, as each Spirit and every Man is one with himself; nay, it neither is nor effecteth any real Unity at all. For though he is careful to suppose, that the three Persons are mutually conscious by an internal Sensation, and that they are conscious to all the Thoughts, Wills and Actions of one another, as each Person of them, and as every Man is internally conscious to all his own Thoughts and Actions, all which he thinketh must make them numerically one Spirit and one God; because( in his Opinion) it amounts to as much as, and is equivalent to, that Self-consciousness which is( he saith) the Self-unity of each Spirit, and every Man with himself. Tho( I say) he is careful to suppose thus much, yet I shall mind him of a thing which will ruin his whole Hypothesis; even this, that the three Divine Spirits or Persons, tho they are universally and internally conscious to one another, yet because they are not in the same ma●ner conscious to one anothers Thoughts and Actions, as each Spirit of them and each Man is conscious to his own Thoughts and Actions; therefore the Mutual-consciousness which he supposes they have, cannot make them numerically one Spirit, or one God. None of them is conscious to the Thoughts and Actions of the other two as his own, but as rising in and from the other Persons; but each of these Spirits, and every Man is conscious to his own Thoughts and Actions, as rising in and from himself, from his own Personal Understanding, Will, and Power of Action.  
Let me hear the Vindicator say, that the Son( for Example) knows and feels the Thoughts and Actions of the Father and Spirit, not as the Thoughts and Actions of the Father and Spirit, but as his own Personal Thoughts and Actions, or as originated in his own Person; and I will allow that such Consciousness doth look somewhat like a numerical Oneness or Unity. But I will demonstate to him, that so to say, is both Heresy, and a Contradiction.  
It is Heretical, because then the Father's Personal Action of Generation would be known and felt by the Son, as the Action of the Son; that is, the Son would know and feel that he begets himself. Also the mutual Love of the Father, and of the Image, or Son, whereby( as this Athanasian Doctor feigns) the Holy Spirit proceeds from them, would be known and felt by the Holy Spirit, as his own Personal Action, not as the Action of the Father and Son. Both which are Heretical when affirmed by any.  
But besides, that it is Heresy, 'tis also a Contradiction: 'tis just as much a Contradiction, as to say, that the Person and Personal Understanding of the Son, is the Person and Personal Understanding of the Father. If we confounded the Persons and Personal Thoughts and Actions of the Father, Son and Spirit, we confounded also their Personal Understandings, Wills, and Powers of Action. If each person of them has his Personal Understanding, Will, and Power of Action, he has also his Personal Thoughts and Actions; and consequently, the Son cannot feel the Thoughts and Actions of the Father, as his own Personal Thoughts and Actions, but as the Thoughts and Actions of the Father. But if so, all Men must grant, that such Mutual-consciousness of the three Divine Persons, neither is, or effecteth a Numerical Unity, or any Unity at all. It cannot, I say, make them one Spirit, or One God, but leaves them as much three as other separate Spirits or Beings are. For 'tis such a Consciousness as may be, and actually is, between the most opposite contrary and separate Natures and Spirits. For all Men are after this manner conscious both to the Holy Spirit, and to the Tempter. We are conscious to the Suggestions and Motions of the first, and to the Temptations of the other, by an internal Consciousness; nay by such a perfect intimate Consciousness, that we do not always discern them from our own Personal Thoughts, or the Motions and Actings of our own Spirits; which is somewhat a closer Consciousness than the Vindicator has supposed, or dares suppose between the three Divine Persons; and yet it leaves us separate Beings and Spirits, both from the Holy Spirit, and from the Tempter.  
5. If there were indeed such a thing as the Vindicator's mutual Consciousness, I do affirm, it would be so far from being, or from effecting a numerical Unity or Oneness, that it would be the very thing which would most of all prove the three( pretended) Divine Persons are numerically three Spirits and three Gods. For since, according to the Vindicator's Descriptions, each of these Spirits or Persons has his own Personal Understanding, Will and Power of Action, and his own Personal absolutely perfect Wisdom, Power and Goodness; three such Persons are so far from being one Spirit or one God, by Consciousness to each others Wisdom, Power and Goodness, that the more such Persons are mutually conscious, so much the more their separate Existence and Divinity is proved. For the more that any of these Spirits knows and feels of Thoughts and Actions arising in the other Spirits or Persons, and to which he is only conscious, but is not the Personal Fountain of them; the more, and more certainly, he must needs know and feel, that himself has a divers and separate Existence from them, and therefore( being an Infinite Person or Spirit) is a divers and separate God.  
I challenge the Vindicator to tell me any other possible way for three Divine Persons to be assured of their separate Existence and Divinity; that is, that they are three God's, but by Mutual-consciousness, or by knowing and feeling( as he speaks) the Thoughts and Actions of one another, not as their own, but as the Thoughts and Actions of other Divine Spirits. How should the Father, for example, know He is a separate Spirit and God from the Son, but by knowing and feeling the Actions of the Son, not as his( the Fathers) Actions, but as the Actions and Thoughts of another Divine and Infinite Person? It was therefore a great Incogitance in the Vindicator, to urge the( pretended) Mutual-consciousness of the three( pretended) Divine Persons, as their numerical Unity or Oneness, when it demonstrates them to be numerically three separate and divers Beings, Spirits and Gods.  
Had the Vindicator said, there are three Infinite Spirits, who are mutually conscious, THEREFORE there are three Gods; all Mankind would have allowed his Consequence, as certain and self-evident from that Propos●●ion. But to say there are three Infinite Spirits, conscious to one another, THEREFORE there is but one God; this all Men of Sense will laugh at, as a palpable falsehood. 'tis a Contradiction in the Terms, to tell us of One only God mutually conscious; for in plainer English 'tis to say, One only God conscious to, or with other Gods. Or, One only God conscious to more Gods.  
6. But the great Matter is still beind, that after all, our Blessed Saviour himself has declared, that there is not this Mutual-consciousness between the( supposed) Divine Persons, which the Vindicator has made to be the Substance of his Answer to the Brief Notes, and the Brief History. Of that day and hour( the day and hour of the last judgement) none knoweth, no not the Angels wh are in Heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only; Mark 13.32. Mat. 24.36. Here it is expressly denied, that the Son knows the time of the last judgement, and as clearly intimated that the Father, and the Father only( therefore not the Holy Ghost, if we take the Holy Ghost for a particular Person) knows that time. Therefore, say I, the Son and Holy Ghost are not conscious to all the knowledge, Will and Thoughts of the Father, and consequently are not Gods, or God.  
To avoid this Argument, the Vindicator and his Party answer, that Christ in that Text speaks of himself, only as he is a Man, not as he is God, or a God. Well, but how shall we salue the Honour of the Holy Ghost, for 'tis there also said, that the Father only knoweth that day and hour? Why, for that, the word Father here does not signify the Father only, but includes the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But when mention is made of the Father and the Son in the same Period, and they are opposed to each other, 'tis much that neither the Son should signify the Son,( for the Human Nature, or Christ as Man, according to the Trinitarians, is not the Son) nor the Father signify the Father, but the Father and two other Persons. If this be not to form the Scriptures to our preconceived Opinions, and not our Opinions by the Scriptures; let the Vindicator himself tell me what is? Should a Socinian distort the known sense and use of Words at this rate, what Out-cries should we have against them!  
Nor was it our Saviour's manner to answer after this equivocal delusory fashion: But when the Disciples were more inquisitive than he liked of, he was not wont to shift off the matter by an Equivocation, but plainly to tell them, They asked after what 'twas not permitted to them to know. Wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel? say the Disciples at Acts 1.6, 7. 'tis not for you to know, saith our Saviour. How unlike is this direct sincere Answer to that which the Trinitarians have made for him about the Day of judgement? For their Answer runs thus; As to the day and hour of judgement, of which you inquire, none knoweth it, not the Angels, not the Son himself, but my Father only. But when I say the Son, that is, I myself know it not, I mean ( saith he to himself) according to my Human Nature, which indeed is not the Son; and when I say, only my Father knoweth it, I mean ( saith he again to himself) only my Father and myself, and the Holy Ghost. This is such an over-grown Equivocation, and Mental Reservation, as in our Town would pass for a gross lye; but that the Vindicator and his Party have assured us, that our Saviour himself spake thus. But I do not think any sensible and honest Man will believe 'em, if he considers it twice.  
'tis thus also that they have dealt with God himself, speaking in the first Commandment; Thou shalt have no other Gods but Me, saith God in the words of the first Commandment. And to render this his sovereign Revelation and Will the more aweful and regarded by us, he delivered it in Thunders that shook the Heavens and the Earth. Notwithstanding this, and tho every one knows, that the style of Laws is plain and simplo, and the words to be understood in a popular familiar Sense, because they are delivered to the meanest as well as the highest Capacities; yet have those who call themselves the Orthodox and the catholic Party eluded this Revelation and Law, to which all the rest refer, and on which they depend▪ and have made room for other Gods besides him. Thou shalt have no other Gods besides Me; that is,( say they) Thou shalt have no other Gods but Us, no other Gods, but God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: Thou shalt have no other Gods, but three Infinite Almighty, All-knowing Persons; whereof one is the Father, another his Son, and the third an holy Spirit distinct from both.  
I persuade myself that no Man can think that so much as one Person of the six hundred thousand Israelites who assembled to hear God speak, did( or possibly could) understand that to be his meaning; but on the contrary, when they heard, Thou shalt have no other Gods but Me, they did, and their Posterity to this day do, understand it no otherways but thus, Thou shalt never know or own more than one Divine Person, even Me who now speak to thee. When Points of Faith are turned into Laws, we ought to be careful how we elude their plain and obvious sense by subtleties; for such things will not excuse the Breach of Laws, especially of the first and chief Law, the ground of the rest, to which they all refer as their chief Design. Rather we should interpret all other dubious and disputable Scripture-Expressions by such solemn Principal and Chief Revelations and Laws. The Vindicator, 'tis said, is writing a Book to prove, that there are more Persons( the Son and Spirit) besides the Eternal God and Father of our Lord Christ, who are Gods, or God, that is, he is writing a Book against the first Commandment. And I confess, that as his Party have ordered the vulgar Editions and Translations of the Holy Bible, it will be no hard matter to allege some very plausible Texts to such as know not the Deceits that have been used, to make some Texts of Scripture contradict others. But I challenge him before-hand, to produce but one such Proof or Text for his purpose, as is not of such suspected Credit and Authority in the Originals, that no prudent Man would build any thing on it, much less oppose it to the first Commandment, or is so manifestly faulty in the English Translation, that some of the most Learned of his own Party do reject it as no Proof; or finally, is not only not to his purpose, but proves what the Unitarians contend for, the Unity of God, or that God is One. But this was a Digression; I left off at our Saviour's words, Of that day and hour( the day and hour of the last Judment) none knoweth but my Father only, which I hope were sufficiently vindicated from the Perversions of Dr. Sherlock, and others.  
But let our Saviour say what he will, and as expressly as he will, the Doctor will prove against him, that there is this perfect Mutual-consciousness between Him, the Holy Spirit, and the Father.  
His first Objection is from Joh. 1.18. The only Begotten Son, which is in the Bosom of the Father, hath declared him. To be in the Bosom of another, signifies, says the Vindicator, to be conscious to that Person's Mind, and most intimate Secrets; therefore the Son is conscious to the Father. Answ. But why did not the Vindicator produce some Texts to confirm this Interpretation? The truth is, the Scripture-Sense of this Phrase, To be in the Bosom of another, is this, to be most dear to that Person, as is clear from Deut. 28.54, 56. 2 Sam. 12.3. So the Sense of the objected Text is only this, The only Begotten Son, who is most dear to the Father, hath declared him, i.e. hath made known his Will and Commands in the Gospel.  
He objects, Joh. 10.15. As the Father knoweth me, so know I the Father. Answ. If the Vindicator had looked into the Critical Commentators of his own Party, he would have seen, that to know in this Text is to love. But allowing him his Sense of the words; I answer, as much is prophesied of all Christians in Gospel-times, Jer. 31.34. They shall all know me, from the greatest to the least of them. Nor does [ as] here note Equality of Knowledge in the Son, but Likeness only; as at Mat. 5.48. Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect. Therefore the Sense is, the Father knoweth me, and I also know the Father( not by Natural or Congenit Consciousness, but) by his Revelation. See Rev. 1.1.  
Joh. 10.30. I and the Father are One. This Oneness or In-being, saith the Vindicator, is a Mutual-consciousness and inward Sensation of each other. Answ. But our Saviour explains this Oneness, to be such an Unity or Oneness as is( or should be) among all Christians; which is not by Mutual-consciousness or inward Sensation, but Mutual and Inward Love of one another. John 17.11. Father,— keep those whom thou hast given me, that they may be One as we are. Ver. 22. That they may be One, even as we are One.  
Again, he urgeth Joh. 10.38. The Father is in me, and I in him. The Vindicator insisteth much on this, as a clear Indication of an inward Consciousness between the Father and Son. Answ. But here again our Saviour has otherways explained himself, namely thus, that he means such an In-being as is between all Christians and the Father; an In-being by Love, and the Gift of the Spirit, on the part of the Father, and on our part, by Love, and Obedience, and Profession of the Truth: Joh. 17.21. That they all may be One, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they may be One in us. 1 Joh. 3.24. He that keepeth his( God's) Commandments, dwelleth in Him, and he in him. 1 Joh. 3.13. Hereby we know we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. Ver. 15. Whosoever shall confess, that Jesus is in the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and be in God. Ver. 16. He that dwelleth in Love, dwelleth in God, and God in him.  
Joh. 16.15. All things that the Father hath are mine. Answ. See what hath been satisfactorily said to this, in the Brief History, pag. 103.  
1 Cor. 2.10, 11. The Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God. For what Man knoweth the things of a Man, but the Spirit of a Man, which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no Man, but the Spirit of God. Answ. The Emphasis lies here; that the Spirit knows the things of God, even as the Spirit of a Man knows the things of a Man. Now admitting that the Holy Ghost or Spirit were a Person, as many Unitarians( particularly the Bidellians and Arians) believe he is, chief of the holy Spirits or Angels, and called the Spirit by way of Excellence, and the Holy Spirit, to discriminate him from Satan, who is chief of the Wicked and Apostate Spirits or Angels. Admitting, I say, that the Holy Spirit is a Person, yet what hinders that he may know the things of God, that is( as appears by Ver. 9.) the things that God has prepared for them that love him, as fully and perfectly as the Spirit of a Man knoweth the Designs and Counsels of a Man towards other Men? Cannot God as fully reveal those things of God to this holy and super-eminent Spirit, as any Man knows his own Will and Designs of Good towards others? and is it not thus, that our Saviour also is said to know the things of God? Rev. 1.1.  
If it be demanded, If this be all, Why is the Spirit called the Spirit of God? I hope the Vindicator knows, that 'tis the manner of the Hebrew Tongue to name things great in their kind, by the name of God. He may also be called the Spirit of God, as Prophets are in Scripture called the Men of God, because both one and the other are sent by God. And this Spirit is so much the Chief of all other Spirits, that are God's Messengers; that he is therefore sometimes called by way of Eminence and Excellence, the Spirit of God. So an Arian or Bidellian Unitarian would answer to the Objection from this Text. How a Socinian Unitarian would answer, may be seen in the Brief History, from p. 98, to p. 102.    

The CONCLUSION.  
THus I have considered Dr. Sherlock's new Explication of the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation by Self-consciousness and Mutual consciousness, and therein the substance and force of his Book, which he has so vainly and untruly called a Vindication of those Doctrines. His Book can deserve that Title in no other sense, but as 'tis a supercilious, disdainful, and peevish Answer. But for that, the Unitarians know very well, that when Learned Men rage in such a manner, that they have neither Humanity nor good Manners left, 'tis because they find themselves pinched: they know too, that Omnis Renegada est Ordinis sui Persecutor. Those who have hitherto said( who are all that have red his Books) there is nothing considerable in Dr. Sherlock's Books, but what he either borrowed from the Socinians, or build upon their Foundation; such will wonder he would show no better Reasons why he hath shifted sides. He promised at P. 21. to examine the Brief Notes Paragraph by Paragraph, that the Author might not complain of unfair Usage: But at p. 256, before he was got half through the Notes, he pretends to grow weary of the Note-make'rs long Harangues( tho the whole Notes are less than a Sheet of Paper) and so gives his Reader only so much of the Brief Notes as he fancied he could deal withal. Therefore the Author of the Notes will say, this was not only unfair, but( after a Promise) false Usage: Others say, the Doctor grew self-conscious, sensible of his Inability, and therefore durst not trust his Reader with those dangerous Notes, and his crude Answer to them. But where he pretended to answer, he should not have suppressed so many Periods, nor omitted to take notice of the Reason used, supposing it was enough if he opposed the Doctrine. Least of all should an Answerer of his standing and Reputation in Polemic Squabble, have quietly past by some whole Paragraphs, the most material in the Notes; or only cast a bald squeezed Jest at' em.  
As to the slight quirks which he sometimes opposes to the Arguments in the Notes and History, there is an Answer preparing, and almost finished, to every thing in his Book, to be published, unless in his next he is content to own he desires is not. For as to the Unitarians themselves, they are upon several accounts not forward to publish a farther Answer. First, they foresee, that the Vindication is not a Book, by which the Church of England, or any other Party of the Trinitarians, will abide; they look for another kind of Answer, and therefore reserve their Defences to a time and occasion that may more require them. Another Reason is, they dare trust the History and Notes with the Doctor's Answer, though he durst not trust his Answer with the Notes; only they desire the Reader to red the Notes and History as they are published by them, in entire Discourses, not as they are mangled, and cut into Thongs by the Vindicator. They are confident that no discerning Man who shall red Dr. Sherlock's Vindication, and afterwards red again the Notes or History, as they are published by the Unitarians, but will find himself as much troubled to untie the Gordian Knots, as if they had never red the Solutions of the Vindicator. But I will conclude with him, with only observing something to what he has, with his usual Charity and Sagacity, objected to the Hopes of Salvation in the Unitarian way.  
The Note-maker had said, that, In these Points which have been always controverted in the Church of God, 'tis not necessary to Salvation, that a Man happen to be of the right persuasion; 'tis sufficient if he use reasonable Diligence to be informed; if after that he mistakes, he is in no fault at all, his Error is pure Ignorance, not a culpable Ignorance; for how can it be culpable not to know that, of which a Man is ignorant after a diligent and impartial Inquiry? To this the Vindicator answers in several Pages, but all the Argument of his Answer is in these words, Then how comes an Atheist, a Turk, or a Jew to be in any fault? Does the Note-maker think that no Atheist, Turk, or Jew ever used reasonable Diligence? And why should not their reasonable diligence serve their turns, as well as the reasonable Diligence of Socinians, and other heretics?— And does not the Reason he gives, extend to the whole Christian Religion, as well as to those Points that( he says) have been always controverted in the Churches of God?  
To this compliment of the Vindicator, I answer. 1. I do not think Atheism ever was the abiding Sentiment of any Man, who took time to consider; and I deny that any Atheist ever used reasonable, or but tolerable Diligence to be informed. 2. As to Jews and Turks, who believe and worship the one true God, and him only; perhaps they are in a nearer Proximity to Salvation than such, as against sufficient Opportunities of a right Information, and for Worldly Interests have apostatised from the Christian Faith, to the Athanasian. 3. Those that deny the whole Christian Religion, after having known it and the Reasons of it, the Notemaker is assured whatever Diligence they may have used, they have not made( as the Notes expressly require) an Impartial Inquiry. They have been biased by their Prejudices, or their Lusts, against the whole Christian Faith; as other( we see) are biased against the most Essential Parts of it, the Unity of God, his Infinite Sapience, Goodness, Justice, and Power, his real Omnipresence, the Liberty of our Wills to Good and Evil. If the Vindicator thinks otherways, let him speak out, and plainly tell the World his Mind; that a Man may have used reasonable Diligence, and also made an Inpartial Inquiry, and yet disbelieve the whole Christian Religion. This, I hope, may be enough to Dr. Sherlock at present.  
As for Mr. Savage, who hath also written against the Brief Notes, if he had pleased to writ after an intelligible manner, he seems to be a Person that might have deserved a careful Answer: But having wrapped himself up in a School-Cloud, and wrote in such towering metaphysics, as are much above ordinary or unlearned Capacities; I am sensible that, with respect to the Unitarian Cause, his Book can do neither good nor hurt. However, the Unitarians thank him for his design to inform and instruct them; and they desire him not to take it amiss, if they also advice him, that the next time he writes for the Information of the Illiterate and Vulgar, he would writ more intelligibly. For,  Learning's Light, when held too high, goes out. 
THE END.