r<*ft*
V
|
WW. |
|
|
\ Mi Mil |
|
|
|r j3 1 |
<f> — $
*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- fons9 has not thought fit to fet your Namey &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-
rf 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 <c the Amufemerrt of the Reader, or to dif- ri play the Learning of the Writer, to fhew " the Light in which the Doctrine of the " Trinity was held by the ancient Hebrews, <c the Egyptians, Pythagoreans oxPlatonifs!9 Had the Author of the EJfay been only writ- ing for the Uie of the Author of this Pam- phlet, he probably would not have taken the
Pains
[5]
Pains to difplay his hearning 3 but as it is pro- bable, that fome Men of Learning may read his EJ/ay, and that fuch would know that Men of Learning, fuch as Dr. Cudworth and the in- genious Author of SirtSy have produced the Platojiic Notions of the Trinity, &c. in Vin- dication of the Confubftantiai Doflrine of the Trinity, therefore the Author of the EJfay might reafonably think that it would be re- quired of him to fhew, that even thefe kinds of Arguments had no Force in them.
The Author of this Pamphlet fays, p. 14. cc How indeed the Son is the only begotten of the Father, or how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, this the Scrip- <c ture has no where declared, and there- fore the wifeft Man ought not to prefume to be able to explain it." If I do not miftake the Drift and Defign of the Au- thor of the EJfay en Spirit , the enforcing this Proportion is the main Purport of his Book, as may be ktn by the Conclufion, from Seft. 152. to the End. And there- fore his whole Book feems only intended, not to enforce any Explanations of his own, but to fhew how ineffectual all Attempts' to explain this Myftery have been hither- to. And as to the Queflion propofed by
B 3 the
cc cc
cc
cc
cc ec
[ 6 ]
the Author of this Pamphlet, p. 15. where he fays, <c For, pray, my Lord, is any Man *' the wifer or the better Chriftian for know- ing,— that the Fathers understood the Words Ufia and Hypojiqfis in the fame Senfe ?" The Anfwer may be this : That he who at prefent is perfuaded to believe that the prefent Dodtrine of one Ufia and three. Hypoftafes was the Doctrine of the Nicene Fathers, is made wifer, when he Is informed, that this was not the Dodtrine of the Nicene Fathers ; who held that there was but one Hypojiqfis as well as but one Ufia in the Trinity. But how far he is made the better for this Knowledge muft depend upon himfelf : And the ufe which the Author of the EJfay feems to wifh the Reader would make of this Information, is, to join in en- deavouring to have this Piece of falfe Doc-^ trine removed out of our Creeds and out of our Liturgies.
The Author of this Pamphlet fays, p. 14, f- Thefe are the only Myfteries in Chriftia- ** nity, viz. The Manner how the Son and *c Holy Spirit derive their Being from God, * c even the Father ; and thefe not the wifeft ** Men, probably not the higheft Angels, * 3re able to underftand." To which it
may
[7 1
may be anfwered, frf, That thefc are by no means the only Myjieries in Chriftianity. And, fecondly, That, fuppofing they were, the Manner how is no Part of Chriftianity. And therefore it is againft the Explanation of thefe Myfteries, that the Author of the EJJay feems principally to fet himfelf. The Supporters of which, are for making the Manner how a Part of Chriftianity. Which he thinks, as it was never revealed, ought by no means to be considered as fuch. In which the Author of this Pamphlet feems to agree with him in the Main ; though he is pleafed to find fuch unneceffary Faults with him.
With regard to praying to the Holy Spirit :, which is an Objection the Author of this Pamphlet feems to plume himfelf upon 3 and to aflert, that nothing can be our Duty but what there is an exprefs Command for, p. 1 8, this is a Pofition, which I think cannot be fupported ; there being many Duties which are to be colle&ed by rational Deductions both from the Laws of Reafon and Revela- tion, without an exprefs Command.
The Author of the EJfay on Spirit, Sedt. 84. hath obferved, that " it is but juft that " whatever Degree of Authority the Al-
B 4 " mighty
re
18]
u mighty is pleafed to give to any one Being cc over others, there fhould be a fuitable De- gree of Submiffion paid to that Being, in Proportion to the extent of Authority dele- €c gated from God." And as in eftablifhed Governments the Powers that be, are, faid to be, ordained of God) therefore it is underftood to be conformable to the Will of God, that we fhould apply to them for the Grant of fuch Fa- vours, as the Almighty has put in their Power to bellow ; though there is no exprefs Com- mand for our doing fo ; in like Manner, fince we are informed in the facred Writings, that the Holy Spirit hath been fent by God the Father through Chrift, to be our Comforter ', to abide with us for ever, to guide us into all T'rutb, to help our Infirmities, and is given to every Man to profit withal-, and fince we are convinced that this Holy Spirit hath received Power to fearch our Hearts, to take Cog- nizance of our Thoughts and Adtions, and of Confequence to dwell in us and be hi us-, there is the fame Reafon for our beg- ging the Afiiftance of this Holy Spirit in communicating to us thofe Graces which he hath received Power from the Almighty to grant, though there {hould be no exprefs Command for it, that there is for our afk-
C 9 1;
ing a Favour from the King, who hath alfo received his Power from God, the ultimate Author of all Power.
ii.
The next Pamphlet that appeared againft the EJfay on Spirit, was
An Article in the Compendious Library or Literary Journal, publifhed in Dublin, for November and De- cember, 1 75 1.
TH E Author of it, in Anfwer to this Paragraph in the EJfay, Secft. 3.' God is the only felf-exiftent Being : Every Thing therefore that exifts, befide that FirftCaufe, which way foever it is brought into Being, whether it be begotten, etna- nated, created, or fpoken forth, it muft proceed from and owe its Exiftence to the €i Will, as well as Power of that Firft <c Caufe," fays, It might perhaps, be ob- jected, to this important Principle, that it i§ not impoffible an eflential, and fo far necef- fary, Emanation fhould acquire its Being in- dependently of the Will, and yet not be felf-exiftent. Thus Heat and Light are the necefiary Emanations of the hot and luminous Bodies, Let
cc <c cc cc ■cc cc
[ !<> 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- <c to them, terminates in the One only and cc fupreme God j" this Author replies, Yet itfeems that in St. Paul's Style, being ido- latrous, and doing [religious] Service to them 'which by Nature are no Gods, are fynonymoui Exprejions. Gal. iv. 8.
I believe no one will deny, that the Gods which the Heathens worfhiped were Idclsy and their Service idolatrous. But I cannot here fufficiently lament the ill Treatment which the Scriptures of Truth meet with, when they light into indifcreet Hands, who do not confider their general Purport, but catch fometimes at a {ingle Verfe, and fome- times at a Part of a Verfe ; which, without confidering the Context, they wreft to their own Purpofes ; as happens in the prefent Cafe, with regard to the above Quotation. For the Words of St. Paul are, Hcwbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did Service unto them which by Nature are no Gods. Where the Crime is, ferving thofe which by Nature are no Gods, without a Commiffion from God for fo doing : By which Means the Service did not terminate in the One only and true God. Which is the Crime that the Author of the Ejjay explains to be meant by St. Paul,
when
[ »4 1
tyhen he advifes the Cohffians againft a volutin tary Humility and ivorjhiping of Angels,, Col. ii. 1 8. as is fully expreffed in the 84th and ■86th Seft. of the Ef ay.
The Author of thefe Remarks fo far indeeed does Juftice to the EJ/ay, as to obferve, the Author of the EJfay on Spirit feems to have been led into this Enquiry through an apprehenfion, that the Doc- trine of Chrift's fuffering for us could not well take place, except the whole Chrift, or Meffiah, be acknowledged to have been capable of Suffering." Whether this was his fole Motive or no, I cannot fay; but this feems apparent to me, that neither the Ob- jections of the fetus, Deijis, nor Socinians% againft the Satisfaction of Chrift, can be thoroughly obviated on any other Syftem but that of the whole Chrijl having fuffered, as well in his Divine Nature, as his Huma- nity.
cc <c cc ft cc
III. Th«
III.
The next Pamphlet is that which is en«
titled,
A Differtation on the Scripture Ex- preffionSyThz Angel of the Lord,&c. proving that the Word Angel is put tofigmfy on thefe Occafions material Bodies , and not Spirit*
TH E Author of which Pamphlet feems not to underftand, either the Difpute which he boldly enters into, nor any thing elfe that I can difcover. He advances, p. 5. That though the Angel of the Lord is expreflly faid to be the Lord himfelf, yet the Word Angel notwithftanding plainly points out fomething diftindt from the Lord." Again in p. 6. he fays, " That fpiritual Beings, as they cannot poffibly <c be feen by mortal Eyes ; in order to their giving vifible Tokens of their being pre- fent with Mankind, it is necefTary that they fhould cloath themfelves with Matter " of fome kind or other." And in p. 7. he adds, " From all which it feems plainly " to appear, that whatfoever Matter the
2 Deity
<c c< cc c<
fC
cc
<c cc
cc
CI
(C
[ 16]
,c Deity made ufe of at any Time, to givflf <c immediate Tokens of his Prefence with c< the Fathers, as recorded in holy Writ, " that Matter is there ftyled his Angel." And p. 8. he concludes, " That as this Matter \ when occajionally, and for the prefent tfimey made ufe of by the Deity, is truly the Angel of the Lord ; fo when it is united *c to, and remains ever after with it, it be- <c comes the Son of God J'
According to which Do&rine the Son is nothing but God the Father manifejied in the Flejh. Which is downright Sa&ellianifm, and which was therefore, by way of De* rifion, called the Dodxine of the Son-Father% and the Followers of it Patro-Pajfia?is. Be- caufe it would follow from thence, that ad Matter cannot fufFer, if Chrift fuffered for us, it muft be the Father, according to this Dodtrine, who fuffered in the Perfon of the Son.
As to this Author's Explanation of the Word Elohim, there is nothing new in if,- nor, if there was, would it be any thing to the Purpofe. Since even the jbriam allowed the Son to have exifted before this World was, and to have been employed by God the Father in the Formation of it. Whereas
the
t }7'\
the aforementioned Dodtrine would deftrby the Exiftence of the Son, before his being united to Matter, or born of the Virgin. Mary.
But I will acknowledge, that the reft of his Obfervations are indeed quite new, as he emphatically expreffeth it in his Title Page ; and verily believe they never entered into the Head of any one Man living, but his own. And indeed they are fo new, that I think it would be a Pity to cut them off in the Bloom of their Infancy ; and therefore I am inclined to leave them to themfelves, till they ripen into Rottennefs.
This Author however in his Preface fays, In treating of this Matter I have, as I think, gone a good Way towards proving that the Author of the Effay is not only inconfijienty but injtncere : And it is nd <c Wonder that he is charged with Injince- u rityt) as he is fo great an Advocate for it <c in his Addrefs to the Lord Primate of 1* Ireland. As for my Part, continues he, <c what I have offered comes from an honeft ic Heart, and with a good Intention." It feems that this Gentleman is forced to be his own Trumpeter. But why is the Author of the Efay on Spirit, not allowed to have the
C fame
<c
€C
cc
[ i« ]
fame Honefty of Heart, and good Intention with this Author ? And why is he taxed with Inconfijlency and Infmcerity ? Is it be- caufe he defires in his Addreis to the Lord Primate of Ireland, that the Adl of Unifor- mity may be rectified, which only requires our Affent and Confent to the Ufe of thofe Things which are contained in the Book of Common Prayer ; whereas the Form of De- claration appointed to be read in the Church is fo worded, as to make the Affent and Confent abfolute ? Which is a Matter of Faft that I think nobody has yet ventured to contradict. And if this be true, where then is the Inconjijiency and the Injincerity to be charged ?
Or is he to be reckoned inconfijlent with himfelf, and infincere, becaufe he has chang- ed the Opinions which he was bred up with in his Youth ; and owns that he has changed them ? If this be what is meant by this Charge, it is the oddeft Charge that ever was made againft any one ; free I always looked upon the public Acknowledgement of one's Errors, to be the ftrongeft Proof that could be given of any Man's Sine rrity -9 efpecially in a Cafe where fuch a Declaration was vifibly oppofite to the temporal Intereft of the Con-
c tg ]
fejfor, and was likely to turn out to his Pre* judice ; as hath probably happened in this very Inftance : For I have been told, that a certain Bifhop in Ireland was fet afide lately from being made an Archbifhop, only be- caufe he was fufpe<?ced of being the Author of the Effay on Spirit ; although the Perfons who made the Objection, acknowledged that that he was in all other Refpe&s the'fitteft Perfon for filling that Station.
Silly however and fhallow as this Differ- tation on the Scripture ExpreJJion, The Angel of the Lord, is, it was, foon after its publica- tion here, reprinted in Ireland -> 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 <c Revelation 5 fo neither does he defire, that <c his Conjectures fhould be obtruded upon u others/'
But to proceed with the Dean, " It muft, cc fays he, be allowed, that every Man is <c bound to follow the Rules and Directions <c of that Meafure of Reafon which God cc hath given him ; and indeed he cannot *c do otherwife, if he will be fincere and aft <c like a Man. For Inftance : If I fhould be commanded by an Angel from Hea- ven to believe it is Midnight at Noon-day, yet I could not believe him: So if I was direCtly told in Scripture, that three are u one and one is three, I could not conceive <c or believe it, in the natural, common Senfe <c of that Expreffion 5 but muft fuppofe that 2 fomething dark or myftical was meant,
" which
cc cc cc cc
cc cc <c
[ 27 ] €C which it pleafed God to conceal from me, « and all the World. Thus in the Text, c' There are three that bear record in Hea- <c ven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy " Ghoft , and thefe three are one ; am I ca- a pable of knowing and defining what Union and what Dijiin&ion there may be in the divine Nature, which poffibly may be hid from the Angels themfelves ?" Now if this be true, as I really think it is, how can any one vindicate that Explanation which is given of this Myftery in the Atha- nafian Creed, where this Union is afierted under the Penalty of eternal Damnation to thofe who will not believe it to be an Union in Subfta?tce, and the Diftinftion to be a Di~ ftinftion in Per/on? or why fhould we pre- tend to know and define that which may pojji- hly be hid from the Angels themfelves ?
Again, fays the Dean, " I fee it plainly " declared in Scripture, that there is but one *c God ; and yet I find our Saviour claiming *c the Prerogative of knowing Mens Thoughts, ic in faying, He and his Father are one." It muft be acknowledged, that thefe Texts here quoted out of John x. 30. 1 Job. v. 7. are tbofe which are chiefly infifled on by the Confubjlantialifs, as well as the Sabelliansy
for
[ 23 ]
for their Opinion of the Indivifible Unify of the Subjlance of God between the three Perfons in the Trinity -, for in this thofe two Sedls exa&iy ^gree. But though I am far from defiring that any human explanations of thefe Texts mould be reduced into the Form of a Creed-, yet if the Dean had been as good a Divine, as he was a Pamphleteer, he would have found out fufficient Reafon, from pa- rallel PaiTages in Scripture, to have inter- preted this Unity, here fpoken of in thefe Texts, as not confifting in an Unity of Sub-* fiance, but in an Unity of Liter eft, or Glory, or Happinefs, communicable to Mankind, as well as to the Son, and of which all good Chriftians are to be made Partakers at the laft Day. For, fays our Saviour, when pray- ing to the Father in Favour of his Difciples, Holy Father, keep through thine own Name, thofe whom thou haft given me, that they ?nay be one as we are one. Neither pray I for thefe alone, but for them alfo which ft:all be- lieve on ?ne through their Word -, that they all may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they alfo may be one in us : that the World may believe that thou haft fent me. And the Glory which thou haft given vie, 1 have given them-, that they may be one
even
[ 29 ]
even as we are one. I in thee, and thou in me, that they may be made perfedl in one3 . Which Unity here fpoken of, if it mould be interpreted an Unity of Sub/lance, what Blaf- phemy would it produce ? And in the fame Figure of Speech it is, that he that planteth and he that watereth, are, by St. Paul, faid to be one b ; and that Man and Wife are faid to be one Flejlo c ; becaufe their Intereft is one and the fame. Whereas if the Council of Nice, or all the Councils in Chrijiendom, (and God knows there have been enough of them) had declared that this one Flejh was to be interpreted of an indivifible Unity of Sub- Jlance, Dean Swift himfelf would have told his Pariihioners, that they were not obliged to believe it.
Again, Dean Swift fays, that "it is highly " probable, if God mould pleafe to reveal cc unto us this great Myftery of the Trinity, u or fome other Myfteries of our Religion, cc we mould not be able to under/land them, " unlefs he would at the fame Time think " fit to beftow on us fome new Powers or " Faculties of the Mind, which we want at " prefent, and are referved to the Day of
* Joh. x. 30. xvii. 11,21, 22, 23. Seealfo, Joh. xi. 52. xiv. 2, 3. Col. iii. 4. 1 Joh. iii. 2. Phil. iii. 21. 1 Cor, xv. 49, &c. b 1 Cor, iii, 8. c Mat. xix. 5.
" Refur-
[30 ]
<c Refurre&ion. to Life eternal." But has not God revealed it unto us ? What is it that we know for certain concerning this great Myftery of the Trinity, but what God hath revealed unto us ? I fuppofe therefore the Dean means, that if God fhould pleafe fur- ther to reveal to us this great Myftery of the Trinity, or fome other Myfteries of our holy Religion, we fhould not be able to under- ftand them, unlefs he would at the fame Time beftow on us fome new Powers or Fa- culties. For it is plain, even from the Dean's own Words, that unlefs thefe new Powers or Faculties were beftowed on us, even this fur- ther Revelation, would be no Revelation, becaufe we Jloould not be able to under/land it $ as nothing can be faid to be revealed to any Man, but juft fo far as it is made intelligible to him. Suppofe, for Example, one Perfon who could fpeak Greek attempted to reveal a Secret or a Myftery to another Perfon, who only underftood Englijh, could he be faid to have revealed this Secret, or this Myftery to him, if he only fpoke in Greek ? By no means. The Secret, or Myftery, would re- main ftill as unrevealed to that Perfon, as if the other had not fpoke one Word. And therefore I cannot but, from this very Argu- ment,
[3i ] merit, conclude with the Author of the EJfay on Spirit , that fince our Belief in any My- ftery can be no further required as neceflary to Salvation, than in Proportion as that My- ftery is revealed; no Man is, or can be, obliged to believe more of any Myftery than what is plainly revealed in fuch a Manner as that he may be able to comprehend it. And of Confequence, that all the Labour of Atha- najius in his nice and philofophical Diminutions, and all his other Explanations) is only an At- tempt to explain what is inexplicable ; and to unfold a Myftery which we (hall never be able to under/land, till God fhall think fit to beftow on us fome new Powers, or Faculties of the Mind, which we want at prefent, and are referved till the Day of Refurre&ion to Life eternal.
But, fays the Dean, Cf It is an old and a <c true Diftinction, that Things may be above <c our Reafon, without being contrary to it. " Of this kind are the Power, the Nature, <r and the univerfal Prefence of God, with Cc innumerable other Points/* Which how- ever, with regard to our prefent Difpute, is a Diftinction without a Difference. For though there is a Difference between Things above our