^..v •57%^ ^'^^^u*.. -^ m-'' ' ''^•-■ii»M, 3 / i:;^ OL 5::s i:^ «^^ i:a. ^:2^ OF THK AT PRINCETON, N. J. x» t> ::v -■%- T I c» >f OF- SAMUEL AGNEW, OF PniLADKLPHIA, PA. ^7L/V dZ Jc//^./^^^ |j Case, % Shelf f Section |) Book, N^v- - Division i © 9 0'^==s,a e<^^>Q <^ ^k. L FULL ANSWER T O A N E S S A Y on S P I R I T. WHEREIN' AH the Author's Objedions both Scriptural and Pbilofopbical, to the Dodrine of the Trinity ; his Opinions relating to the Uniformiiy of the Church ; his Criticifms upon the Athanafian and Nicene Creeds, &c. are examined and confuted. WITH A Particblar Explanation of the Hermetic^ Pythagorean^ 2ind Platomc Trinities. AND ^ A P R E F AC E, giving fome Account of an Author who publifhed in Defence of the EJfay, By W.^'J ONES, Reaor of Pluckley in Kent, and Author of the Catholic DoSlrine cf the Trini^. The Second Edition, improved and enlarged. LONDON, Printed for Robinson and Roberts, at No. 25, in Paternoi^er^ Rowj and M. FolincJsby, near Temple- Bar. MDGCLXX. ERRATA. For Pages ix. x. &c. of the Preface, read i, ii. &c. P. xir. of the Preface, line 5. iov fynonimous x. fynonytnous, P. xxiv. of the Preface, 1. 24. ior indulgencies r. Indulgences. Page 19. line 15. for reference^ to r. reference to. P. 30. 1. 17. for refpeSii or other , r. refpeSi or other. P. 35. 1. 6. for Arius, his life, i\ Ariius life. P. 56. 1. 13. £or fcriptures, there r. fcriptures there. P. 64. 1. 23. for Churches , for r. Churches for. P. 70. 1. 24. for conccffion, ^jjHI r. conceffion njotlL P. 80. 1. ao, 21. for HIH?^ r. ^^1K• ^* 9^' ^* ^* ^"^^ plantifque, fcecundat r. plantifque fcecundat. P. 99. 1. 24. for intelligencies r. intelligences. P. 110. 1. 8. for 0«»f;zi r. Vanini. P. 205. 1. 23, 24. for Gody and king r, God and king. P. 219. 1. 25. forwe/zovao* r. f)-y£f/,ovinov. P. 227. 1. 12. for efe<^ r. «#>^. P. 237. 1, i»z. for didli^cwifi r. zV yf defence of the Effay on Spirit ^ with remarks on the feveral pretended Anfwers -, and which r/iay ferve as an antidote againft all thatjhall ever appear againft it. — If the book itfelf ihould really be able to fupport fuch a Title-page, and be found anfwerable to the latter part of it, my labour can avail but little. I think, however, that I may be pretty fecure of its making any impreflion to my difadvantage, as the author of it, in the firft place, does not feem rightly to underftand the very fcope and defign of the piece he has un- dertaken to defend. He tells us, that the author of the Effaf% " whole book feems only intended, . not to en- " force any explanations of his own, but to ** fhew how ineffedual all attempts to explain «' this myftery (the dodrine of the Trinity) have " been hitherto \" Now, if he has enforced nQ b expla- * Defence, p. 5. explanations of his own, then it would be itn- poflible for me to extraft and produce them: but the fubftance of them, in Ihort, is as fol- lows : — The perfon of the Father^ only, is the one fupreme intelligent Agent : the Son^ and Holy Spirit are not really God, but called fo^ becaufe by an authority communicated to them from the Supreme, they are commifTioned to act as Gods with regard to thofe inferior beings com- mitted to their charged — And fo far is the Effay- writer from endeavouring to exclude every ex- planation, that his whole book is principally calculated for the fupport of this. Let it alfo be confidered, that in the dedica- tion prefixed to his EJfay^ he hopes that " his " fentiments will by gentle degrees come, by " the blefiang of God, to be made a part of *' the eftablifhed religion of the country '," If therefore, as it is aflerted in the Defence^ he has enforced no explanation of the Trinity; and it is neverthelefs hoped in the Effay^ that his fenti- ments will be made a part of the eftablifhed re- ligion-, this is in effedl to hope, that Nothing (by the bleiTing of God) will be eftablifhed as a fun- damental of the chriftian faith. So that this Gen- tleman, inftead of defending the Efjay^ feems to have defeated its principal intention, mifrepre- iented its author, and reduced his whole book to iin abfurdity. Another ^ See chap. V. of the following ^»/w^r. * P. 51- [xi] Another method of this writer, almoft as hurt- ful to the caufe he has. undertaken as the former, is to afiert what he cannot pofilbly know to be true, even fuppofing it were fOj and what the world muft know to be falfe. Upon the publi- cation of the E[[a}\ and to prevent in fome mea- fure (as the Editor exprefTes himfelf ) the evil ef- fects of that treatife, a juftly celebrated difcourfe on the Trinity, by the late Dean Swift^ was re- printed in Ireland. This difcourfe, the author now before us has affaulted with a great degree of prejudice and animofity, and after he has fift- ed fome abfurd and contradictory fenfes out of Its expreflions, and treated his lordlhip of Orrery^ and other able and learned gentlemen, with great contempt for not having Jkill enough to make the fame difcovery, confidently affirms, that he has " Ihewn the Dean to have been an Arian in his heart^J" Now, if the Bean has been fo unhappy in his expreflions, as to fubfcribe h'lmklf an Jrian while he meant to declare himfelf a Catholic^ he muft furely have wanted common fenfe; a defed, which (in his day) he was farther from than moft men living: if in his expreflions he appears to be orthodox^ and yet was, in the fecrets of his hearty an Arian\ this author muft pretend to fome de- gree of omnifcience in being able to find it out. b 2 As 'Page 32. [ xii ] As a fpecimcn of his comments upon the Holy Scripture, I may fet down the evidence he has alledged in favour of angel-worfhip. The Jrians have always been greatly diftrefled tojuftify the adoration they allow to the fecond and third perfons of the Blefled Trinity, while at the fame time they place them in the clafs of created beings. It is therefore prefumed in the EJp?y, that the worihip of angels can be no ido- latry, becaufe it terminates in the one only and true God: to which a certain author" has very judi- cioufly replied — '' yet it feems, in St. Paur% " ftyle, being idolatrous, and dsing (religious)/^r-- " vice to them which by nature are no Gods^ are {y- *' nonymous exprefTions." But here, the author of the Defence^ in order to avoid the conflidt ia which he feems apprehenfive of a defeat, " can- " not but lament the ill treatment the fcriptures •' of truth meet with, when they light into in- " difcreet hands, who catch at a fingle verfe, " which without confidering the context^ they " wrefi to their own purpofes : for in thofe words " of St. Faul^ the crime is, ferving them which ^' are not Gods by nature^ without a commillion *' from God for fo doing-, by which means, *' the fervice did not terminate in the one only ^' and true God'." That f Of an article publiftied in the Dublin Literary Journal iovDecmber i;^*, ^Page 13. [ xiii ] That there arc, in the world, men unlearned and unftahle^ who bend and accommodate the fcriptures to fome private purpofes of their own, is a lamentable truth, which every ferious Inquirer will be ready enough to confefs: and the reader, I am fure, will agree with me, that the remark I have juft now tranfcribed, is likely to afford us a moft ample confirmation of it : for after this pathetic exclamation againft ill treatment, indifcreet hands, and a difregard to the context, the verfe itfelf contains an argument full and clear, and the difregarded context — without a commiffion from God for fo doing — which gives a contrary turn, or, a wreji to the whole, is not St. Paul's^ but his own. If the crime of the Heathens in worlliipping their idols, confifled (^according to this author's flate of the cafe) only in a v/ant of commifTion ; then he muft fuppofe it poffible, for God to au- thorize that very crime, againft which he hath pronounced the moil extreme vengeance and -maledi(5lion, the very abomination that he hateth ^ ; for the adoration of the creature^ to redound to the glory of the Creaio?'-^ and for the worfhip of an idol, the flump of a tree, to terminate in the cne only and true God, I will in this place take the liberty of pro- pounding the following fhort remark : that as it b 3 appears *DciJt. xii. 31. See cbap. xxviiu 14, ^c [ xiv ] appears from the text of St. Paul above-cited, we are to worfhip thofe only who are {(pxxrn ^m) Gods by nature \ and as all the primitive ecclefi- aftical writers, in their application of the term »JlantialiJls, in the following maa- ner — " The Confubjlantialifts and the Sahellians *' Cfays he) agree exa^i'y in their opinion of the *' indivifible unity of the fubftance of God be- *' tween the three Perfons of the Trinity'." b 4 Y/hich 'Fags 22. ''Pagc44. ^ Page 27, 28. [ xvi ] Which is impoffible to be true: For if the Sa^ hllians agreed fo exaBly in this matter with the Catholics, they mufl then have maintained that there were three Perfons in the Trinity, between whom this indivifible union might fubfift : but on the contrary, they affirmed the whole God- head to be jM-ia u7rora(r»?5 Or {xovoTr^oa-UTro^ '"j Vftly ONE hypojiajis or Per fin. Again : " When the Father, Son, and Holy " Spirit," lays he, " are declared by the Atha- '* nafians to be the fame one undivided Perfon in *' reality; I own 1 do not fee any difference be- " tween that and the dodrine of Sahellius "." Firfl, he makes the Sabellians affert three Perfons in the Godhead, who never allowed more than c^e-, then, makes the Athanafians allow but one Perfon, who always afferted three y and then fo- lemnly declares — that he fees no difference be- tween their dodlrines! This very precipitate gentleman ought to have reflected feriouQy on the notorious falfities advanced in his book, of which I could produce many more inftances. If he fhould condefcend to do this, at my earneft requefl, I would then recommend to him a com- parifon between Rev, ii. 2, and xxi. 8. being willing to hope, that thofe texts, when laid to- gether and confidered, may have fuch an influ- ence upon his heart, as to induce him to alter his '"■ See Bfiphan, v, 3. p, 5 13, " Pgge 42, 43, [ xvii ] his flyle, and favour us with a piece rather more chaftifed and corre6l, if ever he ihould appear again in the capacity of an author. I cannot obferve in a more proper place, that he threatens the world with a treatife, whence it will " appear, that that part of our Ecclefiaftical *' Hiftory, which relates to the difpute between " the Arlans and Athanafians^ is little better than " an heap of falfities and forgeries":" For I apprehend that the forgeries above-mentioned will enable any reader to conceive a proper idea of an Arian turned Hiftorian : If thefe are not fufficient, let him attentively perufe the author's whole book •, and if that will not do, let me be- feech him to confider that account the moft ex- cellent and learned bifliop Bull has given of Chrijioph, Sandius\ Nucleus Hijloria Ecclefiajiide — copoftjfimd fahularum i£ contradi^lionum accef- ftone locupletatus — ^ and I am perfuaded he will then be upon his guard againfl every hiftorical tradl which comes from that quarter. I Ihall now remark (and in truth I am almod tired of remarking) his ralhnefs in cenfurins what, it is plain, he has not properly confidered. The celebrated and learned Dr. Stehbing, in a quotation this author has made from him, fays, " How • Page 40. p Def. Fid. Nlc. Procem. § 6. Stt zKo Pages 6g, 121, 229, ^ alibi f par Jim » — The Irenicum Lrenicorum is another hiftory of the fajne complexion with $andim> [ xvili J « How three, as diftind in point of agency^ as ^' Feter^ James^ and Johtiy lliould by one com- *' mon principle of exiftence, be one eternal " God J this exceeds the meafure of our finite " underflandings to comprehend: yet it is not *' tl^erefore a contradidion ; yet it is not there- " fore incredible." Which obfervation, though common, is yet very pious, well exprefied, and worthy of a Chriftian Divine. But, fays our au- thor, " If the Do6lor had but inferted any one " noun-fubflantive after theadjedive three^ which " he, as all the Athanaftans carefully do, has *' difingenuoujly omitted, and without which the " whole fentence is nonfenfe*^ he could not have ** avoided feeing the contradidion, as well as " pointing it out to others s." The noun-fubftan- tive inferted by the church upon this occafion, is the word Perfons : and the moft free and difpaf- fionate enquirer can perceive no contradiction in faying, that the blefled Trinity are three Perfons^ and one God\ three and one, in different refpeSs ; three, in refpecl of their perfonality^ and one in refped of their divine nature^ or, as Dr. Stehhing has worded it, xhidv common principle of exiftence. To fay, either that they are three Perfons and one Perfon, or, three Gods and one God, would be '* He elfewhere fays of this exprelTion, that it is — nonfenfc artfully cloathing itfelf, that it may look fomething like fenfe. 'P. 3405- be to fuppofe them three and one, in one and the fame refpe6t, and would indeed amount to a contradidion in terms; which is the very thing this author has made of it : '^ for, adds he, *' every one, who is not out of his ftnfes^ mull fee, *' that affirming three eternal Gods to be one eternal " Gcd^ is a contradiction '." Very true : aj^id I hope no man that is inhisfenfcs, when writing upon fuch a fubjedl as this, would dare to make a contradidion where he did not find one. But I muft prefs this point a little farther: for it is ob- fervable, that the very fame omiffion of the noun- fubftantive, and where the very fame fenfe is ex- prefTed too, occurs more than once in the infpired writings^ lyu y.oa o TrxJyip EN £(T{xii>', and again, oJloi a TPEIi:, ENfjci, nefe three are one — fo that this bold accufation of difingenuity^ nonjenfe^ and fomething worfe, alledged at firft againft Dr. Stehhing^ will, when carried forwards, be at laft fixed upon Him — whofe name I dare not men- tion upon fuch an occafion. In order to give a proper account of the anti^ dote^ and enable the reader, as well as I can, to comprehend the force and propriety of it, it will be requifite to premife a few of the author's principles, as they are to be colledted from that part of his book, which precedes what is called in the Title-page — An antidote againft all that Jhallever appear againft the Eflay on Spirit. The ' ^ 34' 35' [XX] The author of the Defence then, declares againfl all the decrees of councils and do6lrines ef men ' ; advifes rftetaphyftcal divines to forbear their own comments ^ ; and will fufFer nothing but clear and exfrefs revelation " to determine kirn with regard to any article of moment. And yet, in exprefs contradiction to all this, the ingredients of his antidote^ which is to preclude all future contro- verfies, to determine the queftion for ever on the ■Arian fide, and (as its very name implies) to e^c- pel the poifon of orthodoxy, are nothing more than a quotation from Juflin Martyr^ ^ and an- other from the Gentleman's Religion'' ; the former a very obfure metaphyfecal comment^ the latter a groundlefs and unfupported aflertion. If we had not ocular demonftration for this, it would feem altogether incredible, that the fame author who has rejeded all human comments^ and fet at naught all the councils in Chrijlendom^^ fhould think him- felf fecure under the fhelter of that very autho- rity, nay, under a fmall and infignificant portion of it, the whole of which he has made it his bufi- nefs to vilify and contemn. Had he been more confiflent with himfelf, and propofed his quota- tion from Juftin Martyr with the fobriety that might have been ^xpecled, I fliould then have attempted to Ihew, that it contains the indivifibk union ^P. 3. ^Ibid. "P. 4, 50, ']^. "P. 541078. »P.79to82. ?"?. 29. [ xxi ] mlon of the Son with the fuhftance of the Father y though blended, as I freely confefs, with fome perplexed and metaphyfical reafonings, more re- concilable to the principles of Piato^ than to thofe of the Holy Scripture. However, as he has introduced it in fuch a manner as to render it re- pugnant to his own principles, and therefore in- capable of doing bis caufe the leafl fervice (be the doftrine of it this or that) I fhall not try to give the reader any edification or amufement by a critical difcuflion of a very long pafTage, un- likely to afford either. But I muft not throw his book afide, without giving fome fhort account of his language; I mean, of his candour, humility, and charity ; which virtues areas much difreg-arded in the De- fence (if that be poflible) as they are recommended in the EJ/ay. The gentlemen who have advifed the Reve- rend author of the Effay to refign his preferment-, that is, in efted, to appeafe his confcience, re- trad his fubfcription, and ceafe to difturb the peace of the church with his own private fcru- ples ; he upbraids with a fpirit of per fe cut ion and ignorance"^ I which is not more unkind than it is untrue and injudicious. For, on the contrary, thofe reftlefs and difcontented men, who have railed againft the dodrines and authority of the church 'P. 52. z [ xxii ] church as an intolerable burden, and have undef« taken to fupplant its truth by a furreptitious in- troduflion of theirownerrors, (whatever fpecious appearances of candour and moderation they might at firft affume mpropofmg them) have in fad, when affairs have taken an unhappy turn, themfelves proved the mod lawlefs perfecutors and rnercilefs opprefTors of all civil and religious liberty : And I leave it to be confidered, whether the fpirit which has difcovered itfelf in this i)e^ fence,, were it permitted to have its full play, would not treat all its opponents with as little mercy as they did. Befides, how inconfiftent is it, firft to tell us that our do(5i:rines and fubfcrip- tions are fuch as muft drive all men of fenfe and honefiy (fuch as the author isj out of the church^ -^ and then, when we ground a flight admonition upon his own principle, to turn fhortupon us with the ftale pretences of ppery ! perfecution ! St, Dominic ! Bifliop Bonner ! fire ! faggot^ &c. ' ! Dean Swift he calls a Goliah of Gath^ fent out (by the republication of his fermon in Ireland) to defy the armies of the living God ; and thinks he h^'ifung a few round pebbles of arguments fo dire£fly inhisfaccy as to 'make him lie profir ate upon the ground^. Which unnatural application of the Scripture-hiftory gives us a tafte of his vanity v and fhews, that in his opinion the Arians are the eled ^P. 52. ^Ihid. "P. 21. and 53. [ xxiii ] cledb people of God, the true IfraeliUs, whilH all the oppofers of their do6lrine (which I hope includes every good chriflian in the nation) are uncircumcifed PMliflines, infidels, idolaters, and in profelTed rebellion againft the living God. The orthodox Clergy in general, he reviles as a fet of cloudy, bigotted, indolent men, who, if they can hut freferve their fubfcriptions and good livings^ care not what becomes of Chrijiianity ^ j be- caufe they have not wrote an anfwer (or had not at leafl when his book was publifhed) to the late Lord Bolingbroke*^ objedtions ; and unlefs he has written one himfelf it is unfair to make this a pre- tence for infulting them. The learned gentlenlen that have appeared in print againft the EJfay^ he calls, collectors of ca- 'vils\ orthodox gentry ^^ men that neither under- ftand th$ difpute^ nor any thing elfe *", their own trumpet ers\ minor fcrihbkrs^^ animals \ buzzing infeCfs"^^ hard heads'"^ &c. &c. charges the grave and learned Dr. Stebbing with wilful nonfenfe^ the whole church with blafphemy'' : then wipes his mouth, and humbly defires that if any body fhould undertake to anfwer the Effay on Spirit^ they will do it with — Chriflian candour and mo- deration P ! From •P-5«»S3- ^P. 2. eP. 19. and 53. ^P.15. ^P. 17. ''P. ^i. T.52. «P.5U "P. 52. *P, 10,44. '^'52- [ xxJv ] From this view of things, we cannot but coii- ceive a proper opinion both of the talents and the fpirit of this author j whom, in truth, it has given me much lefs pleafure to expofe, than con- cern that there was occafion for it. And now, if this Defence was written by the author of the EJfay^ what an amazing change of chara6ler is here! In the EJjay it is — Homo fum^ htimani nihil a me alienmn puto ^ — That principle which dire5fs us to life all men well^ can never vindicate usinufingany man ill'' — And again — were it not that experience convinces us of the matter of fa5f^ it would be vlakd TO BELIEVE that mcns paffions could carry them to that degree of animofity againfl each other y on account of opinions barely speculative (fuch as the Catholic doElrine of the 'Trinity is fuppofed to be, and upon which the difpute has turned in this JDefence) which we find praEiifed in all countries^ and almofl in all ages', There the ruling principle is an univerfal love and affedtion, making chari- table allowances for every fe6l of men in the world-, extending even to Hereticks^ Infidels, Jews^ and Maho-metans ', and lavifhly difpenfmg, as from the papal chair, its indulgencies to every error under heaven. But here fin the Defence) a very different pafTion is predominant ; fo far from making allowances in favour of error, that it can- not bear even the lead degree of oppofitionfrom the '^D^di. p. 35. 'Ded.p. 35. ""IbiJ. p. 33* [ XXV 3 the fincere advocates of txhe truths but vents it* felf in wilful forgeries, contempt, calumny, and all the overflowings of an enraged malevolence. The Ejay and the Defence of it being generally allowed to have come from the fame hand, the indecent heat and obloquy of this latter piece will oblige us to underfland all the candid e^pref- fions in the former vv'ork as things uttered under a mafk, and againft the courfe of nature. Where the mind is milled, the fpirit is very apt to be em- bittered: and true charity \s> the fruit only of true religion. Whence it comes to pafs, that if gentle- nefs and moderation are affecled by thedifturbers of our peace to ferve a turn, they are pretty fure to appear in their proper chara6ler as foon as they are contradiofed. When the wolf aiTumes the per- fon of the fheep, the likenefs is found only in the Jkin; the voice, and the teeth, and the claws, are jufl as different as they were before ; and if the animal is fufpeded, and forced upon a fcuffle in his own defence, the cloathing is of no farther fervice. However this may be, it plainly appears, that the favourers of Arianifm are not always candid and charitable: therefore I mud beg leave to obferve that if any learned gentleman, who is of their opinion, Ihould think fo inconfiderable a writer as I am worth his notice, and fairly pro- pofe his objedions to any part of the following c work [ xxvi ] work with lenfe and argument, I Ihall be ready, with God's leave, to give him fatisfaclion to the beft of my abilities, and with ferioufnefs and mode- ration. But if any writer fhould unfortunately fix upon the fame plan with the author of this De- fence, and perfuadehimfelf that hecan invalidate my arguments by fetting me down for an animaly a buzzing injeEl, or an hard head, I can eafily for- give him, but mull be excufed from making any reply. ¥/hen the firil edition of this anfwer was pub- liihed, it was heavily threatened, and I was afTur- ed that fome fufiicient hand v/ould undertake to write again il it: but nothing appeared, except fome flouri flies of the Bear-garden in a Monthly Review, the produdion of a fet of writers, with whofe principles, defigns, and calumnies, the publick is now fo well acquainted, that they will never think the worfe of any Chriftian, becaufe he is reviled and outraged in their publications. If fome may have been prevented either from reading or approving this work, or any other I have publiilied, by the illiberal railings of i^^- views and Nczvs Papers, the time may come when they will be undeceived : and if not, I have met with fo much friendlhip and favour from men of genius, men of the bed learning, and higheft Ration, that I am already more than recompenfed for all the detra6lions of infidelity, envy, igno- rance or uncharitablenefs. The [ xxvii ] The Defence of the EJfay on Spirit, of which I have now been giving an account, is fo empty of wit and argument, and withal fo domineering in its manner and exprefilon, that the reader may perhaps be difcouraged from going through the following fheets, and think it fcarcely worth his while to fee the book itfelf confuted. Therefore I beg leave to aflure him, that many articles of great importance are brought into confideration, to which 1 endeavoured as to do as much juftice I was able: and there is among the reft a fubje(5t of great curiofity, the trinity of the Heathens^ which I have here opened as to its meaning, and illuftrated it from prophane authors in a manner not to be met with in any other publication that 1 know of. This anfwer was written at a time when I could not poffibly have gone through it, under the dif- advantage of my fituation upon a country curacy, unlefs I had been favoured v/ith the ufe of a well furnifhed library, belonging to my principal. Sir John Dolhen^ to whom the firft edition v/as dedicated ; a gentleman, whofe memory I fliall always regard with honour and gratitude, for the benevolence of his nature, his learning, and ac- complifhments, and above the reft his piety and charity: ail of which were once fo v/ell known, and are now fo well remembered, that it is not neceftary for me to enlarge upon them in this place. When [ xxviii ] When a man ventures to become an author early in life, it is very pofiible that his zeal on fomeoccafions lliould be greater than his expe- rience: and this confideration will, I hope, be of fome weight with thofe who are friends to the church, and are more than pretenders to learn- ing, not to be extreme in remarking the imper- fections of the following treatife-, fome of which this latter imprefTion has given me an opportu- nity of removing. As to thofe readers, who are content to ground their belief (if I may call it fuch) on the infalli- bility of a C/^^r;^^, 2iSykes^ ov cin Hoadley, &c. I Hiall be difappointed if I expe6t that they will either make any candid allowances for me, or venture to give me any of their arguments : and fo I leave them to proceed as they have hitherto done ; not without befeeching God that he would open their eyes, and bringthem back to the ways of truth, righteoufnefs, and peace, for his glory, and the favins of their own fouls. & Pluckley, March 7, 1769. FULL ANSWER T O A N ESSAY on SPIRIT. t 3 ] A N A N S W E R T O A N ESSAY on SPIRIT. TH E author of this ejfay addreiTes his dedication to the Lord -primate oi Ireland, and fets out with tell- ing his Grace, that *' as a clergyman, he *« was obliged to fubfcribe the articles of " our religion, and give his affent to all <^ things contained in the Book of Common « Prayer 'y but fince that time, having ** thought y as well as ready he finds that he *« does not now agree exactly in fentiment *^ either with his former opinions, or with <^ thofc perfons who drew up the articles B 2 *' of [ 4 ] ^* of our religion, or with the compilers ** of our Liturgy, and in particular with *' the Athanafian Creed \ and therefore he ** has laboured under fome difficulties ** how to diredl himfelf in thefe circum-r *' fiances/' In all this the author gives nptice to the primate, (and had his name been prefixed to the work, the notice had been very fair and honeft) that he is at length become heterodox in his opinions. This he im- putes to his thinking as well as reading, I am forry to obferve, that this change in his character is the reverfe of what hap- pened in St. Pauh, who began firft with thinkings and proceeded thence to believing^ I verily thought with myfelf (faith he) that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jefus of Nazareth, A^s xxvi. 9. And though he appears to have been naturally a man of a tender and humane difpofition, his miftaken way of thinking had fo ill an influence upon his condudl, that he beat in every Synagogue the?n that believed. Ibid. xxii. 19. But when it pleafed God to o- pen his eyes^ he was transformed from a thinker t s ] thinker into a believer ; and confequently, from 2iperJectitor into 2ifufferer -, boafting of it as his privilege, that it was given to him not only to believe on the name of Chrift, but alfo tofufferfor his fake. The author will provoke us to confider this difference between thinking and believing in a more particular manner in the following pages. As to the di£iculty he complains of un- der his prefent circumftances, I apprehend it is no very difficult matter to diredt him- felf properly on fuch an occaiion -, becaufe nothing hinders him from refigning his preferments, if heobjeds to the conditions upon which they are held. He confeffes, that he now differs in opinion from him- felf ; from the perfons who drew up our articles in conformity to the word of God ; from thofe who in this age are fubfcribers to the faith; in fliort, he confeffes that the whole eftablifhed church is againfl him. Now he cannot furely be fo unmer- ciful to our confciences, as to expedt, that we Ihall difregard all thefe authorities ; go contrary to the fenfe of the church in all ages ; and calmly give up our faith B 3 and [ 6 ] and dodrine, in compliance with the opinion of one fingle perfon, who, not many- years ago, was of a different opinion ; and is perhaps but lately come to his prefent opinion : which is to fuppofe, that the truth of Chriftianity depends upon opinion -, and that its very leading article, the doc- trine of the Trinity, may be this or that, juft as a wavering mind happens to i/imk. That vein of fcepticifm in which this author hath indulged himfelf, inclines him to apprehend any attempt towards avoiding diverfity of opinions ^ not only to be an iifelefs^ but alfo an inipradlicable fcheme. In the title prefixed to the Articles of the Church of England, the avoiding diverfity of opinion appears to be only one half of the defign with which they were drawn up ; or ra- ther, it is in fadl the fame thing with the ejlablifjing of confent touching true reli- gion. If true religion then is of any im- portance to the world, the attempt to bring men to a confent about it is laudable, pious, and neceffary. But if it matters not whether men embrace truth or falfhood, whether they have the faith of Proteftants, the fuperflition of Papifts, or the f 7 ] the herefy oiArius, Socmus, or the Alcoran j then the attempt to reconcile them to one and the fame rule of faith is, as this writer calls it, an u/ele/s fcheme. If it fhould alfo be found impra5iicable, St- Paul hath puhUrhed an injunction which is very abfurd, becaufe no man can be bound to perform what is impoffible. / befeech you brethren by the Name of our Lord J ejus Chrijl, that ye all fpeak the fame thing, and that there be no divifions among you ; but that ye be ^QihGtly joined together in the fame mind and in the fame judg- ment *. Such was the advice of this in- fpired Apoftle to the church of Corinth : But the author of an EJJay on Spirit, having thought as well as ready hath difcovered that all attempts of this fort are not only ufelefs but alfo impraBicable. He is fond of this difcQvery, and expref- fes a doubt whether any two thinking men are agreed exaBly in their opinions. If by thinking men he means learned chriftians, who have ftudied the Bible and primitive antiquity with a proper regard to both, I am very fure he is miftaken ; for two fuch B 4 nien, * 1 Cor. i. 10. [8 ] men, if ihut up in feparate cells, as thay report of the feventy Greek interpreters, would as furely agree infenfe as they would differ in exprej/iony if required to deliver their opinion concerning any fundamental doftrine of chriftianity. By thinking men, therefore, I fuppofe him to mean deijiical philofophersy who think at random, or, as they call it, freely. If an aflembly of thefe were to be queftioned concerning their own inventions, there would probably be as many opinions as men, and all without foundation. Thus much for the difagreements oi think- ing men ; from whom the author makes a tranfition to what he calls, the unthinking^ and obferves, that whatever country you go intOi let the religion be what it will, the un- thinking part are always the reputed ortho- dox \ A truly chriftian account of the ho- ly catholic church ! which, it feems, is compofed of nothing but men who think without agreeing; and men who agree without thinking. I would alTc this gentle- man, from whom the unthinking herd ^ of this c p. 7. «« Ibid. r 9 ] this nation derive the faith now efi:ab1iflied in our creeds and articles ? for if they did not alfo derive it from another unthink- ing herd, their orthodoxy will reflect no difgrace upon the religion of their country. But they derive it, thro' the mi- niftration of the Apoftles and their fuccef- fors, from Chrijl ; therefore the /^er^, whether thinking or unthinking, can as orthodoxy be charged with nothing, but what, if carried far enough backwards, will equally hold good againft Cliriji and his apoftles. , / However we may boldly challenge him to prove the orthodox an unthinking herd ; becaufe the men, who are the formal pro- feflbrs of orthodoxy, are thofe who folemn- ly fubfcribe their unfeigned affent to the orthodox faith, I mean, the clergy of the nation ; who from the difcipline they un- dergo before they are called upon to give this proof of their orthodoxy, are fuppof- ed, at leaft, to be men of fome difcernment in matters of chriftian dodrine and human literature. Thefe then are the imthiriking herd, thus refleiSed upon, of whom he cliaritably [ ^o] charitably concludes, that if they lubmit to the Creeds, the,y doit without thought; for to think, in his fenfe, is to contradict the church. But neither will the fubje6t bear to be inverted ; for it is not altogether fo clear, that ignorance will preferve an appearance of orthodoxy among the vul- gar ; rather the contrary. For moft of thofe fedtarics which have rejeded ortho- doxy, and look upon the glad and humble profelTors of it, as Milton reprefents the Devil to have looked upon Gabriel % have generally fprung from the root of igno- rance ', which, when nourifhed by a pro- per degree of pride, is always produftive of error. The Quakers, for example, arofe from the ever memorable George Fox, a mean and ignorant mechanick, who could hard- ly fpell his own name ; yet, with bloody invedtives againfl BaaPs priejls, execrable hirelings, devil-driven 'Judafes^ with which, and • Proud limitary cherub ! Par. loft, B. iv. 969. Had Sa- tan bc€n fpeaking ro one of the orthodox, inflead oHimitaryt he would have faid, I fuppofe— /«««§■ in the tramdi of tie Church. Sec M'Jdleton's Free Enquiry. I C II 1 and many more fuch foft appellations he honoured all the true minifters of Chrift, was enabled to draw av/ay the unlearned and unftable into the very fink of error and delufion. Now, if to thinky be to fubfti- tute heterodoxy, and a lying fpirit in the place of found faith and the fpirit of truth, George Fox and his adherents ought to fit very high in the fynagogue oi thinkers -, and if the author fliould ftill profefs to thmk^ in this fenfe, it may not be an unprofitable mortification to him, to fee how much nearer the thinking herd approach to bru- tality, than thofe whom he is pleafed to fneer for flavifhly embracing the creed ^f theirfathers. He allows, indeed, that an uniformity of frofefjion may be both pr amicable and ufeful, and that it feems in fome degree neceffary — for the good offociety ^ In this, if I am not fo unhappy as to mifunderfland him, he finks the chriftian religion into a political fcheme, calculated for the prefervation of peace, or the outward forms offociety ^, and intended ouly to make men hang together like t Ibid. « P, 9. r '2 ] like a fwarm of bees, which at the end of the fummer, are to be fmoaked out and bu« ried in the earth. But the effential worth of the chriilian faith, is its great promife not only of this life, but of that which is to come. The good of focietyy without any thing farther, will found very flat and dead in the ears of all thofe whok hopes ^LTtful/ofimmor- tality, and is feldom recommended mere- ly of itfelf, but by your little philofophi- cal dabblers, who either difbelieve the refurredtion, or do not expedt to receive any advantage by it. If an tmifor?mty of profejjion be all that is neceflary, and if even this be no farther neceffary, than for the prefervation of peace ; then any national religion ^ eflablifh- cd and agreed upon by compadt and con- fent, would anfv/er the end as well ; fince the external regulation of fociety would not, in this cafe, depend upon the kind or quality oi the religion y but upon the unifor- mity^'wki which it isprofej/ed. This fenti- ment, which favours ftrongly of infidelity, is nearly related to fome others which I fliall extrad from the ccleji^'ated Dr. Mid- dleton^ ■i '#V [ 13 ] dleton, who in his angry letter to Df . Waters land^ has the following grave remark upon t\\Q immorality oiTindar^ich^vnt. ** Should *• he then gain his end, and acflually demo- " lifli chrijiianity, what would be the con- ^* fequence; what the fruit of his labours, *^ but confufion and diforder, till fomc *^ other traditional religion could be fettled '^ in its place \ till we had agreed to recal ** either the gods of the old worlds Jupiter, ** Minerva^ Venus ^ 8cc. or with the idola- ** ters of the new, to worfhipyi^;^, moony and ^* Jlars ; or inflead oi JefiiSy take Mahomet ^* ov Confucius y iov i\\Q author of our faith ^*' And to the fame purpofe, p, 55. *^ but ** (hould we confider it [chrijiianity) a$ ** the^^ of all other religions y the beft con- ^^ trived to promote pub lick peace and the ** good of fociety — then his crime will '* be aggravated in proportion — fince,as is ^* faid above, fome traditional religion or o- ** ther muft take place, as neceffary to *^ keep the world in order ** I fhall difmifs thefe fentiments with ob- ferving briefly, that a political agreement in ? P. 51- r '4 ] in the idolatrous republics of Ro?ne and Athensy and peace and union under Chrift in the houP:>old of faith y are things as dif- ferent in their nature as in their value and importance; the former being whol- ly built upon temporal confiderations, and intended to prevent fellow fubjeds from cutting one anothers throats ; though the principles they went upon often made them do it, and were more frequently pro- ductive of anarchy, diforder, and blood- shed, than of or-der, peace, and wholefome difcipline. The latter is grounded upon an uniformity of fa'ving faith, revealed in mercy to loft mankind, by the righteous judge of all the earth, and implanted in the hearts of the meek and lowly ; enabling them to bring forth thofe uniform and genuine fruits of love and charity to their fellow- redeemed, which will entitle them, as a nation, to the protection of God in this life, and at length exalt them to a place in the glorious affembly of the firft born, in the regions of everlafting blifs and im- mortality. But it was his intereft to make an uni^ formity [ 15 ] formity of belief a matter fo flight and tri- vial 5 or, if of any confequence, a fcheme quite irnpra^lkable y and to recommend, inflead of it, that ujiformity of profe[fion which would be no better than deliberate hypocrify ; that his readers might be the better prepared to receive his opinion con- ccvning fubfcriptions : for as it is the defign of his work to deny the confubftantiality and co-eternity of the ever-bleiTed Trinity, to which doftrines, as they now ftand in our creeds and articles, he hath by a fub- fcription declared his unfeigited affent ; it muft alarm the honeft part of his readers, and put them upon enquiring, what me- thod he has found of quieting his con- fcience ? Why, truly, a very odd one ; for it is his opinion, that a man, for prudential reafonsy may honejtly fubfcribe and fubmit to the ufe oione eftablijhed for^ny though he in. his private opinion may think another to bt better'^ 'y and as for fuch of his brethren who differ from him, they confider fubfcrip- tions in the fame light with the bigotted mem^ hers of the church ij/'Rome *'. Some ^p. 9. * p. 17, [ i6 ] Some writers would be grievoufly at a lols, if they were not permitted to play the church of Rome upon us, when they have nothing elfe to fay for themfelves. The articles of the church of England are the beft fecurity we have againft the er- rors of the church of Rome. When Arian^ ifm is let in upon us by the breaking down of our ecclefiaftical fences. Popery may enter at the fame breach : therefore the bigotted members of the church of Rome never yet were fo blind to their own in- tereft as to take part with thofe who are for keeping up the credit of our creeds and fubfcriptions : but, unlefs they are forely belied, have co-operated againft them in difguife with difcontented parties of every denomination. He that confiders this fadt, will not be tempted to think lightly of moral honefty or chriftian fidelity, be- caufe a defigning writer is pleafed to ftig- matife fuch parts of it with the name of popery, as really have nothing to do with popery ; or if at all concerned with it, are directly againft it. For if we are not JiriStly bound by a fubfcription to be Chrif- tians [ ^7 3 tians and Proteftants, we may fubfcribe with our hands, and declare with our lips, and yet in our hearts be very Papifts^ Jews, Mahometans, or what we pleafe. I muft therefore afk, for what purpofe any man fubfcribes to, what the author calls, an ejlablijhedformy that is, to the book of common prayer^ and all the dodlrines therein contained, but to fatisfy the church that he believes them? It hath often been infifted upon, and that with the utmoft truth and propriety, that our articles are articles of docff^ine. That kind of ajjent which is given to chrijiian docirines^ we call faith ; there- fore, when a perfon declares his ajjent to thefe dodrines, we muft of neceffity under- ftand that he believes them 5 or that the Church of England is fo loofe in its obli- gations, as to allow a man to declare one thing and mean another. If fuch prevarications as thefe fliould be admitted, how can the ftate be fecure of any man's fidelity, or the king of his alle- giance, when the fame fubtilties which can explain av/ay his ecclefiaftical fubfcrip- C tion. [ i8 ] tion, will prevent the moft folemn ftate oaths from binding him? This is fuch a violation of truth and honefty, as muft give offence to every one who wifhes well either to the church or ftate; for fhould fuch loofe principles prevail, the moft im- portant contrafts, nay (I repeat it again) the moft folemn oaths, on whatfoever oc- cafion fubmitted to, may be broken afunder by thofe who are refolved to have the liberty of turning with every blaft. He may laugh, if he pleafes, at fome who take occqfion, from the form of declara- tion of ajfenti to brand thofe who prefume to doubt y or differ from them in any of their IMAGINARY ORTHODOX notionSy with the imputation of perjury y or at leaf of hypo- crify^ y for whofocver fets up thefe princi- ples muft be guilty of one or both ; and though the author weremafter of as much ridicule as a late IriJJ:) Deany any plain man, who will abide by his common fenfe, might, upon this fubjedt at leaft, be an overmatch for him. But »P. 17. [ 19 ] But he has found out a remedy which he thinks fufficient, if not to remove thefe difficuhies, yet to make him pretty eafy "^ under them; if not to heal the wound, yet to ftupify the part in fuch a manner, as to render it infenlible : for though by the exprefs words of the declaration, every clergyman is obliged to declare his unfeigned ajfentt and confent to all and every thing coji- tained and prefcribed in^ and by the book of common prayer -, yet lince it is faid in the a3l of uniformity y that he fhall declare his aflent, and confent to the ufe of all things contained in the faid book, he may read the declaration with a latent reference''^ to the intention of the adt, and thereby aflent to nothing more than the ufe of the things, which, in the eflTay- writer's opinion, is very different fro?n affenting to the things them^ felves \ Such latent references as take away the meaning of what a man declares plainly with his lips, would agree better with the charader of a fefuit, than that of a pro- teftant Clergyman. However, the refe- C 2 rence *"P. 12. - P. l6. ° P. 12, r 20 ] rence here pleaded for is not reafonable; and if it were allowed, it would not come up to the author's purpofe. It is not a rea- fonable reference, becaufe it is much more natural, that the fenfe of the adt fhould be gathered from the words of the declara- tion, than that the fenfe of the declara- tion fliould be explained by fome prepara- tory expreffions in the aft ; and to guard againft this or any other evafion of the de- claration, it is purpofely enjoined that the declaration be made in thofe words and no other. This was then imagined to be a full and fufficient fecurity, the church not be- ing aware that any proteftant would bor- row from the papifts the dodtrine of latent references. But even granting (which I have neither right nor reafon to do) either that thefe words were tranfplanted from the adt into the declaration ; or that in the declaration he might be indulged with a latent refe-- reiice to them, this would not anfwer the author's purpofe. For in the book of Common Prayer, to the ufe of which he gives his aflent, are there not creeds and ariiclesy [ 21 J articles, as well as offices, prayers, and fufFrages ? And how a creed, or an article of dodrine, can poffibly be ufed otherways than by being believed, I own, I am wholly unable to fee. Befides, to fay nothing of creeds and articles, how can any perfon affent to the ufe of fuch prayers as exprefs fupreme ado- ration to the perfons of Chrift and the Holy Spirit, when he has perfuaded hini- felf, and would perfuade others, that fuch worfhip is idolatrous? It is prefumed, what is here faid may be fufficient to fliew, that the uniformity of prof effort he would con- tend for, cannot poffibly fubfift without an uniformity oi faith: iov^-Sih^profeffion, which is to be uniform, muft be a profeffion of faith, the difficulty will always remain, and we fhall never be able to get clear of it fo long as we have any religion or con- fcience left. In fhort Our Articles are articles of doBrine ; and therefore every declaration of nrfeigned ajjent and confent to them, ftridtly implies a /Jf/zV/'of them: when the author, therefore, infmuates t\\zt a man, for pru- C 3 dential [ 22 ] dential reafons, may honejlly fubfcribe and fubmit to theufeofone eftablijhedform, though he, in his private opiniouy may think ano- ther to be better, he might have faid in other words, ^' a man may honeftly de- '^ clare that he believes what he does not *^^ believe:" nay, that he believes fuch things, as no man can be an honeft chrif- tian without believing, whether he de- clares it publicly or not. Before I drop this fubje<£t, I muft hum- bly take the leave of remonftrating to the author, that he knows all thefe fhifts and evafions to be infufficient — For if a cler- gyman may profefs what he does not be- lieve y or if a fubfcription for peace-fake to an eftabliflied form be all that is requir- ed, what makes him fo reftlefs? why would he alter the things them/elves, when he confefles himfelf to be pretty eafy in having affented only to the ufe of them? would he fet his brethren right in articles of faith? No: that fcheme is both ^/g/} and impraBicable: yet, in contradidtionto this principle, it is the purpofe of his whole book to profelyte the church of Ireland [ 23 ] Ireland to his own private fentiments, and (as hath already been obferved in the Pre- face) he hopes to fee them adopted as a part of the ejiablijhed religion. But error is feldom fo happy as to be confiftent with itfelf; and from thefe con- tradictory principles, when laid together, it appears, that articles of faith, if drawn up according to his fancy, are neceffary enough 5 but if publiflied by the general affent of the church, and comprehending the dodrine of the pureft ages, they are not neceffary. The fubjed: of z fraudulent fubfcription having been largely and fully treated by Dr. IVaterlandy and that in a much better manner than I can ever hope to infift upon it, I refer the reader to his Cafe ^Arian Subfcriptiony and the Supplement to it, which have, and always may give general fatisfadlion upon this point; and if the author had read them, he might have found a much greater difficulty in making himfelf, as he hath done, fo eafy under thefe circumflances. C 4 Having [ 24 1 Having thus endeavoured to mifreprc-' fent thQfubfcription of the Proteftant clergy, in order to lelTen the obligation of it, he proceeds to fet that of the Nicerie bifliops in the fame light; that their fubfcription, when falfely charged w^lth the fame frauds, and degraded to a like inlignificancy, may keep his o^n in countenance. He tells us, that at the council of Nicey the Emperor Con ftan tine allowed every one to put their ov^^n {enft upo?2 the word con{uh^2,ntidl, and not thefenfe that was intended by the com- pilers of the creed : and accordingly ^ Eufe-^ bius, Bijhop of Casfarea, though he atfirfi refujed fubfcribingi yet when he was allowed to interpret //z^i£;i?r^/confubftantial, as mean- ing ONLY, that the Son was not of the fame fubftance with the creatures that were made by him 5 he then fubfcribed ity andfo, in a little time after did Arius ^ I will not fay, that Ifufpedi all this to be falfe, becaufe I can prove, that there is not one word of truth in it, from the beginning to end ; which the author, perhaps being confcious of, has fpared us the trouble of being re- ferred to his authorities. For ' ?, 10. T 25 3 For in the firft place, the Emperor did not allow any of the fubfcribers to put a fenfe upon the word cGnfubJlantiaU different from that intended by the compilers of the creed ; and it would have been very ftrange, if he had inftruded the Biihops how to un- derftand a creed of their own compiling, being then but a catechumen^ and neither then nor ever after fo alTuming as he is here reprefented. The word (Homooufios) confubjlantialy was added to the creed by general confent, and is explained, not as meaning only, that the Son was not of the fame fubjiance with the creatures that were made by him-, but, according to theexprefs words of Eifebius^ which I here give at length, that the Son of God hath no commu^ nity withy or refemb lance to created beings ; but that in every refpeft he is like to the Far- ther onlyy who hath begotten him ; and that he does exif of k^ other s^ubstance or ESSENCE BUT OF THE FaTHER. ^0 this (adds EufebiusJ thus explained we thought good to give our ajjent ; ?nore efpecially^ be* caife we alfo knew, that fome of the ancient learned and eminent Bijhops and writers have made [ 26 ] made ufe of this term Homooufios, in their explications of the divinity of the Father and of the Son. Thus much therefore we havefaid concerning the creed publijhed (j^Nice) to which WE ALL AGREED, not inconfideratcly and without examination^ hut according to the SENSES GIVEN, which were difcujfed ifi the prefence of our moji pious Emperor , and for the reafons aforementioned received with unanimous confent '^. This is part of a letter written by Eufehius ^ himMf ; in which *» Socrat. Hift Lib. i. ch. 8. * If the reader deiires to fee a farther vindication of our Eu/ebius, as Mr. Whijion is pleafed to call him, let him con- {}j\t A fecond Re'viewo of Mr, W hist on^s Account ofprimiti've Doxologies p. 19. The author of this pamphlet and of the Review which preceded it, was Mr. Thirlhy^ b. very young man, who expofed the unfair pradlices and miftakes of Mr. Whijlorty with great learning and force of argument, fo as to > reduce the importance of his charader in the eyes of the publick. Mr. Thirlhy was fuppofed to have been very much aflifted in his criticifms, by the able and learned Dr. Ajheton of Cambridge i who could never be prevailed upon to publifh any thing as from himfeif. Dr. Cave has an exprefs differ* tation upon the fuppofed Arianijm oiEufebius, at the latter end of the 2d vol. of his Htfioria Literaria ; in which the character of that Father is very fufficiently vindicated a- gainft the mifreprefentations of Le Clerc, a difappointed Hugonot, who had flrong prejudices again ft the clergy, and in his notions bordered very nearly upon Free thinking, 6 there [ 27 ] there is no appearance either that the fub- fcription of this learned Bifhop was frau- dulent, or that the Emperor indulged the fubfcribers with private fenfes of their own : for It is exprefly faid, that the Bi- fhops prefentat the Ntcene council fubfcrib- ed the Creed according to fenfes given and agreed upon publickly ; five only, out of three hundred and eighteen, being of the Arian opinion. The author's reprefenta- tion of this affair, fo different from the real fadl, will be a fufiicient excufe for us, if we exclaim in the words of bifhop Bull, quis cordatus jidem habebit mendacifHmo ijii hominum generV ? But the account now before us will make it necelTary to proceed a little far- ther : for the fubfcription oi Arius is men- tioned in fo artful a manner, and fhuffled in with that oi Eiifebius, as to make inex- perienced readers believe they were both of the fame complexion: whereas Eufe- bins affented to the confubflantiality of the Son in terms fufficiently clear and flrong ; but Arius under a very deteflable fubter- fuge. ' Yi^i. Fid. Nic. p. 144. § 4. [ 28 ] fugc. We are told, that he wrote down his own heretical doftrine upon a piece of , paper, which he concealed in his bofom ; then appeared boldly before the Emperor, fubfcribed the Creed, and took a folemn oath, that he did really believe — as he had 'written\ This done, the Emperor dif- mifled him with thefe words. ** If thy •^ faith is right, thou haft done well in ** fwearing to it; but if it be ftill wicked, ^* and thou haft fworn notwithftanding, ** may God take vengeance on thee for thy " oath *." It will not be amifs here to add the concluding part of Artus^ hiftory; which I fliall relate in the words of the very learned and pious Dr. Cave^ referring my reader, for the truth of the relation, to the authorities quoted in his margin, moft of which I have taken the pains to confult for myfelf. The bufmefs of Arius his fub- fcription was tranfadled on a Saturday, and in virtue of it, Alexander the bifhop ^ « Socrat. Lib. I. cap. penult. * E» «^0>) era iTiv v) 'c:ir^(;, Kot>>.ujq UfjLOcra,^' et ^e utTiQifi<; sfjj' >) Epift. ad Serap. of [ 29 ] of Conjlantinople was enjoined to receive him the next day to communion. But ** that very evening, or, as others report, *' the next morning, Arius going through ** the ftreets v^ith a pompous train of his ** friends and follov^ers, fwelled with the ** hopes of to-morrow's triumphs, was " come to a place in Conftantine s Forum^ '^ when he found himfelf neceffitated to *' enquire for a place of eafement, where ** his fpirits fuddenly failing, the fate of ** treacherous and apoflate Judas became *^ his portion, he fell headlong, and burft- " ing afunder in the midft, immediately ** expired. Socrates and others fay, that ** the bowels, and all the intejiina, with a *' vaft flux of blood iffued out. His friends ** impatiently expedl his return, till it ** feeming longer than ordinary, fome went ** to call him, and Eiifebius -f-, more for- *^ ward than the reft, reproached his back- ** wardnefs and negledt both of his friends ** and himfelf; but hearing no anfwer, *^ they wen tin, and there found the wretch ^' wallowing in his own filth and blood. '' His f Qi Nicomedea^ [ 3° ] " His followers were ftrangely furprlzed *< with the accident, which they could " not but look upon as a fatal blow to their *« caufe ; though, to cover as much as " might be the fhame and terror of foin- <* famous a death, they fled to their old ** refuge of lies and falfehood, giving it « out, that his death was procured by for- <« eery and magic arts. — Thus died Ariusy ** the great incendiary of the church; and «* happy had it been, had his fchifm and << his principles died with him %'* I had flattered myfelf that the advocates of Arius his doftrine would have left his ferfon to that infamy, from which they have never attempted to retrieve it, with- out giving the caufe, in fomc refpeft, or other, a worfe look than it had before. But in the firft volume of Mofieim's Eccle- fiafticalHifl:ory, tranflatedby Mr. Maclaincy minifl:er of the Englifh Church at the Hague, there occurred to me the follow- ing reflexion on the death of this Arch- heretic in a note of the tranflator. '' After *< having confidered this matter with the '' utmofl X Cave's Lives of the Fathers. Fol. edit. 4. p. 382. C 31 ] «' utmoft care, it appears to me extremely ** probable, that this unhappy man was a *< vidtim to the refentment of his enemies, <* and was deftroyed by poifon, or fome " fuch violent method. A blind and fa- *^ natical zeal for certain fyftems of faith, *' has in all ages produced fuch horrible «* adts of cruelty and injuftice */' By what fteps the author difcovered this extreme pro- bability, it doth not appear. The Ecclefi- aftical Hiftories and writings of the fathers, have been open to other readers ; and an- tiquity never furniihed them with any evi- dence whereupon fuch a conjecture might be grounded. Indeed this writer doth not pretend to any ; and it is plain he never found any, by his laying this black in- diftmentin fuch vague and general terms, ** ^oiion or fome fuch violent method." But the circumftances of his death are not to be reconciled either with poifon or any other method of human violence. He was to all appearance in health and high fpi- rits a few minutes before the accident : and befides, we know of no poifon that can ex- pel * p. 219. n y, [ 32 ] pel the entrails. If he had been affaffinated^ his own followers, by the principal of whom he was attended in the inftant after his death, muft have difcovered marks of violence upon his body; and they wanted neither fagacity nor malice to make the nioft of any fuch appearance. Nothing re- mains then, but the aftrology and art- magic of the perfecuted Athanajius-y by imputing it to which, whatever may be pretended by the Arians of this age, the Arians of that have given us their own tef- timony that his death was fupernaturaL The circumftances of his death were noto- rious throughout the whole city of Con- Jiantinopky and, as Socrates adds, in a man- ner throughout the whole world : the Emperor was very much alarmed, and his own party for a while were confounded, all men looking upon it as an inftance of remarkable vengeance immediately fallen upon him from heaven. This, however, is a perfuafion of the ancients, which, as Mr. Maclatne thinks, will find " but lit- ** tie credit in thefe times." That may be : but then if the incredulity of this age is 8 to [ 33 ] to be admitted as a teft offalfehood, we muft do juftice on the other fide, and ad- mit the credulity of the age (credulous enough on fome fubjedls) as a teft of truth : then we may fhut up our books, and leave incredulity to determine, that Arius did not die by the judgment of God; while credulity affirms, without reafon or evi- dence, that he was aftually murdered by the bloody-minded orthodox. This me- thod, for the brevity of it, will be extreme- ly convenient, and will give an entire new face to the whole hiftory of the ancient church. The fuppofed murder of Arius then hath nothing to reft upon but the following re- flexion, which is improperly worded and very injurioufly applied : ** a blind and fa- ** natical zeal for certain fyftems of faith ** has in all ages produced fuch horrible ** adls of cruelty and injuftice." Syftems of error, fuch as the heathen fyftem, the Apoftate-Jcwifh fyftem, the Ariariy and the Fapal fyftems; thefe, and not that fyftem of y^/V/z which the fathers of the Nicene council had derived from Chrift and D his [ 34 ] his Apoftles, have been followed with a bliiid and fanatical zeal : and as men per^ fecute others only when they cannot jujiify themfelvesy all thefe fyftems being defedtive in point of reafon and argument, could ne- ver put up with contradidlion, and were therefore produftive of the moll; horrible adts of cruelty and injuftice, to which may be added all the exceffes of lying and ca- lumniating: while the orthodox faith, from the firft planting of chriftianity, in- ftead of perfecuting, hath been expofed in all ages as the objed: of malice and perfe- cution to other fyftems. If the Nicene chriflians had torn the flefli of Pagans from their bones and roafted them alive upon gridirons, had crucified the Jews, and drawn together five thoufand armed fol- diers to force AthaJiafms upon the church, as the Avians did to drive him out and af- faflinatehim, &c. &c. they might then have been naturally enough fufpeded of other adts of cruelty and injuftice ; though fucb a fufpicion would not be a fufficient war- rant with hiftorians of credit for charging them with any particular adt without fome [ 3S ] fome particular evidence, of which, In this cafe, the author hath not produced one fyllablcj but hath only {hewed us the ftrength of his wifhes and the bias of his inclinations. The feditious practices of Ariusy his life, the impiety and ill effedtsof his dodrine, together with the terror and infamy of his death, have reflected fo little credit upon his party, that they are tempt- ed to blanch his hiftory at the expence of the orthodox. This however is not to be done by a ftratagem fo barefaced as that of the learned Mr. Mojheims tranflator: for although the credulity of fome men, in fuch matters as make againji the church, is now rifen to an extravagant height; there are many flill left, who are not quite fupple enough to take an author's bare word for a capital crime, fuppofed to have been committed fourteen hundred years before he was born-^ and this againft all the reafon and circumftances of the fadl, together with the exprefs teflimony of the age in which it happened. If this be the way of improving an hiftory of the church, I fhall expedl ihortly to fee fome D 2 annotator C 3* ] annotator rile up and do jufticc to the cha- rader oi Judas: whofe death having been attended with the Arian fymptom of his bowels gufiing out, on which account Epi* phanius fcruples not to obferve \!ci2XArius died, KOL^aTTsp ^ laSocg Trojey as Judas did of old', it may appear extremely probable to a perfon who conliders the matter with the iitmofi care, that he died by poifon orfome fuch violent method, and was a vi5lim to the blind refentment of St. Peter and the other apoftles in x^a^vc fanatical zeal I I reprefent thefe things, not out of any hatred or contempt for the perfons oi \ki^ Ariansy but that they may flop a little and confi- der, to what groundlefs, indeed to what iniquitous, fliifts they are driven to varnifli a bad caufe, not to be maintained but by calumny, clamour, or violence; and thefe are not the marks either of truth or of chriftianity. We are now returning again to the a6l of tuiiformity ; the author of the Effay hav- ing imagined that *^ thefe words to the ufe '' of were omitted with defign" (in the declaration) *^ as a fnare to oblige />(?d?rr^«- *'fcientious i 37 ] *'Jcienticus men to give up their livings:" and accordingly he tells us, '* there were *^ 1800 perfons deprived of their livings, ** rather than fubmit to the terms prefcri- " bed." * Now fuppofing all this to be true, the caufe for which he is pleading can receive no advantage by it; as it never was efpoufed, to the beft of my know- ledge, by any one of the perfons thus de- prived : and I make no doubt but that ma- ny of them would rather have fubmitted to be burnt alive than fubfcribe to the doc- trines advanced in an EJfay on Spirit. But to fpeak the truth, the characfters of thefe poor confcientious men, and the circum- ftanees of their deprivation are fcandaloufly mifreported to bring an odium on the a^ of uniformity and the prefent conjiitution of the church of England. This is the fcope of all that fuperabundance oi charity affedl- ed by this writer; who ought to be re- minded, that when charity is all of it pla- ced in one of the fcales, and there is not a drachm left in the other, it is no longer charity but partiality and injujlice. D 3 The 'P. 13. C 38 i The moft authentic account of the ex- puliion of the Calvinijlical minifters by the a^ of uniformity after the Rejioratioriy is de-? livered down to us by the earl of Claren^ don-, whofe credit as an hiftqrian is too well eftabliflied to need any of my recommen- dations; and that he was furnifhed with the beft materials cannot be queftionedif himfelf having been the principal agent in the tranfacSions of that time. The cafe is related by our author with thefe three circumflances. ift. that the number of the deprived minifters was 1800. 2dly, that they v/qvq poor confcientiaus men: and 3dly, that the declaration which re- quired their ajfenf to all things in the Com^ mon Prayer was the reafon of their non- conformity. I . As to their number, the noble hif- torian aiTures us, that the prelbyterians themfelves, in their petition to the king againft the act of uniformity, made it ^*fve times more than was true i" "" and that '' the greateft of thefe minifters, after fome ** time" (when the contributions of their own faction began to llacken) ** fubfcribed tQ ''Cpntin. cf Clann^on^^ J^ife. p. 157. [ 39 ] ** to thofe very declarations, which they ** had urged as the greatefl motives to their ** non-conformity. And the ni-?mber v/as ** very f mall and of 'very weak ajid inconfi- *' derable men, that continued refradory *' and received no charge in the church." ^ 2. The folio vising extra6l will (hew how far they deferved the charader oi poor and confcientious. " There was fcarce a man in ** that number, ' who had not been fo great ** a promoter of the rebellion, or contri- ** buted fo much to it, that they had no *' other title to their lives but the king's ** mercy; and there were very few amongfl: " them, who had not come into the pof- ** feflion of the churches they now held, ^* by the expulfion of the orthodox minif- ** ters who were lawfully poflefled of them, ** and who being by their imprifonment, ** poverty, and other kinds of oppreffion ** and contempt during fo many years, de-^ ** parted this life, the ufurpers remained ** undifturbed in their livings, and thought ** it now the higheft tyranny to be removed " from them, though for offending the law, ** and difobedienceto the government."'' D 4 Then "Ibid. P. i6i. "P. 157. [ 40 ] Then thirdly, though it be true that they were offended by the declaration -men- tioned by the author, it is falfe that this was the whole ground of their non-con- formity, or, as he expreffes it, ih^fnare that obliged thefe poor confcientious men to give up their livings: for the adt of unifor- mity contained another declaration, which required them to renounce their folemn league and covenant-, and their zeal to this bloody engagement was at leaft as ftrong as their averlion to the liturgy. This ap- pears from the words of their own inflam- matory exhortations to their profelytes, whqfe old animofities, then very likely to fubfide, they endeavoured to keep alive by affuring them, that '' they could not with " a good confcience fubfcribe either the " one or the other declaration : they could *' not fay, that they did aflent or confent " in the firft, nor declare in the fecond, *' that there remained fio obligation from *' the covenant.''^ For a farther account of thefe men and the times in which they lived, I refer the reader to the earl of Cla- rendon's [ 41 ] Tendon's hiftory of his own life; a work which of late years hath done fo much ho- nour to the Oxford prefs. He will there fee the workings of different fadions, and the effeifts of different principles, on the peace, order, and profperity of the com- monwealth. I mention this work of Cla^ rendon in a more particular manner, be- caufe I faw it lately declared in a news- paper by fome outrageous libertine, who being employed in propagating the old rebellious principles of that age, would have all their horrible confequences buried in oblivion, that his writings ought to be burnt by the hands of the common hangman. In return to which, I fhall only fay for myfelf, that if any produd:ion of mine fhould ever be worthy of fo great an ho- nour, I could wifh it might live and die (by any kind of death) with the writings of the earl of Clarendon, I have already taken fome notice of a farcafm upon the orthodoxy of this church, vjrhich in the judgment of the EJfayiJi is no more than imaginary orthodoxy. How far the reformers of our liturgy were carried by [ 42 3 by their imaginations, he does not exprefly fay : but from the temper of his phrafe- ology and the latitude of his expreffion, it is eafy enough to forfee that there will be fomething new and curious, when he comes to explain his fentiments concerning ) or knows that in the primitive ages, it was ufed only to denote t/ie right opinio?2y that is, the Chriftian faith in general, as received in the Catholic church planted by the apof- ties, which, in their days, was one and the fame all the world over : and none but the faithful members of this one commu- nion were termed orthodox. To this pur^ pofe Theodoret obferves, rcd {jTreo tccv o^Trog-o* }ct)v SoyfjLccluv ccywvil^ofJLtvc^y op^odoc,'^ ovofjLa, '^, we call him orthodoxy who earnejlly contends for the a-pojlolic doBrines^ that is, the faith once delivered to the faints by the Apoftles. Thus alfo^ when it is faid of the three thou- fand converted Jews », that they continued Jieadfajlly in the Apoftles doBrine and fellow- JJnpy it is perfectly the fame, as if they had been declared, in one word, to have been orthodox: and therefore, every particular church now fubfifting in the world, is more or lefs orthodox, in proportion as it approaches nearer to, or is more remote from, the purity of the apoflolic times. But, [ 44 ] But, on the contrary, if ^ny point of dodlrine, whether right or wrong, may, by a ftrange abufe of the word, be efteemed orthodox^ becaufe it makes a part of the ejia-- blijhed religion of any country \ then the author's definition, if admitted and applied, will prove that any particular church may be orthodoxy where it is heterodoxy which is, what we commonly call, a contradidtion in terms. And yet, proceeding upon a fal- lacy fo eafily dctedted, he defcants, thro* twenty pages, upon the crime of herefyi meafuring it all the way, by this falfe rule of equivocal orthodoxy, and fetting itr' forth as an infignificant deviation from any eftablifhed form, which, as it happens, may be fometimes right, and fometimes wrong. I will run over thefe pages, and extradl in fliort, as well as I can, the fum of that dodlrine they contain. Accordingly, I find, that fix of them* may be reduced to the following propofi- tions— The Chrifl:ianity of the Apoflles, was, by the blind Scribes and Pharifees of the Jews, called herefy — and therefore, it is « From p. 22. to 28. [ 45 ] is fojjibk that an heretic may be in the right. No; nothing can poflibly be inferred from hence, but that a perfon who is in the righty may be falfely called an heretic by thofe who are in the wrong. In the courfe of thefe obfervations upon herefy, he is pleafed to produce a text from St. FauU in which, by the affiftance of a large comment, the Apoftle is tor- tured till he delivers a very Angular account of this crime, together with the reafons for which the church is empowered to inflidt a punifhment upon thofe that are guilty of it : an account, fo foreign from the pur- pofeof that glorious inftrument of the Ho- ly Spirit, that I dare be confident, he would rather have fufFered martyrdom, than have fubmitted to deliver it. The text is this— A man that is an heretic, after the firji and fecond admonition j rejeB: knowing that he that isfuchy is fubvertedy andjirmethy being condemned of himfelf^ , From which the au- thor prefumes in his comment, that an he- retic is fuch, not for the fake of any de-» flruftiv^ ^ Th. iii. io,|p. [ 46 I ftrudtive opinion he maintains in oppofition to the truth, and to the extreme peril of his own foul, but that he Jinnethy by perfe^ veringthet'ein after admonition -y and that this perverfenefs of his willy not the error of his judgment y is the caife and foundation of his ey.commimication ^ So that it is the admonition an heretic receives from the church, which makes him become guilty of that very crime, for which he hadmonified! and he commences a com- pleat heretic immediately upon his excom- munication, and not before: becaufe, if it is the eccleiiaftical cenfure which renders him guilty, his guilt rnuft increafe with the feverlty of that cenfure; and when the cenfure hath arifen to its full growth, the crime likewife muft have done the fame. But a fm.all attention to this matter will enable us to perceive, that here we have a falfe account oifchifuy infteadof a true ac- count of herefy-y and that upon this the au- thor proceeds in what follows. For it is declared moreover in the-fe words of St. PauU that an heretic \^ff condemn d-, at P. 1%, 29. r [ 47 ] at which paffage we are direded by a very judicioas marginal reference, toyf^j-xiii* 46. where Pan/ ^nd Barnabas tell thcjewsy upon their rejecting the Chriftian faith, that thty judged them/elves unworthy of ever- lajiing life. This therefore v/as fuppofed by thofe pious men, who made the refe- rence, to contain that very fentence of con- demnation, which an heretic pafles upon himfelf; But the eflay writer, agreeable to his ufual method of taking the perfpedive by the wrong end, diminifhes it down to a petty convidtion only, of his wilful perfe- verance in oppojition to the church ; which expolition does not touch upon the mean- ing of the text; fince, in other words, it will ftand thus — An heretic is fenjible that he is condemned by the church — whereas, on the contrary, the Apoftle has afferted in terms, that he is condemned by himfef, that is, he is fenlible of his guilt, and accufed by his own confcience. From the whole of what our author hath faid upon this fub- jeft, we may colledt this unfcriptural defi- nition of herefy — It is an offence, not a- gainll: the revealed will of God, and the concerns r 48 3 concerns of eternity; but againft the will of man, and the outward forms of fociety; not againft the faith, but againft the church that abides by it. Which, in effedt, is to fuggeft, that the church fandtifies the faith; whereas, on the other hand, it is always taken for granted, that the faith fanftifies the church. And what are the motives which excite him thus to diminifii this vice and improve it, if poffible, hy /peaking fmooth things and frophefying deceits about it, almoft into a chriftian virtue ? Why it feems the words JchifmaticzxiA. heretic ^ are founds y which y ever Jince the days of Popery, occafion wondrous horror in the ears of the vulgar^. And as he is apprehenfive, that many of his bre- thren, upon difcovering his attempt to cor- rupt the dodlrines of the church, and dif- turb the peace of it, will load him with thefe opprobrious names, he efteems it his inte- reft to explain away their true meaning, and to brand thofe with the name of fuper- ftitious and papiftical ^culgar, who fliall ap- ply to him in their proper fenfe, fuch nau- fcoiis -P. 19. [ 49 ] fcous appellations. By this means, what- ever noife they may chance to make in his earsy he may contemplate his own inter- pretation of them, and continue to enjoy his repofe. 1 cannot better obviate thefe dangerous infinuations, than by fetting down a true defcription of herefy, as it ftands in the Holy Scriptures ; which being didtated by the infallible Spirit of God, and written be- fore the days of popery y cannot be charged with inflaming the account of any vice, or of adulterating its own divine truth with any hot and impure fpirits, diftilled there- from in after-ages, by the . fuperftitious church of Rome, To proceed then — 2 Pet. ii. I. There Jhall he falje teachers among yoUy who privily Jhall bring in damn-* able herejiesy or [ocipBostg oiTrctiXeiocg) herejies of dejirudiion. Herefies, therefore, 2itQ damn- able-, that is, they lead their advocates and propagators to deflruSlion ; and in general they are privily brought in^ {TrccpeKToc^aa-iv) they are carried round about, and introduced at fome private entrance ; they do not make their approach with that undifguifed hd- E nefty. [ ^o ] nefty, which fears no difcovery^ but fteal into the houfhold of faith under the mafque of confcience. The apoftle goes on — even denying the Lord that bought them — yea, thefe falfe teachers fhall, to compleat their guilt, even dare to deny the Lord that bought them i ei- ther by rejedling the ranfom he hath conde- fcended to pay for them, or by difowning that he, who paid that ranfom, was the Lord. The remaining part of the verfe declares, that nYity pall bring upon themjelves fwift deJlru5lion, Though for a (hort time they may efcape the terror of an earthly tribunal, yet the eye of God can penetrate into the inmoft recefles of their hearts; and his arm will at length drag them forth from their hiding places, to appear at the bar of his tribunal, whofe mercy and long-fuf-* fering they have abufed and affronted: though they may delude themfelves with a vain prefumption that they can contra- didl God, and yet be in the right; that the matter they are upon is barely fpeculative^ and fuch as Godcareth not for; yetif their 2 crime t 51 1 crime be fuch as the apoftle here means to defcribe, thtiv judgment now of a long tmi linger eth not, and their damnation Jlumber* fth not. In I Tim, iv. i. Heretics, or thofe who depart from the truth, and follicit others to follow their pernicious ways, are QdW^i fedu^ cingfpirits, or perfons adluated by that ori- ginal feducer, who firft tempted man to apoftatize from the wifdom of God, and to follow his own lafcivious fancy, in contra- diction to an exprefs command of his ma- ker : their herefies are termed do5irines of devils, invented by the adverfary, and fet up as rivals to the pure and faving doftrines of Chrijl', and thofe who fet forth and propagate fuch dodlrines, are declared to hcmini/iers of Satan*, artfully fubftituting and diligently preaching his word of death, infteadof the i^r^^///^; nay proceeding fo far as to call the* former by the name of the latter, that they may render it the more palatable, and tempt their hearers to fwallow down fuch poifonous impurities with greedinefs. E 2 This • iCor. xi. xj. [ 52 ] This I take to be the true account of herefy, becaufe the fcripture gives it me, and becaufe I find it infiftedupon as fuch by all the pious writers of the ancient church, now fo much defpifed and neg- lefted: and if it is the true, fu rely we ought to tremble at feeing this deftrudlive evil artfully recommended to the world, under the foft phrafes of an opinion barely fpeculative^ a different mode of thinking! If an heretic means no more than one of a dif- ferent opinion from the majority *", whether that majority think right or wrong; if, I fay, this reafoning be true, then the fcrip- tu res are falfe; and it is of no importance whether a man be a chriftian or a maho- metan. As I have alluded to the term, barely fpe* • culative, it may not beamifs more fully to remark this writer s ftrange mifapplication of it : for by opinions barely fpeculative^ he would have us underftand the chief and fundamental myfteries of the chriftian faith ; nay, that very root and ftock, from whence groweth all moral obligation to us as [ S3 J as Chrijliansy all ftrength and comfort ia this world, and all our hope of everlafling falvation in the next ? All this, as depend- ing upon the dodlrine of the Trinity , is, it feems, nothing but a mere lifelefs theory, an empty fubjed for the mind to exercife its curiolity upon, and concerning which, it may think and imagine for itfelf with as great freedom, as it does about any bafelefs and airy fabric of modern metaphyjics. But it is evident that the fcriptures give no warrant to this diflincflion oi fpeculative and praBical duties ; for when the fews put the following queftion to Chrijl — What pall we do that we might work the works of God? his anfwer was — This is the work of Gody that ye believe on him whom he hath fent. Where then is the difference be- tween faith and works ? Since the principles of the chriftian faith, in common with thofe of all other reli- gions, are (in the author's opinion) barely fpeculative y he feems to wonder that men Jhould he more difpleafed with one another for any difference of opinion about them^ than for their being of different fzes or complexions ; and obferves, \h2Xf0r thisy no reqfon ingene- E 3 ral t 54 1 fdl ciin indeed be affigned^. ThtfaSi how- ever is not to be difputed : and that we may not be at a lofs for the reafonsy let us firft confider the cafe of the heterodo:<. Truth and falfehood differ in themfelves as really as light and darknefs. In common life tills difference difcovers itfelf in their ef- fects. The Gofpel affures us, that a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit \ therefore it is impollible that error in religion can be productive of peace, order, charity, and fubjedtion for confcience fake; or that it can ceafe to be produdive of hatred, ma- lice, rage, and cruelty, fo far as it hath an opportunity of follov^ing its incHnations. Bigotry to Paganifm made the heathens perfecute the chriftians, becaufe the fabu- lous charadlers and attributes of Jupiter , Mars, Bacchus, and Venus could not be vin- dicated by other methods. Among chrif- tians perfecution never found encourage* ment till they had errors to fupport by it. Papifc do not burn a proteflant becaufe he difbelieves the Trinity or the Incarna^ tion, but becaufe he denies the corporal prefence^ t 55 3 frefencey the worjhip of Images j the vicarial chara the unnatural endeavour of bringing about a coalition between Chrijlians, Jewsy Turksy Jnjidehy and Heretics ^ not confider- ." Matt, xviii. 17, 18. [ SI ] Ing, that amongft fuch, it Is impoffible there fliould be any community of fenti- ment, or any hearty reconciliation. For if thofe who are on the right fide are quiet and at reft, thofe on the wrong, are, through the implacable fpirit of him that from the beginning was a ?nurderery fo reft- lefs and impatient of contradid:ion, that they never will, or can be ; and for the truth of this, I might appeal to the tefti- mony of all ages. There is a very plain rule, of refting up- on the mojl certain warrants of holy f crip- turcy and of having fuch a degree of cha- rity for mankind, as to encourage none of them in fin ; but this the author will not attend to; chufing rather to defcantupon fire znd faggot, as the fandion of human appointments in the church of Rome ; as if there could be no difference between juft reprehenfion for fin, and unjuft perfecu- tion for righteoufnefs fake : and on the other fide, he takes great pains to recom- mend fuch a fpecies of charity, as would obliterate the diftindlion between good and evil. His own charity however, hath not with- [ 58 I with-hcld him from fome very abfurd and unjufc reflexions, of which the following is a fpecim'Sn : for as the conduct of man- hind (it iliould be of Chrijlians) is quite otherways in this refpedt; that is, as they fometimes difagree, and will have no fel- lowjhip with the unfruitful works of dark^ nefsy but rather reprove them ; he thinks this can be attributed to nothing but a vici- ous pride in our natures^ which gives us an averfionfor every one that differs in opinion from us. If every man was left to make his own religion, and religion were nothing but opinion^ then every man would have a right to be indulged in his own way: but if God hath publiflied a religion from hea- ven, and commanded all men to leave their ov^n inventions and fubmit to what is revealed, the cafe alters very much. Then any man who troubles a chriftian fociqty with the irreligious productions of his own brain, is both a blameable and a dangerous perfon. It may be obferved in the phrafe of this writer, that the Devil differs in opinion from many Chriftians, he hates [ 59 ] hates the dodtrines of the incarnatioriy the fatisfaBioHy the adoration of Jefus Ch-iji^ zndfubmijjion to the will of God, For thefe differences of opinion we may diflike the devil without any breach of charity. And fhould any man appear to think juft as the devil does, and to fpeak of Jefus Chrift and his redemption with more contempt than the devil ever dared to do in his own perfon ; we ithould certainly be excufable if we expreffed an averfion for his opinions : though every good man would at the fame time commiferate his condition, and pray for his repentance and reftitution. If it were impoffible to rebuke men Jharply for their wickednefs and infidelity without being guilty of a vicious pride, we fhould find ourfelves obliged to charge fome degree of this vicious pride upon the Son of God himfelf ; who while his heart overflowed with tendernefs for an unbe- lieving and abandoned nation, could yet fay to them, Teferpents^ ye generation of vi- pers ^ how can ye efcape the damnation of hell? And again, Te are of your father the deviL St. Paul in like manner faid to the Jews who [ 6o ] who refufcd to hear him. Tour blood be upon your own heads ; and, on another occafion, he hath this fevere refledtion concerning fome, who by falfe dodtrines made Chrift of none efFedl : I would they were even cut offy which trouble you, St.Ignatiusy cautioning the Chriftians of Smyrna againft fome who preached a doc« trine now maintained by the fakers, fpeaks in this plain manner; " I arm you ** beforehand againft certain beajis in the ^^ jloape of men\ whom you muft not only ** not receive, but if it be poffible muft not ** meet with : only you rauH pray for them, •« that if it be the will of God, they may ** repent, which yet will be very hard." No Chriftian will prefume to fay, that Chrijiy or St. Pauly or the primitive Mar^ tyrsy were either miftaken in the notion, or deficient in the pradice of true charity : therefore charity doth not cpnfift in a fcep- tical indifference toward all opinions, but may ftand well enough with fome of that zeal which ill men arealways ready enough to exert in oppofition to the faith once de- livered «(=i 0>!f»&'y rm an^fit-'TrojA^op^ut f. 6i ] liver ed to the faint s» It may feem to argue a fpirit of benevolence and liberality in the eyes of the ignorant, if we pafs over all the falfe opinions of the v^orld : but it is every aian*s duty to take care, left while he is affefting humility toward his fellow-crea- tures, he fhould be fo fancy to his maker as to affume a difpeniing power over the divine laws; and by flattering other men in their fins, fhould be made a partaker in the guilt and punifhment of them, while he hath already too many of his own to an- fwer for. In this dedicatory introdudlion to his Ef- fay, our author hath feveral pleas (argu* merits I will not call them) by which he would countenance his plan for reforming the dodrine of the Trinity, as it ftands at prefent in our creeds and articles. It re- mains, therefore, that I extradt thefe, and give them their anfwers feparately accord- ing to that order in which they occur. Plea I. " If the church be not infallible ** any more than the ftate, why may not ** that be amended as well as the ftate ? And *' why ftiould we be more afraid of break- " ing [ 62 J •* ing the peace of the church than of the ♦* ftate ? the peace of the one being full «* as neceffary to bepreferved, as the peace « of the other"/' No juft parallel can, I think, be drawn between the fallibility, or infallibility of the church, and of the ftate, lince they arc not direded by the fame rule, and are con- verfant about matters greatly differing from each other : the one about invariable truths, which concern the everlafting happinefs of man, and are determined by divine revela- tion; the other about national or political principles of its own deviling, which, fo far as they are built upon human authority or national compact, may be varied at plea- fure, as the different exigencies of times and occafions fhall require; fofar as they partake, in common with the ecclefiaftical rule, of divine authority, thefe are as unal- terable as the other. If, therefore, it can be clearly proved that any human errors have crept into the church, any pofitions contradi^ing the word of truth, let them, in God's name, be reformed : but as to the eflential P. 21, 22. [ 63 ] cflential articles, or fubftance of the chrif- tian faith, it muft for ever remain as the fcriptures have fixed it. Plea II. ** I am under lefs apprehenfion ** for the church than for the ftate; for as •^ to the chriftian religion in general, we *' have the fure word of prophecy, that ** the gates of hell Ihall not prevail againft ** it; and as to particular eftablifliments, I " fhould apprehend, that the freer they ** were from errors, the more likely they ** would be to fland".'* Tis true, a can*- dleftick with a light burning in it may be removed from one part of the houfe to an- other, withoutextinguifhing the light; but, yet, the apartment from which it is remov- ed, having no light but what it received from it, will be left in the dark. The light of chriftianity will always huvnjbme where till the end of the world ; but no particular church or nation can from this prophecy receive any well grounded encouragement to tamper with the faith, through a vain prefumption of its continuance, although the members of that church, under the fpecious [ 64 ] fpecious pretence of fnujffing the candle, are continually endeavouring to put it out. Suppofe the chriftian religion, when ex- pelled from Great-Britain^ fhould fettle whole and entire in the city of Amfierdam^ it would give us but cold comfort to refleft, that though the chriftian religion in parti*- Cularh2Ld left us, yet the chriftian religion in general was ftill fubfifting fomewhere in the world* Before any particular ejiablifiment is freed from its errors, we muft afk, who is to judge of thofe errors ? A council of learned and pious men, alTembling in the fear of God, oronefolitaryobjedlor, who ispleafed to think that fuch reformers complied fo far with the humour of the times^ in which they lived, as not to have effedled a tho- rmgh reformation ? If we admit the author ^ judgment, we (hall have that very dodtrine (with many more) expunged as an error, by a departure from which a way was pre- pared in the eaftern churches, for that de- folation brought upon them by the impof- ture of Malmnety which prevailed only in thofe ^P. 10. [ 65 ] thofe parts of the chriftiail world where Arianifm had firft been admitted. Flea III. ** It is manifeft that before the ** reformation took place, the fame argu- ** naents were then made ufe of, againft any ** innovations in religion that are now j " and all alterations were as much de- *' claimed againft ^^Z' Hence this writer means to infmuate, that as a reformation in religion was once made, againft an iinreafonable oppojitioriy and the church freed from its errors; a reforma- tion (how wildly foever it be demanded, orreafonably propofed) ought to be made again : that is, there always may be are- formation of a reformation ; and becaufe the church, at the time here mentioned, had many errors, and was cleared of them; therefore fhe muft have many more, and may be cleared of them again. At which rate of arguing, a man may eafily prove that Mary Magdalen had fourteen devils; and that becaufe kvtn were <;aft out, i^vtvi more muft have ftaid behind. Plea IV. '' If a ftorm Ihould arife (the ** church may run a rifque of having that F ** tree IP. 47' [ 66 3 *^ tree torn up by the roots, which might *Vhave been faved by a little pruning'." Whence is this ftorm to arife ? not from any Popijh ^owtv, becaufe then the mod advifeable method would be, not to lop and to prunCi but to engraft frefli branches up- on the old flock. It is therefore to arife from the oppofite quarter ; that is, either from the diflenters, or fuch members of the church as are corrupted with the Arian opinions. The author, when he penned this fuggeftion, forgot himfelf a little; otherwife he would not have put fo much Jiorm and tempeji into the compofition of bis friends. But what can he mean by a little prun- ing? lixhc tree here fpoken of is the Chrif- tian Faith at prefent growing in the church of England, the dodrine of a Trinity in Unity is the root of it : and whoever peru- fes our Liturgy, will find this dodlrine fo clofely interwoven with all the forms and offices of it, that the Reformation for which he is pleading can never take effect, till the tree is cut up by the root. If this (hould [ 6? ] iliould be our method of pruriwg, we (hall have little to fear afterwards : for when his tempejiuous friends come to rip and rend, there will be nothing left for them to do. Plea V. " The moft proper method that *' could be taken to render the church of *' Ireland truly cathalicy would be to ** open the gates of its communion as wide ** as was coniiftent with the gofpel of *^ Chrift^" How wide the author thinks that to be cannot exad:ly be determined, till he fpeaks more explicitly : but we ought to be very cautious how we enter upon this widening fcheme, for fear of making a fatal miftake —for Jirait is the gate which leadeth unto life-, as on the contrary, wide is the gate which leadeth to deJlruBiony and many there be 9 which go in there at \ It may be faid, without giving offence to any fincere be- liever of the churches of England and Ire-^ landy that if they were opened as wide as fome of our modern reformers would have them, they might pretty much refemble thofe defcribed by the poet, F 2 rhe •Ded. p. 62. *Matth. vii. 13, 14. [ 68 ] 'The gates wide openjloody That with extended wings a banner d hoji Under /pre ad enjigns marchingy might pafs through With horfe and chariots rank'd in hofe array"". As to the Catholicifm here propofed, it is merely ideal, and all the wit of man could never reduce it to pradlice. For no church can fubfift as fuch without a common form of public ferviccj and this fervice muft be built upon the doSrines received. But I defire to know, how it would be poffible to frame fuch a fervice as (hould agree to the contrary dodtrines of the Ariansy So- ciniansy and orthodox Chriftians ? what is religion to fome, is Idolatry to others. I fay nothing of the Prejbyteriansy Anabap- tifts, Independents^ and other forms which were found fo irreconcileable with each other in the age of Catholicifm^ when the gates of our communion were torn oiF their hinges by the Puritan fadlion. The expe- rience of that age, as the diftradlions of it are defcribed by Edwards^ an hoaell Puri- tan, " Par, loa, B. II. 1.884. I 69 ] tan, in his GangrcenUy ought to convince our catholic experimentalifts, that their principles, inftead of uniting men, do fovv the feeds of difcord fo effed:ually, that all religion would either demolifliitfelf, orbs foon laughed out of the world, if it were ' to exift in the motley forms of the laft century; when all the fame pleas which the Prelbyterians had ufed againft the church were turned againft themfelves, and they had the mortification to hear the Independents publickly praying, that the Prejhytery might he removed, that Chrift*s kingdom (meaning their own way) might befetup^. The diffenters therefore, if they know their own intereft, will think themfelves more happy and fecure under a toleration, than any part of them could be under an eftabliftiment. They may all be tolerated, but they cannot all have the eftablifhment : and an equal claim to it could only fct them together by the ears, as it did before; for which themfelves could find no remedy but the Rejloration. F 3 Plea .*' Edwards's Gangr. Parti, p. 35. t 70 ] Plea VI. * The preface to omt Book tf * Common Prayer declares, that " the par^ *' cular forms of divine worjhip^ and tht ** rites and ceremonies appointed to be ufed *'^ therein, being things in their own naturt ** indifferent and alterable, and fo acknow^ ** ledged, it is but reafonable, that upon ** weighty and important confiderations, ac^ ** cording to the various exigencies of timet ^^ and occafonsyfuch changes and alterations '^ may be made therein, as to thofe that art ** in place and authority Jhould, from time to '* time,feem either neceffary or expedient'^ This paflage is taken by the effay- writer in as large and unlimited a fenfe, as if thofe pious men, who reviewed our excellent Li- turgy, had thereby infinuated a permiffion to change the eflential articles of faith therein contained, according to the various humours of every age; or to alter the doc-- trijie of the Trinity, &cc, in fuch .a manner, as that the Liturgy might always wear a garb fui table to th^ cut of the times. Their conceflion, will not countenance his propofed method of reformation, unlefs it be made to appear, that by fuch forms of divine [ 7' ] divine worjhip, rites y and ceremonies ^ as are in their own nature indifferent and alterable^ they meant Creeds, Articles, and all other effentials oi \hQ Liturgy, for thefe are the points wherein he would contend for an al- teration. But this is fuch an indulgence, as thofe faithful and judicious men well knew they had neither a right to grant, nor a liberty to accept of; and if they are permitted to fpeak for themfelves, they will foon be cleared of the accufation here brought againft them. For nothing can more exprefsly fet afide fuch a loofe accep- tation of their words, or more juftly cha- raderize all our reforming adventurers, than the lines which immediately follow the above paffage, extrafted from their Preface to the Book of Common Prayer. Their obfervation is this, *^ accordingly " we find, that in the reigns of feveral " Princes of bleiTed memory fince the re- ** formation, the church, upon juft and ** weighty confiderations, her thereunto *^ moving, hath yielded to make fuch alte- ** rations in fome particulars, as in their re- " fpecSive times were thought convenient: F 4 yet [ 72 ] ^^ yetyS, as that the main body and ejjentiah ^' of it (as well in the chief efi materials ^ as ** in the frame and order thereof) have ** ftill continued the fame unto this dayj *•' and do yet ftand firm and unfhaken, not-» ^^ withftanding all the vain attempts, and ^* impetuous affaults made againft it, by •^ fuch men as are given to change^ and have ^* always difcovered a greater regard to ** their own private fancies and interefts, " than to that duty they owe to the public." They likewife inform us, that after the re- ftoration, ^* divers pamphlets were pub- *' liflied againft the Book of Common Prayer^ *' by thofe who under the ufurped powers *' had naade it their bufinefs to render the ^* people difaffedted thereunto; the old ob- ** jedtions were muftered up, with the adr ^' dition of feme new ones, to make the *' number fwell.'' And that at the time of their review, *' of the fundry alterations ** propofed to them, they rejected all fuch ?* as were either of dangerous confequence *^ (2,%fecretly Jir iking at fame efiablijhed doc- ^* trine^ or laudible practice of the church ?? of England:, or indeed of the whole Ca- tholic [ 73 ] " tholic church of ChriJiJ or elfe, of no ^* confequence at aU, but utterly frivolous ** and vain/* It might have been as prudent therefore in the author, not to have meddled with this Preface; which is diredled throughout againft allfuch changeable minds, '' asfeek " occafion of cavil, or quarrel againft the '* Liturgy of the church."^ Every reader who hath confidered the extravagant latitude of his reafonings a- gainft the prefent eftablifhment of the church, will fcarcely believe that he means to flop at Arianifniy when he commends t\izt freedom of thinkingy which he fuppofes to have been promoted by the legiflature, not onlyfince the reformatioriy but even f nee the revolution^ : and like wife what fort of principles they are, from whence that air of triumph arifes wherewith he obferves, that the eyes of mankind have (of late) been greatly opened^. If their eyes are opened in fuch a manner, as to make them fee no- thing but error inftead of truth, and to j^now what God is, better than he him.felf does ; yped.p, 63. .'^Jbid. E 74 ] does> happy would it be for them, if they were flill blind. But I have fuch an opi- nion of my brethren and countrymen, as to think, that, many of them at leaft, whatever they may ie in time to come, are not yet perfuaded, that knowledge, and wifdom, and judgment, is to be found no where but amongft thofe who have forgot- ten their Catechifm: and, that fuch a fug- geftion as this, may now, and always be a jlander againft the greater half of them, is all the harm 1 wiih them. We are now entering upon the work it- felf, ihtEffayon Spirit y which, I prefume, is fo called by the author, becaufe, in the beginning of this work he lays down a iliort fyflem of metaphyfical fpeculations, concerning the nature and effence of God, the Spirit of the world, or anima mundi, the operations and eflence of the fcsul of man, together with the exiftence and pow- er of angels or created fpirits. But before he hath advanced many fteps into this fy- flem, heftrikes into objections againft the divinity of Chriji and the Holy Spirit -, works up his own metaphyfical principles 2 with [ 75 3 with what IS revealed in the Old and New Teftament; and then cements the whole together with thofe impure traditions of the RahbieSf which originally made the word of God of none ^^, and were inlift- ed upon by the Jews, after their difperfion, on purpofe to deface the dod:rines of the primitive Chriftian church. It is not my intention to confront his fy- ftem with another of the like nature ; in doing which I fliould ovXy fight as one that beateth the air-, and inftead of (hewing his errors, nothing could hereby be manifefted but my own weaknefs. I fhall therefore meddle with this fy ftem no farther than as it interferes with revealed truth; and {hall remark, as I go along, his abufe of Heathen learning, and mifapplication of the holy fcriptures; whence it will appear, that his fpeculations, how^ever new they may be thought, are very ancient, and of Pagan original. If, in the courfe of thefe remarks, I (hould fometimes be obfcure and imme- thodical, I hope it w^ill be chiefly owing to the autlior's lefs perfpicuous manner of treating [ 76 ] treating his fubjed: for when I perufehis book, I confefs myfelf often puzzled to perceive the connections and his argu- ments are frequently fo difperfed, that it is no eafy matter to colled: them. However, that I may the more readily be underftood, I {hall divide my anfwer into feveral chap- ters : the^r/? of which fhall comprehend his notions concerning the nature and ef- fence of God, the Spirit of the univerfe, and the human foul — \htfecondy thofe re- lating to the exiftence and power of cre- ated fpirits — the third, his objeftions a- gainft the divinity of the Son — -thtfourthf his objedions againft that of the Holy Spi^ rit — ihtjifth, the extent and validity of his conclufion — ihtjtxth, his enquiry into the fentiments of the primitive Fathers — thtfeventhy his mifapplication of the Hea- then Trinities — the eighth and laft, his re- marks upon the Atbanajian and Nicene Creeds. CHAP. [ n ] CHAP. I. In which his notions concerning the nature and ejjence of God, the Spirit or Injiin5i of the univerfe, and the foul of man y are confidered, IT muft give us fome furprize, to fee the firft fcene of this effay open with an atheijl giving his definition of God. The author tells us, " The opinion of Spinofa •' was, that there is no other fubjlance in *^ nature but God: that modes cannot fub- *' fift, or be conceived, without a fubflance : ** that there is nothing in nature, but '* modes and fubftances: and that there- '^ fore every thing muft be conceived as '' fubfifting in God\'' By which, if I am fo happy as to underftand him, he means— that as there is nothing in nature hMXmodes^ or various modifications of adlion ; and as thefe modes cannot fubfift without 2,fub^ fiance, therefore all the motion or adliou which appears in nature, muft proceed fronx a BJfay, p. I.— Spin, Op. Poftb. Eth. par. I. p. iz. [ 78 ] from the intimate prefence of God's fuh^ Jiancey expanded through the univerfe. Which opinion of Spinofa, hath been fup- pofed to terminate in athetfm\ becaufe it afferts in other words, that the univerfal fubftance of Nature is God: which fub- fiance being really nothing more than in- animate matter, and the modes therein ob- fervable owing to material oryj^^W caufes, under the direSion and influence of the fupreme-, this opinion leaves us without any God at all, except that which all ido- laters have allowed, the creature rather than the Creator, How far the author*s opinion co-incides with this of Spinofa, will appear as we pro- ceed. For according to him, *' It may be *< aflerted that there is in nature but one ** felf-exiftent being, fubfiftence, or fub- *^ fiance, which by way of eminence, may ♦' therefore be called thefubjla?ice, or, figu> ** ratively and comparatively fpeaking, the ** only being, fuhfijience, ox fuhjlance in na^ ** ture^J' As to the firftpart of this kn- .tence, we grant that there is but onQjelf- exijlent ^P. 2. [ 79 3 exljlent being-, but it cannot follow froni hence, that there is but ontfubjijience or fubjtance-y becaufe zfubjlance (except whea it is improperly ufed for the word ejjence) always implies fomething;;?^/fr/^/; whereas a being may be either material or immate- rial. However, to make this fomewhat plaufible, he ** would be underftood to *' mean by thefe three words (being, fuh-- *^ Jijlence^ 2Sii,fub (lance) one and the fame *' things :'* that when the words are grant- ed to be fynonymous, whatever is proved of a being, may hold good of zfubjlance. I take notice of this, becaufe, in the next page, the fcripture is introduced giving its verdidt in favour of this opinion. ** When *' Mofes (fays he) enquired of God, by *' what name he fhould make him known ** to the children of IJrael^ God faid, thus ** (halt thou fay — I am hath fent me unto *< yoji — which is rendered by the &ept. £y^ *' ^if/ii covy I am he that is, or that exifts; ♦* as if, comparatively fpeaking, there was *' no other being or exijlence but God V In this comment, the ejjay^ writer hath dropt [ 8o ] dropt the words fubfijlence and fubjlance^ and introduced only thofe of being and ex-^ ijience : but as he would be underftood t6 mean the fame thing by all of them, we have his own authority for fubftitutingone for the other as we think proper ; and then his paraphrafe upon syu bijjli o m will be, ** I am he ihztjubjtjis -, as if there were no ^' other /zdjia?2ce hut God," He adds, that *' from this pafTage it probably was, that ** Plafo borrowed his notion of the name ** of God, when he aflerted that the word " eg-t, ejly is folely applicable to the nature ** of God. And from him it probably was, *' that the word bi, thou art^ was written on <« the door of the Delphic temple'." But the original text can, I apprehend, afford no room either for this comment, or for introducing thefe Heathen parallels. It is mnt^ "^^^ T\^V^^y where the Hebrew root of the verb mn^ I am^ is mn hovah to bei from whence is plainly derived the word mn* Jehovah^ which when given under a paraphrafe, doth not comparatively denote the only being ovfuhjiancey but ftridly and properly P. 4. [ 8i 3 properly, Him, which was, and is, and is to come; and exprefles t]\tfelf'exijle72ce or ef- fential eternity of the divine nature, as dif- tinguiflied irom created Brings,, which have a beginning a parte ante, and a dependent duration aparte poji. As for the fpeculationsof P/^/o, &c. con- cerning their falfe God, it is impoffible to make them fquare rightly with the infpired appellations of the true; and fuch autho- rities being extremely vague and uncertain, will at any rate do the author s caufe no fer- vice ; for it is by no means clear that Plato ajjerts that the word sgt is folely applicable to the divine nature ; lince he alfo aflerts, that it is applicable to the t&ncc of the human four. And moreover, while Plato tells us that m (or as he hath it in the neuter gen- der TO Dv) is the only Being that exijls-, his fcholar Arijiotle holds, that it is the only Being which is abftrafted from exiftence, or which does not exiji. The author next confiders God as the Jirjl caufe, and argues thus — ''The con- *' fcioufnefs of my own exiftence neceffarily G ** leads *" ^cTti^ avrfji; {-^vx^iq) eriv -n 0Y2IA, iynco^ 7r,ii svutif/.i^i* ■»•»}» re O ESTIN. Phad. § 41 . [ 8z ] ** leads to a firfi caufe^ which firft caufc ** can only be one^ becaufe two firft caufes ** are a contradldlion in terms." And this argument is ufliered in with the following caution, ** I hope I cannot be thought fa ** abfurd or fo impious, as to imagine that " there are more Gods than one^.'' But his hope as to this particular, how confidently foever it may be expreffed, is not well grounded : for this very abfurdity and int" piety is imputed to thofe of the Arian perfuafion, and I could never yet find that they were able to clear themfelves. The orthodox believe, that the divine ejjence is OJie^ and that a plurality of perfons are comprehended by it. But the Arians affert, that thtfiibjlance of God is only one per/on : yet allow at the fame time (as they muft do, or turn DeiJisJ that Jefus Chrijl is God. Now two diflferent fubflances make two different Godsr, and in all this they are fo far from maintaining the divine unity ^ that it is hard to fay wherein they differ from Volytheijls, This author hath exceeded them all. He owns very freely (as we fhall fee r 83 J fee hereafter) that the name 'Jehovah is ap- plied to the three perfons of the Trinity; and, therefore, according to the interpre- tation of that word, which he himfelf muft allow to be of the fame fenfc with Kxod. iii. 14. I AM THAT I AM, he muft hold thrttfeparatefelf-exijient Beings y which can differ only in name from three firjl caiifes. To allow that the only name of God which implies felf-exijlence is applied to theyj- cond and third perfons of the Trinity ^ and then to argue that they are not coeternal with tYicfrJly is to fave the orthodox the trouble of expofing the doctrine oi Arius. Now we are upon the fubjedt oi felf- txijlence^ it will be proper to note that Chriji (on more occafions than one) af- fumes this charadleriftic of elTential divi- nity. Before Ahr^hzm was (fays he) i am; defcribing his own exiftence by the perma- nent pre/ent, expreffive of that mode of exiftence, which can only be conceived of the Jiipre/ne God or ^rjl caiife. The com- ment of Lucas Brugenjis upon this expref- fion is — Non dicit eY2im, fed sum, utnot-et conjiantemip/msy et im?nobilem (eternitatem^. G 2 This ^ See PcU in loc. [ 84 ] This comment exprefles the natural and obvious icnCc of the words ; and is fuch as will occur to every reader v/hofe head is not already pre-engaged with fcntiments ©f another kind. The Socinian interpreta- tion of this text beinga very great curiofity, I fiiall take the liberty of inferting it, with a few remarks. Before Abraham njc as y lam, John viii. .58. The literal conftrudlion of the v/ords leads us to this plain and fimple truth, that before Abraham was born, or did exift, "fejus Chrift, who fpeaks the words, had a being and did exift : confe- quently, it was no wonder that Abraham fhould have feen him. No, faith Socinusy the meaning is this — '* tt^iv A^puafA, ysvio-Sociy *' before Abram can be Abraham^ that is, ^' Xh^ fat her of many nations y Eyco eif/,iy I, '' faith Jefus, mufl be the Saviour and light <' of the v/orld/' So that the words contain a monition and a comminution. The moni- tion is, '' that the Jews would believe <' him to be the light and Saviour of the " ijoorldy before the Gentiles (hould be '' adopted into the number of Ahrahani's -" chiiJren, and he thereby become the fa- '' ther [ 85 ] ^ ther of many nations'' The commination is not indeed exprefled, but it is implied \ viz. ** that if once the Gentiles ftiould be *^ admitted into favour, the Jews for their ** infidelity, fhould be difinherited and *^ difowned forever." This amazing difcovery w^as made by Lcelius', and if v^e believe his nephew Faujius Socinus, — non fine multis precibiiSy ipfus yefu nomine invocato, impetf^avit ipfe *. Erafmus Johannes had the effrontery to fay of it, fate or me per omnem vitam me am non magis contortam interpret ationem audi^ vijfe, Faufiis, it feems, had hoped better things of the faid Erafmus fohannes — fperabam te f otitis faffuriim^ niillam. in vita tua Scriptura interpret ationem te audivifje^ qua hac fit aut acutior, aut verior^ quave magis divimim quid fapiaty et a Deo ipfo patefaciam fuiffe pra fe ferat. Hoc profect& ajffirmare aufim^ cum Deus illi viro (Laslio fciLj permulta aliis prorfus tunc temporis in- cognita patefecerit, vix quidquam inter ilia omnia effe, quod hac interpret at ione divinius videri queat, Socin. contra Eraf. Johan. G 3 p, 505; * Socin. contr. Euirop. p. 678. . [ 86 ] p. 505. Cited by Dr. Ed^vards In his Pre-* fervative againjl Socinianifm. Part. iv. p. 84. where the reader may fee an account at; large of its manifold and unparalleled ab- furdities, all blafphemoufly fathered upon the fpirit of truth. The procefs made uf© of in educing this marvellous conftruftion is worth obferving. Firft, the word Abroy ham is perverted from a proper name into an appellative^ fo that it doth not denote the per/on of Abraharriy but the privilege and bleffing implied in the changing of his name. 2, The word ysvea-Qcci is altered from denoting \kiQ fiibjla^itial formation and ex^ ijience of Abraham; into an accidental ca- pacity, or fpiritual mutation, whereby he was madej not a many like all others at their births but an allegorical father of many nations, 3. The word £;p, by whicl> our Saviour exprefled his own real 2cs\dLfiib* flantial exijlence, is made, in like manner, to denote his ojice of Meffiah. And laftly, inftead of a plain, diredl, affirmative pro- polition, the words are aflerted to contain z.7nonition and commination, of which not one fyllable is either exprefled or implied, 2 or r 87 ] or was ever imagined to be by any human creature till the days of Lceliiis Socinus', who thinking his own private judgment too flender a foundation for all thefe won- derful things to reft upon, pretended to receive them by immediate revelation from heaven. The union of herefy and enthuji- afm which appears upon this occafion is worthy of admiration : but I muft return now to our Author. Concerning the Jirji caufe^ he affirms, that " every thing which exifts befides ** that, which way foever it is brought in- ** to being, whether it be l?egotte72, ema- '* natedy created^ or fpoken forthy it muft ** proceed from, and owe its exiftence to " the WILL as well as power of that firft ** caufe.** There is nothing in the fcrip- ture to authorize any fuch fuppoiltion, as this of the Son of God owing his exijlence to the power of t\iQ JirJi caufe. For by the application of the name Jehovah to him, he is exijlence itfelf: and the new Tefta- ment having taught us, that he is the PoW" ery as well as the Wifdom of God; then if we admit this author's principles, we ihall G 4 have [ 88 ] have the abfurd dodtrine, that the Power of God is created by the Power of God ^ However, to make this appear plaufible, he adds, in a note, the opinion oi Athana- Jius, w^ho (as he tells us) ^' acknowleges ^* it to be impious to fay that God the *' Father was neceffitated to ad:, even when ** he begat the Son; and allows alfo that ^* neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit ard *' the firft caufe; but the Father alone, ** and that the Son and Holy Spirit were ^' both caufed'"." In all this, he ftudioufly avoids the word creature, though he takes care to exprefs the fame thing in other words, as the Arians always did : for which reafon, Athanafius in that very page'', to part of which the author refers us, thus ap^ peals to his readers—** How manifeft is '< their craft and equivocation! for while ** they are afhamed to call him fChriJiJ ♦* the work of God, or a creature, they de- ** vife other modes of fpeech, introducing ** the term will, and faying, that unlefs <* heexifted by the W// of God, God was ^* neceffitated to have a Son againji his wilL <^But ''IhiL "Vol L p 512. [ §9 3 ^* But (adds he) ye impious men, who ** pervert every thing for the fake of you;* *' herefy^ who pretends to afcribe necejfity ** to God?'* And this is his method oi ac- knowledging it to be impious to fay ^ that God the Father was necejfitated to aB -, which expreffion, as it flands together with the context, appears in a light extremely dif- ferent from what it does in the author's re- ference to it. 'Tis true, Athanafais does fpeak of the Father as a caufe, but not in the author's fenfe of zfirjl caufe. *' He begets the Son ** (faith he) zwdfejids forth the Spirit, and *^ therefore, we call the Father a caife^-y* but ftill he applies the term only to the be- getting of the Son, and iht procejjion of the Spirit, both of which are the terms of the fcripture. That the relation between any of the perfons of the Godhead, is the fame as that between the caufe and the effedi, or the work and the maker of it, is what Atha^ nafus conftantly denies : and to (hew that the relation does not fubiiil in time but in eternity, ^ TiV)ioi fAsv Tov Tiov* iniro^tvn Ti. t^ to vrviv^Aoc to ccyiQV >Cj hit 7«To T^.iyilM Uulvi^ ani<^. V. II. p. 443. t 90 ] eternity, he ufes the prefent tenfe and not the pafti as this writer is pleafed to do in tranflating his words. In the courfe of his Eflay, he hath fcrewed up the do6lrine of an attraBive power in matter to fuch a ridiculous height, that the great TSlewtoriy who generally ex- preffed himfelfwith much caution and re r- ferve, and left his attradiion open to a phy- sical folution, and to the teft of future ex- periments, would have owed him fmall thanks for the puerility of his fpeculations; ^s I may be allowed to call it without of- fence. I will extrad:, from this part of his theory, fuch paffages as will enable us to form a judgment of it. — '' When we fee a «* ftone defcend to the ground — the caufe «« of that motion muft be fome fptrtt or <^ other — fmce as nothing can acl where it *^is720t, that power whereby any body ^« continues in motion, is as much the ef- ^' feft of fome concomitant fpirit, as the <' power v/hich firft put it in motion"". — • ^' The tendency of one body towards ano- *« ther, is from the attradlive force of fome '' fpirit, *"?. 9. [ 91 3 '* fplrit, which attradive power being ia ^^ proportion to the quantity of matter, *^ makes the difference of weight or gra- ** vity in bodies". — '^ Every particle of ** adlive or attradlive matter muft be di^ ^* redled in its motions by fome fpirit^ *' united to that mattery which may have '* juft fuch a quantity of intelledi commu^ ** nicated to it by its creator, as will enable ^* it to perform thofe fundions which are ^' afligned it, in order to carry on the gene- *^ ral oeconomy of the univerfe°?" The philofophy of thefe paffages agrees in part with that of fome ancient heathens, par- ticularly the Stoics: but our author's (y- ftem differs from theirs in two particulars, which cannot be coniidered as improve- ments. I. They fuppofed the ^.diiv^Jpirit refiding in matter to be only one, and called it t\it foul of the world'y but he hath di- vided this one into infinitely many. 2, To this fpirit, as to the human foul, they gave a body, fuppofing it to refide in asther, air, or fire. But the fpirits of his fyftem do their work without the intervention of any ^P. 10. *?. u. [ 92 ] any adive material fluids which is as con- trary to the fenfe of antiquity, as to the refult of modern experiments, particularly thofe of elsdiricity. This intelligent fpirit, by which we are to underfiand the ccther expanded through the whole folar fyilem, and united to all matter, is the Atheiie, called by Atheriago-- ras Ti (ppov7]cri; dice ttczvJcjov di7jZii(r(Zj ci mnid or in- tellect per'cading all things: which fame Athene or xvlinerva^ was no other than the adive power of the fun^ rays^ or of the ^ther diffufed every way from his orb, as Macro bins delivers it from Porphyry, who affirmed that Minerva was the power of the fun, which (befides its ^vonderful effedls upon inanimate bodies) even communicates prudence and intelligence to the human mind^. The fame thing we learn from famhlichusy concerning the Egyptian deity, Neith or Neithasy namely, that it was 9-£j^ ovovloc SiTj- y^cyr^'S'i oX» m Ko(TiJ.'7, Lib, i. Ch. ly^ [ 93 ] pervades matter'^. But as there is fuch ?a-^ perabundant evidence to prove that the mod ancient heathens affigned the direc- tion of all efFedls to an etherialfpii'it, en- dued with intelUgence ', I muft not drop thefubjedl, without producing a little more of it. The author of the book de Diccta (fuppofed to be Hippocrates, though foma think it more ancient) defcribes this fub- tile agent under the charadler of etherial fire — ** Which filently and imperceptibly *' governs and difpoles all nature. In this *' is life, fenfe, prudence, the power of i;i- ** creafe, motion, diminution, alteration, *' fleep, vigilance i and it doth with an *' IncefTant aftivity direct all things both ** in the earth and in the aii-y regions'.*' The ancient philofophers, according to Cicero, *^ divided nature into two parts, *' one of which was adlive the other paf- ** five/' Thefe they fubdivided into the four lOrat. cont. GriECOs, P 144.. Edit. Par. av^jiO-K;, yAtriO-i^f fAHU(Xi,<;, ^ixK\a^i<;y vTTvoi;, sy^s yopa-Oi' nfh X.ib. I. Sea. II. [ 94 1 four elements; of which, air and ^re have the power of fjioving and of aftuating, while the others, earth and water, arc paf- five and difpofed to receive their impref- fions'. With all this, the /^,w^j"u/^^rS or fpiritus intus alens'' oi Firgil, and the intel- l&OiUdXfpirit of our author (though, in* deed, he does not feeni to underftand it) perfedly agree. And here, if by the way I may be per- mitted to give my opinion, I cannot but think that the heathen fages, bating their atheiftical compliment of intelligencey talk very rationally of this powerful agent the either', which, if confidered as an inferior ov fecond C2iuky under the direction of the fupreme, and purfued in this fenfe, would certainly open a moft entertaining fcene of natural philofophy"^. We find this Spirit, and its operations, traced in brief by the author through the whole *j^cad. %^//^^ himfelf, and en- deavour toy/>^// others, with (uohphilofophy afjd vain deceit as this I How irreligious and unphilofophical is it to talk of intelleB^ in thunder zxi^ lights ningl w^hen. all thefe natural operations are performed by the mechanical agency of the air ovathery under the diredion of God;^ for fo we find them reprefented in holy writ — bip '0''[iU^ I^Di ^THEKES dederunt vocemr e Cornelius Agrippa in his occult Philo/ophy mentions nine orders oi De'vils; the fixth of which was called thtpoivers of the air; thefe are very bufy in thunder and lightningy and their prince is called Mirizim. See Li Grand* s Body of Phil, p* 89. fol. [ 99 ] ^&cem, as P^^;2/;^2/J" renders it; or, ^s the Englijh verfion hath it — The AIR thundered, and THinE arrows (the fhafts of lighj:ning direded by the hand of the Almighty) went •abroad^ There is, in this place, no men- tion of any j^/r//2/j/ agency, but that of the fupreme Being; nor of any fecondary effici- ents, but the elements of the heaven, which are not intelligent but mechanical caufes, with vapours, clouds, and other proper materials to work upon. So like wife as to the affair of vegetation ; a plant we perceive will not grow without the agency oi air and heat: whereas, if this operation was performed by the adive power of znyfpirit reiiding in the plant, then it fhould continue to extraft its nu- triment from the earth, and to flourifli without the external agency of any mecha* nical inftrumcnt; which is utterly con-r tradifted by experience. But, to be no longer ferious upon fuch a very odd fubjed:, let us allow, that there ^iXQfpirits or intelligencies refiding in all bq- dies, wherein we difcern any active or at- H 2 tra(ftive ^ P/al, Ixxvii. 1 7 - [ roo ] tradtive power; and that we may bear how this philofophy will found, I (hall attempt to account for, in the author's ftile, the wonderful effedts of thre hadjione. In the loadjione then, there are two poles, one of which attraBs, the other repeh-, and fince a fpirit which ha-th the operation of at- traction affigned to it, always attraBs as a necejfary agent^, and that which hath the operation oi repuljion affigned to it, always repels^ y there mufl in a loadftone be two fpirits, fitting back to back upon the two poles, one performing its office of attrac- tion, and pulling the needle towards it, the other that of repulfion, and driving it off. When the poles are inverted, or the attracting one changed (as it may be) into the repelling and vice verjd-, the two fpi- rits have agreed to change places; and when hy fire or the ftroke of an hammer, either a loadftone or magnetic piece of iron lofes its attracting and repelling power, the fpirits are both of them driven out, and muft endeavour to amufe themfelves in Tome other branch of philofophy. He I loi ] He hafh likewife philofophifed much an the operations, and on the eflence of the human foul; but in his reafonings upoa the former, he feems greatly to have mif- taken the meaning both of Plato and St. FauL For, having obferved, that the hu- man mind is forced to be at the trouble of *' comparing the propofitions, which re- *^ fult from -the agreenient or disagreement *** of -our ideas, in order to arrive at truth : ** hence it is, fays he, \hz\,Plato'\ fpeaking <« of human abilities in the inveftigation of ^* truth, calls it behoUing things in the glafs ^^ofreafon-, which h-e -explains by faying, *^ that as thofe who contemplate an eclipfe ** of the fun, lofe thejight ofity unlefs they *^ are fo careful as to view its reflection in <* water; fo the eye of an human fpirit is *^ too weak to find out truth, unlefs it looks *' at it thro* the medium of reafon; which ** St. P^/^/alfo calls ^ feeing. through a glafs " darkly':' Plato does not here difcourfe about com-- j^aring propofitions y that is, about (Xo^^tr^©^) reafoningy but {Xoyoi) the reafons of terref- H 3 trial 'In F had, ^ I Cor.xiii. 12. ^Efaji p. 20.j 25. [ 102 ] trial things, or things which are 72bt -^ and informs U5, that by attending properly to them, we may thence infer the r^f^;^ j^ of the (^rccovjx) things which really are 5 as for example, by (ibferving nature, it appears that no quality can poflibly admit its con- trary. Fire, the eflence of which is heat^ cannot become coldj and yet continue to be fire-, therefore, the foul, the effence of which is life, cannot pofTibly admit its contrary, death. Astothefimilitude which Socrates makes ufe of, toilluftrate this his plan of enquiry, the author hath deviated as much from the fenfeof the Greeks as if he had followed implicitly fome Latin or French tranflation. For, lays he, ** they who contemplate aa *« ecllpfe of the fun, lofefigl.it of it, unlefs ^^ they are fo careful as to view its reflexion ** in watery" whereas Flato has it thus-— *' unlefs they view the image of the fun in f * water, or fome fuch thing, they lofe (not f* the fght ofthefuHy but) their oiiun eye- "y%''^^^>" ^y g^^ing attentively upon an ob- jedl brighter than it can bear"'. That is, the ») VI Tiyi To;yri; a-KOTranxt m* siKovx avra. PhJEa. § 48, I ^03 ] themind, by contemplating too clofely the ra OVTC&, and endeavouring by its own in- ternal energy to behold them as they are in themfelves, will be dazzled and flupified; but by having recourfe to fenfible objed:s, and reafoning from an analogy in nature, it may contemplate the images of them without being impaired, This is one of the fineft fpeculations in the philofophy of Flato: but no man can make much of it, as it ftands reprefented in an '^Jfay on Spi- rit. Let us next examine whether St. Paul, when he fpeaks oi feeing through a glafs darkly y hath any. view to the comparing of propojitions. The Greek is, fiXeTrci^ev yctp ecpTi d;' ecroiflpn sv amy[j,a,Tty tot§ Se TroocruTTOu TTo^ 'TTooa-coTTovo Now (in this life) we fee through a glafs (or mirror) by an aenigma; but then face to face. Wherein he alludes to the manner in which we are obliged to attain to all our knowledge of things fpi- ritual or invifible, that is, by ufing the cre^ ation as a mirror in which to behold them ; for, as he obferves in another place, the invifble things of God are clearly fe en from H 4 the T 1^4 ] the creation of the worlds being underfloocl by the things which are 7nade. The whole natural world, throughout the facred ora- cles, is referred to ns a figure of xhcfpiri- tual', inftances of which it would be end- lefs to produce : but as my meaning may not be fufficiently clear and explicit with- out a few, it may readily be remembered^ that the power and glory of Chriji is fet forth in the opei*ations of the vifible light ox fiih^ — his efficacy in raijing the dead^ by the dew which caufes the grafs to fpring forth from the earth" — the difference be- tween a corruptible and incorruptible body, by earthly fubflances and the lights of the firmament^ — the efficacy of the Holy Spi- rit in cleanfing and purifying thtfoul, by water which cleanfeth the body"^ — the hid- den manna or invifible bread of life, by na- tural bread, v/hich fupports the body, (Sc. &c. Here are vifibles fubflituted all the way inflead of invifibles, becaufe as all our ideas enter by the fenfes, it is impoffi- ble for us to form any notion of the latter, but n Mai. iv. 2. John vlii. 12. * If. xxvi. 19. \ p 1 Cor. XV. 38. ^ fe^, ** John vii. 38, 39. 1 Cor, vi. II. Tit. iii. 5. [ '05 J but by viewing them through the medium of the former. To reprefent things fpiritual under the figures of things corporeal, is (according to the fcripture ufage of the word) to fpeak by an anigma, and to attend properly to this method of conveying knowledge, is to under/land a proverb and the interpretation of ity the words of the wfe and their fociviy- f/.ccTd) riddles or divine allegories -, wherein one thing obvious to fenfe is exprefied, and another, beyond the reach of fenfe, in- tended and underftood. The whole meaning therefore of St. Paul's expreffion, as I humbly conceive, is this — all fpiritual truths are fituated as it were above or behind us, out of our fight ; while t\iQ glafs of the creation lies before us, and therein we fee them by a faint reflex- ion: but in another life, when the foul fhall be perfeded, and the body glorified, we ihall then fee them no longer by re- flexion, hut face to face y that is, we {hall then receive not the reflected but the diredl ' rays which ifliie forth from them. But [ io6 3 But wc are now^oing to confider fome Operations of the foul, infinitely more grofs than thofe oi thinking 2.vA reafomng: for, in the author's opinion, ** it is the fame ^' wife agent which operates in the digejiion ** of ourfood^ and that enables us to put in "execution the diredlions of our will'/' It is not my province to explain the whole procefs of digejlioriy &c. nor would the compafsof this work adn^it of the attempt: but, I think, the Chymijis are pretty gene- pally agreed, that though many things con- tribute to digeflion, as the mechanical tri- turation of the aliments in the ftomach, the injedlipn of the bile and other men- Jlruumsy yet the principal agent is Jire or heat'y ^nd Dr, Kei/, in his excellent little compendium of anatomy, accounts for this operation by the rarefad:ion of the air; which amounts tq the very fame thing: his words are thefe — '^ This force (that is, ** of the fluids afting in the ftomach) is " much augmented by the impetus which ^* the heat of the ftomach gives to the par- " tides of the fluids -, nor does this heat promote 'P. i2. • See Dr. Friend's Chym. Left. p. 103. i ^^7 i -** promote digejlion only thus, but like- ^^ wife by rarefying thtair contained in the ~*< pores of our food, which burfts its parts *^ afunder'." Air 2iViAJire Site material znd meehanical agents : whether they are wiye ones or not, I leave rny chriftian reader? to confide r carefully before they turn Heathens: for this was undoubtedly the ppinion of the ancient heathen philofo- phers, whofe opinions are colleSed by Afij- nafeh Ben Ifrael — ** Hipparchus thought ^* that the foul was compofed oi fre-, *-* Anuximenes^ Anaxagoras, Diogenes^ Cy- •** mcusy and Critias maintained, that it f' was air. Others again contended, that *' it was a mixture of {lir and j?r^, as Epi- f' cunu. Others affirmed, that it wrs a ^* thin fpirit diffufed through the wnole J'* body, as Hippccrates Cous, Heraditus '* Pontictis faid that the foul is light"",'* With fome, or with all of thefe, the au- thor mull concur in fentiment, when he refers the operations of the material or animal * Anat. alrldg'd, p. 41 " T)e P^^fur. Mcrt. lib. I. chap. 8. — the fame colle(5lion, wjth feyeral additions to the fame purpofe, is to be igiet with in Macrobius in Somn. Sa/>, Jib. I. chap. 14. 7 [ io8 ] animal fplr it to the eiTence of the immor- tal and immaterial, which is altogether diftindt from it. The Chevalier Ramfay is pleafed to fay, that the Pythagoreans ^^ always diftinguifli- ** ed between the ujiderfianding or ih^ pure *^fpirity and the animal foul or etherial *' body: that they confidered the one as the ** fource of our thoughts^ the other as the '* caufe of our motions^ J' But I could wifh that this learned man had been a little more exprefs in his evidence for the truth of this diftindlion. It is, to be fure, highly ra- tional to fuppofe that there is an animal foul or etherial fluid diffufed through the body; and this agent bids the faireft for fupplying us with an eafy and natural folu- tion of mufcular motion"": but after what manner the will or intelleBualfpirit makes its impreffions upon this, fo as to caufe it to " Theol. of the ancients, p. 40, 41. " Sit Ifaac Ne'wton was plainly of this opinion, and has a remarkable paflage to our purpofe — Adjicere jam liceret nonnulla dey/zr/V^ quodam fubtiliflimo, cujus vi &a(f^ioni- bus — fenfatio omnis excitatur, & membra animalium ad voluntatem moventur, vibrationibus fcilicet hujus /piritur ad cerebrum ^ a cerebro in miifcuks propagatis, Princip. Schol. gen. ad fin. [ 109 ] to exert its influence, mufl always remain a fecret. When the ejjay writer imputes thefe me- chanical operations of the material fpir it ^ to, what he calls, a wife agent y he feeks to confirm his hypothefis by this vulgar ob- fervation, that *^ when the belly is full, the ** bones would be at reft; which (fays he) '* feems entirely owing to this, that the ** fpirit being unmolefted with human co- ** gitations, and its attendance upon our ** will, may be more at leifure to purfue *^ thofe operations, which are immediately *' neceflary towards our prefervation^." He doth not impute this to any grofs fumes which arife from the ftomach, and opprefs xhtfenfory: no; \h.Q fpirit is fo much taken up with its natural fundllons of digeflion^ concoBiGHyfeparatio?!, &c. that it is too bufy to think or reafon. He might have added, as a collateral proof, that when a man takes phyfic, and the foul is excercifing its purga- tive f acuity y he is then lefs able to ftudy, read, or meditate: which may be eafily ac- counted for upon his principles; though phyficians -" Ibid. J)h)ificians impute this indifpofition to a relaxation of the whole frame, which forbids any iriterife application of the bo- dily organs. I am willing to believe that the author did not mean it as fuch; but certainly this notion of the rational fouly is a branch of materialifmi and agrees with the religion and philofophy of Oanini and Spinofa, As I have now finifhed niy firft chapter, 1 think it neceflary to obferve, that this head of the EJfay we have hitherto been upon, is entitled by the author, The Doc- trine of the Trinity conjidered in the Lighi of Nature and Reafony becaufe, unlefs the reader were reminded of it, he might not fo readily perceive any connexion between that facred doftrine, and thefe philofo- phical fpeculations. CHAP. CHAR II ^he exiftence and power of created fpirUs. *< I-'np^ HERE feems to be no contra- ** JL didlion (fays the author) in fup- ** pofing that God might communieate to ** much power to one of his own creatures ^ *^ of a more exalted nature than rnan, as to ** enable him to create inferior beings, and " frame a world of his own V This i$ introduced, I prefume, in order to prepare us for conceiving, that Chriji may be % Creator y and yet notwichftanding this^ be himfclf 2i creature ; which, in effedt, v/a§ the herefy of C^r^i?irr^/^j-, who affirmed that angels were the creators of the world \ But by a Creator, the Chrijiihn world hath al- ways underftood ^Jirji caufe : and if there are more Creators than onef there are more Jirji caufes than one. So that the autJior hath hereby entangled himfelf in a contra- didlion, which, a while ago, he feemed t(^ Jaald *P. 271. 4thanaJ. Ojat. l\. contr. Arisn. [ "2 ] hold in the very utmoft contempt. And farther, if God may give this powder to one creature, becaufe there is no contradiBion in it (which, by the vi^ay, is fuch a turn of arguing as will run us upon everlafting fuppofitions) then he may, for the fame reafon, communicate this power to any or to all of thofe fpirits he hath given being to. II. He goes on — *^ We cannot fay, but *^ that fome fpirits may be furniChed with ** bodies of fo delicate a texture, that they *^ may cloathe themf elves with lights as it ** were with agaf'menty may 7nake the clouds *^ their chariot^ and walk upon the wings of "^ the winder We have no right to infer any fuch thing from a defcription, meant only of the fupreme God : for to Him it is, that the Pfalmiji in the preceding verfe ad- drefles hixr\k\i—Blefs the Lord (mn» r\^) O my Soul: O^Lord /;y/ God, thou art he- come exceeding glorious, &c. As the fu- preme God is moft indifputably here de- nominated by the word Jehovah, it argues a great degree of prefumption in the au- thor to rob him of the context, and apply it ^ P. r.8. [ '13 J it to created fpiritSy without being able, or even attempting, to produce any reafon or authority for fo doing. III. And again — '* That no worlds, fill- *' ed with intelligent fpirits, were created *^ till about 6000 years ago; about which *^ time, both reafon and revelation agree, ** that this ball of earth began to revolve *' about the fun, is a thought unworthy of *' a philofopher^" Reafon, to be fure, hath many proofs that the world was creat- ed juft about 6000 years ago 5 the firft and moft ftriking of which is, that it cannot prove it to have been created at all. For Ariftotle maintained that xX.'^z.^ eternal^ -^ and even though he had received fome ob- fcure account of the world's creation by tradition, abfolutelyrejedtedit asabfurdand incredible: and Ariflotle is, I think, allow- ed to have been a perfect mafter of reafon. But how doth revelation agree, that this ball of earth began to revolve about the fun ? If the author can fhevv where the fcripture intimates the revolution of the earth, he hath an opportunity of clearing up I a diffi- • P. 30. ' Galt'^ Court of the Gent. P. II. B. 6. ch. 1, [ "4 ] a difficulty, as fome think it, in the facred philofophy. IV. After he has fuppofed, that a crea- ture may be a Creator^ purely becaufe it is no contradi5lion, he palTes on to that rule or dominion over the earth, and the feveral nations of it, with which he imagines the angels to be invefted. He begins with bor- rowing a doctrine from the heathen Poets, and then attempts to reconcile the fcrip- ture with it. The Pagan notion of this matter, as delivered by the EJjay-writery is as follows : — ** Hejiody one of the firft hea* ** then authors extant, fuppofeth myriads ** of invifible fpirits, cloathed in air, at- " tending upon this terreftrial globe, and ** employed as angels^ that is, inejjengersy *' between the great God and mankind, ** obferving their aftions, and reporting ** them to 'Jupiter y And Plato fays% <* that Saturn well knowing there was no -'* man who could have abfolute empire " over others, without abandoning himfelf ** to all kinds of violence and injuftice, fub- ** jedted the nations to daemons or intelligent *^ fpirits, as their lords and governors'." His. • Plato de Leg. lib. 4. ''P. 32. t tis ] His accounts for the moft part being lame and imperfea, it will be proper to examine more particularly into the nature of thefe daemons: this done, it will be very clear, that there neither is, nor can be, any refemblance or fimilitude between them, and the jninif.ringfpirits of the true God, mentioned in holy fcripture. Hefiod tells us, that '' the race of men *^ which lived in peace and fecurity in the '* golden age under the reign of Saturn^ *^ were, when they died (upon the expira- *^ tion of that happy age) ordained by the '* wife counfel of 'Jupiter to be daemons, ** which go to and fro about the earth, ** clothed in air, obferving the good and ** evil aftions of men^'' The dcejnons therefore, or myriads of invijible fpiritSy which Hefiod fuppofeth, are nothing more than the departedfouls of men ; as for their being <^;2^^/f or meffengers between tht great ^^^ (that is, i\i^ heathen Jupiter J and man- kind, he fays nothing about it. There happens to be a very notable con- tradiftion, as to this affair, betvv^een Plaio I 2 and e Hefiod. Egy. lib. I. 1. io8, l^c. [ n6 ] and He/tod: the one fuppofing thefc damons to have been appointed by Saturriy that is, during the time of the golden age-, becaufe his adminiflration and th^ golden age expir- ed together: the other maintaining, that they were ordained by Jupiter i who, as it is well known, did not begin his reign, till he had dethroned his father Saturn^ Another account of thefe beings, given more at large, is to be found in Apuleius, which I fhall contradl into as fmall a com- pafs, as can conveniently be done, and fet it down. *^ There are certain middle powers *^ (between the gods and menj which are '* divine: thefe the Greeks czW dcemons^ by ** whom, as Pto(9 fuppofes, all the miracles *' of magicians are performed, and the va- *' rious figns, fuch as appear in the entrails *^ of beafts, the flaihings of lightning, ^^ &c. by which we foretel future events,