the essentiatum. Or whether soul and body united, make | they think nothing can serve to illustrate, unless it be like nothing different from either, or both disunited? Or whe- in all respects. ther a man be only such a thing as a pie? Or why might not a pudding serve as well, if made up of several ingredients? He hath greatly indeed obliged mankind for Such an honour done them! If indeed the cause depended on it, he would have good store of philosophers to confute, and all that have any concern for their own kind, before he could disprove the possibility of the supposed union in the Deity; and you have nothing for it but his bare word, which (at least, without the addition of his name) will not do the business. Nor, if he could also bring us a demonstration against the union of soul and body, can he thereby prove such a union as we suppose in the Godhead impossible. The case is quite another. The union of the soul and body was never by me called essential; for I well know, if they were essentially united, in the strict sense, they could never be disunited. But 'tis commonly called a substantial union, and I called it natural in respect of the principle, nature, in contradistinction to art. As for the supposed union we speak of in the Deity, that, being necessary, original, eternal, it must be essential, or none: but with such distinction as before was supposed. For it was union, not identity, that was meant, which union, with such distinction, till they be proved impossible, the inquirer's cause is untouched. And is certainly to any such purpose, not in the least touched by the considerator. Whether there be any such union that may admit to be called essential among the creatures, doth neither make nor mar. We have never said there was, nor doth the stress of the cause lie upon it.

That question still returns. Is every thing to be judged by any man of sense impossible in God, whereof he hath not given distinct and explicit accounts, and illustrations from somewhat in the creatures? And another will be added, Is there any thing originally in God, not essential to him? But when the world is so full of instances of substantial unions, without confusion, or identification, that he cannot so much as name me a created substance, that he can be sure exists absolutely simple, I am sure it can be no contradiction to suppose that there may be uncreated, necessary, eternal union, without confusion or identification; and that it would be, as he phrases it, es sential contradiction, or substantial nonsense, to say that things united necessarily (though distinct) can possibly ever admit of separation. And if our modern anti-trinitarians (for I will not call them by the inept name of uni tarians, which as rightfully belongs to them whose adversaries they are pleased to be, as to themselves, and therefore cannot distinguish the one from the other) would allow it to be their method to understand the doctrine of the orthodox ancients, before they decry and hoot at it, they would find that as they allow sufficient distinction of the sacred hypostases; so the union they assert, is not such as identifies them, but only signifies them to be inseparable. So speaks Athanasius himself, "we think not, as the Sa bellians, that the Son is of one and the same essence with the Father, but consubstantial-nor do we assert three hypostases separated as with men, bodily, lest with the Gentiles, we should admit polytheism," &c.

So do Liberius and he agree in sentiment. The one says, "The Son is not separated from the Father's hypos tasis." The other," We hold not the Son divided from the Father," &c.

upon this (obvious) apprehension, that if it be true, it must be sacred, divine truth.

I find indeed an ingenious, merry gentleman, animadverts upon a postscript writ against the Sober Inquiry, and upon a letter in answer to it, who at a venture calls all essential union, essential contradiction, and substantial nonsense. Who this is, I will not pretend to guess, only And upon the most impartial, faithful, and diligent search I guess him not to be the same with the considerator, for and consideration, I do solemnly declare there needed not this, besides other reasons, that he calls the author of the more of rationality or intelligibleness in this doctrine, to considerations a great man; and I scarce think he would keep it from being ridiculed, as contradictious, and noncall himself so. His wit and sportful humour, I should sense; but only less prejudice, and more modesty, in the have liked better in a less serious affair. For this he bold-opposers of it, with more reverence of the Divine Majesty, ly pronounces, in immediate reference to the trinity itself, (that the world might know he hath a confidence, at least equal to his wit,) I can easily abstain from asserting that any created unions are to be called strictly essential, because then they must be simply indissoluble. And I see not but whatsoever things the Creator hath united, he may disunite, if he be so pleased. Yet one might have expected this author to have been a little more civil to him whom he styles the late famous Dr. More, who hath published to the world his express sentiments in this matter, that created spirits have real amplitude, made up of indiscerptible parts, essentially united, so as not to be separable, without annihilation of the whole. One would think he should not have treated him so, as to make his essential union substantial nonsense. But there are those left in the world, who have that veneration for the Doctor, as to think it no indecent rudeness to this gentleman, not to put his judgment in the balance against the Doctor's, or to distinguish between his calling it nonsense, and proving it so.

But if any wonder that they who think there is no such thing as an essential union among creatures, do yet think there may be in the uncreated Being, they will show themselves mighty wise in their wonder, i. e. in wondering that the creatures are not God. And if they further hereupon inquire, why we will then make use of unions not essential, among creatures, to illustrate that which is supposed essential in the uncreated being, and expect very particular, distinct accounts of every thing so represented; they will show themselves as wise in their expectations, i. e. that - Μεμερισμένας Εκθ. πις. r Liber. Epist. ad Athan. ov pepiteral.

|

This author would fain have me with him to the playhouse, whither really I have no leisure to accompany him, nor much temptation; for I perceive it hath filled his mind with ideas not useful to my purpose; nor, I think, to any good one of his own. If there he learned to jest away that which should be the best part of himself; and of which Socrates, dying, told his friends it would be gone far enough out of their hands, and for that which was left behind, they might bury, or do with it what they pleased; if there he was taught to ridicule the holy apostle's dis tinction of an ow, and i č¿w, an inner and an outer man; and when he hath thrown the former of these out of his notion of himself; for my part, I must think of that which is left, that the silly Indian is the less silly creature of the two.

And besides as he is too much given to play, to mind any thing of serious discourse, so I find he is not throughout honest in his play neither; but that even when he pretends to sit out, and be but a spectator, only taking care that there be fair play, he falls in himself, and plays booty. Nor do I find he hath any thing of argument in his discourse, which hath not been considered already in the discourse I have had with the considerator. I therefore take leave of them both together, and of you too, Sir, being in great sincerity, Your affectionate humble servant, The Inquirer.

Rescript. Ath. ad Liberum, ov diaxsxwpiopevov.

ADVERTISEMENT.

THE "Letter to the Clergy of both Universities," came not to my sight, or notice, till some hours after the last sheet of this discourse was brought to me from the press; I have not time therefore to say much to it, nor yet snould say more than I do had I never so much. The author seems to think what he was now doing, as to the inquiry, superfluous, because he said it was so fully done by an abler hand, &c. In the meantime, he was in ill case, that he was neither able to write to any purpose, nor be silent: a most deplorable double impotency! But he hath, notwithstanding his modesty, shown a double ability, to invent and make an hypothesis of his own fingers' ends, and then most dexterously to combat that shadow. Three inadequate Gods is indeed (to use his own phrase) his own invention, constantly disavowed by the inquirer, who with the generality of trinitarians, calls the three subsistents in the Godhead, God; being each of them necessarily existent, but none of them alone, exclusively, a God.

What art he hath, is shown in fighting this his own figment. As also that of parts of the Deity, other than conceptible, which no man can avoid. So we have his dream of a third part of a God, about which he so learnedly raves in his dream, as to disprove, as effectually, any God at all. For I appeal to what sense he hath left himself, whether power alone be God, exclusive of wisdom and goodness? Then 'tis an inadequate, or a not complete, notion of God; then, by his profound reasoning, not eternal. No more are Father, Son, and Holy Ghost parts, unless you be enamoured of the bull, impartible parts, that never were parted, nor ever can be. As what are necessarily united (though unconfounded) cannot, without nonsense and contradiction, be said to be parted, His fiction, that what is from the eternal Father by necessary emanation, cannot be eternal, but must have a beginning, is of the same stamp. He did not need when he writ, to have abandoned all logic and common sense, that would have told him relata sunt simul natura. His so confidently taking it for granted on all hands, that all infinites are equal, shows his little compass of thought, and how unacquainted he is with the difficulties of a controversy, wherein yet he will be so over-meddlesome. Qui pauca respicit, &c. But who so bold as? I leave him to compound that difference with his abler considerator, whether one inch and two inches be equal? and so bid him good night.

A LETTER

WRITTEN OUT OF THE COUNTRY TO A PERSON OF QUALITY IN THE CITY, WHO TOOK OFFENCE AT THE LATE

SERMON OF DR. STILLINGFLEET,

(DEAN OF ST. PAUL'S,) BEFORE THE LORD MAYOR.

CONSIDERING thyself LeST THOU ALSO BE TEMPTED. GÅL. VI. 1.

JOHANNES COLETUS, DECANUS QUEM DICUNT, DIVI PAULI,—APUD SUOS ANGLOS ALTER PENE APOSTOLUS PAULUS HABITUS EST. POLYD. VIRGIL.

Now let us see what the reverend Doctor's judgment is upon this state of our case, who dissent from the established way, whether the people, or their ministers; and that both concerning what they do, and what, by consequence from his judgment upon their case, they are to suffer. For the practice of the people in this case (at least the negative part of it) he hath some charity in his censure, for in their declining to join in the public assemblies, he believes them generally to practice according to their judg-afterward to the endeavour of satisfaction. But what shall ment, as he professes, page 37. of his sermon. For the ministers, most of them, none at all, who, as he says in the same place, he believes go against theirs. His words are, "I dare say, if most of the preachers at this day in the separate meetings, were soberly asked their judgments, whether it were lawful for the people to join with us in the public assemblies, they would not deny it; and yet the people that frequent them, generally judge otherwise. For it is not to be supposed, that faction among them should so commonly prevail beyond interest."

we do if after our utmost endeavours our dissatisfaction remain? What, while we are endeavouring? which may be all our days in vain. What if we can never be satisfied concerning the established way of baptism for ourselves and our children, and of partaking the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour? Nor to hear or give countenance to such a one pretending to preach the glorious gospel of the blessed God, who either substantially perverts and depraves it, or whose profligate life proclaims him an opposer and enemy to the holy rules and design of it? Nor to commit ourselves to the pastoral care and charge of a less exceptionable person, yea though otherwise never so deserving, that hath tied his own hands, and is under such restraints that he cannot, or so disinclined that he will not, dispense the ordinances of Christ in such a way, as wherein with satisfaction to our consciences we may enjoy them.

Read over the Doctor's sermon again and again, and you will find no course is prescribed us, but to sit still without any enjoyment of Christian ordinances at all. And with how great numbers must this be the case! for himself professes to believe, that the people that frequent the separate meetings (who you know are not a few) do gene

rally judge it to be unlawful to join in the public assem- | 'Tis a long time that his own judgment has been ripening blies. And are we always to sit still thus? That is to exchange visible Christianity for visible (at least negative) paganism! This, if you take the whole compass of it, is a thing of awful importance that so great a limb of a Christian nation, they and their posterity, should be paganized from age to age, and cut of from the whole body of the Christiancommunity, only because they scruple some things, the least exceptionable whereof are no part of the Christian institution, (as himself, and they whose advocate he is, will freely confess,) nor do necessarily belong to it, being (as they contend) but indifferent things. He seems rather contented we should not be Christians at all, than not to be Christians of this particular mode: that we should rather want the substance of Christ's gospel and sacraments, than not have them accompanied with confessedly needless additions, and which we fear to be forbidden us by their Lord and ours.

We do sincerely profess wherein we decline the communion he invites us to, we only displease him, and those of his way and mind, out of a real fear of otherwise displeasing God. We agree with them in far greater things than we can differ in. We are of that one body which they themselves profess to be of, so far as mere Christianity is the distinction, and collective bond of it, and desire to be under the conduct and government of that one Spirit. We are called with them in that one hope of our calling, and earnestly expect (whatever hard thoughts they have of us) to meet many a one of them in the participation of the blessed hoped end of that calling. We acknowledge that one Lord, that one faith, that one baptism, (or covenant which the baptism of our Lord's appointment seals,) and that one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. Yet because we cannot, we dare not consent with them to the additions which belong not (and which we fear are unduly affixed) to the religion of Christians, we are adjudged to be (as much as in them is) cut off from Christ, deprived of the dear pledges of his love, and acquisitions of his blood, are driven out from the inheritance of the Lord, and it is effect said to us, Go and serve other gods. Thus far the severity of this reverend author towards us extends. Which while we thus truly represent and recount, let us also,

2. Consider what agreement it holds with what we elsewhere observe from him. We have already taken notice, that for our bare nonconformity he acquits us of the guilt of schism. And, page 20. of this sermon, he says, he doth "not confound bare suspending communion in some particular rites, which persons do modestly scruple, and using it in what they judge to be lawful, with either total, or at least ordinary forbearance of communion in what they judge to be lawful; and proceeding to the forming separate congregations," &c. 'Tis this latter he severs and singles out for his opposition. Against our suspending communion in some particular rites, (which we judge unlawful,) if we use it in what we judge lawful, (which I, with him, presume the lay-dissenters in England generally do,) he hath nothing to say: yea, and undertaking to show what error of conscience doth excuse a man from sin, in following the dictates of it; he tells us, page 44. that "if the error be wholly involuntary, i. e. if it be caused by invincible ignorance," (which he thus explains in the following words,)" or after using the best means for due information of his conscience; though the act may be a fault in itself, yet it shall not be imputed to him for a sin, because it wanted the consent of the mind by which the will is determined." And now, Sir, I beseech you consider, (1.) When he confesses if we be willing to be satisfied, and our error be involuntary, it shall not be imputed to us for a sin; why are we so severely dealt with for what is not to be imputed to us for a sin? If it were any, methinks it should not deserve such rigour at the hands of men, that are themselves also liable to mistakes and errors. Is it so very criminal, if every poor illiterate dissenter in England (man or woman) cannot in all their days attain to a better and more settled judgment in such dubious matters, than this reverend person had himself arrived to twenty years ago? Especially that never had, or were capable of having, those peculiar helps and inducements, to temper and reform their judgments, that he hath enjoyed.

to that maturity, as, at length, to think it fit and seasonable to say so much as he hath, for the reforming of ours, even in this sermon. Methinks he should not be so very quick and hard towards us, upon so slender a cause, as our scrupling some particular rites, to adjudge us and ours to be totally deprived of baptism, which themselves count necessary to our salvation, and of the other ordinances of Christ, which they do not think unnecessary. And consider, (2.) Whereas he says, that if a man err after using the best means for due information of his conscience, it shall not be imputed to him as a sin. What if we err this error (as he counts it) after using the best means for due information; that we ought rather than to return to the state of paganism, to bear our part in the forming of such meetings for the worship of God, as wherein we may, with the satisfaction of our own consciences, enjoy all his holy ordinances? It will surely be within the compass of this his general position, and not be imputable as a sin. Then it is to be hoped we should rather choose to do so, than paganize ourselves, or live in the wilful neglect of his institutions: which to do by our own choice, when we might do otherwise, we cannot but think a very great sin.

If here the Doctor should assume to himself to tell us not only that we err herein, (whereof we are to regard his proof, as it shall be considered by and by, more than his affirmation,) but also that our error is wilful, we shall appeal from him to one that better knows, how willingly, how gladly we should receive information, and admit the belief, that we ought to content ourselves entirely and only with such provisions as the established religion (to use the Doctor's phrase) allows us, if the evidence of the thing itself did not seem irresistibly and unavoidably to persuade us otherwise. And for him to say so, were but to suppose men wilful, only for not being of his mind, who can as easily think him so, for not being of theirs. But this cannot be a question between the Doctor and us; whom, as we have taken notice above, he hath so far obliged, as to admit, (page 37.) " that we generally judge as we practise, and that it is not to be supposed that faction among us should so commonly prevail beyond interest." But since this appears to be his determination concerning us, and that his assertion seems positive and peremptory, page 20. That in this our case, to proceed to the forming of congregations under other teachers, and by other rules than what the established religion allows, were a sinful and mischievous separation,"-we are in the next place,

II. To discuss the matter with the Doctor; wherein we shall endeavour to show,-1. The indefensibleness of the judgment the Doctor hath given in this case; which will both infer (and in some part excuse) what we are afterwards to discover; viz.-9. The infirmity of what is alleged by him in this attempt of his to defend it.

1. For the former, it being obvious to common observation, that a natural self-indulgence and aptness to decline and waive what is of more terrible import to themselves, doth usually insinuate and influence men's minds in their judging of such cases; we are the more concerned (because a favourable false judgment will do us no good) with an impartial strictness to hold ourselves to the thing itself. And when we most strictly do so, methinks the doctor should have somewhat a hard province of it. For his determination amounts to thus much, (that we ought to be kept in a state of damnation for scrupling the ceremonies,) i. e. to be deprived of the necessary means of our salvation. And that, while he accounts our scruple (after the use of due means for our information) not imputable to us as a sin: and not that only, but that we ought to consent to our own damnation for this no sin of ours; inasmuch as it would be sinful and mischievous to procure to ourselves the necessary means of our salvation in another way, while we apprehend that, without our sin, we cannot have them in the way which he allows us.

We are indeed satisfied, that our sin one way or other would contribute little to our salvation. But when also we are satisfied that we cannot enjoy the means of salvation in his way without sin; and he tells us, we cannot without sin enjoy them in our own: we hope every door is not shut up against us, and cannot think the merciful and holy God hath so stated our case, as to reduce us to