vital Sensation Now Sensation will take in Seeing as well as Feeling and then Mutual Consciousness if he keeps to the letter will be Knowing each other in themselves In short Seeing Feeling Knowing each other in themselves are Forms of expressing which he uses promiscuously not very Orthodox indeed but there is no Heretical Sense under them no Sense at all that I know of but as he complements Dr. S th they are Gipsy-Cant Hold I cry him Mercy for Gipsies understand one another's Gibberish His not very Orthodox Expressions may perhaps be better call'd Rosy-crucian Cant for that mysterious Order of Philosophers are the only Persons that I know of besides our gross Tritheists who use Words without any intelligible meaning Mutual Consciousness is really nothing but a shamesul Instance of the Dean's Faculty in putting impossible Cases which it were not difficult to expose but his way is to ease his Adversary of that Labour and do it himself His Self-Consciousness refutes his Mutual Consciousness i.e. if he has desin'd them aright for how should he that by Self-Consciousness feels himself to be himself by Mutual-Consciousness feel himself to be some Body else It is true an intelligible Sense of these words may be given As thus I am conscious to my self of what I think say or do and what is known to me and my Friend of that we two are mutually conscious But the Dean never understands words in their proper and natural signification is never contented till he has made them signify what no Body can understand nor he declare without talking backward and forward so shamefully that were it not for fear of his Vindictive Spirit every Man would do as Dr. S th has done i. e. show him his Picture I had almost said his living and substantial Image But he is sure that Mr. H w can never form any Notion of the Union of Spiritual Essences without Mutual Consciousness It must be his Prejudice then that hinders him for Spiritual Essences may be united by Consent but that 's not the Union he intends he intends an Essential Union and that 's an Essential Contradiction and Substantial Nonsense The Dean fairly recounts that Mr. H w represents the Unity of the Godhead by the Union of Soul and Body which make one Man and by the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature which are said to make one Christ Now he criticises and affirms these to be Personal Unions meaning Unions of divers things which make one Person but cannot be the Unity of the Godhead in which there is a Trinity of distinct Persons I know no inconvenience of allowing according to common Acceptation that Soul and Body make up one thing call'd Man nor know I what Mr. H w can get by it for neither of the two singly is Man or if each of them singly is so together they must make up a double Man Which was the Fancy of the silly Indian in John Dreyden's Play I kill'd a double Man the one half lay Vpon the Ground the other ran away But the Dean rejects these Unions he says because they are not the Unions of distinct Persons But that is not fair for he himself has confess'd once and again that there is nothing in Nature like Three Persons in One Godhead And I must take leave to tell him that if there were Mr. H w is as like to find it as he But since there is not they must e'en both be content with such faint Resemblances as they can get As for the Union of two Natures I have a better Reason for rejecting than the Dean by much it is building Mystery upon Mystery and proving one Dream by the help of another Mr. H w's Unity of the Godhead is such and no other than the Dean speaks it such an Union of Three Spiritual Beings and Individual Natures as together which is fairly call'd by Composition constitute the Godhead Against this Notion he says some things weakly those the Letter takes notice of and perhaps I may also spend my Verdict on them there other things he says well and with sound Reason but in them he is most unlucky for instead of Three Spiritual Beings Three Individual Natures read Three Minds or Persons and his Arguments conclude equally against his own Hypothesis In short what he says well comes to this If all Three are but One God then not any One by himself is that One God and this he says Mr. H w has own'd p. 47. and I think his words come near it which are these When you predicate Godhead of any One of the Persons you express an inadequate Conception of God But to prove himself a sounder Trinitarian he says that he owns and that none are Orthodox Christians but they who own so too that the Father has the whole entire Divinity in himself that the same subsists in the Son the same in the Holy Ghost that each by himself in the most proper adequate Conception is true and perfect God tho all Three are but One and the same God which does plainly and undeniably prove that the Dean and all his Orthodox Christians do believe that the Father Son and Holy Ghost are One and Three in one and the same respect For that Godhead which by them is predicated of every of the Three separately that very Godhead is predicated of the whole Three conjunctly The Dean says that Mr. H w's Notion of the Unity of the Godhead is such that neither the Scriptures nor the Antient Church know any thing of it I am of the Mind that the Scriptures know as much of the Hypothesis of one of them as of that of the other and as for the Antient Church who can tell what he means by it the Fathers beyond the acknowledg'd Rules of good Life neither agree with one another nor any one with himself but I guess his Antient Church to be made up of those particular Doctors whom he judges to have talk'd his Way though I won't sware but they may have drop'd a word or two in favour of Mr. H w's Divine Composition Where any late Socinian Writers have declar'd themselves willing to compound this Dispute of a Trinity of Divine Persons for the Three Attributes of Power Wisdom and Goodness I know not I beg the Dean's pardon if I wrong him when I believe he wrongs them for I observe that they have noted that there are other as essential Attributes of God as the Three mention'd viz. Truth and Justice and so the Mystery will consist of five Parts and that is two more than it did when it had two too-many And then if any of the Trinitarians make but an Attribute of the H. Ghost yet they all do and must allow Jesus Christ to be a Person and they all do affirm him to be one and the same God with the Father which I am very sure the Socinians will by no means agree to Indeed when the Trinitarians explain the Trinity by calling God as
when he has advanced foolish and inconsistent Notions shall easily reconcile himself to himself and make good that Conclusion which best sutes his present Purpose or when the worst comes to the worst puzzle the Cause save his Honour which is all he cares for and hide his Nonsense The Rules of that wonderful Book are said to be these The first Regula fiduciae or the Rule of Assurance This Rule directs him first in causa simplici as thus If the Importunity of Hereticks forces us to find Names for that to which nothing in Nature answers if they will not give us leave we must take leave to use such Names as we can find Def. p. 14. 2dly It impowers him to cut off the dangerous Horns of a merciless Dilemma with a Fore-stroak the one with a Back-stroak the other as thus If a sawcy Adversary charges him with Self-contradiction he tells him that it is impossible to know what a Contradiction is and when himself charges a Transubstantiating Blockhead with Self-contradiction then it is possible to know what a Contradiction is Vindic. of Trin. p. 4. His Second Rule is Regula consortii or the Rule of Company it may be call'd Regula recriminationis this Rule may have two Intentions both which he follows with this one Resolution not to be damn'd alone give him Company and it 's another thing Hence you have him frequently returning Railing for Railing and he can hardly forbear in open-words the base Language of grinning-Dog to Dr. S th Def. p. 39. He does give it him by Rhetorical Insinuation and when he has made his Adversaries Opinion appear as absurd as his own he thinks himself safe for why may not he have the luck to be thought in the Right when they that oppose him cannot mend the Matter Thus when Dr. S th tells him that Three distinct Minds are Three distinct Substances he replies that according to the received Definition of a Person which is Substantia individua naturae rationatis Three Persons are Three distinct Substances and let the Doctor bring off Three Persons he will do as much for Three Minds Def. p. 89. And thus he disputes and is too hard for all that own the Athanasian-Creed and explain the Mystery otherwise than he does If saith he every distinct Person in the Trinity be not a distinct infinite eternal Mind there 's an end of the Dean's Notion but then there will be an end of a Trinity of Divine Persons also and we shall have nothing left but a Trinity of Modes Postures Names Def. p. 8. His Third Rule is Regula personae or the Rule of Disguise By this Rule he winds and turns things as he pleases shows how things are true and how false and how neither true nor false For example when he had never a good material Image of the Trinity nothing but a faint Resemblance or two of it he says that the proper and natural Signification of Words cannot reach the Mystery a Theological Use of words perhaps may represent it Def. p. 13. and to prove the Trinity they must be forc'd to use improper Words in unnatural Significations for says he the Names of Distinction in ordinary use not only distinguish but divide and separate their Subjects but in the Trinity the word Person is us'd in the Sense of Distinction and not of Separation i. e. in a sensless Sense in a Sense whereof we have no Idea in an impossible Sense or to speak fully in the Dean's Sense A Trinunity in the proper Signification of Words is a Figment in the improper an Article of Faith But now for un ' coup Maltre to disguise all perhaps 't is nor Figment nor Article of Faith for in his Vindicat. of the Trinit p. 4. he confesses that he neither understands nor comprehends the thing whereof he speaks and if he don't no Body else does that 's certain so then 't is to no purpose to dispute the Controversy but 't is direct madness to fault his Explication His Fourth Rule is Regula Meiosios or the Rule of Extenuation and lessening the Matter when it looks gross and like an overgrown Monster Thus he pleads that his new Divinity may not disgust his Reader Custom indeed has not made the Form of his Expressions Orthodox but they have no Heretical Sense in them Again Tho the living Image is the same Man with the Prototype yet 't is no mortal Sin against Logic and common Sense to say that a Man and his living Image are two distinct Men. Def. p. 31. His Fifth Rule is Regula Suppositorum or the Rule of putting Cases not such as the Gentlemen of the Timple put which have happen'd and may do so again but of putting Cases which never did never can happen This is a singular Rule and of infinite use for let him coin a Notion like which there is nothing in all Nature such as the natural Unity of mutual Consciousness why 't is but supposing an impossible Case and the airy Notion is as easily convey'd to your Mind as you could wish Def. p. 33. O the wonderful Virtue of an impossible Case suppos'd to convey the true meaning of an incomprehensible Mystery to the Mind of a Man Again thus He supposes a Man with a living substantial perfect Image of himself which living substantial perfect Image of himself is but the very same Man as himself tho sometimes perhaps they may be two Men i. e. when they don't agree Dif p. 31. Once more He supposes a Beast to be a Person not that he thought the Expression proper but only by way of Allusion and Accommodation the better to represent the Union of Two Natures into One Person which are Two Persons or something as like Two Persons as their Natures will permit them when they subsist apart Def. p. 46. What if I should put an idle Case Had I this Man's Deanery could not I talk as wisely His Sixth Rule is Regula Tenebrarum or the Rule of darkning the Matter Thus having often granted that the whole Divine Essence was in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Ghost to prevent the Consequence that then there are Three Divine Essences he carefully distinguishes and tells his Reader that the whole Divine Essence subsists thrice not by multiplying but by repeating it self There 's a Vail thrown over the Matter now and where 's the Man that has that Eagle's or Epidaurian Serpent's Eye as to pierce through it But after all I could wish that he had forbore this Distinction for hence may arise a knotty Question which may give Posterity much trouble viz. Whether a Sinner that repeats his Injustice Intemperance and Lying may be said to multiply his Iniquities or whether all is but one Fault subsisting often by frequent repetition He has many darkning Dictinctions some in common with his Trinitarian Friends and Enemies such as Creation Generation Procession other peculiar to himself such as 't is one thing to consider a Person
Goodness prepar'd his way to make a natural Trinity in Unity of them In truth any Man might have guess'd so as well as the Dean But the Enquirer tells us his Discourse was never intended to terminate in such a Trinity tho it seems plausible or not absurd It is a great Fall from possible to not absurd and then that it only seems not absurd is another great Fall Why did Mr. H concern himself with such an Hypothesis an Hypothesis of so ill a Nature Why he did it to disentangle Mens Minds from an apprehended necessity of conceiving the Three Attributes to be One and the same Thing A Proposition that only seems only not absurd is no very fine Argument to disentangle Mens Minds from Error but to let that pass who are they that apprehend a Necessity of conceiving the Three Attributes to be One and the same Thing Not the Unitarians he knows it none that ever wrote for he challenges the Dean to name that Writer that does not distinguish them at least ratione ratiocinatâ in contradistinction to ratiocinate let him no more than preface his Discourse with this natural Trinity in Unity unless he designs to disentangle the Dean's Mind with it and if so let him make his best on 't Upon his Success I will promise him Egregiam laudem magnum memorabile nomen He cannot get much more by freeing the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Difficulties in which it is entangled P. 26. Mr. H w teaches that the Son is from the Father by necessary eternal Promanation the Holy Spirit from Father and Son and that the Three most celebrated Attributes though I know not why Truth and Justice should not be celebrated as much as they are necessary Emanations con-natural to their Original Now all this must be taken in the unnatural improper theological Meaning of the Words which what it is none but the Sons of Art know and 't is against their Rule to make it common But from the proper natural Meaning of the Words the Wit of Man cannot make out an intelligible agreeable Proposition If Mr. H. thinks otherwise let him try and define what Promanation is what Emanation what Procession c. if he has any Idea in his Mind of what those Words signify he may desine them if he has no such Idea then let him confess himself beholding to the Dean who teaches a puzzled Trinitarian to rest his Terms upon a Theological Bottom But methinks the People are very hardly us'd when they are requir'd to believe Mysteries which will endure no Explanation but in Words that are to be taken in a Sense which neither they can find out nor will their Teachers tell them But I recal my self I think the People are not put to such hard Terms of Communion but Preachers only nay whether they are or no I am not positively certain for Assent and Consint may be as well interpreted cum grano salis in this Matter as it is generally in some other and as for the damnatory Clause at the End of one odd Creed very few are of that strong Stomach and Unchristian Temper as not to be sick and asham'd of it In the three next Leaves I meet with nothing but barbarous Stuff about Composition between the two Antagonists On which all I shall note is that the Dean puts a word or two out of joint which is no great matter in such a perplext Dispute and Mr. H. falls upon that and thence takes occasion to overlook the Intention and Force of his Adversary's Argument Mr. H. p. 33. brings in the Dean disputing against the Hypothesis of Three distinct Essences Natures Minds Spirits necessarily and eternally united in the Divine Being after this manner God is eternal and unmade but whatever has Three such Essences in it must have a Maker Mr. H. is the less concern'd for this Argument because it does the Dean's Business as well as his but concern'd for the Cause more than the Dean and therefore he will rub it off as well as he can and so he defies the Dean to prove that there is any Inconsistency between a Thing 's having Three distinct Essences naturally and necessarily united in it and its being eternal and unmade To this the Dean might answer whether consonant to his Hypothesis or no that troubles not me nor perhaps when he comes to answer will it affect him Be it granted that the Terms naturally and necessarily united are not inconsistent with those other eternal and unmade for Wisdom Power and Goodness I will add Justice and Truth are naturally and necessarily united in God and also eternal and unmade but then Three distinct Essences cannot be naturally and necessarily united and yet eternal and unmade because the Maker of all things is one Essence one single Essence and cannot possibly consist of Three distinct Essences which is Composition and that appears because the Three distinct Essences must either be suppos'd every of them God in an adequate Sense or only in an unadequate Sense Three distinct Essences each of which is God in an adequate Sense are without Contradiction Three Gods and Three distinct Essences two of which are God only in an inadequate Sense are in a just and true Sense less than God and what is less than God cannot be essentially united to him but does depend upon him and was made by him If there can be such Things as Three distinct Essences naturally and necessarily united they must then as the Dean said have a Maker and must differ in Union from what they were in Distinction as the Whole does from a Part or else must be one and three three and one in one and the same respect P. 34 and 35. Mr. H. strives not to understand the Dean which he ought not to do because the Dean is so oft not to be understood let who will strive to understand him but Mr. H. is to be excus'd because that which he is not willing to understand he is not able to answer In short all that I shall here offer is if Mr. H. determines that every of the Three Persons in his Trinity are adequately compleatly fully perfectly God then it is plain that his Trinity is a Trinity not of Persons only but of Gods also and if he determines that no one by himself but all Three together are perfect God then his Three Persons and Natures are no better nor worse but the Parts of a Composition as the Dean calls them and finite Parts as all things must be called whereof no one is perfect God will never make an infinite Composition which Truth though very obvious came not into my Mind till I read a Paper of that great Man's the Author of the Considerations P. 36. Mr. H. will not admit that the Three Persons are of a different Kind or Nature but that they differ only in Number that is as much as to say that they are all Three eternal which in terminis was too
the Writer suggests to us the Reason of that Appellation viz. the Dignity and Power bestowed on him by the Father For which reason also Moses Solomon and others are dignified with the same honourable Appellation Plainly told of Three that are each of them God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How hard a thing is it when a Man is engag'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to serve a Cause to make a Conscience of what he affirms We are indeed as he truly notes plainly told of Three and some things are spoken of each which cannot be truly spoken of all but this only proves that the Three cannot be essentially the same so that if any One of them be truly God the other two must be Creatures Mr. H is strangely rash to affirm that the Scripture plainly tells us of Three distinct Persons each of which is God for had that been true this Controversy had never been It is as Mr. H. judges easier to count Three than to determine of Infiniteness But then how bold is he to determine of the One as he does and how unlucky is he in counting the other for he determines that each of the Three distinct Persons are the Infinite God sometimes perhaps he uses abating Expressions and he counts God the Father God the Son God the Holy Ghost for One God The Dean had argued that if all Three Persons by Composition are but one God neither of them by himself is true and perfect God Which invidious Consequence he charges Mr. H to have own'd Mr. H replies that this is most untruly said and that for his part he denies both Antecedent and Consequent too If Mr. H can indulge himself to deny in one place what he has affirm'd in another he shall always have something to say for himself whatsoever is said against him but the Dean's Charge was honest for Calm Disc p. 47. Mr. H writes thus Father Son and Holy Spirit being suppos'd necessarily existent in this united State they cannot but be God Instead now of Composition put in the word together in the Dean's Argument and then surely Mr. H will not be so hardy as to deny the Antecedent and still the Consequence holds witness the good Man's next words When you predieate Godhead or the Name of God of any One of them you express an inadequate Conception of God And pray what is that but a half Conception of God a Conception short of what God is Indeed Mr. H did put in another Epither and with that his Phrase sounds thus A true but inadequate Conception But that is a Contradiction in Terms for a true Conception of a thing is an adequate full Conception of it and an inadequate Conception is not a true One What follows p. 41 and 42. is nothing but a sensless Stir concerning a Similitude of the Trinity which they both have us'd and both confess'd nothing to the purpose Mr. H says He brought the Union of Soul and Body not to illustrate Personal Union but Essential and yet his Business was to prove it possible that Three Persons might become one God So then by his Confession when he was to prove his Point he talk'd off from the Matter as many a fluent Orator has done that he might not lose but puzzle the Cause and so save it P. 42. Mr. H plays upon the Dean with scoffing Sarcasms But to his Argument returns nothing but plain dull Falshood or rather Theological Banter 1st He says that the Dean to make out something against him foists in a Supposition which never came into any Man's Head but a Socinian's and his own This is by a Rhetorical Hendiadis to call him a Socinian as if the Dean had wrote his Vindication of the Trinity to no purpose But herein Mr. H does him manifest wrong for on my Conscience he is no Socinian now whatever he may have been formerly But Mr. H has a Plaister for the Wound which that Imputation gives He said what he said if we will believe him contradistinguishing the Dean to the Socinians that so it might appear more strange that the Dean should foist in a Socinian Supposition Thus the Dean is excus'd from being a Socinian and to mend the Matter set out for a Man of no Conscience who being in truth an Anti-Socinian yet argues against Mr. H by virtue of a Socinian Supposition and that foisted in too Mr. H will not bate him a jot of being a Foister I see the Calm Enquirer is no Angel for he brings against the Dean a railing Accusation which is more than Michael did against the Devil a worse Creature than Dr. Sherlock by a great deal Come we now to the Supposition it self said to be foisted If God be a Person he can be but One. Now this Socinian Supposition or Argument or whatever it be does not look like a very unreasonable One and if the Dean should be ashamed of it because it is said to be Socinian he may for the same Reason be ashamed of the most unexceptionable things which he ever wrote But where 's the Foisting If Mr. H. did not say that God was a Person may not the Dean suppose it and argue from it Dares Mr. H. deny it Indeed he dares but with as empty metaphysical Pretence as can be imagin'd The Name of God says he is the Name of the Essence not the distinguishing Name of a Person This is perfect Theological Banter empty Words to which he cannot fix an intelligible Meaning But if Person signify an intelligent Being as both these Antagonists admit then the Essence and Person of God cannot be distinguish'd but are of the same Import then the Name of God is the Name of that Person or Intelligent Being which is God And if God be but one God then there is but one Person or Intelligent Being which is God Mr. H. pursues his Reasoning thus If Three Intelligent Natures be united in one Deity each will be Persons he should have said a Person and each will be God and all will be one God I grant it for Dato uno absurdo sequuntur mille Let me try my skill If Three Intelligent Natures may be united in One then Two may be so united and then the Dean will be Mr. H. and Mr. H. the Dean each will be a Trinitarian and both will be one Trinitarian The truth is nor Three nor Two Intelligent Natures can be united into One the same Intelligent Nature Nor can Mr. H. and the Dean be united into the same Man they come indeed close up to one another and are together by the Ears but they can never be united into One. Mr. H. thinks it makes for him tho I know not which way that he hath as Divines commonly do stil'd the Father Fons Trinitatis What is the Theological Sense of that Phrase I am not able to say the plain Sense is that a Trinity of Gods flow from the Father and Three and One makes Four unless some other Mystery forbid To
avoid the Dean's rallying his Hypothesis Mr. H. refers to what he has plainly said of the Order of Priority and Posteriority Calm Dis p. 48. But not a word has he there said more than that his Hypothesis preserves the Order of Priority and Posteriority not of Time but of Nature Priority and Posteriority with respect to Time or Dignity is intelligible but Priority of Nature is a bantering Theological Term incapable of Definition After this Mr. H. says several things pinching enough against the Dean but to save himself not a Syllable I am weary of censuring his weak Defence and mean to take notice of but one Error more but that is a notorious one P. 48. he says That necessity of Existence common to the Sacred Three will prove each of them to be God and the same belonging to the Three in the Order of Father Son and Holy Ghost i. e. in the Order of Nature before-mention'd proves them necessarily to be one God That necessity of Existence proves the necessarily existent Being to be God is most certain for that being which does necessarily exist has always existed And that Being which has always existed had its Being from no other From that Being which has its Being from no other all other Beings must have their Being with all the Powers and Faculties which relate to it So that the Self-existent Being must needs be God the Great Creator But now that necessary Existence can belong to Three distinct Beings let it be in what Order it will that 's utterly impossible for if Three distinct Beings exist necessarily then such Three have always existed If they have always existed they have done so with equal or unequal Power Of Three that exist with equal Power no one has Infinite Power Three whose Power is Finite have what they have from another Beings that have what they have from another do not necessarily exist Of Three that exist with unequal Power the two that have less than Infinite Power have what they have from another and therefore do not necessarily exist But if necessary Existence could belong to Three would that prove the Three to be but One Then Contraries shall prove one another and both Parts of a Contradiction be true at the same time If necessary Existence can prove Three distinct Beings to be but One it may as well prove One to be None But Mr. H. lays some stress upon Self-Existence's belonging to Three in the Order of Nature What is this Order of Nature that can work such a Miracle Let 's consider By belonging to the Three in the Order of Nature he must mean belonging to them altogether or belonging to them one after another or not belonging to them at all If he means belonging to them altogether then his Order of Nature is close Order and proves the Three are One because they share and share like in necessary Existence if he means belonging to them one after another then his Order of Nature is loose Order and proves that the Three are One because they take their Turns in possessing necessary Existence if he means not belonging to them at all then his Order of Nature is no Order which I guess is what it will come to and proves that the Three are One necessary Existent because no One of them does necessarily exist Not to take my leave abruptly of these Trinitarian Antagonists Mr. H. and Dean Sherlock two Learned Men but who are not content to know concerning God what plain Reason and clear Revelation tells them but prying further into his Nature pretend that they discover Three Minds Three Spirits the One of which is not the other Three Natures Three Essences distinct from one another I shall offer a Poetical Story They say that Pentheus having a Mind to discover the secret Rites of Bacchus got up into a high Tree which overlook'd the shady Vale where the mad Crew were sacrificing but they discover'd him and the angry God strook him with Madness Unhappy Pentheus's Madness was of that Sort that all things appear'd double to him he thought he saw two Suns and two Thebes so that as he was making towards the one of a sudden the other appear'd to him and oblig'd him to change his course towards that Thus poor deluded Man was he carried up and down to and fro but ne'r could recover his Town of Thebes A Learned and Noble Mythologist applies this instructive Fable to the Reproof of those Men who dream of Mysteries and by their admirable Skill in Philosophy nicely expound them Vain Philosophy is the tall Tree which they climb to pry into the Divine Nature sober Men note their Folly and despise them and God gives them up to the Delusions of their vain Minds while they distinguish between the Light of Nature and Divine Light and oppose them one against the other These are the two Suns and the two Thebes which draw them now one way now another and make them of uncertain Judgments always wavering Now this is their Hypothesis now that now they are confident of it and now they doubt now they mend it and by and by unmend it again Hine fit says my Author ut nesciant quo se vertant sed de summâ rerum incerti fluctuantes tantum subitis mentis impulsibus in singulis circumagantur FINIS BOOKS lately printed for the Vnitarians Brief History of the Unitarians in Four Letters Second Edition Defence of the Brief History against Dr. Sherlock The Acts of Athanasius with Notes on his Creed and Observations on Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the Blessed Trinity Some Thoughts on Dr. Sherlock's Vindication Impartial Account of the Word Mystery as it is taken in the Holy Scripture Letter of Resolution concerning the Trinity Two Letters touching the Trinity and Incarnation The Trinitarian Scheme of Religion with Notes thereupon which Notes contain also the Unitarian Scheme Observations on Four Letters of Dr. J. Wallis Accurate Examination of the principal Texts alledged for the Doctrines of the Divinity of our Saviour and the Satisfaction In answer to Mr. Milbourn Reflections on Two Discourses by Monsieur Lamoth concerning the Divinity of our Saviour Considerations on the Explications of the Trinity by Dr. Wallis Dr. Sherlock Dr. S th Dr. Cudworth and Mr. Hooker Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity Occasioned by Four Sermons preached by his Grace the Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury A Sermon preached by the Lord-Bishop of Worcester A Discourse by the Lord-Bishop of Salisbury A Sheet by a very Learned Hand containing Twenty eight Propositions A Treatise by an Eminent Dissenting Minister being A Calm Discourse concerning the Possibility of a Trinity And a Book in answer to the Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the Trinity