THE AGREEMENT OF THE Unitarians WITH THE Catholick Church BEING ALSO A full Answer to the Infamations of Mr. Edwards and the needless Exceptions of my Lords the Bishops of Chichester Worcester and Sarum and of Monsieur De Luzancy PART I. In Answer to Mr. Edwards and my Lord the Bishop of Chichester Printed in the Year MDCXCVII In Answer to Mr. Edwards MR. Edwards after having written some trifling Books some indifferent ones divers good ones and one excellent Book his Demonstration of the Existence and Providence of God found an Inclination in himself that he could not resist of contriving a New Religion or rather Impiety and of imputing it to the Socinians By whom he means it appears the Unitarians Those in England who call themselves Unitarians never were in the Sentiments of Socinus or the Socinians Notwithstanding as our Opposers have pleased themselves in calling us Socinians we have not always declined the Name because in interpreting many Texts of Scripture we cannot but approve and follow the Judgment of those Writers who are confessed by all to be excellent Criticks and very judicious As particularly and chiefly H. Grotius who it must be granted was Socinian all over and D. Erasmus who tho he lived considerably before Socinus commonly interprets that way and therefore is charged by Cardinal Bellarmine as a downright Arian Non poterat says the Cardinal Arianam causam manifestius propugnare Erasmus could not more openly espouse the Arian side than he has done in his Notes on the Fathers and the principal Texts of Scripture Pref. ad Libros 5. de Christo But tho as I said we are not Socinians nor yet Arians seeing Mr. Edwards has contrived a Creed for us under the Name of Socinians I will answer both directly and sincerely concerning the several Articles of the Creed which he pretends to be ours As to the References unto places in particular Authors where Mr. Edwards would have it thought the Articles of that Creed are affirmed I have examined some of his principal References and can say of 'em they are either Perversions or downright Falsifications of what the Authors referred to did intend Dr. Wallis whose dishonest Quotations out of the Socinians have been detested by every Body is hardly more blamable in that kind than Mr. Edwards saving that the Doctor being as one rightly tells him somewhat more than a Socinian did but foul his own Nest by his Forgeries but we cannot certainly 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 promised I will answer to every Article of it sincerely and directly I. I Believe concerning the Scripture that there are Errors Mistakes and Contradictions in some places of it That the Authority of some Books of it is questionable yea that the Whole Bible has been tampered with and may be suspected to be corrupted That there are Errors Mistakes and Contradictions in the Bible was never said by any that pretended 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 hand 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 say it He has published a Book concerning the Excellency and Perfection of Scripture in which Book he finds great Fault with our English Bible he saith of it 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 Criticks 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 Licentia Superiorum There is no Book in the World that hath suffered so much by the hand of time as the Bible Preface 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 Criticks 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 Hereticks and that 't is matter of great Difficulty at this distance of time from the Apostolick Age to ascertain the true Reading of Holy Scripture in all places of it Yet we do not say hereupon as Mr. Edwards charges us that the Bible much less as he imputes to us 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 Syriac and Latin 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 Criticks of other Sects and Denominations that tho ill Men have often attempted they could never effect the Corruption of Holy Scripture the antient Manuscripts the first Translations the Fathers and Historians of the Church are sufficient Directors concerning the authentick and genuine Reading of doubtful Places of Holy Scripture Farther whereas Mr. Edwards would intimate that we reject divers Books of 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 Catholick Church concerning them for the Reasons given by the Catholick Church and which I shall mention by and by in the Reply to my Lord 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 their brief Notes on the Creed of Athanasius they have declared what is their Sense in very unexceptionable Words viz. The Holy Scriptures are a
Cerinthus was a certain Divine and Impassible Spirit which descending on Jesus at his Baptism dwelt in him and forsook him not till the very moment of his Death when he cried out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Iren. Lib. 1. c. 25. I do not see how this Account contradicts any thing in St. John whose Gospel the Alogians said was written by Cerinthus But I will not dispute with his Lordship about this matter for as I said the Unitarians do receive that Gospel and the Revelation as St. John's as they receive the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of St. James the Second of St. Peter the Second and Third of St. John all which were sometime doubted of nay rejected by divers Catholick Writers and Churches but have at length been owned by the whole Church Tho the Catholick Church now owns these Epistles and some Chapters and Sections in the Gospels as written by the Apostles whose Names they bear yet not with the degree of Assurance that she receives those Parts of Scripture that were never controverted The Assurance cannot be equal where the Grounds of Assent are unequal but the Grounds of Assent to the Writings of which we are speaking cannot be said to be equal because in Matters whether of Record or Fact what was always allowed and granted by all is more authentick and credible than what has been questioned and even rejected by divers of the Antients Writers and Churches who were Catholicks In short concerning all Books and Sections of Books of the New Testament sometime doubted of by some of the Antients the Unitarians acquiesce in the Judgment of the Catholick Church and for the Reasons given by the Church As first because tho they were questioned and even rejected by some Writers and Churches yet it appears they were approved by many more by so considerable a Majority that in a short time they were admitted by all We see in Epiphanius that even Paulus Samosatenus and Photinus received the Gospel of St. John Secondly because not only they contain nothing that is certainly contrary to the unquestioned Parts of Scripture but they are written with the same kind of Spirit that the undoubted Portions of Scripture are there is a Likeness in the Thoughts Expressions and whatsoever else recommends to us the other Books of Scripture as written by Apostles and Apostolical Men. These are sufficient Motives of Assent and ought to prevail with us tho there are some Difficulties not easy to be removed we submit to the weight of these Arguments tho we confess that what has been alledged by the Alogians and others is not despicable or ridiculous To conclude we receive with the Catholick Church the controverted Books without censuring in the mean time much less condemning those Antients or Moderns who were or are of another Mind What remains of his Lordship's first Section is a Scuffle with the Considerer on behalf of the Arch-Bishop's Explication of the first Verses of St. John's Gospel and of some other Texts alledged by his Grace to confirm his said Explication To all which I answer There is no Form of Words that were not conceived designedly to preclude all Exception but is liable to cavil nay our Lawyers scarce obtain their purpose when in Deeds and Conveyances they imploy the whole Art of Grammar to ascertain the Meaning and Intent of the Conveyance or Deed it is not therefore to be wondred at that Persons highly interested by their Education Honour and Parties can and with some colour interpret obscure or ambiguous Texts to a Sense not intended by the Original Author If People are not disposed to be ingenuous a little Wit some Learning and a long Practice in the Polemics will enable 'em to maintain a Squable till Doomsday about the Sense of any ordinary and familiar Context I do not think therefore that the Contention between the Unitarians and the Realists will ever be healed by that Pretence of either Party that theirs is the only Interpretation or Sense of which the litigated Texts are capable in the Court of Grammar and Criticism But towards a Coalition it will be necessary to agree in some common Principles confessed to be clearly asserted in Scripture by Consonancy to which Principles all otherwise doubtful Texts and Contexts of Scripture and their Interpretations shall be judged of This Rule of interpreting is very certain none can distrust it without supposing either that the Sacred Scripture contradicts it self or that the human Understanding is not capable of judging the Agreement or the Dissonance of Scripture with it self No Body I believe will say the former that the Scripture contradicts it self and if any say the other that we cannot judg of the Dissonance or Agreement of Scripture with it self or of particular Interpretations with Principles that are yielded to be found in Scripture all Disputation is at an end on both sides But if the Rule be allowed that some common agreed Principles are to be establisht by which all obscure that is all controverted Texts must be interpreted the Questions and Interpretations debated between us being thus brought before the Bar of Reason and common Sense will soon be judged of Is there but one only God Or if this be a Principle of too much Latitude and capable of more Senses Is there more than one numerical or self-same eternal and infinite Spirit meaning by one eternal and infinite Spirit one eternal and spiritual Substance with one only Vnderstanding Will and Power of Action If it be agreed as a Principle manifestly laid down in Scripture as well as certain in Reason that there is but one such Spirit either we shall all presently accord in interpreting this famous Context of St. John and other obscure and doubtful Passages of Scripture or our difference in interpreting it or them will no way affect any Article of our Creed so that there will be no real Controversy left The Unitarians are far from denying the Trinity of Divine Persons the Incarnation of God the Divinity or Satisfaction of our Saviour provided that those Doctrines be interpreted to a Consistency with this Principle of Holy Scripture and of the Catholick Church that there is but one infinite Spiritual Substance with one only infinite Understanding Will and Energy Or more briefly thus but one infinite and eternal Spirit Either his Lordship says there is but one such Spirit and therefore interprets the Term Persons and the Words Father Son and Holy Spirit not to be so many distinct Spirits but one Spirit distinguished by three Relative Properties in explaining the Nature of which the Church has always indulged some Variety and Latitude and if so we have no controversy with him nor he with us and he may for us interpret the first of St. John and the other Texts on which he insists as himself shall please Or he saith there are three eternal and infinite Spirits and that the Divine Persons are so many spiritual Substances Minds
each other All Men who know the Fathers know that this is their constant Language Vindic. of the Trin. p. 130. To make this Testimony the more considerable the Author intimates in the last Paragraph but one of his Preface that in writing this Book he must thankfully own he was divinely assisted If you will not take the Word of Dr. Sherlock and the constant Language of the Fathers then hear the Bishop of Sarum with all the School-Divines and the universal Church They conceived that the primary Act of the Divine Essence is its Wisdom this they thought might be called the Son as being the Generation of eternal Mind From this Fountain-Principle eternal Mind and the inward WORD or Logos or Wisdom a Love did issue forth which was to be the Soul of the Creation and more particularly of the Church This was rested on and became the universally-received Explication of the Trinity and was dressed up by the Schools with a great deal of dark Nicety Discourse to Clergy p. 99. Now Sir lay your hand on your Heart and answer like a true Unitarian Do you your self or know you any of the Denomination that question this Trinity the Trinity our very Opposers say of the Schools the Fathers and the universal Church Namely 1. One Divine Nature Essence or Substance with one only Omniscience and Omnipotence and consequently with one only Intellect and Power of Action 2. Three Properties called by the Bp. of Worcester RELATIVE PERSONS viz. Vnbegotten eternal Mind Reflex or begotten Knowledg or Wisdom and Divine Love proceeding from both This from themselves is what they mean by Persons in the Trinity and Communication of the Divine Nature without Division or Separation by immanent and Eternal Acts. I confess I fear much that were Dr. Cudworth alive that great Divine and Philosopher would either reason or laugh us out of this Gibberish he would constrain us to return to the Language of Scripture about these Matters And it is most true that these Terms are not to be found either in Holy Scripture or in the Creeds or received General Councils of the Catholick Church They were first advanced by some particular Fathers especially St. Austin in his 15 Books de Trinitate were taken up from them by the Divines of the Schools that is of the middle Ages and have been confirmed by the constant Use of the Moderns or Divines of the two last Ages We declare openly and therein consists our whole Heresy that we like 'em not not only as they are unscriptural which in matter of Faith is a most just Exception for divers very weighty Reasons but because by their dangerous Ambiguity they give occasion to Heresy not only among the People but even among Learned Men. These are the Terms that have occasioned the Heresy of the Realists or Tritheists maintained at this time by divers Learned Men among us Yet for Peace sake we admit the Terms interpreted in the known Sense of the Church which Sense we acknowledg the Bps. of Worcester and Sarum Dr. S th and the Oxford-Heads have as we have seen already rightly understood and especially Dr. S th in his Latin Letters under the Name of a Transmarine Divine dextrously declared I may pass I think to the last thing to be considered The Conciliation of Dr. S th and Dean Sherlock DR Sherlock in his Books against the Unitarians had taken this for his Ground and Foundation that the three Divine Persons are three eternal infinite Spirits each of them a God but the three Gods are made up again into one God by being internally conscious to one anothers Thoughts and Operations Dr. S th in two English Books by him written and in three Latin Letters excepts against this Explication of the Trinity as false heretical and directly introducing three Gods He saith as we do that the Deity is one numerical individual Nature Substance Mind Spirit with one only Understanding Will and Energy As to the Divine Persons they are the one individual Nature or Essence of God with three Relative Properties each Property consider'd with the Divine Essence is called a Person What these Properties and Persons are hath been said already The Bp. of Worcester seeing in what danger an old Friend is undertakes first to excuse Dr. Sherlock from the Imputation of Heresy and then to reconcile him to Dr. S th and the Nominals He inlarges himself on these three Points 1. That Dr. Sherlock's Explication not only will do no manner of Service towards clearing the Difficulties in the Doctrine of the Trinity but that it introduces a specifick Divine Nature which is inconsistent with the Divine Perfections Pref. p. 29. He adds at p. 30. 'T is impossible to conceive that the same individual Substance should be in three Persons as the Catholick Church teaches if those Persons have peculiar Substances of their own as Dr. Sherlock affirms and contends Immediately he cites an excellent Reasoning of Maimonides by which to know when Men affirm three Gods and concludes that Dr. Sherlock's Explication differs not from what Maimonides proves to be an introducing more Gods p. 30. He forbears not to own at p. 31. that he thinks it impossible to reconcile Dr. Sherlock's three individual Essences or Substances with the Catholick Churches one individual Divine Essence and that the former looks too like asserting three Gods and yet but one 2. But now how to save his Friend from the secular Arm He says in short Dr. Sherlock holds the Article of the Trinity and only mistakes in the Explication of it but it is not Heresy he saith when a Man assents to a Fundamental Article and only mistakes in the Explication Interpretation or Sense of it Pref. p. 22 23. But I fear our Brother S th is too quick-sighted to let this pass he will assuredly say that an Article whether fundamental or not fundamental and the Explication or Sense of such Article are the very same thing and that an Article falsly interpreted or explained is by no means the Article but a Contradiction to the Article He will certainly laugh out that his Antagonists can be no way excused from Heresy but by giving up at once the whole Doctrine of the Catholick Church For the Doctrine of the Church is most certainly yielded up if once it be granted that a Man believes her Articles while he expounds or takes them in a wrong Sense of them At this rate will he say Philoponus Joachim and Gentilis were good Catholicks for what makes a Catholick is not holding the Article in the true Meaning of it but in any Meaning in a false Meaning or a contrary Meaning I shall leave Dr. S th to argue it out with the Bp. and pass to the next 3. He alledges last of all that tho Dr. Sherlock affirms three individual Essences three eternal Minds three infinite Spirits which is Heresy yet he also says the Father communicated his Divine Nature or Essence wholly and intirely to the Son
his Lordship confesses that D. Petavius and H. Valesius the exactest Criticks we have in Church History disapprove the Conjecture and Reasons of Cardinal Baronius and give up Lucian to the Unitaries This is all that is considerable that his Lordship has offer'd from Antiquity I proceed to Scripture and Reason HIS 8th and 10th Chapters are imployed in opposing and as he thinks in exposing and ridiculing some Interpretations of a few Texts of Scripture by the Unitarians and in attacking a few Paragraphs in Mr. Toland's Book Christianity not mysterious I know not what it was to his Lordship's Purpose to fall upon Mr. Toland's Book But if he would needs attack the Book he should have dealt fairly he should have discussed the main Argument in it and not carpt only at a few Passages and those too so mangled and deformed by his Representation of them that I dare to affirm Mr. Toland does not know his own Book in the Bishop's Representation of it I do not perceive to speak truly but that the Book still stands in its full Strength if it hath not also acquired a farther Reputation by occasion of this so unsuccessful nibling at it But suppose the Bishop had disarmed the Gentleman what is that to us do we offer this Book against the Trinity of the Realists was it written with intention to serve us doth it contain any of our Allegations from Reason against the Trinity of Philaponus Joachim and Gentitis We desire him to answer to the Reasons in our Books against the Trinity of the Tritheists but to these he saith not a Word but only falls upon Mr. Toland's Book in which or for which we are not in the least concerned nor do I think the Learned and Ingenious Author will hold himself to be interested to defend that Christianity not mysterious which his Lordship presents us with As to his Exceptions against some Interpretations of Scripture which he finds in some Books of the Unitarians we should have enough to do if we went to the Press to vindicate what has been already so well establisht every time that an angry Litigant is in a humour to write against us His Lordship had a Mind to shew his superiour Learning and Wit and casting the Dice to determine what Subject he should choose up comes the Trinity and the Books of the Unitarians upon these he will gain immortal Honour We wish him Luck but not being at leisure to wipe off every small Soil that may happen to be scattered on our Books our Opposers may safely for us enjoy their Victories We care not for Proselytes that have no manner of Sense and for Persons that have any we dare trust them with whatsoever Vindications we have yet seen we only desire them to read our Arguments whether from Reason or Scripture as they stand in our own Books not as they are disguised in Vindications The Exempts of the Church who are discharged from the mean Drudgery of Preaching the Gospel and are concerned only in the noble Imployment of Commanding how easy is it for them to come out now and then with a magisterial Book seeing whether 't is home to the Purpose or not is solely at the Buyer's Peril In short if his Lordship has baffled the Interpretations of the Unitarians against which he has concerned himself in the Opinion of any Reader he shall for me enjoy his Success for my part I am enough perswaded without further arguing the Matter that he has spent his Breath against a Rock His Lordship's Explication of the Trinity AFter his Lordship has taken so much Pains to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity let us see what kind of Trinity he believes and contends for For Mr. Biddle also wrote a Book for the Trinity his Lordship's Title bears A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity but Mr. Biddle far more speciously and zealously The Apostolical Opinion of the Holy Trinity asserted Ay but his Lordship's Trinity is the Athanasian Trinity he has a whole Chapter in Vindication and Explication of the Creed of Athanasius Well but Father Wallis too published a Book intituled An Explication and Vindication of the Creed of Athanasius They both of them interpret the Athanasian Creed and then believe it that is believe it according to their own Sense of it And so do we that is we believe it according to the Sense they make of it But his Lordship believes and contends for that Trinity which the Unitarians deny and oppose I 'll give thee my Cap then what Proof do you make of his believing that Trinity which we deny Why he has wrote two whole Books against you one concerning the Satisfaction the other concerning the Trinity But my Brother S th also wrote two bigger Books in both which he blames and quarrels the Unitarians as abominable Hereticks and yet we so little think that we have any real Difference with him that we intend him an eminent Place in the Company of Vnitarians at our next General Assembly His Lordship has a whole Chapter 't is that remarkable Chap. 6. beginning at pag. 68. and ending at p. 101. the longest or one of the longest in his Book to state the Notion of the Trinity and to vindicate it from Contradictions He begins with observing 1. We must distinguish between the Being of a thing and a thing in Being Or between Essence and Existence 2. Between the Unity of Nature or Essence and of Existence or Individuals of the same Nature 3. Between the Notion of Persons in a finite Substance and in a Being uncapable of Division or Separation After he has spoken first of the first he comes to say 2. We must now distinguish the Unity which belongs to the common Nature from that which belongs to Individuals in actual Being And farther the Unity of Existence may be consider'd 1. Either where the Essence and the Existence are the same as they are in God 2. Or where the Existence is contingent as in Creatures Moreover the Unity of Existence may be considered 1st Either as to it self and so it is Identity 2dly Or as to others that is as every one stands divided from every other Individual of the same kind altho they all partake of the same common Nature or Essence The clearing of this he adds is that main Point on which the whole Notion of these Matters depends so in order thereto we must consider 1. What that is whereby we perceive the Difference of Individuals 2. What that is which really makes two Beings of the same kind to be different from each other 1. As to the Reason of our Perception of the Difference between Individuals of the same kind it depends 1st On the Difference of outward Accidents Feature Age Meen Habit c. 2dly On the Difference of inward Qualities which we may perceive by Observation and which arise from Constitution Education Company acquired Habits c. 2. As to the true Ground of the real Difference between the
Practice concur with the Catholick Church It is too loosly said that there is no spiritual Blessing conferred in the use of the Sacraments For there is no Ordinance of God but the serious and devout Performance of it draws a Blessing on the Doer For all that many exceed in ascribing to the Sacraments certain Powers and Energies without competent Warrant from the Word of God I do not know that Baptism is any thing more than a federal Rite by which we are initiated into the Christian Religion or the Holy Supper any thing more than a Commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ offering himself to God as an Atonement for repenting Sinners I know not to what purpose so many superstitious Books are written to teach People how to prepare themselves for the Memorial Supper when an honest Intention and a reverent Performance are sufficient both Preparations and Qualifications for and in all Gospel-Ordinances The Apostle says He that eateth that Bread unworthily or unworthily drinketh that Cup is guilty of the Blood of Christ nay eateth and drinketh Judgment to himself But he also warns 'em what he means by unworthy Partaking namely their not tarrying for one another and withal eating and drinking with so little regard either to God or Men that some of 'em made themselves drunk with the Sacramental Wine while others could not so much as taste of it Briefly their assembling to this solemn Commemorative Sacrifice was more like a Carousal than a Celebration of the Holy and Blessed Memory of a dying Saviour These were the Disorders and Irregularities concerning which they were to examine themselves and thereby avoid an unworthy Communicating and the Consequences of it We do not say Baptism is an useless Rite or that the Baptism of Children is altogether vain What the Wisdom of God has appointed to all Nations is not to be esteemed useless tho we our selves knew not the Uses of it and it is Use enough that this Sacrament is an initiating Rite Nor is it a good Exception against this Sacrament's being continued still that now People are Christians by Education seeing there is the same Reason for its Continuance as for its Institution namely a solemn publick and formal Initiation into the Religion of Jesus And this may in some sense be done in Infancy by the Intervention of Undertakers commonly called Godfathers and how it can be done without 'em I see not But it is without all reason that Parents should not be admitted to be Undertakers when others cannot or cannot easily be had It were well methinks if the Minister and Church-wardens together with the Parents were obliged to be Undertakers ex Officio or ratione Officii by their Place and Office and it were yet better if the whole Church undertook for the Infants Moreover where Infant-Baptism is the Custom of the Church Confirmation or the Person 's taking upon himself the Covenant and Promises that were made in his Name by his Undertakers ought to be as little neglected as Baptism nay the Person cannot be said to be a compleat Christian or to be Christianly baptiz'd till he is Confirmed that is has publickly taken upon himself his Baptismal Engagements Lastly As to that I believe there is no distinct Function or Office of Ministers and the very Lord's-Supper may be administred by a private Christian I answer for my self and the many Unitarians there is a threefold Distinction of Church-Officers by themselves modestly called Ministers namely Bishops Presbyters call'd Priests and Deacons The former were of Divine Right the other of Apostolical Institution only and that too as appears from Acts 6.3 4. not by any particular Inspiration but meerly on Motives of Prudence and Charity These three Orders are of that Antiquity and Universality that as soon as and where-ever Christianity was professed the Churches were governed after this Form A Form received among all the Sects of Christians as well as by the sounder part of 'em called the Church till Mr. Calvin in a Case of Necessity introduced a new sort of Church-Administration These are they to whom only except in Case of Necessity such as the Reformation was it belongs to administer the Sacraments and to instruct and exhort publickly But what makes a Case of Necessity is a Question by it self on which I am not obliged to enter I wish the Church had not given and may never give cause to the Unitarians either by Exclusion or Persecution or unlawful Terms of Communion to have recourse to Mr. Calvin's Expedient XI As to Moral Points I believe that Officious Lies are lawful the Motions of Concupiscence not vitious idle or obscene Words Gluttony Drunkenness Riot Luxury and impure Desires and Lusts were not forbidden till Christ's time By Officious Lies are meant those Falsities that do good to some without doing any hurt to others As when the Hebrew Midwives made Pharaoh believe that the Hebrew Women were so quick that they were commonly deliver'd of their Children before the Midwife could come to them and therefore there was not Opportunity to strangle their Children as they came forth from the Womb. So also when David escaped from Saul by the Contrivance of his Wife Michal and Saul was therefore angry with his Daughter Michal She said David threatned to kill her if she did not agree to and assist his Escape And Jonathan excused the Absence of David by feigning that David had asked his leave to assist at the yearly Sacrifice made by his Family 1 Sam. 19.17 1 Sam. 20.6 28 29. Exod. 1.19 To Officious Lies belong also Compliments very low Bowings and respectful Carriage towards Persons for whom we really have not the Kindness or Regard of which we make show by those external and false Significations I think it may excuse Volkelius whom Mr. Edwards cites upon this part of his Charge that the Officious Lies of the Midwives of Michal and Jonathan are related in Scripture without blaming them they are not censured by the Inspired Writers they are told by the Prophets Moses and Samuel without the least Signification that they were Sins Volkelius might infer from hence that the Texts which forbid Lying and Falseness are intended of such Lying as is hurtful and prejudicial to another and that what does no hurt can be the Subject of no Law To forbid what helps some even to the saving of Life or Goods without any wrong or hurt to another why should any Lawgiver forbid it Notwithstanding I think Mr. Edwards says well If once such Doctrine is commonly taught all Lies will be reckoned some way or other Officious and Truth and Sincerity will be banisht from the Earth The Motions of Concupiscence are not vitious or sinful By Concupiscence is meant some unlawful Desire or Inclination arising in the Mind but not consented to or put into practice Methinks so far forth as such Motions in the Mind are involuntary they should rather be called Frailties than Sins and the disapproving and resisting them
one Divine Person they mean but one intelligent Being But when his Lordship adds the Divine Persons are not distinct Beings nor such Persons as we commonly mean when we use the word Persons it is evident that his writing against the Unitarians was a mere Act of Zeal He is now got considerably into the Interests of the Church and that it may appear to the Men of little Faith that he is a Bishop in Heart as well as in Name therefore he attacks in one Book all the Church's Enemies without staying to be informed whether they are Enemies indeed either to the Church or to himself Let us take another Paragraph out of the before-cited Discourse to the Clergy which will farther evince his Lordship's Syncretism with the Unitarians Pag. 98 99. The Fathers in divers Places so express themselves concerning the same Substance or Essence as if they meant the same Being in a general Sense even as all human Souls are of the same Substance that is are the same Order or sort of Creatures And they the Fathers seem to intitle the Divine Persons to different Operations not only in the Oeconomical way but so that one of them does that which the other does not This indeed was easily apprehended but it seemed directly to assert three Gods which is very contrary to the most express Declarations of the Old and New Testaments in which the Unity of God is so often held forth that others took another way of explaining the Trinity viz. by making their Foundation that the Deity is one numerical Being These latter observed that the Sun besides his own Globe had an Emanation of Heat and another of Light which have different Operations and all from the same Essence Also that the Soul of Man hath Intellection and Love which flow from its Essence So they conceived that the primary Act of the Divine Essence was its Wisdom by which it saw all things and in which as in an inward WORD it designed all things this they thought might be called the Son as being the Generation of the eternal Mind While from that Fountain-Principle eternal Mind together with this inward WORD or Wisdom there did arise a Love that was to issue forth and was to be the Soul of the Creation but more especially to animate the Church This was rested on and was afterwards dressed up with a great deal of dark Nicety by the Schools nay it grew to be the universally-received Opinion Is this he that writes against the Unitarians and has no better Compliments for 'em but irreligious profligate Villains The World knows what the Doctrine of the Unitarians is namely that the Deity is one numerical Being one Substance not as some of the Fathers who are therefore blamed by his Lordship said one Substance only in a general Sense but in Number with one only Understanding Will and Power of Action and this is what they call one Person they deny the Deity to be three Persons in no other Sense but of three numerical intelligent Substances What now does his Lordship say Why that some of the Fathers indeed thought otherwise they took the Deity to be three such Persons that they are three spiritual intelligent Substances not indeed for sort or kind but in Number three distinct Beings that have different Operations but saith his Lordship 't is contrary to the most express Declarations of the Old and New Testaments Again he saith the universally received Explanation of the Trinity and which is the Explication of the Divines of the Schools is that from eternal Mind as a Fountain-Principle have proceeded Wisdom and Love Wisdom is the first Act of Mind and being as it were generated by Mind is therefore called the Son So that eternal original Mind the immanent Act of Wisdom generated thereby and the issuing forth or Spiration of Divine Love are by his Lordship's express Confession what the Divines of the Schools after St. Austin and other Fathers have called the Trinity of Divine Persons or Father Son and Holy Spirit Nay this is the universally-received Explication of the Trinity But did the irreligious Villains ever oppose this Trinity universally as his Lordship says received Do they deny eternal original Mind the everlasting immanent Act of Wisdom generated by it or the perpetual Spiration of Divine Love proceeding from original Mind and the inward Logos or Wisdom He knows the contrary he knows we are Brethren for I hope that himself believes the universally-received Explication But then why are we out of his Favour why irreligious Villains against whom and their Doctrine 't is so necessary to caution and instruct the poor ignorant Clergy of the Diocess of Salisbury The Question I doubt cannot be answered but by saying here his fresh Episcopal Zeal for Holy Mother Church in the Interests of which he is got to be a considerable Part was by much too forward As Dr. Wallis who is a Socinian and an half could publish I know not how many Letters and Sermons against the Socinians aspersing also in the most bitter and false manner the very Person of his Patriarch Socinus So his Lordship not expecting to be rightly informed of their Doctrine and Opinions calls those irreligious Villains who hold and maintain the universally-received Explication and professes to take it as the very heaviest of all Imputations when the Considerer said in Terms of Respect the Vnitarians submit to his Lordship's Doctrine Methinks no Man ever had less Occasion given him to answer so unhandsomly I had almost said inhumanly as his Lordship has done It is easy to see in the Air and Spirit of his Writing that the Considerer had he not affected the contrary could have chose such Expressions and Terms concerning his Lordship's Doctrine as should have wakened and drawn down upon him all the Enemies he has in the World The least of those many things that a Person so well versed in these Questions as the Considerer appears to be could have said the least and softest of his Imputations might have been this that his Lordship is not so Catholick or Orthodox in any of these depending Questions as the Unitarians are But let us go on On the Account given in the Letter of the Incarnation and Divinity of our Saviour COncerning the Trinity of Divine Persons his Lordship we have seen believes they are not compleat nor distinct Beings nor such Persons as are commonly meant when we use the term Persons we were best he saith to call them in general terms the three or the blessed three and thereby silence all Opposition and Dispute And for the term Son he intimates at p. 99. it doth not belong at all to any of the three but only to our Saviour as he was the Messias That is as he was the Man Jesus And hereby he says again all the Speculations concerning an eternal Generation are cut off This he says at p. 100. Agreeably to this as I said more than Vnitarian Doctrine for the Unitarians
measure I shall leave him and the Considerer to their Monsigneurisms and answer to the thing it self Whereas he says the Racovian Catechism denies the expiatory Virtue of the Sacrifice of Christ 't is so far from being true that this Catechism calls the Death and Oblation of Christ on the Cross Sacrificium piaculare an expiatory Sacrifice As for the first Writers of the Socinians whom also his Lordship accuses as denying that the Sacrifice of Christ was expiatory those first Writers he may please to know were the very Authors of the Racovian Catechism This Catechism which is an Abridgment and Defence of the Socinian Doctrine was first written by Smalcius and other first Writers and Preachers among the Socinians and has been improved by continual Additions till last of all it was published about 16 Years since by Benedict Wissowatius with the Annotations of all the most considerable Writers of the Socinian way But the Unitarians must needs be glad to hear his Lordship who so well understands the History of this Controversy refer us to Dr. Outram's Book as an applauded and generally-received Performance and containing the undoubted Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Sacrifice of Christ For the Explication of the Doctrine of the Satisfaction first hinted by Grotius in his Notes on his Books de Jure Belli Pacis and again on the New Testament and more fully explained by Ruarus and Sclichtingius in their Epistles I say the Explication of the Doctrine of the Satisfaction by these leading Unitarians is so plainly asserted and so fully vindicated by Dr. Outram that 't is good News that the Church of England as his Lordship and I believe very truly assures us doth not only universally receive but applaud it Dr. Outram was as much an Unitarian in the Doctrine of the Trinity the Incarnation and the Satisfaction as the Compilers of the Racovian Catechism but to establish his Doctrine he saw it was necessary to set it on another Foundation and to express it in other Terms than Socinus and Crellius had done He no more believed that the Oblation of the Lord Christ on the Cross was an adequate Satisfaction to God's Justice for the Sins of Men than even Socinus or Crellius did Tho he contends that the Lord Christ underwent poenam vicariam i. e. a Punishment in our stead which Expression as it is intended by the more rigid Calvinists was disliked and opposed by Socinus and Crellius yet it never enter'd into his mind that Christ so suffered in our stead as to be consider'd by God as having our Guilt or as undergoing a Punishment equivalent thereto On which two Points and not on the Words in our stead as his Lordship imagines our whole Controversy with some others especially the Calvinist Writers turns In short his Lordship Dr. Outram and other Catholick Writers who approve not the Notions of some School-Divines and some rigid Calvinists believe neither more nor less concerning the Sacrifice by the Lord Christ than the Men of the Racovian way do All these alike consider our Saviour as well in the Sufferings of his whole Life and in his extraordinary Agonies in the Garden as in his Passion on the Cross as suffering for us and in our stead his Life and Death had both of 'em the expiatory Virtue which his Lordship thinks the Unitarians deny of both And all these no less agree against some Calvinists and divers Metaphysicians who follow the Schools that the Oblation made by Christ was not an adequate Satisfaction to God's Justice it was rather an Application to his Mercy They agree he did not so suffer in our stead as to take on him our Guilt or to undergo a Punishment equivalent to our Sins no nor to undergo Punishment properly so called but only in a popular Sense of the Word Punishment For Punishment properly so called is the Evil of Suffering inflicted on a guilty Person for the evil of doing but the Lord Christ having done no Evil nor being in any Sense a guilty Person he cannot properly be said to be punisht but to suffer And for the Suffering in our stead this also is rather tolerable and passable than proper but it may be well admitted in this Sense which is the Sense of the Catholick Church viz. that If the Lord Christ had not suffered we the actual Offenders should have been punisht Briefly his Lordship has imagin'd a Controversy where there is really none and while he is a Catholick he must continue an Unitarian In Answer to the Four Letters by Mr. H. De Luzancy To the Publisher SIR I Have read the 4 Letters of Mr. De Luzancy against the Unitarians and as you desire will make some Answer to them His Preface makes two Attacks telling them 1. The Consent of the whole Christian World must be a strong Inducement to a modest Unitarian to mistrust all his Arguments To oppose all that has been or is great and good in the Church of God is too much for the most presuming Disputant The Case then as Mr. L. states it is one side has Argument the other has Authority or Number The Side or Party that has nothing but Argument ought not to presume on their Reasons against the Authority of the whole World or as he corrects himself upon second Thoughts all that is great and good in the Church If Mr. L. has no better way of deciding these Controversies how do I fear they will never be ended The Unitarians will surely deny that all the Christian World or so much as all that is great and good in the Church is against them they will pretend that themselves are a part of the Christian World and for great and good they need not to say it of themselves the Ablest of their great and good Opposers have often said it of them They will say farther that in a Clash between Argument and Number the whole World and all that is great in it when weighed against but one Argument is as if you had put nothing at all into the Scale they will certainly abide by it that Argument can be repelled by nothing but Argument as Diamonds are cut only by Diamonds I advise Mr. L. who urges against us all the World to consider a little of this Passage which he will find in a Treatise in the 2d Tome of the Works of Athanasius They are to be pitied who judg of a Doctrine by the numbers of those who profess it Phineas Lot Noah St. Stephen had the Multitude against 'em yet what honest Man would not rather be of their side than of the World's When you object to me Multitude you do but show the great extent of Wickedness and the great number of the Miserable 2. His next Blow is that Faith and Reason are two things what is the Object of Faith cannot be the Object of Reason Nor is it sufferable to reject the Belief of the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation because our narrow
The Pains therefore he has taken in this long sixth Chapter which was designed for the Strength of his whole Book are lost and he has all things to begin anew You will say Have we done then with our explaining and vindicating the Trinity No Sir When his Lordship had wrote his Book and upon a Review of it perceived that he had not sufficiently no nor tolerably explained his Notion of the Trinity nor yet what is meant either by Persons or Personalities which must be explained and distinguished or we shall dispute about we know not what and with we know not whom I say his Lordship perceiving his Oversight wrote a Preface of 62 Pages chiefly to declare himself upon and to clear these Matters I will lay together what he hath said up and down in his Preface which I may rightly call his Book upon second Thoughts The Trinity in Unity is one individual Substance under three different Modes of Subsistence p. 13. Or 't is three peculiar Properties in one and the same Divine Nature p. 14. But more particularly as to Personality and Person A Personality is no more but a different Mode of Subsistence in the same common Nature p. 14. In created Beings every Personality doth suppose a distinct Substance But not from the Nature of Personality but from the Condition of the Subject or Substance in which it is p. 15. But I do not advise him to explain too particularly the latter part of this Theorem lest the Realists should turn it into Ridicule 't is a very obnoxious Proposition But when we come to consider a Divine Essence there can be no way of Distinction conceived in it but by different Modes of Subsistence or what is the same relative Properties in the same Divine Essence p. 16. In short then a Personality is only a particular Mode of Subsistence and in the Divine Nature Essence or Substance 't is most properly called a relative Property For instance Paternity or active Generation Filiation or passive Generation or begotten So much for Madam PERSONALITY now for Sir PERSON The Notion of a Person besides the relative Property comprizes the Divine Nature together with it p. 17. And again in his Book at p. 119. They agreed in the name Persons to express their Meaning which was That there are three which have distinct Subsistences and incommunicable Properties but one and the same Divine Essence You are to wot here Sir that by the Divine Nature or Divine Essence they mean the Deity it self that is the Divine Substance with its several Attributes Omniscience Omnipotence infinite Justice and Goodness and the rest These namely the Divine Substance and Attributes are called the Divine Nature or Essence and because herein are three relative Properties unbegotten begotten a proceeding therefore each of these Properties when consider'd with the Divine Essence and Attributes is called a Person But here his Lordship is in bodily Fear lest this Explication of the Trinity or three Divine Persons should be taken for Sabellianism and therefore be understood to be an entire yielding the Cause to the Unitarians The Men from whom he fears this Imputation are the Realist Party chiefly Dr. Cudworth who saith of this Explication that it is the Philosophy of Gotham a nominal Trinity and three such Persons as cannot be in Nature But see now how dexterously his Lordship comes off It is not Sabellianism to teach that every Divine Person is a Person as he hath the Divine Nature Essence or Substance belonging to him For Sabellianism is the asserting such relative Persons as have no Essence at all p. 18 19. So that if the Unitarians do but confess that the three Properties unbegotten begotten and proceeding which are here called RELATIVE PERSONS subsist or are in the Divine Essence or Nature they are not Sabellians but Catholicks they should be Sabellians if they said these Properties are in no Essence at all But I think they must be called Fools as well as Sabellians if they asserted relative Properties or any Properties that were in no Essence I perceive his Lordship and we shall agree But let us hear also how he goes on Farthermore it is to be noted that there is a Communication of the Divine Essence to each Divine Person p. 19. For each Divine Person has an absolute Nature distinctly belonging to him tho not a distinct absolute Nature p. 9. The eternal Father is and subsists as a Father by having a Son and by communicating his Essence to another The Relation between Father and Son is founded on that eternal Act by which the Father communicates his Divine Nature Essence or Substance to the Son p. 10. Lastly he adds at p. 112. of his Book The Divine Persons are distinct as to personal Properties he means the Father is unbegotten the Son begotten the Holy Spirit neither begetting nor begotten but proceeding but they are not distinct as to essential Attributes i. e. they have not distinct Omnisciencies or Omnipotencies they have but one Intellect and one Energy You will say Sir this last is very sound that unbegotten begotten and proceeding are distinct Properties in the Divine Essence and that there is but one Omniscience and Omnipotence but one Omniscient and Omnipotent not three Omniscients or three Omnipotents But may there not be a Snake in the Grass in what is said that there is a Communication of the Divine Essence and that the Father by an immanent and eternal Act communicates his Divine Nature to the Son By no Means for you shall hear from the Bishop of Sarum and the Divines of the Schools nay for greater Surety and Caution from Dean Sherlock and the Fathers what that eternal Act is by which the Father communicates the Divine Essence to the Son and both of them to the Spirit as also what is meant by Father Son and Spirit nothing I assure you that any Unitarian ever questioned but what we believe as sincerely as Bishops and Deans do I pray Sir observe we are inquiring what is the eternal Act by which the Divine Essence is communicated to the Divine Persons and what those Persons are Let us first hear Dr. Sherlock who saith he hath all the Fathers of his side He affirms 1. It is essential to an eternal Mind to know it self and to love it self 2. Original Mind or Wisdom or Knowledg of it self and Love of it self and of its own Image are distinct Acts and can never be one Act. 3. These three Acts being so distinct that they can never be the same must be three substantial Acts in God that is the three Divine subsisting Persons 4. These then are the true and proper Characters of the distinct Persons in the Trinity the Father is Original Mind or Wisdom The Son is the reflex Knowledg of himself namely of Original Mind or the perfect Image of his own Wisdom that is of the Wisdom of Original Mind The Holy Spirit is that Divine Love which Father and Son have for