r<*ft* V WW. \ Mi Mil |r j3 1 — $ *7. OF THE AT PRINCETON, N. J. BO!V .A. t i c> :v OF SAMUEL AGNEW, OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. o4t>. | Ctas^ _ Rivis.on (I \ \ Shelf, h Section. e Book, ^ ? fC^^ a.c,^=^^^a<£==^~~ .^^^Vi&^ U seB \ • .,< J * ' ■ f » DEFENCE O F T H E EflTay on Spirit ; WITH REMARKS O N T H £ Several pretended Anfwersj And which may ferve as an Antidote againft all that fhall ever appear againft it LONDON, ^ Printed, and fold by J. Noon in the Poultry, G, WopjpFALLat Charwg-Crofsy and M, C o o P £ ft in Pater-no ft er-row. MDCCLIII. * [Pike One Shilling.] f i 3 A N ANSWER T O T H E Several Occasional Remarks O N T H E ESSAYonSPIRIT. I. Remarks on a Pamphlet, entitled, * A Letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bijhop 0/ Clogher in Ireland, occafioned by his Lordjhifs Effay on Spirit. TH E Title of this Pamphlet is a very improper one 5 for as the Author of the EJfay, whoever he is, does not choofe to put his own Name to it, nobody elfe has a Right to do it for him. He feems to have been defirous of promoting an En- B quiry [ 2 ] quiry after Truth only, and for that purpofe took fuch Steps as might fecure the Reader from perfonal Partiality or Prejudice. This the Writer of the Pamphlet feems fenfible of, which makes the Apology for putting his Lordihip's Name to it ten times worfe: For he begins with faying, Though your Lordjkip, for feme prudential Rea- fons 9 has not thought fit to fet your Name y &c. Now, if his Lordfhip (fuppofing him to have been the Author) had prudential Rcafons for concealing his Name, can any one good-natured Reafon be afilgned for this Author's revealing it? Is not fuch a Difco- very, where neither the Honour of God, nor the Good of Mankind neceifarily require it, an immoral Adtion in itfelf ? As to the general Purport of the Work, it is not an Anfwer, but only a Collection of Cavils againft the Author of the Ej/ay for not being againft human Eftablifhments with regard to Religion. Concerning which all this Author fays is exceedingly fallacious from Page 7 to p. 12. Becaufe the Welfare and Support of Society is fo founded by the great Author of Nature on the Bails of Re- ligion, that it is impoftible to feparate the one from the other -, and of eonfequence the Eftablifh- r f 3 ] Eftablifhment of the one will neceflarily re- quire the Eftablifhment of the other. And in Anfwer to his Queftion, Who is the Judge ? it may truly be faid, that the fame Legifla- tive Powers which eftablifh the one, have a Right to eftablifh the other j and to choofe that Religion which they think to be beft. As to what he fays, p. 4 . againft the Au- thor of the EJfay, for publishing his Thoughts on this Subjedt in the Garb of a Metaphyfical Effay ; becaufe, faith he, The Poor had the Go/pel preached unto them, &c. the Author of this pamphlet does not feem to confider that the Effay was not defigned to combat any Opinions that ever were, or ever ought to have been preached to the Poor. But he was combating the Decrees of Councils, and the Opinions of Men, upon fome fpeculative and metaphyfical Points, which the Scriptures had not clearly revealed ; which, though only the Doctrines of Men, were neverthe- lefs preached to the Poor as the Doflrines of God. The Author of the EJfay therefore writes to thefe metaphyfical Divines to for- bear their own Comments, and to preach only the Gofpel of Chrift to the Poor. In which every thing that is neceflary to be known is fufficiently revealed $ and on which account B 2 it [4 3 it is that the Author of the EJfay affirms, that our Belief in any Myftery can be no further required than as far as that Myftery is plainly revealed. And hence may be collected the following Deduction, which is diredtly op- pofite to that which this Author would fix upon the EJfay y viz. That the Bulk of Man-* kind are capable of judging of the true Senfe of Scripture ', in all Points which it concerns them nearly to know. And therefore the Con- clufion which the Author of the Effay feems to be defirous of having further deduced from thence, is this, that the Poor, or the Bulk of Mankind, ought not to be difturbed with the Decrees of Councils, which it does not concern them to know ; and which feems to have been the Reafon of his cloathing his Effay in a metaphyfical Garb. This Author fays, p. 12. " That he does cc not fee what Uie it is, any other than for I Let us therefore confider this favourite Dodlrine of the Son being a neceflary Ema- nation of the Divinity, and we fhall find it to be not only non-fenlical but blafphemous. Becaufe there is no fuch Thing in Nature as a neceflary Emanation, or Motion, of any kind whatfoever ; for there can be no Mo- tion without a Determination, and there can be no Determination without the preceding A&ion of forne Intellect in willing or choof- ing that particular Determination. And when this Author fays, It is not impofjible en ejfentialy and fo far necejfary Emanation, jhould acquire its Being, independently of the Willy he allows this neceflary Emanation, be- fore it is emanated, muft firft acquire its be- ing independent on the Will. Now, does not the very Word acquire neceflarily fup- pofethe previous Operation of fome Thought, Defign, or Intellect, in order to acquire ? When we therefore fay in common Speech, that fuch and fuch Agents are necejfary Agents, it only means, that fuch and fuch Actions are neceflary, or rather natural, with regard to fach Agents ; but not that they are abfo- lutely neceflary with regard to God, on whofe Will it depends whether thefe Agents fhall operate after this Manner or not. Which is 3 finely [ u J finely and elegantly defcribed by the Author of the Book of Wifdom, when fpeaking of the Wonders which God wrought in Favour of the Ifraelites, he fays, For the Elements were changed in themfehes by a kind of Har- mony ] , Tike as in a Pfaltery, Notes change the Name of the Tune, and yet are always Sounds y which may well be perceived by the Sight of the Things that have been done. For earthly Things were turned into watery, and the Things that before /warn in Water, now went upon the Ground. The Fire had Power in the Water \ forgetting its own Virtue : And the Water forgat its own quenching Nature. On the other Side, the Flames wafted not the Flejh of the corruptible living Things, though they walked therein ; neither melted they the icey kind of heavenly Meat, that was of Nature apt to melt. Wifd. xix. 1 8 — 21 . And there- fore we may fairly conclude, that nothing ever did, or ever will exift, befide the Firft Caufe, independent of the Will of that Firil Caufe. And indeed, in my humble Opinion, it will be utterly impoffible for any Perfon ever to prove the Son to have been a neceffary Emanation; that is, a neceffary-exiftent Be- ing ; without proving it at the fame time to [ M 1 to have been a felf-exiftent one. Becaufe I take thefe Terms to be convertible - } and that this lame Argument would prove the Son not to have been begotten by the Father ; fince whatever is in kfelf neceffary, cannot depend upon any thing elfe for its Origin, but muft be be unoriginaied 5 which is al- lowed by all to be the diftinguHhihg Pro- perty of the Father. Which Method of rea- foning will ftill be ftroiiger againft the Pro- ceffion of the Holy Spirit ; fince that muft then be confidered as the neceffary Emana- tion of a neceffary Emanation. And when once we begin to allow more neceiTaries than one, where will all this end ? In Anfwer to what the Author of the EJJay on Spirit fays, where he acknowledges that cc created Beings have no Right to di- vine Worfhip or Adoration on their own Account :" But fays, " When Angels are commifiioned from God, with any De- cc gree of Power over us, and are fent in his cc Name, then it cannot be Idolatry, to pay fC them fuch a Degree of Adoration, as is proportionate to the Authority with which they are inverted : Becaufe fuch Adoration or Worfhip, not being paid them on their cc own Account, but on Account of the " Autho- cc cc cc cc cc cc [ i3 1 cc Authority, which hath been delegated un- where, I hear, it was much admired by the orthodox Gentry of that Country, it having been there entitled, An Anpwer to An Effay on Spirit, which is calculated to fet afide the Doclrine of the Trinity in Unity ; in a Differ taf ion, &c* Which, however, any one may eafily fee, was only a Piece of Bookfeller's Craft, to make the Pamphlet fell C z IV. The [ 20 ] IV. The next Treatife, which comes under our Con fi deration, is Dean Swift's Sermon on the Trinity; which, though not writ- ten as an Anfwer to the EJfay, hath been lately reprinted in Ireland as fuch. From which Kingdom it was fent me fome Months ago, with the following Adver- tife?nent printed on the Back of the Title Page. Advertifement by the Editor. Several Gmtlemen of Abilities and Learning having undertaken to anfwer the -Effay on Spirit, yet as their La- bours will require Time and great Confederation, it is thought neceffary, in the Interim, to republifh the fol- lowing Set mon (written by the late Dean Swift) which in fome meafure may ferve as a fit Prefervative againjl the evil EffeBs of that Treatife. WHAT put it into thefe Gentlemens Heads to imagine this Sermon of Dean Swift's would ferve as a fit Prefervative againfl [ 21 ] againft the evil Effefts of the Ejfay on Spirit> was, Ifuppofe, the panegyrical Praifes which Lord Orrery (in his Letters on the Life and Writing of Dean Swift) hath, in this one Part of his Book, where he is fpeaking of this Performance, lavifhly fpent on his Friend Dean Swift, But though I have little Opinion of the Abilities or Learning of fuch Gentlemen, as could place Dr. Swift in the Front of their Battle in a theological Difpute , (who, though he was a Man of Parts and an excellent Pamphleteer, and was capable of putting the beft Glofs on any Sub- ject he took in hand, whether true or falfe, yet was far from being famous for his Learn- ing in Divinity) neverthelefs, it was in Ex- pectation of fome Production from this able and learned Club, that I have waited fo many Months in hopes of meeting fomething ma- terial on this SubjeCt , but this Mountain having not yet brought forth any thing but this Moufe of an Advertifement, I do not think proper to wait any longer. And there- fore I ihall proceed to attack this their Go- liab, with a few round Pebbles of Argu- ments, which I hope to fling fo direCtly in his Face, that you will foon fee him lying proftrate on the Ground. C 3 Towards cc cc cc cc cc cc [ 22 ] Towards the Beginning of the Sermon the Dean has thefe Words : cc The Doctrine that is delivered in holy Scripture, although not exa&ly the fame in Words, is very fhort, and amounteth only to this, That the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, are each of them God, and yet that there is but one God. ,> Then he proceeds to recount the Occafion upon which " thofe cc other Explanations in the Athanajian Creed" were made : And that was, c< That about three hundred Years after Chrift, there fprang up an Herefy of People called Arians, from one Arius, the Leader of them, T'hefe, fays be, denied our Saviour to be God'* Than which nothing can be more falfe. For they acknowledged him to be God, though they did not allow him to be co-equal or co-eternal with God the Fa- ther, but they allowed him to be God oj 'God, and to be the Word, the Power, and Wifdcm of God, and every other Title that was given him in the Scriptures ; they alfo rejected all thofe other Explanations that were given of this Myftery by Alexander Bifhop of Alex- andria, and Athanafius his Deacon. As any one may be convinced, who will but con- fult the Works of Athanajius upon this Head, A cc cc cc cc cc [ 23 ] A fhort Account of which they will find, Tom. i. p. 895, 896. Par. Edit. 1698. and to which I refer thefe learned Gentlemen, as diftinftly as I can, left they fhould not otherwife be able to find it out. Which other Explanations the Dean re- jects as well as Arius. For, fpeaking of the Athaiiafian Creed, the Dean fays, " This cc Creed is now read at certain Times in our Churches, which although it is ufeful for Edification to thofe who under/land it, yet fince it containeth fome nice and philofo- cal Points, which few People can com- prehend, the Bulk of Mankind is obliged to believe no more than the Scripture Doc- " trine as I have delivered it." And if the Bulk of Mankind are obliged to believe no more, I defire to know, why the Athanajian Creed is appointed by the Rubric to be faid by the People as well as by the Minijier ; and how this Exemption of the Bulk of Man- kind, by the Dean, from believing it, can be reconciled with the Creed itfelf ? Which begins with declaring, That every one who doth not keep this Faith whole and un- defiled, Jhall, without doubt, perijh everlaft- ingly : And afierts, towards the middle, that he that will be faved mufi thus think of C 4 the cc cc cc cc cc cc [ 24 ] the trinity : And concludes with faying, "This is the catholic Faith, which except a Man believe faithfully, he cannot be Javed. So that if the pofitive Declarations contained in this Creed be true, the Bulk of Mankind, if they are Men, will certainly be damned if they do not believe it, any thing that the Dean fays to the contrary notwithstanding. As the Dean muft certainly be allowed to be a great Joker, to have valued himfelf much on his Talent of Irony, and not to have fpared even the moft facred Subjects, I own there- fore, that when, fpeaking of the Athanafmn Creed, he fays, Although it is ujejulfor Edi- fication to thofe who underfiand it, I cannot help thinking that this was faid by way of fneer, that he was then in a jibing Mood, and really and truly thought it unintelligible. But take it which way you will, whether in Jell, or in Earneft, where is the Conffiency or Sincerity in this Advice of the Dean to his Parifhioners, who after folemnly repeating this Creed from the Defk, to which the Peo- ple, as well as the Minifter, are obliged to give their AfTent under the Penalty of eter- nal Damnation, affoon as he gets into the Pulpit, tells them that they are not obliged ve it ? Befides. [ 25 ] Befides, I defire to know, whether the Dean in this Sermon does not plainly fhew himfelf to have been an Arian, if he durft but have owned it, when he abfolves the Bulk of Mankind from believing the nice zn&philofophical Points contained in the Atha- nafian Creed, and requires their AfTent only to that Creed which was drawn up by him- felf ? Which Arius would have fubfcribed to as well as the Dean, as far as he was con- cerned in this Difpute ; which, in his Time, only referred to the Divinity of the Father, and Son. For he acknowledged the Father to be God, and the Son to be God, and yet faid there was but one God ; and only found fault with the other unfcriptural Explanations that were given of this Myftery by Athana- Jius and his Adherents. Moreover does not the Dean's Argument, if it has any Force in it at all, likewife fhew that no Man is, or can be, obliged to be- lieve any thing he does not underftand ? and does not he affign this for the Reafon why the Bulk of Mankind are not obliged to be- lieve the nice and philofophical Points in the Athanafian Creed, becaufe they cannot com- prehend them ? And what does the Author pf the EJfay on Spirit defire more, than that the CC [ 26 ] the Bulk of Mankind fhould not be troubled with, or be obliged to give their Affent to the nice and philosophical Points in thzAtba- nafian Creed, by having it made a Part of the public Service of the Church ? And in- deed he feems to be more cautious in framing Creeds than even the Dean himfelf > for he declares, that €c as he is defirous, that no human Conjectures may be impofed on him, as of equal Authority with divine " and one to be three 5 a Father not to be cc older than his Son 5 a Son to be equal with cc his Father 5 and one proceeding from both. " to be equal with both ; he believing three cc Perfons in one Nature ; and two Natures cc in one Perfon." Whereas it ought to be confidered, that there is a wide Difference between believing Matters of Fadt, becaufe they are revealed, and as far as they are re- vealed, though we cannot comprehend the manner how, as being above our Reafon ; and believing thofe other, unrevealed, human, Explanations, which are given of the manner how, when they are contradictory to our Rea- fon. And indeed Lord Bacon has here placed thefe Contradictions in fo flrong a Light as to incline one to think that he did not be- lieve them, any more than Dean Swift: Though he is pleafed to give the common Apology for believing them, for fear of giv- D ing t 34 j fog Offence to the Clergy of thofe days' j with whom he had too much Learning and too much Honefty to be a Favourite [i]. And to whofe Influence with King James he pro- bably owed his Difgrace ; and was pitched upon as a Scape-Goat to fave the Head of Buckingham. Dr. St ebbing, who is without doubt a zea- lous Athanafian, fays, " How three [he does not fay what] M as diftindt in point of f< Agency, as Peter, James, and John, are which he, as all the Athanafians carefully do, has difingenuoufly omitted, and without which the whole Sentence is Nonfenfe, he could not have avoided feeing the Contra- diction, as well as pointing it out to others. For then every one, who was not out of his Senfes, could not but fee, that affirming three eternal Gods, or three Agents, or three Beings, or three Intelligences, &c. who are as diftindi in Point of Agency, as Peter, James, and John are diftinSi, to be } by one common Principle of Exifencc, the one eternal God, or the one Agent, or the one Being, or the one Intelligence, &c. I fay, he could not help feeing this to be a Contradiction ; and, as the Dean exprefTeth it, if he fhould be commanded by an Angel from Heaven to believe it, yet he could not believe it. But furprizing it is what Pains fome People will take to deceive themfelves, as well as to im- pofe upon others. Dr. Berri?nan y another zealous Athanafian y in his Hijlorical Account of the Trinitarian Coritroverfy, being willing to apologize for D 2 thefe [ 36 ] r thefe Contradictions, when fpeaking of the Praxean or Sabellian Herefy, fays, cc Thefe " Heretics took away all real Diftinction [of " the Perfons in the Trinity] left they mould " divide the Subftance. And had the Ca- for, in lefs than half a Century afterwards, by the prevailing Arguments of Excommu* nications, Depoftions, and Banijkments, there was not one fingle Perfon left in any eccle- iiaftical Preferment, who was not known to think on the Arian fide of the Queftion. And is not this the very thing which has irritated, at this prefent time, thofe minor Scriblers of the Northern Creed, and the Modern Preface, &c. thofe buzzing Infects of a Day, to venture Pen to Paper again ft the Author of the EJfay on Spirit, for avert- ing, that it is the Intent of the Act of Uni- formity, only to require our Affent and Con- fent to the Ufe of thofe Things that are contained in the Book of Common Prayer ; and for defiring, that the Form of the De- claration which is appointed to be read by the Minifter, may be made conformable to the Intent of the Act ? Becaufe this would widen the Pale of the Church, and let in more Candidates for Preferment : Whereas E 2 fuch C 52 ] fuch Animals as thefe can never hope to rife, but by the Dint of fuch Subfcriptions, as would drive every body out of the Church, who had Senfe enough to find any Errors in the Eftablifhment, and Honefty enough to own it ; though they are at the fame time willing, in Obedience to the Legiflative Powers, to fubmit to theUfe of fuch Things as are ordained by it, till they (hall be amended by the fame Authority. And from the fame Spirit of Perfecution and Ignorance, it proceeds, that others want to have the Author of the EJfay on Spirit either refign his Preferment, or be made to do it 5 and would, if they could, call the temporal Magiftrate in to their Affiftance ; well knowing, that, when the Argumentam Bacitlimim comes in Play, they who have the hardeft Heads will have the Advantage. Whereas, in my humble Opinion, it would be much more fitting for fome of thefe able and learned Gentlemen to keep their Promife, and anfwer the Effay as Chriftian Clergymen fhould, with Learning and Moderation ; than, as St. Dominic or Bifhop Bonner would, with Fire and Faggot. But this is not their Purpofe. The Defence of Truth is not what they aim at, but the Defence of the Eftablifli- [ 53 ] Eftablifhment. And accordingly I do not find that any of thefe orthodox Gentry have yet undertaken to anfwer Lord Bolingbroke s Objections to the Magna Charta of their Re- ligion, the Scriptures of the Old and New Teftament -, for if they can but preferve their Subfcriptions and good Livings, they care not what becomes of Chriftianity. And now having given fome Reply to all the Anfwers which have hitherto appeared againft the EJfay on Spirit , and efpecially to that Goliah of Gath whom the Philijlines fent out to defy the Armies of the living God •> and having cut off his Head with his own Sword, I fhall proceed to give you an Anti- dote to all that ever fhall appear. And in this I fhall not barely rely upon my own Judgment, but fhall refer the Reader to the Judgment of no lefs a Perfon than St. Jujlin, that famous Philofopher, Apologift and Mar- tyr for the Chriflian Religion, who flourifhed about 150 Years after the Birth of our Sa- viour, and wrote feveral Treatifes in Vindi- cation of the Chriftian Religion, and among the reft one confirming of two Parts, which is entitled, A Dialogue with Trypho the Jew; ifi which having afferted, that Jefus Chri/l, before he was born in the Flefh, was that E 3 Angel C 54] Angel of the Covenant which appeared to Mcfes and the Patriarchs, then he makes tfrypho fay, " O Man ! it had been better " for us to have obeyed our Rabbins, who