in the aforementioned Irenicum Magnum and it's Apology If it be ask'd how it shall be known who are sincere and inquisitive Persons or what Points are so abstruse and intricate I answer that must be judg'd of by the Arguments of the different Parties And hereby I infer that Trinitarians and Vnitarians ought to bear with one another and so to order their Terms of Church-Communion as not to be a Stumbling-Block to or as not to fright away either of them because actually both of them bring so considerable Arguments in behalf of their Opinions that t is obvious sincere and considering Persons may not always be able to satisfy themselves which Side is most infallibly or most credibly Certain and after all when God is worshipped all is incontestably ador'd that is the Object of Divine Worship We are expresly commanded but to Pray directly to God in the Name or as the Disciples of Christ who hope to be heard for the sake of Christ and thro' his most acceptable Intercession and certainly as for Christ's Humanity it being a Creature and the Mediator between God and Men it is to be honour'd with a Mediatory or Inferior Honour As for the rest which then if rightly taken would be but a Speculative Difference the Trinitarians with seeming good cause are persuaded that their Reasons are not despicable And in the Apologia pro Irenico Magno it is shewn that the Vnitarian Arguments are far from being inconsidorable I do therefore conclude for Mutual Forbearance and Vnion upon the General Terms aforesaid For upon the Evidence of both Sides I conceive that this is a Controversy in which Men without being Faulty may mistake But against this my Sentiment some Object that that cannot be because some Texts of Scripture seem most Express against the Vnitarians and particularly the Beginning of St. John's Gospel It is therefore very just to consider what the Unitarians say to those Texts I might content my self to refer the Reader to their Brief History a Shilling Book to be had at most Booksellers wherein the several Texts of Scripture Objected to them are Explain'd from Genesis to the Revelation But in farther Vindication of my Proposal of the Scripture-Method of Church Vnion I am willing to give here an Ensample of the Vnitarian Explications to shew what they Answer in general to the Objection from this Topic. And because the Beginning of the Gospel of St. John is commonly reckoned to be most Decisive against them I have particularly pitched upon that to represent most evidently that even here they want not somthing to say for themselves that is probable enough tho it be not pretended that the Controversy is thereby wholly clear'd from all manner of Difficulty They that approve not that things be thus offer'd to be consider'd run to the implicit and slavish Faith of the Romanists and take away that Liberty which not only the Principles of Protestants allow of and recommend but which is necessary to debate and examine difficult Matters and to attain with rational assurance to the Truth CHAP. II. The Socinian Explication of the Beginning of St. John's Gospel ST John begins thus his Gospel In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God c. The Socinians esteem that the Primitive Christians understood these terms according to this System Verse 1. In the Beginning The Christian Oeconomy being founded upon the Mediation of Christ on the account of his being appointed thereunto and of his being a Man perfectly Innocent and Obedient even unto Death and not only Fallen Men being granted to the Messiah but all Creatures in Heaven and Earth being subjected unto him upon the Conditions of his Undertaking the Reformation or New-Modelling of things by that Illustrious Dispensation is compared to the Old Creation described in the 1st Chapter of Genesis If God had not resolved to have sent a Redeemer and if the New Covenant had not taken place of the First Establishment the Race of Mankind had perished Therefore the Saving it is figuratively represented as Creating of it anew by the glorious Performance of the Blessed Jesus the Lamb in God's Prescience and Fore-ordination Slain from the Foundation of the World For when Adam fell God made a Resolution to send a new Man assisted of the Spirit without measure directed in all points by the Eternal Wisdom what to do and suffer to make a Reparation to the Divine Authority and to obtain the chief place in God's Favour and on consideration of his perfect Obedience and undeserved Sufferings constituted the King of Men and Angels and exalted to a Participation of the Divine Power always ready to work for him at his holy Request that he might be enabled to Save to the uttermost those that truely Repent and Turn unto God Wherefore God made a Gracious Promise to our First Parents and from that moment admitted them to Repentance But tho' these were the Effects of God's Resolution of sending Christ into the World and even then the Gospel began in some measure to dawn nevertheless the grand Operation and Manifestation of it was not then made Christ was not yet Born and consequently not Personally entered upon his Office The First Age of the World therefore tho' it was the beginning of the New Covenant granted upon Christ's account yet is not expresly reckon'd here as the beginning of Christ's Oeconomy That is taken properly to commence many Ages after when the Saviour of the World was come in Person to do the will of God and to Reform and New-model all things Then it is that there is represented as it were a New Creation made Our Evangelist sais at the 3d. Ver. of this Chap. that all things were made by Jesus Christ VVhich the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews thus expresses By his Son God made the Worlds Heb. 1 2. And in the 5th Verse of the 2d Chapter of the same Epistle as in all the four Gospels it is declared what those VVorlds were and what that Creation was Seeing then that the Christian Oeconomy is ushered in under the Image of a Creation it is no wonder that the Evangelist alluding to the History of the Old Creation begins his Gospel as Moses doth his First Chapter of the Genesis by these VVords In the beginning But it incontestably appears by the 1st and 2d Verses of the 1st Chapter of St. Mark 's Gospel what that beginning was Namely the beginning of Christ's Dispensation which is there shewn to have begun when the Messiah was introduced into the World by his immediate Harbinger John the Baptist The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God As it is written in the Prophets Behoâ—d I send my Messenger before thy Face c. Besides that our Evangelist had seen St. Mark 's Gospel as well as those of St. Matthew and St. Luke we know the same Holy Spirit that dictated to the one inspir'd also
THE SCRIPTURE-TERMS OF CHURCH-UNION With respect to the Doctrin of the TRINITY CONFIRMED By the Vnitarian Explications of the Beginning of St. John 's Gospel Together with the Answers of the Unitarians to the Chief Objections made against them Whereby it appears that Men may be Vnitarians and Sincere and Inquisitive and that they ought not to be excluded out of the Church-Communion WITH A POST-SCRIPT Wherein the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost according to the Generality of the Terms of Scripture is shewn not to be Inconsistent with the Vnitarian Systems Most Earnestly and Humbly Offered to the Consideration of those on whom 't is most particularly incumbent to examin these Matters By A. L. Author of the Irenicum Magnum c. LONDON Printed as abovementioned to be communicated to learned and inquisitive Persons and those who are most obliged to inquire into these Points Some TEXTS Authorising the Subject of this Writing PRove all things 1 Thess 5.21 Be ready to give an Answer to every Man that asketh you a Reason c 1 Pet. 3.15 Whereto we have attained let us walk by the same Rule Phil. 3.16 To the Law and to the Testimony c. Isa 8.20 Search the Scriptures John 5.39 Let us follow after the things which make for Peace Rom. 14.19 That I might by all means Save some 1 Cor. 9.22 Let us not therefore judge one another any more Rom. 14.13 What I tell you in Darkness that speak you in Light and what ye hear in the Ear that Preach ye upon the House tops Matt. 10.27 Overcome Evil with Good Rom. 12.21 To him that knoweth to do good and doth it not to him it is Sin Jam. 4.17 Who hold the Truth in Vnrighteousness Rom. 1.18 Whosoevâ—â— shall be ashamed of Me and of my Words of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed when 〈◊〉 â—â—â—eth in the Glory of his Father Mark 8.38 They are the Enemies of the Cross of Christ Phil. 3.18 Is a Candle to be put under a Bushel Mark 4.21 Relieve the Oppressed Isa 1.17 We ought to obey God Acts 5.29 Chusing rather to suffer affliction with the People of God than to enjoy the Pleasuâ—â—â— of Sin for a season Hebr. 11.25 If the Blind lead the Blind both shall fall into the Ditch Matt. 15.14 In Vnderstanding be Men 1 Cor. 14.20 They began to make excuse Luk. 14.18 Wherefore when I came was there no Man Isa 50.2 They came not to the Help of the Lord Judg. 5.23 I pray God that it may not be laid to their Charge 2 Tim. 4.16 God has chosen the foolish things of the World to confound the wise 1 Cor. 1.27 Truth faileth and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a Prey And the Lord saw it and it dâ—spleased him that there was no Judgment And he saw that there was no Man and wondered that there was no Intercessour Isa 59.15.16 Whosoever shall not hear your words verily I say unto you it shall be more tolerable for the Land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the Day of Judgment than for them Matt 10.14 15. Now they have no Cloak for their Sin John 15.22 Let us therefore fear lest a Promise being left us of entring into his rest any of you should seem to come short of it Hebr. 4.1 I speak as to wise Men 1 Cor. 10.15 Whether in pretence or in truth Christ is Preached Phil. 1.18 He therefore that despiseth despiseth not Man but God 1 Thess 4.8 O that the Salvation were come to Israel Ps 14.7 We hid our Faces from him Isa 53.3 Blessed be he that cometh in the Name of the Lord. Ps 118.26 God has made him both Lord and Christ Acts 2.36 The Son can do nothing of himself John 5.19 The Father loveth the Son and has given all things into his hand John 3.35 That at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow to the Glory of the Father Phil. 2.10 11. The TITLES of the CHAPTERS I. THE Occasion and Design of this Paper Page 1. II. The Socinian Explication of the Beginning of St. John's Gospel p. 3. III. A Continuation of the Socinian Explication of the Beginning of St. John's Gospel p. 10. IV. The Arian System p. 15. V. The Answers of the Unitarians to the Chief Objections commonly made against their Expositions in general and first the Answer to the Objected Antiquity and Vniversality of the Trinitarian Sentiment p. 18. VI. A Continuation of the Answer to the first Objection p. 25. VII A Farther Continuation of the Answer to the first Objection p. 31. VIII The Conclusion of the Answer to the first Objection p. 46. IX A Second general Objection against the Unitarian System Answered p. 50. X. A Third general Objection stated consisting of Four Branches p. 60. XI An Answer to the first Branch of the Objection p. 65. XII An Answer to the second Branch of the Objection p. 69. XIII An Answer to the third Branch of the Objection p. 79. XIV An Answer to the fourth Branch of the Objection p. 88. XV. The Inferences most incontestably following from the whole foregoing Discourse and the Gospel-Terms of Communion p. 96. A Post-Script p. 104. A Table of the Chief Matters Treated of in each Chapter In CHAPTER I. THAT the Design of this Book is not to set up the Unitarian Sentiment but to vindicate and assert the Generality or Latitude of the Scripture Terms of Church-Communion with respect to such most intricate Points of Speculation p. 1. That there are some things exprest in a great Generality and left extremely Obscure in Scripture on purpose to try both our Industry and Sincerity and our Charity Christian Prudence and Moderation p. 1. 2. That the Unitarian Controversy is of that Nature that Men may be Unitarians and sincere and inquisitive and that the Unitarians therefore ought not to be excluded out of the Church-Communion p. 2. 3. In CHAP. II. In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God explain'd p. 3. 4. 5. The reason of Christ's being called the Word p. 5. In what sense Christ the Word is called God or a God p. 6. c. In CHAP. III. The Creation by this Word explained p. 11. 12. The Word was Flesh explained p. 12. 13. The remaining Verses explained p 14. 15. In CHAP. IV. The Proofs of the Arian System p. 15. The Arian Notion of the Word viz. That thereby is meant the Chief Officer or Minister of God the first and most excellent Creature a most sublime Spirit in some respect like the Holy Spirits or Holy Angels and Archangels but yet of another kind than they and surpassing in excellency all other created Spirits being extraordinarily united to and assisted by the Divine Wisdom and the whole God-head that this Divine Spirit is as it were the Mouth of God or his Word-bearer and that in process of time taking Flesh of the Virgin Mary by the Power of God it became the Soul of the Messiah p.
Eusebius tho' he professed the Nicone Trinitarianism was a Semi-Arian and favoured the Arians and perhaps he thought good to excuse Hegesippus notwithstanding what he himself professed as several learned Men in the Church of Rome defend Jansenius at the same time that they openly abjure Jansenism 5. Of the few remaining Writings that are ascribed to the Fathers of the first three Centuries 't is very credible that some are Corrupted and some Suppositious For instance the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas in Easecius's time were reckoned to be Supposititious Euseb Hist. Eccl. L. 3. C. 25. And Dalaeus has particularly concended that the Epistles of Ignatius deserve no credit Indeed those Sentiments have been thought by some and in particular by the Socinians to have been foisted therein which the Semi-Arian Fathers did afterwards openly maintainâ— Yet some contend that those Writings expresly contain the same Doctrin that was originally Apostolical and afterwards defended by Arius when it had been disguis'd by the Platonists Howbeit it is certain those that had either particular Opinions of their own or particular interests to serve made often no scruple to forge some Writings favouring them which in order to gain them the more credit they ascribed to some Great Men. Several Apocryphal Books were put out under the Apostles's Names How much more then says Dalaeus would they make bold with others Nay he observes that the Fathers themselves have been guilty of such Frauds See the third Chap. of his first Book De usu Patrum And you need but read his following Chapter to see that the genuine Writings of the Fathers have been corrupted St. Jerom complains of the Impudence of Copists in corrupting of Books Ep. 28. ad Lucin. T. 1. p. 247. And yet he owns that himself in translating Origen omitted what was noxious or dangerous that is what suited not to his own Sentiments and says that St. Hilary and others did the like You may see the Quotations and many more Allegations to the same purpose in that Chapter of Dalaeus where he quotes Epiphanius his Saying that the Catholicks scrupled not to correct or put out some things in the Scripture it self fearing the use that the Hereticks might make of those Passages Dalaeus determines not whether Epiphanius spake true or not herein but he infers from thence that those ancient Catholicks would have made no difficulty to correct in like manner as much as they could the Writings of the Primitive Fathers where they widely differ'd from the Sentiments that had prevailed and where those that were reckoned Hereticks might have found too undeniable Authorities for their Opinions After this can those be blamed who will be determined by nothing but the Current of Scripture and the most incontestable Axioms of Reason Such Catholicks as Dalaeus represents to us we may think made no great scrupse to invent Stories that might favour them or to give easily credit to such tho' upon the weakest Grounds and to use such like shifts to defend what they took for Truth Witness the Book of Hermas and what Jerom owns of himself and of the freedom he thought in such cases lawful to take A Man says he argues as he pleases He may make a shew of presenting you with Bread as says the Proverb and all the while he may hold nothing but a Stone He may say one thing and think another Consider the Arguments made use of by Origenes Methodius Eusebius Appollinaris They are often forced to alledge many things which they did not believe but which were necessary to support their Sentiments I say nothing of the Latin Authors Tertullian Cyprian Minucius Victorinus Lactantius Hilary lest I should seem to accuse others rather than defend my self Ep. 50. ad Pamm T. 2. p. 136. When I write my Books says he I call for my Copist or Amanuensis and I often dictate the thoughts of others that I have read tho' I don't believe 'em my self and sometime don't very well remember their Sense Ep. 89 ad Aug. T. 2. p. 304. and 525. After this found your Faith not on Scripture and Reason but on a History concerning Simon Magus related in Epiphanius or another concerning Cerinthus which Irenaeus had heard Those Stories or Traditions after all might be true and not prejudice the Vnitarians as it might easily be shewn For the Vnitarians do not believe as Cerinthus is reported to have done that a Divin Person and that distinct from the Father dwelled in Jesus Besides he is said to have had many other grievous errors If it were true therefore that St. John would not be in the same Bath with him what is that to the Vnitarians And if Simon Magus believed three Divin Manifestations or Powers why should it be thought that he believed nothing that is true But if he asserted three distinct Divin Persons as Dr. Sherlock thought must be inferred from Epiphanius his monstrous Story that he pretended he was both the Father and the Son and affirmed his lewd Woman Helena to be the Holy Ghost why may we not think he might be among corrupted Christians the first Founder of the Dr's Notion or that which now passes for Orthodox that is that of the Platonists and Realists It may be indeed Simon Magus pretended that the Father and Son were manifested in and by him c. But if it be as Dr. Sherlock would have it the Matter is of no importance to Us but rather concerns the Platonick Trinitarians For those ancient Fathers Ireneus and Eusebius who evidently incline more to the Vnitarians then to the Scholastick Trinitarians assert that Simon Magus was the Father and Author of all the Heresies and particularly the Homousian See Sandi Nuâ—l L. 1. Secul 2. De Gnostic Iren. L. 1. C. 20. 30. L. 4. C. 58. Euseb H. E. L. 11. C. 13. Howbeit pin who will his Faith on Simon Magus or Cerinthus his Sleeve who if not misrepresented were thorow-pac'd Platonists or even Improvers of Platonism Yet the Stories themselves reported concerning their Heresies may perhaps want a little Confirmation considering the Humor of some of those times as we have seen and what Eusebius H. E. L. 1. C. 1. testifies that he had a World to do to compile his History finding so little Light in any Writing before him the continual Persecutions having caused that Confusion as to the Ecclesiastical History the generality of Christians contenting then themselves with the Writings of the New Testament Dalaeus towards the beginning of the fourth Chap. of his said Book seems to intimate that we have nothing much to be relied on but the Holy Scripture which says he has always been preserved with much greater care than other Writings which all Nations have learned which all Languages have translated and which all Sects have retained the Hereticks as well as the Orthodox the Schismaticks as well as the Catholicks the Greeks and Latins Muscovites and Aethiopians c. We may then conclude this
Kind and Extent or ascribe more to Reason than Protestants do then in God's Name shew it and don 't declaim against or invalidate your own Principles play not at fast and loose or sometime hold the same Principles of Reason and anon reject them and dispute against them This is what the Vnitarians answer in general But more particularly they represent The Vnitarians do not lay the whole stress of their Cause upon Arguments drawn from Reason For a Proof of this the Reader may be referr'd to Crell's Book Touching One God the Father where there are many Arguments from Scripture for one taken from the Topick of Reason If the Vnitarians did not appeal to Scripture and offerred not to put the Controversy upon that Issue and were not willing to be decided chiefly by that but proposed wholly to set the Divine Revelation aside and resolved only to hearken to what Human Reason can inform us of the Matter controverted the Trinitarians would have some grounds to blame them and to assert that they gave too much to Reason But the Vnitarians expresly acknowledge as well as the Trinitarians both that Reason's Sphere and Reach is not unlimited that there are many Truths above Reason and attended with inextricable Difficulties and incumbred with seeming Contradictions and that therefore what is credibly demonstrated to be is not to be rejected upon the account of such Reason-Objections as these where Reason is short and doth not see clearly and distinctly and then expresly the Vnitarians do hold that in Matters of Revelation the Holy Scripture is primarily to be consulted and followed as the Supreme Rule What will then the Trinitarians have or what can they require more and what is there here that they can justly blame It is true indeed that hereby the Use of Reason is not wholly discarded For On the other Hand the Vnitarians think like all Protestants that Reason ought not to be wholly Slighted For indeed what Reason shews clearly and distinctly no Man in his Senses that duely considers will contemn it or reject it And in reason We ought not lightly to take any Thing in a Sense that seems contrary to Reason when there is no absolute Necessity for it or when that Thing may be taken in another Sense It is certain that Protestants allow as much to Reason and hold that Scripture is to be understood consistently and agreably to these Natural Principles so that when the Words of Scripture in their literal Signification imply something manifestly contrary to Reason they must be taken in any other Sense that they may be susceptible of In short Protestants doubt not but that the whole Scripture perfectly agrees with Right Reason and therefore they take it as much as possible in Senses evidently agreable to Reason and they expresly reject those Senses which are plainly inconsistent with it Upon that account all Protestants hold that We must necessarily make Vse of Reason in interpreting of Scripture if We will understand it right Accordingly they consult and use Reason both in expounding the Text of Scripture and in drawing the natural and necessary Consequences from it And agreably to these just Measures they take in a Figurative Sense those Texts which according to the Literal Sound of the Words manifestly appear to our Reason to be unworthy of God and to be expresly contrary to Reason Upon that account they understand figuratively for instance that Saying of our Saviour's that the Bread of the Eucharist is his Body and that except We Eat his Flesh and Drink his Blood we cannot have Eternal Life as also those Expressions which ascribe to God a Body or bodily Parts the Saying of Moses that God laboured and rested the Term which imports that Jeptha Sacrificed his Daughter c. Now the Vnitarians desire not to make any other Vse of Reason But then they maintain that by no means they ought to be hindered to make the like Use of it that Protestants so justly do or so justly plead for for instance in the Controversies with the Church of Rome What Reason shews clearly and distinctly they esteem ought not to be unregarded They hold therefore that We are not rashly to understand or interpret Scripture in Senses manifestly contrary to Reason when especially that Scripture appears susceptible of some other Sense And they affirm that this is nothing but what is not only most evidently just and rational but also expresly agreable to the Protestant Principles and Practice as has been shewn So that We must needs conclude God surely will not take it ill but on the contrary He cannot but require that We should thus reason or make use of Reason and Consideration as the Vnitarians here would do so as to have some regard and make some inquiry Whether things agree or disagree with the Common Notions of Human Vnderstanding Indeed where Reason doth not see clearly and distinctly seeming Difficulties ought not to be looked upon as wholly conclusive and most particularly Difficulties then ought in reason to be reck'ned of no weight against a thing which manifestly or most credibly appears to be But the Vnitarians assert as has been shewn in the Apologia pro Irenico Magno that this is not the Case with the Trinitarian Doctrin They humbly represent that the Trinitarians cannot say that the Doctrin of three Persons in one God is most credible and manifest in it self nor incontestably express in Scripture But the Vnitarians assert on the contrary it is most clearly and distinctly evident that that Doctrin is inconsistent with several Texts as well as implies many most express Contradictions and manifest Impossibilities The Trinitarians then have no just grounds to compare this Point with some Things that are Incontestable or absolutely out of our Sight For tho' the Whole of God cannot be perfectly comprehensible yet in general some things of God may be clearly discerned and therefore God is unanimously acknowledg'd in that sense to be an Object of Reason and all Parties affirm or deny some things of God upon the account of their being evidently agreable or disagreable to Reason There is no reason consequently why the same Measures should not be followed with respect to the Trinitarian Controversy And plainly then that is very unreasonable which the Trinitarians so earnestly desire that no account at all should be made of the so many so express and so obvious Contradictions and Impossibilities which appear to be implied in the Trinitarian Doctrin If they were only obscure and uncertain Difficulties and if the Trinitarian Doctrin were most manifest and certain or unavoidable and not contradicted by any Scripture-Evidence the Vnitarians would be to blame to insist on this Plea of Reason But as was said the Case will be found to be quite otherwise if it be duly considered And if so the unjust and unreasonable Measures that are taken will be a Shame to the present and a Wondering to future Times The Arguments of the Trinitarians in
fine are not infallible which import that some certain and incontestable Truths are incumbred with any most express and unavoidable Contradictions It is certain that some Truths are above Reason to give an account How they are and those are true Mysteries but it doth not follow that they are contrary to Reason It were indeed the greatest Folly upon any Difficulties to deny any Thing which manifestly appears to be But if the Manner or the Things concerning those Difficulties were rightly stated understood they might appear to be free from Contradictions for real Contradictions cannot be true It is Men's rash Judgment then that concludes a Truth to be attended with Contradictions when really it is not so I doubt not but that those Systems if duly considered may be vindicated from Contradictions which assert that there is no Vacuum that Matter is divisible infinitely that Eternity consists in a perpetual Succession of Moments It is true We are not to lean too much to our own Understandings or to be stiff to our Prepossessions Imaginations without sufficient knowledge of the Cause and without due examination But then on the other hand it is known We are bid in Understanding to be Men to prove all things to the best of our power that is those things especially that concern our eternal Welfare And by that means God tries our Sincerity and our real Concernment for the most momentous Matters We must not then reject the Use of our Reason It is indeed certain and evident those are faulty and criminal who when Religion and Revelation are so well prov'd and credibly attested and confirmed dispute either of them because they do not know how things were created and with what Instruments God made the World as if He needed any or because they do not understand how God can forsee Events and why He permits Evil. No wise Man will agree that these Difficulties expresly imply unavoidable Contradictions And all good Men will grant that the grossest Solution of these Objections renders the Infidels utterly inexcusable Now what considering Christian will say that the said or any the like Objections are absolutely unanswerable The most difficult Objections incontestably are those of Spinoza and Bayle Yet we see them answered the one by the most Reverend Archbishop of Dublin in his Book De Origine Mali and the other by the Famous Dr. Henry More in the Second Part of his Metaphysicks There are some Answers to those Objections which need not take up above two Sheets and to which the Infidels can not reply with the least colour of Reason As to the rest the Reader may be referred to the 12th Chapter of the Apologia pro Irenico Magno which comprises a general Answer to the Objections against the Vse of Reason Yet certainly it is not necessary that all Difficulties against Religion should expresly be answered It is undoubtedly sufficient that it be solidly prov'd and that it appear most rational and credible And when we are assured that God says any thing we may rationally believe it and ought in reason to do so notwithstanding any seeming Difficulties inferior to a stronger and clearer Evidence Howbeit on the other hand that the Inferiority of such Difficulties be most fully evinced the essaying to resolve Difficulties as much as possible ought by no means to be discouraged For if things be duly considered Religion will then be sufficiently vindicated and illustrated and otherwise it may often be sadly misrepresented and corrupted as well as wretchedly exposed to the Calumnies of the Infidels CHAP. XII An Answer to the Second Branch of the Objection 2. THE Vnitarians maintain that none of their Assertions are incredible and that their Interpretations are rational and agreable to the stile and current of Scripture and therefore natural and obvious enough 'T is certain on the one hand the Trinitarian Tenets are most strange and unintelligible and on the other the Stile of Scripture like that of all Eastern Languages is most figurative Now this being duly weighed and it being withal consider'd that Reason is a Divine Light that ought not wholly to be slighted if some constraint is to be made either to some Difficult Expressions that may be taken with the help of a warrantable Figure in an accountable Sense or to the Common Notiont of Mankind that cannot be reconcil'd with the literal or first seeming import of those Expressions what course in this Case is it most pious and rational to take The Trinitarian Objection it self implying that what is incredible is to be rejected decides the Matter The chief Instances of the pretended Remoteness of the Vnitarian Interpretations are particularly concerning the Vnitarian Expositions of Christs Creating all things and in what Sense the Word is said to be God c. Now to the latter the Vnitarians observe that if we will understand that Text aright we must not determine our selves about the Sense of it before we have considered what the Scripture elsewhere teaches as well as Reason concerning this Person that is here called the Word and that if it appear that thereby a Creature is meant as even according to them it evidently doth then there can be no difficulty in explaining the Title of God which is attributed to the Word but we must necessarily take it in an Inferior Signification in which it may be applied and we find it is sometimes in Scripture communicated to a Creature especially our Saviour himself accordingly warning us that some Creatures in Scripture are called Gods John 10.34 35. Angels in the Original are termed Gods Ps 8.5 c. And it was common among the Heathens to give that Title to others beside those whom they accounted the Supreme Gods The giving then of that Title to some Creature in an Inferiour Sense was not at all unintelligible either to Jews or Gentiles Indeed one of the Designs of Christianity was to inform the Pagans that there are not many Gods in the supreme or proper Sense of that word but only One such God to whom alone Divine Worship is due But the Gospel never intended to signify that there are not many in Heaven and Earth that may be termed Gods in an inferior Sense according to the Scripture as well as the Gentile-Stile If St. Thomas directed his Speech to Christ in that exclamation My Lord and My God he might mean no more than if he had said My Prince and My Soveraign The Trinitarians own that by the Word in the beginning of St. John's Gospel is meant Christ Now Reason it self shews us manifestly that we must not take Christ to be the Supreme God For Christ is a Man and was always own'd to be but one Person but God is a distinct Spirit and consequenly a distinct Person for an intelligent Being whether Divine or Human has all that is requisite to the constituting of a Person and so cannot always but be a distinct Person two Spirits then must needs be two Persons
honoured with a like Honour with the Soveraign yet it is paid him particularly upon the Soveraign's Account in Honour to Him and in Obedience to his Commands who has so appointed it And thus the Scripture teaches We are to Honour our Lord Jesus Christ as one to and upon whom the highest Dignity Glory and Power that can be bestowed upon one in Commission has been in that manner confer'd and granted Namely to the Glory of the Donor and Disposer of it And this leads us to the last Particular that we have undertaken to speak to which is this CHAP. XIV An Answer to the fourth Branch of the Objection 4. THE Vnitarians produce sevâ—ral Texts of Scripture which seem most express and evident for the Vnitarian System I shall here mention but these few referring the Reader for the rest to the Apologia pro â—â—enico Magno or to Crell's Treatise Touching one God the Father in which Books may be found Several of the most select Arguments out of Scripture besides also several taken from the incontestable Principles of Reason all which of both sorts are there fully enlarg'd upon and do seem manifestly and unanswerably to evince the truth of the Vnitarian Doctrin I. The first Argument I shall mention shall be the last quoted Passage of the 2d Chap. of the Philippians where the Apostle declares that We are to own Jesus Christ as one exalted and made Lord and that we are thus to honour him to the Glory of God the Father So that as was said the Honour we are to pay to Our Lord Jesus Christ is not to terminate ultimately on him but on the Father for whose Sake and at whose Command the said Honour is given to the Lord Christ upon the account of his Exaltation as the inestimable Reward of his Obedience and upon the account of the most High Commission granted to him by God Now who doth not see that this invincibly demonstrates that properly Christ is not God himself For if he were literally God Almighty himself it would be absurd not to adore and honour him for himself ultimately for that would imply that the Divine Nature is not to be honour'd for it 's own sake It were in vain to alledg that the Trinitarians hold the Son has received his Divine Nature from the Father that so they may also worship him to the Glory of the Father They say that the Son had the Divine Nature eternally and not by a free Gift but by absolute Necessity and that it is the same numerical Divine Nature and Essence with that of the Father so that he is as much God and is as necessarily so as the Father from which Principles therefore it would need follow that the Son should be honour'd ultimately for himself or which is the same should be honoured with properly Divine Honour as well as the Father Then if things had been so the Apostle should have said We must honour Christ's Human Nature or the Man Christ Jesus to the Glory of God the Son But the Apostle doth not present us with any such Notions But he tells us that Jesus Christ is to be own'd as a Lord and the greatest Lord under God and is thus to be honoured to the Glory of God the Father What can be more express If the Son be literally God Almighty he cannot be exalted any higher and he must needs be honoured ultimately for himself with Supreme Divine Honour But says the Apostle the Father exalted him c. Whereas if the Son had been himself literally God his whole Person must needs have sat necessarily at the Helm of the Universe as well as the Person of the Father and it could not have been otherwise except a Divine Person could have ceased to be properly Divine that is to say except God could have been annihilated Now the Reader may please to make an application of this as well as the following Arguments to Dr. Sherlock's Rule mentioned before and by which he owns this Controversy is to be tried II. The Second Argument shall be that which the Dr. at the 197th and following Pages of his Book intituled The Scripture Proofs of our Saviour's Divinity explained and vindicated has carefully pointed out to us and taken great pains to prepare for us and make us sensible of it's great weight And indeed it seems a most express and decisive Argument It is that which is grounded on the 36th Verse of the 24th Chap. of St. Matthew to which the 32d Verse of the 13th of St. Mark is parallel the import whereof is That Christ declaring he did not know what God knew Namely when should be the Day of Judgment it follows necessariâ—y and most manifestly that he is not God himself The Dr. in the Place aforequoted represents the force of the Argument in these words There is an obvious Objection against the perfect intuitive Knowledge of our Saviour from what he himself tells us concerning the Destruction of Jerisalem c. For were he true and perfect God of the same Substance with his Father he could be ignorant of nothing Now how doth the Dr. solve this Objection as he calls it The common Answer to this says he is by distinguishing between the Knowledge of Christ as God and as Man That tho' as God he knew all things yet there were some Secrets for some time concealed from his Human Nature Well! Doth the Dr. know of some better Solution No. Is he then very well satisfied with this common Answer No. He neither likes this nor can tell what to say more satisfactory These are his words The common Answer to this is c. as was said in the foregoing Paragraph And this says he must be the true Answer or I know not how we shall find a better and yet it seems very hard that the Son who is but one Person tho' he have two Natures should be said not to know that which he did know whether he knew it as God or as Man This I confess is a Difficulty and always will be so while we know so little of this Personal Union that is to say of the Union of the Godhead with the Man Christ Jesus But then Dr if we know so little of it why do you call it a Personal Vnion and that of an eternal Son or an eternal Person with the Spirit of Christ But since you are pleas'd to call it so you must stand to it and must not pretend to evade by saying you know not how far it goes or what communications the Human Nature of Christ receives from its Union with the Godhead This is not the Point nor is it at all to the business in hand from which you ought by no means to be suffered now to flinch away when it manifestly appears to be against you and invincibly shews the solidity of the Vnitarian Sentiment For you have said and the Trinitarian System expresly asserts that the whole Son is but one Person and therefore
tho' you know not exactly how great are the Communications of the several Parts betwixt themselves which constitute this one Person yet you must own that those Communications must needs go so far as to make of it but one Person Even all that pass for Orthodox among the Trinitarians acknowledge that Christ is but one Person and but one Son Now the business is to consider Whether any thing can be in general terms denied of one Son or of one Person which yet is true of some Part of that Person And the Vnitarians maintain that upon the considering of it this ought not to be found a mere Difficulty against the Trinitarian System but an irrefragable Argument of the truth of the System of the Vnitarians The two following Considerations are the utmost that the Dr. offers in order as he says to give a light to this Matter in so much that if both of them are invalid to solve the Difficulty it will appear that the Vnitarian Argument is demonstrative and irresistible 1. The first Reflection is this That notwithstanding the Union the Divine and Human Natures are two distinct Natures in Christ and therefore he may be ignorant of that as Man which he knows as God Now supposing that Possible with the Dr. yet this makes nothing at all to the purpose of the Trinitarians except our Saviour had thus expressed himself The Son as Man does not know that thing which you desire him to inform you of and therefore as Man he cannot inform you of it and as God he will not tell it you tho' as God he knows it very well But every one who can read our Saviour's words in the Evangelists may soon see whether they bear any such distinction 2. The 2d Reflection more to the purpose is That the God incarnate that is to say Christ being but one Person whatever belongs to either Nature may truely be afformed of his Person with respect to that Nature to which it belongs tho' it be not true of him with respect to his other Nature and thus therefore infers the Dr. if Christ as Man was ignorant of any thing which he knew as God he might truely be said not to know what he did not know as Man this says the Dr. is universally owned Now Dr. this is a gross Mistake and most notoriously your inserence is absolutely wrong and is so far from being universally owned that it is indeed owned by no body in the World that considers but the contrary is held by all Men. It is true that what belongs to any Part of a Person may be affirmed of that Person with respect to that Part to which it belongs tho' it be not true of him with respect to his other Parts For instance If a Man be Wounded in the Arm it may truly be said of that Man that he is Wounded tho' he be not Wounded in the Head nor Legg In like manner If Christ be both the Supreme God and a Man Personally-United he may be said in general to know that which he knows as God tho' as Man he know not that thing But because what belongs to any one certain Part of a Person may be affirmed of that Person with respect to that Part to which it belongs tho' it be not true of him with respect to his other Parts it doth not follow that what doth not belong to one certain Part of his may in general terms be denied of his Person when yet it truly belongs to some other Part of him That is so far from being to be inferred from the former way of speaking that every one knows it to be false that what truly belongs to one Part of a Person may in general terms be denied of that Person upon the account that it belongs not to some other Part of his Tho' a Man be not Wounded in the Head or Legg it will not in general terms be said that he is not Wounded when actually he is Wounded in the Arm. Such a denial upon this mental reservation that the Man is not Wounded in the Legg would be looked upon as a shameful Equivocation an express Lye And would the Dr. ascribe to his Saviour such a way of reasoning when he makes him dery his knowing what yet according to the Trinitarian System one of his Natures knew If this be not a Demonstration the Vnitarians think there are no Evidences in the World and it is impossible to discern what are manifest Arguments what not And therefore the Dr. they think should not barely have said as he doth that there is somthing which seems very hard in his common Answer but he should have dared expresly to affirm that it is altogether very invalid and impertinent Let the Reader himself judge of it by considering the manner how our Saviour expresses himself in both the Evangelists Of that Day and Hour knows no Man or no Body or no Person for it is in the Original None knows of that Day and of that Hour no not the Angels that are in Heaven nor the Son but the Father Mark 13.32 And at the 36th Verse of the 24th of St. Math. but my Father only If the Reader please to see any more than what has here been said upon these Texts he may be refer'd to the 24th Chapter of the Apologia pro Irenico Magno and to the 9th Chap. of the 2d Section of Crell's 1st Book Touching one God the Father in both which Places the Argument taken from those Passages of Scripture is more at large treated of and most fully illustrated Here is then what Dr. Sherlock desired Pag. 55th of his aforequoted Book Namely a Text that proves Christ to be properly but a Creature such as the Vnitarians hold him to be After this Argument the Vnitarians do not think any other to be very necessary I shall therefore in a manner but mention the following without much enlarging upon them It need only be added concerning the present Argument that Crellius takes notice of the other Answers to it and that they most visibly appear to be such that they who insist upon them do most evidently shew that they are obstinately resolv'd to defend an old Prejudice and that they will by no reasonable Means be persuaded to acknowledge the Truth which disposition cannot but be criminal To say for instance that Christ considered as God as well as Man said that he knew not the Day of Judgment in the same sense that St. Paul said of himself 1 Cor. 2.2 that he determined not to know any thing among the Corinthians save Christ Crucisied is it not to declare that those Men will take hold of any Evasion rather than yield For doth not that expression of St. Paul that he determined not to know shew manifestly the difference betwixt his Assertion and our Saviour's who says expresly that he knew not the Day of Judgment and that none but the Father knew it The Expression of St. Paul which we have
Christ died Therefore it certainly follows both that the Scholastick Trinitarian Determinations and Impositions are contrary to God's Will and that it is an indispensible Duty to profess and establish the Gospel-Terms of Communion which are stated and pleaded for in the Irenicum Magnum and in the Apologia pro Irenico Magno Tho' some Vnitarians considering an Influence of the Divine Nature dwelling in Christ and an Influence and Act of the Divine Power implied in the Holy Spirit or Holy Inspiration and considering we are exhorted to keep as much as we can the Vnity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace should carry Christian Condescension so far as by their Presence sometime in the Religious Assemblies for Peace-Sake till these things be duely weighed to bear with the Use of some of the Scholastick Trinitarian Terms yet that is at least so nice a Point that many conscientiously may with great colour of reason absolutely scruple them and all Vnitarians are obliged to express openly their dislike of those in their opinion at least dubious Terms and rash Expressions and to appear and profess not to repeat some of them and not to assent to them in the Religious Service which Condescension indeed upon mature Consideration seems even generally to be more than is wholly warrantable particularly one would think with respect to the Litany and the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds according to what has hereupon been said so that the Afternoon-Service only can well seem tolerable to them and indeed 't is generally reckoned to be no less than Hypocritical Temporizing for any Vnitarian to carry the Condescension farther therefore even the Trinitarians themselves who are persuaded of the evident and incontestable Reasonableness and Necessity of the Gospel Terms of Communion are bound to protest against the imposing of those said Scholastick Terms deviating from the Scripture-Latitude not only as an unnecessary Burden but as a grievous and unwarrantable a pernicious and cruel Oppression perfectly contrary to the Moderation of the Gospel For has not God intended there should be one Catholick Church and Communion of Saints In a word the Scripture-Terms are the only Just and Charitable and Necessary Terms of Church Communion And they are a fit Means of Peace For so you establish no other Terms of Church-Communion but such as are agreable to the Scripture-Generality you may lay any Penalty on express Disputings in the Religious Assemblies These Terms of Church-Vnion then both are the Scripture-Terms and the only Terms of Communion that are agreable to the fundamental Grounds of the Reformation or to the incontestable Principles of Protestants and to Reason and Moderation and they are the fit and only possible Terms for all Christians that own the Scripture for their Rule to Vnite in And the Vnitarian Arguments are so considerable that it must be the highest Temerity in the World not to be willing to stick in Acts of Communion to the Safe suficient Generality included in those Terms So that to reject these Terms is not only to run the greatest Hazards to oppress the Truth and injure those who are approved of God but it is expresly to be guilty of the greatest Mischiefs of disfiguring Christianity as if it had no Means of Union hindering the growth and efficacy of the Gospel and being the Cause of endless Schisms and Divisions These Matters are set into so full and incontestable a light that to slight and resist so great Evidence cannot but be of the greatest Consequence to the Souls of them that are therein concern'd It is credible God has preserv'd the World and this Generation for the Sake of this great Light most illustriously adorning the Gospel so great a Light that against it the Gates of Hell shall never be able to prevail and it will never be possible for all the Powers of the Adversaries of so evident Truths to answer these unanswerable Arguments Now then incontestably Peace is presented upon just Terms by this Method which therefore should be most carefully considered For if the righteous be oppressed God noteth all things in his Book and Great Plagues are denounced against rejecting a great Light and injuring those that are accepted of God May We all take effectual Measures to avoid God's Judgments and to obtain his Mercy and Eternal Salvation I thought here to have finished this Post-Script but it may perhaps not be unfit to advertise that since the writing of it I have accidentally met with a small Pamphlet a 6d Book wherein these Terms of Communion in some measure are likewise pleaded for I recommend it therefore to the Reader 's perusal It is intituled The Moderate Trinitarian c. By Daniel Allen. Printed for Mary Fabian at Mercers-Chappel in Cheap-side 1699. Therein it is Inquired Whether and Shewn That the Trinitarians and Vnitarians may communicate together so that no Practice ought to be enjoyned for Terms of Communion contrary to the Latitude of Scripture seeing it is therein that the Trinitarians and Vnitarians may Unite But not only to put my self in the company of a more known Person but more especially seeing Men commonly regard more or slight the less an Opinion which they see held by one who is generally esteemed most Eminent for Learning and all good Qualities I ought not to omit observing that the famous Bishop Taylor incontestably establishes these Terms of Church-Communion in that for the main admirable Book of his intituled The Liberty of Prophesying which indeed I have had the misfortune to be but very lately acquainted with That the Scripture-Terms of Communion which I have been pleading for are therein implied I think may sufficiently appear by these few Quotations out of it That which I have is the 4to Edition 1647. I shall sometimes abridge the words but without altering the sense If a Doctrin be not so revealed but that wise and good Men differ in their Opinions it is a clear case it is not inter Dogmata necessaria simpliciter c. The Epistle Dedicat. P. 15.16 It is observable that the restraint of Prophesying imposing upon other Mens Understanding and lording it over their Faith came in with the retinue of Antichrist that is as other Abuses and Corruptions of the Church did c. Ib. P. 18. Let not Men be hasty in calling every dislik'd Opinion by the Name of Heresy Ib. P. 29. The Lutheran Churches the Zuinglians the Calvinists the Socinians the Anabaptists the Aethiopian Churches which are all Nestorian differ from others Where then shall we six our Considence or joyn Communion To pitch upon any one is to throw the Dice if Salvation be to be had only in one of them and that every Error be damnable We have therefore no other help in the midst of these Differences but to be all United in that Common Term which is the Medium of the Communion of Saints that is the Apostles Creed an honest endeavour to find out what truths we can and a mutual permission to