shameful begging of the Question Every Contester will call himself a fair Reasoner Socin What! Is there no such thing then as fair reasoning Is there not in Men an equitable disposition to judge of and assent to the Truth Orthod Yes certainly but you have it not There are vast many Texts produc'd to assert the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit For we do not only alledge one or two solitary places of Scripture But we maintain also this to be the Foundation of Christianity and taught in the Scriptures Plainly Frequently Irrefragably Which is the way to reason fairly in this case First It is to see the sense which offers it self in the Texts which we produce Give me leave to bring in an instance or two Rom. 9.5 St. Paul speaking of Christ says that he is over all God blessed for ever The natural sence of the proposition is that he is truly God Over all and Blessed for ever being the Notion which we have of an Eternal Being You cannot without an incredible violence make any other sense of that proposition The same is Phil. 2.6 Who being in the Form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God That which the proposition naturally offers is that Christ is God None but a King can say that he thinks it not robbery to be equal with a King None but he who is God can pretend an equality with God Secondly I must see whether that sence which offers it self so naturally to me has the same effect on other People It is a mighty confirmation to me that I take a proposition right when the wise the good the inquisitive part of Mankind takes it as I do Now our Texts have not only the advantage of a natural evidence but they have also another and that is the consent of the Christian Church The Church of God has spoke as we speak understood as we understand believ'd as we believe It is the Voice of the Sacred Councils in their Decisions of the Fathers in their Writings of the Universities in their Chairs and of all Christians in their Praises Prayers and Adorations You own'd it to me and you said that it was the sence of the Socinians that the Scripture is an Infallible Divine and Compleat rule of Faith and Manners But it can never be so if there is not an universal sence in those propositions in which the Faith is deliver'd For to whom is it a rule even to all Christians And how can Christians follow this rule if there is not a common sence in which they may be united But what is that sence but that which appears to the Church in the propositions and become the sence of the Church A sence of so much the more weight and Authority because no Scripture is of private interpretation This with all Men who pretend to any acquaintance in those Matters is fair and ingenuous Reasoning Socin I thank'd you once for an Argument in the behalf of Transuastantiation and now I do it for Tradition The denial of it is a Protestant Principle Orthod You are so press'd by the evidence of what I offer'd that because you cannot answer you would endeavour to divert it Know then by the way that Protestants deny and that on very good grounds Tradition to be the last and supreme judge of Controversies But maintain Tradition and particularly so Universal and uncontested as it is in this particular to be the â—â—â—test humane evidence in the World The unanimous consent of the Church in a point of Faith is not to be oppos'd by any sober Christian But to return Let us see what is your fair and ingenuous way of reasoning You are so far from the method propos'd by me that you reject the natural sence of the Texts Some you must give me leave to say it you have openly falsify'd As for instance Rom. 9.5 You will not have it God Blessed but God be blessed for ever against the Faith of all Copies against the Authority of all Writers Some you have loaded with little Criticisms as Phil. 2.6 Upon others you have trumpt new unnatural and incoherent explications as Joh. 1.1 And followed Dreams of Yesterday unknown to the Church of God or to any one Writer in it Others you have eluded with poor Allegories as Col. 1.16 In a word there is scarce a part of Scripture but what you have put to the Rack and then you come to tell us of fair and ingenuous reasonings of your elaborate Prints to prove the Unity of God which no Christian ever deny'd The Trinity of the Divine Persons appears so visibly in the Sacred Writings that if you design to deal as a fair or ingenuous reasoner you must either embrace the doctrine or reject their Authority Socin I will do neither I am perswaded of the truth of the one but not at all of the other Observe what the ingenious Author of the Answer to Mr. Luzancy has said to him pag. 44 45 46. I will put it in as few words as I can and yet I hope without losing any thing of the force of the Argument You charge that upon the Scripture which is no Scripture at all and you oblige us to believe as the word of God that which is no word of God but only your inferences from it You draw conclusions those conclusions you rest in and though they are no Articles of Faith because only the work of your reason yet you propose them as Faith to us I would fain ask whether your reason is more infallible than ours Or whether you have a privilege which we have not of making inferences The Trinity is no doctrine of Scripture but only an inference from it May not I have the Liberty either to make a contrary inference to yours or to review your deductions to judge the consistency or contradiction of these inferences I honour the Scripture but I am not oblig'd to receive your Argumentations These are not indeed his words but I am sure it is his sence Get out of this as well as you can Orth. But pray what is all this to the purpose I â—an assent due to a plain and express proposition an inference Or if you will call it an inference is it not the natural result of that plain proposition And must not whosoever has any share of understanding give the same assent to it which I do What are all our perceptions but inferences and all our talk and conversation but conclusions The Plow-Man does it as much as the Philosopher and there are propositions of that evidence that if offer'd to all Mankind all Mankind will agree in them The question is not here between your Reason and mine Nor do I pretend to more infallibility than you in reasoning But I say that Reason is so much the same in you and me that a plain and express proposition being offer'd us you and I must equally assent to it If you do not you wrong Reason and are unjust to
Reason and the Superiority of the first over the last establish'd and the bounds of both assign'd I hope that having no other end in this but doing good they will satisfy him for whom they are written and work on those whom a mistaken Conscience has made to persist in so dangerous an errour All this is treated by way of Conference and Dialogues A manner of Writing usual in the Primitive times as appears by Justin Martyr Theodoret St. Jerom c. And famous amongst us by several late excellent Books of that kind It has that advantage that being properly an imitation of Conversation all is easy and natural in it A Reader is not put on the rack by that intense study which a tedious Argument requires And even the Repetitions and Digressions which in a Conference are unavoidable have somewhat in them which is very taking I have been as sparing as I could of citations hard words or any thing which might obscure or perplex the Subject For besides the Solidity of our Reasonings there must be an exquisite plainness and familiarity in Dialogues which if an Author can attain nothing more is to be desir'd in that sort of Writing But before I conclude this I must say that of all Writers these Gentlemen ought not to value themselves because they have rais'd a great deal of dust which their own prejudice hinders them from laying They complain of difficulties and at every word cry out Unreasonable Contradictory Incomprehensible Whereas no People who attempted to put our Holy Religion out of doors ever oppos'd to it a more Vereasonable Contradictory and Incomprehensible System than they have done I will not speak of their Incomprehensible explications such as are that of Joh. 1. that of Phil. 2. Coloss 1. Heb. 1. c. which no Man in his right senses can make any thing of and are a direct Contradiction to the other part of the Divine Oracles But I will only beg of them to reconcile their robbing Christ of his Divinity to the adoring of him praying to him and making him an object of Divine Worship I should be glad they would shew us how it is consistent with Reason that A meer Man A meer Creature such as they make Christ to be can offer himself a sufficient Expiation a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the whole World This the Author of the Brief History has granted This is reported to have been acknowledged by Charitable Mr. F. at his death This Mr. T. one of their writers so largely commended by the Author of the last Answer to My Lord of Worcester's late Vindication of the Holy Trinity has plainly call'd an Extravagance I am mistaken says he Christianity not Myster pag. 25. if either the Socinians or the Arrians can make their Notions of a DIGNIFY'D AND CREATURE-GOD CAPABLE OF DIVINE WORSHIP appear more reasonable than the extravagancies of other Sects touching the Article of the Trinity When they have justify'd all this and a great deal more which may be objected to them then and not before they may lay claim to and stand by their pretended Inconsistencies But till that is done they must only be look'd upon as a remarkable instance of humane infirmity which not contented to rely on that solid Foundation which the Redeemer of the World and his Apostles have left us settles in a barren and dry Ground where no Water is There is no Man but what can easier pull down than build up Let us but want Humility and abound in our own Sence which is as often our Sin as our Misfortune and we shall easily have objections in store against the Christian Faith But then we leave the Rock to build on the Sand And when we have done all that we can by our fine discourses it will be Sand still The Structure will tumble to the ground and great will be the fall of it If these Gentlemen think fit to say any thing to these Papers they are humbly intreated that they will not use them as they did the Four Letters that is put out an Answer where nothing either directly or indirectly is answer'd If they only write to satisfy me that they are Men of Learning and Masters of all the Graces of Elocution I am convinc'd of it already and they may spare themselves that trouble 'T is not so much Language and Oratory as Argument and Reason which we expect at their hands Books Printed for Thomas Bennet at the Half-Moon in St. Paul's Church-Yard REmarks on some late Writings of the English Socinians in Four Letters done at the Request of a Socinian Gentleman By H. de Luzancy B. D. Minister of Doverc and Harwich The Inspiration of the New Testament asserted and explained in answer to the Six Letters of Inspiration from Holland c. By Mr. Le Moth. A Conference with a Theist in two Parts By W. Nicholls Rector of Selsey in Sussex The Certainty and Necessity of Religion in General or the first Grounds and Principles of Humane Duty Established In eight Sermons at Mr. Boyle's Lecture for the Year 1697. By F. Gastrell B. D. and Studient of Christ-Church Oxon. Certain Considerations for the better Establishment of the Church of England with a Preface by James Harrington Esq A Sermon Preach'd before the Honourable House of Commons on the Anniversary Fast for the Martyrdoom of King Charles the first By E. Langford D. D. A Sermon before the Lord Mayor Judges and Aldermen at the Cathedral of St. Paul on the thirtieth of January 1697. By S. Estwick B. D. and Chaplain of christ-Christ-Church Oxon. In the Press Twelve Sermons upon several Occasions By Robert South D. D. Never before Printed Dr. Bentley's Dessertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris c. and the Fables of Aesop Examined By the Honourable Charles Boyle Esq A Conference Between an Orthodox Christian AND A SOCINIAN The First DIALOGUE Socinian WELL I see there is no end of disputing and if that spirit once possesses Men they have the misfortune never to know when to have done Yesterday at four in the afternoon the Doctor and your Friend enter'd the lists It was Nine at Night before they could be perswaded to sit down and take their share of a Curious entertainment which Mr. N. at whose House they were had prepar'd for them Every thing was neat and fine the Company select and good and yet all this which makes Men Sociable and inclin'd to please one another had no such effect on these two great Spirits They had much ado to forbear breaking out and if they had been let alone I really believe that they would be disputing still Orthodox Pray what was the subject of this long dispute Socin The great Controversy of the Age Socinianism That which the Church of England endeavours to run down with so much vehemency and has been lately defended by several ingenious Men whose Writings I am satisfy'd you are no stranger to Orthod What could they say in all that time They are
too and that the Jews were witnesses to all the World of this Sacred Truth I grant it The Unity of God was the Fundamental Article of the Mosaical dispensation Pythagoras Socrates Plato Aristotle the Academicks have spoke admirably well to it But I say that Christianity has been as far superior to them in this point as they themselves exceeded the rest of Mortals For the Jews kept this to themselves without propagating it to others and the wise Heathen confuting their doctrine by their practice openly embrac'd Polytheism None treated of God and his Divine Attributes of which the Vnity is the Center as the Holy Jesus and his disciples have done This the Apostles spread through the World This the Fathers taught indefatigably One God One Divine Nature Spirit Mind substance has been the constant Voice of the Church He is not a Christian who believes not that God is one and can be but one If it were not too tedious I would produce some of their Authorities Socin It is altogether needless This is our very Doctrine I am fully perswaded of this and infinitely pleas'd to hear you speak so home to it Orthod I am afraid you will not be so well pleas'd with my second observation and it is this That the same Church of God which so Zealously asserted his Vnity never did it without asserting at the same time a Trinity of Persons in that One Divine Nature No matter of fact which depends from Testimony can be made to appear more incontestably true than this You have a large Collection of Books at home Let us step to your Library and I dare engage to convince you of this by the most exact induction of particulars which can ever be made from the very Apostolical Creed to this time I say once more and presume to be positive in it that the Church in delivering the Faith ever taught the Existence of God to be necessary and Eternal and his Vnity so perfect and entire that it transcends what notion soever we have of Unity even that which we call Numerical coming much short of it But at the same time she taught and profess'd to believe and adore in that Vnity of Nature a Trinity of Hypostases or Persons the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit Thus run the Apostolical the Nicene Ephesine and Constantinopolitan Creeds Thus speak the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Thus all the Learning of the Schools and all the now Churches in the World express themselves Thirdly But least the belief of a Trinity of Persons whose Coeternity and Coequality is asserted should affect the Vnity of the Divine Nature the Church has stated it in one and the same indivisible and inseparable simple and uncompounded Essence They are Coeternal and Coequal because Coessential And they are Coessential because Subsisting in that Nature which cannot be multiply'd It is true to say of each Person that he is God and yet it is false to say that they are Three Gods The Trinity multiplying the Persons but the Vnity remaining the same that is the greatest and most unconceivable Vnity in the World And therefore the Sacred Councils and the Fathers have been carefull to the utmost to distinguish the Personality from the Nature as afraid of multiplying the one as of confounding the other You see then that the first member of your distinction is worth nothing The charge laid against the Church in that particular is not only false but impossible You have attempted to divide the Church of God into two Parties The first you have accus'd of Tritheism or of teaching the belief and Worship of Three Gods Unfortunate in this that the very exposition of the Doctrine of the Church the very reading of any one Creed is an open confutation of what you have pretended to make us guilty of Socin I hope you will not take it ill If I make some remarks as well as you First I confess that the Nicene and following Councils spoke as you do and that many of the Post-Nicene Fathers the Schoolmen and the present Churches agree with you in this but I deny it of the Apostolical Creed which ought to have been the Form of all the rest Where can you find there a Trinity in Vnity Where can you see Coeternity Coequality Coessentiality and all those Famous Terms which the Church perserv'd ever since For my part I can perceive no such thing To this Creed we stand as to a rule left us by the Apostles themselves Suffer us to keep but that and take you all the rest Secondly I challenge the Ante-Nicene Fathers we say they are strangers to your Doctrine The Answer to Dr. Bull has made it invincibly appear Have you taken notice how the Learned Author of that answer has discover'd the impostures of Pseudo-Hermas and the pretended Epistles of Barnabas and Ignatius What clear account he has given of the Nazarens Mineans and Alogi And what a plain proof he has brought against your Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ out of the Epistle of Clemens of Rome to the Church of Corinth Thirdly Admitting all your allegations to be true A Trinity in Vnity Three Gods in one God is a thing wholly unaccountable Orthod The question between you and me is not whether it is unaccountable or not The question is whether those whom you call Real Trinitarians have departed from the doctrine of the Unity of God and have actually and manifestly as you speak own'd their Tritheism The matter of Fact and not the Reasonableness or Unreasonableness of the thing is the Point in dispute Your mistake is Palpable For the Trinity in Vnity is not Three Gods in one God a Language which the Church ever abhorr'd but Three Persons in one God Three Subsistences in one Divine Nature Pray name me one Man in the Church even of those who have most abounded in their own sense and spoke most loosly in the explication of our Mysteries who was not as Zealous a defender of the Unity of God as yourself can be This is then the most unpardonable want of Candor imaginable You call me a Tritheist I deny it You prove it because I believe the Blessed Trinity I own I do Then you exclaim I believe Three Gods The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit I say No! For though the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost God yet they are but one God For God can be but one The Divine Nature is incapable of Multiplication Division or Augmentation You may and will urge again that this is very unreasonable I hope to shew you one day that it is highly Rational But in the mean time I gain the point and complain that you do me wrong and are inexcusable in charging me with destroying the Unity of God 2ly You are positive that the Ante-Nicene Fathers asserted the Vnity but not the Trinity I suppose you mean in our sence of a Trinity or else the mistake is not
such a craz'd foundation as this is to give up common sence without a tolerable cause for it Whereas indeed there can be no cause so great as may induce us to part with it 'T is to admit and defend contradictions and that in a capital Article of Religion when we need not 'T is to Sacrifice the clearest and most important dictates of Reason not to any necessity but to our secular interests or wantonness And has not the Author of the Letter of Resolution told you plainly that you have given up all your places of strength Orthod There is in what you have said Declamation and Argument To introduce and believe Monstrosities on such a craz'd foundation To give up common Sense without a tolerable cause for it To admit and defend contradictions and that in a Capital Article To sacrifice the clearest and most important Dictates of Reason to our secular interests or wantonness All this is Declamation That sort of Imbellishments are very rude and severe As if Conscience were all of the Socinian and none of the Church's side I know how you would exclaim if we talk'd to you at this rate The rest seems to be Argument But in this I must confess that I admire at your vehemency as vou call it when there is not a single word of Truth in the Allegation Forgive me if I say that it is false that those Texts are clogg'd with abundance of uncertainties The Form of our Baptism in the name of the Holy and Blessed Trinity is clear Genuine Authentick and so far from being clogg'd with uncertainties that all the Fathers all the Schoolmen all the Modern Interpreters have acknowledg'd it I wonder what you mean by the ablest Criticks of the Trinitarian Perswasion This is perpetually in your Writings But you are very careful not to name any of them and I commend you for it I would beg it as a favour of you that in your next Print you would name some of these ablest Criticks and shew us what uncertainties they have found those Texts charg'd with I am satisfy'd that if it had not been for Hugo Grotius and one or two more whom you have sadly misrepresented your cause must have starv'd for want of such Authorities as these It is false again that the substantial Text which we alledge to prove the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit were read at any time otherwise than they are now You say that some of them were not read at all till 5 or 600 years after the decease of the Apostles This has as little Truth as the rest There is but one and no more which you have pretended to dispute and that is 1 Joh. 5.7 and you cannot but know that it has been cited by St. Cyprian and is in the famous Edition of the Bishop of Oxford whom Father Simons though of another communion calls deservedly the Learned Bishop of Oxford It was in that of Pamclius It is to be found in the Catalogue of the Texts cited by the Great Athanasius and Printed in the latest Edition of that Father It had been us'd before by Tertullian against Praxeas And both St. Ambrose and St. Hierom complain'd that the Arrians had ras'd this Text out of all the Copies which they could come at The last part of the verse and these Three are One not being capable of the petit novel interpretation of their agreeing in one but being look'd upon by the Ancients who were more sincere in their disputes than we are as a direct proof of the consubstantiality of the Divine Persons You say that there is none of them but what is more fairly capable of a sense consistent with the Unity of God as is taught by the Vnitarians and Nominals I have convinc'd you already that there is no such thing in the Catholick Church as Nominal Trinitarians and the exception is needless since we maintain with all Christians that the Trinity of Persons is no contradiction to the Unity of the Divine Nature Socin But supposing your Texts to be true they are still contested Texts They are not so clear as to be capable but of one sense You give them one and I give them another Perhaps they may admit of a third Thus you build demonstrations on things really very uncertain Then you thunder in our Ears Scripture Scripture whereas at the bottom you say nothing by using Texts capable of different senses I commend you for resolving this great controversy into the Authority of the Sacred Writings but then as it has been said to Mr. Luzancy pag 42. The Revelation for it ought to be most clear so clear that a fair and ingenuous Reasoner will not contest the positiveness and evidence of the Revelation You understand a Text your way and I do it mine and so there is an end of your Method Orthod You will not name us those ablest Criticks of whom you speak so much in your Writings You keep them in the dark as the Deus in Machina of the old Heathens that their sudden appearing may the more surprize But I fear you are one of them you come at once to impeach the Christian World and tell this present age and those that are past that the Texts us'd by them may be true but they are contested and so worth nothing Is the contesting then of a Text enough to have it rejected Is my sense oppos'd to the sense universally receiv'd by the Church of God enough to turn that sense out of Doors Whither will this wild way of arguing hurry a Man Do you perceive the consequences of such a Principle By this an Atheist a Deist or any Heretick-in the World is secure It is but giving another sense to a proposition than what it naturally has And when you argue with never so much clearness from Authority he will tell you there is no proposition in the World but what is capable of several senses What you say may be true But it is contested and I contest it This is your sense of the thing but it is not mine Socin You both mistake and misrepresent me I have no such thoughts By contestation I mean such an opposition as is well grounded It is not enough to say 't is not my sense but I must have substantial Reasons to say so I demand as I have told you already a Text so clear that a sair and an ingenuous Reasoner will not contest the positiveness of the Revelation Orthod That is you demand no Text at all For whosoever will contradict it will think himself a fair Reasoner Do not all the Socinians believe that they are the fairest Reasoners in the World Are they not cry'd up by their party for Men of mighty Reason Your self are perswaded that you are a fair and ingenuous Reasoner Those silly Criticisms which you have obtruded upon all the Texts of Scripture are look'd upon by you as great efforts of Reason So that this can be no rule at all but is a
no Ideas If I cannot walk in a smooth and open Path I am resolv'd to stay at Home Orthod I am my self of your Mind I take then Reason to be a Faculty of the Soul by which we endeavour to find out the Truth either by way of Inference or by a plain and simple Perception What have you to Except against this Socin Nothing at all For I think that all our Knowledge comes these two ways Yet if the word Endeavour falls upon the last as well as upon the first part of the definition it seems somewhat incongruous For simple Perceptions offer themselves to us and are almost the only things of which the Certainty is not disputed But yet as it is by comparing the least Known with the most Known Principles that we do Reason and that every thing which we call a simple Perception is not such I willingly agree in it Then go on and tell me what is Faith Orthod Faith is the Gift of God by which he Inlightens our Mind and inclines our Heart to assent to what he proposes to us to believe Socin This I do not like so well as the other Though I know it comes from St. Austin and is commonly receiv'd by the admirers of that Father Faith is the Gift of God as all things are in a general sense But if by it you suppose an immediate Act of his Grace by which we believe then Faith is no more our choice or a favour offer'd to all Men but confin'd only to few How can it be said that God inlightens our Mind when what you call Mysteries are as obscure and unknown after as before we believe And for that expression of inclining our Will it is not sufferable it borders so much upon the Doctrine of Calvin which you know the Church of England is not fond of It shews an impossibility of believing in them whose Hearts are not inclin'd and consequently it makes unbelief to be no Sin Orthod The Definition is I confess of St. Austin But I maintain that it is both Christian and Catholick The Scripture has taught and the Church embrac'd it Joh. 6.4 No Man can come unto me except the Father which has sent me draw him Ibid. v. 65. No Man can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father Phil. 1.29 To you it is given in the behalf of Christ not only to believe on him but also to suffer for his sake Rom. 12.3 We are commanded to think soberly according as God has dealt to every Man the measure of Faith Hence the Church has express'd her self in these words Can. 7. of the Council of Aurange If any thinks that by the strength of Nature he can think or do any good thing relating to Salvation or assent to the Truth reveal'd without the illumination or inspiration of the Holy Spirit HERAETICO FALLITUR SPIRITU HE IS DECEIV'D BY AN HERETICAL SPIRIT not understanding this place of the Apostle 2 Cor. 3.5 Not that we are sufficient of our selves to do any thing as of our selves But our sufficiency is of God This does not hinder Faith from being our choice any more than it does Vertue the assistance of God helping but not altering our Nature The obscurity of Mysteries even when we believe is no objection against the inlightning of the Mind For this supposes not a clear insight into the Nature of the thing but only a conviction that there is such a thing reveal'd 1 Cor. 13.12 For now we see through a Glass darkly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in aenigmate as in a riddle ... Now. I know in part but then shall I know even as I am also known But how can you give to the inclining of the will the name of insufferable and bordering upon Calvinianism when you cannot but know that it is the Work of God and the Prayer of Man to him Psal 119.27 Make me to understand the way of thy Precepts v. 35. Make me to go in the Path of thy Commandments v. 36. Incline my Heart to thy Testimonies Prov. 16.1 The preparation of the Heart is from the Lord. The Church you say is not fond of Calvin's Principles True but our abhorrency from Clavinianism must not drive us to Pelagianism I may detest an opinion inconsistent with the goodness of God without throwing my self into an excess injurious to the Grace of CHRIST The Definition then is good and safe but because I am willing if possible to remove all your prejudices I will put it in fewer words Faith then is a Firm assent to what God has reveal'd to us Socin I cannot quarrel with this It is well that once at least you will be plain Orthod It is well that there is something which you will not deny This Definition though not so exact as it ought to be is enough to shew you the insufficiency of Reason For if Reason can embrace all that is necessary for a Man to know there can be no necessity of Revelation This of it self supposes and is a convincing proof of our ignorance For if there are objects which Reason cannot reach but must owe their discovery to a higher and more infallible Principle then Reason is palpably weak and imperfect There cannot be a more sensible Argument of its Deficiency But there is another inconvenience as discernible as this Reason not only cannot reach the object which Revelation presents but also the object once presented it cannot be conversant about it nor examine the several parts or prospects of it It cannot come to a view near enough to employ its Faculties in it The account of which is very plain and it is this That as Reason with all its sagacity and penetration could never find out such an object and knows only that there is such a thing because God presents it and must rely for the truth of it upon God's veracity so the nature of the object propos'd must still remain obscure because there is as great an impossibility in finding out the nature of the object as the object it self In natural things Reason meets with an object fit for its inquiry and not only finds out the object but even penetrates what can be known of it because both are commensurate Or to avoid hard words which neither you nor I love because there is a fair proportion between the object and the powers and faculties of Reason But in things supernatural which word is enough to decide the difference if you would but consider of it there is so infinite a distance between the object propos'd and the weak perceptions of Reason that if we are just to our selves and have any respect for the order which the All-wise God has establish'd we cannot so much as pretend to an inquiry into the Nature of the thing offer'd This highly vindicates the wise and sober Answer of abundance of Learned Men amongst us who in the disputes about the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation have told you that these are Mysteries