above our Reason That we ought to rely upon the Divine Revelation and not pretend to give an account of things Incomprehensible This you have thought to be an evasion of all your pretended contradictions you have derided it and call'd it a Trinity of the Mob of ignorant and lazy Doctors Whereas if you weigh the Principles laid before you it will appear very firm and solid For to state contradictions in an object Reveal'd when that object is above all our Perceptions when all that we know is that it is and that too because it is Reveal'd but are altogether ignorant what it is Reason then soars above its nature and what you call contradictions are only the stumblings of Reason which striving to climb up an inaccessible rock is shamefully flung on its back and overthrown Socin But then you make Faith the obscurest thing in the World and what advantage is it to us if our darkness is remov'd by a greater even a darkness that may be felt If what you say is true I know little by the help of Reason and much less by that of Revelation Orthod I make Faith what God has made it The things which he proposes exist and are certain He is pleas'd to cast a veil over them and we ought not to presume to take it off It is he that has made us and not we our selves and in vain we strive to start out of the limits to which he has confin'd us Nor is the homage and submission of our understandings consistent with clear Perceptions of things It would no more be Faith but Knowledge We should not be in via as the Fathers speak in the way which leads to Heaven which is a state of obscurity labour humility and the fear of God But in Patria in Heaven it self a place of intuition tranquility glory and perfect love But let me tell you that Faith has that mighty advantage that if it is not the clearest evidence it is at least the greatest certainty in the World All our assurance in other things is humane The very Principles of Geometry are no more But Faith has a Divine Foundation and that is the Authority of God St. Chrysostom was so perswaded of the truth of this that Homil 21. in Epist ad Heb. he did not doubt to affirm that he had no Faith who believ'd not more firmly the things reveal'd than those which are daily the object of sense You know the Famous saying of St. Ambrose de sacram l. 1. cap. 5. Tolle argumenta ubi Fides quaeritur Away with all your Reasons where Faith is the question Socin If you get amongst the Fathers we shall have a Sea of Authorities which you know we have no very great esteem for I wish you would lay them all aside But if you will not what think you of Lactantius who Instit l. 2. cap. 7. speaks thus Oportet in ea re maxime c. Every Man is oblig'd particularly in that wherein his own being is concern'd to trust to himself and it is much better to endeavour with the best judgment and sense that we can to find out the truth than to suffer our selves to be deceiv'd by other People's errors as if we were wholly Strangers to Reason God having given all Men such a share of Wisdom as to be able to search into those things which are unknown to us and to examine those that are not The same Principle Minutius Foelix makes use of against Caecilius And this is the very Argument of Theodoret in his first Discourse de curand graec affect It may be said of Lactantius his assertion that nothing can be truer and better It does justice to God who is the Author and Giver of every good and perfect gift and to Man by owning his great and distinguishing Privilege You have spoke of Faith very well and accurately But for all that do you know what it is to blaspheme Reason It is to wound Mankind in the most sensible part and to put us out of a capacity of ever acting like Men. Reason is a light which comes down from the Father of lights As the natural light discovers it self and all other objects so Reason the light of the Soul discovers its native excellency and is the tryal of all other things It s eagerness in the pursuit of Truth is a proof that it is made for it and capable of it It looks much like Priest-craft to desire me to shut my Eyes and trust my self to another guide whilst I can see my way as perfectly as any other I had once a great respect for St. Austin but I have lost it since I read a passage of his wherein he strangely abuses humane nature It is lib. 2. c. 15. de serm dom in monte Hominis anima rationalis lumine veritatis vel tenuiter pro sui capacitate illustratur ut verum aliquid in ratiacinando sentiat The rational Soul of Man receives as â—â—ding to its capacity small illustrations and glances of light that by Reasoning it may feel something of Truth Thus the Doctors of the Church run down Reason and perceive not that they run down Mankind at the same time Orthod You are in the right to lay the Fathers aside for they are all against you I should be glad to be rid of a witness who I am sure will swear home against me The Author of Christianity not Mysterious has invalidated their evidence to some purpose He will not allow above five or six to have been Men of sence and to shew how contemptible they are he flatters himself that some ages hence he will be look'd on as a Father I hope he is no Prophet and does not see so much extravagance in the succeeding times Lactantius every way an admirable Author argues against Idolatry He says very well that no Religion is to be taken upon trust and that in so great a concern every one ought to judge for himself Idolatry is so unreasonable a thing that whosoever admits it must be a stranger to Reason God having given every Man such a measure of Wisdom as to reject that which is so openly bad and look for somewhat better But he never pretended that amongst Christians who so unanimously submit to the Revelation which God has made of himself in the Holy Scriptures Man was to dispute against God and Reason to struggle with Faith Read the first Chapter of the first and the greatest part of the third Book and you will see that from the contradictions of Philosophers he proves Reason to be insufficient to find out the truth and that it is only to be met with in that Religion where it is divinely Reveal'd Minutius Foelix argues after the same manner Caecilius pleaded a Tradition of Idolatry in which he thought himself secure Minutius answers that he ought to appeal to his own Reason which will evidently shew him the folly and impiety of Polytheism And all that Theodoret insists on is that the
scrutiny of human Reasonings Do all these Vnities transcend the capacity of Human Nature Are they above the reach of an inquisitive Philosopher or a profound Divine Socin I confess that you startle me and I begin to have no great opinion of the first part of the distinction I see you are no Tritheists but then you must of course fall into Nominalism or Sabellianism and that is as bad I am afraid that part of the charge will stick cruelly against you Orthod The notion of Nominal Trinitarians is if possible more extravagant than the other Can you think in good earnest that the Ancient or modern Church if such an expression may be us'd for the Church is always the same Can you think I say that the Church in the first and in these last Ages oppos'd Sabellianism with so much Zeal and Vigor that is that very impiety which you fasten on her and condemn'd it with so unanimous a consent and yet would make it the foundation of her Faith The vast labours of the Fathers and of all the Doctors who succeeded them aim'd at this to assert a Real distinction of Persons against Sabellius and their Consubstantiality Coequality and Coeternity against Arrius And you come resolutely to tell us that for all that the Church is Sabellian and teaches Sabellianism How heartily would you laugh at a Man who should come to tell you that he has attentively read all the Socinian Prints and finds at last that they believe the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of our Saviour Socin Had they said so much for these two Articles as you have for Sabellianism in all your Books I protest I could not laugh at it Orthod Let us see then what is Sabellianism and if found in the Church I promise to give up the cause But if not I expect that you will have the justice to own that to charge us with it is a crying unsincerity We cannot have the sense of Sabellius better than from Dionysius of Alexandria the other Dionysius of Rome Athanasius St. Basil Nazianzen Ruffinus c. You will Learn from them that Sabellius own'd the Divine Nature but confounded the Hypostases or Persons and maintain'd one only Person or Hypostasis the Father And that when they objected to him the different operations of the Son and Holy Spirit he answer'd that they were only denominations of the Father resulting from his several appearances or offices to us If you mistrust this account take what the Author of the discourse says pag. 16. In a word says he the Noëtians and Sabellians held that God is but one subsisting Person yet that with respect to things without him he may be call'd as the modern Nominals now speak three Relative Persons The one subsisting Person of God sustains the three names of Father Son and Spirit which being the Relations of God towards things without him he is so many Relative Persons in a Classical Critical sense Now I will do more for you than you can expect I will not confine you to our English Authors But I dare you to produce any one Man in the Church of God who ever understood those matters and spoke at this rate But if you do not as I am positive that you cannot what becomes of your distinction and with what face can it be us'd any more Socin I will not go out of the Kingdom no not out of London for it Dr. South shall be the Man You will not deny that he understands the sense of the Church He says himself animadvers ch 8. pa. 242. And this I affirm to be the current doctrine both of the Fathers and the Schools concerning the Persons of the Blessed Trinity and the constantly receiv'd account given by them of a Divine Person so far as they pretend to explain what such a Person is Pag. 240. He tells you That the commonly receiv'd Doctrine of the Schools concerning the Blessed Trinity is this That the Christian Faith has laid this sure foundation that there is but one God That there is no positive real Being strictly and properly so call'd in God but what is God That there can be no composition in the Deity with any such positive real Being distinct from the Deity it self And yet that the Church finding in Scripture mention of Three to whom distinctly the Godhead does belong has by warrant of the same Scripture Heb. 1.3 express'd these Three by the names of Persons and stated their Personalities upon three distinct Modes of Subsistence alloted to one and the same Godhead and these also distinguish'd by three distinct Relations Then pag. 241. To explain these modes of Subsistence and these Relations he tells you That they are neither substance nor accident That they are not a Being but only the affection of a Being and that they add no entity to it such as are dependance mutability presence absence c. And that they have no Existence of their own after a separation or division from the things or beings to which they do belong Having thus in general explain'd what a mode is he applys it pag. 242. And says that the Personalities by which the Deity stands Diversify'd into three distinct Persons are call'd and accounted Modes .... That every Person is properly the Godhead as subsisting with and under such a certain Mode or Relation Now put all this together and see whether this is not the very Doctrine of Sabellius Did not Sabellius say that God is one even the Father acting under several Names sustaining several Relations by which he sometimes is the Father and sometimes the Son What does Dr. South say more He must be very clear sighted who can perceive any difference between these two Hypotheses Orthod There is as much difference as between affirming and denying between Light and Darkness Sabellius admits only one Person in the Divine Nature Dr. South Three When Sabellius by the great evidence of Scripture is forc'd to own Three Persons and confess the Relations He will have them to be Persons only in a Classical Critical sence having no other but a Metaphorical being He confounds the Persons and makes the Son and the Holy Spirit to be the Father Dr. South affirms them to be Persons in a Real Sence by an Eternal Communication of the Divine Nature and so really distinct that the Son cannot be the Father or the Holy Spirit Father or Son or the Father Son or Holy Spirit Sabellius makes the Relations to be wholly extrinsecal as he sustains the Three Names of Father Son and Spirit which being the Relations of God towards things without him he is so many Relative Persons Dr. South affirms pag. 242. the Relations to be Intrinsecal founded upon those Internal Acts by which one Person produces another or proceeds from another He tells you that God may sustain an extrinsecal Relation founded upon some external act issuing from him as Creation Preservation c. Which adds to the Deity only an extrinsecal denomination as
Form and Matter and indeed of all the Phaenomena's of Nature concerning which Authors have given us some good and solid Reasons others nothing but fansies and dreams This is the great weakness of Socinianism The Gentlemen of that perswasion reject a most important Truth in which all Christians but themselves agree because they cannot understand the manner of it We cannot tell say they how it is therefore it is not And they pretend to argue strongly when they affirm that there are divisions and subdivisions amongst us about it Whereas there is really none but in the explication our assent to the truth of the thing being firm and unmoveable We said something of this Nature the other Day but you have taken no notice of it Socin This sine Discourse is all a grand mistake We do not reject the Trinity because we understand it not but because we understand it We let the HOW or manner alone 'T is the thing it self which we exclaim against You worship you know not what Did you give your selves leisure to think and not thwart the very first impressions of a Rational Soul this very grand contradiction would stare you in the Face Three that are but one What need is there here of Reasoning Three Persons every one God and all but one God! May not I tell you what Tertullian says in another case Advoco te O Anima naturaliter philosophantem non qualis erudita es in Philosophorum Scholis c. I appeal to thee O Soul not such as thou hast been taught in the Schools of Philosophers but with those impressions which Nature has given thee Are one and one and one Three or is it but one Orthod Your citing of Tertullian puts me in mind of a passage of Boëtius brought in by the Bishop of Worcester in his vindication of this very doctrine pag. 65. The Catholick Doctrine of the Trinity is this says Boëtius the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God but they are not Three Gods but one God And yet the Bishop pleasantly observes that the Socinians may wonder at it this very Man having written a Learned Book of Arithmetick And so for all this eloquent exclamation of Tertullian that Father was a Zealous assertor of the Trinity that is of one and one and one not being three but one So were a World of Learned Men in those days who though cultivated by a Philosophical institution had not yet for all that taken their leave of the first impressions of Nature But to come to the point If the difference between us were of numbers or of any created substance I would cry out contradiction as loud as your self I would call the first Man that I see in the street and pray him only to tell But this is quite of another Nature It has no foundation on any thing that we know The question is of the Nature of God between whom and us there is an infinite disproportion We cannot Reason of him from any thing which we find in our selves or in our fellow Creatures God is so far above our small and weak perceptions that except he is pleas'd to acquaint us himself what he is We must remain in our ignorance If God then tells us that he is one and Three If what we say of him is that which he has said of himself Must we presume to talk or so much as to imagine any contradiction in it Socin I admire your prudence but I cannot commend your sincerity You are sensible on what rocks they split who pretended to prove the Trinity not contrary to Reason I think that the B. of G. Dr. S. Mr. H. and others have sufficiently smarted for it I will engage for them that they will return no more to such kind of ratiocinations You take another way and resolve all into God's Authority I grant that what God says must be true Nothing is true but according to that conformity which it has to the mind of God But God has said no such thing of himself that he is one and Three Trinus unus I deny that he has Orthod King Agrippa believ'st thou the Prophets May not I ask you do you believe the Scriptures It is in that Sacred Book that God speaks to us It is there that he asserts it Socin I believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God and as we have said in the brief Notes on the Athanasian Creed a Divine an infallible and compleat rule both of Faith and manners But I deny that there is any such thing in the Scripture Orthod I am glad to hear you speak so justly and so reverently of the Sacred Writings which part will you have me to prove The Unity of the Godhead or the Trinity of Persons in that one Divine Nature Socin You may spare your trouble in proving the first We are the great Assertors of it It is from thence that we take the name of Vnitarians Though you are obstinately bent to call us Socinians Orthod Your assuming that name is an invasion of the rights of all Christians Nay it is an affront to all the wise and sober part of Mankind You call your selves Vnitarians just as the Donatists in a poor little corner of Africa call'd themselves the Catholick Church Will you then have me to prove that in the Scripture the Father is call'd God the Son God and the Holy Spirit God Socin You may spare your self that trouble too I know all the places that you can alledge You have repeated them a hundred and a hundred times If you call this a proof any thing in the World may be a proof Orthod Pray let me lay them before you and let us fairly see what exceptions you have against them It is not Candid no it is not civil to tell an Adversary that you know all that he has to say to you Socin I may take the Liberty to be positive in that particular I have an answer ready which I am sure you cannot take ill I am sensible that you will produce several Texts but as it has been urg'd again and again by us and in particular against Mr. Luzancy in the Answer to his four Letters pag. 42. They are Texts clogg'd with abundance of uncertainties 'T is deny'd with great vehemence by the ablest Criticks of the Trinitarian Perswasion that some of these Texts were originally so read as they are now Publish'd in our common Bibles Nay some of them were not read at all in any Bible till five or six hundred years after the Decease of the Apostles and other Sacred Penmen But whether anciently read or thus read yea or no there is none of them but is more fairly capable of a sence consistent with the Vnity of God as 't is taught by the Vnitarians and Nominals and is actually so interpreted by divers of the most allow'd and celebrated Interpreters of the Church Who sees not here that to introduce and believe Monstrosities on
and National Synods We have her Mind in her publick Confessions of Faith She is so far from espousing any sort of explication that she ever thought that that great Mystery could not be explain'd The Church suffers Men to write concerning these matters St. Austin has given several considerable reasons for it in his Books on this very Subject and in that de utilit credend The opposing of Heresy the improvement of Piety the study of the Holy Scriptures of which this makes so considerable a part are the principal But to think that the Church will stand by all the Opinions of private Writers and own their errours and mistakes is a prodigious inadvertency What Church in the World can be safe if made to answer for all the Authors of her Communion What becomes then of the objection It is all overthrown in this one word The Church has nothing to do with those explications which the Socinians fansie they have so much expos'd And as for the explications themselves I believe that if the Judicious Hooker and the Learned Cudworth were alive you durst not so much as name them The rest are Men of great abilities who can arm in their defence no better Pens than their own Socin But do you put Bishops and eminent Bishops too in the rank of private Persons Who can best speak the sence of the Church but those who are call'd by the Fathers the Husbands of their Churches the Keepers of the Canons and the Successors of the Apostles Some seem to be Tritheists and others seem to be Sabellians Orthod Truly you have us'd the Bishops in your Writings as if they had been no more than private Persons the reflections on their Lordships having been so sharp and so many His Grace the late Arch-Bishop whom by your own confession you ought to have reverenc'd was not free from your aspersions My Lord of Glocester has had his share In the latest answer to my Lord of Sarum you forget the large Encomiums given him before The Bishop of Worcester for whom the Learned World has so just a value met in the answer to his late Book with the same way of Entertainment But laying all this aside and answering your meaning A Bishop with all the respect due to the Sacred Dignity is still a private Doctor Nor can the Church be favourable to his explications if they are contrary to her Doctrine But what of all this Our Bishops are all Orthodox Socin I do not know what you mean by Orthodox There is no Orthodoxy but Truth They who teach Three Gods cannot be Orthodox and this is done by the Real Trinitarians The Socinians believe and adore but one and this is done by the Nominals The greatest part of the Church goes I confess that way and therefore it is Orthodox because Socinian In short we may talk till Doom's day and never be the Wiser The question at last must be this are you a Real or a Nominal Trinitarian If a Real then we shall never be reconcil'd If a Nominal then we are certainly agreed Orthod What I have said already seems to me to be satisfactory But since you are not contented with it let us examine the several parts of your distinction What is the meaning of Real Trinitarians But let me beg of you to answer plainly and directly Socin I will answer in the very words of the Author of the Discourse concerning them He says pag. 7. The Realists are denominated from their believing Three distinct Divine Spirits or Minds who are so many Real subsisting Persons Again p. 19. They are every day Challeng'd and impeach'd of Tritheism And again p. 25. Themselves do sometimes almost openly and explicitely own and profess their Tritheism Their doctrine of the Trinity manifestly implies Three Gods Orthod What is the meaning of Nominal Trinitarians Socin They are they who maintain a Trinity which Consists only in the several Names Offices Relations and Modes of Existence of the Divine Nature This was first taught by Noëtus and Sabellius embrac'd afterwards by the assertors of the Homoousios and receiv'd by the Schools and Divinity Chairs ever since This is the substance of what he says of the Nominals in the first part of the Discourse Orthod And this you make the Foundation of that difference which you imagine to be in the Church and has of late fill'd up all your Prints Socin Yes indeed and with a great deal of Reason You are all afraid of the distinction It is of your side so notorious a giving up of the Cause that we have parted with all our Old Arguments and retrench'd our selves there as in a place from whence we cannot be driven Orthod Then pray set your heart at rest and suffer your selves to be forc'd from it For I presume positively to averr that there is no such thing in nature as these Trinitarians of your own making You pretended already to a God of your own making You wish'd for a Scripture of your own making To make a Trinity too is a little too hard I say then and pray forgive the sharpness of the words that all this is a mistake a slander and a calumny upon the Church Socin How much must you abate of your assurance when I shew you in several late Writings that the Three Persons of the Trinity are Three distinct Infinite Minds Spirits and Substances I appeal to your self whether this is not manifest Tritheism For what is God but an Infinite Mind Spirit or Substance Orthod I have told you already and tell you again that such expressions are wholly unknown to the Church and therefore cannot with any candor be fastn'd upon it Oblige me so far as to shew me a Church in the World this day or formerly which uses them or else be pleas'd to own that you are guilty of a great deal of disingenuity But though such a denial is sufficient because it is of a thing which you cannot and dare not undertake to prove yet it will be much clearer if you give your self the trouble to consider that such a notion in the Christian Church is impossible and has not the least ground or appearance of truth You are acquainted with the Sacred Writings of the New Testament and no doubt have inform'd your self of the Confessions of Faith of the Ancient Councils the assertions of the generality of the Fathers the doctrine of the Schoolmen the sense of the Greek and Latin Church even since the fatal separation and in the division of so many Kingdoms from the last in these two Ages you know perfectly all the Articles which the Famous Societies of Protestants have declar'd to be the points of their belief This suppos'd I lay before you these plain and easy but Substantial Observations First That the Church of God has always asserted the Vnity of the Divine Nature as the Foundation of all Religion It has been its great and distinguishing Character You will tell me that the Philosophers did so
pardonable Origen and other Ante-Nicenes make out the Unity of God in a Ternary of Persons though they did not believe the Equality Says the Author of the Answer to Dr. Bull pag. 22. unjust in this to Origen and the rest I have some Remarks on that Answer which I design to make publick What the Author has said concerning the Epistle of St. Barnabas and those of the Holy Martyr Ignatius is far from invalidating their Authority We must have more than suspicions and bare denials to illegitimate a Book They are certainly works of great Antiquity and acknowledg'd to be such by the succeeding Ages But what must we say of a Person of his great erudition who pretending to answer a Book full of all the Testimonies which those early times could afford quarrels only with two or three Authors against whom he says nothing substantial and is wholly silent to Justin Martyr St. Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Tatianus Miltiades Melito Dionysius of Alexandria Tertullian Lactantius c. Is it enough to confute the Ante-Nicene Fathers to say as this Author pag. 7. That all their Glory is wholly due to the vanity of Modern Learned Men who quote these Books not because they value them but because being ancient monuments known to few and understood by fewer he seems to be a great Learned Man who can drop sentences out of these antique Books But this is mild and obliging if compar'd with pag. 63. Where this Author having said that Trinitarianism is not so much a Religion as the Law of the Byzantine or Constantinopolitan Emperours stiles the then Doctors of the Church THE PARASITES OF THESE TIMES whom now in regard of their antiquity we call Fathers You are not insensible how this might be taken up and expos'd If Hosius Spiridio Paphnutius If the Gregories the Basils the Cyrils the Theodorets the Chrysostoms the Hieroms the Hilaries the Ambroses the Austins were the Parasites of their times where shall we find any Vertue Piety or Learning in this World But I am willing to over-look those excesses and tell you that it is a folly to wrangle with this or that passage sometimes to inveigh against Platonicism and sometimes to complain that those Writings are lost which might have inform'd us better To be plain we have enough left and from what remains of the times before the Council of Nice it appears that the Vnity of God and the belief of a Trinity of Persons in that one God Father Son and Holy Spirit was the belief of the Christian Church The Arrians indeed might challenge some of the then Fathers who spoke more obscurely and were easier Misinterpreted But Socinianism has not the least pretence to any He must have forfeited all modesty who asserts it Socin But what have you to say to the Apostolical Creed Is it not an evidence beyond all other evidences Orthod Of what Socin Of the Vnity of the Great God Orthod And so are all our Creeds from the first to the last Socin But it is an Evidence against your Trinity Orthod Against that Trinity which you have falsly imputed to us and that is A Trinity of Gods But not against a Trinity of Persons in one God What is the first assertion of that Creed I believe in One God For you affirm that it was anciently thus read Ans to Doctor Bull pag. 16. What is the second but an Explication of the first This One God is the Father Almighty His only begotten Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit Three Persons in One God Socin This is so dragg'd in so strain'd so unnatural that to any unprejudic'd Person it will visibly appear not to be the Doctrine design'd to be taught in the Creed Orthod I am apt to think that I can substantially prove that it is I believe the Creed to be truly Apostolical notwithstanding what some learned Men have said against it Not because it was made by the Apostles themselves though nothing appears to the contrary but by reason of its great Antiquity Now when you and I dispute about the sence and design of that Creed we have but one way to take and that is First to see what the Scripture teaches concerning its Articles which indeed are no more than an Epitome or Collection of the Principal Truths deliver'd by Christ and his Apostles Secondly To examine the Doctrine of the Fathers who liv'd before the Church thought it fit and necessary to make a larger Explanation of the Faith Thirdly To satisfy our selves of the sence which the immediately following Councils gave to that Creed in their Decrees All this is Highly reasonable For if the Scripture which has taught so expresly God to be one has also expresly taught the Father to be God the Son God and the Holy Spirit God then it is plain that the sence of the Creed is such and no other The Authority of that Creed or of any Creed whatever is from the Scripture It cannot therefore be contrary to it and that excellent Rule must be brought to that Primitive Rule from whence it is deriv'd And alas has not this been prov'd to you so often and so fully that after a World of wrangling you have been driven from your new and unnatural Criticisms and forc'd to shelter your selves under the weak defence of your Philosophical disceptations But if this Creed has no other sence but that which you put upon it The Father only God The Son only Man and the Holy Spirit only an Energy or Operation How come the Fathers of that time so openly to contradict it I will not do again what has been so excellently done by the Learned Dr. Bull who has oblig'd the Christian Church with two Books which indeed you may speak or discourse against but can never substantially Answer Has he not undeniably prov'd out of their Writings that those Fathers believ'd the two Natures in Jesus Christ The Divine and the Human That they have asserted his Pre-existence and if his Pre-existence then his Eternity and if his Eternity then his Consubstantiality with the Father If the second part of the Creed is to be understood of Christ only Man How comes Irenaeus lib. 1. advers Haeres c. 2. in delivering the Belief of the Catholick Church or as he speaks of the Church all the World over to call him Our Lord Our God Our Saviour Our King to whom every Knee ought to bow c. How comes Tertullian who has deliver'd this very rule of Faith to talk as we do of the Blessed Trinity designedly and positively against Praxeas and say that he is warranted by the Apostle to speak of Christ as of him who is God blessed over all for ever If he believ'd the Holy Spirit to be only an Energy How comes he to stile him Tertium Numen Deitatis tertium Nomen Majestatis The Third Person of the Deity The Third Name of Majesty and Power Certainly Novatianus was acquainted with this Creed and yet Lib. de Trin.
not impos'd tyrannically without reasons or arguments to inforce its necessity and usefulness but with all the proper methods to engage our assent We believe because we have all the Reason in the World so to do And Faith becomes our choice upon the noblest and strongest Motives that can be I do Reason all the justice and honour which it can expect or deserve by saying that our most Holy Religion is built on this most rational Principle than which Man has none stronger none more evident Whatsoever God reveals is true and therefore the Mysteries of Christianity are true because God has reveal'd them There is no exception against the first of these Propositions In abundance of other things Reason is in the dark but it meets with no sort of obscurity in this The second then is its work and exercise to which it ought to be apply'd Reason must satisfy it self whether God has reveal'd what Religion offers It is highly just that it should be so or else every thing will be call'd Revelation and every folly consecrated by pretending to have God for its Author Men will see vanity and divine lyes saying thus says the Lord when the Lord has not spoken Ezek. 22.28 Thus St. Paul exhorts the Thessalonians 1 Thess 5.21 to prove all things and hold fast that which is good Compare all the Sects which have pretended to instruct Men in relation to a better Life Try even those Systems which boast an infallible Judge Let nothing that assumes the Name of Truth escape a severe inquiry But when all is done hold fast that which is good to wit that which we are perswaded cannot deceive us even the Revelation of God You see then a large Province for Reason to act in And at the same time how easy is that task which brings us at last to the Author of our being to receive the Truth at his hands Socin All this is well But still vast difficulties present themselves First Where is this Revelation which you suppose I know you will answer immediately that it is to be found in the Sacred Writings But then you make it to be the Province of Reason to satisfy it self in the Truth of the Revelation If by this you mean the certainty of the Divine Records you plunge your self in endless and I will say unsuccessful questions about their Inspiration You will be forc'd to shew which of them are inspir'd and which are not You will find them who have pleaded for the Gospels of Basilides Apelles and Tatianus For that according to St. Peter St. Paul St. Thomas c. For the Acts of the Apostles by St. Andrew St. Philip c. For other Epistles of St. Paul than those which we have and several Writings related by St Hierom de Scriptor Eccl. in Luc. and censur'd by Gelasius you will meet with Prochorus and Abdias the Babylonian and a world of spurious Writers pretending the Divine Revelation Secondly If you pass from the certainty of the Records to the particular places by which you affirm that God has reveal'd your Doctrine their sence will be still disputed It will be said that God indeed has reveal'd them but not in the sence which you understand them in And it will be the same as if you had no Revelation at all Thirdly Supposing that Reason can effect all this whose Reason must it be Is it that as you were pleas'd to speak of the common Saylor the Souldier the labouring Man Indeed the Principle will stand unmoveable what God has reveal'd is true But your Assertion that he has reveal'd the Mysteries of Christian Religion will be disputed partly from the uncertainty whether the Records are truly Divine partly from the doubt of the sence of the particular places which you alledge So that Reason in most Men will have nothing to do because they are not capable of learned inquiries and the few that are will wrangle with you to the end of the World Orthod The first of your objections cannot be propos'd by a Socinian It is of some force in the Mouth of a Heathen or of a Deist Were I to argue against either of them I ought not to take it ill if they oblig'd me to prove the certainty and inspiration of the Divine Records Nor is this so difficult as you imagine Criticks have made that a Controversy which is none in it self and never was so before So great and venerable are the Arguments by which the Divinity of the Sacred Writings is prov'd that nothing has yet been said of any moment against it It is to no purpose to insist on this with you who own the Scripture to be a compleat and infallible rule of Faith Nor is it more necessary to make it appear that the Books in dispute in the Primitive Ages of the Church were spurious For besides that we have nothing left of them but their Names and that too with some diversity and that they obtain'd very little because the cheat was presently found out it would not be fair in you to put one to the trouble of disproving Books which you disprove your self You admit with all the rest of Christians the Canon of the old and new Testament Pag. 6. of the Answer to Mr. Edwards Whereas Mr. Edwards says the Author would intimate that we reject divers Books of Scripture on the contrary we receive into our Canon all the Books of Scripture that are receiv'd or own'd by the Church of England and we reject the Books rejected by the Church of England So then all this difficulty is over Your second objection is as easily resolv'd When ever any thing is propos'd as Faith the business of Reason is to see whether it is to be found in those Writings wherein we all confess that God has reveal'd what we ought to believe Thus the Beraeans Act 17.11 at the preaching of Paul Search'd the Scriptures daily whether the things which he said to them were so They sound his allegations true and therefore many of them believ'd Nor will this as you insinuate resolve it self into a dispute about the sence of the places alledg'd For as we have said before those places are so plain so uncapable of any other sence than what they offer The deductions from them are so Natural and easy that all disputing is wholly exciuded For instance the Debate between you and me is about the Holy Trinity You deny and I affirm it We both agree upon a Medium to find whether it is so or no And that is the Authority of the Sacred Writings If in them there is a clear Revelation that God is one and if I produce those Texts which plainly and naturally attributes those qualifications to Father Son and Holy Spirit which are communicable to no created Being and cannot be diverted any other way without changing the sence of the proposition you must as the Noble and Candid Spirits of Beraea certainly yield Against your third objection I say that the
call'd by the Ancients 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by the Apostle 1 Cor. 2.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the demonstration of the Spirit to distinguish it from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the demonstration of Power which consists in miraculous operations And therefore that Record is truly divine in which God has left such splendid and lasting monuments of his Holy Spirit But if a Book may truly be call'd Divine which transcends all Books whatsoever that Collection which we have of the Sacred Writings justly deserves that name For besides that it can be made to appear that all the Theology all the Philosophy all the Rites all the Laws all the Manners and Customs all the Heroes of the Heathens are deriv'd from thence and that this Truth is not unperceiveable though oppress'd and eclips'd with the interposition of innumerable Fables and Lyes pray what Book can compare with this for Antiquity for certainty in the discovery of the Creation of the World the formation of all things the History of the first Ages but above all for that vast number of Precepts of Morality of excellent rules of Piety and Holiness by which Man is acquainted with his duty to God and to his fellow Creatures and has the promise of an Eternal State as a Reward of his Obedience What Man ever spoke or could ever speak in the Stile of the Sacred Writings It is every where Inimitable and does not surprise by a numerous train of pompous expressions but by a natural and inward Majesty which no mortal Oratory can personate It speaks to the Heart as well as to the Ears and converts as well as instructs us God has shew'd himself no where better than in his Word In his operations he acts but in this he speaks like God Whosoever reads attentively the Holy Scriptures must needs upon the whole conclude that it is a Work which infinitely exceeds the most refin'd Reason the most intense Capacity and the vastest Industry of Man I will say no more only let me beg of you to lay this all together and then tell me whether I am an Enemy to Reason and whether it has receiv'd any injury from me Socin Your way of speaking shews the Excellency of Reason and you make an admirable use of it against it self You leave me but one thing to desire and that is that I could be so far satisfy'd with what you have said as to assent to it But it is not in my power Nor think I my self overcome though I cannot answer your Arguments For when all is done my Reason must be the Judge and it will not suffer me to believe your Mysteries I know that you will tell me that this is obstinacy and that at this rate no Man will ever be convinc'd of his errors but will make this his last refuge that he cannot indeed contradict the truth offer'd but that his Reason will not suffer him to submit I grant all this But still as long as I act sincerely in it I may be pity'd but I cannot be blam'd Orthod You have often told me of your sincerity in this matter But I am afraid you have not the true notion of it Socin I understand by it a serious mind willing to know the truth and taking all the ways that it can to attain it I have study'd my own heart and if I can pretend to any knowledge of my self I think that I am in that very disposition Orthod There is a great deal more in it than all this comes to Self-love will turn it self into a thousand shapes and represent us to our selves quite otherwise than really we are Information indeed is the way to Truth But other qualifications must be suppos'd without which it is not attainable Bare arguing will never do The Soul must be purify'd of those lusts which are so many clouds interposing between us and the Truth I shall never believe a Man sincere in this till a substantial Piety with an uniform humble and mortify'd Life has made way to Divine Illuminations I take the grand obstacle to Faith not so much to consist in what we call Reason as in the indisposition of the heart which resists the impressions of the Grace and Spirit of God Sincerity in our obedience to CHRIST's holy precepts is the Touch-stone of that other which we pretend to One may practise Religion though he understands it not but it can never be understood except it be seriously practis'd As long as we live a life of sense and neglect the duties of Religion we shall ever wrangle with the points propos'd to our belief Oblige me in not separating two things so wholly depending on one another Socin I perfectly agree with you in this But I believe that God is merciful and that there is an allowance for invincible errors Orthod I believe so too But the error which you have espous'd is certainly a damnable error and is not Invincible He who never had a revelation of the Gospel and lives up to the light of nature will no doubt find that the mercies of God are not so consin'd as some Zealots have made them But you have had it and that too attested with the blood of Martyrs and the voice of the Catholick Church which at this very time from all the parts of the World exclaims against and condemns you How guilty is that confidence which under the pretence of contradictions and poor Criticisms dares refuse an assent to God speaking in his Holy Scriptures and to his Church declaring her sence of those matters in all her decrees Your errour indeed is invincible not because you cannot but because you will not be overcome Socin But who is a better judge than my self whether I can or no Orthod All this is trifling with God and your self Every Man will give the same Answer and by this defend not only the most pernicious errours but even the most sinful habits However take the great help which God has provided in this case and that is Prayer Be never wanting in your publick and private Adorations of God to pour your Heart before him with humility and fervency that he would open your Eyes and remove from you blindness and hardness of Heart Alass my Friend the night of your Life and mine is far spent The day is at hand Few steps more and we launch into Eternity Have pity on your own Soul and hasten to secure your self Socin I cannot however but express my acknowledgment for your good and serious advice I promise you that I will consider of it in earnest But it grows late and I fear we have no more time than what will serve to take another turn in this fine Garden and then draw home Orthod Besure to be as good as your word Socin I will Orthod Then I am almost confident that you will have done Socinianizing FINIS