years Disputation a Doctor of Divinity and a Dean has been hardly perswaded out of the Heresy of three Spirits Minds or Substances yet the continuance of these unscriptural Terms without an exact Explication of them in Sermons and Catechisms heathenizes all the common People nay and great numbers of not unlearned persons 'T is evident now I suppose to every body that the Disinterested was not concerned to reply to such an Answer as this Dr. Sherlock indeed confuted most plainly all his Reasons and trampled upon his Authorities but kindly granted him the Doctrine for which he contended I was in hope therefore all the dust and noise had been at an end but Dr. Sherlock who has no mercy on a conquer'd Enemy thought fit to make a new Onset He publisht a Sermon concerning the danger of corrupting the Faith by Philosophy in which with a great deal of bitterness and many Invectives against the Unitarians he declares that The Unitarian and all other Heresies have their rise and strength from Philosophy and Reason He pretends that Religion must be learned and taught only from Holy Scripture not indeed from the meer Letter or Phrase of Holy Scripture without allowance for Metaphors and such like Schemes of Speech but from the obvious and natural senfe of the words of Scripture without presuming to mollify or change in the least what seems to be the proper sense of the words on the account of any Opposition thereto by Reason or Philosophy He takes occasion here to declame against Reason and Philosophy as most dangerous Deceits and Impostures the true Originals and Causes of all Heresies and Errors in Religion His topicks of Argument for these things are the same that have been always advanced by the maintainers of Transubstantiation other such like Doctrines which have been rejected by the Protestant Churches on the account that they are flatly contrary to Reason and Philosophy This Sermon had been out but a little time when Mr. Firmin publisht Remarks on it The Author of the Remarks first makes an Abstract or Summary of the Sermon and then examins part by part the said Summary or Abstract He proves that the use of Philosophy and Reason is even necessary for the right understanding of Holy Scripture or of any other Book or Speech whatsoever and that 't is by Reason which is no other thing but common sense and by Philosophy which is nothing but experimental Knowledg that we can judg when a Book confest on all hands to be true and certain speaks figuratively and popularly and when strictly grammatically and literally In a word 't is by Reason and Philosophy chiefly that the true meaning and intention of any Book which Book or Writing is granted to be certainly true can be found The Remarks are so written that Dr. Sherlock thinks fit to deny that his Sermon is truly represented he says in his Vindication of the Sermon The Author of the Remarks gives the sense of my Sermon in his own words and directly contrary to my meaning I who made the Sermon knew nothing of it but by mere guess as it lays in his Abstract Vind. p. 4. He adds again at p. 28. The Author of the Remarks has not opposed the Doctrine of my Sermon but his own Chimeras and Follies In short the Doctor complains that his whole Sermon is misreported by the Author of the Remarks and that it was not at all his Intention in the Sermon to speak against Philosophy or Reason but only against what some men call Philosophy and Reason and against vain pretences to Reason and Philosophy Vind. p. 5. He quotes two or three mincing passages of his Sermon which speak not of philosophy and Reason but of Pretenders and Pretences to Reason and Philosophy and these two or three Passages he offers as the true and whole intention of his Sermon But It is certain himself had other thoughts of the intention of his Sermon when he publish'd it and before he law it confuted for he gives it this Title The danger of corrupting Religion by Philosophy not by Pretender or Pretences to Philosophy 'T is certain also that the Arguments he alledges are directed against Philosophy it self and Reason it self as every one sees in the Sermon and in the Vindication of it He has for instance this passage laugh'd at by so many If a. Contradiction to fallible Sense be not a good objection against the truth of any thing how comes a Contradiction to much more fallible Reason to be an unanswerable objection Vind. p. 14. Farther when he is explaining his Text he says Beware lest any spoil you thro' Philosophy and vain Deceit that is thro' the vain deceit of Philosophy Philosophy cheats men with a flattering but false appearance It may unsettle weak minds but cannot lay a sure or solid foundation for Faith it may cheat men out of their Faith but when that is done can give nothing in the room of it Serm. p. 2. He has divers such passages addressed directly against Reason and Philosophy but after the Remarks on those passages came abroad he thought it should seem that seeing what he had so hastily said could no ways be defended his best way would be to deny that ever he said or intended it He thought perhaps it would be a less loss of Reputation if two or three prying malicious Fellows will read the Sermon again and thereby discover either that the Doctor had forgot himself or would venture in a streight on an apparent falsity than to make himself contemptible to learned and discerning Men by pertinacy in Opinions that had been so clearly refuted I leave it to others to judg whether this were an exact Computation But I think I had not mentioned this Sermon or its Vindication but that here again the Doctor calls in his Heterodoxies concerning the Trinity He disowns here the expression three infinite Minds and Spirits as very inconvenient and liable to an heretical Interpretation it ought not to be used he saith in the absolute but only in a qualified and restrained Sense His words are I freely acknowledg that three infinite Minds and Spirits is liable to a very Heretical and Tritheistic Sense if understood absolutely Serm. p. 3. But this was never acknowledged till the Judgment by the Disinterested and the Remarks had extorted it from him I come now to his third and last book of Retractations his present state of the Socinian Controversy which as 't is much larger than any of the rest so 't is more express and direct against the Heresy of three infinite eternal Minds Spirits Beings or Substances 'T is also written so much more calmly than any former piece by the same hand that I could scarce believe it was Doctor Sherlock's Abating a little grumbling of the gizard against Dr. S th and the Oxford Heads for former harshness and irreverence and a small aking of the teeth against the unpardonable Socinians the Causers or however the Occasioners of
thought the Articles of that Creed are affirmed I have examined some of his principal References and can say of 'em they are either Perversions or downright Falsifications of what the Authors referred to did intend Dr. Wallis whose dishonest Quotations out of the Socinians have been detested by every body is hardly more blamable in that kind than Mr. Edwards saving that the Doctor being as one rightly tells him somewhat more than a Socinian did but foul his own Nest by his Forgeries but we cannot certainly say what is the opinion of Mr. Edwards in the great Article in question among us But come we to the Creed which he says is ours as I promis'd I will answer to every Article of it sincerely and directly I. I believe concerning the Scriptures that there are Errors Mistakes and Contradictions in some places of it That the Authority of some whole books of it is questionable yea that the whole Bible has been tamper'd with and may be suspected to be corrupted That there are Errors Mistakes and Contradictions in the H. Bible was never said by any person pretending to be a Christian if by the Bible you mean the Bible as it came out of the hands of the inspired Authors of it As on the other side that there are Errors Mistakes or Contradictions in the vulgar Copies of the Bible used by the Church of Rome for instance or the English Church was never questioned by any learned Man of whatsoever Sect or way and least of all can Mr. Edwards question it He has published a book concerning the Excellence and Perfection of H. Scripture in which book he finds great fault with our English Bible He saith in the Title of his 13th chapter It is faulty and defective in many places of the Old and New Testaments and I offer all along in this chapter particular Emendations in order to render it more exact and compleat As to the Hebrew and Greek copies of the Bible 't is well known some are more perfect and some less They differ very much for in the Old Testament the Hebrew Critics have noted 800 various readings in the New there are many more Mr. Gregory of Oxford so much esteemed and even venerated for his admirable Learning says hereupon and says it cum Licentiâ Superiorum There is no book in the World that has suffer'd so much by the hand of Time as the Bible Pref. p. 4. He judged and judged truly that tho' the first Authors of the Bible were Divinely Instructed Men yet the Copiers Printers and Publishers in following Ages were all of them Fallible Men and some of them ill-designing Men. He knew that all the Church Historians and Critics have confessed or rather have warned us that some copies of the Bible have been very much vitiated by the hands as well of the Orthodox as of Heretics and that 't is matter of great difficulty at this distance of time from the Apostolic Age to assertain the true reading of H. Scripture in all places of it Yet we do not say hereupon as Mr. Edwards charges us that the Bible much less the whole Bible is corrupted For as to the faulty readings in the common Bibles of some Churches and in some Manuscript Copies the Providence of God has so watched over this sacred Book that we know what by information of the antient Church-Historians and the writings of the Fathers what by the early Translations of the Bible into Greek Latin and Syriac and the concurrent Testimony of the more antient Manuscript copies both who they were that introduced the corrupt readings and what is the true Reading in all Texts of weight and consequence In short as to this matter we agree with the Critics of other Sects and Denominations that tho' ill Men have often attempted they could never effect the corruption of H. Scripture the antient Manuscripts the first Translations the Fathers and Historians of the Church are sufficient directors concerning the authentic and genuine Reading of doubtful places of H. Scripture Farther whereas Mr. Edwards would intimate that we reject divers Books of H. Scripture On the contrary we receive into our Canon all those Books of Scripture that are received or owned by the Church of England and we reject the Books rejected by the Church of England We know well that some Books and parts of Books reckoned to be wrote by the Apostles or Apostolical Men were questioned nay were refused by some of the Antients but we concur with the opinion of the present Catholic Church concerning them for the reasons given by the Catholic Church and which I mention in the Reply to my Lord the Bp. of Chichester If Mr. Edwards would have truly represented the opinion of the Socinians concerning the Scriptures he knew where to find it and so expressed as would have satisfied every body He knows that in the Brief Notes on the Creed of Athanasius they have declared what is their sense in very unexceptionable words The Holy Scriptures say they are a divine an infallible and compleat Rule both of Faith and Manners Br. Notes p. 1. The Church neither requires nor desires that they should say more II. I believe concerning God That he is not a Spirit properly speaking but a sort of Body such as Air or Aether is That he is not immense infinite or every where present but confined to certain places That he hath no knowledg of such future Events as depend on the Free Will of Man and That it is impossible such things should be foreseen by him That there is a Succession in God's eternal duration as well as in time which is the measure of the duration that belong to finite Beings That Almighty God is Incorporeal Omnipresent and Omniscient has not only been confessed but proved by the Unitarians of this Nation in divers of their late Prints As to the other that all Duration that of God as well as of Creatures consists in a Succession is affirmed by some Learned Men of all Perswasions and Ways as well as by the Unitarians It should seem Mr. Edwards holds that God possesses eternal Lite all at once that to God Eternity is one standing permanent Moment St. John is of another mind for he describes the duration of God by a Succession by was is and is to come Grace be to you and Peace says he from him which is was and is to come Rev. 1.4 'T is undeniable by any but affected Wranglers that here the duration of God his continuance in being is distinguished by the threefold Succession was is and shall be which is common to all Beings Eternal life possessed all at once is one of the monstrous Paradoxes which our Opposers maintain for all that I can see meerly from a spirit of contradiction for it has no manner of ground either in Reason or Holy Scripture I desire to know of 'em how the duration of God is the less perfect because 't is said to consist in a Succession
all our Misfortunes the book is wrote in a reasonable and pacific manner the only book of a great many so written by this Author I will present the Reader with the Doctrine of this remarkable and useful Book under distinct heads that every one may see he hath entirely chang'd his opinions that were censured by the Oxford Heads and refuted by the Vnitarians First concerning God what is the definition of God and of what sort is the Divine Vnity He answers P. 25. This is the notion that all mankind have of one God one infinite eternal Being or Nature P. 35. God is an eternal infinite Mind So all as well Christians as Philosophers hold P. 49. What is the natural Notion we have of God But one eternal Being the cause of all other Beings P. 309. They the Divine Persons are as perfectly One as a created Mind is P. 319. A Perichoresis Vnion or mutual Inbeing of minds can never make three compleat absolute Minds to be essentially one P. 343. Three absolute whole individual Divine Natures is Tritheism P. 371. The Divine Persons cannot properly be called three infinite Minds or Spirits For Mind as well as God is not the name of their persons but of their nature which is identically the same in all three We see here he propounds the Doctrine of the Church and of the Unitarians both Affirmatively and Negatively and both ways makes it his own In defining or describing God he saith one God is one infinite BEING one eternal and infinite MIND And tho' we say three Divine Persons yet whatever is thereby meant and he will tell us by and by what is meant they are as perfectly one MIND as a created mind is one Then Negatively he says The Divine Persons are not three Minds or Spirits and as to what some say and himself had often said in former Books of the Perichoresis he now owns no mutual Inbeing of three Spirits or Minds can ever make them to be one In accounting for the nature of the Divine Persons he speaks the very language of the Disinterested of the Author of the Remarks and of the Agreement that was wrote in answer to Mr. Edwards to my Lords the Bishops of Sarum Chichester Worcester and to Monsieur de Luzanzy His words are these P. 256. We acknowledg one God distinguished only by these personal Properties Paternity Filiation Procession as each of them has a compleat Hypostasis distinguish'd only by MODES of subsistence P. 258. The Divine Nature subsists distinctly in three according to their distinct characters of Unbegotten Begotten and Proceeâ—ing And these we call Persons because they have some Analogy or likeness to individuals in created Beings which in an Iâ—telligent nature are called Persons P. 197. We must use such words as we have and qualify their sense as we can P. 259. When we distinguish between Person and Essence and say there are three Persons and one Essence By one Essence we mean one Divinity by Persons we mean the Divine Essence as unbegotten and as communicated by Generation and Procession P. 280. Tho each Divine Person is the Divine Nature and Essence yet three Divine Persons are not three Natures or Essences but three Relations in one singular absolute Nature P. 297. That one Nature is but one Person and one Person but one Nature that individual Natures and Persons must always be multiplyed with each other is the fundamental Principle of all Heresies relating either to the Trinity or the Incarnation Sure this last effort was a very hard and grievous strain to him for 't was the very principle that misled him into the Heresy of three spiritual infinite Substances Minds and Beings He took it for his foundation that Persons and intelligent Natures or Substances are convertible or are the same and this error made him obstinate in it even after the Oxford Decree that the Divine Persons ye so many distinct spiritual Substances distinct Spirits and Minds Well but let us put together this whole reformed Doctrine about the Divine Persons They are not distinct Beings Natures Substances Minds or Spirits but only personal Properties or distinct Relations in the same singular nature Would you know the Mystery more particularly what you are to understand by personal Properties and distinct Relations in the same singular Nature or Essence The Doctor will not be difficult or reserved in the matter he answers The Persons personal Properties or distinct Relations are the Divine Essence or Substance unbegotten and communicated by Generation and Procession that is Begotten and Proceeding Do you except against it or make doubt that Relations personal Properties Unbegotten Begotten and Proceeding are properly called Persons or may have the names of Father Son and Spirit He will deliver you from your scruples he wisely minds you that we must of necessity use such words as we have and regulate or qualifie their sense as well as we can In two words he saith The Divine Persons are so called because we must use such words as we have and because they have some likeness to Persons of the created Nature but in truth they are only personal Properties or distinct Relations of the same singular nature namely of the Divinity Or if you had rather they are the Divine Essence or Divinity considered as Unbegotten Begotten and Proceeding This is a true and an exact Abridgment of his large Book I will not think he has so little conscience as to pretend that the Unitarians have in their late Contests opposed this Trinity 't is the account that themselves give of it and profess to believe in that part of the Agreement which is in answer to my Lords the Bishops of Worcester and Chichester 'T is the account also given by Dr. S th in his Animadversions and his Tritheism charged by the Disinterested by the Bishops of Worcester and of Sarum In eight years time this fierce Opposer of the Unitarians has with much to do learned that the Trinity is not three Minds Spirits or Substances but three internal Relations three personal Properties of the Divinity In eight more it may be he will understand that those are good Catholics and orthodox Christians who reject no other Trinity but of distinct Substances Spirits or Minds We are all agreed in the Faith it self and even as to the ordinary terms the more learned Trinitarians wish as the Vnitarians do that they were abolisht but as to some other less usual terms that occur in the debating these questions there is some disagreement among Divines I take notice that as to these Dr. Sherlock is always on the worse side and for the weaker Reasons For Instances 'T is a question whether we may not say three Divine Substances as well as three Persons They that put the question or that so speak grant that in very deed there is but one Divine Substance in the absolute sense of the word yet may we not say with Sr. Hilary three Substances in a restrained limited