THE eminently Learned, Wise, and Good Bishop of Down and Connor, Jeremy Taylor, having affirm'd and prov'd from express, clear, and full Attestations of Scripture, from the Reasonableness of the thing, from the Testimonies of Fa­thers, and later Schoolmen, that all the Articles of the Christian Faith are plainly set down in Scripture, did not yet scruple to acknowledg, ‘That there were still in Scripture innumerable Places containing in them great Mysteries; but then those Mysteries, he thought, were so involv'd with Clouds and Darkness, so cover'd with Allegories and Garments of Rhetorick, that God may seem to have left them as Tri­als of our Industry, as Arguments of our Imperfections, Incentives to our Longings after the clearest Revelations of Eternity, and as Oc­casions and Opportunities of Mutual Charity and Toleration.’

That the Mysterious Passages of Scripture, are Trials ever like to find Work for our Industry, and convincing Arguments of our Imperfecti­ons, is evident from the little satisfaction which the many various at­tempted Interpretations have given; and I question not but this Reflec­tion may incline devouter Minds ardently to long for the brighter Revela­tions [Page 2] of Eternity: but how few are they who make the obscure Mysteries of Scripture, Occasions and Opportunities of Mutual Charity and Tole­ration? In truth it is but reasonable to judg that the All-wise God design'd them for this good end; but the general Event which has accidentally follow'd, through the Indisposition of unwise and ill-natur'd Men, is, that they are made Occasions of venting bitter hatred, and wreaking zea­lous Malice one upon another.

Could Religious Controversies be manag'd without intemperate Heat, breach of Friendship and good Neighbourhood, the advantages issuing thence might perhaps be more and greater than could be easily esteem'd and numbred; we should certainly reap Fruits worthy our Industry and Study, either by improvements of our Knowledg, or sense of our Ignorance; we should happily teach, or at least civilly use one another: but if we are forsaken of common Prudence, as well as Christian Charity, we shall turn all our Disputes about Religion, and [when we are forbid them] every thing else into the Instruments of barbarous Cruelty, and thereby create a greater mischief to the Body Politick, whereof we are all Mem­bers, than a wise Conqueror would compel us to suffer, or a fair Enemy wish.

It is out of an honest desire of being serviceable, not to demonstrate what is the certain true sense of a Mysterious Article, [I would sooner promise to solve all the puzling Phaenomena in Nature, or fix the time for the Downfal of the Turk, and Conversion of the Jews] but to prevent the mischievous Consequences of various Interpretations, that I am going to consider,

• I. What has rais'd the Disputes at present agitated among us.
• II. What has inflam'd them to that dangerous Excess, which in time 'tis fear'd may disturb the publick Quiet.
• III. What's the proper way to remedy the Mischiefs which have hap­pen'd, and to prevent farther.

It is to me evident that the original of our present Disputes can be re­ferr'd to no one Cause; many Persons, Ecclesiasticks and others, diversly mov'd, have ingag'd in them. There is one sort of Men, who have been sometimes distinguish'd by the Name of Ʋnitarians, and by angry Adversaries reproachfully call'd Socinians; but [to deal justly on all sides] who ought to be numbred with the Orthodox, because they not only embrace the Doctrines of the Church of England, but also are contented to use her School-terms, which they once thought, and do still think [Page 3] not so fit to express her sound Doctrines. These Persons, as to me seems probable, have engag'd in our Religious Controversies,

1. Out of an aversion from taking things upon trust. This Motive must be allow'd to be reasonable and just, because he that gives up his Faith to human Authority, is beholden to his good Fortune, whenever the Opinions which fall to his lot, have any thing of truth or usefulness in them; and as often as they happen to be illgrounded and noxious, he de­serves all the evil Consequences which he suffers by them; for if he had made use of his Reason before he gave his Assent, there was at least a pro­bability that he might have known better, and guided himself more safely. The Bereans are commended in Scripture who would not take things upon trust, no not from the Mouth of an Apostle; which is enough to justify, without farther arguing, all them who are concern'd in Religi­ous Controversies, mov'd thereunto by an aversion from taking things up­on trust. If I were writing to do service to these Orthodox Unitarians, [for that must be granted to be their Character, now they have explain'd themselves, and taken off the jealousy which the Church had conceiv'd of them] if I were writing purposely to do them service, I might here ex­patiate in liberal Praises due to that noble Disposition of Mind, which takes nothing upon trust: We are beholden to it for all the great Improve­ments of Knowledg, which serve the Necessities and Comforts of Life; and not only so, but methinks we owe to it our very Christian Ortho­doxy it self: for an easy implicit Believer will never stand with his Su­pream, be it Alcoran, or what it will, which he is required to subscribe; but the wary Examiner, who searches the Scripture that he may see whe­ther things are as the Church teaches, no sooner perceives the truth of her Articles, but he holds unmoveably stedfast to them, and unfeignedly venerates his holy Mother. But this is not my business now: There­fore,

2. Another Motive, which I am perswaded has influenc'd these Ortho­dox Unitarians to enter into Religious Controversy, is an honest desire to be serviceable to the Church, and useful to well-dispos'd less-knowing Christians, by instructing and informing them. Whether these Persons are Ecclesiasticks or Laymen it matters not much; for I suppose it will be granted, that it is lawful for one Man to inform and instruct his Friend, Neighbour, or Countryman, either in private Discourse, or publick Print, tho he be not a Minister of the Gospel, or perhaps not Episcopally ordain'd.

3. I will not say but that these Unitarians may have been thrust upon Controversy by a forward zeal to defend the Mysterious Doctrines of the [Page 4] Church, against the Heathenish Interpretations of some eminent unwary Tritheists. Zeal in defence of Doctrines which are certainly true, or at least unfeignedly believ'd to be so, and against Errors really pernicious, or generally suspected as such by good Men; if it spend its force only to esta­blish the former, and to refute the latter, abstaining from all Illegal, In­jurious and Unchristian Treatment of erroneous Persons, may pass for a vertuous and laudable temper of Mind. Men give an assent, an unfeign­ed assent to Doctrines, because they believe them to be true; and they en­deavour to perswade others of the truth of those Doctrines whereof they are perswaded themselves, because they suppose that the same may be be­neficial to others, as well as to themselves: On the contrary, they seri­ously dispute against those Doctrines, which they imagine to have an evil influence, prejudicing the nobler Interests of Mankind. To me then it ap­pears, that the arguing and disputing Temper is cherish'd and prompted by good Nature; but if Wisdom does not direct, and Charity accompa­ny it, if it grows wild and imperious, and uses them ill, whom it can­not convince, it ceases to be a laudable vertuous Temper, and becomes quite another thing. Now whether these Unitarians have vindicated the Mysterious Doctrines of the Church of England, by proper cogent Ar­guments, and in an obliging Christian manner, without illegal injurious treatment of Dissenters; that's a Question which ought not rashly to be determin'd for or against them. That I may more impartially deal in my Censures, I defer the Consideration of it till my method shall lead me to consider also how proper and how cogent have been the Arguments; how winning and civil their manner of handling them, who have made it their business to oppose these unfortunate, but perhaps not justly suspected Unitarians: for to speak freely, I am afraid that all which either of them must pretend to, is to have committed the fewest Mistakes, and to have trespass'd least against the righteous equitable Laws of Christ, and the ge­nerally accepted Rules of good Manners.

I have now noted all that I can probably imagine to have prompted the Orthodox Unitarians to enter into the Religious Controversies which are at present under debate. Methinks it is too hard to judg as some do, that they have been spurr'd on by a vain Ostentation of Learning; tho thus much is evident, without a stock not contemptible they could not have done what they have: but to say that their Writers are mercenary, and hir'd to the Work, looks as like an impertinent Slander as can be; but to suppose them hir'd, which I don't believe, tho' I can't prove the contrary, I would fain ask, where's the unpardonable crime, to be hir'd to write in defence of this or that Explication which the Church [Page 5] gives of an Article that's obscure, and understood but in part? If any Man will hire me to that Work, which agrees with honest Principles, and exceeds not my poor Abilities, I am not asham'd to declare that I am at his Service, ready to be commanded at a reasonable Rate.

There is another Division of Disputants engag'd in Religious Con­troversy, but which fall into many a Subdivision; all which Subdivisions are in open profession, and most of them in truth and reality of the Church of England, as well as the Unitarians, tho they are sometime un­wisely content to prove their Title to that Honour by so weak an Argu­ment, as their differing from the Unitarians; and when they have done, very few of them differ from the Unitarians, except in terms Scholas­tick, peculiar Phrase and manner of Expression, which small matter is also now very well accommodated.

This Division of Disputants, with all their Subdivisions, may be compriz'd under the general distinction of Nominalists and Realists; the former are of the Church, and know themselves to be so; the latter are meer Heathens, as far as Polytheism goes, tho they know it not: we are bound in Charity to believe they know it not, because they profess to be of the Church. Both the Nominalists and Realists engag'd against the suspected Unitarians, mov'd thereunto, as may be guess'd from their Writings,

1. By a profound Reverence for Authority. To do these Gentlemen jus­tice as well as the former, this Motive is not to be rashly condemn'd, nor yet can it be well allow'd, without nearly examining what is here meant by Reverence, and what degrees of Reverence are here spoken of: Mean­ing by Reverence, a good opinion, and high esteem of the Wisdom of the Antients, of Fathers and Councils, of modern Convocations of pious and dignified, learned and wealthy Men, methinks it is a justifiable Mo­tive, a Motive also to which we are naturally inclin'd: for we are born only with a nobler Form, and a Docility above other Creatures; and un­der the first advances of our Knowledg, it is hardly possible for us to think of ever becoming, like the Royal Psalmist, wiser than our Teach­ers: When our Reason is grown manly, and can go alone, i. e. of it self compare Ideas, examine their Agreement and Disagreement, thence draw­ing farther useful Conclusions, still we are justly inclin'd to have a great Respect for our Teachers, and Men of Fame that went before us; and cannot, nay ought not to endure to have their Doctrines condemn'd as erroneous, without fair and full evidence against them. When Experi­ence chances to acquaint us with any notices, about which our Ances­tors, or now living Teachers, have been mistaken, there is still a Reve­rence [Page 6] due to them, a Reverence that should restrain us from exposing them, a Reverence that should guide us modestly to represent what our own study and observance hath discover'd; and 'tis but an honest and grateful Reverence to their Wisdom, to vindicate all their Conclusions, which our own Reason apprehends to have been fairly drawn from just Premises. Wherefore all those Writers that have ingag'd in Religious Controversy, mov'd by such Sentiments as these, their Reverence for Authority becomes them, and justifies their Undertaking; but what is beyond this, is Excess and Extravagance, and it were strange if the pro­ducts of such Motives should be regular and even, reasonable and useful. It is notorious Excess, and wild Extravagance, to make Gods of Men, and equal Human Authority to Divine. The Doctrines of Fathers, the Canons of Councils, the Decrees of Popes, the Confessions of Na­tional Churches, may, 'tis true, be reasonably defended by any Man who is sincerely perswaded, that the same are truly stated, righteously or­dain'd, wisely decreed, and well drawn up: But when any Doctrines or Canons, Decrees or Confessions, are defended, not for sake of their own Truth and Excellence, but in reverence to the Authority of the Authors, a Reverence is paid them above what they can deserve, because a greater cannot be paid to God Almighty. We can but submit our Judgments to the Revelations of God; and it is lawful for us to examine, nay 'tis our commendation to examine how far those Histories are to be trusted which give us an account of his Revelations: having once satisfy'd our selves in this point, [and as to the Histories of the Old and New Testament, we have fair and full Evidence, that's my Opinion, and I am sure the Unita­rians grant it] we have then nothing to do but to examine [with the best skill we have in Languages, and Customs of the old Jews, and first Christians, by regarding the Genius, Style, and Design of Sacred Wri­ters, &c.] what is the true and proper signification of the Words which we read, what sense arises from them. Contradictions to natural Reason cannot be the true sense of the words, Difficulties may; such is the Doc­trine of the Resurrection: if we submit our Judgments in any case but this, where we are sure of a Divine Revelation, and where we are sure of the sense of the sacred Penman's words, we pay an excessive Reve­rence to the Authority of Men; but I believe that those Gentlemen who profess to submit their Judgments to the Church, have no other aim, but to court the Church her favour, or cheat her inspection with a Comple­ment. There's no avoiding such a thought as this, when the solemn and publick Judgment and Declaration of a Vice-chancellor and Heads of one of our Universities, condemning the Doctrine of three infinite distinct [Page 7] Minds and Substances in the Trinity, as False, Impious, and Heretical, contrary to the Doctrine of the Catholick Church, and of the Church of England, is made a Jest of, and rejected with bold, contemptuous and angry Railery. All that the Church of England requires of us is, I humbly conceive, such a Reverence and Esteem as I first describ'd, a wise Submission, a Reverence join'd with Honesty, and a good Understand­ing, a Submission, according as may be gather'd from the 20th of her 39 Articles; because she does not, as she ought not, ordain any thing contrary to God's Word written; because she expounds Scripture, one place consonant to another; because she is a faithful Keeper of Holy Writ, decrees nothing against the same; and besides the same enforces nothing as necessary to Salvation. The Church does not pretend to In­fallibility; the most eminent, Sons shall I say, or Fathers of the Church, look upon her Articles as Forms in a comprehensive Latitude, drawn up for Peace sake; and very conscious are they that the Church of the last Age was Calvinist, the Church of the present Age Arminian, and all the while it was Church of England: but when bold Opiniators shall not be content to keep themselves within the accountable bounds of prudential Latitude, but start odd Notions, not at all distinguishable from Heathenish Polytheism, then they who dispute against them enter into Religious Con­troversy, mov'd thereunto by a very just Motive. But perhaps it may be urg'd, that the Polytheists did not begin the Quarrel: Well, suppose it, what will they gain by that Plea, if still their Doctrine is no other than Polytheism? And what if it should appear that the Unitarians gave the first occasion of Dispute; this will create no Prejudice against them, in the Minds of considering Men: for as far as I can perceive, they took Exceptions not against the Articles, but the Scholastical Terms of the Church; and drove at nothing farther, than that those difficult Proposi­tions, which are called Mysteries, might be express'd as far as the Sub­ject would admit, in words plain and intelligible; and when that could not be, in the very Phrase of Scripture. The Unitarians, if I take them right, cannot yet submit their Judgment, so as not to prefer Scripture-Phrase before Scholastick Terms; tho they are such lovers of Peace, that it has been again and again declar'd, that when nothing is meant by all those Terms of Art which is contrary to Reason, or not consonant to Scrip­ture, they will not contentiously decline the use of them. They have said as much in some of their Prints, and I should not do them justice, if I did not take notice of it. They are also ready to pay due reverence to the Church, because of her great Candour and Moderation in not exac­ting from good Christians a submission of Judgment as to the use of Re­ligious [Page 8] Rites and Ceremonies; something more hardly once she treated them, but now (God be thanked) she is come to a true Christian Tem­per; so that I reckon, the Toleration which Parliamentary Authority has indulg'd, is enjoy'd by conscientious Separatists with the consent of the Church; for it were uncharitable to suspect that she is not the same now, as a while ago in the time of her danger: And therefore I think that those warmer Zealots, who entertain their Auditories with Invectives against the Toleration, do not only slight the Authority of King and Parliament, but also bring a Scandal upon the Church. It is but just to believe that the Church is pleas'd with the Toleration for this other reason, because she gets more by that, than ever she did by violence; for it is visible that our Parochial Churches are fuller now than when we compell'd Men to come in. But enough of this, tho it is not altogether out of the way; for this also tends to declare on what accounts a reverential esteem is due to the Church; and on what respects the vindication of her Honour is a just Motive of entring into Religious Controversy: but a blind submis­sion of Judgment to all that the Church already has decreed, or may de­cree hereafter, is a sensless slavish Stupidity. An implicit Faith in all her Articles, is more than she does require; a taking up always with the first obvious, literal Grammatical Sense, is more than the most, and the most learned Deacons, Priests and Bishops themselves do.

2. The Persons, of whom I have been speaking, were prompted, as may be gather'd from their Prints, to enter into Religious Controversy by an indignation against all Innovations in Religion. As specious a look as this Motive has, it must be very well circumstanc'd, before it can be allow'd for a just and reasonable one; for it happens many times, that the Innovation is but surmis'd and suspected; and perhaps there would not be half the Differences which there are in the Church, if words which have not all of them determinate and distinct Ideas, if terms of Art and equivocal Phrases were expounded, and sixt by exact and plain Definitions. Foreign Protestants are apt to suspect that the Church of England favours the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, because she expres­ses her self by that ambiguous Phrase, Real Presence; they are afraid lest Real Presence should signify Corporeal Presence: But when the Church avows, that she does not use the word Real in that sense, but means on­ly a Spiritual Presence, apprehended and enjoy'd by Faith, the occasion of dispute is remov'd, and all that can be said against the Church, is, that her Language is not so proper, as her Faith is pure. Therefore that celebrated Hugonot Jurieu, was more angry than the Cause deserv'd, when he join'd Transubstantiation and Real Presence together, and call'd 'em both Mon­sters; [Page 9] which harsh Censure cannot be return'd upon his Accomplishment of Prophecies, for that's an ingenious, learned, pretty thing: the Events of History have an agreeable resemblance to the Apocalyptick Emblems to which he applies them; but for all that, I believe there's not one word of truth in his interpretative Accomplishment. By the Form of Absolution in the Visitation of the Sick, one might be apt to suspect, that it was the Doctrine of our Church, that God has given power to our Priests that now are, to forgive sins; but yet the generality of our Priests abhorring delusive Priest-craft, make no more of it than a meer Declaration, that God forgives the Sinner, supposing he be truly penitent: When they have thus explain'd themselves, no Body can quarrel their Doctrine; and who would fall out with them for an aukward way of expressing it? Ever give me Catholick, Orthodox Doctrine, tho vail'd under obscure and less proper Phrase, rather than gross affected Tritheism, openly a­vow'd, and in distinct plain words express'd, in words and phrase so clear and proper, that every understanding unbiass'd Reader may at first sight apprehend it. Now by explaining and defining, the occasion of Dispute is remov'd; indeed some Disputants define ignotum per ignotius, one ob­scure ambiguous word, term, phrase, by another more obscure and am­biguous: they mend the matter well; but full, plain and clear Definiti­ons make short work of Controversy: The Disputants quickly see by this means where 'tis they differ, if so be they do differ; for not rarely it hap­pens, they discover that they were of one and the same mind, tho they did not express their thoughts after one and the same manner. I am very much mistaken, or this is the very Case between the suspected Unitari­ans, and the Nominal Orthodox Trinitarians who suspected them: In­deed as to the Realists, there is a wide difference between them, and both the former; their Tritheism is Innovation with a Witness, and a just Mo­tive for their Opposers to engage in Religious Controversy. Again it may happen, that the Innovation comes to no more than the reviving a long-buried Truth, or the rubbing the rust off from a corrupted Usage: for Truths certain and useful have run like Rivers under ground for several Ages, and then their first appearance afterwards may be call'd Innovation; but that will not justify any Man's contending for his old Errors; no, tho his old Errors have liv'd for several Ages. The eating and drinking the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by Faith, t'other Day was a meer Innovation; yet I do not believe that our Real Trinitarians will say, that the Anthropophagous Romanists, the human Flesh and Blood-eat­ing Papists, had reason with Fire and Sword to oppose it. The cry of Innovation is sometimes made use of, to secure a beloved false Doctrine [Page 10] from being contradicted; a superstitious cheating Practice from being un­dermin'd. Where a present Establishment is without fault, no Innova­tion can be so; but a departing from the Language of the Schools, is not the same thing as departing from the Faith. Yet that our Differences may be accommodated in some tolerable manner, let sound Religion, say I, be taught in barbarous Language; better so, than Tritheism cloth'd with words pure and proper, and phrase elegantly plain; for that's but like Martial's fine Amber-Box, with nothing but a Viper and a dead Fly in it.

3. Both Realists and Nominalists, as themselves profess, and I believe, honestly have entred into Religious Controversy to vindicate the Christi­an Religion, the main Foundation of which, they once (by mistake) ve­rily thought that the Unitarians were undermining, and labouring to o­verthrow. It is good to be jealous for the honour of the Christian Reli­gion; but nevertheless it is a fault, and a very unchristian one, to charge any Man unjustly: for an unjust Charge of this high nature, robs innocent Persons of the Comforts and Advantages which they might chance to have in the good opinion of others; and not only so, but exposes them to the dire Effects of that Zeal, which is too hot ever to have mercy, and too passionate ever to consider matters calmly, deliberately, and as they ought to be consider'd. When the Realists and Nominalists first suspected the Unitarians of entertaining such wicked and detestable thoughts, as to undermine and subvert the main Foundation of the Christian Religion, it would have extreamly become them to have carefully weigh'd what are the sure and certain Truths, which may be reasonably call'd the Founda­tion of the Christian Religion; and what are the less certain Doctrines and Speculations, concerning which, Men that lead vertuous and Chris­tian Lives, are differently perswaded: But now in their anger and their haste, they have condemn'd the Unitarians as Hereticks, for not giving the true sense of some Articles, whose true sense they themselves have not yet found out, or are not agreed upon. One would think that a mistaken Ex­position of an obscure Article did not tend to the Subversion of the Chris­tian Religion, but they have judg'd it otherwise; yet to do them right, for furious merciless Judges, they use as much equity as could be wish'd, carrying on their severe Censures with a remarkable Impartiality. The Tritheistick Trinity (says one of them) is worse even than Socinianism: The Nominal Trinity (says another) is as bad; in which last Censures, I shall not contradict them: but one thing I must remark, viz. That when the Purposes in which Men agree are none of the best, the gaining their Point is but removing an Obstacle which hinders them from vexing one [Page 11] another. There are some great Men, who (out of what Christian Prin­ciple, neither I, nor they can tell) would have the Unitarians be Here­ticks by themselves, and by consequence burnt by themselves, without the company of any of them who commit the very same, or a more hainous fault: For which purpose they solicit the Magistrates, after the manner of Inquisitors, Omni affectu quo possint, but without the Hypo­crisy of the Inquisitors; for these great Men of ours call for Fire in plain words, which the other mean when they require Mercy, and to justify the Exemption of whom they please from Heresy and the Stake. T'other day this Dream was told;—‘A Man may be very right in the belief of an Article, and yet be mistaken in his Explication of it.’

I call this a Dream, meaning no disrespect in the World to the Au­thor, for quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus, but because it appears at the very first sight an inconsistent Notion; now pleasing Dreams Men are un­willing to part with, therefore a Friend is call'd in to give credit to this; but as ill luck would have it, all which that Friend says, is ‘That a Man may quit his Explication, without parting with the Article it self: That is, Dr. Sh— may quit his Explication, and so may eve­ry other Realist, without parting with the Article of the Trinity.’ But under favour, he that quits the true Explication, quits the Article it self, or it is impossible to quit it. To speak seriously, one would wonder how it could enter into the thoughts of a wise Man being awake, to imagine that an Article might be rightly believ'd, that was not rightly understood. If it be objected, that I alter the Case, and should have worded it— that was not rightly explain'd: I reply, The thing is the same; for I presume that the Author from whom I beg leave to dissent, will obli­gingly grant me, That the Explainer, whom he would save from He­resy, understands as he explains: I am sure he's a Knave if he does not; and speculative Heresy is an innocent thing, in comparison with practical Knavery. To declare publickly that an Article may be rightly believ'd, which is not rightly understood! if an Unitarian, or any Friend of theirs had done it, without question he had been plentifully reproach'd. Mr. J. E. B. D. would not have miss'd the occasion, but have enrich'd his last Rhapsody of railing, with Exclamations argumentative, as well as ill-natur'd. How! an Article rightly believ'd, tho not rightly un­derstood! —To see what senseless shifts these pretenders to Reason take up with, to save their Heterodoxes from the imputation of Heresy, and themselves from the peril of the Stake! What Idea can there be had of so self-contradicting a Proposition? Indeed to such a sharp Reproof as [Page 12] this, I don't see what could have been reply'd by any Unitarian of them all, or by Mr. Lock, or Mr. Toland either [as much Friends as they are (tho neither side knows it) to the Unitarians.] But then those Gentlemen are not capable of such an elevated Thought; it is not pos­sible for any one to rise so high, but a vast-read, profound Scholar, who does not judg concerning the Truth of a Proposition, by the Agree­ment or Disagreement of the Ideas contain'd in it, but by a sort of Reason, which what it is, and how it operates, no Conception can be had, nor Account given. But whatever Mr. J. E. would have done had this contradictory Notion been started by an Unitarian, I shall deal gently with it, observing only, that, for whose sake soever it was made pub­lick, it will save all that Assent and Consent to an Article, as it lies in the Words of the Church, of what Denomination soever they are, and how plainly contradictory soever their Explanations; it will save all alike, all, or none. But the Unitarians want not this Plea to defend their Cause, for they profess to believe the Article of the Trinity; nay, and what is more, they explain that Article to the very same Sense as do the Nominalists, for Peace sake submitting even to the Scholastick Terms, which they cannot like so well as the very Phrase of Scripture. Now I cannot imagine how these Unitarians, so very orthodox, and so exactly conformable to the Church, can be left alone in the lurch for Hereticks, unless it be prov'd, that, as one Man may be right in the Belief of an Ar­ticle, tho he be wrong in the Explication; so another may be right in the Explication of an Article, tho he be mistaken in the Belief of it. But after all these things which may be righteously pleaded in behalf of the Unitarians, it must not be denied but that their Adversaries had a just Motive to enter into religious Controversy, while they suspected them of labouring to undermine the Christian Religion; only their Adversaries were to blame, that they did not more calmly and leisurely examine the Meaning of those Passages, whatsoever they were, at which they took Offence. I purpose to offer something now, to clear all Suspicions that the Nominalists may chance to entertain of the Unitarians: as for the Realists, no Accommodation can ever be between them and true Christians; great Men, out of the abundance of their Charity, may for­give the Tritheism of those Heathenish Writers, but by all their Wit and Learning they can never make Three infinite Minds to be but One God: nevertheless, I am content that they be forgiven, only I would not have so much Charity wasted to forgive them, that there be no Equity left for sincerer Christians. In order to clear the Suspicions which the Nomi­nalists may chance to entertain of the Unitarians, that so there may be [Page 13] no Simultates between them, no evil Grudgings, no base Language, no unchristian Reviling, I shall consider, 1. What manner of Persons those are, who of late have been distinguish'd by the Name of Unitarian. 2. What is the Tendency of their Doctrines. And this I propound to do, not by way of Answer to all the false and foul Imputations which are vomited up by Mr. Burgess, Mr. Edwards, or that over-bold Poetaster who makes so bold with the Almighty, as to subscribe himself God's most humble, most faithful, and devoted Servant, (but I suppose that that Gentleman will excuse himself, and say, all the World may know he did but complement) but in hopes to satisfy those fairer Disputants, such as Dr. Pain and Mr. Norris, whom, by their Christian Candor and Equity, one may with more Reason conclude heartily to believe the holy Religion which they profess. Yet it will not be proper to speak to the first Head, until I have premis'd a word to inform the Rea­der of what standing these Unitarians are. When the Papists ask the Protestants, Where was your Church before Luther? the Protestants, by way of Reply, pretend to find Christians through all Ages, tho of divers Denominations, who are recorded to have held the same Opini­ons with them: in like manner, the Opinions which are at this day charg'd upon the Unitarians, may be trac'd up from Age to Age, to the very next times to the Apostles, and by their early Asserters were vouch'd as truly Christian and Apostolical; and in several Ages a great majority of Christian Professors holding the same, they then went for Or­thodox. But our Church of England, bearing a great Reverence for Antiquity, is very zealous for the Retention of some old Philosophical Terms, yet as nice and careful in explaining the same according to Scrip­ture and Reason; tho at the same time, she, in the Persons of her most Or­thodox Sons, is reproach'd by a few backsliding Tritheistick Realists, as if she agreed with those antient Hereticks said to be the Founders and Predecessors of the Unitarians. The Unitarians themselves, I mean the English of late so call'd, think it an Injury to be term'd Ebionites, Alogians, Arians, Photinians, &c. or indeed any thing but Christians; but when they are reproach'd by those Names of distinction, they can­not forbear noting that the very Apostles Creed has lain under the Suspi­cion of Arianism, Photinianism, &c. God knows how justly; for we have some Orthodox Doctrines, which if they are contained in that Creed, are yet so covertly contain'd there, that it is not every ordinary Reasoner that can espy them, and by a long Train of just Consequences deduce them, and bring them into light. By the Apostles Creed how­ever, and by the Holy Scriptures, the Unitarians are always willing to [Page 14] be tried, and mean not to make a Peace-disturbing Schism from the Church of England, at least not as long as the chief Doctors of the Church profess, That by none of her Homilies, Creeds, or Canons, they mean any such thing as a Tritheistick Trinity, a Trinity with three distinct infinite Minds. The present Term of Reproach (with which some Men, for want of better Argument, hope to confound the Uni­tarians) is Socinian. Now it must be confest, That the Unitarians think honourably of Socinus; but yet they do not espouse his whole Scheme, nor any thing of his Scheme, because it is his; nor any thing more of his Scheme than is espous'd by their Arminian Nominalist Brethren, who are a great majority of the Church, tho the Animadverter may not love to bear of it. Socinus's Life is in Print among us, both Latin and English: the Memory of the Man is frequently revil'd; but I do not hear that his Adversaries undertake to refute the historical Account which the Polonian Knight has giv'n of him. Mr. Bidle, in his Pre­face, has these Words of Socinus, ‘He took the same course to pro­pagate the Gospel, that Christ and the Apostles had done before him, forsaking his Estate, and his nearest Relations, and undergoing all manner of Labours and Hazards to draw Men to the Knowledg of the Truth: He had no other End of all his Undertakings, than the Glory of God and Christ, it being impossible for Calumny it self to asperse him with the least Suspicion of worldly Interest. He, of all Interpreters, explaineth the Precepts of Christ in the strictest manner, and windeth up the Lives of Men to the highest Strain of Holiness.’

The Author of the Growth of Error makes it an Article against Soci­nus, that he accus'd the Reformed of immoral Practices, and boasted of the Holiness of his own Followers. But what says that Author? Was Socinus's Accusation unjust, or his Boasting rash and ill grounded? Why, he says, Meisner answer'd Socinus; but it seems he confesses too, that Schlichtingius defended him. Upon the whole matter, to speak impartially, Excepting that the foreign Unitarians are recorded to have sometimes dealt hardly with one another upon account of their diffe­rent Perswasions concerning worshipping Jesus Christ, it does not appear that their Lives were wicked and unchristian. Here in England, Men that know little of them, or have Ends in traducing them, load them with heavy Imputations; but impartial Men abroad, who have known and observ'd them, notwithstanding they differ from them, do yet bear honourable Testimony to their Piety and Vertue. Monsieur Stoop a Protestant Officer in the French Army, in his Religion of the Dutch, Anno 1673. gives this Account of the Socinians in Holland: ‘They [Page 15] have their secret Assemblies, in which they are very fervent in Pray­er to God, with groaning and weeping.—They affirm that they have no Interest in the maintaining their Doctrine, save only the Per­swasion they have of its Truth, and the Zeal of appropriating to the only individual and sovereign God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory of his Divinity.—They are confirm'd in their Faith by reading the Word of God, and by the Books which have been written against them.—Their Conversation is holy and with­out Reproach, as far as Men can judg by what they see.’ Much more this impartial Gentleman, none of their Party, says to their Praise. Even of the English Unitarians, one of our Reverend Bishops disputing against them, when he look'd upon them as altogether Socinianiz'd, fairly pro­fesses, that he judges they would not think so meanly of our Lord Christ, but for fear of taking away from the Honour of God Almighty. But I have a Word or two to offer to the Reverend Bishop of Sarum, before I speak of the English Unitarians of this last Age. As ill as he thinks now of these Unitarians, I hope he will not retract the noble Character which he once gave of one George Van Par, a Dutch-man, burnt in England 1549 for Unitarianism, which he could not in Conscience abjure: ‘He led a very exemplary Life for Fasting, Devotion, and a good Conversation, and suffer'd with extraordinary Composedness of Mind.’ It is out of the way to speak of Barth. Legat, [a Man of whose vertuous Behaviour the Booksellers of Pauls, among whom he convers'd for 7 Years before his Execution, gave a good account] for he was an Arian, burnt An. 1611, re-burnt this last Year by Mr. Gailhard: but it is a better Argument for that poor Man's Seriousness in his Religious Perswasion, that he could endure to be burnt for it, than it is for the Sincerity of Mr. Gailhard, and the Honour of Calvinism, that he thirsts after the Blood of thousands, and damns all Orders and Degrees of Men that do not forward his Executions. But that no ill-minded Person may hence take occasion to say, that I insinuate that the Unitarians are a numerous Body; I openly declare, that whether they are many or few, is more than I know, or care, who am an impartial, tho not always a melancholy By-stander: But that they are better Men, truer Christians, and more faithful Subjects, than the revengeful Calvinists, will appear to any Man that examines the Writings of both sides. I now come to speak of those Persons of this last Age who have been distinguish'd by the Name of Unitarians.

Anthony Wood, in his Athenae Oxonienses, 2d Vol. p. 197-199. gives a large Account of John Bidle, and says among other very commenda­ble [Page 16] things, that being Master of Crifts School in Glocester, ‘He was much esteem'd for Diligence in his Profession, Severity of Manners, and Sanctity of Life.’ And when he came to converse in London, after many Years Imprisonment, ‘He was very taking for his Religious Discourse and Saint-like Conversation.’ Now Mr. Wood, I presume, cannot be suspected of Partiality in favour of an Unitarian. John Bidle seal'd the Sincerity of his religious Perswasion, by his Death; for he took that Sickness in Newgate, whereof he died 2 days after Removal.

Mr. Cooper succeeded Mr. Bidle Master of Crifts School in Glocester, af­terward Minister of Chelthenam in Glocestershire; and after the Act of Uniformity, Minister of an Unitarian Congregation in that Place. We ap­peal to all that knew him, whether he was not a Man always compos'd and grave, but of a most sweet and obliging Temper and Conversation. He suffer'd those Abuses from intemperate and riotous Men, when the Nation was running mad they knew not for what, that it broke his Health, and hastned his End. His Daughter Mary died about a Year and a half since, a known Unitarian; so that the Minister who preach'd her Funeral Sermon commended her to his Auditors for a Pattern of Chris­tian Vertues, however erroneous in her Judgment. Mr. Cooper was succeeded in the Guidance of an Unitarian Congregation by Ralph Tay­lor, Henry Sturmy, Thomas Macock, and Allen Kear, all of them ve­ry serious and diligent in their way, devout and pious, strictly honest, and charitable to their power; however not so accomplish'd in Humane Learning.

John Knowles of Glocester, by long and diligent Study, became very knowing in the Critical Learning of the Scriptures; his much Read­ing, and Thoughtfulness, won him to Unitarianism, having in his younger Years been an Independent. His singular Piety and Vertue were exemplarily conspicuous in divers Stations and Stages of his Life. His Labours were directed to the Benefit of others; the greatest Fruit of them to himself, was Dangers and hard Usages. His Patience was tri­ed by undeserved Injuries, and Imprisonment even in the time of the raging Plague. Dying, he bequeath'd some Books of value to the Library at Glocester; and a Third of all he had, for the Relief of Men persecuted for Religion, and other Charities. He also was an Unitarian Teacher while he liv'd in London: After the Year of the Plague, he convers'd frequently among the Clergy; his Learning, and Seriousness in Religion, was well known among them, of whom several are now living.

Mr. Gilbert Clerk was Fellow of Sidney College in Cambridg; which Place he was oblig'd to leave for Conscience sake: after that, he liv'd long at Stamford, well known and esteem'd by Dr. Cumberland the Reverend Bishop of Peterborough, who us'd to speak of him by the Name of Honest Gilbert. He was Author of two of those Tracts call'd Tractatus tres, &c.

Mr. Noual, late Rector of Tydds St. Giles near Wisbich in the Isle of Ely, was a Man of singular Piety, and winning Conversation. His Wri­tings testify his excellent Learning. He was complain'd of to his Re­verend Diocesan, for omitting those parts of the Liturgy, which after some Years of Study and Consideration he came to be perswaded against. We appeal to the Reverend Bishop, and even to all the Clergy of Ely, especially to him that preached his Funeral Sermon last Trinity Sunday, whether he deserv'd not the Character giv'n him.

I ought not to conclude the Account which I give concerning the Per­sons of the Unitarians, without taking notice of Mr. Thomas Firmin. I have known him intimately these 6 or 7 Years, and do now mourn the Loss of the best Man I ever knew: but upon the strength of so short an Acquaintance, had I never so great Abilities, I ought not to pretend to draw his just and full Character: let the Reader expect that, as I do, from one of his dearest eldest Friends. Yet something I am prompted to offer, not only by my Gratitude to his Memory, but in proper Jus­tice to the Argument before me.

Mr. Thomas Firmin is now gone to his Rest, but has left behind him a good Name, a Name entertain'd with the highest Esteem among the greatest and best Men, not of our Nation only, but of far distant Coun­tries; for it pleas'd God to inspire him with a wonderful measure of true Christian Charity, so that he look'd upon himself as oblig'd to stu­dy and labour no less a Work, than the Good of Mankind in general. One while he was busy in providing for the Poor, both at home and abroad, as far as his wide and honourable Friendships, his own honest Acquisitions, his apprehensive Understanding, constant Industry, and Application could carry him. In providing for the Poor, his Charity was regular and prudent; he consider'd what was fitting to be allow'd to the Unhappy, reduc'd by some common Casualty of Providence, and what was necessary for the Support of the Sick and the Aged, of lame Persons, and Children. As for poor People, able to work, he rightly judg'd, the best Charity was to find them Work; he did it for thou­sands: And till the Great Council of the Nation shall make effectual Provisions in this weighty matter, thousands will be sadly sensible of the [Page 18] Loss of Mr. Thomas Firmin. At another time he join'd his Counsels and Interest to advance the Trade of England; and to whatever good Work he join'd his hand (which he did to many) the same pro­ceeded much more successfully through his hearty and active Concur­rence. On all Occasions he was ready, and sincere in discountenancing Deism: for tho he was perswaded there might be Deists, that were ver­tuous and good Men, upon the sole Belief of the Existence of God, and the Expectance of future Recompences; yet he thought Deism nothing so sure a Foundation of true Vertue and Goodness, as the Gos­pel-Revelation. He made himself one in the Society for Reforma­tion of Manners; and no good Man of that number was more zealously affected, by wise and legal Methods to suppress Profaneness and Irreli­gion, which, he well knew, loosen'd the Bands of all Society, and made Man to Man a more dangerous Enemy than biting Serpents, or de­vouring Brutes. In short, as to matters Civil, his chief Aim was, the Prosperity of Old England: With respect to Religion, his ardent De­sire was, first to convince the World that Natural and Reveal'd Re­ligion both, oblig'd them to be morally honest; and then to promote universal Love and Good-will among Men morally honest, however about speculative Doctrines differently perswaded. But God never in­dulg'd it, no not to his dearly beloved Son, to go about doing Good, and incur no Envy; to shine conspicuously in his Generation with the Splendour of good Works, and meet no Hatred nor Opposition. That which Mr. Firmin met with, proceeded sometimes from the Jealousies and Fears of Ecclesiasticks, eminent for their Honours, Learning, and Piety; but I leave it to the World to judg whether their Jealousies and Fears, or his Conduct was most to blame. But what was Jealousy and Fear only in the Minds of some eminent Ecclesiasticks, was Passion and rash Zeal, and the over-boiling of an unchristian Breast in others of a lower form, which I will not say but their weaker Judgments might look upon as a piece of good Service to God, and it is not impossible for them to have suppos'd it the readiest way to serve them­selves. But had Mr. Firmin been the Heretick which they represented him, it would not have misbecome them to have bated him some ill Lan­guage for the sake of his truly Christian Conversation. For wise Men will always set a greater Value upon a good Life than a clear-sighted Understanding, and never confute a suppos'd Heresy (which does not engage its Professors in immoral Practices) with penal Inflictions in­stead of convincing Reason.

I will not here dissemble what I have once heard from Mr. Firmin's own Mouth; viz. That a venerable Prelate, or two, had lately charg'd him as a Promoter of Deism, which, they said, was the Road to Atheism. At this Charge the good Man was extreamly concerned; not that he admitted the Charge, or the Aggravation of it, to be true, (for he was throughly satisfied at whose doers that Guilt lay) but concern'd he was, that he should be so unhappy, as to be in such manner mis­judged by Persons of their Worth and Character: whereupon he was more frequent in his Advices to his Friends, that they would be diligent­ly careful of their Conversation, that they would shun the Company [as much as their lawful worldly Business permitted] of immoral Men, but especially of them who question'd the Truth of the Christian Revelation. He thought indeed better of a moral Deist than of a wicked Man professing Christianity; yet no one ever talk'd doubtingly of the Christian Revelation in his Company, but was sure of a just and publick Reproof. I could add more to his Praise on this Topick, but I hope to see it done by one much longer and better acquainted with him than my self. I think Mr. Firmin ought not to have been look'd upon with an evil eye by any of the Church of England; I am sure the moral Discourses of the most learned and pious of the Clergy in his time, differ not at all from his Sentiments, but rest on the same Foundations which he built upon; viz. the Foundations of natural Reason, and consonant Christian Revelation. 'Tis true, he did differ from them as they differ from one another, in some speculative Opinions; and I will say that for both their Honours, wherein the Clergy differ'd among themselves, each Party thought Mr. Firmin in the more pardonable Er­ror: so that if Heresy had been doom'd to the Fire, the Church would have been almost half destroyed before it had come to his turn.

'Twere too invidious a thing to name either those that esteem'd, or those that malign'd him; but might I have the liberty which some Philosophick Fathers, after their Conversion from Paganism, made bold with, I would adventure at a Pathetick Argument, and by a proper Prosopopoeia introduce Mr. Grigg, Dr. Whichcot, or Archbishop Tillotson, vindicating the Honour of their dear Friend. Had they been now living, they would have done it effectually. I am conscious I cannot put into their mouths Words worthy them or him; but the least they would have said, must have imported thus much—He exposes his own Judgment, who accuses Mr. Firmin of Heresy; he proclaims himself an ill Man, who questions his Morals.

Against his worst Enemies, those that could take Offence at nothing but the Vertue and Reputation of the Man, I shall not inveigh severe­ly: it is enough to say, the Coffee-man can have no Comfort in his Scandal, which no body will credit: and as for Mr. Burgess, he took it up, not from any manner of Probability, [even his own Prin­ter, and several others, told him it was a horrid Calumny] but out of pure Zeal against what he calls Socinianism, because he knows no bet­ter. It was this which made him talk, in his fanciful way, about stink­ing Goats, and sweet-scented Panthers, painted Snakes, and immoral Poison. But, whether it pleases him or not, the injur'd Man's fair Fame has taken Wing, and is not to be bounded within our narrow Seas, or blasted by his envious Metaphors. The Masters of Oratory say, those Metaphors ought to be shunn'd which are borrow'd à re turpi, aut sordidâ; and those which are too far fetch'd, had better have been let alone: but if a Man is above these Rules, then with his Goats, Snakes, and Panthers, he may make what work he pleases; and if he be mind­ed, at one bold Stroke to defy all Rules, and ridicule his own Discourse, let him represent the serious Business of reproving Sin, by snuffing a Candle.

By accident, our Enemies often happen to do us greater Kindness than our Friends. So happen'd it to Mr. Firmin; All that convers'd with him were extreamly taken with the soft, agreeable, and endearing Con­versation of the Man; but what a Friend says in such a case, is often sus­pected to have more of Affection than Truth in it: but Providence, to secure the Fame of Mr. Firmin, mov'd an Enemy to bear Testi­mony to his Honour; for one that with a malevolent eye observ'd him, represents him as a Man of Socinus's Make, complaisant and sweet even to such as oppose and detest his Heresy. Now I know of no He­resy which he had; I am sure he did not take the Opinions of Socinus upon content, but agreed with, or differ'd from, that Writer, as he saw cause: if he had any thing in him bordering upon Heresy, it was his Obstinateness in believing with his own Understanding those things only which appear'd to him credible, agreeable to Holy Scripture, and not contradictory to Natural Reason: but his Conversation indeed, that (as his Enemy says) was always complaisant and sweet; for, alas! he was bred a Christian, and never us'd to return Railing for Railing. But by the way, if a sweet good Nature be an Heretical Temper, then a furious ill Nature must be an orthodox Temper, and then this Term of Art, Orthodox, will at last become but ano­ther Word for Ʋnchristian.

Who would have imagin'd that the Wit of an Enemy should have ad­vanc'd against Mr. Firmin such an Objection, as that He was open-hand­ed to the Poor with his own or other Folks Money? Both parts of the Dis­junction are true; but to suppose only the latter so, that proves that Mr. Firmin was well known for a faithful and prudent Dispenser of Cha­rity: and to suppose he had nothing of his own to give, which is spitefully insinuated; yet even this redounds to his Honour, for is it not a very com­mendable thing, if there were no more in't, for a Man to spend so much of his time upon the Poor? I am apt to think it was offence taken at the ill Lives of the Christians, rather than the Doctrines of Christianity, which made the renown'd Averroes wish, that his Soul might rest with the Philosophers: now have I that awful regard for the Vertue and Piety of Mr. Firmin; that let his Adversaries revile him, and call him Heretick as long as they please, I cannot forbear praying, may my Soul rest with this thrice excellent and truly Christian Unitarian.

It is to spare the Reader's farther trouble, that I deduce no longer a Catalogue of English Unitarians, not long since deceas'd, who were neither Atheists, nor Deists, nor Profane, nor immoral Persons, (as is the Cry of some now when they have spent all their fair Arguments, and distrust their Efficacy) but seriously religious, fully satisfied of the truth of the Christian Revelation, devout, honest, and charitable.

If it objected that the Unitarians lately deceas'd, whom I have now character'd, separated themselves from the Church of England, and form'd religious Assemblies to themselves apart; and therefore the Uni­tarians now living cannot pretend to the Title of Orthodox Churchmen. I reply, 1. That as for the Unitarians deceas'd, it is probable to me, that they separated [after such manner as they did separate, which how far it was, I have not been made acquainted] that they might not seem to profess a Tritheistick Trinity, compos'd of three distinct Infinite Minds and Substances; for in their time our eminent Ecclesiasticks had not so particularly explain'd themselves against that heathenish Notion. 2. There may be a conscientious Separation from the Church by Men that agree with her in Doctrinals: such I take the Separation of the Presbyte­rians, Independents, and Anabaptists to be. 3. The Unitarians now living being lately satisfied that the Majority of the Doctors of the Church, do not mean by their scolastick Terms still retain'd, any such Tri­nity as is plain Tritheism, but such a Nominal Trinity as the Bishop of Sarum and Dr. S—th have explain'd, and as the Learned Bishop of Wor­cester has spoke of, tho a little obscurely, which learned Men cannot help; and having therefore publickly profess'd their Agreement with the [Page 22] Church of England on this and other disputed Articles, I ought not in reason but to look upon them as sound and orthodox Members of the Church of England as to their Faith.

If it be still objected, That there is in some of the first Prints of these Unitarians something very like a formal Opposition of the Articles of the Church: let it be consider'd they have of late answer'd for themselves, confessing that careless or less accurate Expressions may have been us'd by both Parties, of which neither ought to take advantage, because (which is originally a Tritheist's Argument, but the Nominalists acquiesce in't) there is no Heterodox Intention on either side: Nay, the Unitarians have desir'd, that those Passages in their Writings, (which might be wrested by an ill-natur'd Adversary to their Disadvantage) be interpreted accord­ing to their later more accurate and careful explaining their Minds.

If it be farther urg'd (by those that love no Satisfaction, but the Ruin of poor Men who have had the Misfortune to displease them) that it is an intolerable Shame for the Unitarians to shift about thus, after they have made a hurly-burly in the Chutch; they may perhaps desire to know whether they are more to blame than the Realists, and whether they may not have as free leave to explain their first Writings, as the Realists to explain their first? For Dr. S—th was not angry at the Dean for explaining his obnoxious Tritheistick Phrases, but because his Explanation was as arrant Tritheism, as his first obnoxious Tritheistick Phrases: which cannot be said of the Unitarians in that Book where they have declar'd their Agreement with the Catholick Church. Whereupon even Mr. Edwards cries out, ‘Why should I contend with these Ca­tholick and Orthodox Men? Who will fall out with those that profess agreement with the Catholick Church?’ Indeed he does not use these friendly Words, till the very latter end of the very worst Book he ever wrote. It's true, he acknowledg'd himself in debt to the Civility of the nameless Socinian, [so he calls him, for he calls no Man he dislikes by a right Name] and promis'd a return of Civility about six Leaves be­fore, but it seems he had not quite discharg'd his Stomach of the foul Matter which lay upon it, and could not speak him fair, till he had call'd him all the names he could think on: just his way of dealing with Mr. Bold, for seven or eight Leaves together he represents him as a Sub­verter of the Foundations of Christianity, a Worshipper of the Idol that Mr. Hobbs and Mr. Lock have set up; a dull, phlegmatick, horrid lying Fellow, &c. and in the close he is ready, [if what he says is true] to express the deference which he ows to Mr. Bold's Person and Office. From whence, tho it does not follow but that Mr. Bold may be a learn­ed [Page 23] and honest Man, (for all that Mr. Edwards says is not Gospel) yet it does plainly follow, that Mr. Edwards thinks he ows a deference to an Antichristian, Idolatrous, dull, horrid lying Fellow, and that he is rea­dy to express the same; and by joining Mr. Bold's Person, [whom he represents as an Antichristian, &c.] he fairly implies that it is his Per­swasion, that the Office sanctifies the Person, tho the Person be an Anti­christian, Idolatrous, dull, horrid lying Fellow. I hope without offence to any sober Man, it may be set down as an instance of Priestcraft, this subtle Contrivance, That the holy Office of the spiritual Man should ex­piate whatever is done amiss by the Sinner: I word it gently, and don't pursue it so far as the matter leads. I have said what I had to say con­cerning the Persons of the late Deceas'd, and now living Unitarians; and as far as I perceive, the Men are honest, their Conversation blameless, the Holy Scripture is their Rule, and they interpret it according to the best of their understanding; nay, as good luck will have it, they interpret it just as the founder and major part of the Church does, and have always so interpreted it, tho they did not always perceive the Agreement between the Church and themselves: they are not as they have been odiously re­vil'd, Men of no seriousness in Religion, meer Deists, much less Atheists, or (as a Reverend Father out of the abundance of his Charity compli­ments them) irreligious profligate Villains; but it is to be hop'd that he will recal those bitter words, at least for his own sake; for I am told they are resolv'd to make it plainly appear to the World, that his Lordship's Doctrine in some of his Books [and in some perhaps not] accords as much with the Racovian Catechism, as theirs: so that if there be not two Rules to judg of Heresy, one Fire will serve them and his Lordship both.

I come now to consider what is the Tendency of the Unitarian Doc­trines: only one Question I have to premise. Supposing that the Conversation of these Men is such as becomes the Gospel [which from my Soul I believe] but their Doctrines false, and of mischievous Ten­dency; would it not have become their jealous Adversaries [who by the Rules of the Gospel are oblig'd to believe the best which a Cause will bear] to have look'd upon them as Men erring through Ignorance, and not perceiving the mischievous Tendency of their Doctrines? A good Man cannot promote a Doctrine which he knows to be false, or of mis­chievous Consequence; but a zealous or a proud Man is capable of sus­pecting a Doctrine to be false, and of mischievous Consequence, which is nothing so.

Two ways the Unitarians defend their Doctrines from the Imputati­on of mischievous Consequence or Tendency; 1. By ingenuously, care­fully, [Page 24] and largely explaining their Minds on those Articles which they were charg'd to deny, or expound amiss. 2. By making it appear, that they have no particular private Opinions about Matters commonly held necessary to Salvation, different from the Church of England; i. e. if the Bishops and chief Doctors of the Church know what the Church means.

1. By ingenuously, &c. The Writer who drew up the Trinita­rian Scheme, quotes not the Authors whence he drew it, I suppose, because his Design was to reprove the Errors of Men, and spare their Per­sons. Mr. Edwards, who knows not when his Friends are well us'd, tells him, he had no credible Authors to vouch that Scheme: Sure he meant creditable. But 'tis no new thing for Men of bustling Learn­ing to forget their Mother-tongue. The Unitarian will not pretend to find credible Authors, i. e. Authors fit to be trusted, for the Scheme which he looks upon as erroneous; they may be credible in Matters of fact, in Matters of Faith not so. Matters of Faith are not to be taken on the bare Credit of any Man's word: but if creditable, i. e. Authors of esteem, to vouch that Scheme, will content Mr. Edwards, he may have them in due time; and to be very civil to him, he shall be one.

Mr. Edwards fram'd a Socinian Creed, and quoted his Authors for every Article: a Unitarian Writer replied, but says Mr. Edwards, ‘That Gen­tleman in effect acknowledges that the Articles I fixt on the Socinians are the very Doctrines and Sentiments of those Persons, worded as I set them down; and that the Authors whom I quoted deliver'd them in those very Terms, and that I have not misrepresented any of them.’ He that will may trust Mr. Edwards, but I for my part desire to be excus'd; for the Unitarian Writer in his Agreement of the Ʋnitarians with the Ca­tholick Church, does expresly affirm, ‘That he has examin'd some of Mr. Edwards's principal References, and can say of them, that they are either Perversions, or downright Falsifications, of what the Au­thors (referred to) did intend.’ It is true, he has alledg'd no In­stances; but he seldom is long, on such an occasion, in a Friend's Debt. But on every Article of Mr. Edwards's Socinian Creed, he has ingenu­ously, accurately, and amply declar'd, what it is which the English Unitarians do believe; to all which Mr. Edwards returns only this Censure—It is Higgling, or Dodging, or Recantation. Now if an ingenuous, accurate, and ample declaring what the English Unitarians do believe, be higgling, and dodging, who can help it? If it be Re­cantation, methinks Mr. Edwards should have rejoic'd, that his Labours had contributed to win Souls to the true Faith. But, alas! he is [Page 25] afraid that it is a real Recantation, and therefore he beslaves the Party; for he was in hopes they would have persisted in their Error, that he might have had the Pleasure of seeing them burn'd, and the Comfort of believing them damn'd. But notwithstanding this his [...], the Unitarians stand upon it, that neither are their Doctrines erroneous, not have they forsaken them. No! why, says Mr. Edwards, ‘This Anonymous Scribe, meerly to avoid the Imputation of some Articles I fastned on the Socinians, ventures to renounce what the Staunch-men of that Party have asserted.’ Well! but if he never did assert what the Staunch-men have asserted, nor ever profess himself a Disciple of Socinus, may he not have leave to renounce that which is falsly laid to the Charge of himself and his Friends? I doubt not but Mr. Edwards knows what's Heresy enough to burn a Man; but does he think to perswade the Unitarians, as they do Witches in Scot­land, to confess the Crime whereof they are not guilty, that so he may have the Satisfaction to glut his vengeful Eyes with the Flames in which they fry? But Mr. Edwards would fain prove that the Anonymous Scribe [as he calls him, for he's full of his Nicknames] ‘has also renounc'd what the modern domestick Socinians have asserted.’ He offers this Instance for Proof. The Anonymous Scribe had said, ‘He may for our parts be Anathema, that teaches or believes that Doc­trine, viz. That there is no Merit in what Christ did or suffer'd, and that he made not Satisfaction for our Sins.’ And yet in one of their Prints they let us know, ‘That the Oblation which Christ made of himself, was not made to the Justice of God, or by way of Repa­ratio [...] but, as all other Sacrifices, by way of humble Suit.’ How these two Passages do directly contradict one another, Mr. Edwards, when he is at leisure, will inform us: In the mean time, I make bold to acquaint him, that before I have done, I will produce him an ho­nourable Cloud of Witnesses of the last and of this present Age, eminent Doctors and Bishops of the Church of England, offering the same Sense for Orthodox, which Mr. Edwards decries as gross Socinianism. Mr. Ed­wards having offer'd nothing else excepting bad Language, against tho Book call'd—Agreement of the Ʋnitarians with the Catholick Church, thither I refer the Reader; for, not Mr. Edwards himself (I presume) tho he's a bold Man, will dare to pronounce the Doctrines which the Unitarians there own, to be false and of mischievous Tendency.

But Mr. Edwards and some others have one invidious Objection which I do not remember particularly answer'd: They say Socinianism is the Road to Deism, and Deism the Road to Atheism. Now if this were true, [Page 26] it does not affect the Unitarians, who are neither Atheists, nor meer Deists, nor yet Socinians. But Mr. Edwards takes every of these Positi­ons for indubitate — A Unitarian is a Socinian; Socinianism tends to Deism; Deism, to Atheism. These things, with him, necessarily hang together, like a Hobbian Chain of Thoughts. Yet I will shew him how loose the Links of this Chain are; if he knows how, let him fasten them. That a Unitarian is no Socinian, appears plain from the Agreement, to which I hope to add some farther Proof: that Socinianism does not tend to Deism, I will now offer some Reason; but Mr. Edwards must take it for an Auctarium, which I need not throw him in, but shall do it out of pure Charity, to convince him of his adventurous Bold­ness at Calumny, and extream Shortness at Argument. By Deism (I take it) is commonly meant, Natural Religion, founded on the Belief of the Existence of a God, and of a future Life, with a Re­jection and Disbelief of all Revelation. Socinianism is not the Road to this Deism. I know not of any English Catechism which accounts for the Truth of the Christian Revelation, except the Racovian. Me­thinks it is a Deficiency; and if Deism does abound so much, as Mr. Edwards says, surely 'twere not amiss, that our Youth, and other docile, apprehensive (tho not Book-learn'd) People should be infor­med, in a plain Catechetical way, how the Authority of the Old and New Testament is to be prov'd: This may be learn'd in that Catechism of the Socinians which is call'd the Racovian; the first Chapter con­sists of near eight Leaves, proving that we have no just Grounds to doubt, but sufficient Reasons to perswade us to give Credence to the Ho­ly Scriptures. Now the Arguments there us'd are not trivial [...]or weak; are not such as might give an Adversary occasion to object that they mean to betray the Cause. Let Mr. Edwards tell me what can be said more to the purpose, or better, in such a compass; touching the Sufficiency, Chap. 2. touching the Clearness of Holy Scriptures, Chap. 3. The So­cinians have declar'd themselves so plainly, so judiciously, so Ortho­doxly, that their imbitter'd Adversaries have nothing to find fault with. Now supposing that these Men were widely mistaken about the Sense of several difficult Texts, yet who, that had any Modesty left, would ac­cuse them of inclining to Deism, of rejecting the Authority of Holy Scrip­tures, and denying the Truth of the Christian Religion? Let Mr. Ed­wards defend the Christian Religion, if he can, better than the Socinians have defended it; but if he has no stronger Arguments than they have us'd for that purpose, why would he have them suspected of Deism? To labour to perswade People that the Socinians, who have said so much [Page 27] to establish the divine Authority of the Bible, do not themselves believe it, is, methinks, no other, than to tempt Scepticks to conclude, that enough cannot be said to establish their Authority; which Mr. Edwards of all Men ought not to do, unless he himself be a meer Deist; which Imputation, as yet, I forbear to lay to his Charge, tho in truth, by his last Book [which he calls A Vindication of Fundamental Articles, &c. but might better have entitled it, A Vindication of Railing, (see p. 26, 27.) which Title, the Book fully answers, for it is one interrupted [...]] it does not appear that he is a Christian. Queen Elizabeth had a Secretary, who when he retir'd to Tihalds, his Country Seat, was wont to lay aside his Cognizances of Honour, with these words, Lie there Lord Burleigh; and then the grave Statesman would be very merry and gamesome. It take Mr. Edwards to have much of that honourable Gentleman's Humour, for I cannot imagine that he has utterly renounc'd Christianity; only perhaps when he writes or preaches Controversy, he cries, Lie by for a while, lie by so long good Christian; but the angry Story once finish'd, or the Sermon over, he's the same Mr. Edwards, as learned, as honest, and as pious as he was before. I beg my Reader always to consider, that I defend Socinianism only quo ad hoc, it is not the Road to meer Deism: in the next place, I will prove that meer Deism is not the Road to Atheism, Deism, I defin'd to be Natural Religion founded on the Belief of the Existence of a God, and of a future Life. There may, for ought I know, be Men who would be counted Deists, that believe not a jot of the Life to come, but these, I judg, if they were put to't, would hardly be able to dis­tinguish themselves from downright Atheists. To me it is all one, to question the Existence of a God, and to question his future Retributions; but Natural Religion, which depends on the Belief that God is, and that he is a Rewarder, cannot be the Road to Atheism. I will not deny but that Mr. Edwards knows the Road to Atheism as well as any Man breathing, but he must not put it upon us, that Deism is that Road; he may as well bear us in hand, that sailing Eastward is the Road to the West-Indies. There cannot be a plainer Contradiction, than to say, That the Belief of a God leads to the Belief of none. Were Atheism the prevailing Opinion I grant to Mr. Edwards, we should quickly see it move apace to the Ruin and Subversion of Kingdoms and Common­wealths, Societies and Bodies Politick; but upon the Principles of De­ism, i. e. on the Foundation of Natural Religion, publick Peace and Order stood firm before the days of the Christian Revelation: and did it not do so among the neighbour Nations that hated the Jews? Among [Page 28] the Deists, during the flourishing days of the growing Greatness of the Romans, there were, I believe, as few Atheists as there are among Christians now.

Let no malicious Adversary here pretend, that I plead the Cause of Deism; no, I do not: this I do, I maintain that Deism is not the Road to Atheism, as some Men very weakly and imprudently have affirm'd; for it rather is the Road to Christianity. I know Mr. Edwards will be angry with me for what I am going to tell him; but let him summon all the Powers and Skill he has in Logick, seasoning it with a dose of ill Nature quantum sufficit, and then refute me if he can. I here affirm, That if the Man who is not yet a Christian, be an honest, moral Deist, a Believer in God, and an Expecter of a future Judgment, he is, at least in precinctu ad salutem, and stands fair to be a Christian; no reveal'd Religion offers so reasonable Grounds to win him as the Christian. Now I much wonder that so ingenuous and moderate a Man as Mr. Norris should join with Mr. Edwards in so ignorant, invidious, and designing an Assertion as this, viz. Deism is the Road to Atheism. Mr. Norris's elegant way of wording it is, ‘He that is once a Deist, is in a hopeful way of being an Atheist whenever he pleases.’ No, Mr. Norris, no; an honest moral Deist's Principles are directly pointed against Atheism: but a spiteful, proud, and cruel Christian, is in very great danger of be­ing an Atheist, if he be not one already. But perhaps Mr. Edwards may reply, he spake not of a Deist, who never had been a Christian, but that his meaning was, The Man who falls from Christianity to Deism is in the Road to be an Atheist. To this I reply, That tho the Unitarians are firmly perswaded of the Truth of the Christian Religion, yet they need not grant the Assertion thus explain'd to be true; for, what Chris­tianity teaches, beyond that which natural Reason dictates, has not the Efficacy to prevent Atheism, which natural Reason has: however, I am content, and I think the Unitarians ought to be so likewise, That the Man who is afraid of a Bullet should wear a Coat of Mail, as well as keep out of Gun-shot.

I hope the Reader now plainly sees, that there is never a Link of Mr. Edwards's Chain that will hold. The Unitarians are Orthodox [of which more anon.] The Socinians are so far Orthodox, that they are firmly perswaded of the Verity of the Christian Religion, and are not meer Deists: Conscientious moral Deists are in no danger of being Atheists. But is there no dangerous Road leading to Atheism, of which Men ought to be warn'd, that they come not near it? Yes, there is; and it is a wide Road too, pav'd all along with rash Censures, ill Lan­guage, [Page 29] false Stories, barbarous unchristian Dealing, forg'd Decrees of inconditional Reprobation, and Stoical Fate, this is the Road, and the Persecutor, the Slanderer, and the Calvinist drive hard, like so many Jehu's in it, leaving Deism a long way off on the right hand. The Chris­tian Religion does not allow its Professors to be so much as proper Judges of Heresy as commonly understood, much less to be Executioners of He­reticks; for the reason given why the Tales should not be pull'd up be­fore the Harvest, is, lest some good Corn should be pull'd up with it. The Christian Religion directs Men by fair Carriage, by the Words of Truth and Soberness; to convince them whom we think in the wrong. He that is cruel, abusive and unjust, can be a Christian only in name; in reality he is Infidel all over. Then for Calvinism, that four System which is good for nothing but to fight with, [but I hope Mr. Edwards is inno­cent from that, for he has sourness enough without it] how should it o­therwise than tend to Atheism, when it represents Man without Free-will, and God without Goodness?

2. The Unitarians defend their Doctrines from the Imputation of mis­chievous Consequence or Tendency, by making it appear that they have no particular private Opinions about matters commonly held necessary to Salvation, different from the Church of England, that is, if the Bishops and chief Doctors of the Church know what the Church means.

I do confess that I much fear the Unitarians may have private Opinions about Articles commonly held necessary to Salvation, different from the Opinions of the Compilers of the 39 Articles, and from the Gramma­tical literal Sense of those Articles; for through them, as also through our Homilies, there runs a Vein of that Scheme which at this day is call'd Calvinism. But the Grammatical literal Sense of our Articles and Ho­milies are fall'n into the hands of Governing Bishops, Deans, and Doctors, and Governed inferiour Priests and Deacons; of whom a vast Majority [as appears by their Prints and daily Sermons] expound them very wide­ly different from the Grammatical literal Sense, intended by the first Com­pilers. Words and Phrases have nothing in their own nature which can fix them to this or that particular Sense: it is common Consent and way of speaking which appropriates them, and therefore our Articles and Homilies which once held forth some of the Predestinarian Rigors for the Doctrine of the Church, are not to be suppos'd to teach the same still, now that the Consent of our Church runs so strongly another way. Possibly the Unitarians have not Cranmer, Latimer and Ridly on their side, in the Points now controverted; but in them and all other neces­sary Articles, they have the Reverend Bishops of Worcester and Sarum, [Page 30] Dr. South, and Mr. Edwards with them: indeed if those Bishops and Doctors should neither be the Church, nor conjoin'd with enough to make a Majority, which must be the Church, the Lord have mercy up­on the Unitarians; for who is it that indulges his Brother a due liberty of Conscience, but when he needs it himself? but the Bishops and Doctors aforesaid being conjoin'd with an uncontestable Majority, the Unitarians have nothing more to do, to prove that they have no particular private Opinions about Matters commonly held necessary to Salvation, but to shew their Agreement with those Bishops and Doctors; or, which is much the same thing, the Agreement of those Bishops and Doctors with them: now this has been amply and fairly done by an Unitarian, I know not whom, he being a perfect Stranger to me; but it matters not much who he is, whether a Transmarine, or Cismarine Divine, or no Divine at all, 'tis nothing to the Cause that. Mr. Edwards by drawing up a Creed from Socinian Writers, mostly Foreigners, and publishing it as the Creed of the Unitarians, gave this Unitarian an occasion to declare the Sense of himself and his Friends upon all those Points, which he has done in a Pa­per call'd, The Agreement of the Ʋnitarians with the Catholick Church. Mr. Edwards takes no notice of this ingenuous Declaration; but because the Author has not also defended every unstudied doubtful or extravagant Saying, which this or that Socinian may have publish'd, therefore he triumphs, rubs his Forehead, and proclaims, That the Unitarian has not one Syllable to say for himself, or against him. Now in my Judgment, the Unitarian might as well expect that Mr. Edwards should defend all the Pagan Tritheism which might be quoted from Dr. Cudworth, Dr. Bull, and Dr. Sherlock; for what has the Unitarian more to do with the fo­reign Socinians, than Mr. Edwards has with these learned and real Tri­nitarians and Tritheists? For, the Unitarian does not blindly follow the Socinians, but while he takes up with some of their critical Interpretati­ons of difficult Texts, he forsakes them in others; even Mr. Edwards himself agreeing perhaps in most points with the aforesaid Realists, ac­cepts them for Orthodox Brethren, while he lets them keep their Tri­theism to themselves: it were a very unfair thing in me, if I should pub­lish the religious Frenzies of Mr. Gailhard [which have been so well cha­stis'd by two honest Gentlemen] as part of Mr. Edwards's Faith; nay, I much doubt whether he would be content to own all that I could quote him out of the Origines Eccles. and the Irenicum of that Patron of his, whose Name [he says] is not so much the Name of a Person, or a Family, as it is the Name of profound Learning, and solid Religion. I mention not those Books as if I thought them full of Errors, for I have a greater [Page 31] esteem for them than perhaps the Author himself may have now, or Mr. Edwards either: but my meaning is, that neither should Mr. Ed­wards be put to answer for the Tritheism of the Realists, nor the Uni­tarians censur'd for Socinian Mistakes. By the way, were I a great Man, and my Fame wanted some specious Decoration, I would bestow my en­couraging Bounty on an Ecclesiastick rather than a meer Heathenish Poet; not but that the meer Heathenish Poet might have the most Wit, the no­blest Fancy, and as little Conscience as any grave Panegyrist whatsoever: but because an Ecclesiastick for a small matter will say all that he can to make a God of his Patron, while the other measures his Encomiums by the Number of the Guineas that are paid him. To return, the Socinian Perswasion is to be seen in the Racovian Catechism: The English Uni­tarian Sentiments in the Agreement, &c. those their Sentiments there set down, no one that I know of has undertaken to refute or charge with Heresy. But farther, from several Tracts of the Unitarians it appears that those their Adversaries who have been distinguish'd by the Name of Nominals, and who are a considerable Majority of the Church, do yet explain the controverted Articles to the very same Sense as do the Unita­rians, I refer the Reader chiefly to the Discourse concerning the Nomi­nal and Real Trinitarians, to which I can add but little; yet some Instan­ces I shall produce, which make it plain that the Leaders of the Nomi­nalists in the controverted Points differ as little from the Socinians, as the Unitarians do. The Racovian Catechism affirms that the Essence of God is but one in number, and that in the Essence of God there is but one Person: The first of the 39 Articles of the Church of England teaches, That in the Unity of the Godhead there are three Persons; this Doctrine the Learned Bishop of Worcester undertakes to defend, suppos­ing it gainsay'd by the Socinians and by the Unitarians: But if it be gainsay'd by neither, his Lordship has thrown away a great deal of Learn­ing to little purpose. 'Tis true, a Man has not the less Learning for this sort of Expence; but then if he spends much Labour in it, 'tis an un­dervaluing of his Judgment. The different Explications which the Racovian Catechism and his Lordship give of this ambiguous homony­mous word, Person, being consider'd, it is plain that they differ about the meaning of a word, and that's all, while their Doctrine is one and the same. The Racovian Catechism defines a Person to be an Individual Intel­ligent Essence; but, according to the Bp of Worcester, a Person is one and the same Nature under different Modes of Subsistence.Vindic. of the Trin. p. 14, 15, 16. The Bishop will not say that there are three Individual Intelligent Essences in the Godhead: The Racovians [Page 32] never did say, that the Godhead might not be consider'd as subsisting un­der divers Modes. Now as for the Unitarians in this Particular, their Case is this—While they follow'd the Definiture of the Racovians, which was accommodated to the common Acception of the word, Person; their Doctrine was—But One Person in the One God: But when the Nominals unanimously declar'd that they meant by Person, not a compleat Intelligent Being, but only Relations, Properties, or Modes of Subsistence; then the Unitarians made no scruple to own three Persons in one Godhead. As to the Particular before us then, all that I would beg of my Lord of Worcester in behalf of the Unitarians, is, that they may have leave to be as much Socinian as his Lordship, more they will not de­sire: and if his Lordship hath any Arguments to refute the Trinity of the Realists consisting of three distinct Minds, Intelligent Beings, Essen­ces, which the Socinians have not us'd before him; let him be pleas'd to communicate them, and the Unitarians will promise for the future to oppose the Tritheism of the Realists only by his Lordship's Arguments, and not by any borrow'd from the Socinians; farther, the Unitarians will be content that his Lordship shall only declare himself against the Doctrine of the Realists, who are by reason of their equal Learning, Eminence and not contemptible Numbers, too considerable to be other­wise griev'd: but far from every Orthodox Father be that Injustice, common among Boys, who when the Person that gives the Offence is out of their reach, strike him that stands next.

It is not much out of place here to commend the good temper of the Unitarians, who for conserving brotherly Love and Peace among Chris­tians will not litigate about Terms and Words, on which the Authority that imposes them puts an honest Sense and Meaning: there are [it must not be denied] no small Inconveniences in altering the common significa­tion of words; but that's so well remedied by a new Definition of the words that are alter'd, that I would sooner envy our Church the Power of declaring Articles of Faith, than this Liberty of making words sig­nify, in spite of common Sense, what they please. The greatest Mischief is, when words that must be us'd in Theological Controversies, must not signify as they have commonly done, nor yet be determin'd anew to any other express Particular; but this is the Fault of some Realists. One of the Unitarians in his Book call'd, The Agreement, &c. p. 36. has examin'd the Sense of the Bishop of Sarum concerning the Incarna­tion and Divinity of our Lord Christ, and grants that the Sense of his Lordship may pass for Orthodox, but undeniably evinces that the Senti­ments of the Unitarians are a degree or two more Orthodox. I shall not [Page 33] repeat, but refer the Reader to the place, chusing rather in pursuit of my chief purpose to insist wholly on this, that there is not so wide a Diffe­rence between his Lordship's Explanations and the Racovian Catechism as might be imagin'd, and that his Lordship is at least as much Racovian as the Unitarians. I do not aim to vindicate all that's in the Racovian Catechism, but only so much of it as the Unitarians are concern'd with. The Racovian Catechism teaches that Jesus Christ was a true Man by Na­ture, but had not truly a Divine Nature; that Jesus Christ was not so constituted of a Divine and Human Nature, as a Man is of a Body and Soul. The Bishop of Sarum teaches in the 2d of his four Treatises, p. 96. That the Godhead by the Eternal Word, the 2d in the blessed Three, dwelt in, and was so inwardly united to the human Nature of Jesus Christ, that by virtue of it God and Man were truly one Person, as our Soul and Body make one Man. It must be confess'd that here is Contradiction in Terms direct and plain as can be: but let the Expo­sition of the Terms which is given on either side be duly weigh'd, and it will evidently appear, that the Racovians and the Bishop agree very well as to the Substance of the Article, except in one small respect wherein his Lordship is at some small variance with himself. When the Racovians teach that our Lord Christ who was a true Man, had not a true Divine Nature, they do not mean that he was not constantly illumi­nated, conducted, and actuated by the Godhead; but only that the Godhead did not become commensurate to a finite Man, so as to pro­duce a real Communication of Idioms, and thereby make the great things which are spoken of Christ in respect of the Illuminating, Conducting, Indwelling Godhead, to be equally applicable to his Humanity: this is plain from the Reasons they give why they deny Christ to have a Divine Nature. The first is this, two Substances endued with opposite Proper­ties cannot combine into one Person, i. e. [according to their Sense of the word Person] into one individual Intelligent Essence. Nothing oc­curs throughout the Bishop's whole Discourse contrary to this Negative; but to establish it more sure, several Expressions of the Bishop's [as Mr. Hill of Kilmington has observ'd upon him] intimate that the Man­hood of Christ is a Person distinct from the Eternal Word that dwelt in him. 2. The Racovians deny the Divine Nature of Christ, because [say they] two Natures, each whereof is apt to constitute a several Per­son, i. e. a several individual Intelligent Essence, cannot be huddled into one Person, or one individual Intelligent Essence. One would think that this Reason should not down with the Bishop, and indeed the Language does not; for p. 102. he says that from the Divine and Human Nature united, there did result the Person of the Messias: but then what does he [Page 34] mean by the Divine and Human Nature united? Why, no more than The Human Nature always actuated, illuminated, and conducted by the Di­vine. This is very agreeable to Scripture, yes, and the Racovian Cate­chism also. But to make this look more like an unintelligible Union, that the Realists might not charge him with betraying the Cause to the Uni­tarians, he calls it in lofty Phrase, an assuming the Man into an inward and immediate Oeconomy, p. 108. In short, the Bishop makes no more of the Divine Nature than this—Christ was God by virtue of the in­dwelling of the Eternal Word in him, p. 127. The Racovians scruple the Phrase, Divine Nature, but admit all that the Bishop makes of it. The Bishop places the Divine Nature in that thing, which the Racovians do not deny; and the Racovians deny the Divine Nature, for Reasons which the Bishop allows to be Truths: so then the difference between them is purely Nominal, a meer Logomachy. But to do his Lordship justice, he is in the right for using the Terms, Divine Nature, and God-man, because they are Terms authoriz'd by the Church, on which both his Lordship and the Church puts an honest Sense: and the Racovians were too stiff in refusing them, especially considering that in their very Cate­chism they speak, in other Phrase, as honourably of Christ as his Lord­ship; for they say, that Christ is by no means to be reputed a meer Man, they give their Reasons for it, and therefore call him a Man truly Divine: and for my part, I think a Man truly Divine, must have a Nature truly Divine; and therefore the Racovians, whose Doctrine is taught by the Bishop, would have done better had they taught it in the Terms of Art which the Bishop uses, tho perhaps he is not fond of the Terms, which one may partly guess by his declining to consider all or any Speculations con­cerning the Eternal Generation: Whereas the Unitarians fully to demon­strate their Orthodoxy, allow the Eternal Generation of the Logos, Son, or Wisdom. Let me not forget that I observ'd the Bishop did not so well agree in one small respect with the Unitarians, which respect was such, that therein he was at some small variance with himself: the thing is this, He has affirm'd that God and Man make one Person, as the Soul and Body make one Man; it was proper for him to take up with this Ex­pression, in conformity to the Athanasian Creed: but his Philosophical Reasonings look quite another way; for, p. 102. he has these Words, ‘It has been thought that the Human Nature in Christ had no special Subsistence, tho it was not easy to explain this Notion, since if Subsis­tence belong'd to the Human Nature, it might seem that it [the Hu­man Nature] was not perfect if it had not a proper Subsistence. An Hy­postatical Union was proposed as a Term fit to explain this by, i. e. the Human Nature in Christ was believ'd to subsist by the Subsistence [Page 35] of the Word; but it was not easy to make this the more intelligible, by offering a Notion full as unintelligible as it self to explain it by.’ Now tho the Bishop is a cautious Man, and will have a care of offend­ing a Brother, as appears by those soft ways of expressing his dislike of an Opinion—It has been thought—It is not easy—It might seem;—Yet here he sufficiently discovers to any considering Reader, that he believes the Human Nature of Christ had a proper Subsistence; and if it had a proper Subsistence, then [say I] by it self it constituted Christ a Person, and then God and Man did not make one Person, as the Soul and Body make a Man: For the Bishop explains Subsistence thus, ‘We may conceive the Subsistence of an intelligent Being,P. 107. to be its acting intirely in it self, or upon Matter united to it, without any other Spirit's being constantly present to it, actuating it, or having it under any immediate vital and inseparable Influence.’ It may seem strange tho that the Bishop should intimate, that the Human Nature of Christ had a proper Subsistence, a Subsistence of its own, and after­wards define the Subsistence of an Intelligent Being, to be its acting in­tirely in it self, without any other Spirit's being constantly present to it, &c. It is a Mercy that Self-contradiction is not Heresy. I hope the Bishop is not of Rhetorius's Mind, who thought that the Teachers of contrary Doctrines were all in the right. St. Austin could not perswade himself that any one could be so whimsical, but upon the Supposition he puts down the Name of Rhetorius in his black Catalogue of Hereticks.

I design'd to have spoke at large with the Bp of Sarum concerning the Satisfaction of Christ, on which Article he can have no difference with the Unitarians, and has as little as may be with the Racovians; but the Au­thor of The Agreement, &c. having been before me, I shall be the shorter. There is not a more artful controversial piece of Writing, than some few Pages of the second of the four Treatises. His Lordship's Learning and piercing Judgment are such, that he clearly sees through the whole Arti­cle, and no Man were better able to state it plainly, to disintangle it from the Philosophy of the Schools, to decide it accurately, and firmly establish the certain Truth: but then his Wisdom is such, that while he gives forth his Lectures, which may be very profitable to them that know how to use them, he retreats from the envy of the Calvinists in a set of Ec­clesiastical Phrases, whose strict Grammatical Sense has been long laid aside; he distinguishes himself from the Racovians by labour'd Metapho­rical Flourishes, frowns upon the Unitarians to hide his Agreement with them, and amuses the Writers of positive Divinity, [which Character he can tell any Party was not meant of them] to dissemble his aversion from [Page 36] their unreasonable and odious Scheme. I will convince the Reader of the Justness of my Observation. The Racovians dispute against their Doctrine, who determine that there is such a Mercy in God as must for­give, and such a Justice as must punish, and cannot be satisfied without it; that because God would have both his Mercy and his Justice take place, therefore he found out that way to forgive Sins, by sending his Son to suffer Death in that Nature which had offended. These Racovians acknowledg God to be wonderfully merciful and just, but they contend that he freely forgiveth, that he punisheth Sins when he pleaseth, when his Wisdom thinks fit. Now let's hear the Bishop; he sets his Face against the Writers of Positive Divinity, and censures these their Doc­trines, ‘That God cannot freely forgive Sins; that punishing, as well as remunerative Justice,P. 135. are essential to him; that God being infinite, every Offence against him has an infinite Guilt, and must be expiated either by Acts of infinite Value, or of infinite Duration; and that a Person of an infinite Nature was only capable of Acts of an infinite Value; that such a one was necessary for the expiating Sin.’ And are not these the very Errors oppos'd by the Racovians? more fully and elegantly stated by his Lordship, that's true, for nothing loses under his hand; nor do the Racovians overthrow these Errors with that irresistible force of Argument as his Lordship. For, says he, ‘In all this Gradation there is one main Defect, the Scripture sets none of these Speculations before us; nor is it easy to appre­hend, that a Right of punishing which is in the Legislator, and a Right to reward, which passes from him to the Person that acquires it, should be equally essential to God: in the one his Fidelity and Jus­tice are bound, because of the Right that accrues to another; but the other of punishing, seems to be a Right that is vested in him­self, which he may either use or not, as he pleases.’

Agreeing thus in the main, one would wonder what Nicety should divide the Racovians and his Lordship: there must be but a Nicety be­tween them; but 'tis not the first time a Nicety has made a great Breach between Friends. The Bishop, speaking of his Racovian Friends, pretends to take Distaste, because they believe ‘That Christ only died for our Good,P. 141, 142. and not in our Stead, that by his Death he might fully confirm his Gospel, and give it a great Authority — They believe, That by his dying, he intended to set us a most perfect Pattern of bearing the sharpest Suf­ferings with the perfectest Patience — and the most entire Cha­rity — that by doing this he was to merit at God's hand that su­preme [Page 37] Authority with which he is now vested for our Good, that so he might obtain a Power to offer the World Pardon of Sin upon their true Repentance. Finally, That he died in order to his Resurrection, and for giving a sensible Proof of that main Article of his Religion.’ Now what does his Lordship believe more than this? Why he says the same things over again in a new Set of Phrases, and adds this Expression, Christ suffered both upon our Account, P. 143. and in our Stead. If the Bishop would abide by the strictest and most proper Sense of these Words In our Stead, he would indeed differ in a considerable matter from the Racovians, but then he would also differ as much from himself; for he means no more by suffering in our stead, than the Racovians mean by suffering for our good; as appears from what he says p. 135. ‘If every Sin, as being of infinite guilt, must be expiated by an infinite Act, it will not be easy to make this out, how the Acts of Christ, tho infinite in value, should stand in a strict equality with all the Sins of so many men, every one of which is of infinite guilt.’ If his Lordship is sincere in this, then he cannot pretend to believe that Christ suffer'd the infinite Punishment due to the infinite Guilt of all Men, and by doing so, made a full, proper, and adequate Satisfaction for the Sins of the World; which is the strict and proper Sense of suffering in our Stead. All that his Lordship does, or can consistently to himself, make of this Phrase—In our Stead, is, That Christ did so suffer for our Good, that if he had not suffer'd as he did, we must have been the miserable Sufferers our selves. But there is another Phrase wherein his Lordship labours to distinguish himself from his Friends, and that is, Expiatory Sacrifice. But he may please to consider, That the Racovians are not utterly averse from this Phrase; for in their Catechism, to that Question, What think you of those Sacri­fices? [i. e. of the Old Covenant] they answer, p. 139. ‘By them the Sins of the People were expiated or aton'd; that is, by the inter­vening of those Sacrifices, Remission of Sins, graciously decreed by God, was brought to effect.’ Otherwhere also they thankfully ac­knowledg, That the Death of Christ expiates our Sins, through the gra­cious Condescension of his Father, who is pleas'd to accept that Sacri­fice, not as a Payment to his Justice, but as an Application to his Mercy. And just thus, but more elegantly [as always] his Lordship explains what he means by an Expiatory Sacrifice, p. 151. ‘We are to consider, that in Sacrifices it is the Appointment, and the Acceptation, which makes the Satisfaction; for God's accepting a Sacrifice, is an Abate­ment of the Rigour of Justice, and a declaring that he will pardon Sins [Page 38] in such a Method and upon such a Consideration.’ He had spoke to the same purpose, p. 136. But I am weary of transcribing. By what I have said it is plain, That on the Article of Christ's Death, and Satisfaction for the Sins of Mankind, there is no real Difference between the Bishop and the Racovian Catechism: and when his Lordship explains his less proper Phrases, there's an end of all verbal Difference between them.

As before of the Bishop of Worcester, so now of the Bishop of Sarum, I have one thing to beg in behalf of the Unitarians: But because I would not offer my Petition rudely, I have a very pertinent Story to introduce it. In the beginning of the last Reign, William Pen, in behalf of him­self and Friends, preferred an Address, which to the best of my remem­brance was thus worded.

By this excellent Pattern I draw up my Petition.

Having thus shewn by what Methods the Unitarians defend their Doc­trines of evil Tendency and mischievous Consequence, I think it fit to acquit my self of a Promise to Mr. Edwards. He takes notice of these Words in the Agreement, &c. p. 7. ‘He may, for our parts, be Anathema that teaches or believes that Doctrine, viz. That there is no Merit in what Christ did or suffer'd, and that he made not Satis­faction for our Sins.’ And he pretends that the con­trary was taught by an Unitarian t'other day in these Words,Antitrinitarian Scheme, p. 18. ‘The Oblation which Christ made of himself, was not made to the Justice of God, or by way of Reparation, but, as all other Sacrifices, by way of humble Suit.’ Now I take this Passage to be so far from a Contradiction, that it may be look'd upon as a just and reasonable Explication of the former. The Bishop of Sarum, either more honest or more discerning than Mr. Ed­wards, represents the Socinians owning that Christ by his Death merit­ed at God's hands, merited a supreme Authority, and obtain'd a Pow­er to offer the World Pardon of Sin upon their true Repentance, p. 142. He believes also, with the Ʋnitarians, that the Oblation was made, [Page 39] not to the Justice, but to the Mercy of God; for he says, pag. 135. ‘The Right of punishing, God may use, or not use, as he pleases; and that the Acts of Christ, tho infinite in value, cannot stand in a strict Equality with the Sins of Mankind.’ And whereas Mr. Ed­wards accuses the Unitarians for scoffing and ridiculing the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ, they are ready to tell him, 1. That they are the least given to scoffing of any Writers of Controversy. 2. It cannot be pretended that they have scoff'd the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ, as the Church and the Bishop of Sarum understand those Words, whatever they may have done to the Calvinistical Hypothesis, which Mr. Edwards must embrace, if on this Subject he disputes against them. 3. Whether the Calvinistical Hypothesis be fit to be scoff'd at, I will not argue; but I am sure it deserves to be abhorr'd. That there was no such Justice in God, as necessarily oblig'd him to exact a Satisfaction, is a Per­swasion not only built upon sound Reason, but also credited with the Authority of the most eminent Theologues, antient and modern: Vossius, in his Answer to Ravensperger, has quoted above a dozen of them, and Calvin and Zanchy are two of the number. But Mr. Edwards I will not say refines, but corrupts the very Dregs, the four Hypostasis, the heavy Subsidence, the thick Sediment of Calvinism.

I thought I had concluded the Topick on which I have dwelt (I fear) too long already; but I beg the Reader's Patience yet farther, that I may call to mind a Gentleman who has engag'd in this Controversy, and might take it ill if he should be neglected, as one not worthy of our Notice.

He is a zealous Accuser, and a strong Justifier of the Doctrine of the Unitarians; but since his Courtesy is more beneficial than his Anger in­jurious, tho perhaps he never intended it so, I will do what I can to reconcile him to himself. He is an irreconcilable Enemy to the Unita­rians, or Socinians (as he calls them) of New Atlantis and Ʋtopia, but accords perfectly well with the European Unitarians, both Foreign­ers and English. He saith p. 58 ‘There is a Distinction made in the Godhead, under these three Names, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which the Church hath exprest all together by the Word Trinity, and singly by the Word Person.—I conclude that there is some­thing more than a meer Nominal Distinction.— I conclude that they are not three distinct different Spirits.’ From these two Conclu­sions let's hear what he infers, p. 59. ‘I infer there is in the God­head something more than a meer nominal Distinction, and some­thing less than that of three different Spirits.’ Some Men have such [Page 40] roving wild Heads, that they'll infer any thing from any thing; because the Moon shines with Light borrow'd from the Sun, therefore Kings hold their Crowns of the Pope: But our Author keeps close to the Mat­ter, and infers from his two Conclusions, nothing but what he had concluded before. Well! if he is right in his Conclusions, he is safe in his Inference. But how came he by his Conclusions? Why, from some Passages of Scripture he found that there was a Distinction in the Godhead. Well! be it so. One might ask now, what is the Distin­ction? Is it a Distinction of Properties, Relations, Modes, or what? But for that we must hold him excus'd; for (says he) ‘I have not the least knowledg how strict the Union is, or how great the Dis­tinction.’ He was well set on work then, to write against the Eng­lish Unitarians, who oppose no Trin-Unity, but a Trinity of Three dis­tinct Essences, in Numerical Unity.

But the Ignorance of this pert Academian is a small Fault in respect of that censorious and singular Boldness wherewith he takes upon him to censure his Superiors in the Church; his Superiors for Learning and Dig­nity both, who several of them have attempted to explain, and have made it intelligible [at least they themselves think so] how the Three are distinguish'd, and how united. Mr. Peter Brown fears not to throw this Censure on their Undertakings; p. 59. ‘Any Man who strives to conceive it himself, or takes pains to explain it to others, is guilty of such a Folly, that I can't think of any Action in nature extravagant enough to match it.’ This is very agreeable to his Sense, p. 173. where he intimates that neither Dominion nor Religion are founded in Reason. So then his Loyalty and Orthodoxy are both of a piece. Our Church of England, in the late Reigns, had much ado to be loyal enough for the Men of Dublin; I am afraid they will have much ado to be Orthodox enough for them now.

Having now spoke what I had to say concerning the Causes which have rais'd the Disputes at present agitated among us, I am next to con­sider what has inflam'd them to that dangerous Excess which in time may disturb the publick Peace.

Certainly it cannot be pure Love of God, or a sincere Desire to ad­vance the Happiness of Mankind, which makes Religious Disputants ma­nage their Controversies with that angry impatient Heat: I know 'tis not uncommon for Men to pretend the Honour of God, and the Interest of Holy Religion, when they whet their Tongues like Rasors, and dip their Pens in Gall; when they lay Plots to oppress and kill, and are bent on Ruin and Destruction: nay, 'tis possible for them, while they are [Page 41] thus mischievously imploy'd, to think they are doing God Service, but they must have prodigiously debauch'd their Reason, before they can enter­tain such Thoughts; for it is not easy to believe that God delights in Uncharitableness, Envy, Hatred and Persecution.

It is not easy to believe that Persecution is not contrary to the obliging good-natur'd Precepts of the Gospel.

It is not easy to believe that Force is the way to convince Men of their Errors.

It is not easy to believe that Force is a proper way to move Men to consider.

It is not easy to believe that speculative Opinions which Men cannot help, should be destructive of their Eternal Happiness.

It is not easy to believe that the Magistrate's Sentiments are rational and true, meerly because they are the Sentiments of those who are in Autho­rity.

It is not easy to believe that the Magistrate has a right to enforce his own Opinions, when himself is confessedly liable to Mistakes.

It is not easy to believe that God would be worshipp'd in every Nation only by that way which the Magistrate shall chuse.

It is not easy to believe that 'tis the Duty of Men to worship God con­trary to their Consciences.

Is it not easy to believe that Persecution, which naturally tends to set all Mankind together by the ears, to destroy Trade and Commerce, and to hinder the Improvements of Knowledg, can be doing God good Service.

It is not easy to believe that Magistrates were appointed to ruin those for whose good, we are told in Scripture, they were ordain'd.

It is not easy to imagine, that Authors who have publickly profess'd that in Matters of Faith every Man must judg for himself, and that every Man using his own Judgment, without Pride or affectation of Singularity, is doing the best thing that he can do; that simple Error is not Heresy, &c. it is not easy, I say, to imagine that such Authors can esteem Persecution a part of that reasonable Service which they owe to the Great God.

If Men of reviling persecuting Tempers could be perswaded delibe­rately and seriously to examine their own Minds, and put themselves the Question, What is it which prompts them to give bad Language, to ca­lumniate, to form Designs against the Fame, Estate, Liberty, and Life of their Brother, to pursue him beyond this Life, [not as Brutus did Aruns, which was the Wit of the Historian] but with real Enmity to pursue him beyond this Life, to hang him and burn him in order to damn [Page 42] him; no doubt they might perceive that they were not mov'd by a true Love of God, or a desire to advance the Happiness of Mankind, but by an undue Love of themselves, and a desire to advance some not very ho­nourable Interest, which might be much impeded by an indulg'd Liberty of Prophesying: 'tis something of this kind which has mingled so ma­ny bitter Reproaches, false Stories, and malicious Insinuations with our controversial religious Pleadings. That I may avoid the envy of descend­ing to Particulars, I leave my Observation, as it is propounded only in general, being satisfied that free impartial Considerers will soon perceive its Truth; and as to those Persons who are less us'd to look into the Reason of things, I will for their sakes cover it with a great Authority: Bp of Sarum's 4 Tracts, p. 185. ‘If it be said that Error does disturb the Peace and Order of the Church beyond what is to be apprehend­ed from Sin; Error runs Men into Parties, and out of those Factions do arise, which break not only the Peace of the Church, but the whole Order of the World, and the quiet of Civil Society; whereas Sin does only harm to those who are guilty of it, or to a few who may be cor­rupted by their ill example: To this it is to be answer'd, That Sin does naturally much more Mischief to Mankind than Error. He that errs, if he is not immoral with it, is quiet and peaceable in his Error; therefore still the greatest Mischief is from Sin, which corrupts Mens Natures thro its own Influence. And the Mischief that Error does pro­cure, arises chiefly from the Pretensions to Infallibility, or something that is near a-kin to it: for if Men were suffer'd to go on in their Er­rors, with the same undisturb'd quiet that they have for most of their Sins, they would probably be much quieter in them; since Sin of its Na­ture is a much fiercer thing than a point of Speculation can be suppos'd to be: but if Men apprehend Inquisitions or other Miseries, upon the account of their Opinions, then they stand together and combine for their own defence; so that it is not from the Errors themselves, but from the Methods of treating them, that all those Convulsions have arisen, which have so violently shaken Churches and Kingdoms.’

I quote no other Author, nor no more from this to the Purpose be­fore me, purely to avoid being tedious; but there is that plenty of con­curring Testimonies obvious to be collected from the printed Discourses of the most eminent of our Ecclesiasticks, that hardly a considerable Man of any order can call for the Sword of the Magistrate to punish Diffe­rences of Opinion in Matters of Faith, but he must do it in defiance of his own Conscience, as well as the Laws of the Land. I lay it down then, not only for a very certain, evident, but also for a generally con­fess'd [Page 43] Truth, that it is always a Vice, more or less artificially conceal'd, which prompts religious Disputants to fight the Lord's Battels with an­gry Noise, and fiery Words, and flaming Censures, that Thunder and Lightning of theirs, which does more Mischief than all the Artillery of Nature from the stormy Sky, or the sulphureous Caverns of the Earth.

And now there's no avoiding the Inquiry, Whether the Unitarians or their Adversaries, or both, have manag'd their Disputes with any of these unjust and unbeseeming Methods. It is urg'd hard upon the Unitarians that they have ridicul'd the venerable Articles of the Christian Religion, and spoke disrespectfully and contemtuously of the most eminent learned and pious Fathers of the Church: for proof of the first Charge, the Sto­ry of Dulcinea, and one or two Passages more; of the second, the two Tracts, call'd, Considerations of the Explications, &c. are much insisted on. But methinks what the Unitarians say for themselves in their own Defence, is weighty: as much of it as has been communicated to me, I will set down, and add what more is obvious, and may be justly added; but for the evener Thred of Discourse, I offer both the one and the other as from my self.

I have scarce met with that Person who has read the Considerations, but confesses, those two Tracts may pass for Models of elegant, proper, and decent Writing, in the controversial way; and I was amazed that two Reverend Bishops should think themselves affronted or disrespected there; for my part I know not how a greater Deference could have been paid them, unless they had been honour'd as inspir'd and infallible Inter­preters, and worshipp'd with Mr. Edwards's gross Flattery, which hal­lows their Names, and makes them signify profound Learning, and solid Religion. The severe Vertue of one of the old Romans, would have resented this as a Libel: But however Mr. Edwards vouches his elevated Compliment with a solemn Asseveration, ‘Without the least shew of Adulation it may be most truly said, that your Name is now not so much the Name of a Person or Family, as it is the Name of pro­found Learning and solid Religion.’ He that makes no conscience of such Strains and such Vouching, tho to a Bishop very Learned and Or­thodox, would have bated nothing had his Patron's Merit been no great­er than his own. But I digress—The briskness and saltness in those two Tracts, the Considerations, has nothing that is personal, nothing that reflected on the Persons of their Lordships, or of any other Antagonists: it is no more than is allow'd to all Writers, that their Books may not nau­seate an ingenuous Reader, or weary and tire the more Delicate by a continued Chain and Course of severe and close Reasoning, like a high [Page 44] Tragedy, without any Interludes of Musick and Dancing. And perhaps if their Lordships had leisure to look into their former controversial Wri­tings, when they were engag'd with other Adversaries, they might find that themselves had us'd as much Liberty as here they condemn. A long deduced Narration of Argument upon Argument, naked Argument, without pleasing turns of Wit, or well-suted Ornaments of proper and manly Rhetorick, is a very dry Business, of which their Lordships have been so sensible, that when I was a young Fellow, I us'd to read their Writings for my Pleasure as well as my Profit; and I will undertake to prove that in the controversial Discourses which they have publish'd in Print, whether against Papists or other Dissenters from the Church of Eng­land, they have us'd the Persons of their Adversaries more disrespectfully and contemtuously than it can be pretended the Considerer has us'd them; so that were their Charge against the Considerer just, they ought to forgive him for their own sakes. It is a good Spanish Proverb, If a Man's own House be made of Glass, he should have a care of breaking his Neigh­bour's Windows.

But that which is aggravated most invidiously against the Considerer, is, the manner of his Reply to the late Archbishop; to expose which the Bp of Worcester repeats what he pleases, without its Dependance and Connexion, and then pronounces, Pref. p. 54. ‘The plain meaning of all this is, that the late Archbishop was a meer self-interested Man.’ But if this be not the plain meaning, no, nor the meaning plain or obscure; then the Considerer is falsly accus'd. I will lay the matter before the Rea­der. The Considerer begins his Answer to his Grace the late ArchBp, with an Apology for his undertaking to answer so many Men of the first Order in the Church, eminent for real Worth and excellent Learning: He expresses a particular Deference to his Grace, as he ought, above all the rest. He then declares the Motives which perswaded him to answer; this being done, that his Cause might not lose by the Meanness and Obscu­rity of his Person, he ingeniously notes, that in the Commonwealth of Learning, there's no regard had to Titles of Honour; wherefore if he has prov'd his Point, it avails his Opposers nothing that they are great Pen­sioners of the World, biass'd by Rewards, and Aws. It will indeed hence follow, that the Considerer did mean that in his Judgment, the Honours and Profits enjoy'd by the ArchBp, might have some influence on his mind to hinder him from discerning plainly the state of the Question, or freely speaking his Mind: but this can never be made to signify that the ArchBp was a meer self-interested Man, but by such a Figure as makes the Name of a Learned and Religious Person truly signify profound [Page 45] Learning and solid Religion. 'Tis not the most uncommon thing in the World, for good Men, in great Places, to be influenc'd sometimes and in some things by self-interest; but a meer self-interested Man is one who is wholly govern'd by self-interest, whose Opinions alter as his Interest does, whose Stile accommodates it self to the Changes of Times, and the Steps of his own Advancement. But tho I am satisfied that the Con­siderer's Words do not reflect on the ABp. so injuriously as the Bishop of W. would perswade, yet I think it had been better that they had been unsaid, for they are off from the Argument, unbecoming, and best excus'd by observing, that none of all his Antagonists but has more to answer for upon this account than he.

As for that Charge of ridiculing the Articles of the Christian Religion, the Unitarians stand upon it, that they are perfectly innocent; only they acknowledg that they have wrote satyrically against the Heathenish Error of the Realists: but they hope they may be forgiven their Endeavours to put Tritheism to open Shame, especially because they never wish'd to see it hang'd or burn'd.

I have now noted what may be justly pleaded on behalf of the Uni­tarians, to acquit them from the Guilt of an undue management of the Controversy: but there are two things wherein I cannot excuse them; the first is a piece of Rashness and Indiscretion; the second, a Trespass against a distinguishing Precept of the Christian Religion. The Story of Dulcinea is pointed not against the Orthodox Doctrine, but the Scho­lastick Unscriptural Terms of the Nominalists. Now it was a piece of Rashness and Indiscretion to ridicule those Terms (how obnoxious so­ever) unto which, for Peace sake, they now confess their Consciences could submit. Sure they could not hope that the old Scholastick Terms should be laid aside at their Instance. George Duke of Saxony thought not amiss of the Reformation which Luther drove at; but that it should be made at the Instance of a pitiful Monk, seem'd to him intolerable. The Trespass against a distinguishing Precept of the Christian Religion, of which I think the Unitarians are in some measure guilty, is, That when they have been odiously misrepresented, foully calumniated, maliciously expos'd, haughtily insulted, rated, revil'd, and censur'd by this and t'other Adversary, better skill'd at Libelling than Logick, they have not taken it with all the compos'd Firmness of Mind, with all the steddy Pa­tience which the Commands of the Holy Gospel requir'd, and the Ex­ample of their blessed Master made practicable; but when they have been barbarously us'd, have answer'd angrily again. It's true, the worst Returns that they have made, compar'd with what they have suffer'd, [Page 46] may seem perfect Courtship; but if they had never been mov'd from an even Christian Temper when all manner of evil was spoke against them without just Cause, their Labours would have gain'd a still higher Esteem, and perhaps have been handed down to late Posterity, as the most absolute Patterns of a dexterous and able, pertinent, close, and just Management of Controversy.

I should now examine how the Controversy has been manag'd by those Authors who have oppos'd the Unitarians, whether upon the Prin­ciples of Tritheism, or upon a misunderstanding of one another about certain Terms of Art which admit divers Constructions: But I am really afraid of examining this, well knowing that I should meet abundance of Unchristian Matter, not capable of any favourable Representation. Should I but shew how they have treated one another, the impartial Reader would certainly say, that the Unitarians ought to sit down content under the Injuries which have fall'n to their share: and therefore I hope these Authors will give me leave to pass them over [all but one, who has distinguish'd himself by peculiar Antichristian Excesses] with this general, not harsh Censure. In some of their Writings there appears much Learning; so much Learning, that it runs into Confusion; such Confusion, that tho you may perceive whom they love, and whom they hate, yet you cannot easily divine what Opinions they are for or against: in others there are to be met better digested Learning, and a strong Viva­city of Wit. This Man despairs of solving the Difficulties he meddles with, but honestly hopes, that one time or other a lucky Interpreter will rise, that presumes he has started a Notion which seems to give some light to help to form some general Idea of Matters in question; but among them all, there's little or no Christian Moderation and Temper. Yet if these great Persons had confin'd themselves to close Reasoning, and left the zealous angry part to Mr. Edwards, their Cause would not have suf­fer'd for want of calling Names. That worthy Author's Book, entit'led A brief Vindication of the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith, is such an entire piece of Railing, that no Rabsheka before Christ, nor Lu­cian since, ever equall'd it. 'Tis wrote too all in the Strain of Bombo­machides-Cluninstaridy-Sarchides, Great Neptune's Grandchild: I van­quish'd the stupendous Giant COL, sprung from the prolifick putrefying Gore of the odious Leviathan; we fought on Altercando's Plains, where Lana Caprina has so often committed Fools and Philosophers together. I push'd hard at first; in vain the mighty Monster roar'd, in vain dis­gorg'd his poisonous Replies; for now collecting all my Powers into one impetuous Volume, I pour'd in upon him 500 bald Reproaches, [Page 47] Conundrums, and Blunders innumerable; and to perfect the glorious Work, I murder'd his Fame, but that, with some few trifling Stories, two malicious Witticisms, and one lewd obscene Allusion. I ruin'd the whole Posse of the Unitarians, struck their chosen Champion dead, that Champion that was cull'd out of the whole Host, and was himself an Host, or else he had not been a Match for me; yet him I confounded only with some Scores of Perversions, and a few bolder Falsifications of Authors. I chain'd the Rector of Steeple to the Carcase of old Malms­bury; like another Mezentius, I clap'd them together, Componens ma­nibúsque manus, atque oribus ora: And thus I made an One-Article Christian stink alive.

The wonderful Book, full of these Strains, borrows all the Credit which it can from an University-Licence. This calls to my Memory an Observation formerly sent me by a Friend. The Spanish Clergy have the Reputation of learned and judicious Divines all over Europe; not that they really excel those of other Countries, but because the Pride and Gravity of the Nation takes a particular Method which procures them this Fame: they will not suffer every splenetick Trifler to scandalize his whole Order, by publishing his passionate Ignorance or Weakness to the World from the Press; they absolutely refuse to license any but very good Books. By this Policy of theirs, a Spanish Divine is become but ano­ther Phrase for a very learned and judicious Divine. This is a dext'rous way of raising a vast Reputation to a Community from a small stock of Merit: our Universities might make their Advantage of it, but if they are for setting all hands to work, then Mr. Edwards ought not to be de­ny'd his humble Request. But this notwithstanding, I will say some­what for his Brief Vindication; that is, If it had not been for one thing, it might have repaid the Kindnesses of the Licencers: for if all that part of it, which was meant for reasoning, had been downright railing, and the railing part reasoning, perhaps the reasoning would have been weak, because his Head is disorder'd, but the Book would have been a very ci­vil Book. But indeed as it is, I defy all the Hereticks in Christendom, and all the Atheists in the World to write any thing so wicked and unchristian. I reserve the Consideration of Particulars, till he publishes such another Book; for I reckon, that tho he has in all manner of evil-speaking far out-done Hereticks and Atheists, yet 'tis not impossible, but that having succeeded so strangely in this unchristian Sally, he may adventure again, and out-do himself. But as for the Unitarians, if I were fit to advise them, they should never concern themselves any more with this Author. Mr. Lock, and Mr. Bold are in equal Prudence oblig'd to let him rail on. [Page 48] There's a Story in Plutarch, the Substance of which I remember, but the Book I have not by me; some Strangers from Chios, debauch'd lewd Fellows, full of Wine and Madness, vomited in the Court of the Ephori, the chief Magistrates of the City, nay, and did something worse in the very Chairs of State. Inquiry being made after the shameless Offenders, and Information giv'n in, every one expected to have seen them severely handled; but the Ephori contented themselves with ordering their pub­lick Crier to proclaim, That the Gentlemen of Chios should have leave to be as filthy, impudent, and wicked, as their wretched base Natures would prompt them.

I shall have absolv'd my Design, when I have added what occurs to my Mind concerning the proper way to remedy the Mischiefs which have happen'd from the Controversy, and to prevent farther. One would think it were easy to remedy such Mischiefs, and to prevent the like for the future, because in the controverted Points themselves, there is so fair and full an Agreement between the Orthodox Nominalists, who are the Church, and the no less Orthodox Unitarians. Eager Disputants seldom convert one another; but many times, after long Dispute, dis­cover that they rashly fell out, and that there was no material Difference between them. Thus it is in the case before us; but then a very odd thing happens upon it; for the Parties are like to fall out again, because they fell out before for nothing. I am inform'd, that some angry No­minalists threaten to call the Considerer to account, for giving the Occa­sion of the Quarrel, and protest that they do not mean to be trick'd out of the Punishment of Heresy by a Turn of Wit. So the New Justice (if I remember right) in one of Old Ben's Plays, upon every Rap at his Gate he bid his Clerk run, and bring the Malefactors in, that he might draw their Mittimus. What! no Malefactors yet? O Tempora! O Mores l But I thought it had been the Office of a Minister of the Gospel, to preach the Mercies of God in Christ, to teach, to exhort, to declare God's Judgments against Sin, not to execute them; to win Men to God, not to send them to the Devil; for God reserves the Exe­cution of Vengeance to himself, and therefore allows the Civil Magis­trate no coercive Powers farther than to preserve the publick Peace, which is uncontestably prov'd in that admirable, strong, clear, and convincing Tract, entitled, An Essay concerning the Power of the Magistrate, and the Rights of Mankind in Matters of Religion; for which the learned Author deserves a Statue in every Kingdom and Commonwealth upon the Face of God's Earth.

No Men can be in love with ill Usage, and therefore the Unitarians remonstrate, That they were always perswaded that they had these two ways to prove their Doctrine Orthodox, 1. The Suffrage of Reason; 2. The Testimony of Scripture; but now they have a third, the Autho­rity of the Nominalist Unitarians, and they are resolv'd to make the most of it. They like the Doctrines they have always taught never the worse for their being reasonable; they are tenacious of them, because they are Scrip­tural; and not a little pleas'd to see, that the Nominalist Trinitarians have expounded the Articles of the Ch. of England to the very same pur­pose. Would the latter recant their Expositions, which are Unitarian all over, I would not ensure the former ne (que) à reatu ne (que) poena, nor from the Guilt, nor from the Punishment of Heresy: but as the case stands, they have but one thing to answer for, and that is, affronting some receiv'd Terms of Art; for which Offence, to say the truth, they have giv'n but little Satisfaction; for still they prefer Scripture Phrases before all other, still they look upon the received Terms of Art as ill chosen and improper, and consent, not to oppose them, only for Peace sake, and not out of any Reverence which they are willing to pay to the Inventions of Philosophick Fathers, or the critical Fancies of subtle Schoolmen. Indeed this Fault, let it be never so much aggravated, will not make out a very honorable Pretence for Ecclesiastical Execution, and yet 'tis the best that can be had, unless the Persecutors should chance to light upon the arbitrary Device, of taking upon them not only the Interpretation of the Articles of the Church, but also of the Writings of the Unitarians. By this means indeed the Unitarian Writings might chance to appear Heretical, that is, unless the Persecuted should fall into the Humour of appealing to all impartial and unprejudic'd Persons, whether the Writings of the Nominalist Uni­tarians be not as obnoxious as theirs, and altogether as much at the mercy of an Interpreter. And perhaps there be, that think the World has been troubled too much by them both, and that neither ought to be forgiven, unless they first forgive one another; and I am strangely de­ceiv'd, if I cannot name the Instances, which duly consider'd, recom­mend to them both so much Humanity.

The Nominalists are safe from the Unitarians, not only by the Unita­rian Principle which disavows Persecution, but also because of their Pau­city; nor can their Abilities make them formidable; for, as a great Man notes, their Adversaries are their Superiors both in Wit and Learning: and the Unitarians ought to be safe from the Nominalists, not only be­cause [Page 50] the Doctrine of them both is one and the same, tho their Language sometimes varies, but also for those many cogent Reasons which are to be met with, in the Essay above cited, and in the Letters for Toleration; which I presume will have their influence on both Nominalists and Realists, as many of them as are men of Vertue, true Piety, and Chris­tian Moderation; but as for such furious Inquisitors as Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Peter Brown, I reckon they are so very passionate, that they are ut­terly incapable of attending to sober Reasoning from plain Christian Prin­ciples: therefore I will tell them a Story, which perhaps they may have read in their younger days; and that it may not be thrown away upon them, I will be at the pains of application. Pyrrhus, Prince of Epirus, an ambitious Politick Captain, made use of one Cyneas, a sensible witty Man, in the conduct of his weightiest Affairs. This Person one day ac­costed his warlike Master after this manner: The Romans, Sir, against whom we are arming, are a hardy valiant People; but if the Gods should prosper us, how shall we use our Victory? Why, said Pyrrhus, when we have beaten the Romans, we shall presently be Masters of all Italy. And how shall we govern our selves then Sir? Then Sir! why then Sici­ly holds out her Arms to receive us, a fruitful Island, a noble and an ea­sy purchase. Very probable: and what! shall the possession of Sicily put an end to the War? O Friend! says Pyrrhus, we must not throw away the Opportunities which the Gods put into our hands. We are next bound for Lybia: and then Carthage, proud, populous, and wealthy, is ours: and by that glorious Conquest we shall become powerful enough to subdue all Greece. The subtle Cyneas still plied him with the Question, What are we for next? At last Pyrrhus replied, Then we'll live at Ease, spend our days in Wine and Mirth, and nothing shall employ our Thoughts but the ways to vary and heighten our Pleasures. When Cyneas had brought his unwary Master to this point, he turn'd short upon him, and ask'd, What hinders us now from living at Ease, without dispossessing others of their Rights, and hazarding our own Fortunes? Instead of running all these Risques, we may even now sit down and sing, O be Joyful.

Now to my Application. Mr. Edwards and Mr. Brown, furious Deal­ers in Polemic Squabble, ambitious both to spread their Empire wide over Conscience, were one day in Consult, how to remove the Obstacles that stood in their way. The methods they agreed on, were, to restrain the Press for fear they should lose by disputing, to censure what they do [Page 51] not understand for fear there should be Heresy in't, to set up an Inquisiti­on, to jail the suspected of Faith erroneous, and burn the avow'd Dis­senter. Their first Process they determin'd to direct against a handful of Men, of late known by the Name of Unitarians, in contradistinction to some Ecclesiasticks professing to believe and worship three distinct Infinite Minds. Dr. Christian Eubulus was their Chancellor, whom they requir'd to prosecute the aforesaid poor Men with the utmost Rigour. This Christian Eubulus represented to them that the Unitarians held no private Doctrines, different from what were taught by our most Orthodox Pre­lates; that they were Men of some Learning, untainted Probity and good Sense; but if it was irrevocably decreed, that they were to be ut­terly rooted out, he humbly desir'd to know whom he was to fall upon next: Why! said Mr. Edw. and Mr. Br. when we have once dispatch'd these malepert Unitarians, we shall become formidable to all the Baw­lers against Priestcraft, who now despise us, and need not be afraid to attacque the Quakers; of whom the largest Division, the Foxonians, who are the ruling Party, are meer Deists; they are a numerous and po­litick People, the Scripture is to them a dead Letter, the Rule of their Faith is the Light within them, that is, meer natural Reason; and they have an odd way with them, instead of guarding their own Doctrines, they attacque ours; so 'tis absolutely necessary to ruine this Sect: It may be done by Fines, Imprisonment, Death if need be, or merciful Banishment; What matter if the State lose by it? bet­ter be without them and their Effects, than plagu'd with their Heresy. Christian Eubulus seem'd to acquiesce, but desir'd to know of his Mas­ters, whether they should have any more need of him: O Dear Friend, replied they, when God has blessed our Zeal so far for his Service, we must not give over so; there are two Sticks, so they call themselves, Presbyterians and Independents, crooked Sticks both, who cudgel one another when we let them alone, but not enough to the purpose; these Sticks must be burnt, both burnt, for they will not bend to decent Dis­cipline; and by that time we have consum'd them to Ashes, all the little crawling Sectaries will fall down and worship as many infinite distinct Minds or Essences as we please, or one such infinite Mind in Language that signifies Three. Christian Eubulus was again at his Question, and when all the World conforms, What then? Then Man! replied the bold Duumviri; why then we'll live like true Christians, none of our Com­munion shall be suffer'd to indulge himself in Prophaness and Immora­lity; we'll show Mercy, and do Works of Charity; we'll diligently [Page 52] preach the holy Doctrines of the Gospel, and honestly practise them our selves; so that the Church shall become a Heaven upon Earth. When Christian Eubulus had brought his zealous Masters to this point, he put them the hard Question of all; Why can't we live like true Christians now? Why cannot we now discourage the Prophaness and Immorality of the Members of our Communion? What hinders us now from being fervent in Prayer, diligent in preaching the Gospel, and exemplary in our Lives and Conversations?

When one is got into Stories, especially by the Parlour Fire in a Winter Evening, there's no end of them; but if the Reader will forgive me, I will punish him but with one more, and it shall be as short as he could wish. Barclay in his Icon Animorum, tells us of a Father and his two Sons who excommunicated the whole World, and confin'd the Church within the narrow Pale of their own three Elect Persons; within a few days the hopeful Boys excommunicated the old Man, and not long after they excommunicated one another. Suppose now the Church of England should convert or confound the Unitarians, the Qua­kers, the Presbyterians, the Independents, and every little Philadelphian Society; nay, and Popish Recusants also, tho that's a swinging Suppo­sition: is all like to be Peace at home within her own Body? no such matter, the Quinquarticular Controversy will set 'em together by the ears among themselves; Mr. Gailhard, and the Growth of Error have al­ready declar'd open War against all Churchmen of the Arminian Perswa­sion; for want of a Bone, the Theory of the Earth will make a bustle among them; and for ought I know the Royal Society may make some Discovery in Nature, that may be Heresy in Religion: but to mention no more, the Unitarian Controversy it self shall live among them as vigo­rous as ever; Dr. Sherlock will never forgive Dr. South; nor Dr. South, Dr. Sherlock; the Nominalists will never leave till they have run down the Tritheists; the Tritheists with their last Breath will revile the Nomi­nalists for Sabellians and Socinians: so that in short, if the Church will have no War without her Pale, she must have one within; wherefore I would advise every one to make living like a good Christian his Business now, and never be troubled at the Disputes which are stirring, of which there's like to be no end, let the present Disputants that have the worst on't, by reason of their inferiour Numbers, be run down, hang'd, or burnt, or not.

I conclude with one word of Advice to the Unitarians, i. e. that they would give over the Dispute; I know they are Men of Conscience, and have, within the Bounds of Moderation, been zealous for the Truth, but that will not suffer, tho they are silent; the Learned and Excel­lent Bishops of Worcester and Sarum, Dr. South and others are able and forward enough to defend it against all the heathenish Opposition of the Tritheistick Tribe.