Ghost, but withal to diminish the distinction of the one from the other, so as even to make it next to nothing, by reason of the straits into which unexamined maxims concerning the divine simplicity have cast their minds, have yet not thought that to be absolute or omnimodous. 4. Since we may offend very highly by an arrogant pretence to the knowledge we have not, but shall not offend by confessing the ignorance which we cannot remedy, he infers, we should abstain from confident conclusions in the dark, especially concerning the nature of God; and from saying, we clearly see a sufficient distinction of Father, Son, and Spirit in the Godhead cannot be, or is impossible. 5. Waving the many artificial unions of distinct things, that united and continuing distinct make one thing, under one name, he proposes only to consider what is natural, and instances in what is nearest to us in our very selves. Now we find, as to ourselves, that we are made up of a mind and a body; somewhat that can think, and somewhat that cannot; sufficiently distinct, yet so united as to make up one man. He adds, 6. That the making up two things of so different natures into one thing, was possible to be done, since it is actually done; 'twas what God could do, for he hath done it. And if it be possible to him to unite two things of so very different natures into one thing, 'twould be hard to assign a colourable reason, why it should not be as possible to him to unite two things of a like nature. He argues, 7. That if such a union of three things, so as that they shall be truly one thing, and yet remain distinct, though united, can be affected, then it is not intrinsically, or in itself, impossible. 8. If such a union with such distinction be not in itself impossible, 'tis offered to consideration, whether we shall have a conception in our own mind any thing more incongruous, if we conceive such a union, with such distinction, unmade and eternal, in an unmade or uncreated being. 9. Supposing it possible that three spiritual beings might be in a state of so near union with continuing distinction, as to admit of becoming one spiritual being, as well as that a spiritual being and a corporeal being may be in a state of so near union, with continuing distinction, so as to become one spiritual corporeal being: he queries, whether supposing the former of these to be as possible to be done as the latter, which is done already, we may not as well suppose somewhat like it, but infinitely more perfect, in the uncreated being? 10. He affirms, that the union of the two natures, the human with the divine, in one person of the Son of God, cannot appear to considerate persons more conceivable or possible, than the supposed union of three distinct essences in the one Godhead. 11. He affirms, there is nothing in all this repugnant to such simplicity as God any where claims to his own being, or that plain reason will constrain us to ascribe to him, or that is really in itself any perfection. 12. He adds, that if we should suppose three spiritual necessary beings, the one whereof were mere power, destitute of either wisdom or goodness; another mere wisdom, destitute of either goodness or power; and a third mere goodness, destitute of either power or wisdom; existing separately and apart from each other; this triple conception would overthrow itself, and could allow little ease to a considerate mind; for no one of these could be God: but conceiving essential power, wisdom, and goodness concurring, in one spiritual necessarily existent being, and not only permeating each other, but really and vitally united, in the most perfect and intimate manner, there is nothing of repugnancy, contradiction, or absurdity in the matter. But then 'tis added, 13. That this is only a possible supposition, of what for ought we know may be. This (he says) argues no composition in the being of God; nor are we under the precise notions of power, wisdom, and goodness, to conceive of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 14. This (he says) does not make three Gods, it only asserts so much distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit, as is necessary to the founding the distinct attributions which in the Scriptures are severally given them, without affirming they are three distinct substances, three infinite minds or spirits. 15. The main thing (he says) we are searching for, is what the most sacred Godhead may be, to which a oneness is ascribed with a threefold distinction; and finding there are in the creation made unions, with sufficient remaining distinction, particularly in ourselves, that we are a soul and a body, that the soul is called the man, and the body too; we are led to apprehend it more easily possible there might be two spirits so united as to be one thing, yet continuing distinct; and if two there might be three. And if such a made union, with continuing distinction, be possible in created being, it may not be impossible in the uncreated, that there may be such an eternal unmade union, with continued distinction. 16. The unity of the Godhead is declared to be salved, because the supposition takes in the natural, eternal, necessary union of all the three: nor is the Godhead supposed more necessarily to exist, than these three are to co-exist in the nearest and most intimate union with each other therein. 17. But an hypothesis in this affair, which leaves out the very nexus, that natural, eternal union, or leaves it out of its proper place, and insists upon mutual consciousness, which is but a consequence thereof, wants the principal thing requisite to the salving the unity of the Godhead. 18. The order of priority and posteriority, which the names Father, Son, and Spirit, do more than intimate, is declared to be this way preserved and complied with. 19. If it is urged, that one individual necessarily existent spiritual being alone is God, and is all that is signified by the name of God; 'tis answered, that if by one individual necessarily existent spiritual being, either the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost is meant, taken sejunctly, it is denied; for both the other are truly signified by the name of God too, as well as that one. 20. If it is further objected, that the notion of God is this way made to comprehend Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and a Godhead besides common to these three: 'tis answered, that the notion of God imports not any thing more of real being than is contained in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, taken together, and most intimately, naturally, and vitally, by eternal necessity, united with one another. 'Tis added, 21. That let such a union be conceived in the being of God, with such distinction, and the absolute perfection of the Deity, and the perfect felicity thereof will be the more apprehensible with us. 22. And yet as to delight in society, 'tis owned we are not strictly to measure God by ourselves, further than as he himself prompts and leads us. 23. However, 'tis declared, that thus conceiving, the sacred Triunity will be so remote from any shadow of inconsistency or repugnancy, that no necessity can remain upon us, of torturing wit, and racking invention, to do a laboured and artificial violence to numerous and plain texts of Scripture, only to undeify our glorious Redeemer, and do the utmost despite to the Spirit of grace, &c. This inquiry of Mr. Howe's was reflected on in a 'Postscript to the Defence of Dr. Sherlock's Notion of the Trinity in Unity;' and thereupon he, in the same year, published a 'Letter to a Friend, concerning that Postscript.' In this Letter Mr. Howe inquires, whether in his printed Inquiry he had said more than Dean Sherlock, or more than is defensible, of the distinction of the sacred Three in the Godhead; and also, whether the Dean had said so much as he had done, or so much as was requisite, of their union. He shows that the Dean must be judged, by every one that understands common sense, to have heightened the distinction of the three persons, at least as much as he had done in his Inquiry: and that the Dean said not enough in his book to salve the unity of the Godhead, but ought to have insisted upon somewhat prior to mutual consciousness, as constituent of that unity. He shows that he wrongs him, and wounds himself; and concludes, that since the difference between the sacred Three, which only proceeds from their natural eternal order, is conjecturable only but is really unknown, unrevealed, and inscrutable, it is better herein to confess the imperfection of that knowledge which we have, than to boast of that which we have not, or aspire to that which we cannot have. ness, to the interest of any party whatsoever. If it were rather endeavoured to reason one another into, or out of, this or that opinion, than either by sophistical collusions to cheat, or to hector by great words, one that is not of our mind. Or if the design were less to expose an adversary, than to clear the matter in controversy. Besides, that if such equanimity did more generally appear and govern in transactions of this nature, it would produce a greater liberty in communicating our thoughts about some of the more vogued and fashionable opinions, by exempting each other from the fear of ill treatment in the most sensible kind. It being too manifest that the same confident insulting genius, which makes a man think himself competent to be a standard to mankind, would also make him impatient of dissent, and tempt him to do worse, than reproach one that differs from him, if it were in his power. And the club or faggot arguments must be expected to take place, where what he thinks rational ones did not do the business. He declares, that the perusal of these very considerations, gave him more confidence about his hypothesis, than he allowed himself before, finding that the sagacious author of them, of whose abilities and industry together he really had that opinion, as to count him the most likely to confute it of all the modern anti-trinitarians, had no other way to deal with it, than first both partially and invidiously to represent it, and then rather to trifle than argue against it. And after freely discoursing about the delicious society the divine hypostases are supposed to have with each other; about the union of the sensitive, vegetative, and intellectual natures in man, and the union also of soul and body; about the union of intelligent beings; about heresy, infinite and infinitude, essential and substantial unions, &c. he declares he did not find that that writer had any thing of argument in his discourse, which had not been before considered in the discourse he had had with the considerator; and therefore he takes his leave, and wrote no more upon the argument. Mr. Howe, as well as others, in this case, met with very different treatment from several persons, according to their different notions. He was the more respected by some, upon the account of what he published on this subject, while others that greatly valued his other writings, wished he had left this argument untouched, and kept his thoughts to himself: and some, out of the abundance of their zeal for orthodoxy, could scarce forbear charging him, as well as Dean Sherlock, After this, there came out 'Some Considerations on the with downright heresy. To whom I shall make no Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity, in a Letter other return, than in the words of Bishop Stillingfleet, to H. H.' And Mr. Howe being therein concerned, in in his preface to his 'Vindication of the Doctrine of 1695, published 'A View of those Considerations, in a the Trinity.' 'There is a kind of bitter zeal, which is Letter to the former Friend.' Wherein he gives it as so fierce and violent, that it rather inflames than heals his judgment, that much service might be done to the any wounds that are made; and is of so malignant a common interest of religion, by a free mutual commu- nature, that it spreads and eats like a cancer, and if a nication of even more doubtful thoughts, if such dis- stop were not given to it, it might endanger the whole quisitions were pursued with more candour, and with body?' May such a zeal as this never prevail among less confidence and prepossession of mind, or addicted-us: and if it has already got any footing, the good b Page 43. Lord grant it may be heartily and speedily repented of, have been well assured, that he did really concern himand shaken off, and laid aside. Amen.' But it seems necessary I should add somewhat upon another subject, which also made a great noise in the latter part of this good man's life, and that is the business of occasional conformity. self to advise one way or other, as to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of that occasional conformity, about which he contended; or at least that he ought to have done so: but that not being able to make either of these appear, he had been guilty of an affectation of intermeddling beyond any call he had, that could lead him to it. That he had pretended to judge in a matter he had nothing to do with; and that he had taken upon him to invade the throne of the Most High, in charging the worthy person referred to with acting against his conscience. He tells him that before he concluded that with so rash confidence, he ought to have been able to prove the act in its circumstances unlawful. And his as if the God of the dissenters and of the established church differed as the living God and Baal, he tells him was profane and impious wit. And he at last adds, that the person by him criminated, might, notwithstanding any thing he had said, be in the right; but if the prefacer's judgment upon the case was true, he conceived that the truth, accompanied with bis temper of spirit, was much worse than the other's error. And some time after, he drew up, and there was found among his remaining papers, 'A Letter to a Person of Honour, partly representing the Rise of Occasional Conformity, and partly the Sense of the present Nonconformists, about their yet continuing Differences from the Established Church.' 'MY LORD, Mr. Howe had all along from his first quitting his church, upon the taking place of the Act of Uniformity, carried himself with great calmness and moderation, and had openly declared for this occasional conformity, before communicating with the established church was a necessary qualification for a place in the magistracy; and it was the same also as to a number of his brethren: and yet when the chief magistrate in the city of London had carried the regalia to a dissenting congrega-making use of that text, about following God or Baal, tion, it occasioned no small clamour; and when a little after Sir Thomas Abney, who was a worthy member of Mr. Howe's congregation, (than whom none ever filled the chair of the city with greater honour,) went publicly to worship God, (in 1701, which was the year of his mayoralty) sometimes in the established church, and sometimes among the dissenters, a pamphlet was published, intituled, 'An Inquiry into the Occasional Conformity of Dissenters;' in which this practice was represented as very scandalous, and a preface was prefixed to Mr. Howe, in which he was called on either to vindicate it, or declare against it. Mr. Howe did not much care to enter upon an argument of that nature with one of so warm a temper as the author of that Inquiry, and contented himself with a short return to him in a small pamphlet, that was intituled 'Some Consideration of a Preface to an Inquiry concerning the Occasional Conformity of Dissenters:' in which he tells the prefacer, that he for a long time had had an habitual aversion in his own mind, from perplexing himself, or disturbing others, by being concerned in agitating the controversies that have been on foot about the circumstantials of religion. That he had contented himself, by the best means he could be furnished with, and the best use God enabled him to make of them, so far to form and settle his own judgment, as was necessary to his own practice. That he had faithfully followed his judgment, and abstained in the mean time from censuring others, who took a different way from him. That he was sensible every one must give account 'There have been also no inconsiderable numbers, in of himself to God: and that it is a great consolation former and later times, that though not entirely satisto such as sincerely fear God, that if with upright fied with our reformation, were less severe in their minds they principally study to approve themselves judgment concerning the constitution and practice of to him, and if they mistake, do only err for fear of err- the established church; that is, did not judge its reing; he will not with severity animadvert upon the formation so defective, that they might not commuinfirmity of a weak and merely misguided judgment:nicate at all with it, nor so complete, but that they ought and that it is a sure truth, worth all this world, that to to covet a communion more strictly agreeable to the Holy an honest unbiassed heart, 'tis a far easier thing to please | Scripture; and accordingly apprehended themselves to God, than men. That they that contend fervently and lie under a two-fold obligation of conscience in referconclude positively concerning church-power, &c. often ence hereto. discover more confidence than knowledge or solid judgment; and much oftener little of the spirit of Christ and the Gospel. He further tells the prefacer, that before he had offered at engaging him in this quarrel, he ought to "Tis well known to such as have understood the state of religion in this kingdom, since the beginning of the reformation, that there have been very different sentiments about the degrees of that reformation itself. Some have judged the church with us so insufficiently reformed, as to want as yet the very being of a true Christian church; and wherewith they therefore thought it unlawful to have any communion at all. Of whom many thereupon in the several successive reigns, withdrew themselves into foreign parts, for the enjoyment of the liberty of such worship as they judged more agreeable to the word of God.' 1. Not, by any means, totally to cut themselves off on the one hand from the communion of the established church, in which they found greater and more momentous things to be approved of and embraced with great reverence and complacency, (viz. all the true noble essentials of Christian religion, not suovertea as among the Romanists by any contrary doctrines or prac*ices,) than could be pretended to remain the matter of .heir disapprobation and dislike. '2. Nor, on the other hand, to decline other communion, which to the judgment of their conscience appeared, in some considerable circumstances, more agreeable to the Christian rule, and to their experience more conducing to their spiritual advantage and edification. 'Which latter judgment of theirs (whether itself justifiable or no we are not now considering) hath been with many so fixed and inflexible, that in several successive reigns, great numbers of such persons, who we had no reason to apprehend had any thought totally to abandon the established church, yet thought themselves obliged besides, to seek and procure opportunities for such other communions, even with extreme peril, not only to their estates and liberties, but to their very lives themselves. 'They could not therefore but think both these sorts of communions lawful, viz. whereto they might adjoin, but not confine themselves. 'And though to that former sort of communion, there hath for many years by-past, been superadded the accidental consideration of a place or office attainable hereby, no man can allow himself to think, that what he before counted lawful, is by this supervening consideration become unlawful: especially if the office were such, as was in no manner of way to be an emolument, but rather an occasion of greater expense to the undertaker of it; that is, only enabled him to serve God, the government, and his country, being regularly called hereto, in the condition of a justice of peace, or other wise. In which capacity it is notorious that divers persons of eminent note of this persuasion (and some in higher stations) have, within the space of forty years past and upwards, been serviceable to the public in divers parts of the nation. 'It is not indeed to be thought that the judgment and practice of such men can be throughout approved by our reverend fathers and brethren of the established church, as neither can we pretend it to be so universally by ourselves. But we are remote from any the least suspicion, that persons of so excellent worth and Christian temper, as now preside over the established church, can suffer themselves to judge or censure men of this sentiment, as being for this single reason men of hypocritical and insincere minds; but that they will rather think it possible their understandings may be imposed upon, so as this may be the judgment, in the whole, of a sincere though misinformed conscience. 'For when they apprehend this church, having all the essential parts of Christian religion, has not, by adding some much disputed things, that are not pretended to be any parts thereof, (but that are become as necessary to communion with it, as any of the most essential part,) thereby unchurched itself, but that they may hold communion with it; yet they do not see that they ought to appropriate their communion to it, so as to refuse all other communion, where the same essentials of Christian religion are to be found without those additions which really belong not to it; they are apt to think such sentiments of theirs not to be altogether destitute of some plausible ground. 'However, among those that are not entirely in every punctilio of this church, it hath not any so firm friends, or that are so nearly united in judgment and affection with it, as men of this sentiment. 'We for our parts (who because in some things we conform not, are called nonconformists, whereas no man conforms in every thing) are not allowed to be counted members of this church, by those that take denominations, not from the intimate essentials of things, (as sameness of doctrine, and the institutions of Christian worship,) but from loose and very separable accidents; yet, thanks be to God, we are not so stupid, as not to apprehend we are under stricter and much more sacred obligations, than can be carried under the sound of a name, to adhere to those our reverend fathers and brethren of the established church, who are most united among themselves, in duty to God and our Redeemer, in loyalty to our sovereign, and in fidelity to the protestant religion, as with whom in this dubious state of things we are to run all hazards, and to live and die together. Whether they can have the same assurance, both from interest and inclination of mind, concerning all that are of the same external denomination with themselves, they need not us to advise with. 'We have our yet depending lesser differences, about which we have (notwithstanding whatsoever provocation) been generally and for the most part silent; and see not in reference to them, what can further remain, than that we, for our part, do consider, that all minds are not turned the same way; that such from whom we dissent, no further differ from us than we do from them; and we are therefore no more to wonder at them, than ourselves. 'And we cannot disallow ourselves to hope, that our reverend fathers and brethren will conceive of us as humbly dissenting from them, without diminution of that great reverence which their real worth claims from us, and without arrogating any thing unduly to ourselves on that account. For though we cannot avoid thinking we are in the right, in those particular things wherein we differ, yet at the same time we know ourselves to be far excelled by them, in much greater and more important things. My honoured Lord, your Lordship's most obedient humble servant, J. H.' But after this, some gave themselves a strange liberty of inveighing against this practice of occasional communion, as irrational, unchristian, and altogether unaccountable and self-condemning. And it at length became a question, whether they that could at all and in any case worship God with the church of England, should not be obliged to do it for a constancy, or else be incapacitated from holding any place either of profit or trust? And when things were come to this pass, and the Occasional Bill was first brought into the House of Commons in 1702, Mr. Howe committed his thoughts to writing in the following paper. A CASE. 'Two sorts of Christian assemblies are wont to meet, severally, for the worship of God, which both hold all the same articles of doctrine taught by Christ or his apostles; and use the same institutions of worship appointed by them: only they differ in this, that the one sort use also some rites, not so appointed, which the other use not. 'Two gentlemen, Sir T- and Sir J, are of equal estates: but Sir T- lives not so regularly, more seldom comes to the worship of God in any Christian assembly; yet when he doth, resorts only to one of the former sort. 'Sir J is a sober, virtuous person, of approvea piety, prudence, justice, fortitude, and who publicly worships God, sometimes in the one sort of assembly, and sometimes in the other. 'The question is not, whether some lewd and vicious persons may not frequent both sorts of assemblies; nor whether some sober and pious persons may not frequent those of the former sort only. England, without stigmatizing every body that so much admires them not? 'And while divers of real worth live upon charity, some with difficulty getting, others (educated to modesty) with greater difficulty begging, their bread! 'But do those who are not contented to engross all the legal emoluments, think there is no God in heaven, that knows their large promises, at the beginning of this revolution, of great abatements in their church constitution; when now, without abating one hair, they must have all conform to it in every punctilio, or be (as much as in them is) made infamous, and the scorn of the nation?' But I draw a veil, and am not for dilating upon this matter. I shall only add, that as the dissenters have been considerable losers, as to their interest as a party, by this occasional conformity, and might easily from the first foresee that they should be so, they appear to me to have acted a very generous part in practising and defending it: and yet they have met with most unbrotherly treatment on this account from those to whom they were willing to approach as near as they could, while some have run them down upon this account as perfect hypocrites; and others have represented this occasional conformity as no commendable charity, as long as they did not come up to constant conformity, and yield the cause to them entirely. If this is doing as men would be done unto, it is very strange! Poste 'But whether Sir J- ought to be rendered incapable of serving the government (to which he hath constantly expressed himself well affected) in any sta-rity 'tis to be hoped will judge more favourably. Howtion, civil or military, for this single reason, because he sometimes worships God in assemblies of the latter sort; (whether it be his infelicity, ill humour, or mistake, whereof yet he is not convinced ;) while Sir T(who is as little convinced of his ill life) is left capable? At least if the one be incapable, should not both? 'But if the question be determined the other way, monstrous! How will that determination of an English parliament stand in the annals of future time? How will wiser posterity blush they had such progenitors! For can it be supposed a nation will be always drunk? Or if ever it be sober, will it not be amazed there ever was a time, when a few ceremonies, of which the best thing that ever was said was that they were indifferent, have enough in them to outweigh all religion, all morality, all intellectual endowments, natural or acquired, which may happen in some instances to be on the wrong side, (as it must now be reckoned,) when on the other, is the height of profaneness, and scorn at religion; the depth of debauchery and brutality, with half a wit, hanging between sense and nonsense: only to cast the balance the more creditable way, there is the skill to make a leg, to dance to a fiddle, nimbly to change gestures, and give a loud response, which contain the answer for the villanies of an impure life! 'If those little pieces of church-modishness have so much in them of real value, in all these are they not well enough paid by the whole church revenues of ever, after such treatment, so oft repeated, and so long continued, if the dissenters should for the future be more sparing in this way of showing their charity, which they to whom they would express it, seem so resolved to misinterpret, I think it cannot be very surprising: and if it should be attended with any ill consequences, I doubt these gentlemen will find they must lie at their doors, at last. But by this time, when that little charity that we had remaining among us was just expiring, Mr. Howe began to be weary of living. He had seen enough of the world, to discern how unfit a place it was to continue to dwell in. He wanted to breathe in nobler air, and inhabit better regions. And we shail soon see how he fled thither, when we have touched on those works of his, that have been hitherto unmentioned, the account of which stands thus. In 1690, he published 'A Funeral Sermon for Mrs. Esther Sampson, late wife of Henry Sampson, Dr. of Physic, who died Nov. 24, 1689, from Luke xiii. 16.' In 1695, 'A Discourse relating to the much lamented Death, and solemn Funeral, of our incomparable and most gracious Queen Mary, of most blessed memory; dedicated to the Right Honourable Rachel Lady Russel.' In 1698, 'A Sermon on the much lamented Death of that reverend and worthy Servant of Christ, Mr. Richard Adams, M. A. sometime Fellow of Brazennose College in Oxon; afterwards Minister of St. Mil |