THE AGREEMENT OF THE Unitarians, WITH THE Catholic Church.  
BEING ALSO A full Answer, to the Infamations of Mr. Edward's; and the needless Exceptions, of my Lords the Bishops of Chichester, Worcester, and Sarum, and of Monsieur De Luzancy.  
PART I. In Answer to Mr. Edward's, and my Lord the Bishop of Chichester.  
Printed in the Year MDCXCVII.   


In Answer to Mr. Edward's.  
MR. Edward's after having written some trifling Books, some indifferent ones, divers good ones; and one excellent Book, his Demonstration of the Existence and Providence of God; found an Inclination in himself, that he could not resist, of contriving a New Religion, or rather Impiety; and of imputing it to the Socinians. By whom he means (it appears) the Unitarians.  
Those in England, who call themselves Unitarians, never were in the Sentiments of Socinus, or the Socinians. Notwithstanding, as our Opposers have pleased themselves in calling us Socinians, we have not always declined the Name: because in interpreting many Texts of Scripture, we cannot but approve and follow the Judgement of those Writers, who are confessed by all, to be excellent Critics, and very judicious. As particularly (and chief) H. Grotius; who, it must be granted, was Socinian all over: and D. Erasmus, who, though he lived considerably before Socinus, commonly interprets that way; and therefore is charged by Cardinal Bellarmine, as a downright Arian. Non poterat, says the Cardinal, Arianam causam manifestius propugnare. Erasmus could not more openly espouse the Arian side, than he has done, in his Notes on the Fathers, and the principal Texts of Scripture. Pref. ad Libros 5. de Christo. But tho, as I said, we are not Socinians, nor yet Arians; seeing Mr. Edward's has contrived a Creed for us, under the Name of Socinians: I will answer both directly and sincerely, concerning the several Articles of the Creed, which he pretends to be ours.  
As to the References, unto places in particular Authors; where Mr. Edwards would have it thought, the Articles of that Creed are affirmed: I have examined some of his principal References, and can say of 'em; they are either Perversions, or downright Falsifications, of what the Authors (referred to) did intent. Dr. Wallis, whose dishonest Quotations out of the Socinians, have been detested by every Body, is hardly more blamable in that kind, than Mr. Edward's; saving that the Doctor being, as one rightly tells him, somewhat more than a Socinian, did but foul his own Nest, by his Forgeries; but we cannot certainly say, what is the Opinion of Mr. Edward's in the great Article, in question among us. But come we to the Creed, which he says, is ours. As I promised, I will answer to every Article of it, sincerely, and directly.  
I. I Believe, concerning the Scripture; that there are Errors, Mistakes, and Contradictions, in some places of it. That the Authority of some Books of it is questionable: yea, that the Whole Bible has been tampered with, and may be suspected to be corrupted.  
That there are Errors, Mistakes, and Contradictions in the Bible; was never said, by any that pretended to be a Christian; if by the Bible, you mean the Bible, as it came out of the hands of the (inspired) Authors of it. As on the other hand, that there are Errors, Mistakes, or Contradictions in the vulgar Copies of the Bible, used by the Church of Rome, for instance, or the English Church, was never questioned by any Learned Man, of whatsoever Sect or Way; and least of all, can Mr. Edward's say it. He has published a Book, concerning the Excellency and Perfection of Scripture; in which Book he finds great Fault with our English Bible: he saith of it, in the Title of his 13th Chapter; It is Faulty and Defective, in many places of the Old and New Testaments; and I offer all along in this Chapter, particular Emendations, in order to render it more exact and complete.  
As to the Hebrew, and Greek Copies of the Bible; 'tis well known, some are more perfect, and some less: they differ very much; for in the Old Testament, the Hebrew Critics have noted 800 various Readins; in the New, there are many more. Mr. Gregory of Oxford, so much esteemed, and even venerated for his admirable Learning, says hereupon; and says it, cum Licentia Superiorum: There is no Book in the World, that hath suffered so much by the hand of time, as the Bible. Preface, p. 4. He judged, and judged truly; that though the first Authors of the Bible, were divinely instructed Men: yet the Copiers, Printers, and Publishers in following Ages, were all of them Fallible Men; and some of them ill-designing Men. He knew that all the Church-Historians, and Critics have confessed, or rather have warned us, that some Copies of the Bible, have been very much Vitiated by the hands, as well of the Orthodox, as of Heretics: and that 'tis matter of great Difficulty, at this distance of time from the Apostolic Age, to ascertain the true Reading of Holy Scripture, in all places of it.  
Yet we do not say hereupon, as Mr. Edward's charges us; that the Bible, much less (as he imputes to us) the Whole Bible, is corrupted. For as to the faulty Readins, in the common Bibles of some Churches, and in some Manuscript Copies; the Providence of God has so watched over this Sacred Book, that we know, what by Information of the ancient Church-Historians, and the Writings of the Fathers, what by the early Translations of the Bible into Greek, Syriac and Latin, and the concurrent Testimony of the more Ancient Manuscript Copies; both who they were that introduced the corrupt Readins, and what is the true Reading in all Texts of weight and consequence. In short, as to this matter, we agree with the Critics of other Sects and Denominations; that though ill Men have often attempted, they could never effect, the Corruption of Holy Scripture: the ancient Manuscripts, the first Translations, the Fathers, and Historians of the Church, are sufficient Directors, concerning the authentic and genuine Reading, of doubtful Places of Holy Scripture.  
Farther, whereas Mr. Edwards would intimate, that we reject divers Books of Scripture. On the contrary, we receive into our Canon, all those Books of Scripture, that are received, or owned, by the Church of England: and we reject the Books, rejected by the Church of England. We know well, that some Books, and Parts of Books, reckoned to be wrote by the Apostles, or Apostolical Men, were questioned; nay were refused, by some of the Ancients: but we concur with the Opinion of the present Catholic Church, concerning them; for the Reasons given by the Catholic Church, and which I shall mention by and by, in the Reply to my Lord of Chichester.  
If Mr. Edwards would have truly represented the Opinion of the Socinians, concerning the Scriptures; he knew where to find it, and so expressed, as would have satisfied every body. He knows, that in their brief Notes on the Creed of Athanasius; they have declared, what is their Sense, in very unexceptionable Words, viz. The Holy Scriptures are a Divine, an Infallible, and Complete Rule, both of Faith and Manners. Br. Notes, p. 1. The Church, neither requires, nor desires, that they should say more.  
II. I believe, concerning God; that he is not a Spirit, properly speaking: but a sort of Body; such as Air, or Aether is. That he is not Immense, Infinite, or every where present; but confined to certain Places. That he hath no Knowledge of such future Events; as depend on the Free Will of Man: and that it is impossible, such things should be foreseen by him. That there is a Succession, in God's eternal Duration; as well as in Time, which is the measure of that Duration, which belongs to finite Being's.  
That Almighty God is Incorporeal, Omni-present, and Omni-scient; has not only been confessed, but proved, by the Unitarians of this Nation, in divers of their late Prints. As to the other, that all Duration; that of God, as well as of Creatures; consists in a Succession, is affirmed by some learned Men of all Persuasions and Ways, as well as by the Unitarians. It should seem, Mr. Edward's holds; that God possesses eternal Life all at once: that Eternity is, to God, one standing permanent Moment. St. John is of another Mind, for he describes the Duration of God, by a Succession; by was, is, and is to come. Grace be to you, and Peace, says he; from him who is, was, and is to come, Rev. 1.4. 'Tis undeniable by any, but affected Wranglers, that here the Duration of God, his Continuance in Being, is distinguished by the threefold Succession (was, is, and shall be) which is common to all other Being's. Eternal Life possessed all at once, is one of the monstrous Paradoxes, which our Opposers maintain; for all that I see, merely from a Spirit of Contradiction: for it has no manner of ground, either in Reason or Holy Scripture. I desire to know of 'em, how the Duration of God, is the less perfect; because 'tis said to consist in a Succession, or what is the same, to be distinguished by was, is, and shall be: seeing 'tis confessed, on all hands, that he carrieth all Perfections, into every Succession of his Duration.  
But is it not a Scandal, that some Unitarians of foreign Parts, have denied the Spirituality (or Incorporeity) of God; his Omnipresence, and Omniscience: saying, and contending for it, that he is a Body, with such Configuration of Parts as Men have; consequently, that he is in Heaven, inspecting indeed and governing all things, but by the Ministry of the several Orders of Angels; and that he doth not foresee contingent Events; but only such Events as are necessarily (not arbitrarily) produced by their Causes? Doubtless; but no more a Scandal to the Unitarians, than to their Opposers: for they are Errors, which some of the Fathers (even the most Ancient, Learned, and Pious of them) have defended as Truths. Nay, it should seem; they were sometime the prevailing Opinions, in some Places: namely, when the Anthropomorphite Doctrine was so zealously espoused; that the Hermits and Caenobites could not endure their Bishops, if they but suspected 'em of Origen's Doctrine, that God is a Spirit, without Parts, or Passions. And in denying the Spirituality and Omni-presence of God; they must needs be understood, not to believe his (certain and absolute) Prescience, of contingent Events. About the Year 400, when almost every body concerned themselves in condemning, and departing (as far as possible) from the Opinions of Origen; the Anthropomorphite Doctrine, and its Consequences, were the Standard-Orthodoxy of many Places, and were Heresy no where. Even St. John Chrysostom, at Constantinople, hardly defended the Fratres longi from the Prosecutions of Theophilus, Archbishop and Patriarch of Alexandria; who was a professed Anthropomorphite, and had expelled the Fratres longi for adhering to Origen's Doctrine, of the Spirituality and Omni-presence of God.  
But as I said, we not only dislike, but utterly reject the dangerous Doctrine; that God hath a Body, is like to Man: together with its Consequences; that he is neither Omni-present, nor Omni-scient. It may as well be said, he is not at all: nay this latter, though the Anthropomorphites see it not, seems to be implied and included in the former. But we condemn not the Schechinah, or glorious Appearance of God in Heaven, which learned Men hold, neither the spiritual Body of Christ.  
III. I believe farther, concerning God; that there is no Distinction of Persons, or Subsistencies, in God. And that the Son, and Holy Ghost, are not God: the former of them, being only a Man; the latter, no other than the Power, or Operation of God. That there was nothing of Merit, in what Christ did, or suffered; that therefore he could not make Satisfaction for the Sins of the World.  
But Mr. Edward's too much mistakes. The Question is not at all concerning three Persons, or three Subsistencies, in God: but whether there are three Infinite Substances; three eternal Minds, and Spirits? We deny the latter, with the whole Catholic Church, against the Realists: We never questioned the former, Persons or Subsistencies; but only as Persons and Subsistencies are taken for Spirits, Minds, and Being's. Whoever denies this to be the true Faith, is (himself) a Heretic, and out of the Catholic Church. But of this, more hereafter, in my Reply to the Bishop of Chichester, and to the Bishop of Worcester.  
But we say, Christ is only a Man; and the Holy Spirit, only the Power of God. No, we say; the Lord Christ is God, and Man. He is Man, in respect of his reasonable Soul, and human Body; God, in respect of God in him. Or more scholastically, in respect of the Hypostatical (or Personal) Union, of the Humanity of Christ, with the Divinity. By which, the Catholic Church means, and we mean: the Divinity was not only occasionally assisting unto, but was (and is) always in Christ; illuminating, conducting, and actuating him. More than this, is the Heresy of Eutyches; and less, we never held: though we confess, that careless, or less accurate Expressions, may have been used by both Parties; of which, neither aught to take Advantage, against the other, when it appears there is no Heterodox Intention.  
That by the Spirit of God, is sometimes meant (in Holy Scripture) the Power of God, cannot be denied: but concerning the three Divine Persons, we believe, as the Catholic Church believes; that they are relative Subsistencies, internal Relations of the Deity to itself. Or as the Schools explain this; Original unbegotten Wisdom or Mind, reflex or begotten Wisdom, and the eternal Spiration of Divine Love. But we do not think these Terms fit to express that Sense.  
But do you not say; There was no Merit, in what Christ did, or suffered: and that he could not make Satisfaction for our Sins? He may for our Parts be Anathema, that teaches, or believes that Doctrine. We believe, that the Lord Christ by what he did, and what he suffered, was, by the gracious Acceptance of God, a true and perfect Propitiation for Sinners, that repent, and turn to the good ways.  
iv In the next Article, he makes us believe a great many things; as that the first Man was not created in a State of Uprightness. As if it were possible, that Men in their right Senses, should think; the first Man was created a Sinner.  
That by his Fall, Adam did not lose Righteousness and Holiness, which are (part of) the Image of God. As who should say, that by being a Sinner, he did not sin, or become unlike to God.  
That Adam's Posterity have received no hurt, or slain, by his Apostasy. As if you should say; that neither his bad Example, nor the Curse that made the Earth so much less fruitful, was any hurt: and that the Rebellion of an Ancestor, no not against God, is no blot in his Family. I shall grow quite out of Conceit, with these Unitarians; if they say many more, such weak things. But in very deed, I imagine, Mr. Edward's had a mind to have charged 'em more home; when he does, we shall consider what to answer. I am of opinion, that in this part of the Article, he is somewhat ashamed of his own Doctrine: and that he feared to make himself, and Party, ridiculous; by a clear and distinct Representation of their Opinion.  
That Mankind, notwithstanding Adam's Fall, have by Nature an Ability to desire and embrace all spiritual Good; and to avoid all that is sinful or vicious. They are bold Britan's. What, embrace all the Gospel-Precepts, by mere Nature: When 'tis not possible, so much as to know divers of them, but by Revelation Divine? And can they avoid too all that is vicious, by only Nature? In good truth, they are better, and stronger, by Nature, than ever I hope to be, in this Life, by the (superadded) Grace of the Gospel. But here again, he did not strike home; he intended more than he durst say: and he durst not say it, lest we should ask him; whether he believes the just contrary?  
That there is no need of the Spirit, to repent, believe, and perform religious Acts. 'Tis a serious Point. We answer with St. Paul; the Spirit HELPETH our Infirmities, Rom. 8.26. But we judge, for all that; the Holy Scripture giveth no occasion to any, to turn Enthusiasts: and to resolve the whole Duty we own, and must perform to God, and to our Neighbour; into preternatural Impulses, as if we were Machine's, and not Men. Or Puppets, moved by invisible Wires; not Men, that act by their own Reason, and Choice.  
That Men are Righteous before God; not, by the Merit of Christ: but, by their own good Works. We answer, with all but Antinomians, and the more rigid Calvinists: the Merit of Christ is not reckoned to us, without good Works of our own. But I am not certain, that the Calvinist or Antinomians would not assent to this Proposition, or not allow it to be Orthodox.  
V Another Branch of our Creed, according to Mr. Edward's, runs thus: I believe concerning a future State; that the Souls of the Deceased have no Knowledge, or Perception of any thing: they are not sensible of any Rewards, or Pains; and their very Nature is absorbed.  
That at Death, the Soul as well as the Body sleeps, was an Error of some of the most ancient Fathers, as well as of some Unitarians. But neither of them said, as Mr. Edward's pretends, that in Death the very Nature of the Soul is absorbed: they both held, that there is a Resurrection of the Soul, as well as Body. But why does Mr. Edward's impute that Opinion to us; when he had read (for he quotes the Book) in the first Part of the Considerations on the Explication of the Trinity, what is our Sense of this Matter? The Words there, at p. 33. are these: This Error was common to Socinus, with some of the Fathers. The learned Mr. Du. Pinn has noted, in his Abridgement of the Fathers; that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Minutius Foelix, and Arnobius, were in this Sentiment. There was no Reason to object this, to Socinus; as if it were a peculiar Opinion of his: much less to the English Unitarians, who never defended it; nor (that I know of) do any of them hold it.  
VI He says next; I believe we shall not rise with the same Bodies, that we now have: but that another Matter or Substance, shall be substituted in their Place. I see, most of our Opposers have affected to mistake our Meaning, concerning the Resurrection of the Body: We hold nothing, that is singular in the case; we differ not from the Catholic Church, about it. We say with St. Paul, 1 Cor. 15.35. How are the Dead raised; and with what Bodies do they come?— Thou sowest not the Body that shall be. The Body that is raised, is not in all respects, the same that was committed to the Earth: in divers, perhaps in the most, it is. We rise not Infants, or decrepit old Men, or lame, or deaf, or any way distorted; though many so lived, and so died. Nay, as to the Passions, resulting from the Complexion of the present Body; and therefore to be reckoned the Modifications (and as it were, Parts) of our Body: we rise not, with them; it is not the same Body, in respect of those Passions, that it here lived. For instance, some are (by Complexion) very cowardly, or pensive, or choleric, or jealous; the Body that shall be will not be such: it will be conformed to the Likeness of the glorious Body of the Lord Christ; that is, be freed from all (both external and internal) Imperfections. Farthermore, our present Body (Physicians and Philosophers say) is in a continual Flux: all the Parts of it, internal as well as external, continually decay; and are continually renewed. They decay, by the Perspiration, that is continually caused by the internal Heat; and are continually renewed, by the Nourishment taken in, and converted into Blood, Spirits, Flesh, and Bones. 'Tis said by the Learned in these Matters; that no Man's Body is the very same, as to the Matter and Substance of it, this present Year, that it was the last Year, and will be the next Year: 'tis wholly new-built, by the Nourishment of the present Year. We say therefore, there shall be a Resurrection of the Body; and as some of the ancient Creeds spoke, of the same Body; as truly, and as properly, as N. N. is the same Man this Year, that he was one, or seven, or twenty Years ago. If Mr. Edward's requires us, to say more; he exacts more than the Church believes: for by the Resurrection of the same Body, the Church intends only; that 'tis as truly the same, as a Man (notwithstanding the Flux of his Parts) is now the same N. N. that he was seven, or ten Years past; yet not altogether the same, because inconceivably better: that is, without any external, or internal Deformities or Weaknesses.  
VII. I believe, that at the Day of Judgement, Men shall not be required to give an Account of their Actions; the most flagitious Sinners shall not be examined, concerning any thing of their past Life: only they shall be punished; and their Punishment is this, to utterly cease, or perish, for ever. The unquenchable Fire is nothing but Annihilation.  
I do not know, that the Scriptures, or the Catholic Church, do require any to believe; that Sinners shall be examined concerning their past Life, at the Day of the General Judgement. To what purpose, I pray? Doth the all-knowing Judge need to be informed, concerning the Particulars of their Gild? If every Person is to be severally examined, concerning the Particulars of his transacted Life; the Day of Judgement will extend itself to many Millions of Ages more, than the whole Duration of the World, from its Beginning to its Consummation. It should seem, Mr. Edward's thinks, that because the Scriptures speak of the great Judgement by God, in the Terms and Language of Men, and of humane Judicatories; such as Trumpets, the Throne of the Judge, a formal Sentence, the Plead of the Guilty, the Answers of the Judge: that therefore in very deed, we are to expect such a Scene, at the Judgement by God, as at a common Assize. I conceive, on the contrary; that all such Expressions and Words, wheresoever they are found in Scripture, are not intended as real Descriptions: but as Comparisons, or Resemblances; by which, the Capacities of the Vulgar may be assisted, and their Affections wrought upon. All that is intended by such Expressions, is only this: that every one shall be so recompensed, at the Resurrection; as is worthy of the Holy Judge, and compassionate Father of the World.  
But we hold, he saith; that the Punishment of the Wicked, is only Extinction: their Life shall be destroyed for ever, by the (unquenchable) Fire, into which they are cast. Which Opinion, that it may look ridiculous, he words (for us) thus; The unquenchable Fire is, nothing but Annihilation. What the Scriptures have said, concerning the Punishment of the Wicked after the Resurrection, is not so clear; but that the Opinions of Learned Men, Fathers and Moderns, have been very different, about it. Some, (of which Number is Origen, the most considerable of the Ante-Nicenes) held, that not only wicked Men, but the very Devils, will repent, and reform, under the Punishments they endure: that therefore they will be pardoned; be admitted to a new Trial of their Behaviour, and may attain to Blessedness. These say, that Man being a reasonable, is therefore a docile, or teachable Creature; and it not looking probable, that the Wisdom of God will lose any part of his Creation, but will bring it to the Perfection, and upon that to the Blessedness, of which 'tis capable: therefore, what by Instructions, what by Punishments, and Encouragements, God will reclaim the Bad, will perfect and confirm the Good; and so in the long-run of things, be acclaimed the Saviour of All.  
Others, among whom have been some (it may be, the most) of the foreign Unitarians, have thought; that the Righteous are rewarded with an everlasting Life of Blessedness; and the impenitent Wicked punished, by that unquenchable Fire, which will wholly destroy their Being. They believe, this is the Reason; why the Punishment by Hell-fire is called eternal Death in Holy Scripture. But the more current Opinion, among all Denominations of Christians, is; that the Punishment of the Impenitent in Hell-fire, is called Death: not because it utterly destroys the Life of the Sufferer; but because 'tis a continual and endless Dying. The extreme Pains of Hell may well be called, an everlasting Dying, or an eternal Death; though the Sufferer is never extinct.  
I do not find any thing in the Books of the English Unitarians, concerning these Opinions; they may hold as variously concerning them, as the Christians of other Denominations. But if I may answer for them, by what I judge of 'em, by Conversation with 'em: I would say, We approve the Doctrine delivered by Archbishop J. Tillotson, in a Sermon before her late Majesty, of happy Memory, March 7, 1689. on Mat. 25.46. which Sermon was printed by their Majesty's special Command.  
VIII. I believe, as to Christianity itself; that every thing in it, is to be submitted to the Dictates of human Reason; and that there are no Doctrines in it, that are mysterious.  
Neither of these was ever said, by any Unitarian; and all our Prints, more particularly those in the English Tongue, are express: that there are many things, as well in Religion, as Nature, that are far above the Capacity of the human Reason, to declare or understand the manner of 'em; or how they should be what, we either see, or are infallibly taught, they are. We never pretended, that the human Reason is the Measure of Truth; as Mr. Edward's and Mr. Norris charge us; so that what our Reason does not comprehend, we will not believe on any other Evidence whatsoever. We never said it, or thought it; we reject no Doctrines, but such as are contrary to Reason: and of that, I will speak fully, in the Answer to Mr. De Luzancy.  
IX. As to Divine Worship, I believe; it may be given to another, besides God: to Christ, who is but a Creature.  
But we have disavowed nothing more, in all our Prints, than giving Divine Worship to any, but only God: that 'tis a marvel to me, that Mr. Edwards should impute to us, such a Doctrine; we have scarce an English Print, where we do not expressly oppose it.  
Nor do we reckon of the Lord Christ, as but a Creature: I have said before, He is God, and Man. The Divinity doth so inhabit the Humanity of Christ; doth so exert in it, the most glorious Effects of Omnipotence and Omniscience: that if others have been called God, because they represented God; Christ is to be so called, because he exhibits God.  
X. I believe, Prayer was not required, under the Old Testament. The Lord's Day is a ceremonious Observance, abolished by the Gospel. There is no spiritual Blessing conferred in the Use of the Sacraments. Baptism is an useless Rite; and the Baptism of Children, altogether vain. There is no distinct Function or Office of Ministers, in the Christian Church: the very Lord's Supper itself may be administered by a private Person.  
I think, Mr. Edward's is in the right, against those (if any such there were) who denied, that Prayer was a Duty or Precept of the Old Testament, and the Law; when he says, it is included and implied in the general Precepts of Fearing, Serving, or Worshipping God. But he is as much out, in the next Article; that some have said, that the Lord's-day is abolished by the Gospel; for it was never taught by any. He meant, I suppose, that the Seventh Day, or Sabbath, is abolished: and I take it to be the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, that the Seventh-day-Sabbath was Ceremonial, and is abolished. It may better however be said, that the Sabbath is transferred, from the Seventh, to the First Day; than that 'tis absolutely abolished, or taken away. In short, the English Unitarians hold no private Opinion, about either the Sabbath, or the Lord's-day; but as well in Principle as Practice, concur with the Catholic Church.  
It is too loosely said; that there is no spiritual Blessing conferred, in the use of the Sacraments. For there is no Ordinance of God, but the serious and devout Performance of it, draws a Blessing on the Doer. For all that, many exceed, in ascribing to the Sacraments certain Powers and Energies, without competent Warrant from the Word of God. I do not know, that Baptism is any thing more than a federal Rite, by which we are initiated, into the Christian Religion; or the Holy Supper any thing more, than a Commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ; offering himself to God, as an Atonement for repenting Sinners. I know not to what purpose so many superstitious Books are written; to teach People, how to prepare themselves for the Memorial Supper: when an honest Intention, and a reverend Performance, are sufficient both Preparations, and Qualifications, for, and in all Gospel-Ordinances. The Apostle says; He that eateth that Bread unworthily, or unworthily drinketh that Cup, is guilty of the Blood of Christ; nay, eateth and drinketh Judgement to himself. But he also warns 'em, what he means by unworthy Partaking; namely, their not tarrying for one another: and withal, eating and drinking, with so little regard either to God or Men, that some of 'em made themselves drunk with the Sacramental Wine, while others could not so much as taste of it. Briefly, their assembling to this solemn Commemorative Sacrifice, was more like a Carousal, than a Celebration, of the Holy and Blessed Memory, of a dying Saviour. These were the Disorders, and Irregularities, concerning which they were to examine themselves; and thereby avoid an unworthy Communicating, and the Consequences of it.  
We do not say, Baptism is an useless Rite: or that the Baptism of Children is altogether vain. What the Wisdom of God has appointed to all Nations, is not to be esteemed useless; though we ourselves knew not the Uses of it: and it is Use enough, that this Sacrament is an initiating Rite.  
Nor is it a good Exception, against this Sacrament's being continued still, that now People are Christians by Education: seeing there is the same Reason for its Continuance, as for its Institution; namely, a solemn, public and formal Initiation, into the Religion of Jesus.  
And this may in some sense be done in Infancy, by the Intervention of Undertakers, commonly called Godfathers; and how it can be done without 'em, I see not. But it is without all reason, that Parents should not be admitted to be Undertakers; when others cannot, or cannot easily be had. It were well, methinks, if the Minister and Churchwardens (together with the Parents) were obliged to be Undertakers ex Officio, or ratione Officii, by their Place and Office; and it were yet better, if the whole Church undertook for the Infants. Moreover, where Infant-Baptism is the Custom of the Church; Confirmation (or the Person's taking upon himself the Covenant and Promises, that were made in his Name, by his Undertakers) ought to be as little neglected as Baptism: nay the Person cannot be said, to be a complete Christian, or to be Christianly baptised, till he is Confirmed; that is, has publicly taken upon himself, his Baptismal Engagements.  
Lastly, As to that, I believe there is no distinct Function or Office of Ministers: and the very Lord's-Supper may be administered by a private Christian.  
I answer for myself, and the many Unitarians; there is a threefold Distinction of Church-Officers, by themselves modestly called Ministers: namely, Bishops, Presbyters (called Priests) and Deacons. The former were of Divine Right: the other of Apostolical Institution only; and that too (as appears from Acts 6.3, 4.) not by any particular Inspiration, but merely on Motives of Prudence and Charity. These three Orders are of that Antiquity, and Universality; that as soon as, and wherever, Christianity was professed, the Churches were governed after this Form. A Form received among all the Sects of Christians, as well as by the sounder part of 'em, called the Church; till Mr. Calvin, in a Case of Necessity, introduced a new sort of Church-Administration. These are they, to whom only (except in Case of Necessity, such as the Reformation was) it belongs to administer the Sacraments; and to instruct and exhort publicly. But what makes a Case of Necessity, is a Question by itself; on which I am not obliged to enter: I wish the Church had not given, and may never give cause to the Unitarians; either by Exclusion, or Persecution, or unlawful Terms of Communion; to have recourse to Mr. Calvin's Expedient.  
XI. As to Moral Points, I believe that Officious Lies are lawful; the Motions of Concupiscence, not vicious; idle or obscene Words, Gluttony, Drunkenness, Riot, Luxury, and impure Desires and Lusts, were not forbidden till Christ's time. By Officious Lies are meant those Falsities, that do good to some, without doing any hurt to others. As when the Hebrew Midwives made Pharaoh believe, that the Hebrew Women were so quick, that they were (commonly) delivered of their Children, before the Midwife could come to them; and therefore there was not Opportunity to strangle their Children, as they came forth, from the Womb. So also, when David escaped from Saul, by the Contrivance of his Wife Michal; and Saul was therefore angry with his Daughter Michal: She said, David threatened to kill her, if she did not agree to, and assist his Escape. And Jonathan excused the Absence of David, by feigning that David had asked his leave, to assist at the yearly Sacrifice, made by his Family, 1 Sam. 19.17. 1 Sam. 20.6, 28, 29. Exod. 1.19. To Officious Lies, belong also Compliments; very low Bowings, and respectful Carriage, towards Persons for whom we really have not the Kindness, or Regard, of which we make show by those external (and false) Significations. I think, it may excuse Volkelius, whom Mr. Edwards citys upon this part of his Charge; that the Officious Lies of the Midwives, of Michal and Jonathan, are related in Scripture, without blaming them: they are not censured by the Inspired Writers; they are told by the Prophets (Moses and Samuel) without the least Signification that they were Sins. Volkelius might infer from hence, that the Texts which forbidden Lying and Falseness, are intended of such Lying as is hurtful, and prejudicial to another: and that what does no hurt, can be the Subject of no Law. To forbid what helps some, even to the saving of Life, or Goods, without any wrong or hurt to another; why should any Lawgiver forbidden it? Notwithstanding, I think, Mr. Edward's says well; If once such Doctrine is commonly taught, all Lies will be reckoned some way or other Officious; and Truth and Sincerity will be banished from the Earth.  
The Motions of Concupiscence, are not vicious or sinful. By Concupiscence is meant some unlawful Desire, or Inclination, arising in the Mind, but not consented to, or put into practice. Methinks, so far forth as such Motions in the Mind, are involuntary; they should rather be called Frailties, than Sins: and the disapproving, and resisting them, shall be rewarded by God.  
Concerning obscene Words, Riot, Gluttony, Drunkenness, impure Desires, not forbidden by the Law, and not strictly unlawful, till prohibited by the Gospel: We are not much concerned, in such a Dispute; it being confessed on all hands, that they are forbid in the Writings of the New Testament. Notwithstanding, I wonder, that any should say, they are not prohibited in the Mosaic Law. Some of them were punishable with Death, by that Law: as Gluttony and Drunkenness, by the Law at Deut. 21.20. Luxury, Riot, Lust, and such like, are contrary to the Good of a Man's Children, and of himself; or of his Neighbour, and the Commonwealth: and therefore are (implicitly) forbidden by that Commandment, at Leu. 19.18. which requires, that a Man should love his Neighbour, as himself. I do not love my Neighbour, as myself, if I am guilty of Luxury or Riot, by which my Heir, and the Poor are defrauded: or if I am guilty of Ambition, Covetousness, or Lust; by which I spoil, or grind, or wrong my Neighbour. Nay, Lust, Riot, Excess, Covetousness, do unfit us, and very much, for the Service of God, and for the honest and honourable Discharge of our Station, whatsoever that be, in the Commonwealth; therefore they are implicitly forbidden, by all those Commandments of the Law, that require either the Fear, Regard and Service of God, or the Welfare and Esteem of our Neighbour, or selves.  
XII. Concerning Magistrates, I believe, 'tis not lawful for them, under the Gospel, to inflict Capital Punishment (Death) on any Offenders, no not on Murderers. This was the Doctrine, of divers of the Fathers, of the 3 first Ages; scarce any of them believed otherwise. Nay, they added, it is not lawful to go to War, as a Soldier; or to assist at Executions; or even to defend a Man's own Life, by any such resistance, as will take away the Life of the (injurious) Aggressor. The Reason they gave for this last was; that by killing a Person, who attempts to murder me, he is dispatched out of the World without Repentance, and therefore is certainly damned: but the Christian by being killed, loses only this Life; and enters upon a blessed Immortality. Some Unitarians have been of this mind; while others have written against the whole Doctrine. In short, it is not their Doctrine as unitarians; for some of them have held it, while others (I believe the most) disallow it.  
XIII. Concerning some other Points, I believe, as the Church of Rome believes; for we agree with them, in several Points of Doctrine. What these Points are, he tells us at Ch. 9 from p. 201. namely that some things were said by our Saviour, by way only of Monition or Counsel, not of Command. That we Merit, by a good Life; and may be perfect. That all Sins are not damnable. That the Prayers of the Living may help the Dead. Nay the Author of the Considerations, on the Explications of the Trinity, speaks favourably of Transubstantiation.  
Let us begin at the foot of this Account. The Author of the Considerations, is no otherwise favourable, to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, than by saying of it: 'tis only a Philosophical Error, or Folly; not an Impiety, page 21. And again, at page 22. 'Tis a Mistake, into which the Papists have been cozened, by the Philosophy of Aristotle. Would Mr. Edward's think, a Man favoured the Doctrines, in his Books; if he called them Mistakes, Errors, and Follies? Mr. Edward's finds Impiety, Irreligion, Atheism, and what not, in all Doctrines, and all Authors, he dislikes: We are not so dextrous. We sometimes think, that we spy an Error, or Mistake; and sometimes it seems so gross, as to deserve the Name of a Folly: but to call it Impiety, Irreligion, Abnegation of Christianity; how much soever Mr. Edward's delights in it, and makes it his constant Practice, as well in Preaching as Writing; we cannot approve the Example, it being always contrary to Charity, Good Manners, and Truth.  
The Prayers of the Living may help the Dead. There is no Example in Scripture, nor (I think) any solid ground in Reason, for such a Belief. Mr. Edward's quotes for it, but one Socinian Writer, nor is that Author positive, in the Case. He only says; Those who believe a middle State of the Dead, do well to pray for them. That is, in case you suppose, besides Heaven and Hell, some middle place, where Souls may repent and reform, or where they have not yet received their Doom: it is Charity, to intercede by our Prayers, for them; as much as we would for the Living. I believe, he is the only Writer of his Sect that can be charged with any such thing: but we have it (in Print) concerning a late Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Sheldon; that he prayed for the Dead, in his daily Prayers. But what one particular Man does, or says, ought not to be imputed to his whole Party; and reported to the World as an Article of their Creed.  
All Sins are not damnable. A Christian may Merit, by his good Works; and may be perfect. Merit and Perfection may be truly, or falsely said, of the Works and Life of a Christian Man; according as you interpret the Terms, Merit and Perfection. Taking 'em in the sense, that Protestants use them; no Man can merit of God, the infinite Recompenses of Heaven, and of Blessedness everlasting: nor was any Man perfect, or without Sin; but only that Lamb of God, who taketh away the Sins of the World. But Merit and Perfection are sometimes used in a popular Sense; namely, for that (though imperfect, yet) sincere Obedience to God's Commandments, to which God has graciously appointed the recompense of everlasting Blessedness in Heaven: and for universal Obedience, as it is opposed (not to Oversights and Frailties, but) to a wilful Indulging ourselves, in particular Sins. In this Sense, every sincere Christian both merits, and is perfect. Yet I own, divers Unitarian Writers have spoke either too loosely, or too incorrectly on the Point of Perfection; but they have been as much opposed, by some of their own Number. The same cannot be said, concerning the distinction of Sin, into Mortal and Venial; for our People are positive and unanimous, that as St. John words this Matter, there is Sin, which is not unto Death, 1 John 5.16. God Almighty, they say, hath not appointed Hell-fire for our Frailties and Inadvertencies; but for our Contempts, and advised Breach of his Laws.  
Some things said by our Saviour, are Counsels, to such as would be perfect; not absolute indispensible Commands, to all the Faithful without exception. He quotes for this, an obscure Passage of one single Socinian Writer; who never was espoused, in that matter, by any of his Party. We judge, the distinction of Counsels and Commands, is a great and very dangerous Presumption; a Backdoor, by which to escape from (almost) a Man's whole Duty. The two Doctrines of Counsels for the Perfect, and probable Opinions, will furnish the most profligate Wretch in the World, with Defences, for his very greatest Enormities.  
Lastly, after all I believe, though the aforesaid Articles are all necessary, to make a Man a Socinian: yet the Belief of only one, is enough, to make a Man a Christian: and that one Article is, that Jesus is the Messiah. In which, it is not included, whether he be God, or Man; or whether he satisfied Divine Justice for our Sins by his Death: but only, that a Man of Nazareth was ordained, and sent of God, to be a Saviour. I see, all Mr. Edwards' Colts-teeths are not yet out of his Head; he cannot forbear, dealing sometimes in Raillery and Wit: but I must (seriously) desire him, to name me any Socinian or Unitarian Writer, that ever said; no more is required to make a Christian, but only that he believe, that Jesus is the Messiah. The Truth of the matter is this; Mr. Edwards has been lately very much foiled, first by a Learned Gentleman, then by a Divine of the Church of England, upon this Question: Whether it be of the Essence of a Christian, as a Christian, to assent to more than this one Article, that Jesus is the Messiah, sent by God to instruct and save the World? They do not doubt, that 'tis a Christian's Duty, to learn (by degrees) all the other Articles of the Christian Creed, and to believe them; but if he hath attained, or (by occasion of Impediments of any sort, that were not caused by his own Negligence, or Perverseness) he can attain, to no more Knowledge, or Faith: yet this one Article doth make him a Christian. It doth not satisfy Mr. Edward's, that upon all the Points in question, they have declared themselves to be Anti-Socinians: he resolves for all that, they shall be Socinians; and this Opinion which they maintain against him, a new Article of the Socinian Creed. It may be one way, he thinks, to reduce them to Silence; if he calls their Opinion, Socinianism: and if after that, they will not pull in their Horns, in his next Book it shall be Irreligion, or downright Atheism; or at least, Abnegation of Christianity, or Popery; his other Compliments to those, whom he is pleased to attack.  
I have now answered, concerning all the Articles of our Religion, with Sincerity; without any the least disguise, or reserved, or unusual Meaning, or Meanings. And I am not sorry, that Mr. Edwards (almost) constrained us, to explain ourselves, concerning these Points. For as unsincere and untrue, as his Imputations are; and as scurrilous, as his manner of representing 'em, and discoursing upon them, sometimes is: the Retortion (or Answer) here made, will be judged by indifferent and discerning Persons, to be home, and satisfactory. As to the Man himself, Mr. Edward's has been serviceable, to the common Christianity, by some learned Books; therefore I wish to him whatsoever Good, himself desires to himself; these Concertations between us notwithstanding.   

In Answer to the Vindication, of four Sermons, of his Grace, Archbishop J. Tillotson; by my Lord the Bishop of Chichester.  
HIS Lordship's Preface is, for the bigger part of it, an angry Perversion of the Respects, paid to the Archbishop, and other Persons of Dignity and Learning, by the Author of the Considerations, through his whole Answer to them. But I doubt, as to that, we must always hold ourselves content: for in the Holy War, against reputed Heretics, what in poor Laics would be censured as want of Urbanity, and Charity; in ecclesiastics is the Zeal of thy House—.  
In one Place of his Preface, his Lordship objects to the Considerer; that there was a time when Paulus and Photinus, Unitarian Archbishops, flourished: and their Followers abounded every where. Well, what then? Why, he will tell it us, as a Secret; they did not treat the Trinitarians, as Fathers their Children, but like tyrannical Judges. Violences and Outrages, Fire and Faggot, were in Fashion among them; Bishops were deposed, exiled, and slain; and the whole Roman Empire put into a Combustion, by these infamous Practices. His Lordship does well, to tell us this, as a Secret; for 'twas never heard of, till he published this Vindication of the Archbishop's Sermons. I desire him, to name the Authors, from whom these Calumnies have been taken up: and because I am persuaded he has none to cite; I will adventure to say, he cannot avoid the Imputation of too hasty taking up a Reproach. Paulus and Photinus were indeed, as his Lordship says, Unitarian Metropolitans. The former succeeded, though not immediately, to the Apostle St. Peter, in the Patriarchal Chair of Antioch: The other was Primate of Illyricum. It is true also, what his Lordship adds; that their Followers abounded every where. In the time of the first Nicene Council, or the Year 325. they had their Bishops and Presbyters, their Deacons and Deaconesses, like other Denominations and Sects of Christians; as is intimated in the 19th Canon of that Council. But they never were Persecutors; but the persecuted. Paul and Photinus were both of them ejected, out of their Bishoprics; Paul by a Pagan Emperor, at the instance of a Council of Heretical Bishops, who denied Homousios: Photinus by an Arian Emperor, at the Request of a Council of Bishops no less heretical; for they contended for Homoiusios. And for their Followers, the other Unitarians; it never was in their Power, to be Persecutors: for they never were the prevailing Party, but always lived sub Cruse; they cheerfully took up, and embraced the Cross, in hopes to inherit the Promises. Whereas his Lordship pretends, that Fire and Faggot were in fashion, when the Followers of Paulus and Photinus abounded, and (as he would have it thought) prevailed every where: 'tis certain, that sort of Church-Discipline was not known to the Ancients, whether Trinitarians or Unitarians; it was not introduced till about the Year 1216, and was exercised first on the Albigenses, by Dominic, Founder of the Order of the Dominicans.  
He concludes his Preface, that he will not ask Pardon, for what he has imputed to us; that we have been great Persecutors, even as far as Fire and Faggot. And I answer, when he proves his Imputations, we will ask his Pardon; and besides, will most willingly undergo any Penalty, or Shame, how great soever.  
The Body of his Lordship's Book, is divided into two (very unequal) Sections: the first, concerning the Divinity of our Saviour; the other, concerning his Incarnation. The Section concerning our Saviour's Divinity, is part of it laid out, in asserting the Authority of St. John's Gospel; the rest, on some Texts (cited by the Archbishop) either for the Divinity of our Saviour, or for his Pre-existence. I will first say something in general, concerning the Blessed Trinity; the Deity of our Saviour, and his Incarnation: and then, make Application of it, to his Lordship's Vindication.   

Of the Trinity; Divinity, and Incarnation, of the Lord Christ.  
I Am persuaded, that the Questions concerning the Trinity, the Divinity of our Saviour, and the Incarnation; so long controverted, between the Church and the Unitarians; are a Strife, mostly about Words and Terms, not of Things and Realities. And this Discovery is owing, to the Sagacity and Dexterity of the English unitarians: who having (first) distinguished those that pretend to be the Church, into Nominal Trinitarians and Real Trinitarians; or if you will, into Trinitarians and Tritheists; they (next) prove their Agreement with the former of these, the Nominals; and (then) that the Nominal Party is what ought to be called the Church. That the Nominal Party is the Church, is incontestably proved; because their Doctrine, or Explication of the Trinity, has been directly (and in Terms) espoused by General Councils, and the contrary (the Explication or Doctrine of the Realists) as expressly and directly censured and condemned by the same Authority.  
The Realists believe, that the Trinity is three distinct infinite Substances, Minds, and Spirits; all of them coeternal, of like Dignity, Power, Wisdom, and all other Divine Attributes. And as to three such Persons being one God; they say: Because they immeate, or are (inseparably) in one another, therefore they are called one God; though each of them (distinctly considered) is perfect God. Yet this Perichoresis, Immeation or Inexistence, is not such an In-being of these three Spirits or Substances in one another; but that they really remain as distinct Substances, Minds, Spirits, and Being's, as three Angels, or three Men are.  
But the Nominals abhor this, as perfect Tritheism; they see plainly, and proclaim it aloud to every body, that three infinite Spirits, though as Spirits they may, and as infinite Spirits they must be supposed to immeate (or inexist in) one another: yet they are no more made to be one God, by such alternate Penetration; than if they were at never so great a Remotion from one another. The Reason is; because notwithstanding their mutual Inexistence, neither their Understandings, or Wills, or other Powers, nor their Substances, become continuous or identified, but remain truly distinct, several, and divers. They are supposed indeed to be in one another; but as distinctly, and without Confusion either of their Substances or Powers: as three Angels (while they occupy the same Space, and exclude not one another) are. Or to use another, perhaps a better, Comparison; as these three Divine Spirits themselves, are in all things, in the whole Creation; and the whole Creation in them. Such an Inexistence as this, every one sees, is so far from making three (eternal infinite) Spirits to be one God; that we can possibly have no other Notion of three Gods. For what is the Conception that any Man has, or can have of three Gods; but this: viz. so many infinite Spirits, which so pervade or inexist in one another; that (notwithstanding) their Substances, Faculties, and Attributes, remain distinct and divers?  
This is such a Reason, and so obvious; that the Nominals utterly reject, and with the greatest Abhorrence, the Doctrine of three infinite Spirits; and explain the Trinity, or three (Divine) Persons, in a metaphysical way.  
They say; we are not to conceive of the three Divine Persons, as we do of created Persons: the Conception we ought to have of their Personalities, or what they are as they are Persons, is as different from the Personalities of created Being's, whether they be Angels or Men; as the Perfections of the Divinity are superior, to Human or Angelical Perfections. God is but one Being, but one Substance, Mind, or Spirit; with one only Will, Understanding, Energy, or Power of Action: nor are the Divine Attributes multiplied, or repeated in the Deity; for there is in God no more than one Omnipotence, Omniscience, or other Divine Perfection. It is only God, that physically and properly exists, as a vital Being, or a complete Spirit and Mind: the Persons are only the Substance of God (his infinite, spiritual, and most perfect Substance or Nature) with the three Properties, to be of none, to be begotten, and to proceed.  
Some are yet more particular, in declaring or explaining, what the Personalities and Persons are. These consider in God, first original Mind, or original Wisdom; this is the Person of the Father. Then, reflex Wisdom; even the Logos, or Wisdom, that resulteth from God's contemplating or knowing his own Perfections; or (what is the same) the perfect Image, that is generated or begotten, by God's knowing and understanding himself: which is called the Son. Lastly, the (immanent) Act of LOVE, by which God willeth or loveth himself; his eternal Spiration (or as it were, Breathing) of Love toward himself: this is named the Holy Spirit.  
In short, the Trinity believed by the Realists, is three distinct infinite and pre-eternal Spirits; each of which is a perfect God: and all of them but one God, by their mutual Inexistence, or that they are in one another; but without Confusion, or identifying their Substances, or their Powers. The Trinity believed by the Nominals, is one living eternal infinite Spirit; considered under this threefold Distinction, Unbegotten, Begotten, and Proceeding; or Original Mind which is unbegotten, reflex Wisdom which is generated, and Divine Love which proceeds. Original Mind being unbegotten, is therefore named the Father; reflex Wisdom being (manifestly) generated by original eternal Mind, is called the Son; the last being a Spiration of God, has therefore the Appellation of Holy Spirit. And though the Nominals use sometimes other Terms, in speaking of the Trinity; such as Modes, Relations, relative Subsistences: yet no more, or other is meant by them, than has been already said.  
This Trinity of the Nominals is most directly (as I said) and explicitly affirmed, by divers General Councils; in whom only it is, to declare the Faith, and to pronounce what is to be deemed Heresy. And this also is the Explication, that has been followed without any Variation, by all particular Writers, whether Reform, or Roman Catholics, or of the Greek (or Oriental) Church; since the Year 1215.  
But if this be the Catholic Faith, as it certainly is; the Unitarians are as sound Catholics, as any other Denomination of Christians whatsoever. They believe the Trinity before-said; even one infinite spiritual Substance, with its three Properties, Unbegotten, Begotten, and Proceeding. One eternal Spirit, under the triple Distinction of Original Mind, Reflex Wisdom, and Divine Love. They approve of it, that the first of these being unbegotten, the second generated, and the third a Spiration; they be therefore called Father, Son, and Spirit. Indeed the Terms Trinity, and Person, are unscriptural; but we accept them, according to the Explication by the Church: that is, as the Catholic Church has (in the manner abovesaid) explained herself concerning the three Persons of the Trinity. We have therefore no Difference with the Church; but only with the Realists, who are a few English Writers, that have departed from the Doctrine of the Catholic Church.  
It was a strange Imputation, on his Grace the late Archbishop; that he was an Unitarian: his Grace was a Realist. He understood by Persons in the Deity, not Persons in a metaphysical Sense; as the Nominals do, and as was before explained: but Persons in a physical Sense of the Word, or such Persons (namely, as vitally subsisting, and as really distinct) as three Angels, or three Men are. According to the Modes of Speaking, now in use; only complete Being's, not Properties or Faculties, or immanent Acts, are called Persons: and his Grace expressly declares, that he means by Persons, such Persons as we usually intent when (in common Discourse) we speak of so many Persons, or such and such Persons. But let us, for avoiding Cavils, take his Sense in his own Words; he saith, p. 120. Here I fix; that there are three Differences in the Deity, of which the Scriptures speak by the Names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and farther, speak also every where of them, as we use to do, of three distinct Persons. Therefore I see no Reason, to abstain from the word Persons; though I remember, St. Jerom desires (somewhere) to be excused from it. It is certain, that in common Discourse, or (as his Grace speaks) usually, we mean by three or more Persons, so many complete Being's; and if those Being's are spiritual, we always mean so many Spirits. As for Properties, immanent Acts, mere relative Subsistences, Modes; though formerly (and properly) they were, yet now they are not called Persons; but are considered and spoke of, as only the Affections of Persons. It cannot therefore be denied to his Grace, that he was a Realist; the three Divine Persons (or the Trinity) according to him, are three such kind of Persons as are usually meant in common Discourse: namely, so many complete Being's; and because these Being's are infinite and spiritual, therefore three several infinite Spirits.  
My Lord of Chichester having undertaken, to write a Defence of his Grace's Sermons; 'twere not unreasonable to suppose, that he espouses also the Archbishop's Notion of the Trinity. But however that be, we must put it to him, either to profess the Archbishop's Explication; which would commit him with the Oxford-Heads of Colleges, who have decreed it to be Heresy: or to say, that by Persons in the Deity, he understands only three Properties, or relative Subsistences, considered with the Substance in which they are; and particularly unbegotten Mind, reflex Wisdom, and Divine Love; and then we desire much, to know, why he hath written against the Unitarians, who believe that Trinity as much as other Catholics do.  
I know not, whether it be necessary to take notice of my Lord of Sarum's (unlucky) Trimming, between the two Parties of the Nominals and Realists. He represents it, as a very inconsiderable Difference; that some Trinitarians in their Explications of these Mysteries, so much adhere to the Unity of the Deity, that their Trinity seems unconceivable: while others assert such a Trinity, as seems inconsistent with the Unity. By the former of these, he means the Nominals; by the other, the Realists. He declares, that as different as their Explications are; their Religion is the same. Just (says he) as some Protestants believe the Consubstantiation; others, a real Presence; and others, only a figurative one: or as some believe, that the Decrees of God are grounded on his Prescience of future Events, while others think, that the Decrees of God are the fixed Causes of all Events; and yet this Dissent notwithstanding, the Litigants on both sides truly have the same Religion. Bishop of Sarum 's Letter, to Dr. Williams, p. 85, 86.  
I observe, that some Men overflow with Charity; and have a Catholic and boundless Latitude, in their Principles: but then they dispense both the one and the other, wholly by Motives of Policy. Sometimes (namely, when both Parties are powerful) they will comprehend the Pharisees, with the Sadduces; otherwhile the Breadth of a Philactery, shall be an intolerable Dissent: but the one and the other, as the Maxims of secular Policy, and the Air of Popularity, shall invite. His Lordship could afford to write a Pastoral Letter to his Clergy, against the Unitarians, as Heretics, whose Principles are destructive of the common Christianity: but the Nominal Trinitarians, who hold neither more nor less than the Unitarians, differ so little (he saith) from the other Trinitarians; that they not only have the same Religion, but they ought not to be at all offended at one another, p. 86.  
But the Parties concerned, are of a very contrary Judgement to his Lordship. The Oxford-Heads declare, that the Doctrine of three infinite Spirits, Minds, or Substances, is Impiety and Heresy. Dr. Sherlock and his Fellow-Realist answer that, What the Oxford-Heads have condemned, as Heretical and Impious, is the very Catholic Faith: and that this Decree or Declaration censures the Nicene Faith, and the Faith of the Church of England, as Heresy; and exposes both, to the Scorn and Triumph of the Socinians. Examination of the Oxford- Decree, pag. 46. And who indeed, but he that wilfully shuts his Eyes, can avoid seeing it; that to affirm but one infinite Mind and Spirit, and to say there are three such Minds and Spirits, is a Difference as weighty, as 'tis unreconcilable? They who say the former, and they who contend for the latter, can no more be said to be of the same Religion; than Paganism and Polytheism can be pretended to be the same with Judaisme or Christianity. But what I chief insist on, is this; that his Lordship being so indifferent, whether we hold one or three eternal and infinite Spirits; yet he publishes his Invectives against the Unitarians, as undermining (he saith) and ruining the main Articles of Christianity: while the whole that can be objected to 'em, is, that they believe (with all the Nominal Party) but one infinite and eternal Spirit.  
The Archbishop was of Opinion, that the Trinity is three such Persons, as we usually intent, when in common Discourse we speak of Persons. Namely, complete intelligent Being's, distinct from every other Being; not Properties, Relations, or other Affections of Being's. My Lord of Sarum, on the contrary, says expressly; by a Person in the Trinity, is not meant such a Being, as we commonly understand by that Word: namely, a complete intelligent Being; but only, that every one of the blessed Three, has a peculiar Distinction, by which he is different from the other two. The Bishop contradicting in Terms, the Doctrine of the Archbishop; the latter believing three such Persons of the Deity, as we usually mean by Persons in common Discourse; the other denying expressly, that there are any such Persons in the Godhead as we commonly understand by the word Persons, and particularly not three distinct complete Being's: it was very expedient, a necessary piece of Prudence, that the Bishop (in the Letters he directs to his Clergy) should endeavour to possess 'em; that his Difference with his Metropolitan, is a mere Trifle; and that it matters not, whether we hold three distinct complete (infinite) Being's and Spirit's, or one such Being only. I am persuaded however, that there are great Numbers in the Salisbury-Diocess; that cannot be so imposed on: they will see, that their Diocesan, in pursuit of the Principles laid down in his Letters to them, should have cautioned them against the Archbishop's Sermons; not against the Unitarians, whose Doctrine perfectly agrees with his own. Saving that (with the Oxford-Heads) we believe it to be Heresy, to profess the Faith of more than one infinite Being, which is a complete Being distinct from all other Being's; but his Lordship holds it to be indifferent, whether we affirm or deny three infinite Being's and Spirits.  
His Lordship proposed, to write with that Caution and Guard, that no Body should be able to attack him; and by Trimming between the Nominals and Realists, to set up for a Healer of the Breaches, a Mediator of Peace. But the Event wholly fails him. He utterly disobliges the Realists; by denying, in Terms, what the Archbishop (with all other Realists) had affirmed, in Terms; and the whole Realist Party look upon as a Fundamental Article. The Nominals are as much displeased with him; because he sets no Value on the Catholic Faith, but represents it as a very indifferent Truth, that may be as orthodoxly denied, as affirmed. The Unitarians complain of him, as having pretended to Principles of Latitude, and a true Catholic Charity; but using neither, but perhaps as the turns of Popularity, and Rules of secular Policy, engage him.  
But this was a Digression. Let us take up our Point again, that the Unitarians hold the Faith of the Catholic Church, or Nominal Party: that is, they believe but one eternal and infinite Spirit; and as to three Divine Persons, they admit the Church's Doctrine (viz. that they are relative Subsistences, Properties of the Divine Substance) concerning them. They agree, that there are three Distinctions in God, which may be fitly called Original Mind, Reflex Wisdom, and Divine Love: the first unbegotten and Generating, and therefore named the Father; the other Generated, and therefore (in the Language of Men) called the Son; the third a Spiration, and therefore styled the Holy Spirit. Whether you call these, Properties, Modes, Relations, Persons, relative Subsistences, or ought the like; we will not contend with the Church: for it being agreed that they are not distinct Being's, divers Spirits and Minds, several Substances; but one infinite Substance, Mind, Spirit, and Being, with one only Understanding, Will, and Energy; it is plain, that the Unity of God is preserved; and that the Terms used are only obsolete and odd, but imply no Falsehood, nor any real Innovation in Religion. And I say hereupon, that unless my Lord of Chichester will profess three Divine Being's, Spirits, Substances, and Minds, contrary to the Decisions of divers General Councils; the Consent of Writers, since the Determination in the Council of Lateran, Anno 1215. and the late Decree of the University of Oxford: I say, if he will not contravene all these; neither ought he to have defended the Archbishop's Sermons, nor could he oppose the Considerations, that were not (for all that I see) written against the Doctrine of the Church, but the Error of the Realists.  
As we accord with the Catholic Church, in the Article of the Trinity; so also in that of the Incarnation, or the Divinity of our Saviour. For when the Church says, the Lord Christ is God, when she worships him, invocates him, imputes to him the Creation of all things; and for all this, alleges Authorities, and Examples, out of Holy Scripture: nothing of all this is intended of his Humanity, or to his Humanity; but to the indwelling Divinity. In short, she means, that as the Cloud of Glory, in the Times of the Old, Testament, was called God, and was worshipped, because God dwelled in it after an especial manner: so, and much more, may we call the Lord Christ, God and Creator, and the rest, because of the Godhead dwelling in him after an ineffable unexplicable manner, and without measure; but whatsoever of Divine, is said of him, is said merely in respect of the inhabiting Divinity, and not of the Humanity. The Communication of Idioms, as Divines speak, is merely verbal, not real: Christ is God, and the Creator, is worshipped and invocated, because of the Deity in him; for though these things are said of the Man Christ Jesus, they are said only in respect of the Divinity, and are intended only of that.  
If any say, no Indwelling (or, as the Church speaks, Incarnation) in what soever manner or measure, can give to such Person the Name of God; much less of Creator. So indeed Nestorius' thought; and therefore refused, to call our Saviour God, or to ascribe to him either the Works or Attributes of God: and many learned Men have contended, that Nestorius was as rashly condemned, as he was (afterwards) barbarously used. Yet upon serious weighing the matter, it appears not necessary, to litigate about Terms and Words, on which the Authority that imposes them, puts an honest Sense and Meaning. The Church would never have obliged Nestorius, to call the Man Christ Jesus, God and Creator; but declaring at the same time, that though it is the Man that is called God, he is so called only in respect of the Indwelling of God in him: which Indwelling is after a manner so extraordinary, so abundant, or rather so ineffable; that Christians may with greater Right call him God, than the Cloud of Glory is so named, because of the Angel (in it) who represented God; or than any other Appearance of God (whatsoever, or in what manner soever) mentioned in the Old Testament. The Brightness of the Cloud of Glory, was only from the Power of the inhabiting Angel; yet because the Angel represented God, the bright Appearance between the Cherubims, was named Jehovah and God: How much more may the Lord Christ be so called, in whom the Divinity itself did dwell; not as a Man in his House, but as the Soul in the Body: that is to say, constantly illuminating, conducting, and actuating him; nay and exerting in him the most glorious Effects of Omniscience, and Omnipotence, the principal Attributes of the Divinity? 2 Kings 19.15. Hezekiah prayed, and said; O Lord God of Israel, which dwellest between the Cherubims: thou art God, even thou alone. 1 Chron. 13.6. David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah; to fetch thence the Ark of GOD, JEHOVAH that dwelleth between the Cherubims, whose Name is called on it. It cannot (I think) be denied, that here the bright Appearance between the Cherubims; because God was in it, though only by his Angel, not by the Exertion of any miraculous Acts, by no Acts of Omniscience or other Divine Attribute; is named Jehovah, God, and only God, or alone God. The Church never required of Nestorius, to say, the Lord Christ is Creator, or God; without this Explication, in respect of God in him: which seeing Nestorius' owned, and having the Precedent of the Jewish Church and Writers of the Old Testament, who called the Appearance between the Cherubims by all the Names and Titles of God; he needed not to have contended, but should have consulted the Church's Peace; for no words are to be refused, when the Authority that imposes 'em, interprets 'em to a sound Sense.  
This is what the Unitarians believe concerning the Trinity; and concerning the Divinity of our Saviour, or the Incarnation. We have not Contest with the Catholic Church, concerning either of these: we do not indeed approve the Church's Language, or Terms, because they are unscriptural, and liable to Heretical Interpretations; but we embrace her whole Meaning and Sense.  
1. The Church says, and we assent to it; that there is one only eternal (infinite and all powerful) Spirit or Mind: and this Mind or Spirit, is what we call God, or the Divinity.  
2. But whereas in God, the Church owns also a threefold distinction, which she calls three Persons, or more explicitly, original unbegotten Wisdom; the Logos, or begotten reflex Wisdom; the Procession, or Spiration of Divine Love: and these, for the Reason's , are also named Father, Son, and Spirit; three Relations, three Properties, Modes, and divers the like. We cry; remove your Jargon, and give us only the Words of Scripture. The Church answers; No, you shall submit to these Terms, because as much as they seem improper, being now out of common Use; they were once as proper and apposite, because in common Use; and you admit the whole that we intent by these (antiquated) Words and Phrases. We submit.  
3. Then, as to the Incarnation; or that the Lord Christ is God, and Creator, is to be invocated and worshipped: the Church professes, that this is said, or required, only in respect of God in him. How in him, is the infinite God commensurate to a finite Manhood? No, but in respect of God in him, that is, Illuminating, Conducting, Actuating, and (as much as Infinite can inhabit Finite) dwelling in, Him; as intimately, immediately, and powerfully, as the Soul the Body. Nay, exerting in him the Divine Attributes, Omniscience or the Knowledge of the Future, and of the Thoughts, and Omnipotence or Miraculous Actions. If the Angel that only represented God, and the Cloud illuminated by that Angel, have all that often said of 'em, in Holy Scripture; that is wont to be said of, or to God: how much more, when 'tis for Peace; and with Liberty, of declaring your Meaning; may you call the Lord Christ, whatsoever they are called? Here again, we would willingly demur, as Nestorius did: but Charity and Peace are two such great Goods; that we will not Non-conform, for the sake of (dangerous) Terms, honestly explained.  
It is by this Declaration of our Meaning, that all our Books (past or to come) are to be interpreted. We never intent to oppose any Body, in the Article of the Trinity; but the Tritheists (or Realists) who are Heretics to the Church, as well as to us: nor in the Article of the Divinity of our Saviour, but the Eutychians, who make the Communication of Idioms to be Real, and not only Verbal; which is an Heterodoxy condemned in divers General Councils. When we oppose the Doctrine of the Trinity; 'tis only the (Chimerical) Trinity, of three Infinite All-perfect Spirits: when we deny, the Lord Christ is God, the Creator, may be invocated, or worshipped; we mean not this, of the Divinity in him, but of the Humanity. The inhabiting Divinity, or Christ in respect of God in him, is God over all, all things were made by him; and God is undoubtedly to be worshipped and invocated.  
If his Lordship assents not to these things, he contravenes the Doctrine of the Catholic Church; and espouses Philoponus, Joachim, Gentilis, and Eutychius: but we do not in the least suspect that this Learned Prelate will disown the Catholic Doctrine; or be of Party to Heretics, that have been condemned by so many General Councils.  
If any object to us, that as much as we now claim to be Catholics; and profess to assent to the Church's Doctrine, though we wish she would discharge her humanly-invented Terms and Phrases; yet we have been always disowned, and opposed, nay persecuted by the Church; and by that very Party of Nominals, whom we pretend to be the Catholic Church. I answer; there has been an unhappy Misunderstanding, between the genuine Members of the Catholic Party. The Vnitaries (who dislike nothing, but the Liberty that is taken, to use any other but Scripture-words and Language, in declaring the Faith) and the Nominals (who also wish, that all would return to, and content themselves with, the Simplicity of Scripture) have pelted one another as Enemies: but upon such a gross Mistake, as the two Germane Cavaliers are noted for, in the beginning of the Reformation; who quarrelled, and challenged one another upon difference of Religion, one of them being a Martinist, and the other a Lutheran. I doubt not, that the Author of the Discourse concerning the Nominals and Realists, has convinced all Learned and Ingenuous Men; that Dr. S—th for instance, and Dr. Wallis, and other Nominals, had no more Reason to fall foul on the Unitarians, than the Lutheran on the Martinist: and the Misunderstanding between them being discovered to proceed from a Mistake of one another's true Opinions; they ought now to own each other, as Brethren. If the Nominals are shy, of closing with us, and owning us for Orthodox; we seek not their Patronage: and the common Opposers of both, the Realists, will always tell 'em; that the Nominals and Unitarians differ just as the Martinists and the Lutherans.   

On the rest of his Lordship's Book; and an Application of what hath been said.  
FOR the rest of his Lordship's Book; one great part of the first Section is employed, in finding out Answers, to the Arguments of some of the ancient Unitarians: who pretended to prove, that St. John was not the Author of the Gospel, or the Revelation; which now bear his Name. The Remainder of the Section, is an Endeavour to wiredraw the first Verses of that Gospel to a purpose (in my Judgement) very contrary to the true Intention of the Evangelist; and to impress some other Texts, into the Service of the Realists.  
The present Unitarians, whether in England or elsewhere, receive the Gospel of St. John, as his. But as Faith has degrees, or is not always such a Plerophory of Assent as to be without all Alloy of doubt: so we wish, this Gospel had never been questioned; and that the Reasons of the Alogians, who imputed this Gospel and the Revelation to Cerinthus, were incontestably satisfied. We cannot take his Lordship's Answers, or Arguments; as at all satisfactory: because his Reasonings are (oftentimes) very Inaccurate; and because (as often) they are contrary to notorious Matter of Fact. For instance, who can bear it; when he says: Cerinthus taught, that Christ was a mere and a late-born Man: but St. John tells us, the WORD always was; and came down from Heaven, and was made Flesh. Therefore Cerinthus could not be Author, of the Gospel of St. John; without most plainly contradicting himself. For it is certain, on the contrary; that Cerinthus never said, that Christ was a mere and late-born Man, but an eternal and impassable Spirit. In the Person of our Saviour, Cerinthus distinguished Jesus and Christ; he called the Humanity by the Name of Jesus: but Christ or the WORD, according to Cerinthus, was a certain Divine and Impassable Spirit; which descending on Jesus at his Baptism, dwelled in him, and forsook him not till the very moment of his Death; when he cried out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Iren. Lib. 1. c. 25. I do not see, how this Account contradicts any thing in St. John; whose Gospel the Alogians said was written by Cerinthus. But I will not dispute with his Lordship, about this matter; for as I said, the Unitarians do receive that Gospel and the Revelation, as St. John's: as they receive the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of St. James, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of St. John; all which were sometime doubted of, nay rejected, by divers Catholic Writers and Churches, but have at length been owned by the whole Church. Tho the Catholic Church now owns these Epistles, and some Chapters and Sections in the Gospels; as written by the Apostles, whose Names they bear: yet not with the degree of Assurance; that she receives those Parts of Scripture, that were never controverted. The Assurance cannot be equal, where the Grounds of Assent are unequal: but the Grounds of Assent, to the Writings of which we are speaking, cannot be said to be equal; because in Matters whether of Record or Fact, what was always allowed and granted by all, is more authentic and credible, than what has been questioned, and even rejected by divers of the Ancients (Writers and Churches) who were Catholics. In short, concerning all Books, and Sections of Books, of the New Testament; sometime doubted of, by some of the Ancients: the Unitarians acquiesce in the Judgement of the Catholic Church; and for the Reasons, given by the Church. As first; because though they were questioned, and even rejected by some, Writers and Churches; yet it appears, they were approved by many more; by so considerable a Majority, that in a short time they were admitted by all. We see in Epiphanius, that even Paulus Samosatenus, and Photinus, received the Gospel of St. John. Secondly, because not only they contain nothing that is certainly contrary to the unquestioned Parts of Scripture; but they are written with the same kind of Spirit, that the undoubted Portions of Scripture are: there is a Likeness in the Thoughts, Expressions, and whatsoever else recommends to us the other Books of Scripture, as written by Apostles and Apostolical Men. These are sufficient Motives of Assent, and aught to prevail with us; though there are some Difficulties, not easy to be removed: we submit to the weight of these Arguments; though we confess, that what has been alleged by the Alogians and others, is not despicable or ridiculous. To conclude, we receive, with the Catholic Church, the controverted Books; without censuring in the mean time, much less condemning those Ancients, or Moderns, who were or are of another Mind.  
What remains of his Lordship's first Section, is a Scuffle with the Considerer, on behalf of the Archbishop's Explication of the first Verses of St. John's Gospel, and of some other Texts alleged by his Grace, to confirm his said Explication. To all which, I answer. There is no Form of Words, that were not conceived designedly to preclude all Exception, but is liable to cavil; nay our Lawyers scarce obtain their purpose, when in Deeds and Conveyances they employ the whole Art of Grammar, to ascertain the Meaning and Intent of the Conveyance or Deed: it is not therefore to be wondered at, that Persons, highly interested by their Education, Honour and Parties, can (and with some colour) interpret obscure or ambiguous Texts, to a Sense, not intended by the Original Author. If People are not disposed to be ingenuous; a little Wit, some Learning, and a long Practice in the Polemics, will enable 'em to maintain a Squabble till Doomsday, about the Sense of any (ordinary and familiar) Context. I do not think therefore, that the Contention between the Unitarians and the Realists, will ever be healed by that Pretence of either Party, that theirs is the only Interpretation or Sense, of which the litigated Texts are capable, in the Court of Grammar and Criticism. But towards a Coalition, it will be necessary to agree in some common Principles, confessed to be clearly asserted in Scripture; by Consonancy to which Principles, all otherwise doubtful Texts and Contexts of Scripture, and their Interpretations, shall be judged of. This Rule of interpreting, is very certain; none can distrust it, without supposing, either that the Sacred Scripture contradicts itself: or that the human Understanding is not capable of judging the Agreement, or the Dissonance of Scripture with itself. No Body, I believe, will say the former; that the Scripture contradicts itself: and if any say the other, that we cannot judge of the Dissonance, or Agreement of Scripture with itself; or of particular Interpretations, with Principles that are yielded to be found in Scripture; all Disputation is at an end, on both sides. But if the Rule be allowed, that some common agreed Principles are to be established; by which, all obscure (that is, all controverted) Texts must be interpreted: the Questions and Interpretations debated between us, being thus brought before the Bar of Reason and common Sense, will soon be judged of.  
Is there but one only God? Or if this be a Principle of too much Latitude, and capable of more Senses: Is there more than one (numerical or selfsame) eternal and infinite Spirit? meaning by one eternal and infinite Spirit, one eternal and spiritual Substance, with one only Understanding, Will, and Power of Action. If it be agreed, as a Principle manifestly laid down in Scripture, as well as certain in Reason, that there is but one such Spirit; either we shall all presently accord, in interpreting this famous Context of St. John, and other obscure and doubtful Passages of Scripture: or our difference in interpreting it, or them, will no way affect any Article of our Creed: so that there will be no real Controversy left. The Unitarians are far from denying the Trinity of Divine Persons, the Incarnation of God, the Divinity or Satisfaction of our Saviour; provided that those Doctrines be interpreted to a Consistency, with this Principle of Holy Scripture and of the Catholic Church, that there is but one infinite Spiritual Substance, with one only infinite Understanding, Will, and Energy. Or more briefly, thus; but one infinite and eternal Spirit.  
Either his Lordship says, there is but one such Spirit; and therefore interprets the Term Persons, and the Words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not to be so many distinct Spirits, but one Spirit distinguished by three Relative Properties; in explaining the Nature of which, the Church has always indulged some Variety and Latitude: and if so, we have no controversy with him, nor he with us; and he may (for us) interpret the first of St. John, and the other Texts on which he insists, as himself shall please. Or he saith, there are three eternal and infinite Spirits; and that the Divine Persons are so many spiritual Substances, Minds, and Being's: and if so, we shall to our Power defend the Doctrine of Holy Scripture, and of so many General Councils, as have decreed the Doctrine of three Divine Substances and three infinite Spirits to be Heresy. Let him therefore be pleased to speak out, and to declare himself categorically and explicitly; when we certainly know, what his Opinion is, we promise to take into Consideration, not only what he has written, but what he shall write, on the controverted Texts: till then, 'tis to no purpose to discuss, what he has so generally and loosely discoursed; that we know not, whether he is for us, or against us. He citys, and inlarges on a great many Texts, to prove the Deity of our Saviour, his Pre-existence, and his Incarnation: if he means only, that our Lord Christ is God, and did pre-exist, in respect of his Godhead, that is in respect of God in him, as the Scriptures speak; and that God did inhabit after an extraordinary peculiar and unexampled manner in the human Nature of the Lord Christ, which the Church calls the Incarnation of God; the Unitarians neither now, nor in any time past did question any thing of this: they never intended to oppose the Church's Doctrine, but only the Heresy of the Realists, viz. that an (imagined) Second Infinite and Eternal Spirit, (for the Tritheists hold three such Spirits) was incarnate in the Lord Christ: and that God is a Trinity of Spirits, not of Persons, in the philological and physical Sense of the term Persons.  
I meddle not therefore, with the rest of his Lordship's Book: no not with the Discourse concerning the little Mysteries (as he fancies them to be) of the Tritheistick Scheme; and the great ones (as he represents them) of our System of Religion. For the Author of the Considerations, has so solidly established what he said on those Subjects, in the Considerations themselves: that there is no manner of Fear, that his Lordship's Bellows should blow out the Sun.  
There follows a Letter of the Bp. of Sardis, to Dr. Williams, which we are next to consider: and it will give occasion, more fully to discuss all these great Points.    

PART II. In Answer to my Lord the Bishop of Sarum, Monsieur De Luzancy, and my Lord the Bishop of Worcester.  

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

The Doctrine of the Pastoral Letter, concerning the Trinity.  
WHen we speak of a Trinity, every body knows; the Question is not, concerning the term Trinity, or three (divine) Persons: but concerning what we should mean by the word Persons, or Trinity. If you make the Trinity (or three divine Persons) to be only three Attributes of God; Wisdom, Goodness, and Power: as some do. Or if you say, they are only three external Relations of God, to his Creatures; viz. that he is their Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier: as others have taught, and were applauded also for it. Or if the three Persons are called three relative Subsistences, relative Modes, or Relations: which are not so many distinct Being's, Spirits, or individual Substances; but only Properties, or Affections of a Spirit, Being, or Substance; as generally they are named, and described. Or (if yet more particularly) they are original Mind, reflex Wisdom, and the eternal Spiration of Divine Love; as some of the Fathers, and the Divines of the Schools, have affirmed. Or if Men will in effect say nothing at all, but only name them three somewhats; or the three, or the Holy three: which are Words without any certain Sense. Hitherto, 'tis plain, there is no Controversy with the Unitarians; for none of these Explications of a Trinity, are any way contrary to the Unity of God, as believed by them: they themselves admit all, or any of these Explications. The Controversy of the Unitarians, with some that are called Trinitarians, but should be called Tritheists, is this: Whether, in saying three Divine Persons, we should intent by the word Persons, so many distinct Being's; three spiritual Substances, in Number, though called one Substance in respect of Sameness of Properties; three Minds, with so many distinct Understandings, Wills, and Powers of Action? Or to say all this, in Words understood by all; three eternal and infinite Spirits? He that affirms, or denies, any of these; doth (therein, and thereby) affirm, or deny all the rest. For instance, he that affirms three (distinct) Spiritual Being's, affirms three Minds, and three spiritual Substances distinct and divers in Number: and he that denies the Divine Persons are distinct Being's, denies also they are so many Minds, Substances, or Spirits. This is not contested; therefore let us see, what kind of Trinity the Letter teaches: whether it doth not expressly declare against that Trinity, which is denied and opposed by the Unitarians; and is the only Trinity, that it ever was in their Thoughts to oppose or deny?  
At p. 96. he says: By Person, in these Questions, is not meant such a Being, as is commonly understood by that word; namely, a complete intelligent Being, distinct from every other Being. He needs say no more; for if the Trinity of Divine Persons are not such Persons, as are commonly meant and designed when we use the word Persons; and if, as he farther adds, they are neither distinct, nor complete, nor intelligent Being's: what Contentions soever he may affect to raise, with the Unitarians; they will never have any with him, concerning the Trinity. They oppose no other Trinity of Persons, but such as are charactered to be distinct, and complete, and intelligent Being's; in a word, such Persons, as are commonly intended by the word Persons: which Trinity, we see, his Lordship expressly disavows. And 'tis certain, that so also does the Catholic Church; especially since the Lateran Council, Anno 1215.  
In very deed, to be a true Unitarian, he needed only to say; that the Divine Persons are not three intelligent Being's, they are but one intelligent Being: for this being granted, the Unitarians have gained all they contend for; because by but one Divine Person, they mean but one intelligent Being. But when his Lordship adds, the Divine Persons are not distinct Being's; nor such Persons as we commonly mean, when we use the word Persons: it is evident, that his writing against the Unitarians was a mere Act of Zeal. He is now got considerably into the Interests of the Church; and that it may appear (to the Men of little Faith) that he is a Bishop in Heart, as well as in Name: therefore he attacks, in one Book, all the Church's Enemies; without staying to be informed, whether they are Enemies indeed, either to the Church, or to himself.  
Let us take another Paragraph, out of the (before-cited) Discourse to the Clergy; which will farther evince his Lordship's Syncretism with the Unitarians. Pag. 98, 99 The Fathers in divers Places so express themselves, concerning the same Substance or Essence, as if they meant the same Being, in a general Sense; even as all human Souls are of the same Substance, that is, are the same Order or sort of Creatures. And they [the Fathers] seem to entitle the Divine Persons, to different Operations; not only in the Oeconomical way, but so that one of them does that, which the other does not. This indeed was easily apprehended, but it seemed directly to assert three Gods; which is very contrary to the most express Declarations, of the Old and New Testaments: in which, the Unity of God is so often held forth; that others took another way of explaining the Trinity, viz. by making their Foundation, that the Deity is one (numerical) Being. These latter observed; that the Sun, besides his own Globe, had an Emanation of Heat, and another of Light: which have different Operations, and all from the same Essence. Also that the Soul of Man hath Intellection, and Love; which flow from its Essence. So they conceived, that the primary Act of the Divine Essence, was its Wisdom, by which it saw all things; and in which, as in an inward WORD, it designed all things: this, they thought, might be called the Son, as being the Generation of the eternal Mind. While from that Fountain-Principle [eternal Mind] together with this inward WORD or Wisdom, there did arise a Love, that was to issue forth, and was to be the Soul of the Creation; but more especially to animate the Church. This was rested on; and was afterwards dressed up, with a great deal of dark Nicety, by the Schools: nay, it grew to be the universally-received Opinion.  
Is this he, that writes against the Unitarians; and has no better Compliments for 'em, but irreligious profligate Villains? The World knows, what the Doctrine of the Unitarians, is; namely, that the Deity is one (numerical) Being; one Substance (not as some of the Fathers, who are therefore blamed by his Lordship, said, one Substance only in a general Sense, but) in Number, with one only Understanding, Will, and Power of Action: and this is what they call one Person; they deny the Deity to be three Persons in no other Sense, but of three numerical intelligent Substances. What now does his Lordship say? Why, that some of the Fathers indeed thought otherwise; they took the Deity to be three such Persons, that they are three (spiritual intelligent) Substances, not indeed for sort or kind, but in Number, three distinct Being's that have different Operations: but, saith his Lordship, 'tis contrary to the most express Declarations, of the Old and New Testaments. Again, he saith; the universally received Explanation of the Trinity, and which is the Explication of the Divines of the Schools, is; that from eternal Mind, as a Fountain-Principle, have proceeded Wisdom, and Love: Wisdom is the first Act of Mind; and being as it were generated by Mind, is therefore called the Son. So that eternal original Mind, the immanent Act of Wisdom generated thereby, and the issuing forth (or Spiration) of Divine Love, are by his Lordship's express Confession, what the Divines of the Schools (after St. Austin and other Fathers) have called the Trinity of Divine Persons, or Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Nay, this is the universally-received Explication of the Trinity. But did the irreligious Villains ever oppose this Trinity, universally (as his Lordship says) received? Do they deny eternal original Mind; the everlasting immanent Act of Wisdom, generated by it; or the perpetual Spiration of Divine Love, proceeding from original Mind, and the inward Logos or Wisdom? He knows the contrary; he knows we are Brethren: for I hope, that himself believes the universally-received Explication. But then, why are we out of his Favour? why irreligious Villains, against whom and their Doctrine, 'tis so necessary to caution and instruct the (poor ignorant) Clergy of the Diocese of Salisbury? The Question, I doubt, cannot be answered; but by saying: here his (fresh) Episcopal Zeal, for Holy Mother Church, in the Interests of which he is got to be a considerable Part, was by much too forward. As Dr. Wallis, who is a Socinian and an half, could publish I know not how many Letters, and Sermons, against the Socinians; aspersing also (in the most bitter, and false manner) the very Person of his Patriarch Socinus: So his Lordship, not expecting to be rightly informed of their Doctrine and Opinions, calls those irreligious Villains, who hold and maintain the universally-received Explication; and professes to take it as the very heaviest of all Imputations, when the Considerer said, in Terms of Respect, the unitarians submit to his Lordship's Doctrine.  
Methinks, no Man ever had less Occasion given him, to answer so unhandsomely, I had almost said inhumanly, as his Lordship has done. It is easy to see, in the Air and Spirit of his Writing; that the Considerer (had he not affected the contrary) could have chose such Expressions and Terms, concerning his Lordship's Doctrine; as should have wakened, and drawn down upon him, all the Enemies he has in the World. The least of those many things, that a Person so well versed in these Questions, as the Considerer appears to be, could have said; the least and softest of his Imputations, might have been this: that his Lordship is not so Catholic, or Orthodox, in any of these (depending) Questions; as the Unitarians are. But let us go on.   

On the Account, given in the Letter, of the Incarnation, and Divinity of our Saviour.  
COncerning the Trinity of Divine Persons, his Lordship (we have seen) believes; they are not complete, nor distinct Being's; nor such Persons as are commonly meant, when we use the term Persons: we were best, he saith, to call them in general terms, the three, or the blessed three; and thereby silence all Opposition and Dispute. And for the term Son, he intimates at p. 99 it doth not belong at all to any of the three; but only to our Saviour as he was the Messiah. That is, as he was the Man Jesus. And hereby, he says again, all the Speculations concerning an eternal Generation, are cut off. This he says at p. 100 Agreeably to this (as I said, more than Vnitarian Doctrine, for the Unitarians allow the eternal Generation of the Logos, Son, or Wisdom) he explains also the Incarnation, or Divinity of our Saviour. He makes the Incarnation of God in the human Nature, to be such, and to have like Effects; as God's inhabiting the Cloud of Glory, during some part of the Old-Testament Ages: for this Cloud was worshipped, he saith; and he might have added, is called God, because of God in it. But in his Letter, he contends; that the Indwelling of the Godhead in Christ, was a vital Indwelling, like that of the Soul in the Body; and not an assisting Indwelling, like that of Inspiration, or the Gift of Tongues, or of Miracles. This must be candidly interpreted, or it is the Apollinarian Heresy; condemned in so many General Councils: but I am persuaded, he meant no Heterodoxy by a vital Indwelling. He meant not, that the Humanity lives, by its Union with the Divinity; which was the Doctrine of Apollinaris: he intends only, that the Humanity of the Lord Christ is entirely under the Impressions, and Conduct of the Indwelling Divinity; and receives constant Communications of Light, and Impulse, from it. So I find him speaking at p. 107. And in the next Page, thus; The eternal WORD assumed the Man into an inward Oeconomy; so as always to illuminate, conduct, and actuate it. This is the clearest Thought, we can have, of the human Nature's subsisting by the Subsistence of the WORD; that is, of the Incarnation, or Hypostatical Union.  
This is far enough, to be Orthodox: but the Unitarians believe somewhat more; they are a degree or two more Catholic and Orthodox. They believe indeed, with his Lordship, not only that God did inspire our Saviour; or so far communicated himself, that the Lord Christ wrought Miracles by the Virtue that was always in him, and not by a Power bestowed only occasionally and incidentally: but that our Saviour's Humanity was constantly illuminated, conducted, and actuated by God in him; and had unfading Communications of Light, and Impulse, from the Divinity; he was entirely under the Impressions and Conduct thereof. Yet, as his Lordship also adds at p. 107. still leaving to the inferior Mind [to the rational Soul of Christ] it's own Liberty, and all its natural Powers. And we reflect also on it; that 'tis with much more Justice and Propriety, that our Saviour is called God, on the account of such Indwelling of God: than Moses, or Solomon, or even than Angels themselves; who can be called Gods but only by Representation, or at most on the account of God's assisting, and inspiring them, as occasion happened to require. But the Unitarians, as I said, believe somewhat more. They do not appropriate the Incarnation, to merely the WORD. They hold, that the whole Deity (or Godhead) dwelled in our Saviour; all the Fullness of the Godhead, as St. Paul speaks, and not only the WORD, dwelled in him bodily: Not that the whole Essence of the Infinite God, became commensurate to a finite Man; or that there followed hereupon a real Communication of Idioms, as some have (heretically) conceited, which is in very deed a Revival of Eutychianism: but only as God is every where whatsoever he is; he is God, perfect God, in one Place, in any Point of Space, no less than in the whole interminable Extension of Place or Space.  
This being the Unitarian Doctrine concerning the Incarnation, hypostatical or personal Union, and Divinity of our Saviour; always believed, and professed by 'em: his Lordship had no Reason, to snatch at so many Occasions of venting his Choler on the Considerer; as if he were in danger of losing his Bishopric, by occasion of the Growth of Unitarianism; which he mistakes to be a Departure, from the Doctrine of the Catholic Church; when 'tis nothing but an Opposition, to the Heresy of the Realists. Of which this Prelate has made it appear, he has not the least Tang.   

Of the Satisfaction, as 'tis stated in the Letter.  
THE Unitarians differ somewhat, from some other Catholics, in explaining the Doctrine of the Satisfaction; but they approve of his Lordship's Notions, concerning that Subject. There are two Accounts, given of the Satisfaction. One of them supposes; there was a Necessity, that an adequate Satisfaction should be made, to the Justice of God, for the Sins of Men: and that otherwise, God could not dismiss us of the personal Punishment, due by the Divine Law to our Sins. The other supposes; there was no Necessity, of an adequate Satisfaction, on our Behalf: there being no such vindictive Justice, essential to God; whereby he is obliged to punish, unless a full Satisfaction be given for Offences and Offenders. The greater Number of the more learned Catholics, whether they be Protestants or Romanists, hold the latter of these; as well as the Unitarians do: they believe, It was neither necessary, nor (perhaps) possible; that a Satisfaction should be given to the Divine Justice, every way equal to the eternal Punishment, of an infinite Number of Sinners. As my Lord of Sarum argues, at p. 35. The Acts of Christ, though infinite in Value, have not a strict Equality; with all the Sins of so many Men, every one of which is of infinite Gild. He confesses hereby, that an adequate Satisfaction was not only, not necessary; but not possible in the nature of the thing: unless there had been as many Redeemers, not only as there are Sinners, but as there are Sins.  
But let us consider, yet more particularly, what his Lordship's Doctrine is.  
He saith: The Lord Christ was loaded with all the ill Usage, that malicious Men could invent; he suffered inexpressible Agonies, both in Body and Mind; and last of all, was crucified. But in all this, he willingly offered himself, to suffer upon our Account, and in our stead: which was so accepted by God, that he not only raised him from the Dead, and exalted him on High; but gave to him, even as he is Man, all Power both in Heaven and Earth, and offers also to the World Pardon of Sin.  
Of this Account of the Satisfaction, the Considerer said; the Unitarians have ever professed it. His Lordship (in the Letter) replies; that the Racovian Catechism, and the first Writers of the Socinians, expressly deny the expiatory Virtue of the Sacrifice of Christ, on the Cross: but he owns, that some Socinians are come off from that Error, and do own the expiatory Virtue of that Sacrifice. He adds; that Dr. Outrams learned Performance on this Subject, is universally applauded and acquiesced in: and all, he saith, may be satisfied by Dr. Outrams Book, what is the Doctrine generally received in the Church of England. But as to the poor Wretch the Considerer, he is a Stranger, his Lordship pronounces, to the History of this Controversy.  
His Lordship frequently discovers his great Passion for the Considerer, often bestows on him his (formed) Compliments: and this particular Compliment, I suppose, has the Property of most other Compliments; that is to say, the Speaker knows 'tis more than measure while he gives it for just measure. I shall leave him, and the Considerer, to their Monsigneurisms; and answer to the thing itself. Whereas he says, the Racovian Catechism denies the expiatory Virtue of the Sacrifice of Christ: 'tis so far from being true, that this Catechism calls the Death and Oblation of Christ, on the Cross, Sacrificium piaculare, an expiatory Sacrifice. As for the first Writers of the Socinians; whom also his Lordship accuses, as denying that the Sacrifice of Christ was expiatory: those first Writers, he may please to know, were the very Authors of the Racovian Catechism. This Catechism, which is an Abridgement and Defence of the Socinian Doctrine, was first written by Smalcius, and other first Writers and Preachers among the Socinians; and has been improved by continual Additions, till last of all it was published about 16 Years since by Benedict Wissowatius, with the Annotations of all the most considerable Writers of the Socinian way.  
But the Unitarians must needs be glad, to hear his Lordship, who so well understands the History of this Controversy, refer us to Dr. Outrams Book; as an applauded and generally-received Performance, and containing the undoubted Doctrine of the Church of England, concerning the Sacrifice of Christ. For the Explication of the Doctrine of the Satisfaction, first hinted by Grotius in his Notes on his Books, de Jure Belli & Pacis, and (again) on the New Testament; and more fully explained by Ruarus and Sclichtingius, in their Epistles: I say, the Explication of the Doctrine of the Satisfaction, by these leading Unitarians, is so plainly asserted, and so fully vindicated by Dr. Outram; that 'tis good News, that the Church of England (as his Lordship, and I believe very truly, assures us) doth not only universally receive, but applaud it. Dr. Outram was as much an Unitarian, in the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Satisfaction, as the Compilers of the Racovian Catechism: but to establish his Doctrine, he saw it was necessary, to set it on another Foundation; and to express it in other Terms, than Socinus and Crellius had done. He no more believed, that the Oblation of the Lord Christ on the Cross, was an adequate Satisfaction to God's Justice, for the Sins of Men; than even Socinus, or Crellius, did. Tho he contends that the Lord Christ underwent poenam vicariam, i. e. a Punishment in our stead; which Expression, as it is intended by the more rigid Calvinists, was disliked and opposed by Socinus and Crellius; yet it never entered into his mind, that Christ so suffered in our stead, as to be considered by God as having our Gild, or as undergoing a Punishment equivalent thereto. On which two Points (and not on the Words in our stead, as his Lordship imagines) our whole Controversy with some others, especially the Calvinist Writers, turns.  
In short, his Lordship, Dr. Outram, and other Catholic Writers who approve not the Notions of some School-Divines, and some rigid Calvinists, believe neither more nor less concerning the Sacrifice by the Lord Christ; than the Men of the Racovian way do. All these (alike) consider our Saviour, as well in the Sufferings of his whole Life, and in his extraordinary Agonies in the Garden, as in his Passion on the Cross, as suffering for us, and in our stead: his Life and Death had both of 'em the expiatory Virtue, which his Lordship thinks the Unitarians deny of both. And all these no less agree, against some Calvinists, and divers Metaphysicians who follow the Schools; that the Oblation made by Christ was not an adequate Satisfaction, to God's Justice, it was rather an Application to his Mercy. They agree, he did not so suffer, in our stead; as to take on him our Gild, or to undergo a Punishment equivalent to our Sins: no nor to undergo Punishment properly so called; but only in a popular Sense of the Word Punishment. For Punishment properly so called, is the Evil of Suffering, inflicted on a guilty Person, for the evil of doing: but the Lord Christ having done no Evil, nor being in any Sense a guilty Person; he cannot properly be said to be punished, but to suffer. And for the Suffering in our stead, this also is rather tolerable and passable, than proper; but it may be well admitted in this Sense, which is the Sense of the Catholic Church, viz. that If the Lord Christ had not suffered; we (the actual Offenders) should have been punished. Briefly, his Lordship has imagined a Controversy, where there is really none: and while he is a Catholic, he must continue an Unitarian.   

In Answer to the Four Letters, by Mr. H. De Luzancy. To the Publisher.  
SIR,  
I Have read the 4 Letters of Mr. De Luzancy, against the Unitarians; and as you desire, will make some Answer to them.  
His Preface makes two Attacks; telling them, 1. The Consent of the whole Christian World, must be a strong Inducement to a modest Unitarian; to mistrust all his Arguments. To oppose all that has been, or is great and good in the Church of God, is too much for the most presuming Disputant.  
The Case then, as Mr. L. states it, is; one side has Argument, the other has Authority or Number. The Side or Party that has nothing but Argument, ought not to presume on their Reasons; against the Authority of the whole World: or as he corrects himself, upon second Thoughts; all that is great and good in the Church.  
If Mr. L. has no better way, of deciding these Controversies; how do I fear, they will never be ended. The Unitarians will surely deny, that all the Christian World, or so much as all that is great and good in the Church, is against them: they will pretend that themselves are a part of the Christian World; and for great and good they need not to say it of themselves, the Ablest of their great and good Opposers have often said it of them. They will say farther; that in a Clash between Argument, and Number; the whole World, and all that is great in it, when weighed against but one Argument, is, as if you had put nothing at all into the Scale: they will certainly abide by it, that Argument can be repelled by nothing but Argument; as Diamonds are cut, only by Diamonds.  
I advise Mr. L. who urges against us all the World; to consider a little of this Passage, which he will find in a Treatise, in the 2d Tome of the Works of Athanasius. They are to be pitied, who judge of a Doctrine, by the numbers of those who profess it. Phineas, Lot, Noah, St. Stephen, had the Multitude against 'em; yet what honest Man would not rather be of their side, than of the World's?— When you object to me, Multitude; you do but show the great extent of Wickedness, and the great number of the Miserable.  
2. His next Blow is; that, Faith and Reason are two things: what is the Object of Faith, cannot be the Object of Reason. Nor is it sufferable to reject the Belief of the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation; because our narrow and corrupted Reason starts Contradictions, in a Subject so much above our Capacities. It looks indeed like Charity, but is certainly an Inadvertence, to answer the Socinians in their own Way: that is, to run with them upon the same false Scent, of reasoning on things, which we ought to believe, and adore.  
But in very Deed are Faith and Reason two things; so that what is the Object of Faith, cannot be the Object of Reason; as Mr. L. here affirms? I had thought Faith had been nothing else, but an Assent given to Propositions or Facts, upon reasonable Proof made of them. And when the Apostle defines Faith to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Proof or Demonstration (or, as our Translation has it, the Evidence) of things not seen: he teaches, not only that the Object of Faith and of Reason is the same; but that there cannot be Faith without Reason; and that, Faith is the Product of Reason.  
It is surely a very rash Proposition, that what is the Object of Faith, cannot be the Object of Reason. For hath Faith no other Objects, but either unintelligible Mysteries, or flat Nonsense? All other things are the proper Objects of Reason.  
The short of what Mr. L. advances, is; the Trinity and Incarnation are Scripture-Mysteries: therefore if a thousand Contradictions be implied in the Belief of them; yet we must believe them, on the Authority of Scripture.  
It is certain to me, this learned Gentleman does not believe, according to this lose Scheme. I crave leave, to ask him a few Questions.  
Would he himself believe a Contradictory Proposition, or that so seemed to his Reason; if he found it taught in Scripture? Would he believe, that One and Two are not Three, if the Scripture said it? Why does he calumniate Reason, the Light set up in us by God himself; under the Names of narrow and corrupted; when he himself would make this same narrow and corrupted Reason the Supreme and last Judge of any Proposition, that seemed to him plainly contradictory, or flatly impossible? Is there one Law for him, and another for the Unitarians? Are the Unitarians obliged to believe Contradictions, while Mr. L. is exempt from that (absurd and impracticable) Law? Mr. L. may pretend what he pleases, upon hope that we cannot look into the Recesses of his Heart; but I will not accept any Man's Oath for it, that he would assent to a Proposition or Doctrine that seemed to him a flat Contradiction, if it were affirmed in Scripture. But if so; if neither Mr. L. nor any Man else, will believe a Doctrine that seems to him to be plainly Contradictory: it follows that the Unitarians rightly require, that the Contradictions they find in the Notion and Belief of a Trinity, as 'tis stated by the Realists, be (tolerably) satisfied; and that to reason upon these Questions, is not (as Mr. L. pretends) to run upon a false Scent.  
This therefore is the first Question that I desire Mr. L. to resolve; will he believe a Doctrine, that seems to him to imply manifest and incontestable Contradictions, if such Doctrine or Proposition were indeed found in Scripture? Would he not say, that to establish the Credibility of any Record or Book, these two Qualifications are equally requisite: that it hath the external Attestation, of sufficient Witnesses to it; and the internal, of being consistent with itself, and to confessed and indubitable Truths; that is, that it be free from Contradictions and Impossibilities? If this, or such like, is the Answer he would make, he must be content, to argue these Questions about the Trinity and Incarnation; not from Scripture only, but from Reason also: nay, from Reason chief, and ultimately.  
Secondly, I ask, again; if Mr. L. will believe what seems to his Reason, a flat Contradiction, supposing it to be found in Scripture: yet does he advise us to believe clear Contradictions, that are not clearly revealed in Scripture? Three infinite and eternal Spirits, each of them (singly; and by himself) a most perfect God, and yet all of them (together) but one God; this seems to me, a most clear Contradiction: am I bound to believe it, if 'tis not as clearly and incontestably revealed, as 'tis incontestably and clearly a Contradiction?  
Whatever Mr. L. may think fit to answer here, I judge that most People will be of Opinion; that the Revelation for it ought to be most clear: so clear, that a fair and ingenuous Reasoner will not contest the Positiveness and Evidence of the Revelation. But now the Texts, and Contexts, that are alleged, to prove three eternal and infinite Spirits, each of them a perfect God, are clogged (Mr. L. knows) with abundance of Uncertainties. 'Tis denied (he knows) with great Vehemence; by the ablest Critics of the Trinitarian Persuasion, that some of these Texts were originally so read, as they are now published in our common Bibles; nay some of them were not read at all, in any Bible, till 5 or 600 Years after the Decease of the Apostles, and other sacred Penmen. But whether anciently read, or thus read, yea or no; there is none of them but is most fairly capable of a Sense, consistent with the Unity of God, as 'tis taught by the unitarians and Nominals, and is actually so interpreted by divers of the most allowed and celebrated Interpreters of the Church. Who sees not here, that to introduce and believe Monstrosities, on such a crazed Foundation as this; is to give up common Sense, without a tolerable Cause for it: whenas indeed there can be no Cause so great, as may induce us to part with it? 'Tis to admit, and defend Contradictions, and that in a capital Article of Religion; when we need not: 'tis to sacrifice the clearest, and most important dictates of Reason; not to any Necessity, but to our secular Interests, or our Wantonness. From which, for my part, I desire to be ever clear.  
Again, I would know of Mr. L. who so despises (those poor Trifles) Contradictions, and Impossibilities; and thinks them to be no Blemishes to Religion, nor any Hindrances of Faith: whether, in sober Sadness, he believes, that a contradictory, either Proposition, or Doctrine, can be true? It seems to me, that what is contradictory, is impossible: and 'tis agreed, I think, by Divines of all Persuasions; that Impossibilities and Contradictions (whether they be Propositions or Facts) cannot be verified, by the Divine Omnipotence itself.  
If a Doctrine or Proposition, that consists of contradictory Parts; such as, three infinite Spirits, each of which is a perfect God, and all of them but one God; can be true: there will be no such thing as Falsehood. For we therefore say, such a Doctrine or Proposition is false; either because 'tis an absolute Nullity; or because we perceive, that the Parts of it contradict one another, or they contradict some other Proposition or Doctrine, that is a certain and agreed Truth. If once 'tis granted, that two Truths may contradict one another; or what is the same, that contradictory Propositions or Doctrines may be both of 'em true; when shall any Proposition (but a mere Nullity) be yielded to be false? seeing (as I said) Falsehood is nothing else, but a Contradiction to what is true. And if Propositions that imply Contradictions to one another, may yet both of them be true; they must both be true, while they are also both false: for while they contradict one another, and yet both of them are true; each denies the other to be true.  
In short, I entreat Mr. L. to answer; would he believe a Doctrine said to be revealed in Scripture, which Proposition or Doctrine himself judged to be a clear and certain Contradiction? Or if he would, yet are clear and incontestable Contradictions to be believed, that are not clearly and incontestably revealed; but are founded on Authorities of very disputable Credit and Verity, and most uncertain Sense; in the Judgement of some of the ablest (Orthodox) Critics and Interpreters? And lastly, can a Doctrine, consisting of contradictory Parts, be true? is it Truth, or is it Falsehood, that contradicts certain Truth?  
I would not have Mr. L. to hope, he may elude the first and last of these Questions; by saying: that real Contradictions, or Doctrines that consist of Propositions really contradictory, cannot be true; but it may happen, that what shall seem to us, to our corrupted and narrow Reason, a Contradiction, is not so. As for Instance, three eternal Spirits, each (singly, and by himself) a perfect God, and all of them (together) but one God; seems indeed a Contradiction, to our corrupted Reason, but is therefore not a real Contradiction, because 'tis revealed in the Word of God.  
For, 1. He says, Three infinite Spirits, each of them a God, are all of them but one God: This is no real Contradiction; because 'tis found in Holy Scripture. Suppose now, he should also say; Three finite Spirits, each of them an Angel, are all of them but one Angel. Is it not a Contradiction, in what Book soever Mr. L. may pretend to discover it? If this latter is a real Contradiction, so (of necessity) is the former: because the two Propositions, as to the formal Reason of them, are identically the same; they differ only in their Application. One is falsely affirmed of God; the other, not more falsely, affirmed of an Angel: but the thing that makes them to be false, every one sees, is this; that concerning one and the same Subject, we affirm different Numbers, one and three. 2. Mr. L's only Elusion, to so much sound Sense as the Unitarians object to him, is; that human Reason is narrow and corrupt: and therefore we must not make it a Judge, of what is revealed in Scripture; but silently adore and believe the Scriptures, notwithstanding all the idle Clatter made by Reason, concerning Contradictions and Impossibilities. I answer;  
First; If the Question were, concerning something that is expressly delivered in Holy Scripture; it might be plausibly alleged, that our narrow and (as Mr. L. pretends) corrupted Reason should silently submit, to the Revelation of God, infinitely wise. If it were said in express Terms, There are three eternal infinite Spirits; and though each of them is a perfect God, yet all of them are but one God; Mr. L. might colourably object the Narrowness of the human Reason, when Men offered to reject the express Declaration of God, as if it implied some obvious Contradictions. But the case is otherwise; it is this:  
Some People require us to believe, there are three infinite Spirits, each of them a God, and all of them but one God. It seems to us, a Belief contradictory to itself; and inconsistent with the numerical Unity of God, delivered every where in Scripture. To the first part of this Exception, that the Belief propounded to us by some that (falsely) call themselves the Church, is contradictory to itself; Mr. L. answers: No Matter for that; for the human Reason is narrow and corrupted, and therefore must not be allowed to judge of what God has revealed to us, in his Word. We challenge this Answer of Mr. L. and others, of manifest Impertinence; because it supposes that we pretend to charge with Self-contradiction a Revelation or Declaration of God, and that we reason against something delivered expressly in Holy Scripture, which is the Word of God. If Mr. L. could show us the Belief he exacts of us, set down in express Words, in the Word of God; his Answer were just, and to the purpose: but seeing it is confessed to be only an Inference, that some Men draw from Scripture, Mr. L. in vain insists on the Narrowness or Corruption of the human Reason, by occasion of our denying what is only an Inference from Scripture. I do not think he will say, that the Reason of the Unitarians is narrower or more corrupt than their Neighbours; if not, what Trifling is it, to urge the Narrowness or Corruption of the human Reason: for if men's Reason, being so narrow and corrupt as Mr. L. pretends, is not to be trusted in judging of, or arguing upon a Divine Revelation; may it not be as fallible in drawing Inferences from Scripture, as in judging the Consistency or the Self-Contradiction of those Inferences? Briefly, let Mr. L. show me these Words in Scripture; There are three eternal and infinite Spirits: And again, these Words; three infinite Spirits, each of which is perfect God, yet all of them but one God. He will say, he cannot show me these very Words; but there are in Scripture other Words, from whence those Propositions may be rightly inferred: and the human Reason is too corrupted and narrow; that it may be set up as a Judge, of what is delivered in the Word of God; whatsoever Contradictions or Self-Contradictions Reason pretends to find in the Doctrines of Scripture, it is too fallible (because 'tis both narrow, and corrupted) to be heard against the infinite Wisdom of God, speaking in his Word. We reply; let the human Reason be as corrupted and narrow as Mr. L. and others fancy it to be: yet still it will be as able and fit to judge, of the Consistency, or Self-Contradiction, of Doctrines or Propositions not expressly contained in Scripture, but only inferred by Reason, from Scripture; as it is to infer or draw those Propositions or Doctrines from Scripture. If Reason may not be trusted, to judge of Doctrines that are but only men's Inferences from Scripture; it can as little be trusted, to frame or draw those Inferences from Scripture: its Narrowness and Corruption must be disinherited, as much in the one case, as in the other. If Mr. L. hopes to set aside the Contradictions, that Reason finds in this Creed, there are three infinite Spirits, etc. we claim it as our Right, to set aside that Creed, because 'tis only an Inference drawn from Scripture, by the human Reason, which is altogether corrupted (he saith) and extremely narrow. Does Mr. L. deny, that the Contradictions we find in this Inference which some make from Scripture, There are three infinite Spirits, each of them a perfect God, all of them but one God; are real Contradictions, to the human Reason as we now have it? No; but he says, our Reason, because 'tis so narrow and corrupt, is not to be heard against God. Right; but we expect, it may be heard against Men: that is, concerning the Possibility or Consistency of mere Inferences made by Men, from God's Word. In a word; we contend, that the human Reason is as qualified, to judge of Inferences, as to frame them.  
We insist upon this, as a full Answer to this usual Subterfuge; and great, nay only Defence of all our Opposers: We call every body to witness, that 'tis not only frivolous, but wholly impertinent. When they have declamed never so long, upon the Corruption and Narrowness of the human Reason: if it may not be a Judge of Inferences from Scripture; neither should it presume to make, contrive, or draw any such Inferences. Our Opposers dare not say this latter; therefore neither can they, with Consistency to themselves, say the former.  
But because this is a famous Topick; I will say something farther upon it.  
Secondly; When they infer Doctrines from Scripture, which, by their own Confession, imply manifest Contradictions; that is, seem to our Reason as it now is, to imply manifest Self-Contradictions: and these Inferences, when once made, become so sacred with 'em, that they must not be judged of, no not by that human Reason that made 'em. I say, when this is the case; do they not say hereby, that very Reason is infallible, which in the same Breath they decry as corrupt, narrow, and uncapable of making a right Judgement? The Doctrines inferred by Reason, from the Word of God, are certain and sacred; they say: but when the (malapert) Unitarian offers to examine the Consistency or Possibility of those Doctrines, which Reason inferred from Scripture; all on the sudden, they surprise us with a contrary Pretence, that Reason is narrow and corrupt, and therefore has no Right of Suffrage in things of this nature; they are above Reason, not to be judged by it. Methinks, there cannot easily be a more apparent Contradiction, than this very Defence of our Opposers, implies: they give, and take back, in the same Cause and Thing. They exclude Reason, from a bare Suffrage; and yet make it a Judge: they allow it to stamp an infallible and sacred Character, on the Inferences it makes; but will not permit, it should re-examine those very Inferences; or should review its own Acts, to see whether they are consistent, yea or no. Reason, according to them, is all Eye; and at the same time, 'tis Cimmerian, or Egyptian Darkness. When 'tis wire-drawing Doctrines from Scripture, its Deductions are as sacred and certain, as their Divine Original: but it loses all its happy Dexterity and Ability, so soon as it presumes to re-examine those Deductions, whether they are consistent with themselves; or are truly made.  
But this once more. How strangely has the Divine Wisdom dealt with Men, in the Hypothesis of these Gentlemen? He requires us in his Word, they say, to believe there are three eternal and infinite Spirits; and that though each of them is a perfect God, yet all of them are but one God: but he has set up in us another Light, even Reason, that shows us the quite contrary; namely, That there can be but one infinite all-perfect Spirit; and that if there were three such Spirits, there would be three Gods, and not one only: that is, he requires us, by the written outward Word, to believe; and by the inward Word, to disbelieve: he employs the Authority of his Revelation, to tell us one thing; and makes Faith impossible, by clearly showing us the contrary by Reason. It is a most certain Truth in Heaven, they say; what on Earth seems an overgrown Absurdity; the most dangerous, as well as the flattest and most obvious Contradiction.  
I grant, Divine Revelation is infallible; and the human Reason sometimes fallible, by Accident: as when it makes too much haste, in judging; and when it soars to Objects, that are above it. But it has always been held, that the Veracity of God is concerned in it; that our Faculties should be true, and be able to judge truly of what they distinctly and clearly perceive. And if this be denied, the Doctrine of our Opposers is upon no better bottom, not only than ours; but than the most Chimerical Figments, that Fancy or Invention can advance. They can have no degree of Certainty, in the clearest Inferences that Reason at any time makes, either from the Nature, or Revelation of God; and consequently also, not of their Trinity of the three eternal and infinite Spirits: there will always lie this Exception; that the Deductions made, are indeed clear and distinct, but they are concerning Objects, above the human Reason.  
Besides, it ought to be considered; that how much soever an Object may be above us; yet the things affirmed, or denied concerning it, may lie within the Sphere of Reason; and be as subject to its Cognizance, as any other Matters are. God is infinitely above me; I am infinitely far from knowing all that God is: but if I am taught either in express Terms, or in Words that imply it, that there are three Gods, and not one only; I can as easily judge of those Words and Expressions, and as certainly, as if they were said of a finite Being. I can as certainly know, that to say three eternal and all-sufficient Spirits, or to say, three Spirits, each of which is a perfect God; amounts to this, or implies this, there are three Gods, and not one only: as I can know, three Angelical Spirits, or three human Being's, implies or amounts to this, three Angels, and three Men.  
The mere Sublimity of an Object, doth not annul, or so much as weaken the Certainty of those Affirmations or Negations concerning it; that are common to such Object, with other Objects that are the proper and immediate Subjects of Reason. If the Definition of God, even this, an eternal and all-perfect Spirit, is multiplied, by our saying, three eternal all-perfect Spirits: We thereby as truly, and also as plainly and certainly multiply Gods; as when we multiply the Definition of the Sun or Earth, or other created and finite Being's, we thereby multiply Suns and Earth's. In a word, Propositions that are eternal Verities, are also infinite Verities; and are as much a Rule, by which to judge unerringly concerning an infinite Object, as concerning a finite.  
As for the rest of Monsieur De Luzancy's Book, or four Letters: I know not, whether we are concerned in it; till I know more certainly, in what Sense he holds a Trinity of Divine Persons, and the Divinity and Satisfaction of our Saviour. He pretends to examine the late Prints of the Unitarians. Those Prints are of two sorts, or have two Parts; one part of 'em contains the Arguments from Holy Scripture, or from Reason, which evince the Unity of God, by which we mean, that there is but one all-perfect Spirit: another part considers the Texts of Scripture, that are objected by some, against the Belief of the Unity of God; or for a Trinity of all-perfect Spirits, that is, a Trinity of Gods. To the Prints, or Parts of Prints, of the first sort; Mr. L. has said nothing at all: What he has said upon the other part of our Books; though we do not approve of it, yet we might admit (or tolerate) his Interpretations, if we certainly knew (as I said but now) what kind of Trinity he holds, and in what Sense he believes the Divinity and Satisfaction of our Saviour. If he directly says, the Meaning of his Interpretations, is; that there are three eternal Minds, three infinite Substances, three all-perfect Spirits: his Doctrine is condemned in terms, as heretical and impious, by the late Decree of the Heads of Colleges at Oxford; in which University, if I mistake not, he was once a Student. And if by the Divinity of our Saviour, he intends; that the second of three infinite Spirits became incarnate in the Humanity of Christ; or that the Divinity was so incarnate, that there followed a real (and not only a nominal) Communication of Idioms: it is doubly heretical. For the Catholic Church owns but one infinite Spirit. And for a real Communication of Idioms, whereby God (actually, physically, or properly) became a particular Man, or a particular Man really became God Almighty: 'tis the Eutychian Heresy, condemned in so many General Councils. He is also an Eutychian, if he pretends; that when he finds, or thinks he finds, that our Saviour (in Scripture) is called God, has an Omniscience or Omnipotence, or an Omnipresence attributed to him, or is said to have created or made all things: I say, he would be an Eutychian, if he pretended to ascribe these things to the Person of our Saviour, in any other Sense but this; to God in him, i. e. to God, who did inhabit after an ineffable manner, in the Humanity of Christ. As to the Satisfaction; if he will have it, that Jesus Christ made an adequate Satisfaction, and therefore (in Equity) not refusable; to the Divine Justice, for the Sins of Men: he were best to consider the Computations of the Bishop of Salisbury, to the contrary. For us, we believe, with the Catholic Church; that the Lord Christ did truly satisfy Almighty God, for the Sins of Men; not by paying our Debt, to the Divine Justice, but by his unblemished and perfect Life, his willing and exemplary Death; the which, the Mercy of God accepted, on our Behalf, though it was a refusable Payment.  
This, Sir, is what I thought needful to be sent to you; by way of Remarks on Mr. L. his four Letters, which he was pleased to publish, against the Unitarian Prints. He has written after a civil and obliging manner: I own, that he may claim it as his due; that we be ready upon all occasions, to make to him like Returns. Whether it were his Prudence, or his Candour, or both; he was not (I see) willing to lose the Esteem of his Erudition, and Wit; by a snarling, sordid, and clownish way of Writing; against us. It may be, he considered; that Generosity, and Gallantry, in this kind, is not only no Blemish or Hindrance to a Writer, but serves to recommend his Performance to his very Opposers, as well as to his Party and Friends.  
Whereas he blames some of our Prints, as deficient in point of Respect to some of our Antagonists; he should first have read the Books, to which those Prints make answer: he would have seen, there was a Provocation given; that we could not, with any Prudence, but take some notice of it. For it cannot escape a Man so discerning as Mr. L. is; that there is a Patience, which is the Virtue of a Christian: and there is also a Patience, which is the Virtue of an Ass.   

On the Vindication by the Bp. of Worcester.  
AND I have read, Sir, as you also desired, the new Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, by the Bp. of Worcester. I think, what a Man can say of it, who would speak in short, is; He has hearty chode with the Socinians, for the Terms: and has entirely yielded the things, in question; to the Unitarians. He is such another Anti-Unitarian, as our Father Wallis is an Anti-Socinian; who made himself famous, for almost a whole Year, for his Vindication of the Athanasian Creed, and his Letters and Sermons against Socinus and the Socinians: and has been as remarkable ever since, for a Discovery made upon him; that himself is wholly Socinian, in those very Sermons, Letters, and Vindication that he opposed to the Socinians.  
'Tis a Mystery this, that Men who give up Dr. Sherlock; nay argue professedly against him, and his Hypothesis of three infinite Substances, three All-perfect Minds and Spirits: 'tis, I say, a Mystery, that they should write Vindications also against us; who are in no other Heresy, as to these Matters, but the Heresy of one infinite Substance, one Eternal, All-perfect Mind and Spirit. Perhaps Father Wallis' Opposition, was the Effect of weakening Age; but his Lordship is not superannuated, and he has read our Books, and (particularly) makes divers Quotations out of the Discourse concerning the Nominal and Real Trinitarians: where our Consent with the Catholic Church, in the Articles of the Trinity, and the Divinity of our Saviour, is declared, and cleared. There was therefore some other reason, why the Catelines fall to work against the Cethegi; and 'tis no hard matter to guests at it, nay to ascertain it. But of that, hereafter.  
The Structure of the Vindication, is in the Form and Way of modern Sermons, of the present Mode and Cut of the Church; of all others, as some think, the worst. The Speaker openly professes his Method; that he will prove first, than Secondly, Thirdly, than Fourthly, and Fifthly. After this Declaration, comes the Subdivision (or new Divisions) of these Firsts, Seconds, Thirds, etc. and Lastly, that well-known," And now Beloved, First of the First. Men of Wit pretend, it is not Method, but Confusion; for these Firsts, Seconds, Thirds, having their Subdivisions into other Firsts, Seconds, Thirds; and they again (most commonly) into farther Underling-Divisions: about the middle of a Discourse, but especially toward the end of it, the Hearer or Reader is quite lost; he knows not what Second, Third, or Fourth is meant; or on what part of the Subject, the Speaker (or Writer) now is.  
But of all Imperfections, Obscurity (when a Doctrine is to be explained, or a Point to be argued) is the most offensive and ungrateful. When a Man enters into most of the Books of the true Unitarians: the Subject is so clear of itself, that it seems, as if one came into a well-furnished Room, hung round with radiant Lights; which show every thing in it, very distinctly, and very agreeably. A Man sees, perfectly, every Object; and with this Advantage, that the clear Light about it, shows it more lustrous, and more pleasing. But on the other hand, the Books (whether they be Answers, or Attacks) of the Men of superior Learning and Wit, as his Lordship compliments himself, and Friends, at p. 45. of his Preface; bless me, how like old Germane Monastries, or Inquisition-Prisons, do they look! such is the Intricacy of the Subject. How dusky, dim, and dark, are the Rooms, and Passages? Between Obscurity, and Ruggedness, a Man cannot forbear, to hug himself; so soon as he is got out: and while he is within, he can discern nothing; or however, not with ease to himself, or Satisfaction in the thing. I cannot but complain, that his Lordship's Vindication, is somewhat of this Nature; for though it has much of that same superior Learning and Wit, yet when he argues, or answers, but especially when he explains; I do not take his meaning, under two or three Readins. And when I have strained my Jaws, and hazarded my Teeth; to break the Shell: most commonly, it proves nothing but a Shell; that I am tempted, to renounce Nuts for ever.  
As to the Contents of his Book, he shows; that neither Antiquity, nor Reason, nor Scripture is at all for us; they are all against us. He has, up and down, some Offers, at an Explication of the Trinity; the which, we throughly approve. We judge him to be as Catholic and Orthodox in that matter, as any of our own number. Tho he has called us as many Names, and imputed as many bad things to us; as Dr. Wallis himself (whether in his Letters, or Vindication) did: he is, for all that, no more our Enemy in Doctrine, than Father Wallis himself is, or than our Brother S—th. Farther, he takes up the Quarrel between Dr. S—th and Dean Sherlock; he shows, that they are both of 'em good Catholics; the one in Intention, the other in Reality and sober Sadness. 'Tis a very reconcilable Difference, according to his Lordship; whether it be said (namely, in words only, while the Intent is Orthodox and Catholic) that there are three Divine Persons, who are three eternal Spirits, three All-perfect Minds, three infinite Substances; with so many distinct Understandings, Wills, and Omnipotencies, which is the Doctrine of Dean Sherlock: or whether it be said, there are three Divine Persons, in the Metaphysical and Critical Sense of the Term Persons, that is, which are but one infinite All-perfect Spirit, with one only Understanding, Will and Omnipotence; one selfsame infinite Substance or Essence, with the three Properties, to be of none, to be begotten, and to proceed. I will go over these parts of the Vindication; in the order I have proposed them.   

Of Antiquity.  
OF Antiquity, we claim in the first place, the vast Period; from Adam to our Saviour: being a Tract of 4000 Years: That is, two parts in three of all Time. The Patriarches are ours, the Prophets ours; Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Sem, Abraham, Moses, David, ours; so ours, that they are yielded to us, on all hands: 'tis not so much as pretended, that these believed otherwise than the Unitarians do, concerning God. 'Tis an Argument of our Opposers themselves; that if Adam or the Antediluvian Patriarches bade believed, or known the Trinity (understand here, of the Realists, namely, three Almighty Eternal Spirits;) it would have descended to Noah, to Sem, and from Sem to Abraham; from Abraham to Isaac and Jacob, and their Posterity the Jewish Church, especially to Moses. But it appears clearly by Scripture, that Moses, or the Church of the Jews, knew it not; therefore neither did the  Patriarches, whether Antediluvians or Postdiluvians.  
But Dr. Bull and the Bp. of Worcester, fearing that such an Advantage as the whole Old Testament-time on the side of the unitarians, should furnish them with unanswerable Arguments and Considerations, for the Doctrine they maintain, answer; That though the Trinity does not appear to have been known to the Patriarches, or the Jews, by any of the Books of the Old Testament: it is to be remembered, that the Jews had also a Kabbala or Oral Tradition, derived to them from Moses and from God; and the Trinity was a part of this Kabbala. Where is Conscience; or is Religion nothing but a Name? Do the Bp. and Dr. Bull, believe the Kabbala; that 'tis derived from Moses, and from God? No more than they believe the Koran; that it was given by Angels: as the Impostor, the Author of it, pretends. They contend for the Trinity, and the Kabbala; 'tis certain, that they believe not the latter: how then will they now persuade any Man, that they believe (inwardly) the former? They dare to set up a Fiction of the Pharisees, and which (one cannot imagine but) they believe to be a Fiction; as of Divine Original, and as the unwritten Word of God: after such a Prevarication, who shall take their Words for what they pretend to believe, or not to believe? I scorn to argue with 'em, about the Truth of the Kabbala; for which they have nothing to allege, and the Credit of which is eternally overthrown, by the Author of the Answer to Dr. Bull: I shall only mind 'em, that if they are Jews (or rather if they are Pharisees, for the sounder part of the Jews, the Karaites, disclaim the Kabbala) they disown their being Protestants; for 'tis a Fundamental Article of Protestantism, that there is no other Word of God, but only his written Word.  
Well, but supposing the Kabbala; doth it say any thing of a Trinity, or an eternal Son of God? Not the least Word. Why then is it alleged? Because the Chaldee Paraphrases speak of the WORD, as God; and how should those Paraphrases come to know the WORD, or speak of him as God, but out of the Kabbala? But if the Kabbala has nothing of the Trinity, or the WORD, how should the Paraphrases take what they say of the WORD, from the Kabbala? But after all, what is it, that the Paraphrases say of the WORD; do they call him God, or speak of him as a Person? Of the Places produced by the Bp. at p. 128, 129. not one of them does so much as seem to the purpose, but only the first. They speak, either of the Ten Commandments; or of the Law; or of the Command or Order of God to Moses; or of the Power of God, which (in the Books of the Old Testament) is expressed by the Word, or Mandate of God; because God effects whatsoever he wills, by only willing, commanding, or saying, that it shall be. But the first Text, alleged by his Lordship, I know not what to say of it; for he quotes Gen. 20.21. when there are but 18 Verses in that whole Chapter; nor is there any thing in the whole Chapter, that bears the least Resemblance to what he quotes out of it. Therefore so much for Chaldee, and Kabbala; despised by all Learned Men, Jews as well as Christians; and never used, but when the People are to be gulled, with noisy Nothings.  
The next, is the important Period, from our Saviour's beginning to preach, to the taking of Jerusalem by the Romans, under the Conduct of Titus Vespasianus. Our Opposers controvert with us, this Period; but seeing the whole History of it, as to the Point in question, is set down in the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, of the New Testament: every Body, that will be sincere, may be informed from those Holy Scriptures themselves; whether they teach, that God is a Spirit, or on the contrary, that there are three Infinite, Eternal, and All-perfect Spirits?  
A little before the Investing of Jerusalem, by the Roman Army under the leading of Vespasianus; the Jewish Christians were warned by their Prophets, to retire out of Jerusalem, and remove to Pella, and other Parts (of Judea and Galilee) remote from the Seat of War. These Christians of the Jewish Nation were called nazarenes; and the Author of the Answer to Dr. Bull has proved, that they were unitarians. His Lordship is so ingenuous, as to grant it, at p. 12, 13. though the Concession in the Opinion of Dr. Bull, amounts to an absolute yielding the whole Controversy, to the Unitarians: but what should he do; the thing being so incontestably proved in that Answer to Dr. Bull, the Bp. saw, it would be cried out upon as mere affected Wrangling, not to give way to so clear a Demonstration, as is there made of it. Dr. Bull complains to no purpose, that, if the nazarenes were Unitarians, our Cause can be no longer defended: and the Vnitaries must be granted to have been the only Guardians, and Conservators of the true Faith. Judic. Eccl. p. 41, 42.  
Whereas the Bp. insinuates afterwards, that there were two sorts of nazarenes; viz. the main Body of the Jewish Christians, who (after the Investing of Jerusalem) settled first at Pella, and afterwards dilated all over Palestine, Moab, Arabia, Syria, nay all over Asia; who were all unitarians: and another lesser Party of them, who after the taking of Jerusalem, by Vespasian, were suffered to inhabit Jerusalem together with the Gentiles, and abode there under 15 successive Bishops, even to the second Siege, and second taking of Jerusalem, by the Emperor Adrian; and these (his Lordship thinks) were not unitarians. This Distinction of two sorts of nazarenes, or Jewish Christians, is a pure Figment; for all the Ancients who mention the Jewish Christians or nazarenes, say of them, they were all Unitarians: and that the only difference among them, was; some of them said, Jesus was the Son of Joseph and Mary by Generation, and the Son of God by Holiness and Adoption; others said, he was the Son of Mary only, begotten of her by the Adumbration of the Holy Ghost, or Power of God.  
The Alogians were ours; he does not offer to contest it: neither does he deny to us the particular Fathers, claimed by us in the Answer to Dr. Bull; saving that he is willing to excuse Hegesippus, Theodotion, Paul of Samosatum, and Photinus.  
We will yield, Hegesippus to his Lordship, when he satisfies the Reasons in the Answer to Dr. Bull, page 41, 42. which he will do, when he defends his Sermon about Mysteries, against the Exceptions of the Considerer.  
St. Hierom assures us, that Theodotion was an Unitarian: his Lordship would fain deny it, on the (mistaken) Authority of Eusebius. He ought to know, that because Theodotion came over from the Pagans to the Jewish Christians; therefore Eusebius calls him a Jewish Proselyte. And this he might have learned, from the Place of Eusebius which himself quotes: for 'tis there said, that the Ebionites [a Branch of the nazarenes] following Theodotion and Aquila, contend that Jesus was the Son of Joseph and Mary.  
Photinus and Paul of Samosatum have been always censured by Church-Historians, as undoubted Unitarians. And though his Lordship rightly says, that what they seem to have held concerning the Person of our Saviour, is somewhat different from the Belief of the modern Unitarians: it is not to our present Inquiry; which is concerning the Trinity, not concerning the Person of our Saviour. That in the Article of the Trinity, Paul and Phetinus, were not Unitarians; his Lordship will never prove, nor ever attempt to prove it.  
A great many Bishops assembled (riotously and schismatically) against their Primate Paul of Samosatum, and condemned his Person and Doctrine; though he was favoured by (the Heroina of that Age) Queen Zenobia; who then ruled in those Parts. His Lordship infers from hence; that 'tis not merely from Fears, Awes and Interest, that the Orthodox have maintained the Doctrine of the Trinity: no, we see, they assembled against and condemned Paul; in the Dominions of a Princess, who favoured his Doctrine. Granting now that Q. Zenobia favoured Paul; and that Antioch (where Paul was Bishop, and where the Schismatics convened against him,) was under the Authority of Zenobia; which last (be sure) is false, whatever the first is: yet how will this Instance evince, what his Lordship would draw from it? For these Bishops were, not only Schismatics, but Heretics: they rejected Homousios, or that the Divine Persons have the same Substance. If they believed a Trinity, it was not the Trinity of the Orthodox or the Catholic Church: the Council of Nice, and this Conventicle of Schismatics, were of contrary Minds; the Conventiclers would not admit of Homousios, which Paul contended for, the Council of Nice put it into the Creed.  
I had almost forgot, that whereas Lucianus, so much celebrated by Antiquity, is claimed by us; from the Authority of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria: his Lordship alleges, that Cardinal Baronius conjectures, that Alexander mistook the Opinions of Lucianus. But in very deed, what Alexander says of Lucianus, is too well circumstantiated to be shaken, by the Conjectures of a Person, who lived above 1200 Years after him. For Alexander not only says, that Lucianus espoused the Cause of Paul of Samosatum, against the Schismatical Bishops, who had caballed against him: but farther, that whereas he thought them to be Heretics, as well as Schismatics; he separated from the Communion of the Bishop, and his two Successors, that were put into the Chair of Paul, and held also separate Meetings.  
But his Lordship urges, that the Arians in a Council at Antioch Anno 342. produced a Creed; that was contrary to the Doctrine of Paul of Samosatum, and agreed with the Arian Doctrine: and yet the Arians said, this Creed was wholly written by Lucianus. But the Historian quoted by his Lordship, makes doubt whether this Creed was really written by Lucianus: or whether the Arians, to shelter themselves under the Authority of so great a Man, had not feigned it. To say, as his Lordship does; they would not impute a Creed to Lucian, that was so remarkably contrary to his Doctrine; in a City, where it must needs be well known, what had been the Doctrine of Lucian, and Paul of Samosatum, whom we pretend that Lucian followed: I say, to argue after that manner, is to be unmindful; that Forgers do not bethink them of all the Circumstances, that may betray their fraudulent Dealing; if they did, there would be no Forgeries.  
To add no more; his Lordship confesses, that D. Petavius and H. Valesius, the exactest Critics we have in Church History, disapprove the Conjecture and Reasons of Cardinal Baronius; and give up Lucian to the Unitaries.  
This is all (that is considerable) that his Lordship has offered from Antiquity; I proceed to   

Scripture and Reason.  
HIS 8th and 10th Chapters are employed, in opposing (and, as he thinks, in exposing and ridiculing) some Interpretations (of a few Texts) of Scripture, by the Unitarians; and in attacking a few Paragraphs, in Mr. Toland's Book, Christianity not mysterious. I know not what it was to his Lordship's Purpose, to fall upon Mr. Toland's Book. But if he would needs attack the Book; he should have dealt fairly: he should have discussed the main Argument in it, and not carped only at a few Passages; and those too, so mangled and deformed by his Representation of them, that I dare to affirm, Mr. Toland does not know his own Book in the Bishop's Representation of it. I do not perceive, to speak truly, but that the Book still stands in its full Strength; if it hath not also acquired a farther Reputation, by occasion of this (so) unsuccessful nibbling at it. But suppose the Bishop had disarmed the Gentleman; what is that to us? do we offer this Book, against the Trinity of the Realists; was it written, with intention to serve us; doth it contain any of our Allegations from Reason, against the Trinity of Philaponus, Joachim, and Gentitis? We desire him to answer to the Reasons in our Books, against the Trinity of the Tritheists; but to these, he saith not a Word, but only falls upon Mr. Toland's Book: in which, or for which, we are not in the least concerned; nor do I think the (Learned and Ingenious) Author will hold himself to be interested, to defend that Christianity not mysterious, which his Lordship presents us with.  
As to his Exceptions against some Interpretations of Scripture, which he finds in some Books of the Unitarians: we should have enough to do, if we went to the Press (to vindicate what has been already so well established;) every time that an angry Litigant is in a humour, to write against us. His Lordship had a Mind to show his superior Learning and Wit; and casting the Dice, to determine what Subject he should choose: up comes the Trinity, and the Books of the Unitarians; upon these, he will gain immortal Honour. We wish him Luck; but not being at leisure, to wipe off every small Soil, that may happen to be scattered on our Books, our Opposers may safely (for us) enjoy their Victories. We care not for Proselytes, that have no manner of Sense; and for Persons that have any, we dare trust them with whatsoever Vindications, we have yet seen: we only desire them, to read our Arguments (whether from Reason, or Scripture,) as they stand in our own Books; not as they are disguised in Vindications. The Exempts of the Church, who are discharged from the mean Drudgery of Preaching the Gospel; and are concerned only, in the noble Employment of Commanding: how easy is it for them, to come out now and then, with a magisterial Book; seeing, whether 'tis home to the Purpose or not, is solely at the Buyer's Peril? In short, if his Lordship has baffled the Interpretations of the Unitarians, against which he has concerned himself, in the Opinion of any Reader: he shall, for me, enjoy his Success; for my part I am enough persuaded, without further arguing the Matter, that he has spent his Breath against a Rock.   

His Lordship's Explication of the Trinity.  
AFter his Lordship has taken so much Pains, to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity; let us see, what kind of Trinity, he believes and contends for. For Mr. Biddle also wrote a Book for the Trinity: his Lordship's Title bears, A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity; but Mr. Biddle far more speciously and zealously, The Apostolical Opinion of the Holy Trinity asserted. Ay, but his Lordship's Trinity is the Athanasian Trinity; he has a whole Chapter in Vindication and Explication of the Creed of Athanasius. Well, but Father Wallis too published a Book, entitled, An Explication and Vindication of the Creed of Athanasius. They both of them interpret the Athanasian Creed; and then believe it: that is, believe it according to their own Sense of it. And so do we; that is, we believe it, according to the Sense they make of it. But his Lordship believes and contends for that Trinity; which the Unitarians deny, and oppose. I'll give thee my Cap then; what Proof do you make of his believing that Trinity, which we deny? Why, he has wrote two whole Books against you; one concerning the Satisfaction, the other concerning the Trinity. But my Brother S—th also wrote two (bigger) Books; in both which, he blames and quarrels the Unitarians, as abominable Heretics: and yet we so little think, that we have any real Difference with him, that we intent him an eminent Place in the Company of unitarians, at our next General Assembly.  
His Lordship has a whole Chapter; 'tis that remarkable Chap. 6. beginning at pag. 68 and ending at p. 101. the longest, or one of the longest, in his Book: to state the Notion of the Trinity; and to vindicate it from Contradictions. He gins with observing;  
1. We must distinguish, between the Being of a thing, and a thing in Being. Or, between Essence, and Existence.  
2. Between the Unity of Nature or Essence, and of Existence or Individuals of the same Nature.  
3. Between the Notion of Persons, in a finite Substance; and in a Being uncapable of Division, or Separation. After he has spoken, first of the first; he comes to say;  
2. We must now distinguish the Unity which belongs to the common Nature, from that which belongs to Individuals in actual Being. And farther, the Unity of Existence may be considered:  
(1.) Either, where the Essence and the Existence are the same; as they are in God.  
(2.) Or, where the Existence is contingent, as in Creatures. Moreover, the Unity of Existence may be considered;  
1st. Either as to itself; and so it is Identity.  
2dly. Or, as to others; that is, as every one stands divided from every other Individual of the same kind, although they all partake of the same common Nature or Essence. The clearing of this, he adds, is that main Point; on which, the whole Notion of these Matters, depends: so in order thereto, we must consider;  
1. What that is, whereby we perceive the Difference of Individuals?  
2. What that is, which really makes two Being's of the same kind to be different from each other?  
(1.) As to the Reason of our Perception of the Difference between Individuals of the same kind; it depends,  
1st. On the Difference of outward Accidents; Feature, Age, Mien, Habit, etc.  
2dly. On the Difference of inward Qualities; which we may perceive by Observation, and which arise from Constitution, Education, Company, acquired Habits, etc.  
(2.) As to the true Ground of the real Difference, between the Existence of one Individual from the rest; it depends on the separate Existence which it hath from all others. For that which gives it a Being distinct from all others, and divided by individual Properties, is the true ground of the Difference between them; and that can be no other but the Will of God.— But we are not yet come, by a good way, to the bottom of the Matter. Truly I am sorry for it; for I am half tired already; and quite lost, in this Labyrinth of 1, 2, 3; 2, 1. 2; 1, 2, 1, 2, 2: but let's go on, since we needs must. As to Individuals, (so he proceeds, towards the bottom) there are these things to be considered.  
1. Actual Existence in itself; which hath a Mode belonging to it. And otherwise the human Nature of Christ, could not have been united to the Divine, but it must have had also the personal Subsistence; and consequently, there must have been two Persons in Christ. I suppose, it may be Kabbala; or Chaldee: but Sense it is not.  
2. A separate and divided Existence from all others; which arises from the actual Existence, but may be distinguished from it. As the human Nature of Christ, although it had the Existence proper to Being; yet had not a separate Existence, after the Hypostatical Union. Be not abashed, Sir; the Meaning only is: some things exist separately, others in Union or Composition. But deep Men (as his Lordship somewhere says of his Party) must express themselves deeply; to keep up the Reputation, of what they (falsely) call Learning: for were their Theorems delivered in plain English, they would be thought to be childish Trifles.  
3. The peculiar manner of Subsistence, which lies in such Properties, as are incommunicable to any other: and therein consists the proper Reason of Personality. Which doth not consist in a mere intelligent Being; but in that peculiar manner of Subsistence in that Being, which can be in no other. For when the common Nature doth subsist in Individuals, there is not only a separate Existence; but something so peculiar to itself, that it can be communicated to no other. The downright English is this: Tom hath something so peculiar to himself, that though he is a Man, yet he is not Will or Ned, but only Tom.  
4. There is a common Nature, which must be joined with this manner of Subsistence, to make a Person; otherwise it would be a mere Mode: but we never conceive a Person, without the Essence in conjunction with it. But here appears no manner of Contradiction, in asserting several Persons in the same common Nature. In English, thus: Tallness, or Leanness, or such like Modes, do not alone make a Person: there must be some Essence, Nature, or Substance, added to the Mode of Tallness (suppose, or Leanness) else mere Tallness will not be a Person. And hence it is clear, as the Sun; that there is no manner of Contradiction, in asserting several Persons, (such as Tallness, Leanness, Dulness, when joined to some Essence or Substance) in one and the same common Nature: as suppose, of Humanity. We shall consider this poor Elusion, by and by.  
5. The Individuals of the same kind are said to differ in Number, from each other; because of their different Accidents, and separate Existence. Or, thus; Tom and Ned are two Men, not one Man; because they are several Men, and have several different Qualities. I think, the Critic might have left out the different Qualities: for though the Qualities of Tom and Ned were the same; yet by only being several Men, they would be two Men, and not one.  
6. There must be a Separation in Nature, where there is a Difference of Individuals of the same kind. I do not say, an actual Separation or Division, as to Place; but there is, and must be, in Nature, where one common Nature subsists in several Individuals. For all Individuals must divide the Species, and the common Nature unites them. Or, Will is not Harry; the human Nature is divided in these two Persons; yet they are both of them Men: they are not Camels, nor yet Dromedaries, for they are united in the human Nature, not in the Camel or Dromedary-Nature.  
3. This 3dly comes but oddly after 6thly; but let us hear what it is. We are now to inquire, how far these things will hold, as to the Persons in the Trinity? I shall answer in short; they will not hold at all: and that, for this demonstrative Reason; which, the Builder of this intricate Labyrinth, hath unhappily overlooked. These 1, 2, 3; 2, 1, 2; 1, 2, 1, 2, 2; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 3, are so many Boxes; with each of 'em a Mystery in it: but here is the Misfortune. They speak of such Natures, as have no Existence but only in our Conception; mere abstracted Natures, such as human Nature, Camel-Nature, Angelical Nature, that have not a real Existence, but only an imaginary: for there is really no such existing thing, as human Nature, or Camel-Nature; but they are Notions only of the Mind, framed by our Understandings, while they are employed in considering wherein (or in what Properties) all Men do agree. They all agree (for instance) in Rationality, and Risibility; and therefore these two have been named by Metaphysicians the human Nature. As the Natures, of which the aforesaid Boxes speak, are only abstracted notional and imaginary Natures; not really existing Natures: so (on the contrary) the Persons in them, are not mere Metaphysical Persons, or such relative Properties, that several of them do or can subsist in the same rational Being; but they are such Persons as necessarily suppose distinct Substances, as well as distinct Properties. For instance, the Properties that make the Personalities of Harry and Charles, require distinct Substances, to make the Persons of Harry and Charles: those Properties, if they existed only in a common Nature, as the Humanity, and had not also distinct Substances; they would never make distinct Persons. In short, the Boxes speak of imaginary Natures or Essences; and of Persons, who are so many real Substances. They will not therefore hold at all in the Question of the Trinity. For the Blessed Trinity is of a just contrary Nature, to the Mysteries in the Boxes. In the Trinity, the Nature is a really existing Nature, 'tis a spiritual Substance, and endued with a great Number of Divine Attributes; not an abstracted, or mere notional imaginary Nature: and the Persons are as unlike to the Persons in the Boxes; for the Divine Persons are not distinct Substances, or real Being's; but Properties only in a real Being, and in an infinite Substance.  
To argue, as his Lordship does; from imaginary Natures, to a real Nature: and from Persons that are distinct Being's, and distinct Substances; to Persons which, he dares not but say, they are only relative Properties in the same (intellectual) Substance and Being. I say, to argue after that fashion, is to shoot as wide of his Mark; as the Natures and Persons, of which he is to discourse, are different: which is no less than infinitely. The Pains therefore he has taken in this long sixth Chapter; which was designed for the Strength of his whole Book, are lost: and he has all things to begin anew.  
You will say; Have we done then, with our explaining and vindicating the Trinity? No, Sir. When his Lordship had wrote his Book; and upon a Review of it, perceived, that he had not sufficiently (no nor tolerably) explained his Notion of the Trinity: nor yet what is meant, either by Persons, or Personalities; which must be explained and distinguished, or we shall dispute about we know not what, and with we know not whom. I say, his Lordship perceiving his Oversight, wrote a Preface of 62 Pages; chief to declare himself upon, and to clear these Matters. I will lay together what he hath said, up and down, in his Preface; which I may rightly call, his Book upon second Thoughts.  
The Trinity in Unity is one individual Substance, under three different Modes of Subsistence, p. 13. Or 'tis three peculiar Properties, in one and the same Divine Nature, p. 14.  
But more particularly; as to Personality and Person: A Personality is no more but a different Mode of Subsistence, in the same common Nature, p. 14.  
In created Being's, every Personality doth suppose a distinct Substance. But not from the Nature of Personality, but from the Condition of the Subject (or Substance) in which it is, p. 15. But I do not advise him, to explain too particularly the latter part of this Theorem; lest the Realists should turn it into Ridicule: 'tis a very obnoxious Proposition.  
But when we come to consider a Divine Essence; there can be no way of Distinction conceived in it, but by different Modes of Subsistence: or (what is the same) relative Properties in the same Divine Essence. p. 16.  
In short then; a Personality is only a particular Mode of Subsistence; and in the Divine Nature, Essence or Substance, 'tis most properly called a relative Property. For instance: Paternity, or active Generation; Filiation, or passive Generation, or begotten. So much for Madam PERSONALITY, now for Sir PERSON.  
The Notion of a Person, besides the relative Property, comprizes the Divine Nature, together with it, p. 17. And again, in his Book, at p. 119. They agreed in the name Persons, to express their Meaning; which was: That there are three which have distinct Subsistences, and incommunicable Properties; but one and the same Divine Essence. You are to wots here, Sir; that by the Divine Nature, or Divine Essence, they mean the Deity itself: that is, the Divine Substance with its several Attributes, Omniscience, Omnipotence, infinite Justice and Goodness, and the rest. These (namely, the Divine Substance, and Attributes) are called the Divine Nature, or Essence: and because herein are three relative Properties, unbegotten, begotten, a proceeding; therefore each of these Properties, when considered with the Divine Essence and Attributes, is called a Person.  
But here his Lordship is in bodily Fear, lest this Explication of the Trinity, or three Divine Persons, should be taken for Sabellianism; and therefore be understood to be an entire yielding the Cause to the Unitarians. The Men from whom he fears this Imputation, are the Realist Party; chief Dr. Cudworth; who saith of this Explication, that it is the Philosophy of Gotham; a nominal Trinity; and three such Persons as cannot be in Nature. But see now, how dexterously his Lordship comes off.  
It is not Sabellianism, to teach; that every Divine Person is a Person, as he hath the Divine Nature [Essence or Substance] belonging to him. For Sabellianism is the asserting such relative Persons, as have no Essence at all. p. 18, 19 So that if the Unitarians do but confess, that the three Properties (unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding) which are here called RELATIVE PERSONS, subsist (or are) in the Divine Essence, or Nature; they are not Sabellians, but Catholics: they should be Sabellians, if they said, these Properties are in no Essence at all. But I think, they must be called Fools, as well as Sabellians; if they asserted relative Properties, or any Properties that were in no Essence. I perceive, his Lordship and we shall agree. But let us hear also how he goes on.  
Farthermore it is to be noted, that there is a Communication of the Divine Essence, to each Divine Person, p. 19 For each Divine Person has an absolute Nature, distinctly belonging to him; though not a distinct absolute Nature, p. 9 The eternal Father is, and subsists as a Father; by having a Son, and by communicating his Essence to another. The Relation between Father and Son, is founded on that eternal Act; by which the Father communicates his Divine Nature [Essence or Substance] to the Son. p. 10. Lastly, he adds, at p. 112. of his Book: The Divine Persons are distinct, as to personal Properties; [he means, the Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Holy Spirit (neither begetting, nor begotten, but) proceeding:] but they are not distinct, as to essential Attributes: i e. they have not distinct Omnisciencies, or Omnipotencies; they have but one Intellect, and one Energy.  
You will say, Sir, this last is very sound: that unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding, are distinct Properties, in the Divine Essence; and that there is but one Omniscience, and Omnipotence, but one Omniscient and Omnipotent, not three Omniscients or three Omnipotents. But may there not be a Snake in the Grass, in what is said, that there is a Communication of the Divine Essence; and that the Father by an immanent and eternal Act, communicates his Divine Nature to the Son? By no Means; for you shall hear from the Bishop of Sarum, and the Divines of the Schools; nay (for greater Surety and Caution) from Dean Sherlock, and the Fathers; what that eternal Act is, by which the Father communicates the Divine Essence to the Son, and both of them to the Spirit; as also what is meant by Father, Son, and Spirit: nothing I assure you, that any Unitarian ever questioned; but what we believe, as sincerely, as Bishops and Deans do. I pray, Sir, observe; we are enquiring what is the eternal Act, by which the Divine Essence is communicated to the Divine Persons: and what those Persons are? Let us first hear Dr. Sherlock, who saith, he hath all the Fathers of his side.  
He affirms, 1. It is essential, to an eternal Mind, to know itself; and to love itself. 2. Original Mind, or Wisdom, or Knowledge of itself, and Love of itself, and of its own Image, are distinct Acts; and can never be one Act. 3. These three Acts being so distinct, that they can never be the same, must be three substantial Acts in God; that is, the three (Divine subsisting) Persons. 4. These than are the true and proper Characters of the distinct Persons in the Trinity; the Father is Original Mind or Wisdom. The Son is the reflex Knowledge of himself, [namely, of Original Mind] or the perfect Image of his own Wisdom: that is, of the Wisdom of Original Mind. The Holy Spirit is that Divine Love, which Father and Son have for each other.— All Men who know the Fathers, know that this is their constant Language. Vindic. of the Trin. p. 130. To make this Testimony the more considerable, the Author intimates in the last Paragraph but one of his Preface; that in writing this Book, he must thankfully own, he was divinely assisted. If you will not take the Word of Dr. Sherlock, and the constant Language of the Fathers; then hear the Bishop of Sarum, with all the School-Divines, and the universal Church. They conceived, that the primary Act of the Divine Essence, is its Wisdom; this they thought might be called the Son, as being the Generation of eternal Mind. From this Fountain-Principle, eternal Mind, and the inward WORD, or Logos, or Wisdom; a Love did issue forth, which was to be the Soul of the Creation, and more particularly of the Church.— This was rested on, and became the universally-received Explication of the Trinity; and was dressed up by the Schools with a great deal of dark Nicety. Discourse to Clergy, p. 99  
Now, Sir, lay your hand on your Heart; and answer, like a true Unitarian. Do you yourself, or know you any of the Denomination, that question this Trinity; the Trinity, our very Opposers say, of the Schools, the Fathers, and the universal Church. Namely, 1. One Divine Nature, Essence, or Substance; with one only Omniscience and Omnipotence: and consequently, with one only Intellect, and Power of Action. 2. Three Properties, called (by the Bp. of Worcester) RELATIVE PERSONS, viz. Unbegotten eternal Mind, Reflex or begotten Knowledge or Wisdom, and Divine Love proceeding from both. This, from themselves, is what they mean by Persons, in the Trinity; and Communication of the Divine Nature without Division or Separation, by immanent and Eternal Acts.  
I confess, I fear much; that were Dr. Cudworth alive, that great Divine and Philosopher, would either reason, or laugh us out of this Gibberish: he would constrain us, to return to the Language of Scripture, about these Matters. And it is most true, that these Terms are not to be found, either in Holy Scripture; or in the Creeds, or (received) General Councils, of the Catholic Church. They were first advanced by some particular Fathers, especially St. Austin in his 15 Books de Trinitate; were taken up (from them) by the Divines of the Schools, that is, of the middle Ages; and have been confirmed by the constant Use of the Moderns, or Divines of the two last Ages. We declare openly, and therein consists our whole Heresy, that we like 'em not; not only as they are unscriptural, which (in matter of Faith) is a most just Exception for divers very weighty Reasons; but because by their dangerous Ambiguity, they give occasion to Heresy; not only among the People, but even among Learned Men. These are the Terms that have occasioned the Heresy of the Realists, or Tritheists; maintained at this time, by divers Learned Men among us. Yet for Peace sake, we admit the Terms; interpreted in the known Sense of the Church: which Sense, we acknowledge, the Bps. of Worcester, and Sarum, Dr. S—th, and the Oxford-Heads, have (as we have seen already) rightly understood, and (especially Dr. S—th, in his Latin Letters, under the Name of a Transmarine Divine) dextrously declared. I may pass, I think, to the last thing to be considered.   

The Conciliation of Dr. S—th and Dean Sherlock.  
DR. Sherlock, in his Books against the Unitarians, had taken this for his Ground and Foundation; that the three Divine Persons are three eternal infinite Spirits, each of them a God: but the three Gods are made up again into one God, by being internally conscious to one another's Thoughts, and Operations.  
Dr. S—th, in two (English) Books, by him written, and in three Latin Letters, excepts against this Explication of the Trinity; as false, heretical, and directly introducing three Gods. He saith, as we do; that the Deity is one numerical individual Nature, Substance, Mind, Spirit; with one only Understanding, Will, and Energy. As to the Divine Persons, they are the one individual Nature or Essence of God, with three Relative Properties: each Property considered with the Divine Essence, is called a Person. What these Properties and Persons are, hath been said already.  
The Bp. of Worcester, seeing in what danger an old Friend is, undertakes; first, to excuse Dr. Sherlock, from the Imputation of Heresy: and then, to reconcile him to Dr. S—th and the Nominals. He enlarges himself, on these three Points.  
1. That Dr. Sherlock's Explication, not only will do no manner of Service, towards clearing the Difficulties in the Doctrine of the Trinity; but that it introduces a specific Divine Nature: which is inconsistent with the Divine Perfections. Pref. p. 29.  
He adds, at p. 30. 'Tis impossible to conceive, that the same individual Substance should be in three Persons; as the Catholic Church teaches: if those Persons have peculiar Substances, of their own; as Dr. Sherlock affirms and contends. Immediately he citys an excellent Reasoning of Maimonides, by which to know, when Men affirm three Gods; and concludes, that Dr. Sherlock's Explication differs not from what Maimonides proves to be an introducing more Gods, p. 30. He forbears not to own, at p. 31. that he thinks it impossible to reconcile (Dr. Sherlock's) three individual Essences or Substances, with (the Catholic Churches) one individual Divine Essence: and that the former looks too like asserting three Gods, and yet but one.  
2. But now, how to save his Friend, from the secular Arm? He says, in short; Dr. Sherlock holds the Article of the Trinity, and only mistakes in the Explication of it: but it is not Heresy, he saith, when a Man assents to a Fundamental Article; and only mistakes in the Explication, Interpretation, or Sense of it. Pref. p. 22, 23.  
But I fear, our Brother S—th. is too quicksighted, to let this pass; he will assuredly say: that an Article, whether fundamental or not fundamental, and the Explication or Sense of such Article, are the very same thing; and that an Article falsely interpreted or explained, is by no means the Article, but a Contradiction to the Article. He will certainly laugh out, that his Antagonists can be no way excused from Heresy; but by giving up, at once, the whole Doctrine of the Catholic Church. For the Doctrine of the Church, is most certainly yielded up, if once it be granted; that a Man believes her Articles, while he expounds or takes them in a wrong Sense of them. At this rate, will he say, Philoponus, Joachim, and Gentilis, were good Catholics: for what makes a Catholic, is not holding the Article in the true Meaning of it; but in any Meaning, in a false Meaning, or a contrary Meaning. I shall leave Dr. S—th, to argue it out with the Bp. and pass to the next.  
3. He alleges, last of all; that though Dr. Sherlock affirms three individual Essences, three eternal Minds, three infinite Spirits; which is Heresy: yet he also says, the Father communicated his Divine Nature or Essence, wholly and entirely, to the Son and Spirit, without Division or Separation; which is Orthodoxy. We ought therefore to say, Dr. Sherlock has only contradicted himself, but is not a Heretic: He holds what indeed is Heresy, three Substances, three Minds, and three Spirits; but he holds also the Truth, one individual Substance, one Deity. His Lordship touches upon this, divers times; as well in his Book, as in his Preface: nay he is so satisfied with it, that at p. 107. he cannot (he saith) now see; what is the difference, between Dr. S—th and his Nominals, and Dr. Sherlock and the Realists.  
The short of this Defence, is; that if one part of a Contradiction is true and orthodox, the other false and heretical: the Person affirming it, shall be denominated, not from his Heresy; but from the orthodox Part of his Contradiction. For my part, I very readily agree, to this (charitable) way, of bringing off the Dr. but then, let the Charity be truly Catholic; let us extend it to others, as well as to him; and else it is not Charity, but Partiality. A Motley of Heresy and Orthodoxy, his Lordship says, is to be named a part potiori; from the sound part, without reckoning at all of the unsound: but then, I pray, let Philoponus, Joachim, and Gentilis, be judged by the same Law. For they said, as the Doctor does; three infinite Substances, three eternal Minds and Spirits: and they asserted also, as he does, one Deity, one Essence, and one Substance, by the mutual Inexistence of the Persons; the Subordination of the second, and third, to the first; and the concurrence of all of them to the Making and Government of the World; while Dr. Sherlock resolves the whole Unity of the Deity, and of the Divine Substance, into only the mutual Consciousness of the three Personal Gods. And this, not only in all his former Books; but in his last Pamphlet, or the Distinction between Nominal and Real Trinitarians examined, in Answer to the Disinterested: A Book so monstrously erroneous, that if it escapes all other hands; I think verily his Second against the Jesuit Sabrand, would take up Arms against him; the Footboy would detect, and expose, his gross Heterodoxies.  
We have heard his Lordship's way of ending all Controversies, concerning the Blessed Trinity; that is to say, among Friends, Persons of the same Church and Communion: namely, if they will but say, what all have always said, even Arius, Philoponus, Dr. Sherlock and Socinus; that there is but one Deity, and one Divine Substance: let 'em contradict this, as much as they will, provided they do not (absolutely, and in Terms) renounce it; they shall be Catholics. Dr. Pain, in his Letter to my Lord the Bp. of R. has much the same Salvo. For after he had said (Postscr. p. 25.) that God or the Trinity is an Original Eternal Mind; with an Eternal Logos (Wisdom) or Substantial Ennoia or Knowledge; and an Eternal Divine Spirit proceeding from both: He concludes (p. 26.) that whosoever believes this Trinity, whether with or without Explications, whether with right or with wrong Explications; he is undoubtedly Orthodox. And at p. 11. he commends the wise Bishops of the Roman Church; who, though they have Plenitude of Ecclesiastical Authority, suffer the Jesuits and other Learned Men, to vent their different Sentiments in these high Questions: without interposing, much less censuring either Party; so long as they subscribe, and consent to the general Doctrine of the Church. They allow their Writers to say, there are three Gods, in a Personal Sense; or three Personal Gods: and to profess, three Eternals, and three Omnipotents. But then he saith, this Favour is extended, only to Friends, to one another; to Sons of the Church: for if Men of another Communion, make the least Trip in explaining what is above all Explication, nay is incomprehensible and unintelligible; immediately they shall be charged with Blasphemy, and Atheism. He (not obscurely) intimates; that the like Christian Charity, Love, and good Will, (so he speaks p. 13.) should be used among Protestants, especially among Clergymen, who are of the same Faith. If our Friend S—th accords to this, so will we: for we are of the same Faith with the English Church, for the Church of England never believed or taught three Eternal All-perfect Minds and Spirits; the denial of which, is the only Heresy of which we are guilty: we submit to all other Explications of the Trinity, though (as we have said) we utterly dislike some Words and Ways of expressing them.  
His Lordship has also reprinted his Book, concerning the Satisfaction; with a new Preface, to it. What he hath affirmed there, concerning that Point; more than has been granted, and assented to, in these (and 20 more public) Papers; is not the Doctrine, either of the Catholic Church, or of the Church of England: 'tis only the (unauthorised) Opinion and Fancy, of particular Writers; who are as various about those Matters, as they are about most others.  
My Conclusion, Sir; seeing we have been so roughly, as well as unjustly, treated by these Antagonists; shall be only to yourself: That I am,  
(With much Respect, and Affection) Yours. March 10. 1696.   
FINIS.