THE Grounds and Occasions OF THE CONTROVERSY Concerning the Unity of God, etc.  
THE METHODS by which it has been managed, AND The MEANS to compose it.  
By a Divine of the Church of England.  
LONDON; Printed, and sold by E. Whitlock near Stationers-Hall. MDCXCVIII.   

THE Grounds and Occasions OF THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNING The Unity of God, etc.  
THE eminently Learned, Wise, and Good Bishop of Down and Connor, Jeremy Taylor, having affirmed and proved from express, clear, and full Attestations of Scripture, from the Reasonableness of the thing, from the Testimonies of Fathers, and later Schoolmen, that all the Articles of the Christian Faith are plainly set down in Scripture, did not yet scruple to acknowledge, That there were still in Scripture innumerable Places containing in them great Mysteries; but then those Mysteries, he thought, were so involved with Clouds and Darkness, so covered with Allegories and Garments of Rhetoric, that God may seem to have left them as Trials of our Industry, as Arguments of our Imperfections, Incentives to our Long after the clearest Revelations of Eternity, and as Occasions and Opportunities of Mutual Charity and Toleration.  
That the Mysterious Passages of Scripture, are Trials ever like to find Work for our Industry, and convincing Arguments of our Imperfections, is evident from the little satisfaction which the many various attempted Interpretations have given; and I question not but this Reflection may incline devouter Minds ardently to long for the brighter Revelations of Eternity: but how few are they who make the obscure Mysteries of Scripture, Occasions and Opportunities of Mutual Charity and Toleration? In truth it is but reasonable to judge that the Alwise God designed them for this good end; but the general Event which has accidentally followed, through the Indisposition of unwise and ill-natured Men, is, that they are made Occasions of venting bitter hatred, and wreaking zealous Malice one upon another.  
Can Religious Controversies be managed without intemperate Heat, breach of Friendship and good Neighbourhood, the advantages issuing thence might perhaps be more and greater than could be easily esteemed and numbered; we should certainly reap Fruits worthy our Industry and Study, either by improvements of our Knowledge, or sense of our Ignorance; we should happily teach, or at least civilly use one another: but if we are forsaken of common Prudence, as well as Christian Charity, we shall turn all our Disputes about Religion, and [when we are forbidden them] every thing else into the Instruments of barbarous Cruelty, and thereby create a greater mischief to the Body Politic, whereof we are all Members, than a wise Conqueror would compel us to suffer, or a fair Enemy wish.  
It is out of an honest desire of being serviceable, not to demonstrate what is the certain true sense of a Mysterious Article, [I would sooner promise to solve all the puzzling Phaenomena in Nature, or fix the time for the Downfall of the Turk, and Conversion of the Jews] but to prevent the mischievous Consequences of various Interpretations, that I am going to consider, 

I. What has raised the Disputes at present agitated among us.  
II. What has inflamed them to that dangerous Excess, which in time 'tis feared may disturb the public Quiet.  
III. What's the proper way to remedy the Mischiefs which have happened, and to prevent farther.    
It is to me evident that the original of our present Disputes can be referred to no one Cause; many Persons, ecclesiastics and others, diversely moved, have engaged in them. There is one sort of Men, who have been sometimes distinguished by the Name of unitarians, and by angry Adversaries reproachfully called Socinians; but [to deal justly on all sides] who ought to be numbered with the Orthodox, because they not only embrace the Doctrines of the Church of England, but also are contented to use her School-terms, which they once thought, and do still think not so fit to express her sound Doctrines. These Persons, as to me seems probable, have engaged in our Religious Controversies,  
1. Out of an aversion from taking things upon trust. This Motive must be allowed to be reasonable and just, because he that gives up his Faith to human Authority, is beholden to his good Fortune, whenever the Opinions which fall to his lot, have any thing of truth or usefulness in them; and as often as they happen to be illgrounded and noxious, he deserves all the evil Consequences which he suffers by them; for if he had made use of his Reason before he gave his Assent, there was at least a probability that he might have known better, and guided himself more safely. The Bereans are commended in Scripture who would not take things upon trust, no not from the Mouth of an Apostle; which is enough to justify, without farther arguing, all them who are concerned in Religious Controversies, moved thereunto by an aversion from taking things upon trust. If I were writing to do service to these Orthodox Unitarians, [for that must be granted to be their Character, now they have explained themselves, and taken off the jealousy which the Church had conceived of them] if I were writing purposely to do them service, I might here expatiate in liberal Praises due to that noble Disposition of Mind, which takes nothing upon trust: We are beholden to it for all the great Improvements of Knowledge, which serve the Necessities and Comforts of Life; and not only so, but methinks we own to it our very Christian Orthodoxy itself: for an easy implicit Believer will never stand with his Supreme, be it Alcoran, or what it will, which he is required to subscribe; but the wary Examiner, who searches the Scripture that he may see whether things are as the Church teaches, no sooner perceives the truth of her Articles, but he holds unmovably steadfast to them, and unfeignedly venerates his holy Mother. But this is not my business now: Therefore,  
2. Another Motive, which I am persuaded has influenced these Orthodox Unitarians to enter into Religious Controversy, is an honest desire to be serviceable to the Church, and useful to well-disposed less-knowing Christians, by instructing and informing them. Whether these Persons are ecclesiastics or Laymen it matters not much; for I suppose it will be granted, that it is lawful for one Man to inform and instruct his Friend, Neighbour, or Countryman, either in private Discourse, or public Print, though he be not a Minister of the Gospel, or perhaps not Episcopally ordained.  
3. I will not say but that these Unitarians may have been thrust upon Controversy by a forward zeal to defend the Mysterious Doctrines of the Church, against the Heathenish Interpretations of some eminent unwary Tritheists. Zeal in defence of Doctrines which are certainly true, or at least unfeignedly believed to be so, and against Errors really pernicious, or generally suspected as such by good Men; if it spend its force only to establish the former, and to refute the latter, abstaining from all Illegal, Injurious and Unchristian Treatment of erroneous Persons, may pass for a virtuous and laudable temper of Mind. Men give an assent, an unfeigned assent to Doctrines, because they believe them to be true; and they endeavour to persuade others of the truth of those Doctrines whereof they are persuaded themselves, because they suppose that the same may be beneficial to others, as well as to themselves: On the contrary, they seriously dispute against those Doctrines, which they imagine to have an evil influence, prejudicing the nobler Interests of Mankind. To me than it appears, that the arguing and disputing Temper is cherished and prompted by good Nature; but if Wisdom does not direct, and Charity accompany it, if it grows wild and imperious, and uses them ill, whom it cannot convince, it ceases to be a laudable virtuous Temper, and becomes quite another thing. Now whether these Unitarians have vindicated the Mysterious Doctrines of the Church of England, by proper cogent Arguments, and in an obliging Christian manner, without illegal injurious treatment of Dissenters; that's a Question which ought not rashly to be determined for or against them. That I may more impartially deal in my Censures, I defer the Consideration of it till my method shall lead me to consider also how proper and how cogent have been the Arguments; how winning and civil their manner of handling them, who have made it their business to oppose these unfortunate, but perhaps not justly suspected Unitarians: for to speak freely, I am afraid that all which either of them must pretend to, is to have committed the fewest Mistakes, and to have trespassed least against the righteous equitable Laws of Christ, and the generally accepted Rules of good Manners.  
I have now noted all that I can probably imagine to have prompted the Orthodox Unitarians to enter into the Religious Controversies which are at present under debate. Methinks it is too hard to judge as some do, that they have been spurred on by a vain Ostentation of Learning; though thus much is evident, without a stock not contemptible they could not have done what they have: but to say that their Writers are mercenary, and hired to the Work, looks as like an impertinent Slander as can be; but to suppose them hired, which I don't believe, tho' I can't prove the contrary, I would fain ask, where's the unpardonable crime, to be hired to write in defence of this or that Explication which the Church gives of an Article that's obscure, and understood but in part? If any Man will hire me to that Work, which agrees with honest Principles, and exceeds not my poor Abilities, I am not ashamed to declare that I am at his Service, ready to be commanded at a reasonable Rate.  
There is another Division of Disputants engaged in Religious Controversy, but which fall into many a Subdivision; all which Subdivisions are in open profession, and most of them in truth and reality of the Church of England, as well as the Unitarians, though they are sometime unwisely content to prove their Title to that Honour by so weak an Argument, as their differing from the Unitarians; and when they have done, very few of them differ from the Unitarians, except in terms Scholastic, peculiar Phrase and manner of Expression, which small matter is also now very well accommodated.  
This Division of Disputants, with all their Subdivisions, may be comprised under the general distinction of Nominalists and Realists; the former are of the Church, and know themselves to be so; the latter are mere Heathens, as far as Polytheism goes, though they know it not: we are bound in Charity to believe they know it not, because they profess to be of the Church. Both the Nominalists and Realists engaged against the suspected Unitarians, moved thereunto, as may be guessed from their Writings,  
1. By a profound Reverence for Authority. To do these Gentlemen justice as well as the former, this Motive is not to be rashly condemned, nor yet can it be well allowed, without nearly examining what is here meant by Reverence, and what degrees of Reverence are here spoken of: Meaning by Reverence, a good opinion, and high esteem of the Wisdom of the Ancients, of Fathers and Councils, of modern Convocations of pious and dignified, learned and wealthy Men, methinks it is a justifiable Motive, a Motive also to which we are naturally inclined: for we are born only with a nobler Form, and a Docility above other Creatures; and under the first advances of our Knowledge, it is hardly possible for us to think of ever becoming, like the Royal Psalmist, wiser than our Teachers: When our Reason is grown manly, and can go alone, i. e. of itself compare Ideas, examine their Agreement and Disagreement, thence drawing farther useful Conclusions, still we are justly inclined to have a great Respect for our Teachers, and Men of Fame that went before us; and cannot, nay ought not to endure to have their Doctrines condemned as erroneous, without fair and full evidence against them. When Experience chances to acquaint us with any notices, about which our Ancestors, or now living Teachers, have been mistaken, there is still a Reverence due to them, a Reverence that should restrain us from exposing them, a Reverence that should guide us modestly to represent what our own study and observance hath discovered; and 'tis but an honest and grateful Reverence to their Wisdom, to vindicate all their Conclusions, which our own Reason apprehends to have been fairly drawn from just Premises. Wherefore all those Writers that have engaged in Religious Controversy, moved by such Sentiments as these, their Reverence for Authority becomes them, and justifies their Undertaking; but what is beyond this, is Excess and Extravagance, and it were strange if the products of such Motives should be regular and even, reasonable and useful. It is notorious Excess, and wild Extravagance, to make Gods of Men, and equal Human Authority to Divine. The Doctrines of Fathers, the Canons of Councils, the Decrees of Popes, the Confessions of National Churches, may, 'tis true, be reasonably defended by any Man who is sincerely persuaded, that the same are truly stated, righteously ordained, wisely decreed, and well drawn up: But when any Doctrines or Canons, Decrees or Confessions, are defended, not for sake of their own Truth and Excellence, but in reverence to the Authority of the Authors, a Reverence is paid them above what they can deserve, because a greater cannot be paid to God Almighty. We can but submit our Judgements to the Revelations of God; and it is lawful for us to examine, nay 'tis our commendation to examine how far those Histories are to be trusted which give us an account of his Revelations: having once satisfied ourselves in this point, [and as to the Histories of the Old and New Testament, we have fair and full Evidence, that's my Opinion, and I am sure the Unitarians grant it] we have then nothing to do but to examine [with the best skill we have in Languages, and Customs of the old Jews, and first Christians, by regarding the Genius, Style, and Design of Sacred Writers, etc.] what is the true and proper signification of the Words which we read, what sense arises from them. Contradictions to natural Reason cannot be the true sense of the words, Difficulties may; such is the Doctrine of the Resurrection: if we submit our Judgements in any case but this, where we are sure of a Divine Revelation, and where we are sure of the sense of the sacred Penman's words, we pay an excessive Reverence to the Authority of Men; but I believe that those Gentlemen who profess to submit their Judgements to the Church, have no other aim, but to court the Church her favour, or cheat her inspection with a Compliment. There's no avoiding such a thought as this, when the solemn and public Judgement and Declaration of a Vicechancellor and Heads of one of our Universities, condemning the Doctrine of three infinite distinct Minds and Substances in the Trinity, as False, Impious, and Heretical, contrary to the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, and of the Church of England, is made a Jest of, and rejected with bold, contemptuous and angry Raillery. All that the Church of England requires of us is, I humbly conceive, such a Reverence and Esteem as I first described, a wise Submission, a Reverence joined with Honesty, and a good Understanding, a Submission, according as may be gathered from the 20th of her 39 Articles; because she does not, as she ought not, ordain any thing contrary to God's Word written; because she expounds Scripture, one place consonant to another; because she is a faithful Keeper of Holy Writ, decrees nothing against the same; and besides the same enforces nothing as necessary to Salvation. The Church does not pretend to Infallibility; the most eminent, Sons shall I say, or Fathers of the Church, look upon her Articles as Forms in a comprehensive Latitude, drawn up for Peace sake; and very conscious are they that the Church of the last Age was Calvinist, the Church of the present Age Arminian, and all the while it was Church of England: but when bold Opiniators shall not be content to keep themselves within the accountable bounds of prudential Latitude, but start odd Notions, not at all distinguishable from Heathenish Polytheism, than they who dispute against them enter into Religious Controversy, moved thereunto by a very just Motive. But perhaps it may be urged, that the Polytheists did not begin the Quarrel: Well, suppose it, what will they gain by that Plea, if still their Doctrine is no other than Polytheism? And what if it should appear that the Unitarians gave the first occasion of Dispute; this will create no Prejudice against them, in the Minds of considering Men: for as far as I can perceive, they took Exceptions not against the Articles, but the Scholastical Terms of the Church; and drove at nothing farther, than that those difficult Propositions, which are called Mysteries, might be expressed as far as the Subject would admit, in words plain and intelligible; and when that could not be, in the very Phrase of Scripture. The Unitarians, if I take them right, cannot yet submit their Judgement, so as not to prefer Scripture-Phrase before Scholastic Terms; though they are such lovers of Peace, that it has been again and again declared, that when nothing is meant by all those Terms of Art which is contrary to Reason, or not consonant to Scripture, they will not contentiously decline the use of them. They have said as much in some of their Prints, and I should not do them justice, if I did not take notice of it. They are also ready to pay due reverence to the Church, because of her great Candour and Moderation in not exacting from good Christians a submission of Judgement as to the use of Religious Rites and Ceremonies; something more hardly once she treated them, but now (God be thanked) she is come to a true Christian Temper; so that I reckon, the Toleration which Parliamentary Authority has indulged, is enjoyed by conscientious Separatists with the consent of the Church; for it were uncharitable to suspect that she is not the same now, as a while ago in the time of her danger: And therefore I think that those warmer Zealots, who entertain their Auditories with Invectives against the Toleration, do not only slight the Authority of King and Parliament, but also bring a Scandal upon the Church. It is but just to believe that the Church is pleased with the Toleration for this other reason, because she gets more by that, than ever she did by violence; for it is visible that our Parochial Churches are fuller now than when we compelled Men to come in. But enough of this, though it is not altogether out of the way; for this also tends to declare on what accounts a reverential esteem is due to the Church; and on what respects the vindication of her Honour is a just Motive of entering into Religious Controversy: but a blind submission of Judgement to all that the Church already has decreed, or may decree hereafter, is a senseless slavish Stupidity. An implicit Faith in all her Articles, is more than she does require; a taking up always with the first obvious, literal Grammatical Sense, is more than the most, and the most learned Deacons, Priests and Bishops themselves do.  
2. The Persons, of whom I have been speaking, were prompted, as may be gathered from their Prints, to enter into Religious Controversy by an indignation against all Innovations in Religion. As specious a look as this Motive has, it must be very well circumstanced, before it can be allowed for a just and reasonable one; for it happens many times, that the Innovation is but surmised and suspected; and perhaps there would not be half the Differences which there are in the Church, if words which have not all of them determinate and distinct Ideas, if terms of Art and equivocal Phrases were expounded, and sixth by exact and plain Definitions. Foreign Protestants are apt to suspect that the Church of England favours the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, because she expresses herself by that ambiguous Phrase, Real Presence; they are afraid lest Real Presence should signify Corporeal Presence: But when the Church avows, that she does not use the word Real in that sense, but means only a Spiritual Presence, apprehended and enjoyed by Faith, the occasion of dispute is removed, and all that can be said against the Church, is, that her Language is not so proper, as her Faith is pure. Therefore that celebrated Huguenot Jurieu, was more angry than the Cause deserved, when he joined Transubstantiation and Real Presence together, and called 'em both Monsters; which harsh Censure cannot be returned upon his Accomplishment of Prophecies, for that's an ingenious, learned, pretty thing: the Events of History have an agreeable resemblance to the Apocalyptick Emblems to which he applies them; but for all that, I believe there's not one word of truth in his interpretative Accomplishment. By the Form of Absolution in the Visitation of the Sick, one might be apt to suspect, that it was the Doctrine of our Church, that God has given power to our Priests that now are, to forgive sins; but yet the generality of our Priests abhorring delusive Priest-craft, make no more of it than a mere Declaration, that God forgives the Sinner, supposing he be truly penitent: When they have thus explained themselves, no Body can quarrel their Doctrine; and who would fall out with them for an awkward way of expressing it? Ever give me Catholic, Orthodox Doctrine, though veiled under obscure and less proper Phrase, rather than gross affected Tritheism, openly avowed, and in distinct plain words expressed, in words and phrase so clear and proper, that every understanding unbiass'd Reader may at first sight apprehend it. Now by explaining and defining, the occasion of Dispute is removed; indeed some Disputants define ignotum per ignotius, one obscure ambiguous word, term, phrase, by another more obscure and ambiguous: they mend the matter well; but full, plain and clear Definitions make short work of Controversy: The Disputants quickly see by this means where 'tis they differ, if so be they do differ; for not rarely it happens, they discover that they were of one and the same mind, though they did not express their thoughts after one and the same manner. I am very much mistaken, or this is the very Case between the suspected Unitarians, and the Nominal Orthodox Trinitarians who suspected them: Indeed as to the Realists, there is a wide difference between them, and both the former; their Tritheism is Innovation with a Witness, and a just Motive for their Opposers to engage in Religious Controversy. Again it may happen, that the Innovation comes to no more than the reviving a long-buried Truth, or the rubbing the rust off from a corrupted Usage: for Truth's certain and useful have run like Rivers under ground for several Ages, and then their first appearance afterwards may be called Innovation; but that will not justify any Man's contending for his old Errors; no, though his old Errors have lived for several Ages. The eating and drinking the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by Faith, t'other Day was a mere Innovation; yet I do not believe that our Real Trinitarians will say, that the Anthropophagous Romanists, the human Flesh and Blood-eating Papists, had reason with Fire and Sword to oppose it. The cry of Innovation is sometimes made use of, to secure a beloved false Doctrine from being contradicted; a superstitious cheating Practice from being undermined. Where a present Establishment is without fault, no Innovation can be so; but a departing from the Language of the Schools, is not the same thing as departing from the Faith. Yet that our Differences may be accommodated in some tolerable manner, let sound Religion, say I, be taught in barbarous Language; better so, than Tritheism clothed with words pure and proper, and phrase elegantly plain; for that's but like martials fine Amber-Box, with nothing but a Viper and a dead Fly in it.  
3. Both Realists and Nominalists, as themselves profess, and I believe, honestly have entered into Religious Controversy to vindicate the Christian Religion, the main Foundation of which, they once (by mistake) verily thought that the Unitarians were undermining, and labouring to overthrow. It is good to be jealous for the honour of the Christian Religion; but nevertheless it is a fault, and a very unchristian one, to charge any Man unjustly: for an unjust Charge of this high nature, robs innocent Persons of the Comforts and Advantages which they might chance to have in the good opinion of others; and not only so, but exposes them to the dire Effects of that Zeal, which is too hot ever to have mercy, and too passionate ever to consider matters calmly, deliberately, and as they ought to be considered. When the Realists and Nominalists first suspected the Unitarians of entertaining such wicked and detestable thoughts, as to undermine and subvert the main Foundation of the Christian Religion, it would have extremely become them to have carefully weighed what are the sure and certain Truths, which may be reasonably called the Foundation of the Christian Religion; and what are the less certain Doctrines and Speculations, concerning which, Men that lead virtuous and Christian Lives, are differently persuaded: But now in their anger and their haste, they have condemned the Unitarians as Heretics, for not giving the true sense of some Articles, whose true sense they themselves have not yet found out, or are not agreed upon. One would think that a mistaken Exposition of an obscure Article did not tend to the Subversion of the Christian Religion, but they have judged it otherwise; yet to do them right, for furious merciless Judges, they use as much equity as could be wished, carrying on their severe Censures with a remarkable Impartiality. The Tritheistick Trinity (says one of them) is worse even than Socinianism: The Nominal Trinity (says another) is as bad; in which last Censures, I shall not contradict them: but one thing I must remark, viz. That when the Purposes in which Men agree are none of the best, the gaining their Point is but removing an Obstacle which hinders them from vexing one another. There are some great Men, who (out of what Christian Principle, neither I, nor they can tell) would have the Unitarians be Heretics by themselves, and by consequence burnt by themselves, without the company of any of them who commit the very same, or a more heinous fault: For which purpose they solicit the Magistrates, after the manner of Inquisitors, Omni affectu quo possint, but without the Hypocrisy of the Inquisitors; for these great Men of ours call for Fire in plain words, which the other mean when they require Mercy, and to justify the Exemption of whom they please from Heresy and the Stake. Tother day this Dream was told;— A Man may be very right in the belief of an Article, and yet be mistaken in his Explication of it.  
I call this a Dream, meaning no disrespect in the World to the Author, for quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus, but because it appears at the very first sight an inconsistent Notion; now pleasing Dreams Men are unwilling to part with, therefore a Friend is called in to give credit to this; but as ill luck would have it, all which that Friend says, is That a Man may quit his Explication, without parting with the Article itself: That is, Dr. should— may quit his Explication, and so may every other Realist, without parting with the Article of the Trinity. But under favour, he that quits the true Explication, quits the Article itself, or it is impossible to quit it. To speak seriously, one would wonder how it could enter into the thoughts of a wise Man being awake, to imagine that an Article might be rightly believed, that was not rightly understood. If it be objected, that I altar the Case, and should have worded it— that was not rightly explained: I reply, The thing is the same; for I presume that the Author from whom I beg leave to descent, will obligingly grant me, That the Explainer, whom he would save from Heresy, understands as he explains: I am sure he's a Knave if he does not; and speculative Heresy is an innocent thing, in comparison with practical Knavery. To declare publicly that an Article may be rightly believed, which is not rightly understood! if an Unitarian, or any Friend of theirs had done it, without question he had been plentifully reproached. Mr. J. E. B. D. would not have missed the occasion, but have enriched his last Rhapsody of railing, with Exclamations argumentative, as well as ill-natured. How! an Article rightly believed, though not rightly understood!— To see what senseless shifts these pretenders to Reason take up with, to save their Heterodoxes from the imputation of Heresy, and themselves from the peril of the Stake! What Idea can there be had of so self-contradicting a Proposition? Indeed to such a sharp Reproof as this, I don't see what could have been replied by any Unitarian of them all, or by Mr. Lock, or Mr. Toland either [as much Friends as they are (though neither side knows it) to the Unitarians.] But then those Gentlemen are not capable of such an elevated Thought; it is not possible for any one to rise so high, but a vast-read, profound Scholar, who does not judge concerning the Truth of a Proposition, by the Agreement or Disagreement of the Ideas contained in it, but by a sort of Reason, which what it is, and how it operates, no Conception can be had, nor Account given. But whatever Mr. J. E. would have done had this contradictory Notion been started by an Unitarian, I shall deal gently with it, observing only, that, for whose sake soever it was made public, it will save all that Assent and Consent to an Article, as it lies in the Words of the Church, of what Denomination soever they are, and how plainly contradictory soever their Explanations; it will save all alike, all, or none. But the Unitarians want not this Plea to defend their Cause, for they profess to believe the Article of the Trinity; nay, and what is more, they explain that Article to the very same Sense as do the Nominalists, for Peace sake submitting even to the Scholastic Terms, which they cannot like so well as the very Phrase of Scripture. Now I cannot imagine how these Unitarians, so very orthodox, and so exactly conformable to the Church, can be left alone in the lurch for Heretics, unless it be proved, that, as one Man may be right in the Belief of an Article, though he be wrong in the Explication; so another may be right in the Explication of an Article, though he be mistaken in the Belief of it. But after all these things which may be righteously pleaded in behalf of the Unitarians, it must not be denied but that their Adversaries had a just Motive to enter into religious Controversy, while they suspected them of labouring to undermine the Christian Religion; only their Adversaries were to blame, that they did not more calmly and leisurely examine the Meaning of those Passages, whatsoever they were, at which they took Offence. I purpose to offer something now, to clear all Suspicions that the Nominalists may chance to entertain of the Unitarians: as for the Realists, no Accommodation can ever be between them and true Christians; great Men, out of the abundance of their Charity, may forgive the Tritheism of those Heathenish Writers, but by all their Wit and Learning they can never make Three infinite Minds to be but One God: nevertheless, I am content that they be forgiven, only I would not have so much Charity wasted to forgive them, that there be no Equity left for sincerer Christians. In order to clear the Suspicions which the Nominalists may chance to entertain of the Unitarians, that so there may be no Simultates between them, no evil Grudge, no base Language, no unchristian Reviling, I shall consider, 1. What manner of Persons those are, who of late have been distinguished by the Name of Unitarian. 2. What is the Tendency of their Doctrines. And this I propound to do, not by way of Answer to all the false and foul Imputations which are vomited up by Mr. Burgess, Mr. Edward's, or that overbold Poetaster who makes so bold with the Almighty, as to subscribe himself God's most humble, most faithful, and devoted Servant, (but I suppose that that Gentleman will excuse himself, and say, all the World may know he did but compliment) but in hopes to satisfy those fairer Disputants, such as Dr. Pain and Mr. Norris, whom, by their Christian Candour and Equity, one may with more Reason conclude hearty to believe the holy Religion which they profess. Yet it will not be proper to speak to the first Head, until I have premised a word to inform the Reader of what standing these Unitarians are. When the Papists ask the Protestants, Where was your Church before Luther? the Protestants, by way of Reply, pretend to find Christians through all Ages, though of divers Denominations, who are recorded to have held the same Opinions with them: in like manner, the Opinions which are at this day charged upon the Unitarians, may be traced up from Age to Age, to the very next times to the Apostles, and by their early Asserters were vouched as truly Christian and Apostolical; and in several Ages a great majority of Christian Professors holding the same, they then went for Orthodox. But our Church of England, bearing a great Reverence for Antiquity, is very zealous for the Retention of some old Philosophical Terms, yet as nice and careful in explaining the same according to Scripture and Reason; though at the same time, she, in the Persons of her most Orthodox Sons, is reproached by a few backsliding Tritheistick Realists, as if she agreed with those ancient Heretics said to be the Founders and Predecessors of the Unitarians. The Unitarians themselves, I mean the English of late so called, think it an Injury to be termed Ebionites, Alogians, Arians, Photinians, etc. or indeed any thing but Christians; but when they are reproached by those Names of distinction, they cannot forbear noting that the very Apostles Creed has lain under the Suspicion of Arianism, Photinianism, etc. God knows how justly; for we have some Orthodox Doctrines, which if they are contained in that Creed, are yet so covertly contained there, that it is not every ordinary Reasoner that can espy them, and by a long Train of just Consequences deduce them, and bring them into light. By the Apostles Creed however, and by the Holy Scriptures, the Unitarians are always willing to be tried, and mean not to make a Peace-disturbing Schism from the Church of England, at least not as long as the chief Doctors of the Church profess, That by none of her Homilies, Creeds, or Canons, they mean any such thing as a Tritheistick Trinity, a Trinity with three distinct infinite Minds. The present Term of Reproach (with which some Men, for want of better Argument, hope to confound the Unitarians) is Socinian. Now it must be confessed, That the Unitarians think honourably of Socinus; but yet they do not espouse his whole Scheme, nor any thing of his Scheme, because it is his; nor any thing more of his Scheme than is espoused by their Arminian Nominalist Brethren, who are a great majority of the Church, though the Animadverter may not love to bear of it. Socinus' Life is in Print among us, both Latin and English: the Memory of the Man is frequently reviled; but I do not hear that his Adversaries undertake to refute the historical Account which the Polonian Knight has given of him. Mr. Bidle, in his Preface, has these Words of Socinus, He took the same course to propagate the Gospel, that Christ and the Apostles had done before him, forsaking his Estate, and his nearest Relations, and undergoing all manner of Labours and Hazards to draw Men to the Knowledge of the Truth: He had no other End of all his Undertake, than the Glory of God and Christ, it being impossible for Calumny itself to asperse him with the least Suspicion of worldly Interest. He, of all Interpreters, explaineth the Precepts of Christ in the strictest manner, and windeth up the Lives of Men to the highest Strain of Holiness.  
The Author of the Growth of Error makes it an Article against Socinus, that he accused the Reformed of immoral Practices, and boasted of the Holiness of his own Followers. But what says that Author? Was Socinus' Accusation unjust, or his Boasting rash and ill grounded? Why, he says, Meisner answered Socinus; but it seems he confesses too, that Schlichtingius defended him. Upon the whole matter, to speak impartially, Excepting that the foreign Unitarians are recorded to have sometimes dealt hardly with one another upon account of their different Persuasions concerning worshipping Jesus Christ, it does not appear that their Lives were wicked and unchristian. Here in England, Men that know little of them, or have Ends in traducing them, load them with heavy Imputations; but impartial Men abroad, who have known and observed them, notwithstanding they differ from them, do yet bear honourable Testimony to their Piety and Virtue. Monsieur Stoop a Protestant Officer in the French Army, in his Religion of the Dutch, Anno 1673. gives this Account of the Socinians in Holland: They have their secret Assemblies, in which they are very fervent in Prayer to God, with groaning and weeping.— They affirm that they have no Interest in the maintaining their Doctrine, save only the Persuasion they have of its Truth, and the Zeal of appropriating to the only individual and sovereign God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory of his Divinity.— They are confirmed in their Faith by reading the Word of God, and by the Books which have been written against them.— Their Conversation is holy and without Reproach, as far as Men can judge by what they see. Much more this impartial Gentleman, none of their Party, says to their Praise. Even of the English Unitarians, one of our Reverend Bishops disputing against them, when he looked upon them as altogether Socinianized, fairly professes, that he judges they would not think so meanly of our Lord Christ, but for fear of taking away from the Honour of God Almighty. But I have a Word or two to offer to the Reverend Bishop of Sarum, before I speak of the English Unitarians of this last Age. As ill as he thinks now of these Unitarians, I hope he will not retract the noble Character which he once gave of one George Van Par, a Dutchman, burnt in England 1549 for Unitarianism, which he could not in Conscience abjure: He led a very exemplary Life for Fasting, Devotion, and a good Conversation, and suffered with extraordinary Composedness of Mind. It is out of the way to speak of Barth. Legate, [a Man of whose virtuous Behaviour the Booksellers of Paul's, among whom he conversed for 7 Years before his Execution, gave a good account] for he was an Arian, burnt An. 1611, reburnt this last Year by Mr. Gailhard: but it is a better Argument for that poor Man's Seriousness in his Religious Persuasion, that he could endure to be burnt for it, than it is for the Sincerity of Mr. Gailhard, and the Honour of Calvinism, that he thirsts after the Blood of thousands, and damns all Orders and Degrees of Men that do not forward his Executions. But that no ill-minded Person may hence take occasion to say, that I insinuate that the Unitarians are a numerous Body; I openly declare, that whether they are many or few, is more than I know, or care, who am an impartial, though not always a melancholy By-stander: But that they are better Men, truer Christians, and more faithful Subjects, than the revengeful Calvinists, will appear to any Man that examines the Writings of both sides. I now come to speak of those Persons of this last Age who have been distinguished by the Name of Unitarians.  
Anthony Wood, in his Athenae Oxonienses, 2d Vol. p. 197-199. gives a large Account of John Bidle, and says among other very commendable things, that being Master of Crifts' School in Gloucester, He was much esteemed for Diligence in his Profession, Severity of Manners, and Sanctity of Life. And when he came to converse in London, after many Years Imprisonment, He was very taking for his Religious Discourse and Saintlike Conversation. Now Mr. Wood, I presume, cannot be suspected of Partiality in favour of an Unitarian. John Bidle sealed the Sincerity of his religious Persuasion, by his Death; for he took that Sickness in Newgate, whereof he died 2 days after Removal.  
Mr. Cooper succeeded Mr. Bidle Master of Crifts' School in Gloucester, afterward Minister of Chelthenam in Glocestershire; and after the Act of Uniformity, Minister of an Unitarian Congregation in that Place. We appeal to all that knew him, whether he was not a Man always composed and grave, but of a most sweet and obliging Temper and Conversation. He suffered those Abuses from intemperate and riotous Men, when the Nation was running mad they knew not for what, that it broke his Health, and hastened his End. His Daughter Mary died about a Year and a half since, a known Unitarian; so that the Minister who preached her Funeral Sermon commended her to his Auditors for a Pattern of Christian Virtues, however erroneous in her Judgement. Mr. Cooper was succeeded in the Guidance of an Unitarian Congregation by Ralph Taylor, Henry Sturmy, Thomas Macock, and Allen Kear, all of them very serious and diligent in their way, devout and pious, strictly honest, and charitable to their power; however not so accomplished in Humane Learning.  
John Knowles of Gloucester, by long and diligent Study, became very knowing in the Critical Learning of the Scriptures; his much Reading, and Thoughtfulness, won him to Unitarianism, having in his younger Years been an Independent. His singular Piety and Virtue were exemplarily conspicuous in divers Stations and Stages of his Life. His Labours were directed to the Benefit of others; the greatest Fruit of them to himself, was Dangers and hard Usages. His Patience was tried by undeserved Injuries, and Imprisonment even in the time of the raging Plague. Dying, he bequeathed some Books of value to the Library at Gloucester; and a Third of all he had, for the Relief of Men persecuted for Religion, and other Charities. He also was an Unitarian Teacher while he lived in London: After the Year of the Plague, he conversed frequently among the Clergy; his Learning, and Seriousness in Religion, was well known among them, of whom several are now living.  
Mr. Gilbert Clerk was Fellow of Sidney College in Cambridg; which Place he was obliged to leave for Conscience sake: after that, he lived long at Stamford, well known and esteemed by Dr. Cumberland the Reverend Bishop of Peterborough, who used to speak of him by the Name of Honest Gilbert. He was Author of two of those Tracts called Tractatus tres, etc.  
Mr. Noval, late Rector of Tydds St. Giles near Wisbich in the Isle of Ely, was a Man of singular Piety, and winning Conversation. His Writings testify his excellent Learning. He was complained of to his Reverend Diocesan, for omitting those parts of the Liturgy, which after some Years of Study and Consideration he came to be persuaded against. We appeal to the Reverend Bishop, and even to all the Clergy of Ely, especially to him that preached his Funeral Sermon last Trinity Sunday, whether he deserved not the Character given him.  
I ought not to conclude the Account which I give concerning the Persons of the Unitarians, without taking notice of Mr. Thomas Firmin. I have known him intimately these 6 or 7 Years, and do now mourn the Loss of the best Man I ever knew: but upon the strength of so short an Acquaintance, had I never so great Abilities, I ought not to pretend to draw his just and full Character: let the Reader expect that, as I do, from one of his dearest eldest Friends. Yet something I am prompted to offer, not only by my Gratitude to his Memory, but in proper Justice to the Argument before me.  
Mr. Thomas Firmin is now gone to his Rest, but has left behind him a good Name, a Name entertained with the highest Esteem among the greatest and best Men, not of our Nation only, but of far distant Countries; for it pleased God to inspire him with a wonderful measure of true Christian Charity, so that he looked upon himself as obliged to study and labour no less a Work, than the Good of Mankind in general. One while he was busy in providing for the Poor, both at home and abroad, as far as his wide and honourable Friendships, his own honest Acquisitions, his apprehensive Understanding, constant Industry, and Application could carry him. In providing for the Poor, his Charity was regular and prudent; he considered what was fitting to be allowed to the Unhappy, reduced by some common Casualty of Providence, and what was necessary for the Support of the Sick and the Aged, of lame Persons, and Children. As for poor People, able to work, he rightly judged, the best Charity was to find them Work; he did it for thousands: And till the Great Council of the Nation shall make effectual Provisions in this weighty matter, thousands will be sadly sensible of the Loss of Mr. Thomas Firmin. At another time he joined his Counsels and Interest to advance the Trade of England; and to whatever good Work he joined his hand (which he did to many) the same proceeded much more successfully through his hearty and active Concurrence. On all Occasions he was ready, and sincere in discountenancing Deism: for though he was persuaded there might be Deists, that were virtuous and good Men, upon the sole Belief of the Existence of God, and the Expectance of future Recompenses; yet he thought Deism nothing so sure a Foundation of true Virtue and Goodness, as the Gospel-Revelation. He made himself one in the Society for Reformation of Manners; and no good Man of that number was more zealously affected, by wise and legal Methods to suppress Profaneness and Irreligion, which, he well knew, loosened the Bands of all Society, and made Man to Man a more dangerous Enemy than biting Serpents, or devouring Brutes. In short, as to matters Civil, his chief Aim was, the Prosperity of Old England: With respect to Religion, his ardent Desire was, first to convince the World that Natural and Revealed Religion both, obliged them to be morally honest; and then to promote universal Love and  among Men morally honest, however about speculative Doctrines differently persuaded. But God never indulged it, no not to his dearly beloved Son, to go about doing Good, and incur no Envy; to shine conspicuously in his Generation with the Splendour of good Works, and meet no Hatred nor Opposition. That which Mr. Firmin met with, proceeded sometimes from the Jealousies and Fears of ecclesiastics, eminent for their Honours, Learning, and Piety; but I leave it to the World to judge whether their Jealousies and Fears, or his Conduct was most to blame. But what was Jealousy and Fear only in the Minds of some eminent ecclesiastics, was Passion and rash Zeal, and the over-boiling of an unchristian Breast in others of a lower form, which I will not say but their weaker Judgements might look upon as a piece of good Service to God, and it is not impossible for them to have supposed it the readiest way to serve themselves. But had Mr. Firmin been the Heretic which they represented him, it would not have misbecome them to have bated him some ill Language for the sake of his truly Christian Conversation. For wise Men will always set a greater Value upon a good Life than a clear-sighted Understanding, and never confute a supposed Heresy (which does not engage its Professors in immoral Practices) with penal Inflictions instead of convincing Reason.  
I will not here dissemble what I have once heard from Mr. Firmin's own Mouth; viz. That a venerable Prelate, or two, had lately charged him as a Promoter of Deism, which, they said, was the Road to Atheism. At this Charge the good Man was extremely concerned; not that he admitted the Charge, or the Aggravation of it, to be true, (for he was throughly satisfied at whose doers that Gild lay) but concerned he was, that he should be so unhappy, as to be in such manner misjudged by Persons of their Worth and Character: whereupon he was more frequent in his Advices to his Friends, that they would be diligently careful of their Conversation, that they would shun the Company [as much as their lawful worldly Business permitted] of immoral Men, but especially of them who questioned the Truth of the Christian Revelation. He thought indeed better of a moral Deist than of a wicked Man professing Christianity; yet no one ever talked doubtingly of the Christian Revelation in his Company, but was sure of a just and public Reproof. I could add more to his Praise on this Topick, but I hope to see it done by one much longer and better acquainted with him than myself. I think Mr. Firmin ought not to have been looked upon with an evil eye by any of the Church of England; I am sure the moral Discourses of the most learned and pious of the Clergy in his time, differ not at all from his Sentiments, but rest on the same Foundations which he built upon; viz. the Foundations of natural Reason, and consonant Christian Revelation. 'Tis true, he did differ from them as they differ from one another, in some speculative Opinions; and I will say that for both their Honours, wherein the Clergy differed among themselves, each Party thought Mr. Firmin in the more pardonable Error: so that if Heresy had been doomed to the Fire, the Church would have been almost half destroyed before it had come to his turn.  
'Twere too invidious a thing to name either those that esteemed, or those that maligned him; but might I have the liberty which some Philosophic Fathers, after their Conversion from Paganism, made bold with, I would adventure at a Pathetic Argument, and by a proper Prosopopoeia introduce Mr. Grigg, Dr. Whichcot, or Archbishop Tillotson, vindicating the Honour of their dear Friend. Had they been now living, they would have done it effectually. I am conscious I cannot put into their mouths Words worthy them or him; but the least they would have said, must have imported thus much— He exposes his own Judgement, who accuses Mr. Firmin of Heresy; he proclaims himself an ill Man, who questions his Morals.  
Against his worst Enemies, those that could take Offence at nothing but the Virtue and Reputation of the Man, I shall not inveigh severely: it is enough to say, the Coffee-man can have no Comfort in his Scandal, which no body will credit: and as for Mr. Burgess, he took it up, not from any manner of Probability, [even his own Printer, and several others, told him it was a horrid Calumny] but out of pure Zeal against what he calls Socinianism, because he knows no better. It was this which made him talk, in his fanciful way, about stinking Goats, and sweet-scented Panthers, painted Snakes, and immoral Poison. But, whether it pleases him or not, the injured Man's fair Fame has taken Wing, and is not to be bounded within our narrow Seas, or blasted by his envious Metaphors. The Masters of Oratory say, those Metaphors ought to be shunned which are borrowed à re turpi, aut sordidâ; and those which are too far fetched, had better have been let alone: but if a Man is above these Rules, then with his Goats, Snakes, and Panthers, he may make what work he pleases; and if he be minded, at one bold Stroke to defy all Rules, and ridicule his own Discourse, let him represent the serious Business of reproving Sin, by snuffing a Candle.  
By accident, our Enemies often happen to do us greater Kindness than our Friends. So happened it to Mr. Firmin; All that conversed with him were extremely taken with the soft, agreeable, and endearing Conversation of the Man; but what a Friend says in such a case, is often suspected to have more of Affection than Truth in it: but Providence, to secure the Fame of Mr. Firmin, moved an Enemy to bear Testimony to his Honour; for one that with a malevolent eye observed him, represents him as a Man of Socinus' Make, complaisant and sweet even to such as oppose and detest his Heresy. Now I know of no Heresy which he had; I am sure he did not take the Opinions of Socinus upon content, but agreed with, or differed from, that Writer, as he saw cause: if he had any thing in him bordering upon Heresy, it was his Obstinateness in believing with his own Understanding those things only which appeared to him credible, agreeable to Holy Scripture, and not contradictory to Natural Reason: but his Conversation indeed, that (as his Enemy says) was always complaisant and sweet; for, alas! he was bred a Christian, and never used to return Railing for Railing. But by the way, if a sweet good Nature be an Heretical Temper, than a furious ill Nature must be an orthodox Temper, and then this Term of Art, Orthodox, will at last become but another Word for .  
Who would have imagined that the Wit of an Enemy should have advanced against Mr. Firmin such an Objection, as that He was openhanded to the Poor with his own or other Folks Money? Both parts of the Disjunction are true; but to suppose only the latter so, that proves that Mr. Firmin was well known for a faithful and prudent Dispenser of Charity: and to suppose he had nothing of his own to give, which is spitefully insinuated; yet even this redounds to his Honour, for is it not a very commendable thing, if there were no more in't, for a Man to spend so much of his time upon the Poor? I am apt to think it was offence taken at the ill Lives of the Christians, rather than the Doctrines of Christianity, which made the renowned Averro wish, that his Soul might rest with the Philosophers: now have I that awful regard for the Virtue and Piety of Mr. Firmin; that let his Adversaries revile him, and call him Heretic as long as they please, I cannot forbear praying, may my Soul rest with this thrice excellent and truly Christian Unitarian.  
It is to spare the Reader's farther trouble, that I deduce no longer a Catalogue of English Unitarians, not long since deceased, who were neither Atheists, nor Deists, nor Profane, nor immoral Persons, (as is the Cry of some now when they have spent all their fair Arguments, and distrust their Efficacy) but seriously religious, fully satisfied of the truth of the Christian Revelation, devout, honest, and charitable.  
If it objected that the Unitarians lately deceased, whom I have now charactered, separated themselves from the Church of England, and formed religious Assemblies to themselves apart; and therefore the Unitarians now living cannot pretend to the Title of Orthodox Churchmen. I reply, 1. That as for the Unitarians deceased, it is probable to me, that they separated [after such manner as they did separate, which how far it was, I have not been made acquainted] that they might not seem to profess a Tritheistick Trinity, composed of three distinct Infinite Minds and Substances; for in their time our eminent ecclesiastics had not so particularly explained themselves against that heathenish Notion. 2. There may be a conscientious Separation from the Church by Men that agree with her in Doctrinals: such I take the Separation of the Presbyterians, Independents, and Anabaptists to be. 3. The Unitarians now living being lately satisfied that the Majority of the Doctors of the Church, do not mean by their scolastick Terms still retained, any such Trinity as is plain Tritheism, but such a Nominal Trinity as the Bishop of Sarum and Dr. S—th have explained, and as the Learned Bishop of Worcester has spoke of, though a little obscurely, which learned Men cannot help; and having therefore publicly professed their Agreement with the Church of England on this and other disputed Articles, I ought not in reason but to look upon them as sound and orthodox Members of the Church of England as to their Faith.  
If it be still objected, That there is in some of the first Prints of these Unitarians something very like a formal Opposition of the Articles of the Church: let it be considered they have of late answered for themselves, confessing that careless or less accurate Expressions may have been used by both Parties, of which neither aught to take advantage, because (which is originally a Tritheist's Argument, but the Nominalists acquiesce in't) there is no Heterodox Intention on either side: Nay, the Unitarians have desired, that those Passages in their Writings, (which might be wrested by an ill-natured Adversary to their Disadvantage) be interpreted according to their later more accurate and careful explaining their Minds.  
If it be farther urged (by those that love no Satisfaction, but the Ruin of poor Men who have had the Misfortune to displease them) that it is an intolerable Shame for the Unitarians to shift about thus, after they have made a hurly-burly in the Chutch; they may perhaps desire to know whether they are more to blame than the Realists, and whether they may not have as free leave to explain their first Writings, as the Realists to explain their first? For Dr. S—th was not angry at the Dean for explaining his obnoxious Tritheistick Phrases, but because his Explanation was as arrant Tritheism, as his first obnoxious Tritheistick Phrases: which cannot be said of the Unitarians in that Book where they have declared their Agreement with the Catholic Church. Whereupon even Mr. Edward's cries out, Why should I contend with these Catholic and Orthodox Men? Who will fall out with those that profess agreement with the Catholic Church? Indeed he does not use these friendly Words, till the very latter end of the very worst Book he ever wrote. It's true, he acknowledged himself in debt to the Civility of the nameless Socinian, [so he calls him, for he calls no Man he dislikes by a right Name] and promised a return of Civility about six Leaves before, but it seems he had not quite discharged his Stomach of the foul Matter which lay upon it, and could not speak him fair, till he had called him all the names he could think on: just his way of dealing with Mr. Bold, for seven or eight Leaves together he represents him as a Subverter of the Foundations of Christianity, a Worshipper of the Idol that Mr. Hobbs and Mr. Lock have set up; a dull, phlegmatic, horrid lying Fellow, etc. and in the close he is ready, [if what he says is true] to express the deference which he owes to Mr. Bold's Person and Office. From whence, though it does not follow but that Mr. Bold may be a learned and honest Man, (for all that Mr. Edward's says is not Gospel) yet it does plainly follow, that Mr. Edward's thinks he owes a deference to an Antichristian, Idolatrous, dull, horrid lying Fellow, and that he is ready to express the same; and by joining Mr. Bold's Person, [whom he represents as an Antichristian, etc.] he fairly implies that it is his Persuasion, that the Office sanctifies the Person, though the Person be an Antichristian, Idolatrous, dull, horrid lying Fellow. I hope without offence to any sober Man, it may be set down as an instance of Priestcraft, this subtle Contrivance, That the holy Office of the spiritual Man should expiate whatever is done amiss by the Sinner: I word it gently, and done't pursue it so far as the matter leads. I have said what I had to say concerning the Persons of the late Deceased, and now living Unitarians; and as far as I perceive, the Men are honest, their Conversation blameless, the Holy Scripture is their Rule, and they interpret it according to the best of their understanding; nay, as good luck will have it, they interpret it just as the founder and major part of the Church does, and have always so interpreted it, though they did not always perceive the Agreement between the Church and themselves: they are not as they have been odiously reviled, Men of no seriousness in Religion, mere Deists, much less Atheists, or (as a Reverend Father out of the abundance of his Charity compliments them) irreligious profligate Villains; but it is to be hoped that he will recall those bitter words, at least for his own sake; for I am told they are resolved to make it plainly appear to the World, that his Lordship's Doctrine in some of his Books [and in some perhaps not] accords as much with the Racovian Catechism, as theirs: so that if there be not two Rules to judge of Heresy, one Fire will serve them and his Lordship both.  
I come now to consider what is the Tendency of the Unitarian Doctrines: only one Question I have to premise. Supposing that the Conversation of these Men is such as becomes the Gospel [which from my Soul I believe] but their Doctrines false, and of mischievous Tendency; would it not have become their jealous Adversaries [who by the Rules of the Gospel are obliged to believe the best which a Cause will bear] to have looked upon them as Men erring through Ignorance, and not perceiving the mischievous Tendency of their Doctrines? A good Man cannot promote a Doctrine which he knows to be false, or of mischievous Consequence; but a zealous or a proud Man is capable of suspecting a Doctrine to be false, and of mischievous Consequence, which is nothing so.  
Two ways the Unitarians defend their Doctrines from the Imputation of mischievous Consequence or Tendency; 1. By ingenuously, carefully, and largely explaining their Minds on those Articles which they were charged to deny, or expound amiss. 2. By making it appear, that they have no particular private Opinions about Matters commonly held necessary to Salvation, different from the Church of England; i. e. if the Bishops and chief Doctors of the Church know what the Church means.  
1. By ingenuously, etc. The Writer who drew up the Trinitarian Scheme, quotes not the Authors whence he drew it, I suppose, because his Design was to reprove the Errors of Men, and spare their Persons. Mr. Edward's, who knows not when his Friends are well used, tells him, he had no credible Authors to vouch that Scheme: Sure he meant creditable. But 'tis no new thing for Men of bustling Learning to forget their Mother-tongue. The Unitarian will not pretend to find credible Authors, i. e. Authors fit to be trusted, for the Scheme which he looks upon as erroneous; they may be credible in Matters of fact, in Matters of Faith not so. Matters of Faith are not to be taken on the bare Credit of any Man's word: but if creditable, i. e. Authors of esteem, to vouch that Scheme, will content Mr. Edward's, he may have them in due time; and to be very civil to him, he shall be one.  
Mr. Edward's framed a Socinian Creed, and quoted his Authors for every Article: a Unitarian Writer replied, but says Mr. Edward's, That Gentleman in effect acknowledges that the Articles I fixed on the Socinians are the very Doctrines and Sentiments of those Persons, worded as I set them down; and that the Authors whom I quoted delivered them in those very Terms, and that I have not misrepresented any of them. He that will may trust Mr. Edward's, but I for my part desire to be excused; for the Unitarian Writer in his Agreement of the unitarians with the Catholic Church, does expressly affirm, That he has examined some of Mr. Edwards' principal References, and can say of them, that they are either Perversions, or downright Falsifications, of what the Authors (referred to) did intent. It is true, he has alleged no Instances; but he seldom is long, on such an occasion, in a Friend's Debt. But on every Article of Mr. Edwards' Socinian Creed, he has ingenuously, accurately, and amply declared, what it is which the English Unitarians do believe; to all which Mr. Edward's returns only this Censure— It is Higgling, or Dodging, or Recantation. Now if an ingenuous, accurate, and ample declaring what the English Unitarians do believe, be higgling, and dodging, who can help it? If it be Recantation, methinks Mr. Edwards should have rejoiced, that his Labours had contributed to win Souls to the true Faith. But, alas! he is afraid that it is a real Recantation, and therefore he beslaves the Party; for he was in hopes they would have persisted in their Error, that he might have had the Pleasure of seeing them burned, and the Comfort of believing them damned. But notwithstanding this his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Unitarians stand upon it, that neither are their Doctrines erroneous, not have they forsaken them. No! why, says Mr. Edward's, This Anonymous Scribe, merely to avoid the Imputation of some Articles I fastened on the Socinians, ventures to renounce what the Staunch-men of that Party have asserted. Well! but if he never did assert what the Staunch-men have asserted, nor ever profess himself a Disciple of Socinus, may he not have leave to renounce that which is falsely laid to the Charge of himself and his Friends? I doubt not but Mr. Edward's knows what's Heresy enough to burn a Man; but does he think to persuade the Unitarians, as they do Witches in Scotland, to confess the Crime whereof they are not guilty, that so he may have the Satisfaction to glut his vengeful Eyes with the Flames in which they fry? But Mr. Edwards would fain prove that the Anonymous Scribe [as he calls him, for he's full of his Nicknames] has also renounced what the modern domestic Socinians have asserted. He offers this Instance for Proof. The Anonymous Scribe had said, He may for our parts be Anathema, that teaches or believes that Doctrine, viz. That there is no Merit in what Christ did or suffered, and that he made not Satisfaction for our Sins. And yet in one of their Prints they let us know, That the Oblation which Christ made of himself, was not made to the Justice of God, or by way of Reparatio●● but, as all other Sacrifices, by way of humble Suit. How these two Passages do directly contradict one another, Mr. Edward's, when he is at leisure, will inform us: In the mean time, I make bold to acquaint him, that before I have done, I will produce him an honourable Cloud of Witnesses of the last and of this present Age, eminent Doctors and Bishops of the Church of England, offering the same Sense for Orthodox, which Mr. Edward's decries as gross Socinianism. Mr. Edward's having offered nothing else excepting bad Language, against though Book called— Agreement of the unitarians with the Catholic Church, thither I refer the Reader; for, not Mr. Edwards himself (I presume) though he's a bold Man, will dare to pronounce the Doctrines which the Unitarians there own, to be false and of mischievous Tendency.  
But Mr. Edward's and some others have one invidious Objection which I do not remember particularly answered: They say Socinianism is the Road to Deism, and Deism the Road to Atheism. Now if this were true, it does not affect the Unitarians, who are neither Atheists, nor mere Deists, nor yet Socinians. But Mr. Edward's takes every of these Positions for indubitate— A Unitarian is a Socinian; Socinianism tends to Deism; Deism, to Atheism. These things, with him, necessarily hang together, like a Hobbian Chain of Thoughts. Yet I will show him how lose the Links of this Chain are; if he knows how, let him fasten them. That a Unitarian is no Socinian, appears plain from the Agreement, to which I hope to add some farther Proof: that Socinianism does not tend to Deism, I will now offer some Reason; but Mr. Edward's must take it for an Auctarium, which I need not throw him in, but shall do it out of pure Charity, to convince him of his adventurous Boldness at Calumny, and extreme Shortness at Argument. By Deism (I take it) is commonly meant, Natural Religion, founded on the Belief of the Existence of a God, and of a future Life, with a Rejection and Disbelief of all Revelation. Socinianism is not the Road to this Deism. I know not of any English Catechism which accounts for the Truth of the Christian Revelation, except the Racovian. Methinks it is a Deficiency; and if Deism does abound so much, as Mr. Edward's says, surely 'twere not amiss, that our Youth, and other docile, apprehensive (though not Book-learned) People should be informed, in a plain Catechetical way, how the Authority of the Old and New Testament is to be proved: This may be learned in that Catechism of the Socinians which is called the Racovian; the first Chapter consists of near eight Leaves, proving that we have no just Grounds to doubt, but sufficient Reasons to persuade us to give Credence to the Holy Scriptures. Now the Arguments there used are not trivial ●or weak; are not such as might give an Adversary occasion to object that they mean to betray the Cause. Let Mr. Edward's tell me what can be said more to the purpose, or better, in such a compass; touching the Sufficiency, Chap. 2. touching the Clearness of Holy Scriptures, Chap. 3. The Socinians have declared themselves so plainly, so judiciously, so Orthodoxly, that their imbittered Adversaries have nothing to find fault with. Now supposing that these Men were widely mistaken about the Sense of several difficult Texts, yet who, that had any Modesty left, would accuse them of inclining to Deism, of rejecting the Authority of Holy Scriptures, and denying the Truth of the Christian Religion? Let Mr. Edward's defend the Christian Religion, if he can, better than the Socinians have defended it; but if he has no stronger Arguments than they have used for that purpose, why would he have them suspected of Deism? To labour to persuade People that the Socinians, who have said so much to establish the divine Authority of the Bible, do not themselves believe it, is, methinks, no other, than to tempt Sceptics to conclude, that enough cannot be said to establish their Authority; which Mr. Edward's of all Men ought not to do, unless he himself be a mere Deist; which Imputation, as yet, I forbear to lay to his Charge, though in truth, by his last Book [which he calls A Vindication of Fundamental Articles, etc. but might better have entitled it, A Vindication of Railing, (see p. 26, 27.) which Title, the Book fully answers, for it is one interrupted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] it does not appear that he is a Christian. Queen Elizabeth had a Secretary, who when he retired to Tihalds, his Country Seat, was wont to lay aside his Cognisances of Honour, with these words, Lie there Lord Burleigh; and then the grave Statesman would be very merry and gamesome. It take Mr. Edward's to have much of that honourable Gentleman's Humour, for I cannot imagine that he has utterly renounced Christianity; only perhaps when he writes or preaches Controversy, he cries, Lie by for a while, lie by so long good Christian; but the angry Story once finished, or the Sermon over, he's the same Mr. Edward's, as learned, as honest, and as pious as he was before. I beg my Reader always to consider, that I defend Socinianism only quo ad hoc, it is not the Road to mere Deism: in the next place, I will prove that mere Deism is not the Road to Atheism, Deism, I defined to be Natural Religion founded on the Belief of the Existence of a God, and of a future Life. There may, for aught I know, be Men who would be counted Deists, that believe not a jot of the Life to come, but these, I judge, if they were put to't, would hardly be able to distinguish themselves from downright Atheists. To me it is all one, to question the Existence of a God, and to question his future Retributions; but Natural Religion, which depends on the Belief that God is, and that he is a Rewarder, cannot be the Road to Atheism. I will not deny but that Mr. Edward's knows the Road to Atheism as well as any Man breathing, but he must not put it upon us, that Deism is that Road; he may as well bear us in hand, that sailing Eastward is the Road to the West-Indies. There cannot be a plainer Contradiction, than to say, That the Belief of a God leads to the Belief of none. Were Atheism the prevailing Opinion I grant to Mr. Edward's, we should quickly see it move apace to the Ruin and Subversion of Kingdoms and Commonwealths, Societies and Bodies Politic; but upon the Principles of Deism, i. e. on the Foundation of Natural Religion, public Peace and Order stood firm before the days of the Christian Revelation: and did it not do so among the neighbour Nations that hated the Jews? Among the Deists, during the flourishing days of the growing Greatness of the Romans, there were, I believe, as few Atheists as there are among Christians now.  
Let no malicious Adversary here pretend, that I plead the Cause of Deism; no, I do not: this I do, I maintain that Deism is not the Road to Atheism, as some Men very weakly and imprudently have affirmed; for it rather is the Road to Christianity. I know Mr. Edward's will be angry with me for what I am going to tell him; but let him summon all the Powers and Skill he has in Logic, seasoning it with a dose of ill Nature quantum sufficit, and then refute me if he can. I here affirm, That if the Man who is not yet a Christian, be an honest, moral Deist, a Believer in God, and an Expecter of a future Judgement, he is, at least in precinctu ad salutem, and stands fair to be a Christian; no revealed Religion offers so reasonable Grounds to win him as the Christian. Now I much wonder that so ingenuous and moderate a Man as Mr. Norris should join with Mr. Edward's in so ignorant, invidious, and designing an Assertion as this, viz. Deism is the Road to Atheism. Mr. Norris' elegant way of wording it is, He that is once a Deist, is in a hopeful way of being an Atheist whenever he pleases. No, Mr. Norris, no; an honest moral Deist's Principles are directly pointed against Atheism: but a spiteful, proud, and cruel Christian, is in very great danger of being an Atheist, if he be not one already. But perhaps Mr. Edward's may reply, he spoke not of a Deist, who never had been a Christian, but that his meaning was, The Man who falls from Christianity to Deism is in the Road to be an Atheist. To this I reply, That though the Unitarians are firmly persuaded of the Truth of the Christian Religion, yet they need not grant the Assertion thus explained to be true; for, what Christianity teaches, beyond that which natural Reason dictates, has not the Efficacy to prevent Atheism, which natural Reason has: however, I am content, and I think the Unitarians ought to be so likewise, That the Man who is afraid of a Bullet should wear a Coat of Mail, as well as keep out of Gun-shot.  
I hope the Reader now plainly sees, that there is never a Link of Mr. Edwards' Chain that will hold. The Unitarians are Orthodox [of which more anon.] The Socinians are so far Orthodox, that they are firmly persuaded of the Verity of the Christian Religion, and are not mere Deists: Conscientious moral Deists are in no danger of being Atheists. But is there no dangerous Road leading to Atheism, of which Men ought to be warned, that they come not near it? Yes, there is; and it is a wide Road too, paved all along with rash Censures, ill Language, false Stories, barbarous unchristian Dealing, forged Decrees of inconditional Reprobation, and Stoical Fate, this is the Road, and the Persecutor, the Slanderer, and the Calvinist drive hard, like so many Jehu's in it, leaving Deism a long way off on the right hand. The Christian Religion does not allow its Professors to be so much as proper Judges of Heresy as commonly understood, much less to be Executioners of Heretics; for the reason given why the Tales should not be pulled up before the Harvest, is, lest some good Corn should be pulled up with it. The Christian Religion directs Men by fair Carriage, by the Words of Truth and Soberness; to convince them whom we think in the wrong. He that is cruel, abusive and unjust, can be a Christian only in name; in reality he is Infidel all over. Then for Calvinism, that four System which is good for nothing but to fight with, [but I hope Mr. Edward's is innocent from that, for he has sourness enough without it] how should it otherwise than tend to Atheism, when it represents Man without , and God without Goodness?  
2. The Unitarians defend their Doctrines from the Imputation of mischievous Consequence or Tendency, by making it appear that they have no particular private Opinions about matters commonly held necessary to Salvation, different from the Church of England, that is, if the Bishops and chief Doctors of the Church know what the Church means.  
I do confess that I much fear the Unitarians may have private Opinions about Articles commonly held necessary to Salvation, different from the Opinions of the Compilers of the 39 Articles, and from the Grammatical literal Sense of those Articles; for through them, as also through our Homilies, there runs a Vein of that Scheme which at this day is called Calvinism. But the Grammatical literal Sense of our Articles and Homilies are fallen into the hands of Governing Bishops, Deans, and Doctors, and Governed inferior Priests and Deacons; of whom a vast Majority [as appears by their Prints and daily Sermons] expound them very widely different from the Grammatical literal Sense, intended by the first Compilers. Words and Phrases have nothing in their own nature which can fix them to this or that particular Sense: it is common Consent and way of speaking which appropriates them, and therefore our Articles and Homilies which once held forth some of the Predestinarian Rigours for the Doctrine of the Church, are not to be supposed to teach the same still, now that the Consent of our Church runs so strongly another way. Possibly the Unitarians have not Cranmer, Latimer and Ridly on their side, in the Points now controverted; but in them and all other necessary Articles, they have the Reverend Bishops of Worcester and Sarum, Dr. South, and Mr. Edward's with them: indeed if those Bishops and Doctors should neither be the Church, nor conjoined with enough to make a Majority, which must be the Church, the Lord have mercy upon the Unitarians; for who is it that indulges his Brother a due liberty of Conscience, but when he needs it himself? but the Bishops and Doctors aforesaid being conjoined with an contestable Majority, the Unitarians have nothing more to do, to prove that they have no particular private Opinions about Matters commonly held necessary to Salvation, but to show their Agreement with those Bishops and Doctors; or, which is much the same thing, the Agreement of those Bishops and Doctors with them: now this has been amply and fairly done by an Unitarian, I know not whom, he being a perfect Stranger to me; but it matters not much who he is, whether a Transmarine, or Cismarine Divine, or no Divine at all, 'tis nothing to the Cause that. Mr. Edward's by drawing up a Creed from Socinian Writers, mostly Foreigners, and publishing it as the Creed of the Unitarians, gave this Unitarian an occasion to declare the Sense of himself and his Friends upon all those Points, which he has done in a Paper called, The Agreement of the unitarians with the Catholic Church. Mr. Edward's takes no notice of this ingenuous Declaration; but because the Author has not also defended every unstudied doubtful or extravagant Saying, which this or that Socinian may have published, therefore he triumphs, rubs his Forehead, and proclaims, That the Unitarian has not one Syllable to say for himself, or against him. Now in my Judgement, the Unitarian might as well expect that Mr. Edwards should defend all the Pagan Tritheism which might be quoted from Dr. Cudworth, Dr. Bull, and Dr. Sherlock; for what has the Unitarian more to do with the foreign Socinians, than Mr. Edward's has with these learned and real Trinitarians and Tritheists? For, the Unitarian does not blindly follow the Socinians, but while he takes up with some of their critical Interpretations of difficult Texts, he forsakes them in others; even Mr. Edward's himself agreeing perhaps in most points with the aforesaid Realists, accepts them for Orthodox Brethren, while he lets them keep their Tritheism to themselves: it were a very unfair thing in me, if I should publish the religious Frenzies of Mr. Gailhard [which have been so well chastised by two honest Gentlemen] as part of Mr. Edwards' Faith; nay, I much doubt whether he would be content to own all that I could quote him out of the Origines Eccles. and the Irenicum of that Patron of his, whose Name [he says] is not so much the Name of a Person, or a Family, as it is the Name of profound Learning, and solid Religion. I mention not those Books as if I thought them full of Errors, for I have a greater esteem for them than perhaps the Author himself may have now, or Mr. Edward's either: but my meaning is, that neither should Mr. Edward's be put to answer for the Tritheism of the Realists, nor the Unitarians censured for Socinian Mistakes. By the way, were I a great Man, and my Fame wanted some specious Decoration, I would bestow my encouraging Bounty on an Ecclesiastic rather than a mere Heathenish Poet; not but that the mere Heathenish Poet might have the most Wit, the noblest Fancy, and as little Conscience as any grave Panegyrist whatsoever: but because an Ecclesiastic for a small matter will say all that he can to make a God of his Patron, while the other measures his Encomiums by the Number of the Guineas that are paid him. To return, the Socinian Persuasion is to be seen in the Racovian Catechism: The English Unitarian Sentiments in the Agreement, etc. those their Sentiments there set down, no one that I know of has undertaken to refute or charge with Heresy. But farther, from several Tracts of the Unitarians it appears that those their Adversaries who have been distinguished by the Name of Nominals, and who are a considerable Majority of the Church, do yet explain the controverted Articles to the very same Sense as do the Unitarians, I refer the Reader chief to the Discourse concerning the Nominal and Real Trinitarians, to which I can add but little; yet some Instances I shall produce, which make it plain that the Leaders of the Nominalists in the controverted Points differ as little from the Socinians, as the Unitarians do. The Racovian Catechism affirms that the Essence of God is but one in number, and that in the Essence of God there is but one Person: The first of the 39 Articles of the Church of England teaches, That in the Unity of the Godhead there are three Persons; this Doctrine the Learned Bishop of Worcester undertakes to defend, supposing it gainsayed by the Socinians and by the Unitarians: But if it be gainsayed by neither, his Lordship has thrown away a great deal of Learning to little purpose. 'Tis true, a Man has not the less Learning for this sort of Expense; but then if he spends much Labour in it, 'tis an undervaluing of his Judgement. The different Explications which the Racovian Catechism and his Lordship give of this ambiguous homonymous word, Person, being considered, it is plain that they differ about the meaning of a word, and that's all, while their Doctrine is one and the same. The Racovian Catechism defines a Person to be an Individual Intelligent Essence; but, according to the Bp of Worcester, a Person is one and the same Nature under different Modes of Subsistence. 
Vindic. of the Trin. p. 14, 15, 16.  The Bishop will not say that there are three Individual Intelligent Essences in the Godhead: The Racovians never did say, that the Godhead might not be considered as subsisting under divers Modes. Now as for the Unitarians in this Particular, their Case is this— While they followed the Definiture of the Racovians, which was accommodated to the common Acception of the word, Person; their Doctrine was— But One Person in the One God: But when the Nominals unanimously declared that they meant by Person, not a complete Intelligent Being, but only Relations, Properties, or Modes of Subsistence; then the Unitarians made no scruple to own three Persons in one Godhead. As to the Particular before us then, all that I would beg of my Lord of Worcester in behalf of the Unitarians, is, that they may have leave to be as much Socinian as his Lordship, more they will not desire: and if his Lordship hath any Arguments to refute the Trinity of the Realists consisting of three distinct Minds, Intelligent Being's, Essences, which the Socinians have not used before him; let him be pleased to communicate them, and the Unitarians will promise for the future to oppose the Tritheism of the Realists only by his Lordship's Arguments, and not by any borrowed from the Socinians; farther, the Unitarians will be content that his Lordship shall only declare himself against the Doctrine of the Realists, who are by reason of their equal Learning, Eminence and not contemptible Numbers, too considerable to be otherwise grieved: but far from every Orthodox Father be that Injustice, common among Boys, who when the Person that gives the Offence is out of their reach, strike him that stands next.  
It is not much out of place here to commend the good temper of the Unitarians, who for conserving brotherly Love and Peace among Christians will not litigate about Terms and Words, on which the Authority that imposes them puts an honest Sense and Meaning: there are [it must not be denied] no small Inconveniences in altering the common signification of words; but that's so well remedied by a new Definition of the words that are altered, that I would sooner envy our Church the Power of declaring Articles of Faith, than this Liberty of making words signify, in spite of common Sense, what they please. The greatest Mischief is, when words that must be used in Theological Controversies, must not signify as they have commonly done, nor yet be determined anew to any other express Particular; but this is the Fault of some Realists. One of the Unitarians in his Book called, The Agreement, etc. p. 36. has examined the Sense of the Bishop of Sarum concerning the Incarnation and Divinity of our Lord Christ, and grants that the Sense of his Lordship may pass for Orthodox, but undeniably evinces that the Sentiments of the Unitarians are a degree or two more Orthodox. I shall not repeat, but refer the Reader to the place, choosing rather in pursuit of my chief purpose to insist wholly on this, that there is not so wide a Difference between his Lordship's Explanations and the Racovian Catechism as might be imagined, and that his Lordship is at least as much Racovian as the Unitarians. I do not aim to vindicate all that's in the Racovian Catechism, but only so much of it as the Unitarians are concerned with. The Racovian Catechism teaches that Jesus Christ was a true Man by Nature, but had not truly a Divine Nature; that Jesus Christ was not so constituted of a Divine and Human Nature, as a Man is of a Body and Soul. The Bishop of Sarum teaches in the 2d of his four Treatises, p. 96. That the Godhead by the Eternal Word, the 2d in the blessed Three, dwelled in, and was so inwardly united to the human Nature of Jesus Christ, that by virtue of it God and Man were truly one Person, as our Soul and Body make one Man. It must be confessed that here is Contradiction in Terms direct and plain as can be: but let the Exposition of the Terms which is given on either side be duly weighed, and it will evidently appear, that the Racovians and the Bishop agree very well as to the Substance of the Article, except in one small respect wherein his Lordship is at some small variance with himself. When the Racovians teach that our Lord Christ who was a true Man, had not a true Divine Nature, they do not mean that he was not constantly illuminated, conducted, and actuated by the Godhead; but only that the Godhead did not become commensurate to a finite Man, so as to produce a real Communication of Idioms, and thereby make the great things which are spoken of Christ in respect of the Illuminating, Conducting, Indwelling Godhead, to be equally applicable to his Humanity: this is plain from the Reasons they give why they deny Christ to have a Divine Nature. The first is this, two Substances endued with opposite Properties cannot combine into one Person, i. e. [according to their Sense of the word Person] into one individual Intelligent Essence. Nothing occurs throughout the Bishop's whole Discourse contrary to this Negative; but to establish it more sure, several Expressions of the Bishop's [as Mr. Hill of Kilmington has observed upon him] intimate that the Manhood of Christ is a Person distinct from the Eternal Word that dwelled in him. 2. The Racovians deny the Divine Nature of Christ, because [say they] two Nature's, each whereof is apt to constitute a several Person, i. e. a several individual Intelligent Essence, cannot be huddled into one Person, or one individual Intelligent Essence. One would think that this Reason should not down with the Bishop, and indeed the Language does not; for p. 102. he says that from the Divine and Human Nature united, there did result the Person of the Messiah: but than what does he mean by the Divine and Human Nature united? Why, no more than The Human Nature always actuated, illuminated, and conducted by the Divine. This is very agreeable to Scripture, yes, and the Racovian Catechism also. But to make this look more like an unintelligible Union, that the Realists might not charge him with betraying the Cause to the Unitarians, he calls it in lofty Phrase, an assuming the Man into an inward and immediate Oeconomy, p. 108. In short, the Bishop makes no more of the Divine Nature than this— Christ was God by virtue of the indwelling of the Eternal Word in him, p. 127. The Racovians scruple the Phrase, Divine Nature, but admit all that the Bishop makes of it. The Bishop places the Divine Nature in that thing, which the Racovians do not deny; and the Racovians deny the Divine Nature, for Reasons which the Bishop allows to be Truths: so than the difference between them is purely Nominal, a mere Logomachy. But to do his Lordship justice, he is in the right for using the Terms, Divine Nature, and God-man, because they are Terms authorised by the Church, on which both his Lordship and the Church puts an honest Sense: and the Racovians were too stiff in refusing them, especially considering that in their very Catechism they speak, in other Phrase, as honourably of Christ as his Lordship; for they say, that Christ is by no means to be reputed a mere Man, they give their Reasons for it, and therefore call him a Man truly Divine: and for my part, I think a Man truly Divine, must have a Nature truly Divine; and therefore the Racovians, whose Doctrine is taught by the Bishop, would have done better had they taught it in the Terms of Art which the Bishop uses, though perhaps he is not fond of the Terms, which one may partly guests by his declining to consider all or any Speculations concerning the Eternal Generation: Whereas the Unitarians fully to demonstrate their Orthodoxy, allow the Eternal Generation of the Logos, Son, or Wisdom. Let me not forget that I observed the Bishop did not so well agree in one small respect with the Unitarians, which respect was such, that therein he was at some small variance with himself: the thing is this, He has affirmed that God and Man make one Person, as the Soul and Body make one Man; it was proper for him to take up with this Expression, in conformity to the Athanasian Creed: but his Philosophical Reasonings look quite another way; for, p. 102. he has these Words, It has been thought that the Human Nature in Christ had no special Subsistence, though it was not easy to explain this Notion, since if Subsistence belonged to the Human Nature, it might seem that it [the Human Nature] was not perfect if it had not a proper Subsistence. An Hypostatical Union was proposed as a Term fit to explain this by, i. e. the Human Nature in Christ was believed to subsist by the Subsistence of the Word; but it was not easy to make this the more intelligible, by offering a Notion full as unintelligible as itself to explain it by. Now though the Bishop is a cautious Man, and will have a care of offending a Brother, as appears by those soft ways of expressing his dislike of an Opinion— It has been thought— It is not easy— It might seem;— Yet here he sufficiently discovers to any considering Reader, that he believes the Human Nature of Christ had a proper Subsistence; and if it had a proper Subsistence, then [say I] by itself it constituted Christ a Person, and then God and Man did not make one Person, as the Soul and Body make a Man: For the Bishop explains Subsistence thus, We may conceive the Subsistence of an intelligent Being, 
P. 107.  to be its acting entirely in itself, or upon Matter united to it, without any other Spirit's being constantly present to it, actuating it, or having it under any immediate vital and inseparable Influence. It may seem strange though that the Bishop should intimate, that the Human Nature of Christ had a proper Subsistence, a Subsistence of its own, and afterwards define the Subsistence of an Intelligent Being, to be its acting entirely in itself, without any other Spirit's being constantly present to it, etc. It is a Mercy that Self-contradiction is not Heresy. I hope the Bishop is not of Rhetorius' Mind, who thought that the Teachers of contrary Doctrines were all in the right. St. Austin could not persuade himself that any one could be so whimsical, but upon the Supposition he puts down the Name of Rhetorius in his black Catalogue of Heretics.  
I designed to have spoke at large with the Bp of Sarum concerning the Satisfaction of Christ, on which Article he can have no difference with the Unitarians, and has as little as may be with the Racovians; but the Author of The Agreement, etc. having been before me, I shall be the shorter. There is not a more artful controversial piece of Writing, than some few Pages of the second of the four Treatises. His Lordship's Learning and piercing Judgement are such, that he clearly sees through the whole Article, and no Man were better able to state it plainly, to disentangle it from the Philosophy of the Schools, to decide it accurately, and firmly establish the certain Truth: but then his Wisdom is such, that while he gives forth his Lectures, which may be very profitable to them that know how to use them, he retreats from the envy of the Calvinists in a set of Ecclesiastical Phrases, whose strict Grammatical Sense has been long laid aside; he distinguishes himself from the Racovians by laboured Metaphorical Flourishes, frowns upon the Unitarians to hid his Agreement with them, and amuses the Writers of positive Divinity, [which Character he can tell any Party was not meant of them] to dissemble his aversion from their unreasonable and odious Scheme. I will convince the Reader of the Justness of my Observation. The Racovians dispute against their Doctrine, who determine that there is such a Mercy in God as must forgive, and such a Justice as must punish, and cannot be satisfied without it; that because God would have both his Mercy and his Justice take place, therefore he found out that way to forgive Sins, by sending his Son to suffer Death in that Nature which had offended. These Racovians acknowledge God to be wonderfully merciful and just, but they contend that he freely forgiveth, that he punisheth Sins when he pleaseth, when his Wisdom thinks fit. Now let's hear the Bishop; he sets his Face against the Writers of Positive Divinity, and censures these their Doctrines, That God cannot freely forgive Sins; that punishing, as well as remunerative Justice, 
P. 135.  are essential to him; that God being infinite, every Offence against him has an infinite Gild, and must be expiated either by Acts of infinite Value, or of infinite Duration; and that a Person of an infinite Nature was only capable of Acts of an infinite Value; that such a one was necessary for the expiating Sin. And are not these the very Errors opposed by the Racovians? more fully and elegantly stated by his Lordship, that's true, for nothing loses under his hand; nor do the Racovians overthrew these Errors with that irresistible force of Argument as his Lordship. For, says he, In all this Gradation there is one main Defect, the Scripture sets none of these Speculations before us; nor is it easy to apprehend, that a Right of punishing which is in the Legislator, and a Right to reward, which passes from him to the Person that acquires it, should be equally essential to God: in the one his Fidelity and Justice are bound, because of the Right that accrues to another; but the other of punishing, seems to be a Right that is vested in himself, which he may either use or not, as he pleases.  
Agreeing thus in the main, one would wonder what Nicety should divide the Racovians and his Lordship: there must be but a Nicety between them; but 'tis not the first time a Nicety has made a great Breach between Friends. The Bishop, speaking of his Racovian Friends, pretends to take Distaste, because they believe That Christ only died for our Good, 
P. 141, 142.  and not in our Stead, that by his Death he might fully confirm his Gospel, and give it a great Authority— They believe, That by his dying, he intended to set us a most perfect Pattern of bearing the sharpest Sufferings with the perfectest Patience— and the most entire Charity— that by doing this he was to merit at God's hand that supreme Authority with which he is now vested for our Good, that so he might obtain a Power to offer the World Pardon of Sin upon their true Repentance. Finally, That he died in order to his Resurrection, and for giving a sensible Proof of that main Article of his Religion. Now what does his Lordship believe more than this? Why he says the same things over again in a new Set of Phrases, and adds this Expression, Christ suffered both upon our Account, 
P. 143.  and in our Stead. If the Bishop would abide by the strictest and most proper Sense of these Words In our Stead, he would indeed differ in a considerable matter from the Racovians, but then he would also differ as much from himself; for he means no more by suffering in our stead, than the Racovians mean by suffering for our good; as appears from what he says p. 135. If every Sin, as being of infinite guilt, must be expiated by an infinite Act, it will not be easy to make this out, how the Acts of Christ, though infinite in value, should stand in a strict equality with all the Sins of so many men, every one of which is of infinite guilt. If his Lordship is sincere in this, than he cannot pretend to believe that Christ suffered the infinite Punishment due to the infinite Gild of all Men, and by doing so, made a full, proper, and adequate Satisfaction for the Sins of the World; which is the strict and proper Sense of suffering in our Stead. All that his Lordship does, or can consistently to himself, make of this Phrase— In our Stead, is, That Christ did so suffer for our Good, that if he had not suffered as he did, we must have been the miserable Sufferers ourselves. But there is another Phrase wherein his Lordship labours to distinguish himself from his Friends, and that is, Expiatory Sacrifice. But he may please to consider, That the Racovians are not utterly averse from this Phrase; for in their Catechism, to that Question, What think you of those Sacrifices? [i. e. of the Old Covenant] they answer, p. 139. By them the Sins of the People were expiated or atoned; that is, by the intervening of those Sacrifices, Remission of Sins, graciously decreed by God, was brought to effect. Otherwhere also they thankfully acknowledge, That the Death of Christ expiates our Sins, through the gracious Condescension of his Father, who is pleased to accept that Sacrifice, not as a Payment to his Justice, but as an Application to his Mercy. And just thus, but more elegantly [as always] his Lordship explains what he means by an Expiatory Sacrifice, p. 151. We are to consider, that in Sacrifices it is the Appointment, and the Acceptation, which makes the Satisfaction; for God's accepting a Sacrifice, is an Abatement of the Rigour of Justice, and a declaring that he will pardon Sins in such a Method and upon such a Consideration. He had spoke to the same purpose, p. 136. But I am weary of transcribing. By what I have said it is plain, That on the Article of Christ's Death, and Satisfaction for the Sins of Mankind, there is no real Difference between the Bishop and the Racovian Catechism: and when his Lordship explains his less proper Phrases, there's an end of all verbal Difference between them.  
As before of the Bishop of Worcester, so now of the Bishop of Sarum, I have one thing to beg in behalf of the Unitarians: But because I would not offer my Petition rudely, I have a very pertinent Story to introduce it. In the beginning of the last Reign, William Pen, in behalf of himself and Friends, preferred an Address, which to the best of my remembrance was thus worded.  
James,  
We are sorry for the Death of thy Brother Charles, but we rejoice that we are fallen under thy Government. Thou art a Dissenter from the Church of England, so are we; we hope thou wilt allow us that Liberty which thou tak'st thyself. So farewell.  
By this excellent Pattern I draw up my Petition.  
My Lord of Sarum,  
The Unitarians are sorry that they have been misunderstood by the Church of England, but they rejoice to find that your Lordship teaches the same Doctrine which they have done: If your Lordship thinks it no Heresy in yourself, they hope it will be none in them. So farewell.  
Having thus shown by what Methods the Unitarians defend their Doctrines of evil Tendency and mischievous Consequence, I think it fit to acquit myself of a Promise to Mr. Edward's. He takes notice of these Words in the Agreement, etc. p. 7. He may, for our parts, be Anathema that teaches or believes that Doctrine, viz. That there is no Merit in what Christ did or suffered, and that he made not Satisfaction for our Sins. And he pretends that the contrary was taught by an Unitarian t'other day in these Words, 
Antitrinitarian Scheme, p. 18.  The Oblation which Christ made of himself, was not made to the Justice of God, or by way of Reparation, but, as all other Sacrifices, by way of humble Suit. Now I take this Passage to be so far from a Contradiction, that it may be looked upon as a just and reasonable Explication of the former. The Bishop of Sarum, either more honest or more discerning than Mr. Edward's, represents the Socinians owning that Christ by his Death merited at God's hands, merited a supreme Authority, and obtained a Power to offer the World Pardon of Sin upon their true Repentance, p. 142. He believes also, with the unitarians, that the Oblation was made, not to the Justice, but to the Mercy of God; for he says, pag. 135. The Right of punishing, God may use, or not use, as he pleases; and that the Acts of Christ, though infinite in value, cannot stand in a strict Equality with the Sins of Mankind. And whereas Mr. Edward's accuses the Unitarians for scoffing and ridiculing the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ, they are ready to tell him, 1. That they are the least given to scoffing of any Writers of Controversy. 2. It cannot be pretended that they have scoffed the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ, as the Church and the Bishop of Sarum understand those Words, whatever they may have done to the Calvinistical Hypothesis, which Mr. Edward's must embrace, if on this Subject he disputes against them. 3. Whether the Calvinistical Hypothesis be fit to be scoffed at, I will not argue; but I am sure it deserves to be abhorred. That there was no such Justice in God, as necessarily obliged him to exact a Satisfaction, is a Persuasion not only built upon sound Reason, but also credited with the Authority of the most eminent Theologues, ancient and modern: Vossius, in his Answer to Ravensperger, has quoted above a dozen of them, and Calvin and Zanchy are two of the number. But Mr. Edward's I will not say refines, but corrupts the very Dregs, the four Hypostasis, the heavy Subsidence, the thick Sediment of Calvinism.  
I thought I had concluded the Topick on which I have dwelled (I fear) too long already; but I beg the Reader's Patience yet farther, that I may call to mind a Gentleman who has engaged in this Controversy, and might take it ill if he should be neglected, as one not worthy of our Notice.  
He is a zealous Accuser, and a strong Justifier of the Doctrine of the Unitarians; but since his Courtesy is more beneficial than his Anger injurious, though perhaps he never intended it so, I will do what I can to reconcile him to himself. He is an irreconcilable Enemy to the Unitarians, or Socinians (as he calls them) of New Atlantis and Utopia, but accords perfectly well with the European Unitarians, both Foreigners and English. He saith p. 58 There is a Distinction made in the Godhead, under these three Names, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which the Church hath expressed all together by the Word Trinity, and singly by the Word Person.— I conclude that there is something more than a mere Nominal Distinction.— I conclude that they are not three distinct different Spirits. From these two Conclusions let's hear what he infers, p. 59 I infer there is in the Godhead something more than a mere nominal Distinction, and something less than that of three different Spirits. Some Men have such roving wild Heads, that they'll infer any thing from any thing; because the Moon shines with Light borrowed from the Sun, therefore Kings hold their Crowns of the Pope: But our Author keeps close to the Matter, and infers from his two Conclusions, nothing but what he had concluded before. Well! if he is right in his Conclusions, he is safe in his Inference. But how came he by his Conclusions? Why, from some Passages of Scripture he found that there was a Distinction in the Godhead. Well! be it so. One might ask now, what is the Distinction? Is it a Distinction of Properties, Relations, Modes, or what? But for that we must hold him excused; for (says he) I have not the least knowledge how strict the Union is, or how great the Distinction. He was well set on work then, to write against the English Unitarians, who oppose no Trin-Unity, but a Trinity of Three distinct Essences, in Numerical Unity.  
But the Ignorance of this pert Academian is a small Fault in respect of that censorious and singular Boldness wherewith he takes upon him to censure his Superiors in the Church; his Superiors for Learning and Dignity both, who several of them have attempted to explain, and have made it intelligible [at least they themselves think so] how the Three are distinguished, and how united. Mr. Peter Brown fears not to throw this Censure on their Undertake; p. 59 Any Man who strives to conceive it himself, or takes pains to explain it to others, is guilty of such a Folly, that I can't think of any Action in nature extravagant enough to match it. This is very agreeable to his Sense, p. 173. where he intimates that neither Dominion nor Religion are founded in Reason. So then his Loyalty and Orthodoxy are both of a piece. Our Church of England, in the late Reigns, had much ado to be loyal enough for the Men of Dublin; I am afraid they will have much ado to be Orthodox enough for them now.  
Having now spoke what I had to say concerning the Causes which have raised the Disputes at present agitated among us, I am next to consider what has inflamed them to that dangerous Excess which in time may disturb the public Peace.  
Certainly it cannot be pure Love of God, or a sincere Desire to advance the Happiness of Mankind, which makes Religious Disputants manage their Controversies with that angry impatient Heat: I know 'tis not uncommon for Men to pretend the Honour of God, and the Interest of Holy Religion, when they whet their Tongues like Razors, and dip their Pens in Gall; when they lay Plots to oppress and kill, and are bend on Ruin and Destruction: nay, 'tis possible for them, while they are thus mischievously employed, to think they are doing God Service, but they must have prodigiously debauched their Reason, before they can entertain such Thoughts; for it is not easy to believe that God delights in Uncharitableness, Envy, Hatred and Persecution.  
It is not easy to believe that Persecution is not contrary to the obliging good-natured Precepts of the Gospel.  
It is not easy to believe that Force is the way to convince Men of their Errors.  
It is not easy to believe that Force is a proper way to move Men to consider.  
It is not easy to believe that speculative Opinions which Men cannot help, should be destructive of their Eternal Happiness.  
It is not easy to believe that the Magistrate's Sentiments are rational and true, merely because they are the Sentiments of those who are in Authority.  
It is not easy to believe that the Magistrate has a right to enforce his own Opinions, when himself is confessedly liable to Mistakes.  
It is not easy to believe that God would be worshipped in every Nation only by that way which the Magistrate shall choose.  
It is not easy to believe that 'tis the Duty of Men to worship God contrary to their Consciences.  
Is it not easy to believe that Persecution, which naturally tends to set all Mankind together by the ears, to destroy Trade and Commerce, and to hinder the Improvements of Knowledge, can be doing God good Service.  
It is not easy to believe that Magistrates were appointed to ruin those for whose good, we are told in Scripture, they were ordained.  
It is not easy to imagine, that Authors who have publicly professed that in Matters of Faith every Man must judge for himself, and that every Man using his own Judgement, without Pride or affectation of Singularity, is doing the best thing that he can do; that simple Error is not Heresy, etc. it is not easy, I say, to imagine that such Authors can esteem Persecution a part of that reasonable Service which they own to the Great God.  
If Men of reviling persecuting Tempers could be persuaded deliberately and seriously to examine their own Minds, and put themselves the Question, What is it which prompts them to give bad Language, to calumniate, to form Designs against the Fame, Estate, Liberty, and Life of their Brother, to pursue him beyond this Life, [not as Brutus did Aruns, which was the Wit of the Historian] but with real Enmity to pursue him beyond this Life, to hang him and burn him in order to damn him; no doubt they might perceive that they were not moved by a true Love of God, or a desire to advance the Happiness of Mankind, but by an undue Love of themselves, and a desire to advance some not very honourable Interest, which might be much impeded by an indulged Liberty of Prophesying: 'tis something of this kind which has mingled so many bitter Reproaches, false Stories, and malicious Insinuations with our controversial religious Plead. That I may avoid the envy of descending to Particulars, I leave my Observation, as it is propounded only in general, being satisfied that free impartial Considerers will soon perceive its Truth; and as to those Persons who are less used to look into the Reason of things, I will for their sakes cover it with a great Authority: Bp of Sarum's 4 Tracts, p. 185. If it be said that Error does disturb the Peace and Order of the Church beyond what is to be apprehended from Sin; Error runs Men into Parties, and out of those Factions do arise, which break not only the Peace of the Church, but the whole Order of the World, and the quiet of Civil Society; whereas Sin does only harm to those who are guilty of it, or to a few who may be corrupted by their ill example: To this it is to be answered, That Sin does naturally much more Mischief to Mankind than Error. He that errs, if he is not immoral with it, is quiet and peaceable in his Error; therefore still the greatest Mischief is from Sin, which corrupts men's Natures thro' its own Influence. And the Mischief that Error does procure, arises chief from the Pretensions to Infallibility, or something that is near akin to it: for if Men were suffered to go on in their Errors, with the same undisturbed quiet that they have for most of their Sins, they would probably be much quieter in them; since Sin of its Nature is a much fiercer thing than a point of Speculation can be supposed to be: but if Men apprehend Inquisitions or other Miseries, upon the account of their Opinions, than they stand together and combine for their own defence; so that it is not from the Errors themselves, but from the Methods of treating them, that all those Convulsions have arisen, which have so violently shaken Churches and Kingdoms.  
I quote no other Author, nor no more from this to the Purpose before me, purely to avoid being tedious; but there is that plenty of concurring Testimonies obvious to be collected from the printed Discourses of the most eminent of our ecclesiastics, that hardly a considerable Man of any order can call for the Sword of the Magistrate to punish Differences of Opinion in Matters of Faith, but he must do it in defiance of his own Conscience, as well as the Laws of the Land. I lay it down then, not only for a very certain, evident, but also for a generally confessed Truth, that it is always a Vice, more or less artificially concealed, which prompts religious Disputants to fight the Lord's Battles with angry Noise, and fiery Words, and flaming Censures, that Thunder and Lightning of theirs, which does more Mischief than all the Artillery of Nature from the stormy Sky, or the sulphureous Caverns of the Earth.  
And now there's no avoiding the Inquiry, Whether the Unitarians or their Adversaries, or both, have managed their Disputes with any of these unjust and unbeseeming Methods. It is urged hard upon the Unitarians that they have ridiculed the venerable Articles of the Christian Religion, and spoke disrespectfully and contemtuously of the most eminent learned and pious Fathers of the Church: for proof of the first Charge, the Story of Dulcinea, and one or two Passages more; of the second, the two Tracts, called, Considerations of the Explications, etc. are much insisted on. But methinks what the Unitarians say for themselves in their own Defence, is weighty: as much of it as has been communicated to me, I will set down, and add what more is obvious, and may be justly added; but for the evener Thread of Discourse, I offer both the one and the other as from myself.  
I have scarce met with that Person who has read the Considerations, but confesses, those two Tracts may pass for Models of elegant, proper, and decent Writing, in the controversial way; and I was amazed that two Reverend Bishops should think themselves affronted or disrespected there; for my part I know not how a greater Deference could have been paid them, unless they had been honoured as inspired and infallible Interpreters, and worshipped with Mr. Edwards' gross Flattery, which hallows their Names, and makes them signify profound Learning, and solid Religion. The severe Virtue of one of the old Romans, would have resented this as a Libel: But however Mr. Edward's vouches his elevated Compliment with a solemn Asseveration, Without the least show of Adulation it may be most truly said, that your Name is now not so much the Name of a Person or Family, as it is the Name of profound Learning and solid Religion. He that makes no conscience of such Strains and such Vouching, though to a Bishop very Learned and Orthodox, would have bated nothing had his Patron's Merit been no greater than his own. But I digress— The briskness and saltness in those two Tracts, the Considerations, has nothing that is personal, nothing that reflected on the Persons of their Lordships, or of any other Antagonists: it is no more than is allowed to all Writers, that their Books may not nauseate an ingenuous Reader, or weary and tyre the more Delicate by a continued Chain and Course of severe and close Reasoning, like a high Tragedy, without any Interludes of Music and Dancing. And perhaps if their Lordships had leisure to look into their former controversial Writings, when they were engaged with other Adversaries, they might find that themselves had used as much Liberty as here they condemn. A long deduced Narration of Argument upon Argument, naked Argument, without pleasing turns of Wit, or well-suted Ornaments of proper and manly Rhetoric, is a very dry Business, of which their Lordships have been so sensible, that when I was a young Fellow, I used to read their Writings for my Pleasure as well as my Profit; and I will undertake to prove that in the controversial Discourses which they have published in Print, whether against Papists or other Dissenters from the Church of England, they have used the Persons of their Adversaries more disrespectfully and contemtuously than it can be pretended the Considerer has used them; so that were their Charge against the Considerer just, they ought to forgive him for their own sakes. It is a good Spanish Proverb, If a Man's own House be made of Glass, he should have a care of breaking his Neighbour's Windows.  
But that which is aggravated most invidiously against the Considerer, is, the manner of his Reply to the late Archbishop; to expose which the Bp of Worcester repeats what he pleases, without its Dependence and Connexion, and then pronounces, Pref. p. 54. The plain meaning of all this is, that the late Archbishop was a mere self-interested Man. But if this be not the plain meaning, no, nor the meaning plain or obscure; then the Considerer is falsely accused. I will lay the matter before the Reader. The Considerer gins his Answer to his Grace the late ArchBp, with an Apology for his undertaking to answer so many Men of the first Order in the Church, eminent for real Worth and excellent Learning: He expresses a particular Deference to his Grace, as he ought, above all the rest. He than declares the Motives which persuaded him to answer; this being done, that his Cause might not lose by the Meanness and Obscurity of his Person, he ingeniously notes, that in the Commonwealth of Learning, there's no regard had to Titles of Honour; wherefore if he has proved his Point, it avails his Opposers nothing that they are great Pensioners of the World, biased by Rewards, and Awes. It will indeed hence follow, that the Considerer did mean that in his Judgement, the Honours and Profits enjoyed by the ArchBp, might have some influence on his mind to hinder him from discerning plainly the state of the Question, or freely speaking his Mind: but this can never be made to signify that the ArchBp was a mere self-interested Man, but by such a Figure as makes the Name of a Learned and Religious Person truly signify profound Learning and solid Religion. 'Tis not the most uncommon thing in the World, for good Men, in great Places, to be influenced sometimes and in some things by self-interest; but a mere self-interested Man is one who is wholly governed by self-interest, whose Opinions altar as his Interest does, whose Style accommodates itself to the Changes of Times, and the Steps of his own Advancement. But though I am satisfied that the Considerer's Words do not reflect on the ABp. so injuriously as the Bishop of W. would persuade, yet I think it had been better that they had been unsaid, for they are off from the Argument, unbecoming, and best excused by observing, that none of all his Antagonists but has more to answer for upon this account than he.  
As for that Charge of ridiculing the Articles of the Christian Religion, the Unitarians stand upon it, that they are perfectly innocent; only they acknowledge that they have wrote satirically against the Heathenish Error of the Realists: but they hope they may be forgiven their Endeavours to put Tritheism to open Shame, especially because they never wished to see it hanged or burned.  
I have now noted what may be justly pleaded on behalf of the Unitarians, to acquit them from the Gild of an undue management of the Controversy: but there are two things wherein I cannot excuse them; the first is a piece of Rashness and Indiscretion; the second, a Trespass against a distinguishing Precept of the Christian Religion. The Story of Dulcinea is pointed not against the Orthodox Doctrine, but the Scholastic Unscriptural Terms of the Nominalists. Now it was a piece of Rashness and Indiscretion to ridicule those Terms (how obnoxious soever) unto which, for Peace sake, they now confess their Consciences could submit. Sure they could not hope that the old Scholastic Terms should be laid aside at their Instance. George Duke of Saxony thought not amiss of the Reformation which Luther drove at; but that it should be made at the Instance of a pitiful Monk, seemed to him intolerable. The Trespass against a distinguishing Precept of the Christian Religion, of which I think the Unitarians are in some measure guilty, is, That when they have been odiously misrepresented, foully calumniated, maliciously exposed, haughtily insulted, rated, reviled, and censured by this and t'other Adversary, better skilled at Libelling than Logic, they have not taken it with all the composed Firmness of Mind, with all the steady Patience which the Commands of the Holy Gospel required, and the Example of their blessed Master made practicable; but when they have been barbarously used, have answered angrily again. It's true, the worst Returns that they have made, compared with what they have suffered, may seem perfect Courtship; but if they had never been moved from an even Christian Temper when all manner of evil was spoke against them without just Cause, their Labours would have gained a still higher Esteem, and perhaps have been handed down to late Posterity, as the most absolute Patterns of a dexterous and able, pertinent, close, and just Management of Controversy.  
I should now examine how the Controversy has been managed by those Authors who have opposed the Unitarians, whether upon the Principles of Tritheism, or upon a misunderstanding of one another about certain Terms of Art which admit divers Constructions: But I am really afraid of examining this, well knowing that I should meet abundance of Unchristian Matter, not capable of any favourable Representation. Should I but show how they have treated one another, the impartial Reader would certainly say, that the Unitarians ought to sit down content under the Injuries which have fallen to their share: and therefore I hope these Authors will give me leave to pass them over [all but one, who has distinguished himself by peculiar Antichristian Excesses] with this general, not harsh Censure. In some of their Writings there appears much Learning; so much Learning, that it runs into Confusion; such Confusion, that though you may perceive whom they love, and whom they hate, yet you cannot easily divine what Opinions they are for or against: in others there are to be met better digested Learning, and a strong Vivacity of Wit. This Man despairs of solving the Difficulties he meddles with, but honestly hopes, that one time or other a lucky Interpreter will rise, that presumes he has started a Notion which seems to give some light to help to form some general Idea of Matters in question; but among them all, there's little or no Christian Moderation and Temper. Yet if these great Persons had confined themselves to close Reasoning, and left the zealous angry part to Mr. Edward's, their Cause would not have suffered for want of calling Names. That worthy Author's Book, entitled A brief Vindication of the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith, is such an entire piece of Railing, that no Rabsheka before Christ, nor Lucian since, ever equalled it. 'Tis wrote too all in the Strain of Bombomachides-Cluninstaridy-Sarchides, Great Neptune's Grandchild: I vanquished the stupendous Giant COL, sprung from the prolific putrefying Gore of the odious Leviathan; we fought on Altercando's Plains, where Lana Caprina has so often committed Fools and Philosophers together. I pushed hard at first; in vain the mighty Monster roared, in vain disgorged his poisonous Replies; for now collecting all my Powers into one impetuous Volume, I poured in upon him 500 bald Reproaches, Conundrums, and Blunders innumerable; and to perfect the glorious Work, I murdered his Fame, but that, with some few trifling Stories, two malicious Witticisms, and one lewd obscene Allusion. I ruin'd the whole Posse of the Unitarians, struck their chosen Champion dead, that Champion that was culled out of the whole Host, and was himself an Host, or else he had not been a Match for me; yet him I confounded only with some Scores of Perversions, and a few bolder Falsifications of Authors. I chained the Rector of Steeple to the Carcase of old Malmsbury; like another Mezentius, I clapped them together, Componens manibúsque manus, atque oribus ora: And thus I made an One-Article Christian stink alive.  
The wonderful Book, full of these Strains, borrows all the Credit which it can from an University-Licence. This calls to my Memory an Observation formerly sent me by a Friend. The Spanish Clergy have the Reputation of learned and judicious Divines all over Europe; not that they really excel those of other Countries, but because the Pride and Gravity of the Nation takes a particular Method which procures them this Fame: they will not suffer every splenetic Trifler to scandalise his whole Order, by publishing his passionate Ignorance or Weakness to the World from the Press; they absolutely refuse to licence any but very good Books. By this Policy of theirs, a Spanish Divine is become but another Phrase for a very learned and judicious Divine. This is a dexterous way of raising a vast Reputation to a Community from a small stock of Merit: our Universities might make their Advantage of it, but if they are for setting all hands to work, than Mr. Edwards ought not to be denied his humble Request. But this notwithstanding, I will say somewhat for his Brief Vindication; that is, If it had not been for one thing, it might have repaid the Kindnesses of the Licencers: for if all that part of it, which was meant for reasoning, had been downright railing, and the railing part reasoning, perhaps the reasoning would have been weak, because his Head is disordered, but the Book would have been a very civil Book. But indeed as it is, I defy all the Heretics in Christendom, and all the Atheists in the World to write any thing so wicked and unchristian. I reserve the Consideration of Particulars, till he publishes such another Book; for I reckon, that though he has in all manner of evil-speaking far outdone Heretics and Atheists, yet 'tis not impossible, but that having succeeded so strangely in this unchristian Sally, he may adventure again, and outdo himself. But as for the Unitarians, if I were fit to advise them, they should never concern themselves any more with this Author. Mr. Lock, and Mr. Bold are in equal Prudence obliged to let him rail on. There's a Story in Plutarch, the Substance of which I remember, but the Book I have not by me; some Strangers from Chios, debauched lewd Fellows, full of Wine and Madness, vomited in the Court of the Ephori, the chief Magistrates of the City, nay, and did something worse in the very Chairs of State. Inquiry being made after the shameless Offenders, and Information given in, every one expected to have seen them severely handled; but the Ephori contented themselves with ordering their public Crier to proclaim, That the Gentlemen of Chios should have leave to be as filthy, impudent, and wicked, as their wretched base Natures would prompt them.  
I shall have absolved my Design, when I have added what occurs to my Mind concerning the proper way to remedy the Mischiefs which have happened from the Controversy, and to prevent farther. One would think it were easy to remedy such Mischiefs, and to prevent the like for the future, because in the controverted Points themselves, there is so fair and full an Agreement between the Orthodox Nominalists, who are the Church, and the no less Orthodox Unitarians. Eager Disputants seldom convert one another; but many times, after long Dispute, discover that they rashly fell out, and that there was no material Difference between them. Thus it is in the case before us; but then a very odd thing happens upon it; for the Parties are like to fall out again, because they fell out before for nothing. I am informed, that some angry Nominalists threaten to call the Considerer to account, for giving the Occasion of the Quarrel, and protest that they do not mean to be tricked out of the Punishment of Heresy by a Turn of Wit. So the New Justice (if I remember right) in one of Old Ben's Plays, upon every Rap at his Gate he bid his Clerk run, and bring the Malefactors in, that he might draw their Mittimus. What! no Malefactors yet? O Tempora! O Mores l Butler I thought it had been the Office of a Minister of the Gospel, to preach the Mercies of God in Christ, to teach, to exhort, to declare God's Judgements against Sin, not to execute them; to win Men to God, not to send them to the Devil; for God reserves the Execution of Vengeance to himself, and therefore allows the Civil Magistrate no coercive Powers farther than to preserve the public Peace, which is contestable proved in that admirable, strong, clear, and convincing Tract, entitled, An Essay concerning the Power of the Magistrate, and the Rights of Mankind in Matters of Religion; for which the learned Author deserves a Statue in every Kingdom and Commonwealth upon the Face of God's Earth.  
No Men can be in love with ill Usage, and therefore the Unitarians remonstrate, That they were always persuaded that they had these two ways to prove their Doctrine Orthodox, 1. The Suffrage of Reason; 2. The Testimony of Scripture; but now they have a third, the Authority of the Nominalist Unitarians, and they are resolved to make the most of it. They like the Doctrines they have always taught never the worse for their being reasonable; they are tenacious of them, because they are Scriptural; and not a little pleased to see, that the Nominalist Trinitarians have expounded the Articles of the Ch. of England to the very same purpose. Would the latter recant their Expositions, which are Unitarian all over, I would not ensure the former neque à reatu neque poena, nor from the Gild, nor from the Punishment of Heresy: but as the case stands, they have but one thing to answer for, and that is, affronting some received Terms of Art; for which Offence, to say the truth, they have given but little Satisfaction; for still they prefer Scripture Phrases before all other, still they look upon the received Terms of Art as ill chosen and improper, and consent, not to oppose them, only for Peace sake, and not out of any Reverence which they are willing to pay to the Inventions of Philosophic Fathers, or the critical Fancies of subtle Schoolmen. Indeed this Fault, let it be never so much aggravated, will not make out a very honourable Pretence for Ecclesiastical Execution, and yet 'tis the best that can be had, unless the Persecutors should chance to light upon the arbitrary Device, of taking upon them not only the Interpretation of the Articles of the Church, but also of the Writings of the Unitarians. By this means indeed the Unitarian Writings might chance to appear Heretical, that is, unless the Persecuted should fall into the Humour of appealing to all impartial and unprejudiced Persons, whether the Writings of the Nominalist Unitarians be not as obnoxious as theirs, and altogether as much at the mercy of an Interpreter. And perhaps there be, that think the World has been troubled too much by them both, and that neither aught to be forgiven, unless they first forgive one another; and I am strangely deceived, if I cannot name the Instances, which duly considered, recommend to them both so much Humanity.  
The Nominalists are safe from the Unitarians, not only by the Unitarian Principle which disavows Persecution, but also because of their Paucity; nor can their Abilities make them formidable; for, as a great Man notes, their Adversaries are their Superiors both in Wit and Learning: and the Unitarians ought to be safe from the Nominalists, not only because the Doctrine of them both is one and the same, though their Language sometimes varies, but also for those many cogent Reasons which are to be met with, in the Essay above cited, and in the Letters for Toleration; which I presume will have their influence on both Nominalists and Realists, as many of them as are men of Virtue, true Piety, and Christian Moderation; but as for such furious Inquisitors as Mr. Edward's, and Mr. Peter Brown, I reckon they are so very passionate, that they are utterly incapable of attending to sober Reasoning from plain Christian Principles: therefore I will tell them a Story, which perhaps they may have read in their younger days; and that it may not be thrown away upon them, I will be at the pains of application. Pyrrhus, Prince of Epirus, an ambitious Politic Captain, made use of one Cyneas, a sensible witty Man, in the conduct of his weightiest Affairs. This Person one day accosted his warlike Master after this manner: The Romans, Sir, against whom we are arming, are a hardy valiant People; but if the Gods should prosper us, how shall we use our Victory? Why, said Pyrrhus, when we have beaten the Romans, we shall presently be Masters of all Italy. And how shall we govern ourselves then Sir? Then Sir! why then Sicily holds out her Arms to receive us, a fruitful Island, a noble and an easy purchase. Very probable: and what! shall the possession of Sicily put an end to the War? O Friend! says Pyrrhus, we must not throw away the Opportunities which the Gods put into our hands. We are next bound for Lybia: and then Carthage, proud, populous, and wealthy, is ours: and by that glorious Conquest we shall become powerful enough to subdue all Greece. The subtle Cyneas still plied him with the Question, What are we for next? At last Pyrrhus replied, Then we'll live at Ease, spend our days in Wine and Mirth, and nothing shall employ our Thoughts but the ways to vary and heighten our Pleasures. When Cyneas had brought his unwary Master to this point, he turned short upon him, and asked, What hinders us now from living at Ease, without dispossessing others of their Rights, and hazarding our own Fortunes? Instead of running all these Risks, we may even now sit down and sing, O be Joyful.  
Now to my Application. Mr. Edward's and Mr. Brown, furious Dealers in Polemic Squabble, ambitious both to spread their Empire wide over Conscience, were one day in Consult, how to remove the Obstacles that stood in their way. The methods they agreed on, were, to restrain the Press for fear they should lose by disputing, to censure what they do not understand for fear there should be Heresy in't, to set up an Inquisition, to jail the suspected of Faith erroneous, and burn the avowed Dissenter. Their first Process they determined to direct against a handful of Men, of late known by the Name of Unitarians, in contradistinction to some ecclesiastics professing to believe and worship three distinct Infinite Minds. Dr. Christian Eubulus was their Chancellor, whom they required to prosecute the aforesaid poor Men with the utmost Rigour. This Christian Eubulus represented to them that the Unitarians held no private Doctrines, different from what were taught by our most Orthodox Prelates; that they were Men of some Learning, untainted Probity and good Sense; but if it was irrevocably decreed, that they were to be utterly rooted out, he humbly desired to know whom he was to fall upon next: Why! said Mr. Edw. and Mr. Br. when we have once dispatched these malapert Unitarians, we shall become formidable to all the Bawlers against Priestcraft, who now despise us, and need not be afraid to attack the Quakers; of whom the largest Division, the Foxonians, who are the ruling Party, are mere Deists; they are a numerous and politic People, the Scripture is to them a dead Letter, the Rule of their Faith is the Light within them, that is, mere natural Reason; and they have an odd way with them, instead of guarding their own Doctrines, they attack ours; so 'tis absolutely necessary to ruin this Sect: It may be done by Fines, Imprisonment, Death if need be, or merciful Banishment; What matter if the State lose by it? better be without them and their Effects, than plagued with their Heresy. Christian Eubulus seemed to acquiesce, but desired to know of his Masters, whether they should have any more need of him: O Dear Friend, replied they, when God has blessed our Zeal so far for his Service, we must not give over so; there are two Sticks, so they call themselves, Presbyterians and Independents, crooked Sticks both, who cudgel one another when we let them alone, but not enough to the purpose; these Sticks must be burnt, both burnt, for they will not bend to decent Discipline; and by that time we have consumed them to Ashes, all the little crawling Sectaries will fall down and worship as many infinite distinct Minds or Essences as we please, or one such infinite Mind in Language that signifies Three. Christian Eubulus was again at his Question, and when all the World conforms, What then? Then Man! replied the bold Duumviri; why then we'll live like true Christians, none of our Communion shall be suffered to indulge himself in Profaneness and Immorality; we'll show Mercy, and do Works of Charity; we'll diligently preach the holy Doctrines of the Gospel, and honestly practise them ourselves; so that the Church shall become a Heaven upon Earth. When Christian Eubulus had brought his zealous Masters to this point, he put them the hard Question of all; Why can't we live like true Christians now? Why cannot we now discourage the Profaneness and Immorality of the Members of our Communion? What hinders us now from being fervent in Prayer, diligent in preaching the Gospel, and exemplary in our Lives and Conversations?  
When one is got into Stories, especially by the Parlour Fire in a Winter Evening, there's no end of them; but if the Reader will forgive me, I will punish him but with one more, and it shall be as short as he could wish. Barclay in his Icon Animorum, tells us of a Father and his two Sons who excommunicated the whole World, and confined the Church within the narrow Pale of their own three Elect Persons; within a few days the hopeful Boys excommunicated the old Man, and not long after they excommunicated one another. Suppose now the Church of England should convert or confound the Unitarians, the Quakers, the Presbyterians, the Independents, and every little Philadelphian Society; nay, and Popish Recusants also, though that's a swinging Supposition: is all like to be Peace at home within her own Body? no such matter, the Quinquarticular Controversy will set 'em together by the ears among themselves; Mr. Gailhard, and the Growth of Error have already declared open War against all Churchmen of the Arminian Persuasion; for want of a Bone, the Theory of the Earth will make a bustle among them; and for aught I know the Royal Society may make some Discovery in Nature, that may be Heresy in Religion: but to mention no more, the Unitarian Controversy itself shall live among them as vigorous as ever; Dr. Sherlock will never forgive Dr. South; nor Dr. South, Dr. Sherlock; the Nominalists will never leave till they have run down the Tritheists; the Tritheists with their last Breath will revile the Nominalists for Sabellians and Socinians: so that in short, if the Church will have no War without her Pale, she must have one within; wherefore I would advise every one to make living like a good Christian his Business now, and never be troubled at the Disputes which are stirring, of which there's like to be no end, let the present Disputants that have the worst on't, by reason of their inferior Numbers, be run down, hanged, or burnt, or not.  
I conclude with one word of Advice to the Unitarians, i. e. that they would give over the Dispute; I know they are Men of Conscience, and have, within the Bounds of Moderation, been zealous for the Truth, but that will not suffer, though they are silent; the Learned and Excellent Bishops of Worcester and Sarum, Dr. South and others are able and forward enough to defend it against all the heathenish Opposition of the Tritheistick Tribe.  
FINIS.