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

An Answer to an Anonimous Pamphleteer, etc.  
A Paper fell lately into my hands, which upon perusual, I found to be and Invective against the Person of St. Athanasius, and the Author of it a professed Enemy to those Mysteries contained in his Creed, which he impugns; and fearing left this should prove a stumbling-block to some of the Illiterate Vulgar, to see the chief Mysteries of Christianity, to be so openly attacked by one who denies the Trinity, the Incarnation of the Divine Word, and the Divinity of Christ; and yet asserts the Scriptures, the Old and New Testament, to be the Word of God: I resolved to answer the Arguments of this Deift, which I here undertake.  
And because this Author hath involved himself in obscurity and confusion, I shall endeavour by some previous Observations, to clear the way to this Discourse in a Matter so difficult and nice, and so remote from Sense; by this means not to confound the Reader, but to render the Discourse so clear and conspicuous, as the Nature of these Sublime Mysteries are capable of; where I shall wave those Indignities and Aspersions which this Author casts upon the Person of St. Athanasius, leaving this to the Learned Historians, and confine myself wholly to the Scope of such Dogmatical Principles as he endeavours to subvert.  
My first Observation is the nature of the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity, 
1 Observation.  wherein all Orthodox Christians hold as an Article of Faith, one only God, and Three Divine Persons, (viz.) the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, by a real Identity between the Divine Nature, and the Personality of these Three Persons, so that the Divinity or Godhead is singular, and indivisible; but the Personalities are really distinct from each other, and yet really identified with the Divine Essence, so that all together make unum summum Ens, as the Council of Lateran terms it.  
A second Observation is. 
2 Observation.  that there are three manners of speaking in this Sacred Mystery, which ought strictly to be observed.  
1. Some expressions are absolute, as the Godhead, the Divine Essence, or Divinity, with its concomitant Attributes, where no mention is made of the Divine Revelations, nor of number.  
II. There is another manner of speaking, by notional terms, as the Divines call them; such are the Paternity, the Filiation, the Passion, Spiration, all in abstracto, which are always to be understood with relation to each other, and constitute number.  
III. A third way of speaking is, when such words are used as signify the Divine Nature contracted with the Personalities, or notional Predicates, as the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, where Relations and Number are to be admitted.  
A third Observation is drawn from the two former, 
3 Observation.  That all the absolute Perfections which are in the Father, are also in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost; not in equality, for where there is equality, there is also a relation between the perfections that are equal; but the self same numerical and individual perfections which are absolute Predicates of the Divinity, are in all and every one of the Persons, per communicationem idiomatum. The reason is, because all the three Personalities are identified with the Divine Nature, which is the root of all the absolute Perfections of the Divinity; so these absolute Perfections are also really identified with all and every one of the Divine Persons, according to that received Axiom of the Divines; Omnia dedit Pater Filio praeter esse Patrem, so that the Father gave the Son even the fecundity of active Spiration, whatsoever the Greeks in vain object against it, as I shall make it more largely appear in a Treatise of the Trinity, which I intent shortly to put forth. And so I proceed to answer the ill-grounded allegations of this Deist or Atheist, against the Orthodox Doctrine of the Church.  
His first attempt is against that saying of Athanasius; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance, for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost; but the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son and Holy Ghost is all one. On these words he thus passeth his Censure: Plain as if a man should say, Peter, James, and John, being three Persons, are one Man, and one Man is these three distinct Persons, Peter, James, and John. A very Learned Observation; he compares three distinct human Persons, having three distinct human Natures, with the three Divine Persons of the Sacred Trinity, where the same individual Divine Nature is in all three; this is singular, that is, numerical; this is indivisible, that is divisible; this can constitute no more Gods but one, that must constitute three distinct men. The Reason is obvious, because the denomination of God [being a term absolute] is taken from the Divine Nature, so that if the Divine Nature be singular, the Godhead must also be singular. As the denomination of Man is taken from the Human Nature, so because the Human Nature is multiplied, the denomination of Man must also be multiplied. How obvious is this to any vulgar Capacity? How little Reason had this Author to call this Doctrine of Athanasias, and of the Church of God, a ridiculous attempt, a barbarous indignity, a monstrous proposition? He might more prudently have waved the discovery of his illiterate Genius herein.  
Yet he goes on in the same strain of confounding the absolute Perfections of the Divine Essence, with the notional Expressions of the Persons; for on these Words of Athanasius, Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance, he adds, But how can we not confound the Persons that have but one numerical Substance? And how can we not but divide the Substance, which we find in three distinct divided Persons? There is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost. To which he subjoins, Then the Son is not the Father, nor is the Father the Son, nor the Holy Ghost either of them. 'Tis confessed. What then? Why says he, If the Father is not the Son, and yet is the one true God, than the Son is not the one true God, because he is not the Father. I deny this illation as false and nugatory on this present subject. Now to the proof, for how can the Son be the one true God, if he is not be who is the one true God? I answer, sub distinctione; if the Son be not he who has the complete and adequate essential constitution of the one true God, than he cannot be God, I grant it; if the Son be not another Person, namely the Father, and yet hath the complete and adequate essential constitution of the one true God, he cannot be God. I deny it. The fallacy of the Author consists in this, that he grossly confounds the notional and relative Predicates with the absolute and essential Predicates; for consider the sublime Mystery that we are upon, and what hath been said above in the third Observation upon it, and you will find the Error; for this Deist insists upon two Persons, the Father; and the Son; and supposing the Father to be the one true God, he infers that therefore the Son, which is a distinct Person, is not the one true God, and yet the same, though a different Person, yet hath all the absolute and essential perfections with the Father; he hath the same numerical Essence, Nature and Divinity with the Father. Now I demand, whether it be possible that he should have the complete and adequate essential Constitution of the Godhead, and yet not be the one true God? For the Godhead is singular, wherein a number is Chimerical; you had as good tell me that one may have the adequate Constitution of a Man, which is animal rationale, and yet not be a man, which is impossible, for where there is the complete essence of a thing, there is the thing itself, which is nothing elf but its complete essence.  
Then he proceeds: In the Creed the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Therefore I ask, says this Author, whether the Glory and Majesty with which the Son and Spirit are Glorious and Majestical be the same in number with which the Father is Glorious and Majestical? I answer Affirmatively. Then it follows, says this Author, that the Glory and Majesty of these Persons is neither equal nor coeternal, which he attempts to prove; because equality and co-eternity import a distinction between the things equal and coeternal; therefore I distinguish the sense of this Illation, the Glory and Majesty of these Persons, if taken absolutely and essentially, is neither equal nor coeternal, I grant it; if taken notionally and personally; I deny it. The meaning of this distinction is cleared by the former Observations, for if you take them personally, they constitute number, and ground relations and correlations to each other; but if understood essentially and absolutely, they do neither; in plain terms, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which are three distinct Persons, are equally Glorious by the same numerical and individual Glory which is singular and essential to the Divinity. But he replies, That in case the Glory of the three Persons be numerically the same, then so are also all the other Attributes; whence it ensues, that there is no real distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but are only three Names of the same thing without any distinction, as the Sebellians hold. I am sorry that I have to deal with a Person so meanly versed in Divinity, as not to distinguish the Attributes of the Divinity from the notional and relative Predicates; the Attributes are singular, and are all communicated to every one of the Persons, because they are absolute Predicates, but the Relations are peculiar to each Person; so the Father hath communicated to the Son all the Divine Attributes, and what else is peculiar to the Divine Essence, but hath not given him his Paternity, as is noted above, for Paternity is a relative Predicate, peculiar to one Person alone, and not communicable; the same with proportion is to be said of the Filiation, and passive Spiration.  
In the next place, says this Profane Libeler, This Creed teaches that the Father is Incomprehensible, Uncreated, Eternal, Almighty, the Son is Uncreated, Eternal, Almighty etc. Also that each of these Persons by himself is God, and Lord, yet there are not three Gods, nor Lords, nor three Incomprehensibles, etc.  
Now if in imitation of this, a Man should have a mind to say the Father is a Person, the Son is a Person, the Holy Ghost is a Person, yet not three Persons, but one Person; I would know why this were not as good Grammar and Arithmetic, as when Athanasius says, the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God, yet not three Gods, but one God?  
I answer, that whatever Grammar, or Arithmetic there is in it. I am sure there is no true Divinity in it; for this Deistical Author insists here still upon the same error, for the word Person is a relative and notional expression, whereof there are three in God: but the word God is an absolute and essential term, which is singular, and cannot be multiplied, as hath been often reiterated in this Discourse; but he demands, Doth not a man contradict himself, when the terms of his negation are the same with th●se in his affirmation? Now for Logic. I answer, That two contradictory Propositions ought to be ejusdem de eodem; that is, ejusdem praedicati de eodem subjecto, as, Angelus est Spiritus: Angelus non est Spiritus. There are three Gods, there are not three Gods; there are three Persons, there are not three Persons, etc. But where is the least appearance of any Contradiction in all this?  
Yet to make this the more conspicuous, I must take each Proposition in pieces, and scan the several parts thereof according to the rates of Logic. For in these three Propositions, the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God; the Subject of the first is the Father, the Subject of the second is the Son, the Subject of the third is the Holy Ghost; these three Subjects are three distinct Person, Really different from each other. The Predicate of the first is God, this is an absolute and essential Term, not capable of being multiplied, for it is the Deity itself which is singular, and therefore the Predicate of the second Proposition, which is also God, must be the same Deity with the first, not another distinct Deity, for a second God would be a mere Chimaera: so likewise the Predicate of the third Proposition is also God, which still imports the same Deity, this term God not being capable of any multiplicity; so that the Subject of these three Propositions are three different Persons Really distinct from each other; the Predicate of the same three Propositions, which is God, hath for its Object the singular Essence of the Divine Nature, and the Propositions being all affirmative, do intentionally identify the Deity with the subject of the same Propositions, which are the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as they are identified a part rei, wherein consists the verity of the same Propositions.  
As concerning the three last Propositions the case is very different; for in the first of them, which is this, the Father is a Person, though the Subject be the same as in the three former Propositions, yet the Predicate is very different; for in the first of these last Propositions the Predicate is a Person, a generical term, common to all Persons; the Predicate of the second is also a Person, but distinct from the former in application, as the Mystery teaches; so likewise the Predicate of the third is a Person; but these Propositions being all affirmative, cannot be verified, but by applying that generical Term a Person to different and distinct individuums; for an affirmative Proposition cannot be true, except there be an Identity between the Subject and the Predicate ex parte objecti; now the Filiation is a singular individuation, which cannot be identified with any other Personality, therefore the Propositions import a multiplicity of Persons, as the three former do import a singularity of the Deity. Hence it is apparent, that we cannot say, yet not three Persons, but one Person, as we say, yet not three Gods, but one God.  
What follows in the Author, is mere stuff, and deserves no further answer, for he goes upon a false supposition, which no Orthodox Christian will admit; namely, that there are two sorts of true Gods, three personal Gods, and besides, one Essential God; whereas the Christian Faith never admitted but one true God, who by his Omnipotence Created this Inferior and Superior Wold, and by his infinite Prudence and Providence preserveth and governeth all things; wherefore we deny the supposition as false and Heretical, as will be obvious to any who considers what hath been already said in this Treatise, especially in the first and third Observation.  
But this great Oracle of the Deists goes on upon the subsequent passages of this Creed, and particularly upon these words: The Son is of the Father alone, not Made, nor Created, but Begotten; to which he answers, That if the Creedmaker had spoke here of the Creation of the Son by Divine Power on the Virgin Mary, it would have been true, that the Son is neither Made, nor Created, but Begotten; but then the first part of the Article would be false, that the Son is of the Father alone; for he that has a Father and a Mother, is of Both. But since he speaks of the (pretended) Eternal Generation, the latter part of the Article is false, and inconsistent with the first part of it.  
The mere explanation of the terms Made, Created, and Begotten, will evacuate this difficulty. That which is Made or Created proceeds from the Maker or Creator, as an Effect from its Cause, by the mediation of a real action, or causalty between the cause and the effect; that which is begotten is produced by Generation; but how shall we distinguish Generation from the production of the Effect from its Cause? I answer, that according to the known definition, admitted and approved of in the Schools of Philosophers and Divines: Generation is Origo viventis à vivente, à principio conjuncto, in Similitudinem naturae. Now to admit a real Action or Causality between the Father and the Son in the Eternal Generation of the Divine Word, were to make a change in the Divine Essence, ad intra, of that immutable God that can admit of no change. Whence it unavoidaably follows, that the Eternal Son of God is neither Made, nor Created; but how how then can we make it appear that he is Begotten? I answer, because he is produced by Generation, according to the definition given; for he is produced by the Divine Understanding, as related to all Creatures possible, by a clear and conspicuous representation, but especially a lively Image of all the Perfections of the Divinity, which makes him to be in similitudinem naturae, as I shall more largely explicate and prove in the Treatise of the Trinity, which I intent shortly to bring to light. But to talk of a Mother (as this Author doth) is an impertinent indignity offered to the Divine Word, and savours too much of the mean thoughts of the ignorant Vulgar.  
Next in the Athanasian Creed follows, that the Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son, neither Made, nor Created, nor Begotten, but Proceeding. Here this Deist Cavils first with the Holy Ghost's proceeding from the Son, contrary to the Tenet of the Greek Church, for which he citys that Text of Scripture, John 15.26. When the Comforter is come, which I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. Doth this Text prove that the Holy Ghost doth not proceed from the Son? it only asserts that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, which we all grant, but whether or no it proceedeth also from the Son, it doth not determine; but I shall prove this at large in my Treatise of the Trinity.  
Secondly, he says (subjoins this Author) that the Holy Ghost is not begotten, but proceeding; yet he allegeth that it is confessed by the most Learned Trinitarians, that Begotten and Proceeding differ nothing at all; But I would fain know who those Learned Trinitarians are; for it is well known that the second Person of the Trinity, therefore is Begotten, because he is produced by the Understanding, which represents the Deity, and the Creatures possible, so that by the internal virtue of his production, he is intended to be in similitudinem [whence he is called the Divine Word] naturae, whereas the Holy Ghost proceeds by the Will, which is no representative Power, but be proceeds by an act of Love of the same Divinity; who doth not see that these two are far different from each other? and this clearly solves that frivolous Discourse which follows; that in counting right we should say two Father, two Sons, and three Holy Ghosts, or Spirits; for which saying there is no ground at all, as appears by the difference given between Begotten, and Proceeding.  
Next in the Creed follows, None is afore, or after other; none greater, or less than another.  
Yet the Son himself saith, John 14.28. the Father is greater than 1. I answer, That the Son says not this of his Divinity, but being Hypostatically united to flesh, he spoke it when he was in flesh of his Humanity; none is afore or after other. I ask, says this Deist, whether the Son doth not, as he is a Son, derive both Life and Godhead from the Father? I answer affirmatively. But, says he; if the Father gave to the Son Life and Godhead, he must have both before he could communicate or give either of them to the Son. I answer, All this argues only prioritatem originis, for as much as the Father was the Origine of all that is in the Son, but all was done from Eternity; so there could be no prioritas temporis, for before Eternity there was no time; neither could there be any prioritas naturae, such as there is in a Cause in respect of its Effect, since the Father was not the Cause, and the Son the Effect, for all Causes produce their Effects by the Mediation of an Action, whereof the Cause is the Origine, and the Effects is the term, wh●ch receives the action, and subjects it in itself, as the Philosophers teach: Now the Eternal Son of God was produced by an act of the Divine Understanding, which doth not operate by acts distinct from itself, as Men and Angels do; but all acts of the Divine Intellect and Will have a real identity with the Divine Nature and Essence of God, as the Divines teach; for else if God should understand by distinct acts, those acts must inform the Divine Understanding, which would make a change in God, and so destroy his Immutability, as is apparent. The same with proportion is to be said of the Holy Ghost, who proceeds by an act of Love from the Divine Will, no less than that act of the Divine Intellect produces the Divine Word, or its Hypostasis.  
With what reason, now, can this Author still go on in his wilful ignorance? He often saith that this Creed contains many Contradictions, and as many Impossibilities as Trabsubstantiation, and yet in all his Discourse, he hath not alleged two Propositions with a contradictory opposition which follows out of the Doctrine of this Creed; nay, I confidently assert, that neither he, nor any of his Sect, can allege any one contradiction issuing from the same Doctrine. Let the pretended contradiction be assigned, and we are ready to answer it, and to discover its fallacy; but to blunder and vapour as this Author does, that there are Two Fathers, Two Sons, and Three Holy Ghosts, and yet prove nothing of all this, is not to proceed like a Scholar, much less like a Divine, but is wholly loss of time.  
How often must I inculcate this Orthodox Truth? That in the ineffable Mystery of the Divine Trinity, the characteristical notion of the Father is his innascibility, together with his paternity and fecundity of active spiration; of the Son is his filiation and fecundity of active spiration; of the Holy Ghost, is his passive Spiration alone; These Three Persons, as they mutually are correlatives to each other, so they are really distinct from each other; they are capable of Multiplication, and constitute a number. The Father hath in himself (besides the relative Predicates) all the absolute Predicates and Perfections that are contained in the Divine Nature and Essence, all the Attributes of the Divinity. The Father hath Communicated to the Son all the absolute Perfections of the Divine Nature, and the notional Predicate of active Spiration. To the Holy Ghost, the Father and the Son have communicated all the Divinity, with all the absolute Attributes and Perfections thereunto belonging.  
So that although these three Persons are three in number, yet the Divinity of them all is the selfsame individual and singular Deity; for the same Divine Nature that is in the Father, is also in the Son, and Holy Ghost. Now this Author would have us to multiply the Divinity as the Persons are multiplied, thereby to lead his Reader into a Labyrinth of Errors, by acknowledging more Gods than one; which in effect is no better than rank Paganism. Must we follow the conduct of his wild Genius, because he pretends to Demonstrations, which in effect are mere Improbabilities; or adhere to those Sacred Truths which are delivered to us by holy Writ, and are backed by Divine Authority? But let us proceed with him to the Incarnation of the Divine Word.  
The Athanasian Creed from hence proceeds to the Incarnation of the Divine Word; thus, The right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our ●ord Jesus Christ the Son of God is both God and Man. To which words this Author replies, That then the Lord Christ is two Persons, for as he is God, he is the second Person of the Trinity; and as he is man (a perfect man) he is also a Person, for a Rational Soul vitally united to a Humane Body, is a Person. I answer, that a Rational Soul vitally united to a Humane Body is the complete Nature of a Man, complete I say, ratione naturae, but to be complete also ratione Personae, you must add to this complete Nature a subsistentia, which makes up the complete Suppositum, or Hypostasis of a man ratione personae.  
But in Christ there was no need of this Humane subsistentia, for the Divine Word assumed the complete Humane Nature, not the Human Person, as Nestorius said; for the Humanity of Christ subsists by the Personality of the Divine Word, which supplies abundantly all defects, and functions which the Humane Personality would exercise, were it present; so that the Humane Personality would be superfluous in Christ, and of no use at all.  
To what he adds, [viz.] Let the Athanasians then Confess that Christ was not God, which is the truth. Here he plainly professeth his Error, and flatly denies the Divinity of Christ. It is not my design to prove at large in this short Treatise, the Divinity of Christ, which the Divines have effectually proved in the matter of Incarnation. I shall therefore only hint at some Particulars: As the fulfilling of the Prophecies of the Old Prophets, the Testimony of the Eternal Father in a Voice from Heaven: This is my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; the often asseveration of Christ himself, confirmed by many strange and prodigious Miracles, and sealed by his Death, the Reluctancy of Nature at his Crucifixion, his Resurrection after Death, which none could effect but by the mighty hand of the Omnipotent; the Universal attestation of all the Apostles, in Confirmation whereof they all sacrificed their Lives, with other pregnant motives contained in the Sacred Word of God, which are too prolix for this short Treatise; all which being duly prondered and considered, are able to convince, not only an indifferent judgement, but also the most obstinate and perversest judgement that can be, if it be swayed by Reason, and work them into a steadfast belief of the Divinity of Christ; wherefore I shall wave (in this place) any further dilatation of my Discourse upon this Subject.  
Now we proceed to examine the Hypostatical Union between the Divinity and Humanity of Christ, how we can make it out, that any Union can be of that Nature as to unite two Natures, whereof the one is Infinite, and the other Finite? for the Athanasian Creed asserts, that though Christ be God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by Conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the Manhood into God; one, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person; for as the reasonable Soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Against this the Deist argues, that in the Personal Union is between Finite and Infinite, which is impossible. For we must either suppose that Finite and Infinite are commensurate, that is, equal, which every one knows is false; or that the Finite is United but to some part of the Infinite, and is disjoined from the rest. A very Learned Reflection! For who is ignorant of God's Eternity, and Immensity, or Ubiquity? Which are two of the Divine Attributes. All Created Durations flow successively by parts, whereof none are at any time in being, but only those that are present; for to day, yesterday is past, its duration is destroyed, and to morrow is not yet come, its duration is not yet produced; and so of all Created Durations; whether this be done only by indivisible instances, as Zeno Taught, or by indivisible instances, and divisible parts, which was Aristotle's Opinion in his Treatise De continuo Successivo.  
But God's Eternity is far different; for this admits of no parts, but is one indivisible duration, essentially determined to co-exist to all Created duration, and Eternity; there are no parts destroyed, and others to come, not yet in being; for by the same indivisible duration whereby the Divinity existed from Eternity, he exists now, and existed yesterday, and shall exist to morrow, and ever, and yet loses no parts of its duration, because it hath none. Hence Boetius, and with him the current of Divines, gives this definition of it, Aeternitas Dei est indeterminabilis vitae, tota simul & perfect a possessio; a perfect possession of an endless life, altogether, tota simul, not by parts, as it is in all Created durations.  
The Immensity of God Consists in this, that he is essentially determined to all Created space, whensoever or wheresoever it exists; so that God by his Immensity, without any parts, is actually present to all Created space or place, how distant soever the parts of space are from one another; to which God corresponds not by several parts, but by an increate definitive ubication, whereby he is torus in toto, & totus in qualibet parte; all the Deity is in all the space, and all the Deity is in every part and particle of space, wheresoever, or whensoever existent; as an Angel, which is indivisible, is in the place which he Occupies by a definitive ubication; for the whole Angel is at the same time in all the space, and the whole Angel at the same time is in every part and particle of the same space; so is the Soul of Man, which is likewise indivisible, in a humane Body; for the whole Soul is in all the Body, and the whole Soul is in every part and particle of the Body; so that the Soul exists in the Body by a definitive ubication, whereas the Body at the same time exists in space by a circumscriptive ubication, whereby its parts are collocated so, as that one part of the Body corresponds to one part of the space, and another part of the Body to another part of the space. Now to the Objection.  
The Humanity of Christ is constituted in place by a circumscriptive ubication, where the Divinity, the whole Divine Word is intimately present to him; what commensuration more than this is necessary for a conjunction between the Humanity, and the Divine Word? For that the Divine Word is in all places else, by his immensity, is impertinent to this case, as long as the Divine Word is in irely and intimately present to the whole Humanity, where the Hypostatical Union may exercise its functions of connecting the Humanity to the Divinity; for it is too gross an imagination of the Divinity, that part of it should correspond to the Humanity, and part not; for in the Divine Nature there are no parts, but all is indivisible.  
Now for the Hypostatical Union, it is subjected in the Humanity, and terminated to the Divinity, or Divine Word; for the Essence of God is uncapable of receiving any thing distinct from itself. And 'tis in vain to tell me that this includes as many Contradictions as Mr. Johnson's Treatise against Transubstantiation doth. Produce those Contradictions that this Mystery doth include, and we shall use our endeavour to solve them.  
The second Objection is grounded upon an Error, that the Union between the Divine Word, and the Humanity of Christ connects two Persons, as Nestorius would have it; but this error is already exploded. But it is in vain to sift all the extent of Nature, for a parity to the Hypostatical Union of the Divine Word to the Humanity of Christ, which is transcendent above all the power of Nature, where the two distinc: Lives, Memories, Reasons and free Wills are no obstacle at all to it; for these two Natures do not hinder the Operations and Functions of each other.  
Thus I have run through all the Arguments, pretended Contradictions, and Impossibilities, which this Author allegeth against those Sacred Mysteries of Christianity; wherein I have endeavoured to give a satisfactory solution to them all. Tho' he hath insisted upon such Mysteries as are easiest to be impugned, and hardest to be defended. For they are such as are delivered to us by the Sacred Scripture, as backed by Divine Authority, and are not within the reach of Natural Reason to demonstrate. ' For it were no less than a temerarious presumption in any man that should attempt to prove any one of these Mysteries by Natural Reason; Mysteries that are so sublime, and elevated above the reach of Natural Reason, that they are not pervious to the Wit or Capacity either of Man or Angel; which if Faith did not teach, Reason could not explicate; so that we receive them from Holy Writ (as attested by Divine Authority) with great submission and veneration, and are ready to vindicate them from all pretended impossibilities, Contradictions, and other Difficulties which the Mahometans, Jews, Deists, Atheists, or other Infidels can muster up against them. And I hope in this short Treatise I have not swerved from the received and approved Doctrine of the Reformed Protestant Church of England, to whose Authority and Correction I submit.   
FINIS.