AN ACCOUNT OF Mr. Firmin's RELIGION; AND OF The Present State OF THE UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY.

London, Printed in the Year 1698.

AN ACCOUNT OF Mr. Firmin's RELIGION.

MR. Firmin was remarkable, above almost any private Man of this Nation and Age, for his care and agency on behalf of the Poor; and his zeal and activity for his way (or Sect) of Religion. I shall say nothing of the former; we have an account of his diligence, and me­thods for the Poor, from some friends of his, that knew him longer, and with the nearest intimacy. But concerning lib Re­ligion, I may claim to know as much of it, as any other. It was the same in ge­neral with that of all Protestants, that is, [Page 4]the H. Bible; and the Apostles Creed, as the abridgment of the Christian Faith con­tain'd in that Book. But as for the Ex­plication of Articles controverted, it was that which he and his party call Ʋnita­rian; but others Socinian. Mr. Firmin, and the English Ʋnitarians, never were entirely in the sentiments of F. Socinus; they embraced, the opinions of Mr. J. Bi­dle.

Mr. Bidle differ'd from Socinus, and the foreign Ʋnitarians, as in some other points, so in that, he believed the H. Spirit is, tho' not God, yet a Person in the vulgar sense of that word.

Mr. Firmn was a very discerning but not a learned Man. Some others of his party have all the qualities, for which the foreign Socinians have been so much estee­med; that is to say, besides an acuteness and dexterity of Thought, they are excel­lently Learned, especially in the sacred Criticism. But that which, in my opini­on, most commends him and them, is the freedom and sincerity, which they have all along practised, in judging of the con­troverted Articles of Religion. They fol­lowed indeed, an first, Mr. Bidle (as he espoused the Tenets of Socinus) but so, that as soon as there appeared better light, [Page 5](to use a Scripture Phrase) they rejoyced in it.

From the time that F. Socinus, and his Doctrines, began to be taken notice of; the Churches, of all denominations, were persuaded, the difference between Soci­nianism, and the doctrin of the Catholic Church, was Real, Great, and even Un­reconcilable. Many learned Men have thought, some such degree of accord be­tween the Church, and other Dissenters, might be devised, that they might bear with one another, and hold occasional Communion: But Socinianism was sup­posed to be a departure from the Churches Doctrin, so far, and in so many points, that no Coalition, in Communion, much less in Doctrine, might ever be hoped. And of this mind were the English Socini­ans, as well as the Foreign; and both of them no less earnestly than the Church. But, as I said, the English Ʋnitarians (or Socinians) being Men of ingenuous and free Minds and Principles; and therefore al­ways ready to entertain farther light: after 8 or 9 years late contest, in print, with the principal Divines of this Nation, they have been so dextrous and happy, that, in­stead of farther embroiling the points in question, which is the usual effect of the [Page 6]Paper-war, they seem to have accommo­dated whatsoever differences depending between the Church and them.

A greater Service, or any equal to it, was perhaps never done, to the Catho­lic Church. For as on the one side the Socinians. being so much the Jesser Party, flood exposed to all the poenal Laws in any Nation, that had ever been enacted against any fort of Heretics: So the Church was more dangerously threatned, by this Cloud, of the bigness of a man's hand, than by all other Dissenters, or Op­posers whatsoever. The opinions of the Socinians, had that appearance of Reason; such an agreement with all the yielded Principles of Philosophy, whether Natural or Metaphysied: that if they had been fostered by the helps, under the cover and shelter of which, other denominations of Religion have made shift to subsist; Soci­nianism would have flourisht and spread like that Tree in the Prophet Daniel; the hight whereof reached to Heaven, and the sight thereof to the ends of all the Earth. O­ther Sects, by the favour of Princes, or the quality of the times, have obtained an ex­emption, from Mulcts, and Penalties of the Laws: and thus, their course not be­ing impeded by any dams or banks; they [Page 7]have over-spread sometimes considerable parts of particular Countries. If Socini­anism had any where enjoyed those Hal­cyon-days, its sudden, irresistible Progress would have been (that I may again bor­row one of the sacred Comparisons) as Lightning, that rusheth out of the East, and shineth even to the West. Alas, on equal Ground, and with equal Circumstances, the combat between (unintelligible) Mi­stery, and (clear) Reason; between (seem­ing) Contradictions, Absurdities and Im­possibilities, and (a rational, obvious, ac­countable) Faith, would soon have been ended.

But 'tis better ended: The Divine Pro­vidence and Goodness, in mercy to both Parties, has granted a Peace, instead of a Victory. It has pleased God to favor the suffering side with an unexpected Light; he has shown 'em what may seem incredi­ble, that their Opposers think, as they (the Ʋnitarians) speak; that their differ­ence is not in the ideas or notions, but on­ly in the terms or words. To manifest this, Mr. Firmin caused the following Scheme of Agreement, offer'd to him by a Person long conversant in these questions, to be considered by some of the principal Ʋnitarians in England: And being ap­proved [Page 8]by him and them, it was publish­ed about a year since.

The Scheme of Agreement.

Mr. Edwards, after having published di­vers good Books, and one that may deserve the epithet of Excellent, his Demonstra­tion of the Existence and Providence of God, found an inclination in himself, that he could not (it should seem) resist of contri­ving a New Religion, or rather Impiety; and of imputing it to the Socinians. By whom he means (it appears) the Ʋnitari­ans.

Those in England, who call themselves Ʋnitarians, never were entirely in the sen­timents of Socinus, or the Socinians. Not­withstanding, as our Opposers have pleas'd themselves in calling us Socinians, we have not always declined the name; because in interpreting many texts of Scripture, we cannot but approve and follow the judg­ment of those Writers; who are confessed by all to be excellent Critics, and very Ju­dicious. As particularly, and chiefly, H. Grotius, who, it must be granted, was So­cinian all over: And D. Erasmus, who, tho' he lived considerably before Socinus, [Page 9]commonly interprets that way; and ther­fore is charged, by Card. Bellarmine, as a downright Arian. Non poterat, says the Cardinal, Arianam causam manifestiùs pro­pugnare. ‘Erasmus could not more open­ly espouse the Arian Cause, than he has done; in his Notes on the Fathers, and on the principal Texts of H. Scripture. Praef. ad libros 5. de Christo.’ But tho, as I said, we are not Socinians, nor yet A­rians; seeing Mr. Edwards has contrived a Creed for us, under the name of Socinians, I will answer both directly and sincerely concerning the several Articles of the Creed, which he saith is ours.

As to the References unto places in par­ticular Authors, where Mr. Edwards would have it thought, the Articles of that Creed are affirmed: I have examined some of his principal References, and can say of 'em, they are either Perversions, or downright Falsifications, of what the Au­thors referred to did intend. Dr. Wallis, whose dishonest Quotations out of the So­cinians, have been detested by every body, is hardly more blamable in that kind than Mr. Edwards; saving that the Doctor be­ing, as one rightly tells him, somewhat more than a Socinian, did but foul his own Nest by his Forgeries: but we cannot cer­tainly [Page 10]say what is the opinion of Mr. Ed­wards in the great Article, in question a­mong us.

But come we to the Creed, which he says is ours: as I promis'd, I will answer to every Article of it, sincerely and direct­ly.

I. I believe, concerning the Scriptures, that there are Errors, Mistakes, and Con­tradictions in some places of it: That the Authority of some whole books of it is questi­onable; yea, that the whole Bible has been tamper'd with, and may be suspected to be corrupted.

That there are Errors, Mistakes, and Con­tradictions in the H. Bible, was never said by any person, pretending to be a Christi­an: if by the Bible, you mean the Bible, as it came out of the hands of the inspired Au­thors of it. As on the other side, that there are Errors, Mistakes, or Contradictions in the vulgar Copies of the Bible, used by the Church of Rome (for instance) or the Eng­lish Church, was never questioned by any learned Man, of whatsoever Sect or way: and least of all can Mr. Edwards question it. He has published a book concerning the Excellence and Perfection of H. Scrip­ture; [Page 11]in which book, he finds great fault with our English Bible. He saith, in the Title of his 13th chapter; ‘It is faulty, and defective, in many places of the Old and New Testaments; and I offer all along in this chapter particular Emen­dations, in order to render it more ex­act and compleat.’

As to the Hebrew and Greek copies of the Bible; 'tis well known, some are more perfect, and some less: They differ very much; for in the Old Testament, the Hebrew Critics have noted 800 various rea­dings; in the New there are many more. Mr. Gregory of Oxford, so much esteemed, and even venerated, for his admirable Learning, says hereupon; and says it, cum Licentiâ Superiorum: ‘There is no book in the World, that has suffer'd so much, by the hand of Time, as the Bi­ble. Pref. p. 4.’ He judged, and judg­ed truly, that tho' the first Authors of the Bible were Divinely Instructed Men; yet the Copiers, Printers, and Publishers, in following Ages, were all of them Fallible Men, and some of them ill-designing Men. He knew that all the Church Historians, and Critics, have confessed, or rather have warned us, that some copies of the Bible, have been very much vitiated by the hands [Page 12]as well of the Orthodox, as of Heretics: and that 'tis matter of great difficulty, at this distance of time from the Apostolic Age, to assertain the true reading of H. Scripture, in all places of it.

Yet we do not say hereupon, as Mr. Edwards charges us, that the Bible, much less the whole Bible, is corrupted. For as to the faulty readings in the common Bi­bles of some Churches, and in some Manu­script Copies; the Providence of God has so watched over this sacred Book, that we know (what by information of the anti­ent Church-Historians, and the writings of the Fathers, what by the early Translations of the Bible into Greek, Latin, and Syriac, and the concurrent Testimony of the more antient Manuscript copies) both who they were that introduced the corrupt readings, and what is the true Reading in all Texts of weight and consequence. In short, as to this matter, we agree with the Cri­tics of other Sects and Denominations; that tho' ill Men have often attempted, they could never effect the corruption of H. Scripture: the antient Manuscripts, the first Translations, the Fathers, and Histori­ans of the Church, are sufficient direc­tors, concerning the authentic and genu­ine Reading of doubtful places of H. Scrip­ture.

Farther, whereas Mr. Edwards would intimate, that we reject divers Books of H. Scripture: On the contrary we receive into our Canon all those Books of Scrip­ture that are received or owned by the Church of England; and we reject the Books rejected by the Church of England. We know well that some Books and parts of Books, reckoned to be wrote by the Apostles or Apostolical Men, were que­stioned, nay were refused by some of the Antients; but we concur with the opini­on of the present Catholic Church con­cerning them, for the reasons given by the Catholic Church, and which I mention in the Reply to my Lord the Bp. of Chi­chester.

If Mr. Edwards would have truly repre­sented the opinion of the Socinians concern­ing the Scriptures, he knew where to find it, and so expressed as would have satisfied every body. He knows that in the Brief Notes on the Creed of Athanasius, they have declared what is their sense in very unexceptionable words: ‘The Holy Scrip­tures, say they, are a divine, an infalli­ble, and compleat Rule, both of Faith and Manners. Br. Notes, p. 1.’ The Church neither requires nor desires that they should say more.

II. I believe concerning God, That he is not a Spirit, properly speaking; but a sort of Body, such as Air or Aether is. That he is not immense, infinite, or every where present, but confined to certain places. That he hath no knowledg of such future Events, as depend on the Free Will of Man: and That it is impossible such things should be foreseen by him. That there is a Succession in God's eternal duration, as well as in time, which is the measure of the duration that belong to finite Beings.

That Almighty God is Incorporeal, Omnipresent and Omniscient, has not only been confessed, but proved by the Unita­rians of this Nation in divers of their late Prints. As to the other, that all Du­ration, that of God as well as of Crea­tures, consists in a Succession, is affirmed by some Learned Men of all Perswasions and Ways, as well as by the Unitari­ans. It should seem Mr. Edwards holds, that God possesses eternal Lite all at once: that to God, Eternity is one standing permanent Moment. St. John is of ano­ther mind, for he describes the duration of God by a Succession; by was, is, and is to come. ‘Grace be to you, and Peace, says he, from him which is, was, and [Page 15] is to come, Rev. 1.4.’ 'Tis undeniable by any, but affected Wranglers, that here the duration of God, his continuance in being, is distinguished by the threefold Suc­cession (was, is, and shall be) which is com­mon to all Beings. Eternal life possessed all at once, is one of the monstrous Para­doxes which our Opposers maintain; for all that I can see, meerly from a spirit of contradiction; for it has no manner of ground, either in Reason or Holy Scrip­ture. I desire to know of 'em how the duration of God, is the less perfect; be­cause 'tis said to consist in a Succession, or what is the same, to be distinguished by was, is, and shall be: seeing 'tis confessed on all hands, that he carrieth all Perfecti­ons into every Succession of his Duration.

But is it not a Scandal that some Uni­tarians of foreign Parts, have denied the Spirituality or Incorporeity of God; his Omnipresence and Omniscience: saying and contending for it, that he is a Body, with such Configuration of Parts as Men have; consequently that he is in Heaven, inspecting indeed and governing all things, but by the ministry of the several Orders of Angels; and that he doth not foresee contingent Events, but only such Events as are necessarily (not arbitrarily) produced by [Page 16]their Causes? Doubtless; but no more a scandal to the Unitarians, than to their Opposers: for they are Errors which some of the Fathers (even the most: antient, learned and pious of 'em) have defended as Truths. Nay it should seem, they were some time the prevaling Opinions in some places: namely, when the Anthro­pomorphite Doctrine was so zealously espoused; that the Hermits and Ceno­bites would not indure their Bishops, if they but suspected 'em of Origen's Do­ctrine, that God is a Spirit, without Parts or Passions. And in denying the Spiri­tuality and Omnipresence of God, they must needs be understood not to believe his (certain and absolute) Prescience of con­tingent Events. About the year 400, when almost every body concerned them­selves in condemning, and departing (as far as possible) from the opinions of Ori­gen; the Anthropomorphite Doctrine, and its consequences, were the Standard Ortho­doxy of many places, and were Heresy no where. Even St. John Chrysostom at Con­stantinople hardly defended the Fratres Lon­gi from the Prosecutions of Theophilus, Arch­bishop and Patriarch of Alexandria; who was a profest Anthropomorphite, and had expelled the Fratres Longi, for adhering to [Page 17] Origen's Doctrine of the Spirituality and Omnipresence of God.

But as I said, we not only dislike, but ut­terly reject the dangerous Doctrine, That God hath a Body, is like to Man; toge-with its consequences, That he is nei­ther Omnipresent, nor Omniscient. It may as well be said, he is not at all; nay this latter, tho the Anthropornorphites see it not, seems to be implied and included in the former. But we condemn not the Schechina or glorious Appearance of God in Heaven, which many Learned Men hold; nor the spiritual Body of Christ.

III. I believe farther concerning God, That there is no distinction of Persons or Subsisten­ces in God: And that the Son and Holy Ghost are not God: The former of them being only a Man; the latter no other than the Power or Operation of God. That there was no­thing of Merit in what Christ did or suffer­ed; and that therefore he could not make sa­tisfaction for the Sins of the World.

But Mr. Edwards too much mistakes. The question is not at all concerning three Persons, or three Subsistences in God: but whether there are three infinite Subsi­stences; three eternal Minds and Spirits? We deny the latter with the whole Catho­lick [Page 18]Church, against the Tritheists: We never questioned the former, Persons or Subsistences; but only as Persons are used or taken for Spirits, Minds and Beings. I shall explain this matter however more fully, in my Answer to the Bishops of Worcester, Sarum and Chichester, annexed to this A­greement; or any one may see what is our sense, in the Judgment of a disinterested Per­son, concerning the Controversy between Dr. S—th, and Dr. Sherlock: By a Di­vine of the Church of England. What that Author makes to be the Doctrine of the Nominals, and of the Church, concern­ing the Blessed Trinity, the Divinity of our Saviour, and the Satisfaction, is and ever was the belief of the Unitarians, as well as of the Catholick Church.

But we say, the Lord Christ is only a Man, and the Holy Spirit only the Power of God. No, we say, our Lord Christ is God and Man. He is Man, in respect of his reasonable Soul, and human Body; God, in respect of God in him. Or more scholastically, in respect of the Hypostatical (or Personal) Union, of the Humanity of Christ with the Divinity. By which the Catholick Church means, and we mean, the Divinity was not only occasionally assisting to, but was (and is always) in Christ, [Page 19]illuminating, conducting and actuating him. More than this, is the Heresy of Entyches, and less we never held: tho we confess that careless and less accurate Expressions, may have been used by both Parties; of which neither ought to take advantage against the other, when it appears there is no heterodox Intention.

That by the Spirit of God is sometimes meant (in Holy Scripture) the Power of God, cannot be denied: but concerning the Three Divine Persons, we believe as the Catholick Church believes, That they are relative Subsistences, internal Rela­tions of the Deity to it self. Or as the Schools, after St. Austin, explain this; Ori­ginal unbegotten Wisdom or Mind, reflex or begotten Wisdom, called; in Holy Scrip­ture the Logos, and the eternal spiration of Divine Love.

But do you not say, ‘There was no Merit in what Christ did or suffered: and that he could riot make satisfacti­on for our Sins?’ He may for, our parts be Anathema, that teaches or believes that Doctrine. We believe that the Lord Christ by what he did and what he suffer­ed, was by the gracious acceptance of God, a true and perfect Propitiation for Sinners that repent, and turn to the good ways.

IV. In the next Article he makes us to believe a great many things; as that, ‘The first Man was not created in a state of Ʋprightness.’ As if it were possible that men in their right senses should think the first Man was created a Sinner.

That ‘By his Fall Adam did not lose Righteousness and Holiness, which are part of the Image of God.’ As who should say, that by being a Sinner, he did not sin, or become unlike to God.

That ‘Adam's Posterity have received no hurt nor stain by his Apostacy.’ As if you should say, that neither his bad Example, nor the Curse that made the Earth so much less fruitful, was any hurt; and that the Rebellion of an Ancestor, no not against God, is not any blot in his Fa­mily. I shall grow quite out of conceit with these Unitarians, if they say many more such weak things. But in very deed I imagine Mr. Edwards had a mind to have charged 'em more home; when he does, we shall consider what to answer. I am of opinion that in this part of the Article he was somewhat ashamed of his own Do­ctrine; and that he feared to make him­self and Party ridiculous, by a clear and distinct Representation of their opinion.

That ‘Mankind, notwithstanding A­dam's fall, have by nature an ability to desire and embrace all spiritual Good; and to avoid all that is sinful or vitious.’ They are bold Britains. What, embrace all the Gospel-precepts by mere nature, when 'tis not possible so much as to know divers of them, but by Revelation Divine. And can they avoid too all that is vitious at all times, only by nature? In good truth, they are better and stronger by na­ture, than I ever hope to be in this Life, by the (superadded) Grace of God. But here again he did not strike home; he in­tended more than he durst say: and he durst. not say it, lest we should ask him, whether he believes the just contrary?

That, ‘There is no need of the Spirit to repent, to believe, or to obey the Gospel, and perform religious Acts.’ 'Tis a serious point. We answer, with St. Paul, the Spirit HELPETH our In­firmities, Rom. 8.26. But we judg for all that, the Holy Scripture gives no occa­sion to any to turn Enthusiasts; and to re­solve the whole duty we owe and must perform to God and to our Neighbor, in­to preternatural Impulses, as if we were Machines and not men; or Puppets, moved by invisible Wires, not Men that [Page 22]act by their own Reason and Choice.

That ‘Men are righteous before God, not by the merit of Christ, but by their own good works.’ We answer, with all but Antinomians, and the more rigid Calvinists: the Merit of Christ is not rec­koned to us, without Faith, and good Works of our own. But I am not certain, that the Calvinists, or the Antinomists, would not assent to that Proposition, or not al­low it to be orthodox: I incline to think those People have no real difference with the Church, nor the Church with them; but that they mistake one anothers meaning.

V. Another branch of our Creed, ac­cording to Mr. Edwards, runs thus: I be­lieve concerning a future State, That the Souls of the Deceased have no knowledg or perception of any thing, they are not sensible of any Rewards or Pains: and that their very Nature is absorpt.

That at death, the Soul, as well as Bo­dy sleeps, was an error of some of the most ancient Fathers, as well as of some Unitarians. But neither of 'em said, as Mr. Edwards pretends, that in death the very Nature of the Soul is absorpt, which is to say extinct: they both of them held, that there is a Resurrection of the Soul, [Page 23]as well as Body. But why dos Mr. Ed­wards impute that opinion to us, when he has read, for he quotes the book, in the first Part of the Considerations on the Explications of the Trinity, what is our sense of that matter? The words at p. 33. are these. ‘This Error was common to Socinus, and some of the Fathers. The Learned Mr. Du Pinn, in his A­bridgment of the Fathers, has noted; that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Minutius Faelix, and Arnobius, were in this Sen­timent. There was no reason to object this to Socinus; as if it were a peculiar opinion of his: much less to the Eng­lish Unitarians, who never defended it, nor (that I know of) do any of 'em hold it.’

VI. He says next; I believe we shall not rise with the same Bodies, but that ano­ther Matter or Substance shall be substitut­ed in their place. I see most of our Oppo­sers have affected to mistake our meaning concerning the resurrection of the Body: We hold nothing that is singular in the case; we differ not from the Catho­lick Church about it. We say with St. Paul, 1 Cor. 15.35. How are the dead raised, and with what Bodies do they come? [Page 24]—Thou sowest not the body that shall be. The Body that is raised, is not in all re­spects the same that was committed to the earth: in divers, perhaps in the most, it is. We rise not Infants, or decrepit old Men, or lame, or deaf, or any way distort­ed; tho' many so lived, and so died. Nay, as to the Passions resulting from the present complexion of the body, and therefore to be reckon'd the Modifications (and as it were parts) of the body; we rise not with them; it is not the same Body, in respect of those Passions that it here lived. For in­stance, some are (by complexion) very cow­ardly, or pensive, or choleric, or jealous; the Body that shall be will not be such: It will be conformed to the likeness of the glorious Body of our Lord Christ; that is, be freed from all (both external and internal) Im­perfections. Farthermore, our present bo­dy (Physicians and Philosophers say) is in a continual Flux; all the parts of it, internal as well as external, continually decay, and are continually also renewed. They decay by the Perspiration, that is continu­ally caused by the internal heat; and are continually renewed by the Nourishment taken in, and converted into Blood, Spi­rits, Flesh, and Bones. 'Tis said, by the Learned in these matters, that no man's [Page 25]body is the very same, as to the matter and substance of it, this present year, that it was the last year, and will be the next year: 'Tis wholly new by the nourish­ment of the present year. We say there­fore, there shall be a Resurrection of the Body; and, as some of the Antient Creeds spoke, of the same Body; as truly and as properly as N.N. is the same Man this year that he was one, or seven, or twenty years ago. If Mr. Edwards requires us to say more, he exacts more than the Church be­lieves: For by the Resurrection of the same Body, the Church intends only, that 'tis as truly the same, as a Man (notwith­standing the Flux of his parts) is now the same N. N. or J. B. that he was seven or ten years past. Yet not altogether the same; because inconceivably better: That is, without any external or internal Deformi­ties or Weaknesses.

VII. I believe that at the Day of Judg­ment, Men shall not be required to give an account of their Actions; the most fla­gitious Sinners shall not be examined con­cerning any thing of their past Life: Only they shall be punished; and their Punishment is this, to utterly cease or perish for ever. The unquenchable Fire is nothing but Anni­hilation.

I do not know that the Scriptures or the Catholic Church, do require any to be­lieve, that Sinners shall be examined con­cerning their past Life, at the day of the ge­neral Judgment. To what purpose, I pray, doth the All-knowing Judg need to be in­formed concerning the particulars of their Gui [...] If every person is to be severally ex­ [...]ed, concerning the particulars of his [...]ansacted. Life; the Day of Judgment will extend it self to many Millions of Ages more, and farther than the whole durati­on of the World, from its beginning to its consummation. It should seem Mr. Edwards thinks, that because the Scriptures speak of the great Judgment by God, in the lan­guage of Men, and of Human Judicatures, such as Trumpets, the Throne of the Judg, a formal Sentence, the Pleadings of the Guilty, the Answers of the Judg; that therefore in very deed, we are to expect such a Scene at the Judgment by God, as at a common Assize. I conceive, on the contrary, that all such expressions and words, wherever they are found in Scrip­ture, are not intended as real Descripti­ons; but as Comparisons, or Resemblan­ces, by which the capacities of the Vul­gar may he assisted, and their affections wrought upon. All that is intended by [Page 27]such expressions, is only this; that every one shall be so recompensed at the Resur­rection, as is worthy of the holy Judg and compassionate Father of the World.

But we hold, he saith, that the Punish­ment of the Wicked is only Extinction: Their life shall be destroyed for ever by the unquenchable Fire, into which they are cast. Which opinion, that it may look ridiculous, he words for us thus; the un­quenchable Fire is nothing but Annihilation. What the Scriptures have said concerning the Punishment of the Wicked, after the Resurrection, is not so clear, but that the opinions of Learned Men, Fathers and Moderns, have been very different about it. Some (of which number is Origen, the most considerable of the Ante-nicens) held, that not only wicked Men, but the very Devils, will repent, and reform under the Punishments they endure: that therefore, they will be pardoned, be admitted to a new trial of their Behaviour, and may attain to Blessedness. These say, that Man being a reasonable, is therefore a docile or teachable Creature: and it not looking probable, that the Wisdom of God will lose any part of his Creation, but will bring it to the Perfection, and upon that to the Blessedness, of which 'tis capable; [Page 28]therefore, what by Instructions, what by Punishments, and Encouragements, God will reclame the Bad, will perfect and confirm the Good; and so in the long-run of things, be acclamed the Saviour of all.

Others, among whom have been some (it may be the most) of the Forein Ʋnitari­ans, have thought, that the Righteous are rewarded with an everlasting Life of Bles­sedness; and the impenitent Wicked punisht by that unquenchable Fire, that will whol­ly destroy their being. They believe this is the reason, why the Punishment by Hell-Fire is called Eternal Death in Holy Scripture. But the more current opinion among all denominations of Christians is, that the Punishment of the Impenitent in Hell-fire, is called Death; not because it utterly destroys the life of the Sufferer, but because 'tis a continual and endless dying. The extreme pains of Hell may well be called an everlasting dying, or an eternal Death; tho' the Sufferer is never extinct.

I do not find any thing in the Books of the English Ʋnitarians, concerning these opinions; they may hold as variously con­cerning them as the Christians of other de­nominations. But if I may answer for them, by what I judg of them by conver­sation with them, I would say, we approve [Page 29]the doctrine delivered by Arch-bishop J. Tillotson, in a Sermon before her late Ma­jesty of happy memory, March 7.1689. on Matth. 25.46. which Sermon was printed by their Majesties special Command.

VIII. I believe, as to Christianity it self, every thing in it is to be submitted to the dictates of Human Reason: and that there are no Doctrines in it, that are mysterious.

Neither of these was ever said by any Ʋnitarian; and all our Prints, more espe­cially those in the English Tongue, are ex­press, that there are many things, as well in Religion, as Nature, that are far above the capacity of human Reason, to declare or understand the manner of 'em; or how they should be what we either see, or are infallibly taught they are. We never pre­tended that the Human Reason is the mea­sure of Truth; as Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Norris charge us; so that what our reason does not comprehend, we will not believe on any other evidence whatsoever. We never said it, or thought it; we reject no Doctrines but such as are contrary to Reason, and of that I speak fully in the answer to Mr. De Luzancy, hereto annexed.

IX. As to Divine Worship, I believe it may be given to another besides God; to Christ, who is but a Creature.

But we have disavowed nothing more, in all our Prints, than giving Divine Wor­ship to any, but only God: that 'tis a marvel to me, that Mr. Edwards should im­pute to us such a doctrine; we have scarce any English Print where we do not ex­presly oppose it. Nor do we reckon of the Lord Christ as but a Creature; I have said before, he is God and Man. The Di­vinity did so inhabit in the Humanity of Christ; doth so exert in it the most glo­rious effects of Omnipotence and Omnisci­ence; that if others have been called God, because they represented God, Christ is to be so called, because he exhibits God.

X. I believe, Prayer was not required un­der the Old Testament. The Lords-day is a ceremonious Observance, abolished by the Gospel. There is no spiritual Blessing con­ferred in the use of the Sacraments. Bap­tism is an useless Rite; and the Baptism of Children altogether vain. There is no di­stinct function, or office of Ministers, in the Christian Church; the very Lord's Supper it self may be administred by a private person.

I think Mr. Edwards is in the right a­gainst those (if any such there were) who deny'd that Prayer was a duty or precept of the Old Testament and the Law; when he says, ‘It is included in the general pre­cepts of fearing, serving, worshipping God.’ But he is as much out in the next Article, that some have said, the Lords­day is abolished by the Gospel: for it was never said by any. He meant, I suppose, that the Seventh-day, or Sabbath, is abo­lisht: and I take it to be the doctrine of the Catholic Church, that the Seventh-day-Sabbath was ceremonial, and is abo­lisht. It may better, however, be said, that the Sabbath is transferred from the seventh to the first day; than that 'tis ab­solutely abolisht, or taken away. In short, the English Ʋnitarians hold no private o­pinion about either the Sabbath, or Lord's day; but, as well in principle as pra­ctice, concur with the Catholic Church.

It is too loosly said, ‘That there is no spiritual Blessing conferr'd in the use of the Sacraments.’ For there is no ordi­nance of God, but the serious and de­vout performance of it draws a blessing on the doer. For all that, many exceed in ascribing to the Sacraments certain Pow­ers and Energies, without competent [Page 32]warrant from the Word of God. I do not know that Baptism is any thing more than a federal Rite, by which we are initiated into the Christian Religion: or the Holy Supper any thing more than a commemorati­on of the Sacrifice of Christ, offering him­self to God as an atonement for repenting sinners. I know not to what purpose so many superstitious Books are written, to teach people how to prepare themselves for the Memorial Supper; when an honest Intention, and a reverent Performance, are sufficient, both preparations and qualifi­cations, for and in all Gospel-Ordinances. The Apostle says, He that eateth that Bread unworthily, or unworthily drinketh of that Cup, is guilty of the blood of Christ; nay, eateth and drinketh Judgment to him­self. But he also warns them, what he means by unworthy partaking, namely, their not tarrying for one another; and withal, eating and drinking with so little regard to God or Men, that some of them made themselves drunk with the Sacramental Wine, while others could not so much as tast of it. Briefly, their assembling to this solemn commemorative Sacrifice, was more like to a Carousal, than to a celebration of the Ho­ly and Blessed memory of a dying Savi­our. These were the Disorders and Irre­gularities [Page 33]concerning which they were to examin themselves; and thereby avoid an unworthy Communicating, and the con­sequences thereof.

We do not say, ‘Baptism is an useless Rite; or that the Baptism of Children is altogether vain.’ What the Wisdom of God has appointed to all Nations, is not to be esteemed useless; tho' we our selves knew not the uses of it: and it is use enough that this Sacrament is an initiating Rite.

Nor is it a good Exception against this Sacrament's being continued still; that now people are Christians by Education: Seeing there is the same reason for its con­tinuance as for its institution, namely, a solemn, public, and formal Initiation into the Religion of Jesus. And this may, in some sense, be done in Infancy, by the in­tervention of Undertakers, commonly cal­led God-fathers; and how it can be done without 'em I see not. But it is without all reason, that Parents should not be admit­ted to be Undertakers, when others cannot, or cannot easily be had. It were well, me­thinks, if the Minister and Church-War­dens (together with the Parents) were obli­ged to be Undertakers ex Officio, or ratione [Page 34]Officii, by their Place and Office; and it were yet better, if the whole Church un­dertook for the Infants. Moreover, where Infant-Baptism is the custom of the Church, Confirmation (or the person's taking upon himself the Covenant and Promises that were made in his name by his Undertakers) ought to be as little neglected as Baptism: nay, the person cannot be said to be a com­pleat Christian, or to be Christianly bap­tized, till he is consumed; that is, has publickly taken upon himself his Baptismal Engagements.

Paedo-baptism, or Infant-Baptism, and sprinkling instead of dipping, have occasion­ed an unnecessary Seism from the Church; for neither of these are Doctrines of the Church, or imposed on any. The Church requires dipping, except in case of Neces­sity or Danger. The words of the Rubric, in the Office of Baptism, are these. ‘If they (the Godfathers) certify, that the Child may well endure it: He (the Minister) shall dip it, dip the Child, in the Water; saying, I baptize thee, &c. —But if they certify that the Child is weak; it shall suffice to pour Water upon it.’ Neither of these is sprinkling, they are both of them Baptism [Page 35](or Washing) in the strictest sense of the word. As to Infant-Baptism, it doth not certainly appear, that it was not practised by the Apostles; rather it seemeth, that when the Parents were baptized, so also were the Children: for such was the custom of the Jews toward their Prose­lites, from whom Baptism, the Sacramen­tal Supper, and in a word, all the anti­ent Ecclesiastical Rites, and Church-Disci­pline (Hierarchy or Church-Government) was taken by our Saviour and the Apostles. Notwithstanding, for satisfaction of such as do not approve Infant-Baptism; the Church has an Office, called in the Litur­gy, the Baptism of such as are of riper years. That as I said, the seism of the People and Churches, that are vulgarly called Bap­tists, or Anabaptists, seems not well grounded.

Lastly, as to that, ‘I believe there is no distinct Function or Office of Mini­sters: and that the very Lord's Supper may be administred by a private Chri­stian.’

I answer for my self, and most other (if not all) Unitarians. There is a three­fold distinction of Church-Officers, by themselves modestly called Ministers: [Page 36]namely, Bishops, Presbyters, or Priests and Deacons. The two former seem to be of Divine Right: the other of Apostolical Institution only; and that too (as appears from Acts 6.3, 4.) not by any particular Inspiration, but meerly on Motives of Prudence and Charity. These three Or­ders, Bishop, Priest and Deacon, are of that Antiquity, and Universality, that as soon as, and wheresoever Christianity was professed, the Churches were go­vern'd after this form. A form received among all the Sects of Christians, as well as by the sounder part of 'em, called com­monly the Church: till Mr. Calvin in a case of Necessity, introduced a new sort of Church-Administration. These are they to whom only (except in case of ne­cessity, such as the Reformation was) it be­longs to administer the Sacraments; and to instruct and exhort publickly. But what makes a case of necessity, is a questi­on by it self, on which I do not here en­ter: I wish the Church had not given, or may never give cause to the Unitarians, either by Exclusion or Persecution, or un­lawful or over-harsh Terms of' Commu­nion, to have recourse to Mr. Calvin's Expedient.

XI. As to moral Points, I believe that officious Lies are lawful; the motions of Concupiscence not vitious; idle or obscene words, Gluttony, Drunkenness, Riot, Lux­ury, and impure Desires and Lusts, were not forbidden till Christ's time. By officious Lies are meant those Falsities that do good to some, without doing hurt to others; as the Lie of the Hebrew Midwives to Pharaoh; the Tale of Michal to her Fa­ther Saul, when she suffer'd David to escape; and Jonathan's feigned excuse for David, when he hid David from his Fa­ther's Anger, Exod. 1.19. 1 Sam. 19.17. and 20.6. To officious Lies belong also Compliments, very low Bowings, and re­spectful Carriage towards Persons for whom we have not the kindness or regard of which we make flow, by those exter­nal and false Significations. I think it may excuse Volkelius, whom Mr. Edwards cites for this part of his Charge; that the officious Lies of the Midwives, of Mi­chal, and of Jonathan, are related in Scripture without blaming them: they are not censured by the Inspired Writers; they are told by the Prophets Moses and Samuel, without the least signification that they were Sins. Volkelius might infer [Page 38]from hence that the Texts which forbid lying and falseness, are intended of such lying as is hurtful or prejudicial to others; and that what dos no hurt, can be the Subject of no forbidding Law. To for­bid what helps some, even to the saving of Life or Goods, without any hurt or wrong to another: why should any Law­giver, who respects at all the good of his People, so enact?

Notwithstanding, I think Mr. Edwards says well. ‘If once such Doctrine is commonly taught, all Lies will be reck­ned some way or other officious; and Truth and Sincerity will be banisht from the Earth.’

‘The motions of Concupiscence are not vitious or sinful.’ By Concupiscence is meant some unlawful Desire or Inclinati­on, arising in the mind; but not consent­ed to, or put into practice. Methinks, so far forth as such Motions in the mind are involuntary, they should rather be called Frailties than Sins; and the disapproving and resisting them shall be rewarded by God. Concerning ‘obscene Words, Riot, Gluttony, Drunkenness, impure Desires, not forbidden by the Law; and not strict­ly unlawful, till prohibited by the Gos­pel:’ [Page 39]We are not much concerned in such a Dispute; it being granted on all hands, that they are forbid in the Writings of the New Testament. Notwithstanding, I wonder that any should say, they are not prohibited in the Mosaick Law. Some of them were punishable with death by that Law: as Gluttony and Drunkenness, by the Law at Deut. 21.20. Luxury, Riot, Lust, and such like, are contrary to the good of a Man's Children, and of him­self; or of his Neighbor and the Com­monwealth; and therefore are implicitly forbid by that Commandment, at Lev. 19.18. which requires that a man should love his Neighbor as himself. I do not love my Neighbor as my self, if I am guilty of Luxury or Riot, by which my Heir, and the Poor are defrauded; or if I am guilty of Ambition, Covetousness, or Lust, by which I spoil, or grind, or wrong my Neighbor. Nay, Lust, Riot, Excess, Covetousness, do unfit us, and that very much for the service of God, and for the honest and honorable discharge of our station, whatsoever that be in the Commonwealth: therefore we may say, they are implicitely forbidden, by all those Commandments of the Law, that re­quire either the Fear, Regard, and Ser­vice [Page 40]of God; or the welfare and esteem of our Neighbor or Selves.

XII. Concerning Magistrates, I believe 'tis not lawful for them, under the Gospel, to inflict Capital Punishment (Death) on any Offenders; no not on Murderers.

This was the Doctrine of divers of the Fathers of the three first Ages; scarce any of 'em believ'd otherwise. Nay they added, 'tis not lawful to go to the Wars, as a Souldier or Officer; or to assist at Exe­cutions; or even to defend a Mans own Life, by any such resistance as will take away the Life of the injurious Aggressor. The reason they gave for this last was, that by killing a Person who attempts to murder me, he is dispatched out of the world without Repentance, and therefore is certainly damn'd: but the Christian, by being killed, loses only his Life, and en­ters upon a blessed Immortality. Some Unitarians have been of this mind, while others have written against the whole Doctrine. In short, it is not their Doc­trine, as Unitarians; for some of them have held it, while others (I believe, the most) disallow it.

XIII. Concerning some other points, I believe as the Church of Rome believes; for we agree with them in several points of Doc­trin. What these points are, he tells us at Chap. 9. from p. 201. Namely, that somethings were said by our Saviour, by way only of monition or counsel, not of command. That we merit by a good Life, and may be perfect. That all Sins are not damnable. That the prayers of the living may help the dead. Nay the Author of the Considerations on the Expli­tions of the Trinity, speaks favourably of the Transubstantiation.

Let us begin at the foot of this account. The Author of the Considerations, is no otherwise favourable to the Doctrine of the Transubstantiation, than by saying of it, ‘'Tis only a Philosophical Error or Folly; not an Impiety, p. 21.’ And a­gain, p. 22. ‘'Tis a Mistake into which the Papists have been cozened by the Philosophy of Aristotle.’ Would Mr. Ed­wards think a man favoured the Doctrines in his Books, if he gave them no better Names than Mistakes, Errors and Follies? Mr. Edwards finds Impiety, Irreligion, A­theism, and what not, in all Doctrines, and all Authors he dislikes: We are no so dextrous. We sometimes think [Page 42]that we spy an Error or Mistake; and sometimes it seems so gross as to deserve the name of a Folly: but to call it Impiety, Irreligion, Abnegation of Christianity; how much soever Mr. Edwards delights in it, and makes it his constant Practice as well in preaching as writing; we cannot approve the Example, it being always contrary to Charity, good Manners, and Truth.

‘The Prayers of this Living may help the Dead.’ Mr. Edwards quotes for this but one Socinian Writer; nor is that Author positive in the case. He only says; ‘Those who believe a middle state or place for the Dead, do well to pray for them: That is, in case you suppose, beside Heaven and Hell, some middle place where Souls may repent and reform, or are any otherwise capable of mercy, or where they have not yet received their last Doom: It is Charity to interceed by our Prayers for them, as much as we would for the Living.’ I believe he is the only Writer of his Sect, that can be charged with any such thing: but we have it in print, concerning a late Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr.Sheldon; that he prayed for the Dead in his daily Prayers. But what one particular Man dos or says, is [Page 43]not to be imputed to his whole Party, and reported to the whole world as an Article of their Creed.

‘All Sins are not damnable. A Chri­stian may merit by his good works, and may be perfect.’ Merit and Perfection may be truly or falsly said of the works and life of a Christian man; according as you interpret the terms Merit and Perfection. Taking 'em in the sense that Protestants use them; no Man can merit of God, the infinite Recompences of Heaven, and of Blessedness everlasting: nor was any Man perfect, or without Sin; but only that Lamb of God that taketh away the Sins of the world. But Merit and Perfection are sometimes used in a popular sense; name­ly for that, tho imperfect, yet sincere Obe­dience to God's Commandments, to which God has graciously appointed the recom­pence of everlasting Blessedness in Heaven: and for universal Obedience, as it is oppos­ed (not to Oversights and Frailties, but) a wilful indulging our selves in particular Sins. In this sense every sincere Christi­an both merits and is perfect. Yet, I own that divers Unitarian Writers have spoke either too loosly, or too incorrectly on the point of Perfection; but they have been as much opposed, by some of their own [Page 44]number. The same cannot be said, con­cerning the distinction of Sin into mor­tal and venial; for our People are positive and unanimous, that as St. John words this matter, there is a Sin which is not unto death, 1 John 5.16. God Almighty, they say, has not appointed Hell-fire to our Frail­ties and Inadvertences; but to our Con­tempts and advised Breach of his Laws.

‘Some things said by our Saviour, are Counsels to such as would be per­fect; not absolute indispensible Com­mands to all the Faithful without ex­ception.’ He quotes for this, an ob­scure passage of one single Socinian Wri­ter, who never was espoused in that mat­ter by any of his Party. We judg that the distinction of Counsels and Com­mands, is a great and very dangerous Pre­sumption; a back-door by which to escape from almost a mans whole Duty. The two Doctrines of Counsels for the perfect and probable Opinions, will furnish the most profligate Wretch in the world, with de­fences and excuses for his very greatest Enormities.

Lastly, after all, I believe, Tho the afore­said Articles are all of 'em necessary to make a Man a Socinian: yet the belief of only one [Page 45]of them, is enough to make a Man a Chri­stian; and that one Article is, that Jesus is the Messias: In which it is not included, whether he be God or Man, or whether he satisfied Divine Justice for our Sins by his Death; but only that a Man of Nazareth was ordained, and sent by God to be a Sa­viour.

I see all Mr. Edwards his Colts-teeth are not yet out of his head; he cannot forbear dealing sometimes in Railery and Wit: but I must seriously desire him to name me any Socinian or Unitarian Wri­ter that ever said, no more is required to make a Christian, but only that he be­lieve Jesus is the Messias. The truth of the matter is this; Mr. Edwards has been lately very much foiled, first by a Learn­ed Gentleman, then by a Divine of the Church of England, upon this Question; ‘Whether it be of the essence of a Chri­stian as a Christian, to assent to more than this one Article, that Jesus is the Messias, sent by God to instruct and save the World?’ They do not doubt that 'tis a Christians duty to learn (by degrees) all the other Articles of the Christian Creed, and to believe them; but if he hath attained, or (by occasion of what­soever Impediments, that were not caused [Page 46]by his own Negligence or Perversness) he can attain to more either Knowledg or Faith; yet this one Article doth make him a Christian. It doth not satisfy Mr. Ed­wards, that upon all the points in question, they have declared themselves to be Anti-Socinians: he resolves for all that they shall be Socinians; and this opinion which they maintain against him, a new Article of the Socinian Creed. It may be one way he thinks to reduce 'em to silence, if he calls their opinion Socinianism: and if after that they will not pull in their Horns, it shall be Irreligion or downright Athe­ism, or at least abnegation of Christiani­ty or Popery; his other Compliments to those whom he is pleased to attack.

I have now answered concerning all the Articles of our Religion with sincerity, without any the least disguise; or reserv­ed or unusual meaning or meanings. And I am not sorry that Mr. Edwards almost constrained us to explain our selves con­cerning these points. For as unsincere and untrue as his Imputations are, and as scurrilous as his manner of representing them and discoursing upon them some­times is: the Retortion or Answer here made, will be judged by indifferent and discerning Persons, to be home and satis­factory.

As to the man himself, Mr. Edwards has been serviceable to the common Christia­nity, by divers learned Books: therefore I wish to him whatsoever good, himself desires to himself, these Concertations between us notwithstanding.

THIS Scheme as it expresses the real Sentiments of the Socinians; so it perfectly agrees with the Doctrine of the Catholick Church, and of the Church of England: saving that in the fourth Article, concerning Original Sin, Freewill and Grace, the Answer is not so explicit and direct as it would have been if Mr. Edwards had not affectedly declined to declare and express the Doctrine of the Church concerning those matters. In their first Rise, the Unitarians followed the Doctrine of St. Austin, and Mr. Calvin, in the Article of Original Sin; and the depending Articles, Free-will and the Grace of God: but F. Socinus coming into Transilvania, and then into Poland, reviv­ed among 'em the Pelagian Doctrine; so that for about an Age they were Pelagians, in the question of Original Sin, and its De­pendents. In this last Century, as they speak, or Age, being the seventeenth from the birth of our Saviour, those Questions [Page 48]have received a new turn in all the We­stern Churches: that is to say, among the Roman Catholicks; and the Protestants of all denominations. A kind of Semi­pelagianism is grown into repute in most places, being a temper or expedient of Peace, both Parties yielding somewhat; and yet both retaining enough to make their Doctrine consistent with our natural No­tions of the Justice and Mercy of God. And to this I think the Unitarians now rather encline; but not generally, that is, not universally, or not all of them.

In short, the above-recited Scheme is direct and clear: except only in the fourth Article concerning Original Sin; and the Points thereon depending. But those Questions being now variously held in all Churches, and among all Parties: the Socinians are no more Dissenters on the ac­count of what some, or most of them be­lieve concerning that Article; than Bi­shop Jer. Taylor (for instance) and Dr. Hammond, and the Remonstrant Party, sup­posed to be the greater part of the Church of England, are. So that upon the whole we may say, There is now no Sociniun Con­troversy. The misunderstanding that was common to both Parties, the Church and the Unitarians, is annihilated: and Mr. [Page 49] Firmin, by approving and publishing the Scheme of Agreement, professed himself of the same mind with the Catholick Church, and the Church of England.

Mr. Firmin was sensible of this; not­withstanding as Curator of the Unitari­an an Religion, he resolved to have continu­ed his endeavours, that no false Notion o [...] the Trinity should corrupt the sincere Faith of the Ʋnity. He was perswaded that the Faith of the Unity is the first Article of Christianity; the Article that distin­guishes Christians from Pagans: as the belief of the Messiah already come, distin­guishes us from Jews. He judged that tho the unscriptural terms Trinity, three Divine Persons, and such like, in the sense they are intended by the Church, contain a Doctrine which is true; yet taken in the sense they bear in common familiar Speech, in which sense the greater number of men (almost all the unlearned) must needs un­derstand them; they imply a more gross and absurd Polytheism, than any of the old Heathens were guilty of. He that understands three Divine Persons to be three (distinct, infinite, all-perfect) Spirits or Beings or Minds, three Crea­tors, three several Objects of Worship, is more guilty of Polytheism, than the [Page 50] Greeks or Romans ever were before their conversion to Christianity: for tho they and other Nations were Heathens, that is, Polytheists, Asserters of more Gods; yet they never believed more than one Infinite All-perfect Spirit, the Father and King of the lesser Deities. Mr. Firmin knew well that the Majority of vulgar Christians, and not a few Learned Men, have a Tri­theistick Notion or Conception of the Trinity, or three Divine Persons, each of which is God: namely, that they are three distinct Infinite All-perfect Minds or Spirits. Meeting this every day in Con­versation as well as in Books; he was not less zealous for the Doctrine of the Unity, after the Publication of the Scheme of A­greement, than before. And therefore he purposed, besides the continuation of all his former Efforts, to hold Assemblies for Divine Worship, distinct from the Assem­blies of any other denomination of Chri­stians. But he did not intend these As­semblies or Congregations by way of scism or separation from the Church; but only as Fraternities in the Church, who would undertake a more especial care of that Article, for the sake of which 'tis cer­tain both the Testaments were written. The great design and scope of both Testa­ments, [Page 51]and the reason that they were gi­ven by God, was to regain Mankind to the belief and acknowledgment of but one God: to destroy Polytheism of all sorts. Mr. Firmin intended to recommend it to the Unitarian Congregations, as the very reason of their distinct assembling; to be particularly mindful of, and zealous for, the Article of the Unity; to cause it to be so explained in their Assemblies, Cate­chisms and Books (without denying, or so much as suppressing the Catholick Doc­trine of the Trinity) that all men might easily and readily know in what sense the Ʋnity of God is to be believed, and the Mystery of a Trinity of Divine Persons (each of them God) is to be interpreted. Mr. Firmin feared, that without such As­semblies, the continual use of terms, which in their ordinary signification are confessed by all to imply three Gods, would paganize in some time the whole Christian Church; which is Heathen already in the majori­ty of its Members, by occasion of those terms: and that no sufficient care is taken to interpret them to the people.

I though to have ended here: but the Dean of St. Pauls having published a large Book in Quarto, to which he gives the ti­tle of the present state of the Socinian Con­troversy: [Page 52]I think my self obliged to take notice of it, and make a fit Answer to it. In order whereunto, it will be even neces­sary to consider also, briefly, his former Books: indeed my Answer will be little more than a comparing the Doctrine of these Books with this last; in which, as to his Notions, (tho propos'd commonly in somewhat improper, unconvenient, and dangerous expressions) he has given satis­faction to Dr. S—th, and the Oxford Heads; in other words, he is become tru­ly Catholic, and perfectly Unitarian.

Mr. Firmin had caused to be written a brief History of the Ʋnitarians, and brief Notes on the Creed of Athanasius, in the years 1689 and 1690. Dr. Sherlock was then more at leisure than he desired; so he answered in a wrathful Book, entituled, A Vindication of the Doctrine of the H. Tri­nity. In this Vindication he lays about him for that sort of Trinity, that had been oppos'd in the aforesaid History and Notes: a Trinity of (Infinite, Eternal, All-per­fect) Minds, Beings, and Spirits. The Doctrine of his Book, may be summ'd into this following short Abstract.

‘The H. Trinity is three such Persons as are substantially distinct; or are three distinct Spiritual Substances. Being di­stinct [Page 53] Persons, they must needs be di­stinct Substances; Persons and intelligent Substances, being reciprocal terms, or signifying the same thing. The Divine Persons are three Beings, three Spirits, three Minds, as distinct as three human Persons, as distinct as Peter, James, and John. Each of these Minds or Spirits has a distinct Ʋnderstanding, Wisdom, and Will, of his own; a distinct abso­lutely-perfect Wisdom, Goodness, and Power; for these perfections may be, and are, in more than one. And as each of them is an all-perfect Spirit; each of them also is a God. Yet are they not three Gods; because being internally conscious to each others thoughts and actions: by means of this mutual consci­ousness, tho they are three all-perfect Spirits, and each of them a God, they are but one God.’

If we will say truth, Dr. Sherlock was no more overseen in this explication of the Trinity, than the principal Divines and Preachers at London, and both Universities. To my knowledg, they upbraided Mr. Firmin with this Book of Dr. Sherlock's: and some of them told him; If Dr. Sher­lock's Book did not reclame him from his Heresy, it would rise up in Judgment a­gainst [Page 54]him. It came forth cum licentiâ superiorum: and shortly after, the Doctor was restored to all his Preferments, which he had forfeited by refusing the Oaths to the Government; with the addition of the Deanary of St. Pauls.

But neither the Canonical License, nor the new and great Preferment, nor the ap­probations and applauses from so many (and so considerable) Fautors, could pre­vent a most terrible after-clap. For to say nothing of the Answer, first by the Socini­ans, and then by Dr. S—th; the Heads of Colleges at Oxford, Nov. 25. 1695, made and ordered the publication of this Cen­sure and Decree. ‘These words, there are three distinct Minds and Substances in the Trinity; and these words, the three Persons in the Trinity, are three di­stinct infinite Minds or Spirits, and three individual Substances; are Erroneous, He­retical, and Impious. And we require all persons, who are committed to our institution or care, that they affirm no such Doctrine, either by preaching or otherwise.’

When this Decree came abroad, Dr. Sherlock's former Abettors deserted him in whole troops: and now they said, Uni­versities speak but seldom, and by way of [Page 55]Authority, without giving the reasons of their Decrees; but as they interpose but rarely, and in important Cases, 'tis always with certainty. In short, from this time, Doctor Sherlock was left almost alone. That I know of, the same Doctors, Digni­taries, Deans, Bishops, who had boasted of his Book (not only as orthodox, but) as un­answerable; now tackt about, and as much approved the Oxford-Decree. The most now said, it was even necessary to make and publish the Decree: Tritheism being so much worse than Sabellianism or Socini­anism, as Paganism or Heathenism is worse than mere Judaism; there is no body but will prefer the faith of the Jews, tho' so unperfect, before the many Gods of the Heathens. Dr. Sherlock was often told of these murmurs, and that they were grown general: his answer was, that he was sure that he was in the right. And accordingly he shortly published his Examination of the Oxford-Decree. In this Examination he often repeats his former doctrine. He says, for instance, P. 46. ‘These Decreeing and Heresy-making Heads of Colleges, have condemned the true Catholic Faith, the Nicene Faith, and the Faith of the Church of England.’ He adds in the same page, ‘Three Divine Persons, who [Page 56]are not three distinct Minds and Substan­ces, is not greater Heresy, than 'tis Nonsense.’

P. 31. ‘The present dispute is about three distinct infinite Minds and Substan­ces in the Trinity; whether this be Ca­tholic doctrine, and Catholic language? If it appears that they (the Fathers) owned three distinct Substances, both name and thing; there can be no di­spute about three Minds.’

P. 23. ‘If God begets no substance, he begets nothing that is real; —And then, neither is God a real Father, nor the Son a real Son.’

P. 22. ‘If a Divine Person, as a Per­son, and as a distinct Person from the other two Persons, be not an infinite Mind; there is an end of the Christian Trinity.’

P. 18. ‘The three Persons must be as distinct Minds, Spirits, and Substances, as they are distinct Persons.’

Every body disliked this Answer to the Oxford Heads; it was owned to be Heresy, in excelsis: Dr. Sherlock's more warm Op­posers call'd out for the sitting of a Convo­cation, to censure such a manifest subversi­on of the Catholic Faith, in the first and chief Article of it. The Doctor however [Page 57]was still constant to his Doctrine; he per­severed in his former I am sure that I am in the right.

Shortly after came forth the judgment of a disinterested Person, concerning the Contro­versy between Dr. S—TH and Dr. SHER­LOCK. This Author states the Doctrines of the Trinity, and the Incarnation or Di­vinity of our Saviour, as they have been for many Ages held in the Catholic Church: and proves his explication of them, by a great number of incontestable Authorities, especially of General Coun­cils. He evinces by divers clear (both Theological and Philosophical) Reasons: that three infinite spiritual Substances, three eternal all-perfect Beings, Minds, or Spirits, are most certainly three Gods. He concludes that Dr. S—th and the Ox­ford Heads are undoubtedly in the right, in censuring the Doctrine of three infinite all-perfect spiritual Substances, Spirits, Minds or Beings, as Tritheism; yet that Dr. Sherlock had no ill meaning; for he only proposed to himself to defend the re­ceived Doctrines of the Trinity and In­carnation, tho he unhappily mistook in the explication of those Doctrines. One may say this Book is perfectly well writ­ten, [Page 58]the Catholic Doctrine is truly stated and asserted by the very Authorities and Reasons on which it has been so long and so generally received: and tho the Author is constrained by the evidence of the proofs which he alledges, to assent to the Oxford-Heads, and to Dr. S—th; yet he always speaks of Dr. Sherlock, not only with much tenderness, but with a great deal of respect and deference.

Dr. Sherlock on the contrary, answers with so much virulence, as if the Author had done to him some personal irrepara­ble, or even mortal Injury: and with so much self-conceit and confidence, as if himself had obtained the monopolies of Learning and good sense.

He intitles his answer to the disinterested, ‘The Doctrine of a real Trinity vindi­cated, in answer to a Socinian Pamphlet.’ As if it were Socinianism to oppose Tri­theism.

He begins his Book with these words. ‘This Author calls himself a Presbyter of the Church of England: I pray God to preserve the Church from such Presby­ters, who eat her Bread, and betray her Faith.’ His other Sippets are, Socinian Heretic, bantering Socinian, and such like Sweets, with which this Doctor's dishes are always enchaced.

But to let those matters pass, in this An­swer he recites the Authorities and Rea­sons urged by the disinterested; and in a Paragraph or two bestowed on each of them, he triumphs at last gloriously over all of them. But what is very surpriz­ing; tho he confutes all the Reasons, and baffles all the Authorities in the whole Book, yet 'tis in this very Answer that he begins to bethink him, and retracts all his Heterodoxies; nay becomes altogether of the same mind with the Author against whom he writes. Let us hear what he says.

Pag. 12. ‘The Nominals (i. e. Dr. S—th and the Oxford Heads) and the Socinians differ in some forms of Speech, but there is no considerable difference in their Faith.’

P. 6. ‘These Phrases, three Minds, three Spirits, three Substances, ought to be used very cautiously, and not with­out great necessity.’

P. 14. ‘They are Expressions liable to a very heretical sense, to Arianism and Tritheism.’

P. 30. ‘In the common acceptation of the word, the Divine Persons are not three Substances; but one Substance actu­ally and really subsisting thrice.’ He meant to say, three manner of ways; subsist­ing thrice is nonsense.

P. 35. ‘The Trinity is one supream Being; this is the Doctrine of St. Austin, the Schools and Fathers.’ Can any one say Dr. Sherlock hath not given satisfacti­on to the Oxford-Heads, and Dr. S—th? Were F. Socinus, Smalcius, Crellius, and Ruarus to judg of this Doctrine, they would be content it should be inserted into their Ra­covian Catechism, they would embrace the Author as an absolute Unitarian.

P. 36. ‘Father, Son and Spirit are [...], one and the same Sub­stance; they are [...], the unity, of Sameness or Identity: This is true Catholick Doctrine, and the Lan­guage of the Nicene Fathers: And of all the Socinians, from F. Sacinus to Mr. T. F.’ But we shall hear by and by he will confess that also.

P. 61. ‘Three infinite Persons, each of which is Mind and Spirit, are but one and the same infinite and eternal Spirit.’ Catholick again, and Unitari­an all over: For when the Church says, each Divine Person is Mind and Spirit; the meaning is, the Divine Persons are in­ternal relative Properties, of the same infi­nite Mind and Spirit: and being so, each of them indeed is Mind and Spirit, but not a Mind or a Spirit. Had Dr. Sher­lock [Page 61]but known this in time, he had never wrote against the Unitarians, nor fallen under the Oxford-Censure.

P. 65. ‘The Socinians will grant that one Divinity is but one God: and the reason why they assert that one God is but one Person, is, because they think it impossible the same undivided Divinity should subsist distinctly in three Persons. But then before they had charged the Faith of the Trinity with Tritheism, they should have remembred, that the Persons of the Trinity are not three such Persons as their one Person is, whom they call one God: and therefore tho three such Persons, three such Minds, Spirits and Substances, as their one Person and one Spirit is, (who is the whole Divinity confined to one single Person) would indeed be three Gods; yet three such Persons as the Catholic Church owns, who are all the same One Substance, are not three Gods.’ The short of this is, the Church doth not mean by three Persons, what the Socinians mean; if she did, they would rightly ac­cuse her of Tritheism; three such Persons as the Socinians oppose are indeed three Gods. He repeats the same thing, p. 67, in these words: ‘The three Divine Per­sons [Page 62] as we have now explained them, are not three such Persons; as the Socinians must confess three Persons must be who are three Gods.’ Right, for you have now acknowledged that what you call three Persons is indeed [...], one self-same spiritual Substance, [...], the Ʋnity of Indentity, one supream Being, one and the same infinite and eternal Spirit: which in all your former Books, was Nonsense and Heresy, and not greater Nonsense than Heresy; as they who please may see in the places I have quoted, and in above forty other places of your Writings. I shall tell you not only the Oxford-Heads, or Dr. S—th, but F. Socinus or T. F. would never have required you to say more than you now say: it was not the Trinity held by the Catholic Church, that Socinus or T. F. rejected; but only a Tri­nity of such Divine Persons, as are distinct Substances, Spirits and Minds, which (at length) you also expresly disown: but which too many in the Church, misled by the dangerous unscriptural terms, now so much contended for, did and do hold. There can never be a sincere Peace, till those terms are discarded. For tho after eight years Disputation, a Doctor of Divi­nity and a Dean has been hardly perswad­ed [Page 63]out of the Heresy of three Spirits, Minds or Substances: yet the continuance of these unscriptural Terms, without an exact Explication of them in Sermons and Catechisms, heathenizes all the com­mon People, nay and great numbers of not unlearned persons.

'Tis evident now I suppose to every bo­dy, that the Disinterested was not concern­ed to reply to such an Answer as this. Dr. Sherlock indeed confuted most plain­ly all his Reasons, and trampled upon his Authorities: but kindly granted him the Doctrine for which he contended.

I was in hope therefore all the dust and noise had been at an end; but Dr. Sherlock, who has no mercy on a conquer'd Enemy, thought fit to make a new Onset. He publisht a Sermon, concerning the danger of corrupting the Faith by Philosophy: in which with a great deal of bitterness, and many Invectives against the Unitari­ans, he declares, that, ‘The Unitarian (and all other Heresies) have their rise and strength from Philosophy and Rea­son.’ He pretends that Religion must be learned, and taught only from Holy Scripture; not indeed from the meer Let­ter or Phrase of Holy Scripture, without allowance for Metaphors, and such like [Page 64]Schemes of Speech; but from the obvious and natural senfe of the words of Scrip­ture; without presuming to mollify or change in the least, what seems to be the proper sense of the words, on the account of any Opposition thereto by Reason or Philosophy. He takes occasion here to declame against Reason and Philosophy, as most dangerous Deceits and Impostures, the true Originals and Causes of all Here­sies and Errors in Religion. His topicks of Argument for these things, are the same that have been always advanced by the maintainers of Transubstantiation, & other such like Doctrines; which have been re­jected by the Protestant Churches, on the account that they are flatly contrary to Reason and Philosophy. This Sermon had been out but a little time, when Mr. Firmin publisht Remarks on it. The Author of the Remarks, first makes an Abstract or Summary of the Sermon; and then examins part by part, the said Summa­ry or Abstract. He proves, that the use of Philosophy and Reason is even necessary for the right understanding of Holy Scrip­ture, or of any other Book or Speech what­soever; and that 'tis by Reason, which is no other thing but common sense, and by Phi­losophy, which is nothing but experimental [Page 65]Knowledg, that we can judg when a Book (confest on all hands to be true and certain) speaks figuratively and popularly, and when strictly, grammatically and literally. In a word, 'tis by Reason and Philosophy chief­ly, that the true meaning and intention of any Book, which Book or Writing is grant­ed to be certainly true, can be found.

The Remarks are so written, that Dr. Sherlock thinks fit to deny, that his Sermon is truly represented; he says in his Vindication of the Sermon, ‘The Au­thor of the Remarks, gives the sense of my Sermon in his own words, and di­rectly contrary to my meaning. —I who made the Sermon knew nothing of it but by mere guess, as it lays in his Ab­stract. Vind. p. 4.’ He adds again, at p. 28. ‘The Author of the Remarks has not opposed the Doctrine of my Ser­mon; but his own Chimeras and Fol­lies.’ In short, the Doctor complains, that his whole Sermon is misreported by the Author of the Remarks; and that it was not at all his Intention in the Sermon, to speak against Philosophy or Reason, but only against what some men call Philosophy and Reason; and against vain pretences to Reason and Philosophy, Vind. p. 5. He quotes two or three mincing passages of [Page 66]his Sermon, which speak not of philoso­phy and Reason, but of Pretenders and Pretences to Reason and Philosophy; and these two or three Passages he offers as the true and whole intention of his Sermon. But,

It is certain, himself had other thoughts of the intention of his Sermon, when he publish'd it, and before he law it confu­ted: for he gives it this Title, The danger of corrupting Religion by Philosophy; not by Pretender, or Pretences to Philosophy.

'Tis certain, also, that the Arguments he alledges are directed against Philosophy it self, and Reason it self; as every one sees in the Sermon, and in the Vindication of it. He has (for instance) this passage, laugh'd at by so many. If a. Contradicti­on to fallible Sense, be not a good objection against the truth of any thing; how comes a Contradiction to much more fallible Rea­son, to be an unanswerable objection? Vind. p. 14.

Farther, when he is explaining his Text, he says. ‘Beware, lest any spoil you thro' Philosophy and vain Deceit; that is, thro' the vain deceit of Philosophy: Phi­losophy cheats men with a flattering but false appearance. It may unsettle weak minds, but cannot lay a sure or solid [Page 67]foundation for Faith; it may cheat men out of their Faith, but, when that is done, can give nothing in the room of it. Serm. p. 2.’ He has divers such pas­sages, addressed directly against Reason and Philosophy: but after the Remarks on those passages came abroad, he thought (it should seem) that, seeing what he had so hastily said could no ways be defended, his best way would be to deny that ever he said or intended it. He thought, perhaps, it would be a less loss of Reputation, if two or three prying malicious Fellows will read the Sermon again, and thereby disco­ver either that the Doctor had forgot him­self, or would venture (in a streight) on an apparent falsity; than to make himself contemptible to learned and discerning Men, by pertinacy in Opinions that had been so clearly refuted. I leave it to others to judg whether this were an exact Com­putation.

But, I think, I had not mentioned this Sermon, or its Vindication, but that here again the Doctor calls in his Heterodoxies concerning the Trinity. He disowns here the expression three infinite Minds and Spi­rits, as very inconvenient, and liable to an heretical Interpretation: it ought not to be used, he saith, in the absolute; but only [Page 68]in a qualified and restrained Sense. His words are, I freely acknowledg, that three infinite Minds and Spirits, is liable to a ve­ry Heretical and Tritheistic Sense, if un­derstood absolutely. Serm. p. 3. But this was never acknowledged till the Judgment by the Disinterested, and the Remarks, had extorted it from him.

I come now to his third and last book of Retractations, his present state of the Socinian Controversy; which, as 'tis much larger than any of the rest, so 'tis more express and direct against the Heresy of three infi­nite eternal Minds, Spirits, Beings, or Substances. 'Tis also written so much more calmly, than any former piece by the same hand; that I could scarce believe it was Doctor Sherlock's. Abating a little grumbling of the gizard against Dr. S—th and the Oxford Heads, for former harsh­ness and irreverence; and a small aking of the teeth against the unpardonable Soci­nians, the Causers (or however the Occasi­oners) of all our Misfortunes: the book is wrote in a reasonable and pacific manner; the only book of a great many, so written by this Author. I will present the Reader with the Doctrine of this remarkable and useful Book, under distinct heads; that e­very [Page 69]one may see he hath entirely chang'd his opinions, that were censured by the Oxford Heads, and refuted by the Ʋnita­rians.

First, concerning God; what is the de­finition of God, and of what sort is the Di­vine Ʋnity? He answers;

P. 25. This is the notion that all man­kind have of one God, one infinite eternal Being, or Nature.

P. 35. God is an eternal infinite Mind. So all, as well Christians as Philosophers, hold.

P. 49. What is the natural Notion we have of God? But one eternal Being, the cause of all other Beings.

P. 309. They (the Divine Persons) are as perfectly One, as a created Mind is.

P. 319. A Perichoresis, Ʋnion, or mu­tual Inbeing of minds, can never make three compleat absolute Minds to be essentially one.

P. 343. Three (absolute, whole, indivi­dual) Divine Natures, is Tritheism.

P. 371. The Divine Persons cannot pro­perly be called three infinite Minds or Spi­rits. For Mind, as well as God, is not the name of their persons; but of their nature, which is identically the same in all three.

We see here, he propounds the Doctrine of the Church, and of the Unitarians, both Affirmatively and Negatively, and both ways makes it his own. In defining or describing God, he saith, one God is one infinite BEING, one eternal and infinite MIND: And tho' we say three Divine Persons, yet (whatever is thereby meant, and he will tell us by and by what is meant) they are as perfectly one MIND, as a created mind is one. Then Negatively he says, The Divine Persons are not three Minds or Spirits: and as to what some say, and himself had often said in former Books of the Perichoresis, he now owns no mutu­al Inbeing of three Spirits or Minds, can ever make them to be one.

In accounting for the nature of the Di­vine Persons, he speaks the very language of the Disinterested, of the Author of the Remarks; and of the Agreement that was wrote in answer to Mr. Edwards, to my Lords the Bishops of Sarum, Chichester, Worcester, and to Monsieur de Luzanzy. His words are these.

P. 256. We acknowledg one God, distin­guished only by these personal Properties, Paternity, Filiation, Procession, as each of them has a compleat Hypostasis, distinguish'd only by MODES of subsistence.

P. 258. The Divine Nature subsists di­stinctly in three; according to their distinct characters of Unbegotten, Begotten, and Procee [...]ing. And these we call Persons, be­cause they have some Analogy (or likeness) to individuals in created Beings; which, in an I [...]telligent nature, are called Persons. P. 197. We must use such words as we have; and qualify their sense, as we can.

P. 259. When we distinguish between Per­son and Essence; and say there are three Persons and one Essence: By one Essence, we mean one Divinity; by Persons we mean the Divine Essence as unbegotten, and as communicated by Generation and Procession.

P. 280. Tho each Divine Person is the Divine Nature and Essence; yet three Di­vine Persons are not three Natures or Essen­ces, but three Relations in one singular ab­solute Nature.

P. 297. That one Nature is but one Per­son, and one Person but one Nature; that individual Natures and Persons must always be multiplyed with each other, is the funda­mental Principle of all Heresies, relating ei­ther to the Trinity or the Incarnation.

Sure this last effort was a very hard and grievous strain to him; for 'twas the very principle that misled him into the Heresy of three spiritual infinite Substances, Minds [Page 72]and Beings. He took it for his foundati­on, that Persons and intelligent Natures or Substances, are convertible, or are the same: and this error made him obstinate in it, even after the Oxford Decree, that the Divine Persons ye so many distinct spiritual Substances, distinct Spirits and Minds.

Well, but let us put together this whole reformed Doctrine, about the Divine Per­sons. They are not distinct Beings, Na­tures, Substances, Minds, or Spirits; but only personal Properties, or distinct Relati­ons in the same singular nature. Would you know the Mystery more particularly, what you are to understand by personal Proper­ties, and distinct Relations, in the same singular Nature or Essence? The Doctor will not be difficult or reserved in the matter; he answers. The Persons, per­sonal Properties, or distinct Relations, are the Divine Essence (or Substance) unbegot­ten, and communicated by Generation and Procession; that is, Begotten and Proceed­ing. Do you except against it, or make doubt, that Relations, personal Properties, Unbegotten, Begotten, and Proceeding, are properly called Persons, or may have the names of Father, Son, and Spirit? He will deliver you from your scruples; he wisely [Page 73]minds you, that we must of necessity use such words as we have; and regulate or qualifie their sense, as well as we can. In two words, he saith: The Divine Persons are so called, because we must use such words as we have; and because they have some likeness to Per­sons of the created Nature: but in truth they are only personal Properties, or distinct Re­lations, of the same singular nature, namely, of the Divinity. Or if you had rather, they are the Divine Essence, or Divinity, conside­red as Unbegotten, Begotten, and Proceed­ing. This is a true and an exact Abridg­ment of his large Book. I will not think he has so little conscience as to pretend; that the Unitarians have in their late Con­tests opposed this Trinity: 'tis the account that themselves give of it, and profess to believe; in that part of the Agreement, which is in answer to my Lords the Bi­shops of Worcester and Chichester. 'Tis the account also given by Dr. S—th, in his Animadversions, and his Tritheism charged; by the Disinterested, by the Bishops of Wor­cester and of Sarum. In eight years time, this fierce Opposer of the Unitarians has (with much to do) learned, that the Tri­nity is not three Minds, Spirits, or Substan­ces, but three internal Relations, three per­sonal Properties of the Divinity: In eight [Page 74]more, it may be, he will understand, that those are good Catholics, and orthodox Christians, who reject no other Trinity, but of distinct Substances, Spirits, or Minds.

We are all agreed in the Faith it self; and even as to the ordinary terms, the more learned Trinitarians wish, as the Ʋ ­nitarians do, that they were abolisht: but as to some other less usual terms, that oc­cur in the debating these questions, there is some disagreement among Divines; I take notice that, as to these, Dr. Sherlock is always on the worse side, and for the wea­ker Reasons.

For Instances. 'Tis a question, whe­ther we may not say three Divine Substan­ces, as well as three Persons? They that put the question, or that so speak, grant that in very deed there is but one Divine Substance, in the absolute sense of the word: yet may we not say (with Sr. Hi­lary) three Substances, in a restrained limi­ted and relative sense? That is, meaning thereby, the one real Divine Substance, considered in its distinct: Relations or Pro­perties: for hereby the Substance, tho 'tis not multiply'd, yet 'tis thrice numbred; and in that respect, it should seem, may be, called three relative Substances. This is a very slight Reasoning, and never mis­led [Page 75]any body but St. Hilary. For men ne­ver say THREE, on the account that a thing is considered three manner of ways; with three Modes, three Properties, or three Relations. Why therefore should we introduce such an improper, as well as dangerous form of speaking concerning God: a form of speaking that in its natu­ral and immediate sense, destroys the di­vine Unity; and introduces, by their own confession, three Gods? Notwithstand­ing, Dr. Sherlock is pleased to approve of that form; he saith,

P. 379. We must not say three Substan­ces in the Trinity, for fear of saying three Gods. Yet we must own that each Divine Person is true and perfect substance; and three in substance are three Substances: not indeed three absolute, but three relative Substances. —In the Trinity there is one absolute, and three relative Substances.

P. 287. An absolute Substance is one entire, perfect, individual Whole: Relative Substances are internal subsisting Relations, in the same one whole individual substance.

The meaning is Orthodox; the words Heterodox, and Phantastical. He grants that to affirm three Divine Substances, is to affirm three Gods: but then, meaning by Substances, what no body means, the [Page 76]same one absolute individual Substance numbred three times, or numbred with its three Properties, or Relations, we may affirm three Divine relative Substances.

Again. Those that grant, it must not be said in any sense whatsoever, that there are three Divine Substances; yet they make it a question, Whether the one only Divine Substance is one numerical Sub­stance, and one singular Substance? They own the Divine Substance is really but one, identically one; 'tis one self-same Substance, not two or three, in whatsoever sense. For all that, they are not willing to say; the substance of God is numerically one, is one numerical, or one solitary, or singular Sub­stance: their wise Reason is this. Tho' the Divine Substance is one in Nature, and in the thing numbred, as the School-Doctors, speak; yet being thrice numbred, for it is numbred distinctly to (or with) its three Properties, or Relations: therefore we de­ny it to be numerically one; tho 'tis really, naturally, and identically one. Now we grant to these Anti-Grammarians, that the thing they intend, is true: but they should not deny propositions, that are true in their Grammatical and immediate Sense; because they are not true in a sense, that no man ever was so wild as to impose it [Page 77]upon them. 'Tis something worse than trifling, to deny orthodox and necessary Propositions, on a pretence that mad men may take them in a sense contrary to their direct, immediate and constant meaning. When we say, the divine (or any other) Substance is numerically one; or is one nu­merical, one singular, one solitary Sub­stance: every body knows that the words solitary, singular and numerical, are used only in opposition to plural, more, or many; so that one solitary, singular, or numerically one Substance, is intended only as a denial of this heretical Proposition, three Sub­stances. If the reason given by Dr. Sher­lock, and some few others, why they will not say, one singular, or solitary, or numerically one Substance, were good; they must never say one numerical, one solitary or singular Earth or Sun, or other body or thing whatsoever. Nay, they must not dare to say, numerically one GOD, one singular or solitary GOD; which yet are forms, that (I presume) they will own as orthodox, nay as ne­cessary. There is no thing or being whatso­ever, but must be at least thrice numbred; namely to the three Properties of every Being, Verum, bonum unum: therefore if [Page 78]we must not say, one numerical, or one singular or solitary Divine Substance, be­cause this Substance is thrice numbred, viz. with or to its three Relations or Properties; neither may we say one nume­rical, or one solitary or singular Earth, or Sun, because they are thrice numbred, are distinctly numbred to the three Proper­ties of Verum, bonum, unum. But this im­pertinent niceness, Dr. Sherlock every where takes up, and contends for it, as an important truth: unless we exclude the terms solitary, singular and numerical, he is positive that we shall lose the three Divine Persons.

P. 195. ‘The singularity of the Divine Substance is a Sabellian Notion, and de­stroys the faith of a real Trinity.’

P. 213. ‘An individual Substance; but not one solitary, or singular Sub­stance.’

P. 246. ‘The Unity of the Divine Substance or Nature is not an unity of number, but of sameness, and identity.’

P. 249. ‘'Tis not a singular Nature or Substance, with the singularity of soli­tude, but of identity or sameness.’

I imagine Dr. Sherlock's best Friends will not deny, 'tis an odd melancholy hu­mour [Page 79]of his, to espouse and affect: Terms and Phrases, that have been rejected by all Learned Men, as improper, dangerous, and tending to Tritheism; merely that he may amuse Novices in these Questions, and may afterward explain his Riddles, to the ad­miration of the weak or unlearned, and the sleight of the learned and discerning.

He concludes his Book, with an Address to the Unitarians, to this effect. ‘They were not best to concern themselves, with him, or against his Book; for if they do, they shall certainly be called to account for it in this World, as well as in the World to come.’ I take this to be another melancholy Fit: for the Or­thodox will but laugh at the threatnings of a Man under publick Censure, for the very worst Heterodoxy. What! three relative substances, call to account honest, orthodox one absolute Substance? Believe me, Doctor, they despise the menace. They send you word, Physitian heal thy self. Mr. Informer, purge your own Books, even this last, of the many Hete­rodoxies in it. As,

Page 191. ‘The Son is nothing else but the whole, entire, immediate [Page 80]participation of the Father's Substance; and therefore is as perfectly one with the Father, as the Father is one.’ 'Tis Sabellian. The Son is not so one with the Father, as the Father is one; for the Father is numerically one, as all confess: but Father and Son are numerically two, with all but Sabellians.

P. 198. ‘Each of them (Father, Son and Spirit) is perfect God; and there­fore an infinite Mind, and an infinite Spirit’. 'Tis Tritheism: For if each of the Divine Persons is an infinite Mind, or an infinite Spirit; then there are three in­finite Minds and Spirits: which is the He­resy you have been retracting throughout this whole Book. I supoose however, he meant to say, each Divine Person is infi­nite Mind and Spirit; which is Catholic, and Unitarian.

P. 247. ‘To have asserted one singular Divine Substance, which is but one in number, had given up the cause to the Sabellians.’ One singular Divine Sub­stance, and one in number, is the Language of the Catholic Church, and is refused by none but Arians and Tritheists.

P 369. ‘The name God doth not ori­ginally, absolutely, and immediately [Page 81]belong to the Son or Spirit; but only relatively.’

P. 373. ‘Only the Father is absolutely and simply God.’ 'Tis absolute Heresy. Taking Father, Son and Spirit in the per­sonal senfe; the Son and Spirit are no less absolutely and simply GOD than the Fa­ther is. When the Unitarians say, only the Father is God in the absolute sense; they do not take the word Father personal­ly: but by Father they mean the Deity. Father, Son and Spirit, as Persons of the Deity (taking Persons in the Ecclesiastical sense, or sense of the Church) are equally God: neither is afore or after other, nei­ther greater or less than the other, as Atha­nasius rightly teaches.

In short, this perpetual Litigant under­stands not well, either the Doctrine of the Church, or the Party he opposes; these are not Questions, in which he might concern himself: they require an attention and subtilty of thought, which either he seems not to have had, or to have lost. He has concerned himself in the supposed Controversy between the Church and the Socinians, with like prudence, dex­terity and success, as the present Arch­bishop, of Paris has intermedled between [Page 82]the Jansenists and Molinists. The Arch­bishop published an Ordinance, against a Book entituled, An Exposition of the Ca­tholic Faith, touching Grace and Predesti­nation. Father Quesnel, a Priest of the Oratory, and Mr, du Guè, a Learned Per­son, but who has laid aside the habit, have severally written upon this Ordinance. They agree that what is proposed as Ca­tholic Doctrine in the second Part of the Archbishop's Ordinance, is really the same with what is censured in the first Part as the Heresy of the Jansenists: but in ano­ther point these two Criticks differ. For Mr. du Guè thinks the Archbishop may be pardoned the Errors in the first Part, in consideration of his second Part: but Fa­ther Quesnel doth not approve this In­dulgence of Mr. du Guè; he maintains that the Archbishop cannot make satisfac­tion but only by a Recantation. 'Tis well for Dr. Sherlock, that he dos not write among or to the Wits of France: for his Books concerning these Questions, in truth are nothing but heaps of Contra­dictions. A Person well versed in the Controversy may spell out his meaning, and find what is the Writer's aim; but he must pardon a thousand Impro­prieties [Page 83]and Blunders, and as many Contradictions, some of them in the very stress, turn, or (as they speak) nicety of the Controversy.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.