The Doctrine of the Unitarians concerning God.

THe first of these Senses is the Unitarian. For the Unitarians say, there is none o­ther God but one, God is one; the plain, ob­vious and indubitable meaning of these words is this, there is but One, who is God, or a God: One God, say they, is to be understood in the same natural, sincere and unsophisticated Sense; as when we say one Sun, one Earth, one World. When the Scriptures, say they, speak to us of so high an Object as God; when they tell us, there is one God, and there is none other but He; when they declare this Faith to be the very first of all God's Charges, or Commandments to Men; without doubt they speak without Artifice or Querk, they have no double or deceitful meaning; they don't lay Snares for us, by intending such a meaning as is contrary to the usual, the grammatical and proper Sense of the Words.

There is but one God, say the Holy Scriptures; where can be the Ambiguity of such usual and plain Words? the meaning of the Terms One and God, is perfectly known to all Men; Why do we study Subtilties and Finenesses, with which to deceive our selves into Poly­theism, and to destroy the Simplicity of the Faith?

When God says in the first Commandment; Thou shalt have no other God but Me, he speaks to all Men, to the illiterate, to the sincere, and even to Children, as well as to those who are practised in the Arts of deceiving and being deceived, by a Disguise of Words, and by captious Forms of speaking. If his meaning therefore was, there is an Almighty Father, who is God; he hath an Almighty Son, who also is a God; and besides these, there is an Almighty Spirit distinct from the other two, [Page 5] and a God no less than either of them: if (I say) this was his meaning, would he have couched it in such words as these, There is none other God but one? or in these, There is one God, and there is none other but He? or would he have said, Thou shalt have none other God but ME? Could the Wisdom of God it self find no other words but these, which are so di­rectly contrary to such a meaning, by which to express himself; and that too to those who were utterly uncapable of apprehending such a Sense in them?

These are the words which God spake up­on Mount Sinai, with Thunders that shook the Earth and Heavens, I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other God but ME. They tell us his meaning was, there are three Almighty, All-knowing, and Most good Persons, each of them (singly and by himself) God, and all of them jointly Creators of all things: Now who would have thought it, that this should be the meaning of no other God but ME? Without doubt, the Texts and the meaning are as far from one another, as any the most contradictory Propositions can be: and till they can remove this first Commandment out of the way, it will be impossible for Men of Sense to be of the Trinitarian Perswasion; I mean, if they be also sincere, if they suffer not themselves to be blinded by the Interests, or awed by the (vain) Terrors of the pre­sent false World. Our Opposers themselves grant, that when the Israelites first heard this Commandment, they understood it, and could then no otherways understand it, as the Uni­tarians now do, namely thus, Thou shalt never own any other Person as God, but only Me who now speak to thee. God Almighty suffered this Sense of his Words to pass current for up­wards of 1500 Years: But then, say they, he sent our Saviour and his Apostles to give another Sense of them; nay, a contrary Sense. The Apostles and our Saviour had it in Charge to tell us, that no other God but Me, was as much as to say, God the Father, and God his Son, and God the Holy Ghost, three Divine Persons, each of them Almighty, each of them All-knowing and most Good, and each of them God. But I verily think, had the Apostles indeed pretended this to be the Interpretation of the first Command­ment, they would not have found a single Person who would have believed or received them. For these good Men had not (nor desired) Penal Laws, Prisons, Confiscations, Deprivations, Exclusions from the common Privileges of the Society, by which to awe Mens Minds, to profess, and even to believe that black is white, and white is black. It would have been told them by all their Hearers, that the Sense of Words is unalte­rable; and that even the greatest Miracles cannot authorize an Interpretation evidently contrary to the Text. If the Speaker had been only a Man, yet the Sense of his Words when actually spoken, can never be changed by any Authority whatsoever: If Heaven and Earth were miraculously destroyed to con­firm an Interpretation that disagrees with the Natural and Grammatical Sense of the Words, it will (for all that) ever remain a false Interpretation.

Cardinal Bellarmine is extreamly puzled with this Difficulty; he saw plainly, that the first Commandment (and other Texts of the Law) is conceived in such words, that the Israelites could not think there were three Divine Persons, but only one Divine Person. But the Reason, saith he, of this was, be­cause the Israelites having lived long in a Na­tion where they owned and worshipp'd many Gods; if they had been told of three Divine-Persons, (or of God the Father, God his Son, and God the Holy Ghost) they would most certainly have apprehended them to be three Gods. This, saith the Cardinal, is the Reason why the Doctrine of the Trinity was reserved to the Times of the New Te­stament. Bellarm. de Christo, l. 2. c. 6. Notan­dum est, Deum in vetteri Testamento noluisse pro­ponere Mysterium Triuitatis expresse, quia Judaei in­capaces erant, & quia recens exierant de Egypto, ubi colebantur multi Dii, & intraturi erant in ter­ram Chanaan, ubi etiam multi babebantur Dii, ne videlicet putarent, sibi tres Deos proponi colendos [...] voluisse tamen Deum adumbrare hoc Mysterium; [Page 6] ut cum in Novo Testamento praedicaretur, non vi­deretur omnino Novum. q. d. ‘The Doctrine of the Trinity was not propounded ex­presly to the Jews in the Old Testament; they were uncapable of it, because coming out of Egypt where many Gods were wor­shipped, and entering into Canaan where also many Gods were acknowledged, the Jews would have thought that three Gods had been propounded to them to be wor­shipped. Nevertheless it was hinted, or shadowed to them, lest when it came to be preached in the New Testament, it should seem altogether a new thing.’

In reading the Works of this Cardinal, I have often had this Thought, That provided his Works were but bulky and learned, he never cared what other Property they wan­ted: no one can deny that his five Books against the Unitarians, intituled by him De Christo, are the most learned of any that have been written against us; but they have no Wit, and are (throughout) most injudicious. What can be more unthought or silly, for in­stance, than this vain Elusion? God speaks to the Jews, saith he, as if he were but one Person, because they (living among People who acknowledged many Gods) would have mistaken three Divine Persons to be three Gods. How came it to be more safe or sea­sonable, or less liable to Misinterpretation, to instruct Christians in the Belief of three Divine Persons; than it would have been to teach the same Belief to the Jews? The Jews, saith the Cardinal, would have mista­ken, they would have thought the Trinity (an Almighty Father, an Almighty Son, and an Almighty Spirit) to be three Almighties, and three Gods; so this Mystery was not preached to them. What a Narrowness of Thought and Consideration is implied in this Answer; for, was not the whole Christian Church taken from among such Nations, who all worshipped and owned many Gods? The Reason alledged by the Cardinal, if it were good for any thing, must also have prevented the Revelation of that (pretended) Mystery to any of the Christian Nations and Churches.

I might also ask the Cardinal, why he hath so much better Thoughts of Athanasius, than of Moses, and the Prophets? Athanasius knew how to compose a Trinitarian Creed, in the most express and particular manner, that might be delivered out to all the Churches, without the least danger of lead­ing them into any Mistake about it: but Moses and the Prophets, tho inspired by God, wanted this Dexterity. They, poor Men, were forced to speak (falsly) of God, as if he were but one Person, not a Trinity of Persons, lest they should commit some dange­rous Blunder in the wording of their Doctrine, and so lay an occasion of Polytheism in the way of the Jewish Church; but Athanasius, and the Nicene Fathers have happily got over this Difficulty, they have blest the Christian Churches with a pair of Creeds, worth an hundred first Commandments.

But to be short; the Unitarian Explication of the Texts, which say there is but one God, is, that there is but one who is God, or but one Divine Person, but one who is Almighty, All-knowing, and perfectly Good. Our very Opposers confess that this was the antient and first Sense of the Words, so the Faithful un­derstood them for 1500 Years together. They confess too, 'tis a very Natural and a very Rational Sense; that it hath no Difficul­ties, no Mysteries or Monstrosities in it. They are constrained also to own, that the before-mentioned Texts alledged by the Unitarians, are so read in all Copies both of the Hebrew and Greek, and can no other ways be rendred from the Original Text; or more clearly thus, as to these Texts there is no Variety or Difference in the reading, in the Copies of the Original, nor any Uncer­tainty in the Translations of those Copies. This is a very great matter, and cannot be said, nor is so much as pretended, for the Texts are urged by Trinitarians; they have been often challenged to produce but one Text for their Doctrine of the Trinity: but either 'tis otherwise read in the most Antient and Eminent Copies of the Greek and Hebrew, or 'tis easily and naturally render'd and [Page 7] translated to another Sense; or 'tis given up by their own (ablest) Interpreters and Criticks, as wholly impertinent, and no Proof of the Doctrine in question. From these confest and acknowledg'd Premises, we have these two necessary and unavoidable Conse­quences. 1. That the Account which the Unitarians give of God, and his Unity, is the very Voice of Nature and Reason, supported by such Texts of holy Scripture, as have neither Uncertainty nor Ambiguity. 2. That the Tri­nitarian Faith is at best but precarious, un­certain and doubtful; because it is not only disclaimed by Reason, but it hath no other Scripture-Proofs but such, concerning which there is no Certainty, either how they are to be read in the Originals, or how they are to be translated from the Originals into the Modern Languages. No Faith or Doctrine whatsoever can be more certain than the Proofs are on which 'tis grounded: if those Proofs are of suspected Authority and Credit, or of uncertain meaning and sense, the Do­ctrine it self must be altogether uncertain, suspicious and precarious. But because you expect from me a Letter, not a Volume, I will say no more now of the Unitarian Hypo­thesis, but will briefly (as I can) compare and consider the Hypotheses, or Explications advanced by our Opposers.

Of the Explication by Dr. J. Wallis.

ALL Men know, that the Difference be­tween the Unitarians and their Oppo­sers the Trinitarians, is (in few words) this, Whether there be more than one Divine Person, or more than one Person, who is true and most High God? The Unitarians say there can be but one Divine Person; because, not to mention the Scripture-Proofs of it, a Divine Person being as much as to say a Divinity, or a God; if you say, there are more Divine Per­sons, you therein and thereby say there are more Gods. As three Angelical Persons are three An­gels, and three Human Persons are three Men: so three Divine Persons in Grammar and com­mon Sense, are three Divinities; which (all grant) is as much as to say three Gods. So they. But, saith Dr. Wallis, ‘Here's a reasoning why 'tis grounded on this silly Mistake, that a Divine Person is as much as to say a Divinity, or a God; when in­deed a Divine Person is only a Mode, a Respect, or Relation of God to his Crea­tures. He beareth to his Creatures these three Relations, Modes, or Respects, that he is their Creator, their Redeemer, and their Sanctifier: this is what we mean, and all we mean, when we say God is three Persons; he hath those three Relations to his Crea­ture, and is thereby no more three Gods, than he was three Gods to the Jews, be­cause he calleth himself the God of Abra­ham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’

‘Three Human Persons, say the Socinians, are tres Homines, or three Men, and three Angelical Persons are three Angels; there­fore three Divine Persons are, in Grammar and common Sense, three Divinities, or Gods: Where, I pray, did they learn this Stuff? Not from Tully; that learned Ora­tor, and great Master and Director of ele­gant and proper speaking, would have taught them, that an Human Person is not as much as to say Homo, or a Man, but is a Qualification, a Capacity, a Respect, or Relation of one Man to other Men. n [...]o unus tres Personas, saith Tully; i. e. I be­ing but one Man do sustain (or am) three Per­sons, that of my self, that of my Adversary; and that of a Judg. See here, one Man sustains (or is) three Persons, an Advocate, an Accuser, and a Judg, without being three Men: Why should it be thought in­credible, or harsh, to say with the Church, [Page 8] three Divine Persons are but one God, when Tully maketh those three other Persons to be but one Man?’

This is the Sum of what Dr. Wallis hath said in eight printed Letters, and in three Ser­mons that were preached to the University of Oxford.

Sermons that have been preached to the University, and not censured by them, must be supposed to contain nothing Heretical, no nor Dangerous, Scandalous, or Heterodox. But besides that these Sermons have passed so great a Test, as that of the University of Oxford, the Doctor assureth us, that he hath been thank'd and complemented, in a great number of private Letters, on account of his Sermons and Letters: some of these Letters written to him have been published; and it doth appear, they were indeed written by able Men. We must also take notice of two other Considerations in favour of these Let­ters and Sermons of Dr. Wallis: the first is, that Dr. S—th (Author of the Animadver­sions on Dr. Sherlock) having taken particu­lar notice of the Letters written by and to Dr. Wallis, speaks respectfully of the Au­thors of them, calling them Reverend and very Learned Persons, without making the least Reflection on his Doctrine, as Heretical, or as Heterodox. The second is, Dr. Sherlock himself, tho Dr. Wallis had expresly said in his Answer to W. I. that Dr. Sherlock's Doctrine doth imply Tritheism, and that so much had been proved upon him by W. I. yet does Dr. Sherlock, who is so little wonted to car­ry Coals, pass by this Affront and Imputa­tion which no Clergy-man ought to bear; nay he even fawns upon the Oxford Doctor, in his late Answer to the Stander by.

But a very surprizing thing hath happened; Dr. Wallis writes in Defence of the Trinity and the Athanasian Creed; his Explications are allowed by the University of Oxford, and even applauded by great numbers of Learned Men who profess to be Trinitarians: and yet after all, the Socinians in their Observations on the Letters of Dr. Wallis, profess that they are of his Mind; they even say, that in Ho­nour of him they are content to be called Wallisians. This is very odd; for it follows, that either the Socinians are the true Ortho­dox, and their Opposers Tritheists; or else, that this good Doctor is a Socinian, and knows it not.

Those that say, without doubt the Soci­nians understand their own Doctrine, are ve­ry picquant upon Dr. Wallis; they pretend themselves very desirous to be informed, what might be in the Doctor's Mind, to apo­logize for the Athanasian Creed and the Tri­nity, and yet to asperse at the same time his own Patriarch Socinus, and his dear and close Friends and Brethren the Unitarians; espe­cially in such an hainous manner as we see in his third and fourth Letters. They say, either the Man is Wood, or he has written after that fashion, only to give occasion to the Socinians, as in effect it also happened, to appear more bright, by a thorow and unanswerable Vindi­cation of themselves: for so it is, that wronged Innocence and Vertue are rendred more con­spicuous and lovely, when injurious Calum­nies are wiped off.

They say farther, that 'tis not to be much regarded that so many have complemented Dr. Wallis for his Letters; for what Assurance have we that the Writers of them are not secret Socinians, and that they only banter the good Doctor? As for the University of Oxford, to whom these Sabellian and Unita­rian Sermons were preached, 'tis very usual for the old Men that preside in that Univer­sity, to sleep at Sermons, especially at dull ones. But you are not to think, say they, that these Sermons or Letters were ever li­censed to the Press by the University; or that the Doctors there understand so little, as to mistake a disguised Sabellianism or Socinia­nism, for the Trinity of the Catholick Church.

The three Persons, says Dr. Wallis, are but three Relations, Capacities, or Respects of God to his Creatures; he is their Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier; and in this Sense of the word Person, God is three Persons. But then because God hath also the Capacity or [Page 9] Relation of a Judg, and of an Oeconomus, or Provider, and many more; we must not say that God is only three Persons, he is five at the least, besides I know not how many more.

Furthermore, this new-fangled Socinian or Sabellian has introduced a Trinity of Di­vine Persons; that were but of yesterday. The Churches Trinity are all of them from all Eternity; Co-eternal, saith the Athanasian Creed; before all Worlds, saith the Nicene Creed: but Dr. Wallis his three Divine Per­sons, the first of them begins with the Crea­tion, and the second is no older than the Crucifixion of our Saviour; for God was not a Creator before he created any thing; nor a Redeemer, till those words were spoken by our Saviour on the Cross, It is finished, i. e. The great Work of Redemption is accom­plished.

The three Divine Persons believed by the Church, begat one another after a wonderful manner: Will Dr. Wallis, being the oldest Divine of England, instruct Novices that are desirous to learn, how his Persons begat one another? How did Creation beget Redemption, and from all Eternity, that is, before either of them were; for Creation it self is but Co­eval with the World: and how was Sanctifi­cation, we must not say begotten, for that's Heresy when you speak of a third Person; but how did it proceed from Creation, and from Redemption?

Dr. Wallis, say they, will find it as hard to account for these Difficulties, as to double the Cube, or even to square the Circle, which the most learned Mathematicians think to be impossible. He is not, say they, to think that he is Orthodox, because he hath escaped the heavy cudgelling that hath all fallen on Dr. Sherlock; 'tis not because his Doctrine, but because his Luck hath been better than that Doctor's. In a word, whereas the Church believes three real subsisting Persons, Dr. Wallis hath taught a Trinity of External Denomina­tions, or Accidental Predications only. Crea­tion, Redemption and Sanctification are Acts of God's free and soveraign Will: he was un­der no necessity to create, to redeem, or to sanctify; they are all Effects of his most vo­luntary and every way free Love: if there­fore the Mystery of the Trinity, so much hitherto contested, be nothing else but Al­mighty God, considered as the Maker, Re­deemer and Sanctifier of his Creatures; 'tis a Trinity only of three Denominations or Names, and of Predications purely Accidental; and be­sides that, 'tis no manner of Mystery, but the most intelligible and obvious thing in the Word; nor was it ever denied, either by Sabellians or Socinians.

Thus it is, Sir, that divers learned Per­sons speak concerning the Trinity maintained by Dr. Wallis: I, for my part, will add no­thing to the Observations I have formerly made on Dr. Wallis his Letters; only (I pray) take notice here with me, how well the Cadmean Brethren agree among themselves. Three Divine Persons, saith Dr. Wallis, are the three Relations of God to his Creatures; he made, he redeemed, he sanctifies them; this is the Holy Trinity. Out upon it, saith Dr. Sherlock, 'tis Nonsense and Heresy both; for the Divine Persons are three Beings, three Minds, three Spirits, all of them living, subsisting, and conscious to one another.

No, no, that's as much too much, saith Dr. S—th, 'tis neither so nor so, but as I have explained it in my eighth Chapter of Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock. The Ex­plication of the Trinity by Dr. Sherlock, saith Dr. S—th, is a treacherous and a false Defence of that Mystery; he hath advanced a Notion, that immediately and unavoidably infers three Gods: and if he had lived in the times of the sixth General Council, he would have incurred the Penalty of Deprivation. Pref. p. 2, 7, & 8.

Well, I hope Dr. S—th hath at length told us the very true Doctrine about the Trinity. Yes, he hath (without question) laid down the very Explication of the Schools, the Doctrine or Explication generally recei­ved in Universities; I doubt not it would be approved by most of the Chairs of our Eu­ropean Universities, or Schools of Learning: he hath verily acquitted himself like a Man of [Page 10] Learning and Wit. For all that, Dr. Cud­worth, in his Intellectual System, hath largely and clearly proved these two things. 1. That this Trinity of the Schools is quite different from the Trinity held by the Fathers, and that by them it would have been reckoned no other than Sabellianism. 2. That as the first Inventors of it were Peter Lombard and the Schoolmen; so it hath no other publick Authority, but that of the Fourth Lateran Council, held in the Year 1215. He saith, 'tis a gross piece of Nonsense; that it falleth not under Human Conception; neither (saith he) can it be in Nature. This is the Judgment, which this great Philosopher and Divine maketh, of the Explication propounded and defended in Dr. S—th's Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock. And in very deed, Dr. S—th's Explication can (fitly and properly) be called by no other Name, but an absurd Socini­anism, or Socinianism turn'd into Ridicule; as we shall see, when we come to consider it, in particular.

Mr. Hooker, the celebrated Author of the Ecclesiastical Polity, giveth yet another Ex­plication of the Trinity; he descibeth it to be the Divine Essence, distinguished by three Internal and Relative Properties: this Expli­cation differs as much from Dr. Wallis as any of the rest; for Dr. Wallis's three Persons are all of them External Denominations or Predicati­ons. But these Differences, Sir, among our Op­posers, will appear to you most clearly, with­out my needing to point at them; in the Ac­counts I am about to give, of their several Ex­plications of their Trinity, and the Observati­ons I shall make on them. Therefore I pass on, to the Explication given us by Dr. Sherlock.

Of the Explication by Dr. W. Sherlock.

FOR Memory and Method's sake, and be­cause the Division is so just; we may distinguish the Accounts, or Explications of the Trinity contrived by our Opposers; after this manner. There is, first, the Trinity according to Tully, or the Ciceronian Trinity; which maketh the three Divine Persons, to be nothing else but three Conceptions of God; or God conceived of as the Creator, the Redeemer, and Sanctifier of his Creatures. Dr. Wallis, after many others, hath propounded and asserted this Trinity, in his Letters, and his Sermons to the Patris conscripti at Oxford. He found in Tully, Sustineo unus tres Personas; of which he mistaketh the meaning to be, I being but one Man, yet AM three Persons: saith the Doctor hereupon; Why may not God be three Persons; as well as one Man was three Persons?

The next is the Cartesian Trinity, or the Trinity according to Des Cartes: which maketh three Divine Persons, and three Infinite Minds, Spirits and Beings, to be but one God; be­cause they are mutually, and internally, and universally conscious to each others Thoughts: Mr. Des Cartes had made this Inventum to be the first Principle and Discovery in Philoso­phy, Cogito, ergo sum; I think, therefore I am: and he will have the very Nature of a Mind or Spirit to consist in this, that 'tis a thinking Being. Therefore, says Dr. Sherlock, three Persons can be no otherways one God, but by Unity of Thought; or what will amount to as much, as internal and perfect Conscious­ness to one anothers Thoughts. Any one may see, that Dr. Sherlock's Mutual Consciousness, by which he pretends to explain his Trinity in Unity, was by him borrowed from the Me­ditations and Principles of Monsieur Des Car­tes: his System was hinted to him, by that unhappy Philosopher who hath razed (as much as in him lay) the only Foundation of Religion; by resolving (so absurdly, as well as impiously) the Original of the World and of all Things, not into the Contrivance and Power of an Almighty and All-wise Mind, [Page 11] but into the Natural Tendencies of Bodies, or as he calls them, the Laws of Motion.

The Third is the Trinity of Plato, or the Platonick Trinity; maintained by Dr. Cud­worth, in his Intellectual System. This Tri­nity is of three Divine Co-eternal Persons, whereof the second and third are subordi­nate or inferior to the first; in Dignity, Power, and all other Qualities, except only Duration. Yet they are but one God, saith he; because they are not three Principles, but only one; the Essence of the Father be­ing the Root, and Fountain of the Son and Spirit: and because the three Persons are ga­thered together under one Head, even the Father. This, saith Dr. Cudworth, is the Tri­nity of Plato, and the genuine Platonists; and is the only true Trinity: all other Trini­tarians besides the Platonists, are but Nominal Trinitarians; and the Trinities they hold, are not Trinities of subsisting Persons, but ei­ther of Names and Denominations only, or of partial and inadequate Conceptions.

The fourth is the Trinity according to Ari­stotle, or the Aristotelian or Peripatetick Tri­nity; which saith, the Divine Persons are one God, because they have the same Numerical Substance, or one and the self-same Substance, in Number: and tho each of the three Persons is Almighty, All-knowing, and most Good; yet 'tis by one individual and self-same Power, Knowledge and Goodness, in Number. This may be called also the Reformed Trinity, and the Trinity of the Schools; because the Divines of the middle Ages, reformed the Tritheistick and Platonick Trinity of the Fathers, into this Sabellian Jargonry; as Dr. Cudworth, often and deservedly, calleth it. This is the Tri­nity intended by Dr. S—th, in his Animad­versions on Dr. Sherlock, especially at chap. 8. The Author or first Contriver of it, was Pe­ter Lombard, Master of the Sentences, and Bishop of Paris, who died in the Year 1164. It never had any other Publick Authority, saith Dr. Cudworth, but that of the fourth Lateran Council; which is reckoned by the Papists among the General Councils, and was convened in the Year 1215. He might have added, that the Doctrine of P. Lombard was disliked and opposed by divers Learned Men, and censured by Alexander the Third, and o­ther Popes; till Pope Innocent the Third de­clared it to be Orthodox. It may be not un­probably said, that an Unitarian was the true Parent of it; for 'tis said, that Peter Lombard took his four Books of Sentences, for so much as concerneth the Trinity, out of a Book of P. Abelardus concerning the same.

To this Trinity (of Aristotle and the Schools) we must reckon the Trinity of Properties; which (we shall see hereafter) is so variously ex­plained, as to make even divers sorts of Tri­nities: yet I refer all the Property-Trinities to this fourth Distinction of Trinities, the Trinity according to Aristotle; because they are all grounded, on the abstracted or Metaphysical and Logical Notions, of that Philosopher; nor can they be understood, without some Knowledge of his Philosophy.

We must add to all these, the Trinity of the Mobile; or the Trinity held by the common People, and by those ignorant or lazy Do­ctors, who in Compliance with their Lazi­ness or their Ignorance, tell you in short, that the Trinity is an unconceivable, and therefore an inexplicable Mystery; and that those are as much in fault, who presume to explain it, as those who oppose it.

I have propounded to my self, to discourse briefly on all these Trinities; I have begun with the Trinity of Marcus Tullius Cicero, or, if he pleases, of Dr. Wallis: I have said of it, as much as is necessary; the next is the Trinity according to the Philosopher Des Cartes, but the Discoverer of which is Dr. Sherlock.

When Dr. Sherlock came out with his Vin­dication, in Answer to the Brief History of the Unitarians, and the Brief Notes on the Creed of Athanasius: the more ignorant of the Doctors and Rectors, and all the young Fry of Lecturers and Readers about Town, were his Hawkers to cry it about, and cry it up. They questioned not, what such a Master in Polemicks had delivered; especially with so much Assurance and Confidence, and with so much Keenness, and Contempt of the poor [Page 12] kick'd Note-maker, and Epistler. But the more learned among them, said from the very first; that indeed Dr. Sherlock meant honest­ly, and he might have propounded this Ex­plication to his private Friends, to be consi­dered and debated: but it was liable to too many obvious Exceptions, to be published to all the World; without great Corrections, in the manner of Expression.

But the Socinians presently saw their Ad­vantage; and resolved to make use of it: accordingly, in about four or five Weeks time, out came their Observations on the Vin­dication of Dr. Sherlock; which in some Edi­tions of them are prefaced, with the Acts or Gests of Athanasius. Here they tell the Do­ctor, that he hath published a worse Heresy, than even ours is held to be, by our bitterest Opposers; in one word, that he hath revived Paganism by such an Explication of the Tri­nity, as undeniably introduces Tritheism, or three Gods. They show him, that his Error was condemned by the Antients in the Person of Philoponus; and in the middle Ages in the Person and Writings of Abbat Joachim: 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. They demonstrate to him, by a great many unexceptionable Ar­guments, that a Mutual Consciousness of three (supposed) Divine Spirits and Minds, having each of them his own peculiar and Personal Understanding, Will and Power of Action, is so far from making three such Spirits to be one God in number; that 'tis the clearest and the certainest Demonstration, that they are three Gods. Mutual-Consciousness maketh them to be a Consult or Council, a Cabal or Senate of Gods, if you will; but by no means, one Numerical God, or one God in Number.

The Observations of the Socinians opened all Mens Eyes, to see and acknowledg, that Dr. Sherlock had greatly overshot the Mark; and that it was necessary, he should yield his Place to some new Opponent, who (in these Disputes with the Socinians) would speak more cautiously. All Endeavours therefore were used by his Friends, to perswade Dr. Sherlock to be quiet: and because such an Example had been made of him, they stopped a while all Sermons and other Tracts, that were going to the Press against the Soci­nians. The Politicians among them feared the Success of a War, that in its Beginnings had been so unsuccessful: they said to one another, we need not trouble our selves with the Socinians; because being Masters of all the Pulpits, we can sufficiently dispose the People to the Orthodox Belief, without the help of printed Answers and Replies.

'Tis about three Years, since these Observa­tions on Dr. Sherlock's Vindication were made publick; and all this time, he hath very peaceably taken the Imputations of Heresy, and Paganism; tho he had said in the Preface to his Vindication, That having dipped his Pen in the Vindication of so glorious a Cause, by the Grace of God he would never desert it, while be could hold a Pen in his Hand.

The Socinians did not design to give him any farther Trouble: but Dr. S—th not able to endure, that such Aspersions should lie at the Door of the Church; could not refrain from declaring to all the World; that the Church had suffered nothing, in the Defeat of Dr. Sherlock. He professeth, that the Charge drawn up against Dr. Sherlock, by the Soci­nians, is true; for he hath in very deed ad­vanced an Explication of the Trinity, saith Dr. S—th, which immediately and unavoidably inferreth three Gods. Pref. p. 2.

It not being the Design of Dr. S—th, in his Animadversions, to prove the Truth of the Doctrine of the Trinity; but only to explain or declare it, that is, to notify in what Sense and manner 'tis held by the Church: we must say, that his Performance is an accurate, and learned Work. He concerneth not him­self with the Socinians; but only rescues the received Doctrines of the Church, from the Misrepresentations of them by Dr. Sher­lock, who either understood them not, or ventur'd to depart from them. Nor do we concern our selves with Dr. S—th: but whereas he is the only Writer, since the Re­vival [Page 13] of these Controversies, who has indeed understood what the Church means by a Trinity in Unity; therefore we must take leave to say, and will also prove it; that this his true Explication of the Trinity, is (for all that) a great Untruth, or rather a great piece of Nonsense. Dr. Sherlock's was a Rational and Intelligible Explication, tho not a true one; 'tis not Orthodox, as Orthodoxy is reckoned since the Lateran Council: Dr. S—th's is a true and Orthodox Explication, of what the Church intends to say; but 'tis neither Rational, nor Intelligible, nor Possible. But of that in its proper place; for I must next examine the Trinity according to Plato, de­fended by Dr. Cudworth.

Of the Explication by Dr. Cudworth.

IT will be necessary, in the first place, to declare Dr. Cudworth's Explication, more largely and clearly, than hath been yet done. In accounting for the Doctrine of the Trinity, he professeth to follow the Platonick Philoso­phers; with whom, saith he (not the Arians, as some suppose, but) the Orthodox Fathers perfectly agree. These held a Trinity of Divine Persons, Co-eternal indeed; but not Co-equal: for the Son and Spirit are inferior to the first Person, or the Father, in Dig­nity, in Authority, and in Power. They are so many distinct Substances; not one nu­merical Substance, as hath been taught by the School-Doctors, and the Lateran Council. For tho the Fathers said, that the three Per­sons have but one and the same Substance, Essence or Nature; they did not mean there­by one and the self-same Substance or Essence in Number, but the same Essence or Substance for Kind, or Nature. Because each Person of the three, is Spiritual, Eternal, Infinite, a Creator, and necessarily existent, therefore they were said by the Fathers and Platonists, to have the same Nature, Essence or Substance; and not because their Essences or Substances, Physically or Properly so called, are one and the same Physical Substance in Number. In few words; saith he, this famous Term Con­substantial (or of the same Substance) was never intended by the Platonists, or by the Fathers, to deny (as the Schools do) three distinct individual Essences, or to denote one Nume­rical Substance or Essence; but only to sig­nify, that the Trinity believed by the Ortho­dox is not made up of contrary or unlike Na­tures, (as the Arian Trinity is) but of Persons all of them Homogenial, all of them Eternal, Spiritual and Uncreated. They that shall deny this to be the Doctrine of the Fathers, will find themselves obliged to answer to two things, which are indeed (fairly and truly) unanswerable: The first is, Why those Fathers who contend for the Homo-ousios (con­substantial, or of the same Substance) do yet expresly reject the Tauto-ousios and Mono-ousios, or of the self-same Substance and Essence in Number? The Tauto-ousios and Mono-ousios (or of the self-same Essence or Substance, in Num­ber) is the very Doctrine of the Schools and Moderns; but is denied by the Fathers, as meer Sabellianism: which invincibly proves, that by one and the same Substance and Essence they meant, not one and the self-same, or one in Number; but one for Kind, Nature or Pro­perties. Secondly, They must also satisfy the Citations of D. Petavius, and S. Curcel­laeus, and these in the Intellectual System; which do all of them severally (and much more conjunctly) clearly show what the Sense of the Fathers was, about Homo-ousios, and consubstantial.

It appears by this, and abundance more the like; that Dr. Cudworth had the same Apprehensions, concerning the three Divine Persons, with Dr. Sherlock: they both ap­prehend the three Persons to be as distinct and different, and as really three several [Page 14] Intelligent Beings and Substances, as three An­gels are, or as Peter, James and John are. Dr. Sherlock saith, they are however called one God, because they are internally conscious to all one anothers Thoughts and Actions: but I do not believe, that Dr. Cudworth would have allowed so much to the Son and Spirit, as to be internally conscious to all the Thoughts and Actions of the first Person; he always speaketh of them, as every way in­ferior to the Father: he will not allow them to be Omnipotent in any other respect, but only externally, that is to say, because the Fa­ther concurreth Omnipotently to all their ex­ternal Actions, whether of Creation or Pro­vidence. Dr. Cudworth desires to distinguish his Explication, from all others of the Mo­derns, by this Mark; that it alloweth not the three Persons to be, in any respect but Duration, Co-equal: for (saith he) three distinct Intelligent Natures or Essences, each of them Pre-eternal, Self-existent, and equally Omnipotent ad intra, are of necessity three Gods, nor can we have any other Notion of three Gods; but if only the first Person be indeed internally Omnipotent, and the other two subordinate in Authority and Power to him, you leave then but one God, only in three Divine Persons.

This is Dr. Cudworth's Explication. Every one will readily make this Exception: he thinketh, either that there is one Great God, and two Lesser Ones; or else only the first is true God, and the other two in Name only. The Doctor foresaw, without doubt, this Ob­jection; therefore see, how he hath endea­vour'd to prevent it. First, he reports some Answers of the Fathers, to this Difficulty; which Answers he expresly rejecteth. For some of them said, that the three Persons are one God, by their Unity of Will and Affection: Others said, they are one God, as all Men or all Mankind are called Homo, or MAN; namely because they All have the same Spe­cifick Nature, or Essence, or Substance, even the Rational. For as all Men have the same Specifick Essence or Nature, which is the Ra­tional; so the Divine Persons also agree in one Nature, namely the Eternal, Spiritual and Self existent. But Dr. Cudworth confesseth, that an Union of Will and Affection is only a Moral Union, not a Physical or real Unity: and as three Human Persons would be three distinct Men, notwithstanding the Moral Union in Affection and Will; so also the three Di­vine Persons will be three distinct Gods, not­withstanding such an Union in Will and Affection. As to the other, that the three Persons are but one God, by their having the same Specifick Nature or Essence; or as some call it Substance, namely because they are all of them Spiritual, Self-existent, and Co­eternal; he calleth it an absurd Paradox, con­trary to common Sense, and our common Notions of things: for so all Men will be but one Man, because they have the same Specifick Essence or Nature, namely the Rational; and all Epicurus his (Extramundan) Gods will be but one God.

Then, he propoundeth divers other Expli­cations, which he neither approveth, nor expresly rejecteth, tho 'tis plain that he dis­liked them: for the Explication on which he insisteth, and which appears to be his Sense of the matter, is this that follows. The three Divine Persons are one God, because they are not three Principles, but only one; the Essence of the Father being the Root, and Fountain of the Son and Spirit: and because the three Persons are gathered together under one Head or Chief, even the Father. He adds here expresly, that if the Persons were Co­ordinate, (i. e. equal in Authority, Dignity, or Power) they should not be one, but three Gods.

This is at large Dr. Cudworth's Opinion: the short of it is; that the three Persons are as really distinct Beings, Essences, or Substances, as Dr. Sherlock hath imagined them to be. And as their Substances or Natures are not one, but three; so also must their Under­standings, and other Personal Powers and Pro­perties. The Doctors differ only in this; that Dr. Sherlock maketh the Unity of the three Persons in the Godhead, to consist in the Mutual-Consciousness of the Persons; [Page 15] But Dr. Cudworth in this, that the Father is both the Principle (Root or Fountain or Cause) and also the Head of the other two Persons. They neither of them believe one Numerical, but one Collective God: one God, not who is really one God, but is one God in certain Re­spects; as of Mutual Consciousness, or of be­ing the Cause, Principle and Head of all other Beings, and of the second and third Per­sons.

Dr. Cudworth contends by a great number of very Pertinent and Home Quotations; that his Explication (I mean, that part of it which makes the three Persons, to be so ma­ny distinct Essences or Substances) is the Doctrine of the Principal, if not of all the Fathers, as well as of the Platonists: and I (for my own part) do grant it. For I am perswaded, that no Man hath read the Fa­thers, with Judgment and Application, but he must discern; that tho they do not ex­press themselves, in the incautelous, unwary and obnoxious Terms used by Dr. Sherlock, as neither doth Dr. Cudworth; yet the Fa­thers as much believed the three Persons are distinct Minds and Spirits, as Dr. Sherlock doth; all the Difference (as I said) is only this, that they and Dr. Cudworth do not use his very Terms. They do not say in express words, three Minds, or three Spirits: but the Comparisons which they use, and their Defini­tions or Descriptions of what they mean by Persons, are such; that it cannot be questioned by any, that they apprehended the three Persons, to be three distinct Spirits, Minds and Beings, having each of them his own Un­derstanding, and all other Personal Qualifica­tions. It is indeed apparent Tritheism; and that was the true Reason, why the Schools advanced a new Explication: but because the Schools durst not find fault with the Fathers, or seem to depart from their Doctrine; therefore what the Fathers intended of one Specifick Essence, or Nature, or Substance, that the Scools interpreted of one Numerical Substance, Nature or Essence; but of that hereafter, when we examine their Doctrine in its own place.

Dr. Cudworth being so great a Philosopher, as every one knows he was, found himself very hard put to it, what to say (colourably, and reasonably) concerning the Persons of the Trinity. He saw, that either he must say, that they are but one self-same Essence or Substance, in Number; or that they have distinct and several Substances or Essences. To say, that they are (or they subsist in) one self-same Substance or Essence in Number, is such Jargonry in Philosophy; that is to say, in the Nature and Possibilities of Things; that he never speaks of it, without a just mark of Contempt: 'tis Nonsense, saith he, and 'tis impossible; and besides that, 'tis Sabel­lianism, and a Trinity not of Persons, but of Words and Names.

Well, shall we say then, that the three Persons are three distinct Substances; is it not plain Tritheism? No, saith the Doctor; for the Persons are not equal: the Father is both the Principle or Original, and the Head of the other two Persons; and besides that, he only is Omnipotent ad intra. But then, will some say; indeed this Explication leaveth us but one God, which is the thing we look'd after: but it is, by utterly abolishing the Godhead of the Son and Spirit; it maketh only the Father to be really God, the other two Persons are so only by a certain Dependance on him, both in Origination and Acting. As bad as this Consequence is, and as clear; Dr. Cudworth is forced to swallow it, and to sit down contented with it: he thought, it should seem, it is better somewhat to strain the use of Words, than the Natures and Possibilities of Things. 'Tis hard indeed, that we must say, one Supream and two Dependent Persons make but one God; but 'tis harder to say, three Persons have but one Substance or Essence in Number. Words are Arbitrary Signs, applied to things according as Men please, and therefore are capable of Altera­tion in their Use: but the Nature of Things is absolutely unchangeable; three Persons can never be one Substance, Essence or individual Nature. No Philosophy, but that of Gotham, will allow; that one Intelligent Substance [Page 16] can be more than one Person: but divers Philosophers, especially the Platonists, have called three Distinct, Intelligent, Divine Sub­stances, one [...], one Di [...]inity, or God; therefore nothing hinders, but that so also may Christians. To this purpose Dr. Cudworth, in divers places of his Intellectual System.

But it is now time to make our Observa­tions on this Doctor's Explication; which I shall do the more carefully, because I am per­swaded, that all the chief Fathers were in his Sentiments, that the three Divine Persons are three distinct individual Substances or Essences in Number; which by the Schools and all the Mo­derns, is granted to be Tritheism: and because it is evident by his Intellectual System, that this Doctor understood all the Philosophies, An­tient and Modern, in the most perfect man­ner; and was himself one of the ablest Phi­losophers we have known. His Explication hath these Parts. 1. That the Divine Persons are (one Specifick, but) three distinct, parti­cular individual Substances or Essences in Num­ber, or in the Reality of Things: and that otherwise, there could not be three Divine Persons, but only one such Person. 2. That three distinct, individual, intelligent Divine Essences or Substances, commonly called Persons, are yet but one God; because tho they are three in Number, yet they are one in Original; for the second and third Persons are derived from the Father, as their Fountain and Cause. 3. Tho they are three Persons, yet they are but one God, because they con­cur to all the same Actions both of Creation and Providence, under one Head, even the Fa­ther. The Emphasis of this lies in their con­curring to all the same Actions; but princi­pally in this, that they concur to the same Actions under one Head, which is the Father.

1. That the Divine Persons are three di­stinct, particular, individual, Intelligent Sub­stances, Essences or Natures; and that other­ways, that is, were there but one self-same Substance or Essence in Number, they should not be three Persons, but only one Person. I have granted, that if there are three Divine Persons; those Persons are (of necessity) three distinct, individual Essences or Substances: so that, as to this first Proposition, the Doctor and the Socinians are perfectly agreed; all that we deny, is, that three such Essences (or Persons) are, or can be but one God.

But tho the Socinians allow, that three Persons must be three distinct Substances or Essences, yet all the Modern Trinitarians utterly deny it: the reason is, because they saw plainly, that to say there are three distinct Essences, or Substances, is to grant (in effect) to the Socinians what they so much contend for; namely that the Do­ctrine of the Trinity doth imply three Gods. Three distinct Divine Persons, saith Dr. Cud­worth, are three distinct Divine Essences or Substances; it is true, say the Socinians, and we grant this to the Doctor: no, say all the Modern Trinitarians, three distinct Divine Essences, are not only three distinct Divine Persons, but they are also three distinct Gods; if once we grant that the three Divine Per­sons are three Essences, the Socinians will ex­tort it from us (as an unavoidable Conse­quence) that we teach three Gods.

The Truth is, since the Lateran Council, which determined in favour of P. Lombard, against Abbat Joachim and the Fathers, that there is but one only Divine Essence or Sub­stance in Number; I do not believe, there hath been any Divine of note but Dr. Cudworth and Dr. Sherlock and some few who may have borrowed it from them, who durst ever publish it in Writing, that there are three distinct Divine Substances, Essences or Na­tures, or that every distinct Person is a distinct Substance. They all saw, that so to say, is to introduce three Gods: for if you say, there are three distinct Intelligent, Almighty, All­knowing and Pre-eternal Substances, Essences or Natures; you have actually said, there are three Gods, because you can possibly give no fuller nor other Description of three Gods. If one All-knowing, Almighty Essence or Substance, is one perfect God, to whom nothing at all can be added; 'tis no better than fooling, or effrontry, to deny, that three such Essences or Substances are three Gods.

[Page 17] This plain and clear Reason hath constrain­ed the School-Divines to depart from the Explication of the Fathers; and has also ob­liged all the Moderns, to follow the Schools, and forsake the Fathers. Yet so, as out of good Manners, to deny that the Fathers ever held more than one Divine Essence or Sub­stance: but I have shown before, the Ground of that gross (and I doubt not, wilful) Mistake, of the Doctrine of the Fathers. But Dr. Cudworth thought, that he had found an Expedient, how he might keep sincerely to the Fathers, and yet not be guilty of Tri­theism: for, saith he, tho there are three di­stinct Divine Essences or Substances, vulgarly called Persons; yet the second and third Persons or Essences are derived from the first; and they all concur to the same Actions, un­der the same Head or Principal, even the Fa­ther. Therefore,

2. To that, the second and third Persons are derived from the Father, as their Foun­tain and Cause; therefore they may be reck­ned as one God with him. Here begins the Controversy, between the Socinians and the Doctor. They grant, that every distinct Per­son is a distinct and particular Essence or Sub­stance; but they deny, that three distinct Divine Essences can be understood to be one God: Unity of Original, or that the second and third Persons are derived from the first, will not help the Doctor, no not in the least. The three Divine Essences (which are called Persons) are one God, saith this Doctor; because the second and third are derived from the first: Why doth he not say too, that three Human Essences (or Persons) whereof the se­cond and third derive themselves from the first, are one Man? He may as well say this, and as soon perswade it, as the former: the Son and Grandson derive themselves from a first Human Essence (or Person) called the Grandfather; two Brothers derive themselves from their common Father: Doth this Unity of Original make them all to be but one Man? If not, neither can Unity of Original make the Son and Spirit one God, with their Fountain and Cause, even the Father. It is a reasoning, altogether unworthy of Dr. Cud­worth; the Son and Spirit are particular Substances or Essences, derived from the Essence of the Father, as their Principle or Cause, therefore they are one God with the Father: for then, all Angels, all Men, nay and all Beasts, shall be one God with the Father, who is their Cause and Principle. Unity of Original is so far from proving, that they are one God with him; that it even demonstrates the very contrary: for if they are derived from the one true God, they themselves cannot be that one true God; no more than the Effect can be the Cause, that very Cause whose Effect it is.

These Arguments are so clear, and withal so very obvious; that I wonder much, that Dr. Cudworth foresaw them not: but it may be, he foresaw them; but thought withal that even all these Consequences are better, than to admit such a Monstrosity in Philoso­phy, as three Persons having only one self­same Substance in Number. All things, how hard soever, would go down with him, but only that; but that can never be agreed to, by a Philosopher.

3. His last Subterfuge was this; the three Divine Essences (called Persons) are but one God, because they concur to all the same Actions, of Creation and Providence, under one Head the Father, who only is Almighty ad intra, or really Almighty. How many Rarities hath he boxed up, in a very little compass? 1. Here is one Almighty, who to­gether with two other Persons, is one God. I would know, how two other Persons can contribute to make him a perfect God, who without them is Almighty? The Scale is al­ready full, if Almightiness be there; we need no more Weight: and least of all, the Weight of two Impotents. If the Son and Spirit are not Almighty ad intra, or not really Almighty, but only as the Father Omnipotently concurs with them; they are Impotent: for every Person and Thing, that is not Almighty, or cannot do all things, is impotent to some things.

[Page 18] Dr. Cudworth, being so accurate a Philoso­pher, saw evidently, that three Almighty Per­sons are (of necessity) three Gods; therefore he will admit of but one Almighty Person, even the Father. But then, he should have look'd a little further, or closer; and he would also have seen, that when he had found one Almighty, there was no need to add to him two Impotents, to make him a com­pleat God; or (as he speaks) to make up the Intireness of the Divinity. 2. 'Tis altoge­ther as rare, strange and surprizing; that the Son and Spirit are one God with the Father, because they are gathered under him, as their Head and Principal. Doth not the Doctor prevari­cate? doth he not say these things, only to establish Unitarianism, so much the more strongly? For if you say first, that the Fa­ther is the Head and Principal, and the Son and Spirit are subjected to him; and then, therefore they are one God with the Father their Principal and Head: this, in a Man of so great Sense, looks like meer Prevarication; for 'tis plain to all, that he should have in­ferred the contrary, namely, therefore only the Father is God. We shall see the Weakness of Dr. Cudworth's Reasoning, so soon as ever we apply it to any other Instances. The Son and Spirit are one God with the Father, saith he, because he is their Head and Principal: therefore say I, the Servants and their Master, the Subjects and their Prince, the Children and their Parent, are all one Governour; be­cause the Subjects, Servants and Children, are gathered under their Prince, their Ma­ster and Parent, as their Principal and Head. Will the Doctor allow of this (last) Conse­quence; if not, he vainly urges, or insists on the other. 3. But the Son and Spirit con­cur with the Father, to all the same Actions, both of Creation and Providence; and there­fore may be said to be one God with him.

If the Doctor could prove, that the Son and Spirit concur to the same Acts, of Pro­vidence and Creation, with the Father; he would thereby prove, that there are three Gods, not that the concurring Persons are one God. Many Carpenters, for instance, concur to make a Ship, under one Head or Principal, the Master-Builder: Many Colonels and Cap­tains concur to the marshaling of an Army under one Principal and Head, their General: Are therefore all these Carpenters, Colonels and Captains, one Master-Builder, and one Ge­neral? That there is but one Master-Builder, and but one General, we grant; but the Captains and Carpenters, concurring with their Master-Builder and General, are not one with the General and Master-Builder.

I do not think it necessary to make any further Reflections, on such impotent Rea­sonings: I will leave it with you, Sir, to judg, Whether Dr. Cudworth hath given any new Strength to the Trinitarian Cause, by reviving an old forsaken Explication!

If we will give a Name to Dr. Cudworth's Explication of the Trinity, we must call it Mollis Arianismus, a moderate Arianism. The Arians were divided into two Parties, the high or rigid Arians, and the Ariani Molles, or the moderate Arians. The former of these (being the Eunomians and AEtians) strictly followed Arius; they believed that the Son was created by the Father, or God, but a little before the Creation of the World; and that the Spirit was the Work or Creature of the Son: and further, that their Sub­stances or Essences were altogether unlike; from whence they were also called Heterousi­ans. But the moderate Arians were content to say, that there was no conceivable Duration or Time, between the Being of God or the Father, and the Generation or Creation (for those are with them equivalent Terms) of the Son; the Father made or generated the Son, so early, that there was no conceivable Portion of Time before the Son was; no more than was absolutely necessary, for giving to the Father the Priority of Existence, and his Title of Father: and as to their Substances, they are Consubstantial; by which this sort of Arians meant (and the Church then meant no more) that their Substances or Essences are alike, or the same for Kind and Properties, tho not in Number; that is, the Essences of these three Persons are all of them Spiritual, [Page 19] Eternal and Infinite, tho only the Father is Infinite in Power. These moderate Arians were received to Communion by the moderate Trinitarians; and particularly by Pope Liberi­us. Dr. Cudworth holdeth their very Doctrine; he alloweth only the Father to be Omnipotent: and tho he saith, that the Son and Spirit are also Eternal; yet he cannot deny, that there must be some Priority of the Father, as the Fountain, Principle and Cause, before the Son and Spirit as Effects. In a word, the mo­derate Arians ascribed as much to the Son as Dr. Cudworth doth.

Were Dr. Cudworth alive, it would not be expedient to make this Judgment of his Ex­plication; but being dead, it cannot hurt him. He is retired to the true Mount Moriah, or Land of Vision; where he no longer guesses, by prudent and wary Conjectures, but he knows and even sees how these things are. God and Nature, after which he enquired with so much Application and Freedom, are now known to him: and he now rests from his excellent Labours, out of all danger from the Malevolence of the present evil Genera­tion; with whom 'tis a Crime, not to take every thing upon Trust, on the meer Credit of those who have been before us. As if it were the way to Truth; not to enquire, but to believe; not to examine, try and judg, but to pre-suppose and take for granted, every thing that has been told us, by Men in Power and Place. This is the Spirit that now prevails in the Church: and on the contrary, an in­genuous Freedom in enquiring and examining, tho it be nothing else indeed but an honest and necessary Sincerity, is now called Heresy, and Schism; and is, if you'll believe them, to be punish'd with certain Damnation. We have however, in the mean time, this Satis­faction; that it is God, who shall at last judg us: He that hath said to us, Try all things, hold fast that which is good. But I pass to the Trinity according to Aristotle, defended by Dr. S—th.

Of the Explication by Dr. S—th.

I Have already done Right to Dr. S—th, and his Book: if he takes it amiss, that I observe also some Defects in it; he ought to show his Patent, by which he is constituted the only Animadverter on the Books of others.

If he hath received any Personal Wrong, or Affront from Dr. Sherlock; he is the more excusable, that his Book hath so much more Scurrility, than Argument: but the Injury must have been very great, to excuse him wholly. He has noted some Errors, either of Inad­vertency and Haste, or of the Pen; in some Expressions and Words used by Dr. Sherlock: he imputes all these as faults of meer Igno­rance or Dulness to the Doctor. This was somewhat barbarous: nay it was more Bar­barity in Point of Morality or Manners, than ever Dr. Sherlock was guilty of, in Grammar or Speech.

Dr. S—th will not (at least has not yet been able to) perswade many, that Dr. Sherlock wants the Qualifications, or the degree of the Qualifications, for which Dr. S—th hath de­served Esteem: the World thinks, there is a great deal more in Dr. Sherlock to be com­mended, besides his Preferments; it is only wished, that both these Doctors had some­thing more of the Tenderness, and Catholick Charity of Genuine Christianity, tho it were accompanied with lesser Abilities or Learning.

Dr. Sherlock hath publish'd an Essay, to­wards vindicating and explaining the Difficul­ties of the Trinity, and Incarnation; the Method he hath taken, is wholly new, and is a Mistake, but it was meant well: and I do not think, that setting aside some Authorities or Quotations, Dr. S—th hath said any thing against it, which Dr. Sherlock will much value. [Page 20] The Arguments used by Dr. S—th, are only Metaphysical Reasonings; easily advanced, and as easily destroyed. Dr. S—th's is the true Explication; that is to say, as Orthodoxy is reckoned since Peter Lombard, and the Late­ran Council: but Dr. Sherlock knew it to be Nonsense, and therefore adventur'd to propose another; he put forth his Hand, to save the tottering and falling Ark, and 'tis made an inexcusable Fault. But I will pass from the too Cynical Doctor, to his Book and Expli­cation.

'Tis not till Chap. 8. that he begins to bless us, with the Catholick and Orthodox Ac­count, of his Trinity in Unity: but at length, at Pag. 240. out comes the Secret; with this Preface to it. ‘The Doctrine of the Church, and of the Schools, concerning the Blessed Trinity; so far as I can judg, but still with the humblest Submission to the Judgment of the Church of England in the Case, is this.’ Truly, I am heartily sorry to hear it; that Dr. S—th, at these Years, has no fixed Re­ligion of his own, no not concerning the Tri­nity it self: but is ready to turn with the Wind; is prepared to renounce a Doctrine and Ex­plication, which he believes to be not only true, but Fundamental; if the Church com­mands him. Mr. Milbourn makes the same Complement to his good Mother the Church, in his late Book against the Socinians; as I have noted in my Answer to him: but Mr. Milbourn is somewhat excusable, because he hath not yet received any of the Rewards, due as he thinks to his Industry and Learning; but Dr. S—th is full, and even overflows with the Blessings of the holy Mother. It should seem Dr. S—th thinketh, he hath not yet e­nough; else he would never be so over-mannerly, as to put his Faith it self afloat, and that too with the humblest Submission, at the Command of his Reverend Mother. We may infer however, from these publick Professions of the Writers, that could the Socinians get Mother Church of their side; all her Cham­pions would also come over to us: for 'tis not (it seems) the Cause, that they defend; 'tis not the Trinity or Incarnation, that they value; but our Mother, our Mother the Church. If Dr. S—th makes so light of his own Explication, that he is ready to fling it into the Kennel; at the first Nod, that the Church shall make: he cannot wonder, that the Socinians will handle it, will look on both sides of it, will view it in a clear Light; before they bargain for it. Well, see, here it is:

‘The Personalities, by which the Godhead stands diversified into three distinct Persons, are called and accounted Modes. There­fore for understanding the Mystery of the Trinity; we must declare, what is proper­ly a Mode (or Manner) of Being: It is not a Substance, nor an Accident; which two make indeed the Adequate Division of Real Beings: but a Mode is properly a cer­tain Habitude of some Being, Essence, or Thing: whereby the said Essence or Being is determined to some particular State or Condition, which, barely of it self, it would not have been determined to. And according to this Account, a Mode in things Spiritual and Immaterial hath the like Reference to such Beings, as a Posture hath to a Body; to which it gives some Diffe­rence or Distinction, without superadding any new Entity or Being to it. In a word, a Mode is not properly a Being, whether Substance or Accident; but a certain Affecti­on cleaving to Being, and determining it, from its common general Nature and Indiffe­rence, to something more particular; as we have just now explained it. As for in­stance, Dependence is a Mode, determining the general Nature of Being to that parti­cular State and Condition, by virtue of which it proceeds from, and is supported by another: and the like may be said of Mu­tability, Presence, Absence, Inherence, Ad­herence, and such like, viz. that they are not Beings, but Modes or Affections of Be­ing; and inseparable from it so far, that they have no Existence of their own, after a Separation or Division from the Things, or Beings to which they belong.’ Animadver. p. 240, 241, 242.

[Page 21] Behold the Birth of the Mountains! We are kept in suspense seven long Chapters; at length in the 8th, at p. 240. of his Book, he gives forth this Oracle. That the three Divine Persons, so much talk'd of, are neither Sub­stances, nor Accidents; and consequently, saith he, no Real Beings. Nay, they have no real Existence of their own; but are Modes, Habi­tudes, or Affections of the Divine Substance, or the Substance of God: they are in the Godhead, or in the Substance of God, such as Muta­bility, Presence, Absence, Inherence, Adhe­rence, and such like, are in the Natures, or Substances to which they belong. Or if you will have a great deal in one single word, the very Iliads in a Nut-shell; they are Postures: or what amounts to the same thing, they are such in Spiritual and Immaterial Beings, that a Posture is to a Body.

I must needs here tell you, Sir, the Story of the Princess Dulcinea del Toboso, Mistress to the Renowned Don Quixot, of the Mancha in Spain. This famous Princess had the Ho­nour to be Mistress of the Affections of the so much celebrated Don Quixot: for her, he traversed Mountains, Deserts, and other dreadful Places; for her he encountred Giants, Knights-errant, and other formidable Dangers; and at length for her, to satisfy his amorous Passions towards her, he retired to a place called the poor Rock; where he spent much time in lamenting the Disdains, the Cruelty and Hard-heartedness of his Mistress towards himself, as is largely related in the History. Don Quixot was waited on in his long Travels and Adventures, by his Esquire Sancho Pancha, who greatly pitied his Master, that he should serve so rigorous a Mistress: but the Esquire had one Scruple in his Mind, Who this Dulcinea del Toboso should be? But while Don Quixot was tormenting himself, at the poor Rock; he unluckily happened to drop some words, by which it evidently appeared, that Dulcinea del Toboso was only an imaginary Lady or Prin­cess: and that indeed she was no other Per­son, but a certain coarse Country Wench, Daughter of the Farmer Alonso Zanchez, and for her Plainness called Joan. Ta, Ta, cries Sancho Pancha, and is the Princess Dulcinea, our Neighbour Joan Zanchez! By my troth, a sturdy Quean; well may my Master languish for her, for I am well perswaded, she hath no regard or sense of Love-matters: but 'tis a good-natur'd Wench, &c.

Methinks, Sir, there can be nothing more pat, or proper for this place, than this Story. For just such a Disappointment do we all meet with, in the Explication for which Dr. S—th hath made us wait so long; as Sancho Pancha had when he found the Princess Dulcinea, was Joan Zanchez. Dr. S—th had raised the Ex­pectation of his Readers, in no fewer than seven Preliminary Chapters; in the eighth he promises in the Title of it, the long-lock'd for, the much-desired, Catholick, and Ortho­dox Explication of a Trinity of Divine Persons, in the Unity of the Godhead: but when all comes to all, he tells us, the three Divine Per­sons are nothing else but the Substance of God, or the Godhead, diversified into three Postures. Never were Men so bilk'd before as his Rea­ders are, at this News; 'tis the Princess Dulcinea turned into Joan Zanchez!

Was it worth while, to fall upon Dr. Sher­lock in that outragious manner, only because he would not call the three Divine Persons, three Postures of the Godhead, or the Substance of God in three Postures? Dr. Sherlock, poor, sensless, illiterate, Cantabrigian Ignoramus, thought, that these words Father, Son and Spirit implied something that was real. He imagin'd, that the Notion which all Men na­turally have of a Father, his Son, and a Spi­rit distinct from both, must be filled up with something that will honestly and satisfactorily answer to such Names and natural Notions of a Father, a Son, and a Spirit diverse from both: therefore, saith he, seeing these Per­sons are Spiritual, and Immaterial, and Intelli­gent; I call them three Minds, three Spirits, and three Beings. But the Adepti of Oxford will make him know his Mistake; First, Dr. Wallis tells him, Three Persons and one God, is as much as to say, three Respects of one God to his Creatures; he is their Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, and in this sense is called three [Page 22] Persons, tho he is indeed but one God, and but one Being: but Dr. S—th answers, 'tis neither so nor so; three Divine Persons are the Substance of God, in three Gambals, or Postures; or in three such I know not whats, which have the same or like Reference to Things Spiritual and Immaterial, that Postures have to Bodies. The three Personalities are that in the one Substance of God, which Mutability, Presence, Absence, Inherence, Adherence, and such like (changeable) Affections and Habitudes, are in the Substances to which they belong. He thinks, it should seem, that the Faithful must put their Trust in three Postures; and worship Mutability, Presence, Absence, or something which in Spirituals is like to them; something which is no more in the Deity, than Postures are in Bodies. I fancy Dr. Sherlock will object to him, that it is of the Nature of a meer Habitude or Modality, to be changeable: and that the Personalities in the Divine Na­ture (or God) are not alterable or changeable. He will say too, it may be, that there is no meer Modality but may be away from the Na­ture, or Substance to which it belongs; without any damage to the Essential Perfections, of such Nature or Substance: but you cannot take away the Personalities, or the Persons, from the Substance of God, without lessening the Perfections of the Godhead. Therefore we must not say, that the three Divine Persons, are only the Divine Substance with three Modes.

The three Divine Persons, he saith, are the one Substance of God diversified in three Postures. But how shall we conceive, that the Substance of God in the first Posture, or in Posture A, begat the same Substance of God (in Number) in Posture B? and how doth the third Posture, or Posture C, proceed (for under Pain of Damnation we must not say of this third Posture, how was it begotten) from the Substance of God considered in the Postures A and B? The Divine Substance, say they in Posture A, or in the first Mode, generated the Divine Substance in the second Mode, or, as Dr. S—th speaks, in Posture B; and the self-same Divine Substance in the first and second Modes, breathed (you must well mark that) the self-same Divine Substance in the third Mode, which is Posture C. Now how shall we understand such Gibberish as this? may they not as well tell us in plain terms, that to be Trinitarians, 'tis necessary that we should renounce at once all good Sense, and content our selves for ever with a Cant with­out Sense?

The Persons, as distinguished from the Sub­stance of God, are only Personalities; which is to say, three such Modes, as Posture, Mu­tability and Dependence; saith Dr. S—th. They that hear this, will presently say Dr. S—th and the Socinians are very near to an Agreement; we are like to have this tedious, intricate and dangerous Controversy fairly ended, by the rare and particular Dexterity of Dr. S—th. For he hath taught us, that all the Difference is indeed nothing: both Parties confess one self-same Substance, Es­sense or Godhead, only the Orthodox contend for three Postures in this Substance; and the sullen, conceited Socinians hitherto seem un­willing to allow of more than one Mode or Posture; but under the Institution and In­struction of such a Teacher as Dr. S—th, they will return to the full Acknowledgment of the whole Truth.

Dr. Sherlock had said, that there are some who make the three Divine Persons, to be nothing else but three Modes; and he maketh thereupon this Note, Can any one think that the Father begat only a Mode, and called it▪ his Son? Let us see now, how Dr. S—th rates him for this piece of Ignorance. ‘No, good Sir, no; none that I know of, is in danger of think­ing or saying so: no more than that So­crates begat only the Shape and Figure of a Man, and then called it his Son; or (to turn your own blunt Weapon against your self) no more than God the Father begot another Self-consciousness, and called it his Son.’ Animadv. p. 291. And at p. 241, 242. and often else-where, he saith, the Per­sonalities, by which the Deity stands diversi­fied into three distinct Persons, are by the ge­nerality of Divines, both Antient and Modern, [Page 23] called and accounted Modes. So that in short, let all the Dunces take notice for the time to come, that Dr. S—th, with all the Antients and Moderns at his Heels, saith, pronounceth and declares, in manner and form following; the Personalities in the Godhead (not the Per­sons) are three Modes, Affections, or Habi­tudes, of the Divine Substance, Nature, or Essence.

Now were I Dr. Sherlock, I would not grant to this arrogant Adversary, the least Tittle of all he contends for. It is certain, there is nothing more common with the Me­taphysicians, who follow the Schools; than to call the three Persons, three Modes; and sometimes more largely, three Modes of Sub­sistence of the Divine Substance, or the Sub­stance of God. Dr. Sherlock may well de­fend it, that neither hath he mistaken the Modalists, nor have they mistaken in what they mean to say. He may say, it is indeed true, that in all other Persons, Human Persons and Angelical Persons, we may be so nice, as to distinguish between the Persons and the Personalities: for Example, the Personalities of Peter, James and John, are only Modes or Properties peculiar to these three Persons, by which they are ultimately distinguish'd from one another, and from all other Persons of the same Specifick Nature, namely the Human; but the Persons of Peter, James and John, be­sides those Modes and Properties, take in also three distinct intelligent Substances, in which those Modes suosist. It is true, I say, that Human (and also Angelical) Persons may be thus distinguished from their Personalities; but 'tis otherways in the three Divine Persons: the three Divine Persons are properly and truly called only three Modes; the reason is, It is supposed by the Modalists, that in the God­head the three Persons have all the self-same individual Substance or Essence in Number; and that they have also but one self-same Un­derstanding, Will and Energy (or Power of Action) in Number; contrary to what hap­pens in all other Persons, whether Human or Angelical, who all have distinct Substances, distinct Understandings, Wills and Energies, as well as are distinct Persons: this being so, 'tis evident, that the very Modes or Personali­ties in the Godhead, cannot be distinguished from the Persons; we must say, that the three Divine Persons are three Modes, because they are distinguished from one another by nothing else, as all other Persons are. All other Persons are distinguished by their distinct Substances their distinct and several Understandings, Wills and Energies; as well as by their peculiar Modes and Properties: but in the Godhead there is no such Distinction; it has one self-same Sub­stance, Understanding, Will and Energy; 'tis only distinguished by its Modes, and those Modes are distinguished from one another by themselves only. Briefly, Dr. Sherlock may say, that all the Modalists acknowledg no other Distinction between the three Divine Persons, than is between Modes; they are not distin­guished by their Substances, nor by particular Understandings, Wills, or Energies of their own: therefore we, properly enough, call them three Modes. Dr. S—th may wrangle as long as he pleases; he may (if it be for his Credit) write such another Book of Inadversions, as this upon Dr. Sherlock; but when he has done and said all he can say or do, all Men but himself will perceive that these two Propo­sitions are the same for sense: this of Dr. Sher­lock, which he imputes to the Modalists, and which Dr. S—th so much abhors, the three Divine Persons are only three Modes, of Subsistence, in the Substance or Essence of God; and this, which Dr. S—th owns, and maketh to be the Substance of his whole Book, the three Divine Persons are the Substance or Essence of God, diver­sified by three Modes of Subsistence.

But above all; I would not have Dr. S—th please himself overmuch in this; that he hath cited some Passages of the Fathers, which de­scribe the Personalities of the Father, Son and Spirit, by Modes. Justin and Irenaeus have called them [...], Modes of subsisting; others call them Properties: but by Modes, Properties, Characters, and such like, the Fathers meant quite another thing, than Dr. S—th and the Moderns do; they meant what Dr. Sherlock and Dr. Cudworth mean. [Page 24] By a Mode and Property they meant that discriminating Character, by which the Indivi­duals of any Specifick Nature are distinguish­ed or differenced, from all the Individuals of the same Species or Nature. For Example, the Individuals of the Specifick Nature of Humanity, are particular Men; and all these Individuals or particular Men are discrimi­nated, characterized, differenced or modified, each by his▪ particular Properties: Peter from John, Peter and John from James, by parti­cular Properties, Characters or Modes, both of Body and Mind; one (for instance) is bigger▪ taller, wiser, or some other the like, than the other. This was what they meant, when they described Personalities by Modes, and when they said there were three Proper­ties, Modes, or Characters in God: they meant not in the least to deny, that each Per­son is a particular Substance, Essence or Na­ture, different in Number from all other Substances, Essences or Natures; or to deny, that each Person is a particular Being: they meant only, that each Individual, or each Person, besides the common Specifick Nature, (that is, besides the meer Human, Angelical or Divine Nature) has also some particular Pro­perties or Characters; which ultimately di­stinguish him, from all the Individuals or Persons of the same Species, Specifick Na­ture, or Kind.

It is not true therefore, what Dr. S—th pretends, that by Modes of Subsistence the Antients meant no more, than certain such Habitudes or Affections, as Mutability, Pre­sence, Absence, Posture, or such like: they meant real, discretive and characterizing Pro­perties or Qualifications; and by Person they meant, a particular, individual, intelligent Substance or Essence, and so modefied or characterized. They were far from dreaming, that the three Divine Persons, an Almighty Son, an Almighty Father; and an Almighty Spirit distinct in Number from both, were only one individual Substance distinguished, or diversified by only three such lank and meagre Affections, as Absence, Posture, Adherence; or any other that are no more in a Spiritual Substance, than those three are in Bodies; to which they add no Perfection, and from which they are (every Moment) separable.

But the Socinians are not concerned, what becomes of the Dispute about Persons and Personalities in God; whether they are ade­quately the same, yea or no; and again, whether the Moderns who follow the Schools, agree with the Antients in their Notion of them: for I will put to Dr. S—th a plain Question, to which if he is disposed to give a clear and Categorical Answer, it will appear to all Men, that ei­ther he falls in with Dr. Sherlock, or with the Unitarians; that is to say, he is either a Tritheist, or (what, I doubt, he will as much abhor) a Socinian.

He saith, there is one only Divine Substance, Essence or Nature; and thus far we agree with him: but he adds, this one Substance is so diversified by three Modes, Affections or Habitudes, or something like to them, that we must say (under pain of Heresy and Damnation) that this one Substance is three Divine Persons, a Father, his Son, and a Spirit distinct from both. Therefore I ask, have the three (pretended) Divine Persons, each his own proper, peculiar and personal Under­standing, Will and Energy; so that there are in the Divine Substance, or in God, three di­stinct (All-knowing, Almighty) Understand­ings, Wills and Energies, as there are three distinct Persons; as Dr. Sherlock has affirmed? Or have the three Persons but one only self-same Understanding, Will and Energy in Num­ber, as there is but one self-same Substance in Number? If he saith the former, he joins Hands with Dr. Sherlock; and is guilty of Tritheism, no less than he: for three (Omni­scient and Omnipotent) Understandings, Wills and Energies, without doubt, are three Gods. If there be three Omnisciencies and Omnipotencies, of necessity there must be three Omniscients and Omnipotents: but that is Tri­theism, even in the Judgment of Athanasius himself; who expresly denies three Almighties, or three All-knowings. And indeed I do not think, Dr. S—th will say, that each Person hath his own proper and personal Under­standing, [Page 25] Will or Energy; so that there are three distinct Understandings, Wills and E­nergies in what his Party call the Godhead: I see his Book is written with more Judgment and Precaution, than Dr. Sherlock's; or even than any that I have seen, that have been written in Defence of the Trinitarian Cause. But if he denies, that there are three (All­knowing, Almighty) Understandings, Wills and Energies; he is a Socinian, he has granted to us the Point in Controversy, he grants the whole that we contend for. They will allow him to say, there are three Persons, or three thousand Persons in the Godhead; so long as he grants but one (Omnipotent) Energy and Will, and but one (All-knowing) Understand­ing or Wisdom. If this be granted to us, 'tis plain to every one who gives but never so lit­tle heed; that the Question about three Persons, is a meer Strife of Words; and the Authors of the Brief History, and Brief Notes, are (tho not in their Words, yet in their Senses) as Orthodox as Dr. S—th and the Schools. I will affirm, we have no need of our Brief Histories, or Brief Notes; we need not make an operose Proof of our Doctrine of the Unity of God, from the Holy Scriptures or from Reason: the whole Controversy with the Church is ended, in the Resolution of this short and plain Question; Is there more than one All-knowing, Almighty Understand­ing, Will and Energy? If you say, there is but one such Understanding, Will and Ener­gy, in one self-same Divine Substance; you may talk of as many Persons, Fathers, Sons, Spirits, Modes, Properties, Respects, Nothings, as you please: we will only peaceably advise you, that these are meer empty Words, that have nothing to answer them in the thing under Consideration. When you have granted to us, that there is but one Divine Substance, and but one Omniscient, Omnipotent Understanding and Energy; what you add more of Persons, Pro­perties, Thingams, and call them a Trinity, 'tis an Addition only of Words and Names; not of Realities, or Persons that are pro­perly so called.

These things being so, and so very evident▪ I cannot wonder, that so discerning a Phi­losopher as Dr. Cudworth, never speaks of the Trinity of the Schools (maintained by Dr. S—th) without calling it a Nominal Trinity, a Trinity of Names and Words only, a disguised Sabellianism: which is to say, Uni­tarianism or Socinianism drest up in the ab­surd Cant of the Schools. But whereas the Schools deform the sincere and easy Notion of the Unity of God, as 'tis held by the Socinians and Sabellians, by transforming it into a Fantastick Trinity of Nominal Persons, or of Persons who are Persons only in Name, not in Truth and Reality: therefore Dr. Cud­worth saith farther, that this Trinity is Jar­gonry in Philosophy, a Trinity that falls not under Human Conception, and which cannot be in Na­ture. Intellect. System, p. 605. Elsewhere he scruples not to name it, the Philosophy of Go­tham.

These are the just Characters which that great Philosopher and Divine gives of the Scholastick Trinity of Dr. S—th: he giveth his Reasons up and down in the Intellectual System; but 'tis not necessary for me to re­port them, when every one may see them in the Author himself; and besides they are too Philosophical, to be put into a Discourse which I design for the Use of the less learned, as well as of the learned.

I have done with Dr. S—th's Explication, for this time: If he is angry with me for the Reflections I have made thereupon, I protest 'tis without just Cause. I have used no disrespectful Language; I have acknow­ledged, and do acknowledg the Worth of the Man, and all other Perfections in his Book, but only this one, that it maintains an unjusti­fiable Explication. The Method or Structure of his Book is Natural, Elegant and Judicious; the Words, Expression, or Phrase, is pro­per, forcible, clean, and well chose: it hath very many agreeable Turns of Wit, which render it pleasant to an ingenious Reader. As this Author hath a great deal of Wit, so he hath known how to govern it in this re­spect; that he is witty, without Buffoonry. This [Page 26] is a Conduct, not very usual in those that have much Wit; commonly they know not how to manage it; and among other unjudicious Neglects, they forget the Where and When, and other such like Circumstances; they are so taken with their Talent, as to be always using it, because they know not that ever­lasting fooling is true and meer fooling. But I wish that Dr. S—th in exercising his Wit, had remembred the who, which he hath ut­terly forgotten: and that was utterly an over­sight, and a very great one. He cannot ex­cuse himself, by pleading the many Contra­dictions in Dr. Sherlock's Book: a candid Man would not impute them to the Author, but to the extream Obscurity of the Subject; when the Subject it self is contradictory, there will be many Contradictions committed in defending it. I doubt not that Dr. Sher­lock will find many Contradictions in Dr. S-th's second Chapter.

Having done to Dr. S—th this Right, he ought not to be out of Humour, that I as a Socinian, have attacked his Explication; as I have some other Learned Men: I mean no Disrespect thereby to him, or them; I acknowledg their Personal Merit, but cannot give up to them so sacred a Truth, as the Unity of God, or consent that it be disguised and deformed.

Of the Explication by Mr. Hooker, Author of the Ecclesiastical Polity.

MR. Hooker, tho he was none of the Fa­thers of the Catholick Church, is not of less Authority in the particular Church of England, than any one of the Fathers is: and it must be confest he was not only a very good, but a very learned and discerning Man. But it is observed of him, that in speaking of the Tri­nity, he speaks somewhat incorrectly: this was a Doctrine which he took for granted, there was no Dispute in his time about it; so he hath delivered himself, not with his usual Precaution and Judgment. He saith, ‘That the Substance of God, with this Property, to be of none, doth make the Person of the the Father. The very self-same Substance in Number, with this Property, to be of the Father, maketh the Person of the Son. The same Substance, having added to it the Property of proceeding from the other two, maketh the Person of the Holy Ghost. So that in every Person there is implied both the Substance of God, which is one; and also that Property, which causeth the same Person really and truly to differ from the other two.’

I must observe, in the first place, here­upon, that Mr. Hooker in this matter hath not spoken over critically and correctly; nay, hardly Orthodoxly: I mean, as Orthodoxy goes among the Learned of his own Parry. He saith that the Substance of God, with these Properties, to be of none, to be of the Father, and to proceed from the other two, make the Persons of the Father, Son and Spirit: now to be of none, to be of the Father, and to pro­ceed from both, are but other Words for this Sense, to beget, to be begotten, and to proceed. But that Father of Modern Orthodoxy, Peter Lombard, whom we have already twice men­tioned, denies that these (before-mentioned) are Properties in the Substance of God, or that they can belong to it: he saith, Essentia Divina non est genera [...], nec genera [...], nec procedens; i. e. the Substance of God neither begets, nor is begotten, nor proceeds. 'Tis impossible to make this consist with Mr. Hooker, who expresly ascribeth those Properties to the Divine Sub­stance or Essence, and saith, that being in the Divine Substance, they make it to be three Persons.

[Page 27] What shall we do here? Shall we say, Re­verend Hooker has mistaken, and missed his Sons (who are all the Church of England) in­to an Error concerning the Trinity? Hath he ascribed to the Divine Essence, Properties, which he calleth Persons, that are not in it? To give up Hooker, is to dishonour the Church of England it self; to part with Father Hooker, is to endanger the very Surplice, and even the Cross in Baptism; nay, that Book of Books the Common-Prayer. If Mr. Hooker could err about the Trinity; What will the Fana­ticks and Trimmers say? Will they not be apt to pretend too, he may have erred in his profound Dissertations and Discourses for the Rites and Discipline of the Church?

I am afraid, for all that, we must keep close to Peter Lombard, Master of the Sen­tences, and of the Modern Divinity: he hath been espoused by all the Popes since Innocent the Third, by the Lateran Council which was General, and by the tacit Approbation of the whole Church ever since.

I doubt, it is not much more passible, that Mr. Hooker saith, that the Properties, to be of none, to be of the Father, and to proceed, do (together with the Substance of God) make the Persons of the Father, Son and Spirit. It is not true, that those are the Properties which make the Persons: he might say, that they make the Persons to be Father, Son and Spirit, or to have that threefold Relation among themselves; but they do not make the three Persons to be Persons; or thus, they do not make (as he speaks) the Persons. To be of none maketh the Father; but I deny, that it maketh (as Mr. Hooker affirms) the Per­son of the Father: the Character, or Pro­perty which maketh the Person of the Father, is quite another from the Property or Cha­racter that maketh the Father. To beget, to be begotten, and to proceed, are Properties which constitute the Relations of Father, Son and Spirit: but they are other Properties, which make the Persons of the Father, Son and Spirit.

Concerning the Properties or Characters which make the Re [...]tions, all Learned Trini­tarians are agreed; they acknowledg them to be these three, Active Generation, (not, as Mr. Hooker mistakes, this meer Negation to be of none) Eternal Passive Generation, or to be begotten, and Eternal Procession: but con­cerning the Properties that make the Persons, they are not so well accorded. The Antient Divines said, the Property that maketh the Person of the Father, or the peculiar Property and Character of the first Person, is Monarchy; the Property of the second Person, is Wisdom; and of the third is Love. Others said, that the Property of the first Person, is Beatitude and Rest; the Property of the second is Ope­ration: others had still other Conceits, all of them false.

But allowing now the way of speaking, used by Mr. Hooker, what a Riddle has he propounded? Here is the self-same Substance (in Number) unbegotten, and yet begotten: the Divine Substance with the Property to be of none, or to be unbegotten, is (saith he) the Person of the Father; the self same Sub­stance (in Number) with the Property to be of the Father, or to be begotten, is (or makes) the Person of the Son. Can the self-same Substance (in Number) be of none, and yet be of the Father; be unbegotten, and begot­ten too? Are they not contradictory Terms, and therefore not to be applied to the self-same Substance in Number?

They will say, Mr. Hooker doth not affirm, that the self-same Substance is begotten and unbegotten; this indeed were a [...]t Contra­diction: but he saith, that as 'tis in the Fa­ther, 'tis unbegotten; as in the Son, 'tis be­gotten.

But do they reckon they have to deal only with Fools? What if I should say, my Hand as in my Pocket, is unskalded; but at in my Glove, 'tis skalded: would it not be a Con­tradiction, for all the Blinds of in the Pocket, and in the Glove? The self-same Hand in Num­ber, cannot be burnt, and unburnt; the Place in which it is, will not palliate such a Con­tradiction: in like manner, the self-same Substance cannot be begotten, and unbegotten; because you are pleased to pretend, you con­sider [Page 28] it sometimes in one Subject or Person, sometimes in another. In whatever Person a Substance is, it must either be a begotten Substance, or an unbegotten; it cannot possi­bly be both: if it really remains unbegotten, then it never was begotten; but if in process of time it has been begotten, then it cannot still be unbegotten.

Why do our Opposers choose to maintain such extravagant Paradoxes, rather than ac­knowledg so easy and natural a Truth, as the Unity of God? Rather than receive the first Commandment, in its natural and obvious sense; rather than we will sincerely (and without Disguise or Juggle) own that there is but one only God: we will choose to make our selves scorned by all sensible Men; by saying, the self-same Substance (in Number) is begotten, and unbegotten; 'tis of the Fa­ther, nay 'tis of Father and of Son, and yet 'tis of none.

Let us consider Mr. Hooker's Catch, in three Human Persons. He will say, the Substance of John is begotten, as John is the Son of Peter; but John's Substance is unbegotten, as John is the Father of James: and yet it is the self-same Substance in Number, that is thus both begotten and unbegotten.

Is it so? but if John's Substance be really begotten, I will ever stand in it, that his Substance is not unbegotten: it was begotten by his Father Peter, therefore 'tis a begotten Substance, not an unbegotten.

Some one may say, but is not John's Sub­stance unbegotten, in respect of John' s Son James; tho it was begotten by Peter? By no means: for if Peter begot John's Substance, then John's Substance is begotten, tho his Son James begot it not; and consequently it can­not be said to be an unbegotten Substance, in any respect whatsoever.

In short, they would have us to say; John's Substance is unbegotten, because it was be­gotten by Peter, and not by John's Son James. I deny, that 'tis a proper, or a true way of speaking: for if the Substance has been be­gotten by any whomsoever; it must never after be called unbegotten, on this absurd account, that it was not begotten by James, but by Peter.

Farther, whereas Mr. Hooker saith, the Sub­stance of God, with this Property to be be­gotten, or to be of the Father, maketh the Person of the Son: I ask, is then the Sub­stance of God begotten; I pray, who begat it? They must answer, the Father! But did the Father beget the Substance of God? Do they not say, that the self-same Substance that is in the Father, is also in the Son? But if so, then if the Father begat the Substance of the Son, or of God, he begat his own Substance. Can any one beget his own Substance? Is it not a Contradiction, a manifold Contradicti­on? Is it not as much as to say, he was before he was? He that begets his own Substance, begets himself: but he that begets himself, is thereby supposed to have been before he was.

I know, it hath been said by some Divines, God is self-originated or self-begotten. But 'tis utterly false; they ought to have said, he is unoriginated or unbegotten. As God is not ori­ginated or begotten, by another; so much less by himself: not by another, for then that other must be before him, at least in order of Na­ture; not by himself, because then he must be before he was.

But to finish with Mr. Hooker, I will show his Followers, that in pursuance of his Ex­plication, they will be forced to say; that as the Father begat the Son, so the Son destroys the Father. And I make challenge to them all, to rescue their Master's Explication from that fatal Consequence. Begotten doth al­ways destroy unbegotten; when once a Person or Thing is begotten, that self-same Thing or Person can be no longer unbegotten. If there­fore the Substance of God unbegotten, maketh (as Mr. Hooker contends) the Person of the Father; and the self-same Substance begotten, maketh the Person of the Son: it una­voidably follows, that the Generation of the Son is the Destruction of the Father; be­cause the Property or Characteristick of the Father, even unbegotten, is destroyed out of the Divine Substance, by the Cha­racteristick of the Son, which is begotten. [Page 29] Unbegotten (that is to say, the Father) re­mains no longer in the Divine Substance; if begotten (that is, according to Hooker, the Son) hath taken place in it.

O that our learned Opposers would vouch­safe, to consider these things impartially: that they would not reckon 'tis their Glory, to de­fend received Doctrines, only because they have been long received, and by many; as if Prescription or Numbers could alter the Nature of Truths and Untruths. Which (I pray) is more honourable, to own a clear and ne­cessary Truth; or to set one's self to darken and to obstruct it? I confess the latter re­quires more Wit, especially against an able and dexterous Defendant; but 'tis the other that deserves greater Praise, especially be­fore God, because it argues Sincerity and Justice. But I pass to the last sort of Trinity, the Mystical Trinity.

Of the Mystical Trinity, or the Trinity of the Mobile.

THE poor common People are first made to believe, by the help of corrupted Copies, and false Translations of the Bible, that 'tis a Scripture-Doctrine; that there is a Trinity of Divine Persons, an Almighty Fa­ther, an Almighty Son, and an Almighty Spirit distinct and different (in Number) from both Father and Son. But because this (at the very first sight) appears contrary to Reason and common Sense; therefore in the next place they are told, that they must con­sider this Doctrine, as a Mystery, impossible indeed for us to understand, yet necessary to be believed, because God hath said it. How many things, say these Teachers, are there in the Works of Nature, which we under­stand not, no more than we can understand the Trinity: and yet we believe them to be, as assuredly; as if there were no Difficul­ty, in conceiving how they should be. As, that there are Antipodes, whose Feet are op­posite to our Feet, and who walk with their Heads downwards, with respect to our Parts of the World. Again, that a Spirit can move a Body from place to place: tho Reason first assures us, that there can be no Motion with­out a Resistance; and then, that a pure Spirit can meet no Resistance, from Matter or Bo­dies. Also, that the Parts of Matter or Bo­dies hold together; tho no Cause can be assigned for it, but what appears immediate­ly to be unsufficient, nay ridiculous. All these are great Truths, and we believe them, even contrary to the Verdict of Reason: how much more ought we to believe the Trinity, which hath been propounded to us, as an Article of Faith, in the Word of God it self, tho our fallible and frail Reason reclaims, and kicks perhaps against it? When the So­cinians, say these Gentlemen, have accounted for all the Mysteries of Nature and Art; let them begin to object to the Trinity, that 'tis a Mystery, and that it hath sundry Contradicti­ons to Reason: but till they do the first, 'tis nothing else but a bold Impiety to insist on the other.

It must be confessed, Sir, that this is the most plausible Pretence; the strongest Hold, as well as the last Resort of our Opposers: when we have drove them from all other Posts, here they take Sanctuary. I will therefore take care to remove this Occa­sion, and Cover of Error. I say,

1. I might leave it wholly to Dr. S—th, to answer this Pretence of some of his Party. At p. 2, and 3, &c. of his Animadversions, he shows at large, what is a Mystery; he saith, that a Mistery is a Truth revealed by God, above the reach of Human Reason to find out, or to comprehend. He vindicateth this Definition, part by part; he saith, p. 3. first, a Mystery is a Truth; by which, saith he, I exclude every thing from being a Mystery, which is absurd, or contradictions. Now we desire [Page 30] nothing else of our Oppo [...], but that they would abide by this Account of Mystery; that 'tis not something absurd, or contradictory, but only some Secret revealed by God, because it was above Human Capacity to discover it, and sometimes also even to comprehend how it can be. For there is a vast Difference be­tween my not being able to conceive how a thing should be, and a clear Apprehension and Sight that it cannot be. There are (it may be) Mysteries, which we cannot compre­hend how they should be: but that three Divine Persons, or three distinct Almighty and All-knowing Persons, should be but one Al­mighty, but one All-knowing, or but one God, a Man (who considers but with never so little Intention and Sincerity) clearly sees, that it cannot be. In short, that 'tis not a Mystery, but (as Dr. S—th speaks) an Absur­dity and a Contradiction. In a word, we do not reject the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, because they are Mysteries; but because they are plain Contradictions to Reason and common Sense, and consequently Un­truths: for (without doubt) Reason and Truth are but two Names, for the same thing; and clear Reason is no other thing, but clear Truth.

2. I consider, that what will equally serve to excuse all the Nonsense, and impossible Doctrines, that are to be found among Men; we cannot admit of it, as a Defence of the (pretended) Trinity and Incarnation: espe­cially in Opposition to such powerful Proofs, both from Scripture and Reason; as may be, and actually are alledged against those Do­ctrines. A Papist, for Example, does (with equal colour) alledg this Pretence, for his Transubstantiation. He says, ‘'Tis a Scripture-Doctrine, delivered in these express words, This is my Body: and how many things are there in the Works of Nature, which we comprehend not, no more than we can comprehend the Miracle of the Transub­stantiation; and yet we believe them to be, as assuredly, as if there were no Difficulty in conceiving how they should be, or that they can be. Such as the Antipodes; and that a pure Spirit can [...]ve a Body, in which it findeth no Resistance; and that the Parts of Matter or Bodies are continuos, or hold together: and many the like.’ Thus do the Papists argue; and I deny, that this Pretence can be wrested from them, by any Trinitarian: for 'tis the same Defence that the Trinitarian makes for his Doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. Our Opposers will not vouchsafe, so much as to hear Catholicks and Lutherans, when they plead Mystery, for the Transubstantiation or the Consubstantiation: I desire of them there­fore, to give me but one Reason, why that Plea is not as good in those Controversies, as in these of the Trinity and Incarnation.

The Author of two Dialogues, concerning the Trinity and the Transubstantiation, find­ing himself pressed with this Difficulty, an­swers to this effect, that there are a great many more Texts of Holy Scripture for the Trinity, than are pretended for the Transubstantiation. But this is no Solution of the proposed Difficulty: for 'tis not at all the Question, which Do­ctrine hath most Texts alledged for it; but only, whether the Pretence of Mystery, be not a Plea as rational and allowable, against all the Exceptions made against the Transub­stantiation, as an impossible, inconceivable and contradictory Doctrine; as 'tis to the same Ex­ceptions, when urged by the Socinians against the Incarnation or Trinity? But whereas that Author insists upon an Answer, wholly foreign to this Difficulty; and is so careful to bring together, from Cardinal Bellarmine, all the Texts alledged for the Trinity: he is desired to name to us so much as one Text for either of those Doctrines; that is not given up to the Socinians, by some of the most Learned Interpreters and Criticks of his own Party, as indeed no Proof of the Trinity, the In­carnation, or the Divinity of the Son or Spi­rit. What avails it, for a Man to talk of the great number of Texts, which he can alledg; when the ablest Persons of his own Party, do (in the mean time) ow [...] the Unsufficiency of every one of them in parti­cular? If he thinks he has cause to deny, [Page 31] that the Socinians have this great Advantage on their side; whenever he shall do it pub­lickly, I will bear the Reproach, if I do not justify what I have said, by Citation of par­ticular Authors of the first Note and Rank among our Opposers.

3. Our Opposers urge, that there are (and the Soci [...]s themselves believe) a great many Mys [...]s in Nature; of which no Human Reason can give an Account, nay Reason ob­jects against them, and professedly contradicts them: as that a pure Spirit can move a Body, In which it meets no Resistance; that Bodies or Matter consist of indiuisible Parts; and such like. Well, suppose the Socinians should grant these, or other unaccountable Mysteries, which not only are not comprehended, but are contradicted by Reason: What then? Why, then they are very inconsiderate, to deny (as they do) the Trinity and Incarnation; on this account, that 'tis contrary to Reason, or implies Contradictions and Absurdities. But our Opposers should have thought better of this Objection, before they laid so great a Weight on it; even the Weight of their whole Cause. For tho we should grant, that we believe some Mysteries of Nature or Art, against which Reason objects, and many ways contradicts them; yet is this no Plea for the Trinity, or the Incarnation. For if we be­lieve Natural or Artificial Mysteries, 'tis be­cause we plainly see that so the thing is: we see or we feel, or have some other undeniable Proof of the thing; some such Proof, as no rational Man will or can resist. Doth any Man believe Misteries, or wonderful Tales, con­trary to his Reason, and the Reason of all other Men; without a most manifest and un­contestable Proof of them; without some such Proof or Proofs, as undeniably evince the thing so to be? But will our Opposers pretend, they have any such Proofs for the Incarnation or Trinity; such manifest, such evident, such uncontestable Proofs, that no sober Man, or no reasonable Man can except against them, or refuse to admit of them? I do not think they will pretend to it, if it be but for this only Reason, because the Socinians are confest to be a Rational and Learned Party. Are those Evidence or Proofs uncontestable, which are rejected, not without some Scorn, by some of the learnedest, and most unsuspected of their own Party? Are they uncontestable, that not only may be interpreted to another Sense, but also are either otherways read in the best Copies of the Hebrew and Greek, or may be otherways translated from those Languages; and all this, by confession of the more ingeni­ous of our Opposers themselves? Briefly, we say, Mysteries there are; and it may be such Mysteries, as are even contradicted by Reason; that is, are in some respects Contradictions to our present (short-sighted and frail) Reason: but when we believe there are some such Mysteries, it is because they appear to our Senses; or are proved to us by some such either Reason or Authority, as no reasonable Man, much less any Number of such Men, does or can deny to be uncontestable. And otherways, all the unwarrantable Nonsense in the World may be imposed on us, un­der the Pretence and Cloak of Mystery. But now the Doctrine of the Trinity, hath not only no uncontestable Proofs; but the Pretences for it are so feeble, that none of them can be named, but is not only re­jected, but despised by some of the learnedest of our Opposers themselves. They would perswade us to acknowledg a Mistery, full of Contradictions to the clearest Reason, and to indisputable Texts of Holy Scripture; and supported in the mean time, only by some Texts that may be interpreted to a Rational Sense, that is, to a Sense that hath nothing contrary either to Reason, or to the unquestiona­ble Parts or Texts of the Holy Scripture. For Peace sake, we would do so, if it were some light matter that they urged on us: but when the Question is, about one or more Gods, one or more Divine Persons, we judg it adviseable, not to be too facile in admitting such dan­gerous Mysteries; Mysteries that would de­stroy the Allegiance and Homage that we all owe to the one true God.

I have done, Sir, with the Explications of our Opposers. You see what they are: [Page 32] Dr. S—th's Explication is only an absurd So­cinianism; or Unitarianism disguised in a Me­taphysical and Logical Cant. Dr. Wallis his Explication is an ingenious Sabellianism; and in very deed differs from Unitarianism, no more than Dr. S—th's, that is to say, only in the wording. Dr. Sherlock's is such a flat Tri­theism, that all the Learned of his own Party confess it to be so; and Dr. S—th hath written a very accurate Book to prove it so. Dr. Cud­worth's is a moderate Arianism; the Ariani molles ascribed as much to the Son, as this Doctor doth: and he denies as much to the Son, as they did; even an Equality of Power, and Authority with the Father. Mr. Hooker's is a Trinity, not of Persons, but of Contradictions: and he hath advanced such a Son, as of ne­cessity destroys his Father. What the Mystical Divines teach, cannot be called an Explication; they deny all Explications: we must say there­fore 'tis Samaritanism; for what our Saviour says of the Samaritans, by way of Reproof and Blame, that these Gentlemen profess concerning themselves, that they worship they know not what.

These, Sir, are the Doctrines that we op­pose; I shall leave it with you, whether it be without cause.

Before I conclude, I beg your Leave to say two words to Mr. Basset, who hath an­swer'd (or thinks he has answered) to the Brief History of the Unitarians: and to Dr. Ful­wood and Dr. Edwards, Men of Dignity in the Church; but who have not thought it below them, to use the very vilest Language, and the basest and most ungrounded Scandals, that their Malice to our Persons, and their Ig­norance of the Points in question between us and the Church, could suggest to them.

These two Doctors tell their Readers, that the Unitarians deny the Omniscience of God, or that he fore-knoweth contingent Events: that they deny his Omnipresence, making him to be present in all Places, only by his Know­ledg, and his Power; that they ascribe the same degree of Power and Knowledg, and pay the self-same Worship to the Lord Christ, whom they affirm to be a meer Man, which they ascribe or pay to Almighty God; and hereby, say these Doctors, they are guilty of an Idolatry that is equally evident and abomi­nable. They pretend to prove this Charge out of the Writings of Socinus, Smalcius, and some others of the Party. I say now;

1. That their Quotations out of Socinus and the rest, are (for a great pa [...] of them) as false and disingenious as those [...] Dr. Wallis were: as any one will see, who shall take the Pains to consult the Authors themselves.

2. They make it to be a great Heresy in some Socinians, that they deny there is a certain Fore-knowledg of contingent Events: they say 'tis a Denial of God's Omniscience. And yet all Men know, that very many of the most Learned Trinitarians, have been of the same Opinion; Antients as well as Moderns, Protestants as well as Catholicks. Nor have these Doctors so much as offered at an An­swer to the Reasons of Socinus and Crellius, concerning a conditional Knowledg in God.

3. That God is Omnipresent, not in his Essence or Person, but by his Knowledg and Power; is also held by divers Learned Trini­tarians: and it must needs have been the Opinion of those Fathers, who either were Anthropomorphites; or held that God is a Body, not a Spirit.

4. These Doctors have written against the Socinians, by occasion of the English Books, that have been lately published, by those of that Perswasion: they should therefore have attacked the Doctrine of those Books; they should have described our Opinions out of our own Writings, not from the Books of Foreigners. The English Socinians sincerely believe, that God is truly Omniscient; that he foreseeth all Events, how contingent soever they may be to us. They believe the real Omnipresence of God; or that he is present in his Essence or Person in all Places, and not only by his Power, Knowledg or Ministers. They honour, or if we must use that word, they worship the Lord Christ; neither with the same sort, nor with the same degree of Worship, which is due to God: they wor­ship or honour him, with their Minds, only as [Page 33] one who is highly exalted by God, above all Principality and Power, and every Name that is named; and to whom God hath given to be Head over all things to the Church. In a word, they neither pay a higher Worship, nor im­pute a greater Power or Knowledg to the Lord Christ, than the most Learned, and the far greater Number of Trinitarians, impute and pay to the Human Nature (the meer Human Nature) of Jesus Christ, in his present State of Exaltation.

We have said these things so often in our late Books; we have defended them so ear­nestly, that none but Persons of little Ho­nesty, or great Inconsideration, would object to us such Opinions as these before-mentioned. But these Gentlemen had a longing Mind to be Authors; and who should they signalize themselves upon, so popularly, as upon the Socinians: if they have got Reputation by their Books, that is, by weak Arguments and strong Calumnies; it is with so very few, that I do not think they will reap an Advantage by it.

But one of them urgeth, that Socinus was in this dangerous Heresy, that the Soul of Man, after the Death of his Body, is in a State of Inactivity and Unperception; in a word, neither perceives nor lives, till the Re­surrection of the Body: at which time, it re­ceiveth Immortality, by the meer Grace or Gift of God; but is not, of its own Nature, immortal.

I do acknowledg, that this seems to be the Opinion of F. Socinus; but, I believe, of ve­ry few Unitarians besides. But this Error was common to him, with some of the Fa­thers: the Learned Monsieur Du Pin has no­ted, that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Minutius Foe­lix and Arnobius were in this Sentiment. There was no Reason therefore to object this, to Socinus; as if it were a peculiar Opinion of his; much less to the English Unitarians, who never defended it; nor, that I know of, do any of them hold it.

As to Mr. Basset, there are two things very remarkable, in his Answer to the Brief History of the Unitarians: the meanness and dulness of the Book it self, it being written with no Vivacity, Wit, or Elevation of Thought; and the undecent Insolence of the Author. His Book being such as it is, if the Brief History cannot shift for it self, against that Re­ply to it; the Historian is resolved it shall take its Fortune: he is perswaded, that when a discerning Man has read Mr. Basset's Answer; if he again looks over the Brief History, he will (at least) as much approve of it, as at first. Mr. Basset has said nothing, that can in the least shake the Reputation of the Brief History; unless his Reader will believe him, when he charges the Historian with false Quotations of Authors. To this the Histo­rian answers; that he hath not made one false or mistaken Citation: but Mr. Basset sometimes not understanding the Authors that are quoted, for they are Greek and Latin; and sometimes mistaking the Sense of the Historian, which he doth very fre­quently; it hath happened hereupon, that he hath charged the Historian with his own either Ignorances or Inadvertences. But I am not at leisure to write a Vindication, every time that negligent and ignorant Scriblers mistake my meaning; or the Sense or the Authors by me alledged.

I reckon it to be his Insolence, that a Person who had nothing to offer on these Questions; but what was very trivial and vulgar; should yet give disrespectful Language, without any the least Provocation given by the Historian. He saith, for instance, that indeed the Fo­reign Socinians have been learned and subtile Men; but he cannot say so concerning the English: but for the Epistler, so he calls the Writer of the Brief History, because 'tis writ­ten in four Letters; he saith, Poor Wretch ought to have imploy'd his small Talent to honester Purposes, and not have sought for Reputation only by his Nonsense, his Follies, and his Impieties.

This was a Mortification indeed, c [...]ming (as it does) from so great and worthy a Hand: but the Comfort is, we are apt to be more advised, and better'd also by our Humiliations. And yet I am still of Opinion, [Page 34] that as Mr. Basset thought it requisite to an­swer the Brief History after the great Victory gained over it by Dr. Sherlock: so there will not want many others, who will judg it no less than necessary; to give other Answers to it, after this Triumph of Mr. Basset. But however that be, I answer to Mr. Basset, as Moses did to Pharaoh, Glory over me; I am resolved Mr. Basset shall have the Self-satis­faction, that he hath mauled the Epistler for ever. For I will not catch Flies, nor spend my Artillery upon Mud-Walls; when I hap­pen on some such Second, as Dr. Sherlock found up against the Jesuits, Mr. Basset may hear from me, and not before,

I will not ask Pardon, Sir, for the length of this Letter; for you see to how many it was necessary to make some Answer: but I ought not to forget, to give you my Thanks and Respects, for the Liberalities and Favours, which you have done to your