quiry after Truth only, and for that purpofe took fuch Steps as might secure the Reader from personal Partiality or Prejudice.

This the Writer of the Pamphlet seems sensible of, which makes the Apology for putting his Lordship's Name to it ten times worse: For he begins with saying, Though your Lordship, for some prudential Reafons, has not thought fit to set your Name, &c. Now, if his Lordship (supposing him to have been the Author) had prudential Reasons for concealing his Name, can any one good-natured Reafon be affigned for this Author's revealing it? Is not fuch a Discovery, where neither the Honour of God, nor the Good of Mankind necessarily require it, an immoral Action in itself?

As to the general Purport of the Work, it is not an Answer, but only a Collection of Cavils against the Author of the Effay for not being against human Establishments with regard to Religion. Concerning which all this Author says is exceedingly fallacious from Page 7 to p. 12. Because the Welfare and Support of Society is so founded by the great Author of Nature on the Bafis of Religion, that it is impoffible to separate the one from the other; and of confequence the Establish

Establishment of the one will necessarily require the Establishment of the other. And in Answer to his Question, Who is the Judge? it may truly be faid, that the same Legislative Powers which establish the one, have a Right to establish the other; and to choose that Religion which they think to be best.

As to what he says, p. 4. against the Author of the Effay, for publishing his Thoughts on this Subject in the Garb of a Metaphyfical Effay; because, faith he, The Poor had the Gospel preached unto them, &c. the Author of this Pamphlet does not seem to confider that the Effay was not designed 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 some speculative and metaphyfical Points, which the Scriptures had not clearly revealed; which, though only the Doctrines of Men, were nevertheless preached to the Poor as the Doctrines of God. The Author of the Effay therefore writes to these metaphyfical Divines to forbear their own Comments, and to preach only the Gospel of Chrift to the Poor. In which every thing that is necessary to be known is sufficiently revealed; and on which account it is that the Author of the Effay affirms, that our Belief in any Mystery can be no further required than as far as that Mystery is plainly revealed. And hence may be collected the following Deduction, which is directly opposite to that which this Author would fix upon the Effay, viz. That the Bulk of Mankind are capable of judging of the true Sense of Scripture, in all Points which it concerns them nearly to know. And therefore the Conclufion which the Author of the Effay seems to be defirous of having further deduced from thence, is this, that the Poor, or the Bulk of Mankind, ought not to be disturbed with the Decrees of Councils, which it does not concern them to know; and which feems to have been the Reason of his cloathing his Effay in a metaphyfical Garb.

This Author fays, p. 12. "That he does " not fee what Use it is, any other than for "the Amusement of the Reader, or to dif" play the Learning of the Writer, to shew "the Light in which the Doctrine of the

८८

Trinity was held by the ancient Hebrews, "the Egyptians, Pythagoreans or Platonists." Had the Author of the Effay been only writ-. ing for the Ufe of the Author of this Pam-, phlet, he probably would not have taken the

Pains

::

Pains to display his Learning; but as it is probable, that some Men of Learning may read his Effay, and that fuch would know that Men of Learning, such as Dr. Cudworth and the ingenious Author of Siris, have produced the Platonic Notions of the Trinity, &c. in Vindication of the Consubstantial Doctrine of the Trinity, therefore the Author of the Effay might reasonably think that it would be required of him to shew, that even these kinds of Arguments had no Force in them.

The Author of this Pamphlet says, p. 14. "How indeed the Son is the only begotten " of the Father, or how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, this the Scrip

ture has no where declared, and there"fore the wisest Man ought not to prefume

to be able to explain it." If I do not mistake the Drift and Design of the Author of the Effay on Spirit, the enforcing this Propofition is the main Purport of his Book, as may be seen by the Conclufion, from Sect. 152. to the End. And therefore his whole Book seems only intended, not to enforce any Explanations of his own, but to shew how ineffectual all Attempts to explain this Mystery have been hitherto. And as to the Question proposed by

the Author of this Pamphlet, p. 15. where he says, "For, pray, my Lord, is any Man "the wiser or the better Christian for know"ing,---that the Fathers understood the " Words Ufia and Hypoftafis in the fame "Sense?" The Answer may be this: That he who at present is perfuaded to believe that the present Doctrine 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 Doctrine of the Nicene Fathers; who held that there was but one Hypoftafis as well as but one Ufia in the Trinity. But how far he is made the better for this Knowledge must depend upon himself: And the use which the Author of the Effay feems to with the Reader would make of this Information, is, to join in endeavouring to have this Piece of false Doctrine removed out of our Creeds and out of our Liturgies.

The Author of this Pamphlet says, p. 14, "These are the only Mysteries in Christia"nity, viz. The Manner how the Son and

Holy Spirit derive their Being from God, " even the Father; and these not the wisest "Men, probably not the highest Angels, ff are able to understand." To which it

may