Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, Title page – Errata

Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity · Title page – Errata

A DISCOURSE In VINDICATION of the Doctrine of the Trinity: WITH An ANSWER To the Late Socinian Objections Against it from Scripture, Antiquity and Reason. AND A PREFACE concerning the different Explications of the Trinity, and the Tendency of the present SOCINIAN Controversie.

By the Right Reverend Father in God, Edward, Lord Bishop of Worcester.

LONDON, Printed by I. H. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in S. Paul's Church-yard, 1697.

p. iTHE PREFACE.

WHen I was desir'd, not long since, to reprint the Discourse lately published, concerning the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, I thought it necessary to look into the Socinian Pamphlets, (which have swarmed so much among us within a few years) to see how far an Answer had been given in them to any of the arguments contained in it; but I found the Writers of them thought it not for their purpose to take any notice at all of it; but rather endeavour'd to turn the Controversie quite another way, and to cover their true Sense under more plausible Expressions. Of which I have given a full account in the Preface to the late Edition of it. But among those Treatises which …or the general good of the Nation are gather…d into Volumes and dispers'd abroad to make either Proselytes or Infidels) I found one, wherein there is p…etended to be an Answer to my p. iiSermon about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith, (reprinted with the former Discourse▪) and therein I meet with a passage, which hath given occasion to this Vindication. For there are these Words, That I had utterly mistaken, in thinking that they deny the Articl…s of the new Creed, or Athanasian Religion, because they are Mysteries, or because, say they, we do not comprehend them; we deny them, because we do comprehend them, we have a clear and distinct Perception, that they are not Mysteries, but Contradictions, Impossibilities and pure Nonsense. Which words contain in them so spitefull, so unjust, and so unreasonable a Charge upon the Christian Church in general, and our own in particular▪ that I could not but think my self concerned, especially since they are addressed to me, to do what in me lay (as soon as my uncertain State of Health would permit) towards the clearing the fundamental Mystery of the Athanasian Religion, as they call it, viz. The Doctrine of the Trinity, (which is chiefly struck at by them) without running into any new Explications, or laying aside any old terms, for which I could not see any just occasion.

For however thoughtfull Men may think to escape some particular difficulties better, p. iiiby going out of the common Roads; yet they may meet with others, which they did not foresee, which may make them as well as others judge it, at last, a wiser and safer course to keep in the same way, which the Christian Church hath used, ever since it hath agreed to express her Sense in such Terms, which were thought most proper for that purpose. For in such cases, the Original and Critical Signification of words is not so much to be attended, as the use they are applied to, and since no other can be found more significant or proper for that end; it looks like yielding too great advantage to our Adversaries, to give up the Boundaries of our Faith. For although there be a difference between the necessary Article of Faith it self, and the manner of expressing it, so that those may truely believe the Substance of it, who differ in the Explication; yet since the Sense of the Article hath been generally received under those terms, there seems to be no sufficient reason to substitute new ones instead of the old, which can hardly be done, without reflecting on the Honour of the Christian Church, and giving occasion for very unreasonable Heats and Disputes, among those, who, if we may believe their own words, agree in the same fundamental Doctrine; viz. a Trinity p. ivin Unity, or three Persons in the same undivided divine Essence.

I am so little a Friend to any such Heats and Differences among our selves especially when we are so violently attacked by our common Adversaries, that were there no other reason, I should for the sake of that alone forbear making use of new Explications; but there is another too obvious, which is, the mighty advantage they have taken from hence to represent our Doctrine as uncertain, as well as unintelligi…le. For as soon as our Unitarians began to appear with that Briskness and Boldness they have done now for several years, some of our Divines thought themselves obliged to write in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Thence came several Answers to them, and in several Methods, as the Persons thought most subservient to the same end; but whatever their intentions were, our Adversaries were too much pleased to conceal the Satisfaction which they took in it. For soon after, we had the several Explications set forth and compared with each other; and all managed so, as to make the Cause to suffer by the disagreement of the Advocates for it. And from hence they have formed a fivefold Trinity. 1. The Ciceronian Trinity, because Tully had used p. vthe Word Personae for different Respects;Consideraton the Ezplications of the Doctrine of the Trinity, by Dr. W. &c. p. 10. Sustineo ego tres Personas; and according to this Acceptation, Three Persons in the Godhead are no more than three Relations, Capacities or Respects of God to his Creatures, which say they, is downright Sabellianism: and is no manner of Mystery, P. 9.but the most intelligible and obvious thing in the World. 2. The Cartesian Trinity, which maketh three divine Persons, and three infinite Minds, Spirits and Beings to be but one God. 3. The Platonick Trinity, of three divine Co-eternal Persons, whereof the second and third are subordinate or inferiour to the first in Dignity, Power, and all other Qualities, except only Duration. 4. The Aristotelian Trinity, which saith the Divine Persons are one God, because they have one and the same numerical Substance. 5. The Trinity of the Mobile, or that which is held by the common People, or by such lazy Divines, who only say in short, that it is an unconceivable Mystery; and that those are as much in fault who go about to explain it, as those who oppose it.

But that which hath made the most noise, and caused the greatest Heat and Ferment among us, hath been a difference first p. vibegun between two learned Divines of our Church, about the second and fourth; and the account which our Unitarians give of both is this,P. 13. That the one is a rational and intelligible Explication, but not true nor Orthodox; the other is true and Orthodox, but neither rational, intelligible nor possible. I do not mention this, as though their words were to be taken as to either; but only to shew what advantage they take from both, to represent that which is set up for the Churches Doctrine, either not to be truly so, or to be neither rational nor intelligible.

The design of the following Discourse, is to make it appear, (1.) That the Churches Doctrine, as to the Trinity, as it is expressed in the Athanasian Creed, is not liable to their charges of Contradiction, Impossibilities and pure Nonsense. (2.) That we own no other Doctrine than what hath been received by the Christian Church in the several Ages from the Apostles Times: (3.) And that there are no Objections in point of reason, which ought to hinder our Assent to this great point of the Christian Faith.

But the chief Design of this Preface, is to remove this Prejudice which lies in our way from the different manners of Explication, p. viiand the warm Disputes which have been occasion'd by them.

It cannot be denied, that our Adversaries have taken all possible advantage against us from these unhappy differences; and in one of their latest Discourses they glory in it, and think they have therein outdone the foreign Unitarians: For, say they, We have shewed, Discourse concerning the Real and Nominal Trinitarians, A. D. 1695, p. 3.that their Faiths concerning this pretended Mystery are so many and so contrary, that they are less one Party among themselves, than the far more learned and greater number of them are one Party with us: this is spoken of those they call Nominal Trinitarians; and for the other whom they call Real, they prove them guilty of manifest Heresie; the one they call Sabellians, which they say is the same with Unitarians, and the other Polytheists or disguised Pagans, Letter to the Universities, p. 15.and they borrow arguments from one side to prove the charge upon the other; and they confidently affirm that all that speak out in this matter, must be driven either to Sabellianism, or Tritheism. If they are Nominal Trinitarians, they fall into the former, if Real, into the latter.

This is the whole Design of this late Discourse, which I shall here examine, that I may remove this stumbling Block, before I enter upon the main business.

p. viii1. As to those who are called Nominal Trinitarians. Who are they? And from whence comes such a Denomination? They tell us,Discourse of Nominal and Real Trinit. p. 7. That they are such who believe three Persons, who are Persons in Name only; indeed and in truth they are but one subsisting Person. But where are these to be found▪ Among all such, say they, as agree that there is but one only and self-same divine Essence and Substance. But do these assert, that there is but one subsisting Person, and three only in Name? Let any one be produced who hath written in defence of the Trinity; for those who have been most charged, have utterly deny'd it That learned Person, who is more particularly reflected upon in this Charge,P. 10. is by them said to affirm, That God is one divine intellectual Substance, or really subsisting Person, and distinguished and diversified by three relative Modes, or relative Subsistences. And Mr. Hooker is produc'd to the same purpose,P. 11. That there is but one Substance in God, and three distinct rela…ive Properties, which Substance being taken with its peculiar Property, makes the distinction of Persons in the Godhead. But say they, These Modes and Properties do not make any real subsisting Persons; but p. ixonly in a Grammatical and Critical Sense, and at most, this is no more than one Man may be said to be three Persons on the account of different Relations, as Solomon was Son of David, Father of Rehoboam, and proceeding from David and Bathsheba, and yet was but one subsisting P…rson. This is the force of what they say. But then in a triumphing manner they add,P. 13. That the Realists have so manifest an advantage against them, that they have no way to de…end themselves but by Recrimination, i. e. by shewing the like Absurdity in their Doctrine. And thus they hope either side will baffle the other, and in the mean time, the Cause be lost between them.

But in so nice a matter as this, we must not rely too much on an Adversaries Representation; for the leaving out some expressions, may make an opinion look with another Appearance, than if all were taken together, it would have. We must therefore take notice of other passages which may help to give the true Sense of the learned Author, who is chiefly aimed at.

1. In the very same Page he asserts, That each of the divine Persons has an absolute Nature distinctly belonging to him, though not a distinct absolute Nature;Tritheism charged, &c. p. 157. p. xand to the same purpose in another place.

Animadvers p. 245.2. That the eternal Father is and subsists as a Father, by having a Son, and communicating his Essence to another. And elsewhere,Animadv. &c. p. 243. that the Relation between Father and Son is founded on that eternal Act, by which the Father communicates his divine Nature to the Son.

3. That the foundation of the Doctrine of the Trinity is this,Ibid p. 240. 1. That there can be but one God. 2. That there is nothing in God but what is God. 3. That there can be no Composition in the Deity with any such positive real Being, distinct from the Deity it self. But the Church finding in Scripture mention of three, to whom distinctly the Godhead does belong, expressed these three by the Name of Persons, and stated their Personalities upon three distinct Modes of Subsistence, allotted to one and the same Godhead, and these also distinguished from one another by three distinct Relations.

What do these men mean, to charge one who goes upon these grounds with Sabellianism? Doth he make the three Persons to be mere Names, as S. Basil in few words expresses the true nature of Sabellianism, Basil Ep. 64.that it was foreign, One p. xithing with different Denominations? Can the communicating the divine Essence by the Father to the Son, be called a Name, or a Mode, or a Respect only? And these Men of wonderfull Subtilty, have not learnt to distinguish between Persons and Personalities.

Where is the least Intimation given, that he look'd on the divine Persons as Modes and Respects only? That is impossible, since he owns a Communication of the divine Essence, and that each of the divine Persons hath the divine Nature belonging to him; could it ever enter into any Man's head to think, that he that owns this should own the other also? But the Personality is a thing of another consideration. For it is the reason of the distinction of Persons in the same undivided Nature. That there is a distinction, the Scripture assures us; and withall, that there is but one divine Essence. How can this distinction be? Not by essential Attributes, for those must be in the divine Essence, and in every Person alike, otherwise he hath not the entire divine Nature; not by accidents, as Men are distinguished from each other, for the divine Nature is not capable of these; not by separate or divided Substances, for that would be inconsistent with the perfect Vnity of the p. xiiGodhead; since therefore there can be no other way of distinction, we must consider how the Scripture directs us i… this case; and that acquaints us with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, as having mutual Relation to each other; and there is no Repugnancy therein to the divine Nature, and therefore the distinction of the Persons hath been fixed on that, as the most proper foundation for it. And these are called different Modes of Subsistence, on which the distinct Personalities are founded, which can be no other than relative. But a Person is that which results from the divine Nature and Subsistence together; and although a Person cannot be said to be a relative, consider'd as such, yet being joyned with the manner of Subsistence, it doth imply a Relation, and so a Person may be said to be a relative Being.

Considerat. on the Explication, p. 23.But say they, If the three Persons have all the same individual Substance, then they are truly and properly only three Modes; and therefore a…though among Men, Personalities are distinct from the Persons, because the Persons are distinct intelligent Substances, yet this cannot hold where there is but one individual Substance.

p. xiiiThe question is, Whether those they call Nominal Trinitarians, are liable to the charge of Sabellianism; the answer is, That they cannot, because they assert far more than three Names, viz. That each Person hath the divine Nature distinctly belonging to him. But say they,Animadv. p. 291. These Persons are but mere Modes. No, say the other; We do not say that the Person is only a Modus, but that it is the divine Nature, or Godhead subsisting under such a Modus, so that the Godhead is still included in it, joyned to it, and distinguished by it. Grant all this, the Vnitarians reply, yet where there is the same individual Substance, the Person can be only a Modus. To which it is answer'd, That this individual Substance hath three distinct ways of subsisting, Tritheism charged, p. 306.according to which it subsists distinctly and differently in each of the three divine Persons. So that here lies the main point, whether it be Sabelliani…m, to assert the same individual Substance under three such different Modes of Subsistence. If it be, the most learned and judicious of the Fathers did not know what Sabellianism meant (as I have shewd at large in the following Discourse) for they utterly disowned Sabellianism, and yet asserted,Chap. VII. That the several p. xivHypostases consisted of peculiar Properties in one and the same divine Substance. But it is not the authority of Fathers which they regard, for they serve them only as Stones in the Boys way when they quarrel, viz. to throw them at our Heads.

Let us then examine this matter by reason without them. Persons among Men, say they, are distinguished from Personalities, because they have distinct Substances, therefore where there is but one Substance, the Person can be only a Mode, and therefore the same with the Personality.

I answer, that the true original Notion of Personality is no more than a different Mode of subsistence in the same common Nature. For every such Nature is in it self one and indivisible; and the more perfect it is, the greater must its Vnity be. For the first Being is the most One; and all Division comes from Distance and Imperfection. The first foundation of Distinction is Diversity; for if there were no Diversity, there would be nothing but entire and perfect Vnity. All Diversity comes from two things, Dissimilitud… and Dependence. Those Philosophers (called Megarici) did not think much amiss, who said, That if all things were alike, there would p. xvbe but one Substance or Being in the World; and what we now call different Substances, would be only different Modes of Subsistence in the same individual Nature. The difference of Substances in created Beings, arises from those two things. 1. A Dissimilitude of Accidents, both internal and external. 2. The Will and Power of God, whereby he gives them distinct and separate Beings in the same common Nature. As for instance, the Nature or Essence of a Man consider'd in it self, is but one and indivisible; but God gives a separate Existence to every Individual, whereby that common Nature subsists in so many distinct Substances, as there are Individuals of that kind; and every one of these Substances is distinguished from all others▪ not only by a separate internal vital Principle and peculiar Properties, but by such external Accidents, as do very easily discriminate them from each other. And the subject of all these Accidents is that peculiar Substance, which God hath given to every Individual, which in rational Beings is called a Person; and so we grant that in all such created Beings the Personality doth suppose a distinct Substance; not from the Nature of Personality, but from the condition of the subject wherein it is. The Personality in it self is but a different p. xviMode of Subsistence in the same common Nature, which is but One: but this Personality being in such a subject as Man is, it from thence follows▪ that each Person hath a peculiar Substance of his own; and not from the Nature of Personality. But when we come to consider a divine Essence, which is most perfectly one, and is wholly uncapable of any separate Existence or Accidents, there can be no other way of distinction conceived in it, but by different Modes of Subsistence, or relative Properties in the same divine Essence. And herein we proceed, as we do in our other Conceptions of the divine Nature, i. e. we take away all Imperfection from God, and attribute only that to him, which is agreeable to his divine Perfections, although the manner of it may be above our comprehension. And if this be owning the Trinity of the Mob, I am not ashamed to own my self to be one of them; but it is not out of Lazyness or affected Ignorance, but upon the greatest and most serious consideration.

Letter to the University, p. 15.They may call this a Trinity of Cyphers, if they please, but I think more modest and decent Language about these matters would become them as well as the things themselves much better. And they must prove a little better than they have done, that different p. xviiModes of Subsistence in the divine Nature, or the relations of Father and Son are mere Cyphers, which is so often mentioned in Scripture, as a matter of very great consequence; and that when we are baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, we are baptized into a Trinity of Cyphers.

But our Unitarians proceed, and say that the same Author affirms not only the Personalities, Discourse of Nominal and real Trinitarians, p. 10.but the Persons to be merely Relative. For he saith, That every Person, as well as every Personality in the Trinity, is wholly Relative. Tritheism charged, &c. p. 157.But it is plain he speaks there, not of the Person in himself, but with respect to the manner of Subsistence, or the relative Properties belonging to them. But if the Notion of a Person doth besides the relative Property, necessarily suppose the divine Nature together with it; how can a Person then be imagined to be wholly Relative? But they urge, That which makes the first Person in the Trinity to be a Person, makes him to be a Father, and what makes him to be a Father, makes him to be a Person. And what follows from hence, but that the relative Property is the Foundation of the Personality? But by no means, that the Person of the Father is nothing but the relative p. xviiiProperty? The instance of Solomon is not at all to the purpose, unless we asserted three Persons founded upon those different Relations in his individual Nature. Who denies, that one Person may have different Respects, and yet be but one Person subsisting? Where doth the Scripture say, That the Son of David, the Father of Rehoboam, and he that proceeded from David and Bathsheba were three Persons distinguished by those relative Properties? But here lies the foundation of what we believe as to the Trinity; we are assured from Scripture, that there are three to whom the divine Nature and Attributes are given, and we are assured both from Scripture and Reason, that there can be but one divine Essence; and therefore every one of these must have the divine Nature, and yet that can be but One. But it is a most unreasonable thing to charge those with Sabellianism, who assert, That every Person hath the divine Nature distinctly belonging to him, and that the divine Essence is communicated from the Father to the Son. Did ever N…etus or Sabellius, or any of their Followers speak after this manner? Is the divine Essence but a mere Name, or a different respect only to Mankind? For the asserting such relative Persons as have no p. xixEssence at all, was the true Sabellian Doctrine, as will be made appear in the following Discourse. And so much is confess'd by our Unitarians themselves, for they say, That the Sabellians held, that Father, Discourse of Nominal and Real Unitarians, p. 18.Son and Spirit are but only three Names o… God given to him in Scripture, by occasion of so many several Dispensations towards the Creature, and so he is but one subsisting Person and three relative Persons; as he sustains the three Names of Father, Son and Spirit, which being the Relations of God towards things without him, he is so many relative Persons, or Persons in a Classical Critical Sense, i. e. Persons without any Essence belonging to them as such. But those who assert a Communication of the divine Essence to each Person can never be guilty of Sabellianism, if this be it, which themselves affirm. And so those called Nominal Trinitarians, are very unjustly so called, because they do really hold a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead.

2. Let us now see what charge they lay upon those whom they call Real Trinitarians: and they tell us,Discourse of Nom. &c. p. 19. That the Nominals will seem to be profound Philosophers, deep Sages in comparison with them. These are very obliging expressions to them p. xxin the beginning. But how do they make out this gross Stupidity of theirs? In short it is, That they stand condemned and anathematized as Hereticks by a general Council, and by all the Moderns, and are every day challenged and impeached of Tritheism, and cannot agree among themselves, but charge one another with great Absurdities; and in plain terms they charge them with Nonsense in the thing, P. 32.whereas the other lay only in words. Because these assert three divine subsisting Persons, three infinite Spirits, Minds or Substances, as distinct as so many Angels or Men, each of them perfectly God, and yet all of them are but one God. To understand this matter rightly, we must consider that when the Socinian Pamphlets first came abroad, some years since, a learned and worthy Person of our Church, who had appear'd with great vigour and reason against our Adversaries of the Church of Rome in the late Reign (which ought not to be forgotten) undertook to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity against the History of the Unitarians, and the Notes on the Athanasian Creed; but in the warmth of disputing, and out of a desire to make this matter more intelligible, he suffer'd himself to be carried beyond the ancient Methods p. xxiwhich the Church hath used to express her Sense by, still retaining the same fundamental Article of three Persons in one undivided Essence, but explaining it in such a manner, as to make each Person to have a peculiar and proper Substance of his own.

This gave so great an advantage to the Author of those Treatises, that in a little time,Consideraton the Explication of the Trinity, p. 12. he set forth his Notes with an Appendix in answer to this new Explication. Wherein he charges him with Heresie, Tritheism and Contradiction. The very same charges which have been since improved and carried on by others; I wish I could say, without any unbecoming Heat or Reflections.

But I shall now examine how far these charges have any ground, so as to affect the Doctrine of the Trinity, which is the chief end our Adversaries aimed at, in heaping these Reproaches upon one who appear'd so early, and with so much zeal to defend it. We are therefore to consider these things:

1. That a Man may be very right in the Belief of the Article it self; and yet may be mistaken in his Explication of it. And this one of his keenest Adversaries freely acknowledges. For he plainly distinguishes between the fundamental Article and the manner of explaining it, and affirms, That p. xxiia Man may quit his Explication without parting with the Article it self. Tritheism charged, &c. p. 309.And so he may retain the Article with his Explication.

But suppose a Man to assent to the fundamental Article it self, and be mistaken in his Explication of it, can he be charged with Heresie about this Article? For Heresie must relate to the fundamental Article to which he declares his hearty and unfeigned Assent; but here we suppose the mistake to lie only in the Explication. As for instance, Sabellianism is a condemned and exploded Heresie, for it is contrary to the very Doctrine of the Trinity; but suppose one who asserts the Doctrine of three Persons, should make them to be three Modes, must such a one presently be charged with Heresie, before we see whether his Explication be consistent with the fundamental Article or not? For this is liable to very obvious Objections, that the Father begets a Mode instead of a Son, that we pray to three Modes instead of three real Persons, that Modes are mutable things in their own Nature, &c. but must we from hence conclude such a one guilty of Heresie, when he declares, that he withall supposed them not to be mere Modes, but that the divine Essence is to be taken together with the Mode to make a Person? p. xxiiiYea, suppose some spitefull Adversary should say, That it is a Contradiction to say, That the same common Nature can make a Person with a Mode superadded to it▪ unless that be individuated, for a …erson doth imply an individual Nature, and not a mere relative Mode. Is this sufficient to charge such a Person with the Sabellian Heresy, which he utterly disowns? Is not the like Equity to be shew…d in another though different Explication? Suppose then a Person solemnly professes to own the fundamental Doctrine of the Trinity as much as any others; but he thinks, that three Persons must have distinct Substances to make them Persons, but so as to make no Division or Separation in the Godhead, and that he cannot conceive a Communication of the divine Essence without this; must this presently be run down as Heresie, when he asserts at the same time three Persons in the same undivided Essence? But this is said to be a Contradiction; so it was in the other case and not allow'd then and why should it be otherwise in this? I speak not this to justifie such Explications, but to shew that there is a difference between the Heresie of denying an Article, and a mistake in the Explication of it. Even the greatest Heresie-makers in the world, distinguish between Heresies p. xxivand erroneous Explications of Articles of Faith, as any one may find that looks into them. And even the Inquisitors of Heresie themselves allow the distinction between Heresie and an erroneous Proposition in Faith, which amounts to the same with a mistaken Explication of it; and they all grant that there may be Propositions that tend to Heresie or savour of it, which cannot be condemned for Heretical. And even Pegna condemns Melchior Canus for being too cruel in asserting it to be Heresie to contradict the general Sense of Divines,Direct. Inquisit. part II. quaest. 2. p. 226. because the Schools cannot make Heresies.

2. It is frequently and solemnly affirmed by him,Modest examin p. 19. That the Unity of the Godhead is the most real, essential, indivisible, inseparable Unity; that there is but one divine Nature, which is originally in the Father, and is substantially communicated by the Father to the Son, as a distinct subsisting Person, P. 27, 28.by an eternal ineffable Generation, and to the Holy Ghost by an eternal and substantial Procession from Father and Son. Do the others who maintain a Trinity deny this? By no means. For we have already seen that they assert the same thing. So that they are fully agreed as to the main fundamental Article. And even the Unitarians yield, that from the p. xxvbeginning he asserted,Notes on Athanasius his Creed, Edit. 2. p. 19. That the three divine Persons are in one undivided Substance. Wherein then lies the foundation of this mighty Quarrel, and those unreasonable Heats that Men have fallen into about it; to the great scandal of our Church and Religion? In short it is this; that the same Author asserts,Modest examin p 15. (1.) That it is gross Sabellianism to say, That there are not three personal Minds, or Spirits, or Substances. (2.) That a distinct substantial Person must have a distinct Substance of his own proper and peculiar to his own Person. But he owns,P. 17. that although there are three distinct Persons, or Minds, each of whom is distinctly and by himself God, P. 29.yet there are not three Gods, but one God, or one Divinity; which he saith, is intirely, and indivisibly, and inseparably in three distinct Persons or Minds. That the same one divine Nature is wholly and entirely communicated by the eternal Father to the eternal Son and by the Father and Son to the eternal Spirit without any Division or Separation;P. 30. and so it remains one still.

This is the substance of this new Explication, which hath raised such Flames, that Injunctions from authority were thought necessary to suppress them. But those can p. xxvireach no farther than the restraint of Mens Tongues and Pens about these matters, and unless something be found out to satisfie their Minds and to remove Misapprehensions, the present Heat may be only cover'd over and kept in; which when there is a vent given▪ may break out into a more dangerous Flame.

Therefore I shall endeavour to state and clear this matter so as to prevent any future Eruption thereof, which will be done by considering how far they are agreed, and how far the remaining difference ought to be pursued.

1. They are agreed, That there are three distinct Persons and but one Godhead.

2. That there are no separate and divided Substances in the Trinity; but the divine Nature is wholly and entirely one and undivided.

3. That the divine Essence is communicated from the Father to the Son, and from both to the holy Spirit. So that the charge of Sabellianism on those who reject this new Explication is without ground. For no Sabellian did or could assert a Communication of the divine Essence.

Which being agreed on both sides, the Dispute turns upon this single point, whether p. xxviia communicated Essence, doth imply a distinct Substance or not. On the one side it is said,Remarks upon the examinat. p. 33. That there being but one God, there can be but one divine Essence, and if more Essences more Gods.

On the other side, that since they own a communicated Essence necessary to make a distinction of Persons in the Son and Holy Ghost, if the Essence be not distinct, the foundation of distinct Personalities is taken away. But how is this clear'd by the other Party? They say,Remarks p. 34. That it is one peculiar Prerogative of the divine Nature and Substance, founded in its infinite and therefore transcendent Perfection, whereby it is capable of residing in more Persons than one, and is accordingly communicated from the Father to the Son and Holy Ghost.

So that the Communication of the divine Nature is owned to the Persons of the Son and Holy Ghost. But how then comes it not to make a distinct Essence, as it makes distinct Persons, by being communicated?

The answer we see is, That it is a peculiar Prerogative founded on the infinite and therefore transcendent Perfection of the divine Nature. But they further add, That when the Son and Holy Ghost areP. 36. p. xxviiisaid to have the same divine Nature from the Father, as the Origin and Fountain of the Divinity; not by the Production of a new divine Nature but by a Communication of his own; which is one and the same in all three without Separation, Difference, or Distinction; that this is indeed a great Mystery, which hath been always look'd upon by the greatest and wisest Men in the Church, to be above all Expressions and Description.

So that the greatest difficulty is at last resolved into the incomprehensible Perfection of the divine Nature; and that neither Man nor Angels can give a satisfactory answer to Enquiries about the manner of them. Ibid.And the Author of the Animadversions saith,Animadv. p. 36. That in the divine Persons of the Trinity, the divine Nature and the personal Subsistence coalesce into one, by an incomprehensible, ineffable kind of Union and Conjunction.

But do those on the other side think, that the asserting three distinct Substances in one and the same individual Substance tends to clear and explain the Notion of the Trinity and make it more easie and intelligible? The Divinity, they say, is whole, intire, indivisible, Modest examin p. 30.and inseparable in all three. p. xxixBut can one whole entire indivisible Substance be actually divided into three Substances? For if every Person must have a peculiar Substance of his own; and there be three Persons, there must be three peculiar Substances, and how can there be three peculiar Substances, and yet but one entire and indivisible Substance? I do not say, there must be three divided Substances in place, or separate Substances, but they must be divided as three Individuals of the same kind, which must introduce a Specifick Divine Nature, which I think very inconsistent with the divine Perfections; but of this at large in the following Discourse.

I do not lay any force upon this argument, that there can be no ground of the Distinction between the three Substances, Tritheism charged, p. 262.if there be but one Substance in the Godhead, (as some have done) because the same Substance cannot both unite and distinguish them; for the ground of the distinction is not the Substance but the Communication of it,P. 264. and where that is so freely asserted, there is a reason distinct from the Substance it self, which makes the Distinction of Persons.

But the difficulty still remains, how each Person should have a Substance of his own; and yet there be but one entire and indivisible p. xxxSubstance, for every Person must have a proper Substance of his own; or else according to this Hypothesis, he can be no Person; and this peculiar Substance must be really distinct from that Substance which is in the other two: so that here must be three distinct Substances in the three Persons. But how then can there be but one individual Essence in all three? We may conceive one common Essence to be individuated in three Persons, as it is in Men; but it is impossible to conceive the same individual Essence to be in three Persons, which have peculiar Substances of their own. For the Substances belonging to the Persons, are the same Essence individuated in those Persons: and so there is no avoiding making three individual Essences and one specifick or common divine Nature. And Maimonides his argument is considerable against more Gods than one; If, saith he, there be two Gods, More Nevoch, par. II. c. 1.there mu…t be something wherein they agree, and something wherein they differ; that wherein they agree must be that which makes each of them God; and that wherein they differ must make them two Gods. Now wherein doth this differ from the present Hypothesis? There is something wherein they differ, and that is their proper Substance; but Maimonides p. xxxithought that wherein they differ'd sufficient to make them two Gods. So that I fear it will be impossible to clear this Hypothesis as to the reconciling three individual Essences with one individual divine Essence, which looks too like asserting that there are three Gods and yet but one. And the Author of this Explica…ion doth at last confess, that three distinct whole inseparable Sames, Modest examin. p. 30.are hard to conceive as to the manner of it. Now to what purpose are new Explications started and Disputes raised and carried on so warmly about them, if after all, the main difficulty be confess'd to be above our Comprehension? We had much better satisfie our selves with that Language which the Church hath receiv…d and is express'd in the Creeds, than go about by new Terms, to raise new Ferments, especially at a time, when our united Forces are most necessary against our common Adversaries. No wise and good Men can be fond of any new Inventions, when the Peace of the Church is hazarded by them. And on the other side, it is as dangerous to make new Heresies as new Explications. If any one denies the Doctrine contained in the Nicene Creed, that is no new Heresie; but how can such deny the Son to be consubstantial to the Father, who assert one and p. xxxiithe same indivisible Substance in the Father and the Son? But they may contradict themselves. That is not impossible on either side. But doth it follow that they are guilty of Heresie? Are not three Substances and but one a Contradiction? No more, say they, than that a communicated Substance is not distinct from that which did communicate. But this whole dispute we find is at last resolved into the infinite and unconceivable Perfections of the Godhead, where it is most safely lodged; and that there is no real Contradiction in the Doctrine it self, is part of the design of the Discourse afterwards.

But here it will be necessary to take notice of what the Unitarians have objected against this new Explication, Considerat. on the Explication of the Trinity, &c. p. 12.viz. That it was condemned by the ancients in the Person of Philoponus; in the middle Ages, in the Person and Writings of Abhor Ioachim; but more severely since the Reformation, in the Person of Valentinus Gentilis, who was condemned at Geneva, and beheaded at Bern for this very Doctrine.

To these I shall give a distinct answer:

1. As to Joh Philoponus, I do freely own, that in the Greek Church, when in the sixth Century he broached his opinion, p. xxxiiiThat every Hypostasis must have the common Nature individuated in it, this was look'd upon as a Doctrine of dangerous consequence, both with respect to the Trinity and Incarnation. The latter was the first occasion of it; for as Leontius observes,Leont. de Sectis Act. 5.Acts 5 the dispute did not begin about the Trinity, but about the Incarnation; and Philoponus took part with those who asserted but one Nature in Christ after the Vnion, and he went upon this ground, That if there were two Natures there must be two Hypostases, because Nature and Hypostasis were the same. Then those on the Churches side, saith Leontius, objected, That if they were the same, there must be three distinct Natures in the Trinity, as there were three Hypostases; which Philoponus yielded, and grounded himself on Aristotle's Doctrine, that there was but one common Substance and several individual Substances, and so held it was in the Trinity, whence he was called the leader of the Heresie of the Tritheius. This is the account given by Leontius who lived very …ear his time, A. D. 620. The same is affirmed of him by Nicephorus, Niceph. Callist l. 18. c. 46, 47.and that he wrote a Book on purpose about the Vnion of two Natures in Christ, out of which he produces his own words concerning a common and individual p. xxxivNature, (which he calls foreign) which can agree to none else. And the main argument he went upon was this, that unless we assert a singular Nature in the Hypostases, we must say, that the whole Trinity was incarnate; as unless there be a singular humane Nature distinct from the common, Christ must assume the whole Nature of Mankind. And this argument from the Incarnation, was that which made Roscelin, in the beginning of the disputing Age, A. D. 1093, to assert, That the three Persons were three things distinct from each other, as three Angels or three Men, because otherwise the Incarnation of the second Person could not be understood, as appears by Anselm's Epistles,Anselm. epist. l. 2. ep. 41. De fide Trinit. &c. c. 3. and his Book of the Incarnation written upon that occasion. But as A…selm shews at large, if this argument hold, it must prove the three Persons not only to be distinct, but separate and divided Sub…ances, (which is directly contrary to this new Explication) and then there is no avoiding Tritheism. But to return to Joh. Philoponus, who, saith Nicephorus, divided the indivisible Nature of God into three Individuals as among Men: C. 48.Which, saith he, is repugnant to the Sense of the Christian Church; and he produces the Testimony p. xxxvof Gregory Nazianzen against it, and adds, that Leontius and Georgius Pisides confuted Philoponus.

But in that divided time.C 49. there were some called Theodosiani, who made but one Nature and one Hypostasis; and so fell in with the Sabellians; but others held, That there was one immutable divine Essence, but each Person had a distinct individual Nature: which the rest charged with Tritheism. Which consequence they utterly rejected, because although they held three distinct Natures, yet they said, They were but one God, because there was but one invariable Divinity in them. Nicephorus saith, that Conon's Followers rejected Philoponus; but Photius mentions a conference between Conon and others,Phot. Biblioth. Cod. 24. a…out Philoponus, wherein he defends him against other Severians. Photius grants, that Conon and his Followers held a consubstantial Trinity and the Unity of the Godhead, and so far they were Orthodox: but saith, They were far from it, when they asserted proper and peculiar Substances to each Person. The difference between Conon and Philoponus about this point,Phot Cod. 23. (for Conon wrote against Philoponus about the Resurrection) seems to have been partly in the Doctrine, but chiefly in p. xxxvithe consequence of it; for these rejected all kind of Tritheism, which Philoponus saw well enough must follow from his Doctrine, but he denied any real Division or Separation in those Substances as to the Deity. Isidore saith,Isid. Orig. l. 7. de haeret de Trinit. That the Tritheists owned three Gods, as well as three Persons; and that if God be said to be Triple, there must follow a Plurality of Gods. But there were others called Triformiani, of whom S. Augustin speaks.Aug. de haeres… 74. Who held the three Persons to be three distinct parts, which being united made one God; which, saith he, is repugnant to the divine Perfection.

But among these Severians, there were three several opinions:

1. Of Philoponus, who held one common Nature and three Individual.

2. Of those who said there was but one Nature and one Hypostasis.

3. Of those who affirm'd there were three distinct Natures, but withal, that there was but one indivisible Godhead; and these differ'd from Philoponus in the main ground of Tritheism, which was, that he held the common Nature in the Trinity, to be only a specifick Nature, and such as it is among Men. For Philoponus himself in the words which Nicephorus produces, p. xxxviidoth assert plainly, that the common Nature is separated from the Individuals, foreign, by a mere act of the Mind; so that he allow'd no individual Vnity in the divine Nature, but what was in the several Persons; as the common Nature of Man is a Notion of the Mind, as it is abstracted from the several Individuals, wherein alone it really subsists; so that here is an apparent difference between the Doctrine of Joh. Philoponus and the new Explication, for herein the most real, essential and indivisible Unity of the divine Nature is asserted; and it is said to be no Species, Modest examin. p. 19.because it is but one, and so it could not be condemned in Joh. Philoponus

2. We now come to Abbat Joachim, whose Doctrine seems to be as much mistaken, as it is represented in the Decretal, where the Condemnation of it by the Lateran Council is extant. But here I cannot but observe what great Authority these Unitarians give to this Lateran Council, as if they had a Mind to set up Transubstantiation by it, which they so often parallel with the Trinity. Thence in their late Discourse they speak of it as the most general Council that was ever called, Discourse of Real and Nominal Trinit p 4and that what was there defined, it was made Heresie to oppose it. But by their favour, we neither p. xxxviiiown this to have been a general Council, nor that it had Authority to make that Heresie which was not so before. But that Council might assert the Doctrine of the Trinity truly, as it had been receiv'd, and condemn the opinion of Joachim justly But what it was, they do not or would not seem to understand. Joachim was a great Enthusiast, but no deep Divine (as Men of that Heat seldom are) and he had many Disputes with Peter Lombard in his Life, as the Vindicator of Joachim confesses.Greg de Laur Apol. Joachim Abb…t, c. 66. After his Death, a Book of his was found, taxing Peter Lombard with some strange Doctrine about the Trinity, wherein he called him Heretick and Madman;Decret. Greg. l. 1. c. 2. this Book was complained of in the Lateran Council, and upon Examination it was sound, that instead of charging Peter Lombard justly, he was fallen into Heresie himself, which was denying the essential Vnity of the three Persons, and making it to be Vnity of Consent. He granted that they were one Essence, one Nature, one Substance: but how? Not by any true proper Unity, but Similitudinary and Collective, as they called it, as many Men are one People, and many Believers make one Church. Whence Thomas Aquinas saith,Comment. in decret. opusc. 24. that Joachim fell into the Arian Heresie. It is sufficient to p. xxxixmy purpose, that he denied the individual Vnity of the divine Essence, which cannot be charged on the Author of the new Explication, and so this comes not home to the purpose.

3. But the last charge is the most terrible, for it not only sets down the Heresie, but the capital punishment which follow'd it. Yet I shall make it appear, (notwithstanding the very warm Prosecution of it by another hand) that there is a great difference between the Doctrine of Valentinus Gentilis, and that which is asserted in this Explication.

1. In the Sentence of his Condemnation it is expressed,Bri…f Account of Valentin. Gentilis, p. 132. That he had been guilty of the vilest Scurrility and most horrid Blasphemies against the Son of God and the glorious Mystery of the Trinity. But can any thing of this Nature be charged upon one, who hath not only written in Defence of it, but speaks of it with the highest Veneration?

2. In the same Sentence it is said, That he acknowledged the Father only to be that infinite God which we ought to worship, Ibid.which is plain Blasphemy against the Son. But can any Men ever think to make this the same case with one, who makes use of that as one of his chief arguments, p. xlThat the three Persons are to be worshipped with a distinct divine Worship?Modest examin. p. 20.

3. It is charged upon him, That he called the Trinity a mere human Invention, not so much as known to any Catholick Creed, and directly contrary to the Word of God. Brief Account, &c. p. 40.But the Author here charged, hath made it his business to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity to be grounded on Scripture and to vindicate it from the Objections drawn from thence against it.

4. One of the main Articles of his charge was,Brief Account, &c. p. 41, 42, 43, 45. That he made three Spirits of different Order and Degree, that the Father is the one only God, by which the Son and Holy Ghost are excluded manifestly from the Unity of the Godhead; But the Person charged with his Heresie saith,Modest examin. p. 29. The Reason why we must not say three Gods, is, because there is but one and the same Divinity in them all; and that entirely, indivisibly, inseparably.

But it is said, that although there may be some differences, yet they agree in asserting, That there are three distinct eternal Spirits or Minds in the Trinity; and Genebrard is brought into the same Heresie with them But Genebrard with great indignation rejects the Doctrine of Valentinus Gentilis, Genebrard de Trinit l. 2. p. 91.because he held an Inequality p. xliin the Persons, and denied the individual Vnity of the Godhead in them; but he saith, he follow'd Damascen in asserting three real Hypostases; and he utterly denies Tritheism, L 2 p 159.and he brings a multitude of reasons, why the charge of Tritheism doth not lie against his opinion, although he owns the Hypostases to be three distinct individuals, but then he adds,P. 153. That there is an indivisible and insep…rable Union of the divine Nature in all three Persons.

Now to deal as impartially in this matter as may be, I do not think our understandings one jot helped in the Notion of the Trinity by this Hypothesis; but that it is liable to as great difficulties as any other, and therefore none ought to be fond of it, or to set it against the general Sense of others, and the current Expressions of Divines about these Mysteries; nor to call the different opinions of others Heresie or Nonsense, which are provoking Words, and tend very much to inflame Mens Passions, because their Faith and Vnderstanding are both call'd in question, which are very tender things.

But on the other side, a difference ought to be made between the Heresie and Blasphemy of Valentinus Gentilis, and the opinion of such who maintain the individual p. xliiand indivisible Unity of the Godhead; but withal, believe that every Person hath an individual Substance as a Person, and that Sabellianism cannot be avoided otherwise. Wherein I think they are mistaken, and that the Fathers were of another opinion; and that our Church owns but one Substance in the Godhead, as the Western Church always did, (which made such difficulty about receiving three Hypostases, because they took Hypostasis for a Substance) but yet I see no reason why those who assert three Hypostases, and mean three individual Substances should be charged with the Heresie of Valentinus Gentilis, or so much as with that of Abba… Joachim or Philoponus, because they all rejected the individual Unity of the divine Nature, which is constantly maintained by the Defenders of the other Hypothesis.

But it is said and urged with vehemency, that these two things are inconsistent with each other; that it is going forward and backward, being Orthodox in one Breath and otherwise in the next; that all this looks like shuffling and concealing the true meaning, and acting the old Artifices under a different Form. For the Samosatenians and Arians, when they were pinched, seem'd very Orthodox in their Expressions, p. xliiibut retained their Heresies still in their Minds; and there is reason to suspect the same Game is playing over again, and we cannot be too cautious in a matter of such Consequence.

I grant very great caution is needfull, but the mixture of some Charity with it will do no hurt. Why should we suspect those to be inwardly false, and to think otherwise than they speak, who have shew'd no want of Courage and Zeal, at a time when some thought it Prudence to say nothing, and never call'd upon their Superiours then to own the cause of God, and to do their Duties as they have now done, and that in no very obliging manner? And if the same Men can be cool and unconcerned at some times, (when there was so great reason to be otherwise) and of a sudden grow very warm, and even to boil over with Zeal; the World is so ill natur'd, as to be too apt to conclude there is some other cause of such an alteration than what openly appears. But there is a kind of bitter Zeal, which is so fierce and violent, that it rather inflames than heals any Wounds that are made; and is of so malignant a Nature, that it spreads and eats like a Cancer, and if a stop were not given to it, it might endanger the whole Body. I am very sensible p. xliiduplicate page p. xliiiduplicate page p. xlivhow little a Man consults his own ease, who offers to interpose in a dispute between Men of Heat and Animosity; but this moves me very little, when the interest of our Church and Religion is concerned, which ought to prevail more than the fear of displeasing one or other Party, or it may be both. I do heartily wish, that all who are equally concerned in the common Cause,Od…at rixas & jurgia, p…aesertimque inter eruditos; ac turpe esse diceb…t viros indubitatè doctos canina rabie famam vicissim suam rodere ac lacerare scriptis trucibus, tanquam vilissimos de plebe cerdones in Angiportis sese luto ac stercore conspurcan…. Nic Rigalt. vit. P. …, p. 48. would lay aside Heats, and Prejudices, and hard Words, and consider this matter impartially; and I do not question, but they will see cause to judge, as I do, that the difference is not so great as our Adversaries for their own advantage make it to be. And since both sides yield, that the matter they dispute about is above their reach, the wisest course they can take is to assert and defend what is revealed, and not to be too peremptory and quarrelsom about that which is acknowledged to be above our comprehension, I mean as to the manner how the three Persons partake of the divine Nature.

It would be of the most fatal consequence to us, if those Weapons, which might be so usefully imploy'd against our common Adversaries, should still be turned upon one p. xlvanother. I know no manner of advantage they have against us, but from thence, and this is it which makes them write with such Insolence and Scorn towards those who are far their Superiours in Learning and Wit, as well as in the Goodness of their cause. And is it possible that some of our most skilfull Fencers should play Prizes before them, who plainly animate them against each other for their own Diversion and Interest? Sometimes one hath the better, sometimes the other, and one is cried up in Opposition to the other, but taken alone is used with the greatest Contempt. One Man's work is said to be learned and accurate, and the more,Considerat. on the Explication by Dr. W. &c. p. 12. because it follows, that he concerns not himself with the Socinians. The wiser Man no doubt, for that Reason. At another time it is called the Birth of the Mountains, and the Author parallel'd with no less a Man than Don Quixot, P. 13.and his elaborate Writings with his Adventures, and they ridicule his Notion of Modes as if they were only so many Gambols and Postures. P. 22.And then for his Adversary, they hearten and incourage him all they can; they tell him, He must not allow to the other the least Title of all he contends for, least their sport should be spoiled; and to comfort him, they tell him,P. 23. that his Adversary p. xlviis a Socinian at bottom, and doth not know it;P. 25. that all his Thingums, Modes, Properties are only an Addition of Words and Names, and not of Persons properly so called, and that his whole Scheme is nothing but Socinianism drest up in the absurd Cant of the Schools. That his Book hath much more Scurrility than Argument, P. 19.that his usage of him was barbarous, and a greater Soloecism in manners, than any he accuses him of in Grammar or Speech; and in short, That his Explication of the Trinity is a great Piece of Nonsense, P. 13.(though it comes so near to Socinianism.) But how doth the other Antagonist escape? What, nothing but good Words to him? In this place they had a mind to keep him in heart, and only charge him with a Heresie which they laugh at; but in another place, they set him out with such colours, as shew they intended only to play one upon the other. They charge him not only with Heresie but Polytheism, Defence of the Notes on Athanasius his Creed. p. 24.Which, they say, is next to Atheism; that his Vindication is a supercilious, disdainfull and peevish Answer: that he had neither Humanity nor good Manners left: P. 31.that there is nothing considerable in his Books but what he borrow'd from Them. These are some of the Flowers which they p. xlviibestow on these Persons of Reputation in Polemick Squabble as they call it, which plainly shew, that their aim is, as much as may be, to divide and then to expose us. And shall we still go on to gratifie this insulting Humour of theirs, by contending with one another, and afford them still new matter for Books against both? As we may see in their late Discourse about Nominal and Real Trinitarians, which was intended for a rare shew, wherein the two Parties are represented as combating with one another, and they stand by and triumph over these Cadmean Brethren, as they call them.

Neither are they the Socinians only, but those who despise all Religion (who I doubt are the far greater number) are very much entertained with such encounters between Men of Wit and Parts, because they think, and they do not think amiss, that Religion it self will be the greatest sufferer by them at last: And this is the most dangerous, but I hope not the most prevailing Party of Men among us. The Socinians profess themselves Christians, and I hope are so, (especially if but One Article of Faith be required to make men so) but I cannot but observe that in the late Socinian Pamphlets, there is too strong a biass towards Deism, (which consideration alone should make us p. xlviiiunite and look more narrowly to their steps.) I do not charge their Writers with a professed design to advance Deism among us; but their way of managing their Disputes, is as if they had a mind to serve them. And such men who are Enemies to all revealed Religion, could not find out better Tools for their purpose than they are. For they know very well, that in such a Nation as ours, which is really concerned for the Profession of Religion one way or other, there is no opening professed Schools of Atheism; but the design must be carried on under some shew of Religion. And nothing serves their turn so well, as setting up natural Religion in opposition to Revealed. For this is the way by degrees to loosen and unhinge the Faith of most Men, which with great reason is built on the Scripture as the surest foundation.

But here it is fit to observe the several steps they take in order to this advancing Deism, and how our Unitarians have complied with all of them.

I. The first point they are to gain is, The lessening the Authority of Scripture, and if this be once done, they know Mens Minds will be left so roving and uncertain, that they will soon fall into Scepticism and Infidelity.

p. xlixII. The next is, to represent Church-men as Persons of Interest and Design, who maintain Religion only because it supports them; and this they call Priest-Cra…t, and if they can by this means take away their Authority too, the way lies still more open for them; for it is more easie to make a Prey of the Flock, when the Shepherds are suspected only to look after their Fleeces. Since such a suspicion takes away all Trust and Confidence in their Guides; and they know very well, how little others will be able to defend themselves.

III. Another step is, to magnifie the Deists as Men of Probity and good Sense; that assert the just Liberties of Mankind, against that terrible thing called Priest-Craft; and that would rescue Religion from false Glosses and absurd Notions taken up from the Schools and taught in the Universities, on purpose to keep under those Principles of universal Liberty as to Opinions, which those of freer Minds endeavour to promote. But especially they are great Enemies to all Mysteries of Faith, as unreasonable Impositions on those of more refined Vnderstandings, and of clear and distinct Perceptions, as they have learnt to express themselves. These they account intolerable Vsurpations on Men of such Elevations as p. lthemselves; for Mysteries are only for the Mob, and not for Persons of such noble Capacities.

IV. The last thing is, to represent all Religions as indifferent, since they agree in the common Principles of natural Religion, especially the Vnity of God, and all the rest is but according to the different Inventions of Men, the skill of the Contrivers, and the several Humors and Inclinations of Mankind.

These are the chief Mysteries of Deism in our Age; for even Deism hath its Mysteries, and it is it self a Mystery of Iniquity, which I am afraid is too much working already among us, and will be more if no effectual stop be put to it.

I call it Deism, because that Name obtains now, as more plausible and modish; for Atheism is a rude unmannerly Word, and exposes Men to the Rabble, and makes Persons shun the company and avoid the Conversation and Dealing with such who are noted for it. And this would be a mighty Prejudice to them, as to their Interests in this World, which they have reason to value.

But to be a Deist, seems to be only a setting up for having more Wit, than to be cheated by the Priests, and imposed upon by the common Forms of Religion, which serve p. liwell enough for ordinary People that want Sense, and are not skill…d in Demonstrations; but the Deists are so wise as to see through all these things. And therefore this name gains a Reputation among all such as hate Religion, but know not how otherwise to distinguish themselves from prosessed Atheists, which they would by no means be taken for; although if they be pressed home, very few among them will sincerely own any more than a Series of Causes, without any intellectual Perfections, which they call God. A strange God without Wisdom, Goodness, Iustice or Providence!

But I am now to shew, how in all these points the present Unitarians have been very serviceable to them, in the Books which they have lately published and dispersed both in City and Country.

1. As to the Authority of Scripture: They have been already justly exposed for undermining the Authority of S. John's Gospel, by mustering up all the Arguments of the old Hereticks against it,Vindication of the Archbishop's Sermons. p. 5. and giving no answers to them. And what defence have they since made for themselves? No other but this very trifling one, that they repeat their Reasons but do not affirm them. Answer to Dr. Bull, p. 47.What is the meaning of this? If they are true, why do they not affirm them? If they are false, why p. liido they not answer them? Is this done like those who believe the Gospel of S. John to be divine, to produce all the arguments they could meet with against it; and never offer to shew the Weakness: and Vnreasonableness of them? Doth not this look like a design to furnish the Deists with such arguments as they could meet with against it? Especially, when they say, That S. Iohn doth not oppose them Why then are these Arguments produced against his Gospel? Men do not use to dispute against their Friends, nor to tell the World what all People have said against them, and give not a word of answer in vindication of them. But they say, The modern Vnitarians allow of the Gospel and other Pieces of S. Iohn. A very great favour indeed, to allow of them. But how far? As of divine Authority? Not a word of that. But as ancient Books which they think it not fit for them to dispute against.History of the Unitarians, p. 10. But if the ancient Ebionites were their Predecessors, as they affirm, they can allow none but the Gospel according to the Hebrews; and must reject the rest and all S. Paul's Epistles; and in truth, they make him argue so little to the purpose, that they must have a very mean opinion of his Writings. But of these things in the Discourse it self.

p. liiiAs to Church-men, no professed Deists could express themselves more spitefully than they have done, and that against those to whom they profess the greatest respect. What then would they say of the rest? They say in general,Considerat. on the Explication by the Archbishop, &c. p. 13. That it is natural to Worldlings, to mercenary Spirits, to the timorous and ambitious; in a word, to all such as preferr not God before all other, whether Persons or Considerations, to believe as they would have it.

But although the words be general, yet any one that looks into them may s…e… find that they were intended for such Church-men who had written against their opinions. And the Insinuation is, that if it were not for worldly Interests, they would own them to be in the right. Whereas I am fully perswaded, that they have no way to defend their Opinions, but to reject the Scriptures and declare themselves Deists; and as long as we retain a just Veneration for the Scripture, we can be of no other Opinion, because we look on their Interpretations as unreasonable, new, forced, and inconsistent with the circumstances of Places and the main Scope and Tenor of the New Testament. But their Introduction to the Answer to the late Archbishop's Sermons about the Trinity and Incarnation, shew their Temper p. livsufficiently as to all Church-men. He was the Person they professed to esteem and reverence above all others, and confess that he instructs them in the Air and Language of a Father, Answ…r to the Archbish. Serm. p. 43.(which at least deserved a little more dutifull Language from them.) But some Mens fondness for their Opinions breaks all bounds of Civility and Decency; for presently after, mentioning the Archbishop and other Bishops who had written against them, they say it signifies nothing to the case, That they are great Pensioners of the World. P. 44.For it is certain we have a mighty Propensity to believe as is for our Turn and Interest. And soon after, that their Opposers are under the power of such fatal Biasses, that their Doctrine is the more to be suspected because it is theirs. For the reason why they maintain the Doctrine of the Trinity is, because they must. The plain meaning of all this is, that the late Archbishop (as well as the rest) was a mere self-interested Man, (which none who knew either the outside or inside of Lambeth could ever imagine) that if he were really against them (as none could think otherwise, who knew him so well and so long as I did) it only shew'd what a strange Power, Interest hath in the Minds of all Church-men.

p. lvBut what Bias was it, which made him write with that Strength and Iudgment against their Opinions? Let us set aside all Titles of Respect and Honour as they desire, let Reason be compared with Reason; and his Arguments with their Answers; and it will be soon found that the advantage which he had, was not from any other Dignity than that of a clearer Iudgment, and a much stronger way of Reasoning Whereas their Answers are such, as may well be supposed to come from those, who had some such Bias, that they must at least seem to answer what in truth they could not. As hath been fully made appear in the Vindication of him, to which no reply hath been given, although other Treatises of theirs have come out since. In the Conclusion of that Answer they say,Answer to the Archbishop p. 65. That they did not expect that their Answer should satisfie us, and in truth they had a great deal of reason to think so. But what reason do they give for it? A very kind one no doubt; because Prepossession and Interest have taken hold of us. As though we were Men of such mean and mercenary Spirits, as to believe according to Prepossession without Reason, and to act only as serves our present Interest. But we never made mean Addresses to Infidels to shew how near our Principles came to theirs, nor made Parallels p. lvibetween the Trinity and Transubstantiation, as some did, and defended them, as well as they could, when Popery was uppermost. But enough of this.

3. We have seen how much they have gratified the Deists by representing Churchmen in such a manner, let us now see in what manner they treat the Deists. It is with another sort of Language; and which argues a more than ordinary kindness to them. In one place they say, That the Deists are mostly well-natured Men, Some thoughts upon Dr. Sh. Vindication, p. 21.and Men, of Probity and Understanding; in effect that they are sincere honest-hearted Men, who do good by the impulse of their natural Religion, Honesty and good Conscience, which have great Influence upon them. What another sort of character is this from that of the greatest, and in their opinion the best of our Clergy? This must proceed from some Intimacy and Familiarity with them; and it is easie to imagine from hence, that they are upon very good Terms with one another, because they must be Unitarians, if they believe a God at all.

But where else are these honest, conscientious Deists to be found?

It is rare indeed for others to find any one that rejects Christianity out of pure Conscience, and that acts by principles of sincere Virtue. I never yet could meet p. lviiwith such, nor hear of those that have. And I would fain know the reasons on which such conscientious Men proceeded; for truly the Principles of natural Religion are those which recommend Christianity to me; for without them the Mysteries of Faith would be far more unaccountable than now they are; and supposing them, I see no Incongruity in them, i. e. That there is a just and holy God, and a wise Providence, and a future State of Rewards and Punishments; and that God designs to bring Mankind to Happiness out of a State of Misery; let these be supposed, and the Scheme of Christianity will appear very reasonable and fitted to the Condition and Capacity of Mankind. And the sublimest Mysteries of it are not intended to puzzle or amuse Mankind, as weak Men imagine; but they are discover'd for the greatest and best purposes in the World, to bring Men to the hatred of Sin and Love of God, and a patient continuance in well-doing, in order to a blessed Immortality. So that this is truly a Mystery of Godliness, being intended for the advancement of real Piety and Goodness among Mankind in order to make them happy. But as to these Unitarians, who have such happy Acquaintance with these conscientious Deists; I would fain learn from them, if they think them mistaken, why they take no more pains p. lviiito satisfie and convince them; for I find they decline saying a word against them. In one place they compare the Atheist and Deist together; and very honestly and like any conscientious Deists, they impute all the Deism and most part of the Atheism of our Age to the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation.Letter of Resol. concerning the Trinity and Incarn. p. 18.

Is it possible for Men that live in our Age to give such an account as this of the Growth of Deism and Atheism among us? What number of Atheists is there, upon any other account than from a looseness of Thinking and Living? Where are those who believe God to be an incomprehensible Being, and yet reject the Mysteries which relate to his Being, because they are incomprehensible? Suppose any reject spiritual Substance as Nonsense and a Contradiction, as they do the Trinity on the same Pretences. Is this a sufficient reason or not? They may tell them, as they do us that they can have no Ideas, no clear and distinct Perceptions of immaterial Substances? What answer do they give in this case? Not a Syllable; although they take notice of it. But I hope they give some better satisfaction to the Deist;Letter of Resol. p. 5. No, for they say, This is not a place to argue against either Atheist or Deist. By no means: some would say, They were not such Fools to fall out with their Friends. And p. lixit cannot be denied, that they have been the greatest Incouragers of such kind of Writings, which serve their turn so well; and in pure Gratitude they forbear to argue against them.

IV. To shew how near they come to an Indifferency in Religion, they speak favourably of Mahometans, and Jews, and even Tartars, because they agree with them in the Vnity of the Godhead. What an honest-hearted Deist do they make that Impostor Mahomet? One would hardly think such a character could have come out of the Mouth of Christians. But these are their Words,Letter of Resol. concerning the Trinity and Incarn. p. 18. Mahomet is affirmed by divers Historians to have had no other design in pretending himself to be a Prophet, but to restore the Belief of the Unity of God, which at that time was extirpated among the Eastern Christians by the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. Who are those Historians who give this character of him? Why are they not named, that their authority might be examin'd? Was the Morocco Ambassador one of them? Or Paulus Alciatus, who from a Unitarian turned Mahometan? But by the best accounts we can meet with, we find that he was a very cunning Impostor, and took in from the Jews and Ishmaelites his Countrymen, Circumcision; from the Christians, an honourable p. lxmention of Christ, as a Prophet, and as the the Word and Spirit of God, Elmacin hist. Sarac. p. 4. Levin. Warner. de Alcoran.and owned his Miracles; from the ancient Hereticks he denied his Suffering, but owned his being taken up into Heaven. Yea, he owned, That he had his Gospel from Heaven; but that his Disciples changed it after his Death, and attributed more to Christ than he assumed to himself. Which shews that he had so much Sence, as to discern, that if the Books of the New Testament were genuine, more must be given to Christ, than either Mahomet or the Unitarians do allow. Let any indifferent Reader compare their character of Mahomet with that of Athanasius, Acts of Athanasius, p. 5.which these Men give, and they will easily find that they take as much care to blacken one, as they do to vindicate the other. What Christian Ingenuity is here? But Mahomet was a Deist, and Athanasius a Trinitarian. But they go on.

Whatsoever the design of Mahomet was, its certain, that Mahometism hath prevailed over greater Numbers and more Nations, than at this day profess Christianity. But how? Was it not by force of Arms and the Prevalency of the Saracen and Turkish Empire? No, say these learned Historians, It was not by the Force of the Sword, but by that one Truth in the Alcoran the Unity of God. It were endless to quote the p. lxiHistorians, who say, That it was Mahomet's Principle, to subdue all by Force of Arms who opposed his Religion; but the authority of Elmacinus alone is sufficient; for in the beginning of his History he owns that it was his Principle, To make War upon those that would not submit to his Law. And others say, that in remembrance of this,Ricard. confut. legis Saracen. c. 10. Their Law is expounded by their Doctors, with a Sword drawn by them, and that it is the Law of the Alcoran to kill and slay those that oppose it. What liberty the Turkish Empire allows to Christians in the conquer'd Provinces is not to this purpose, but by what means Mahometism prevailed in the World.

But say they, The Jews as well as Mahometans are alienated from us, because they suppose the Trinity to be the Doctrine of all Christians. And what then? Must we renounce the Christian Doctrine to please the Jews and Mahometans? Must we quit Christ's being the Messias, because the Jews deny it? Or the suffering of Christ, because the Mahometans think it inconsistent with his Honour?

But if this be the truth of the case, as to Jews and Mahometans; no Persons are so well qualified to endeavour their Conversion, as our Unitarians; which would be a much better imployment for them, than to p. lxiiexpose the Christian Doctrine by such Writings among us. I am ashamed to mention what they say of the Tartars, when they call them, The Shield and Sword of that way of acknowledging and worshipping God. Letter of Resol. p. 19.So that Mahometans, Jews and Tartars are fairly represented because they agree in the grand Fundamental of the Vnity of the Godhead; but the Christian Church is charged with believing Impossibilities, Contradictions, and pure Nonsense.

And thus we find our Unitarians serving the Deists in all their methods of overthrowing Revealed Religion and advancing Deism among us. And if this will not awaken us to look more after them, and unite us in the defence of our Common Cause against them, I do not think that other Methods will do it. For it is become a Restless and Active, although as yet, but a small Body of Men, and they tell the World plainly enough that they are free from the Biasses of Hopes and Fears;Answer to the Archbishop p. 44. P. 66. and sit loose from the Awes and Bribes of the World. So that there is no way of dealing with them, but by shewing the falsness & weakness of the grounds they go upon; and that they have no advantage of us as to Scripture, Antiquity or Reason: which is the Design of this Vndertaking.

Worcester, Sept. 30. 1696. E. W.

THE CONTENTS.

CHAP. I. THE Occasion and Design of the Discourse. Pag. 1.

CHAP. II. The Doctrine of the Trinity not receiv'd in the Christian Church by Force or Interest. p. 10.

CHAP. III. The Socinian Plea, for the Antiquity of their Doctrine, Examined. p. 15.

CHAP. IV. Of the Considerable Men they pretend to have been of their Opinion in the Primitive Church. p. 29.

CHAP. V. Of their Charge of Contradiction in the Doctrine of the Trinity. p. 54.

CHAP. VI. No Contradiction for Three Persons to be in One common Nature. p. 68.

CHAP. VII. The Athanasian Creed clear'd from Contradictions. p. 101.

CHAP. VIII. The Socinian Sense of Scripture Examined. p. 121.

CHAP. IX. The General Sense of the Christian Church, proved from the Form of Baptism, as it was understood in the first Ages. p. 177.

CHAP. X. The Objections against the Trinity, in point of Reason, Answer'd. p. 230.

ERRATA.

PAg. 113. l. 12. for our r. one. p. 122. l. 12. r. Heb. 1.5. for unto which. p. 124. l. 7. add N. 11. p. 126. l. 29. for Damascenus r. Damascius. p. 129. l. 21. for appointed r. appropriated. p. 181. l. 22. after them put in not. p. 192. l. 19 for we r. were. p. 211. l. 1. dele that. p. 217. l. 6. for Hypostasis r. Hypothesis. p. 234. l. 6. for Intermission r. Intromission. p. 283. l. 21. r. as well as.

p. 1A DISCOURSE In VINDICATION of the Doctrine of the Trinity: WITH An ANSWER TO THE Late SOCINIAN Objections.