However I can do no less than conclude and expect every judicious Man's Assent to it 1. That the Doctrine of the Trinitarians is no necessary or fundamental Doctrine of Christianity 2. That 't is unjust and unchristian to lay the Vnitarians or Socinians under any Penalties or Forfeitures upon the account of their Doctrine 3. That Trinitarians ought to own the Vnitarians for Christian Brethren and behave themselves towards them as such First I said the Doctrine of the Trinitarians is no necessary or fundamental Doctrine of Christianity For to say it is doth 1. Reflect upon the Goodness of God and his Love to Mankind as making that fundamental and necessary to Salvation the Truth whereof must be confessed to be so very obscure and uncertain that where the Prejudices of Education Respect of Men and Fear of Penalties do not prevail the vulgar who are ten to one of Mankind either do not believe it at all or confess it as Parrots speak Words without Understanding 2. To make the Doctrine of the Trinity fundamental is to joyn Hands with Papists in contradiction to Protestant Doctrine owning with them that the Scriptures are obscure and unsufficient even in Fundamentals and so bringing in a necessity of admitting and believing unscriptural Traditions Of this the Papists are so sensible that it is the chief of those Arguments with which they attack Protestants and which they urge in their former and latter Writings wherein they not only seem to have but have in reality great Advantage as will I am perswaded appear to those that impartially consider it It will not be here impertinent to tell you a story that hapned in the present Reign A certain great Lord was assaulted in his Faith by a Jesuit or other Seminary who began with him thus My Lord I know you believe the Creed of Athanasius to which the Lord wisely perceiving what he would build upon that Concession answer'd Who told you so which quick Answer by Question did so surprize and disappoint the Seminary that he had no more to say It seems his intended Arguments leaned on that Pillar alone to wit the Belief of the Creed commonly called the Athanasian 3. The Trinitarian Doctrine reflects Weakness and Unsufficiency upon the whole Christian Church and Faith of the first Ages which as our Author has noted knew or professed no other but the Apostles Creed which doth fully agree with the Vnitarian or Socinian but by no means with the Trinitarian Doctrine of fundamental Faith. 4. They that urge the Doctrine of the Trinity as fundamental do clearly impugn the sixth Article of the Church of England which saith Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation So that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith. Such also was the Judgment of Mr. Chillingworth that eminent Defender of Protestantism ch 6. n. 56. where he saith By the Religion of Protestants I understand that wherein they all agree THE BIBLE THE BIBLE I say THE BIBLE only is the Religion of Protestants Whatever else they believe besides it and the plain irrefragable and indubitable Consequences of it well may they hold it as a matter of Opinion but not as a matter of Faith or Religion neither can they with Consistence to their own Grounds believe it themselves nor require the Belief of it from others without most high and most scismatical Presumption Secondly I said it follows from the foregoing Discourses that it is unjust and unchristian to lay the Vnitarians or Socinians under any Penal Laws or other Hardships on the account of their Conscience and Doctrine For we may see here that an honest and sincere Man may in the Pursuit of his own Salvation and in adhering to Protestant Principles of the Clearness and Sufficiency of Scripture in Fundamentals as also in reverence of the ancient Faith held forth in the Apostolick Creed and of the Church of the first Ages he may I say with clear Satisfaction in his own Conscience disbelieve the Trinitarian Doctrine But how can Christians with Satisfaction to their Consciences punish such a Man As for the publick Peace there is not only nothing in the Nature of their Doctrine that inclines them to Unpeaceableness but they have also always been extremely candid to those that differ from them from a Principle common I think to them and the Remonstrants only that Conscience ought to be free in matters of Faith This is a Principle with the Socinians and the Remonstrants other Families of Christians take it up as an expedient when they have need of it Briefly If the Socinians appear to be as careful and diligent to know the Truth as Athanasians if they are in their Stations as learned as they and as innocent and virtuous Men in their Conversations how can any Christian judg and condemn them without incurring our Saviour's Judgment and Condemnation He that believes the whole Bible heartily and indeavours sincerely to know the Mind of God and Christ therein and to purge himself from those carnal Affections and worldly Interests that hinder Men from seeing and obeying the Truth and perhaps as a Testimony thereof suffers the Loss of Advantages and Goods Kinsfolk and Country nay undergoes Penury and other Hardships in foreign Countries as many do at this Day how can any who pretend to give Obedience to the Law of common Reason of Moses and the Prophets and of Christ himself in his Sermon on the Mount to wit of doing to others as we would they should do to us how I say can such think a Socinian so qualified as we have but now described him doth deserve Punishment for his Faith And how can any Man without transgressing Christ's Law of Charity judge such a one to be guilty without any Appearance of Guilt more than may be easily seen in himself Is it not the common Principle of all Protestants to believe the Holy Scriptures are sufficient to all Religion and clear in all Necessaries of Faith and Manners and that every Man is obliged by our Lord Christ to believe and practise according to his own Knowledg Light and Understanding of the Scriptures He that does so is not only a Christian but a Protestant that is a reformed Christian I am fully assured says Mr. Chillingworth and consequently those learned Persons the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford the Regius Professor and others who licensed and approved his Book that God does not and therefore Men ought not require more of any Man than this to believe the Scripture to be God's Word to endeavour to find the true sense of it and to live according to it ch 6. n. 56. The same Author says ch 5. n. 96. I have learnt from the ancient Fathers that nothing is more against Religion than to force Religion and of St. Paul that the Weapons of the Christian Warfare are not carnal The famous Salvian of
of the Lord Josh 24. 27. Are these things Persons Is it not evident that Actions proper to Persons are ascribed to them as well as to the Holy Spirit or Power and Inspiration of God by the Figure called Prosopopeia Briefly We ought to conceive thus of this matter a great Effusion of God's Inspiration and Power being to be given to the Disciples that it might be a continual Director and Guide when the Lord Christ was no more personally with them therefore this Guide is by the aforesaid Figure spoken of in such terms as if it were some Doctor Teacher and Advocate Hence it is said to reprove the World to guide into all Truth to intercede for us namely because it suggesteth Prayer and Affection in Prayer also not to speak of himself but to speak what he shall hear from God to receive of Christ's that is receive of God the Remainder of Christ's Doctrine and teach it to the Apostles For 't is to be noted that our Lord left some things to be taught by this Inspiration of God because the Disciples were not capable to hear and believe them till they had seen the great Miracles of our Lords Resurrection and Afcension into Heaven John 16. 12. I have yet many things to say to you but ye cannot bear them now Howbeit when the Spirit of Truth is come he shall guide you into all Truth The Spirit that guided the Apostles into all Truth was it not the meer Inspiration of God It is for the same Reason and by the same Figure that this Power and Inspiration of God in the Apostles is said to bear Witness John 15. 26. to search Mysteries 1 Cor. 2. 10. 11. to distribute Gifts 1 Cor. 12. 2. to appoint Bishops Acts 20. 28. to glorify Christ John 16. 14. Finally It appeared in the Form of a Dove on Christ and of Cloven Tongues on the Apostles Matth. 3. 16. Acts 2. 3 4. Because God conveyed this Divine Energy to the Lord Christ and to the Apostles in these outward Symbols which were fit Emblems of the Quality of the Gifts then bestowed The Dove signified the mild and peaceable Spirit of Christ and that the Power then conveyed to him should not be for the Damage or Hurt of Mankind The Tongues denoted that the Apostles did then and there receive the Gift or Faculty of speaking with many Tongues But what sense can the Trinitarians make of these things they say the Spirit is a Person and God did God receive and assume the Shape of a Dove that is of a Brute What hinders but that they may believe all the Transformations in the Metamorphosis of Ovid 29. John 16. 15. All things that the Father hath are mine Answ 1. St. Paul hath said as much of every Christian 1 Cor. 3. 21 22. All things are Yours things present things to come all are yours 2. All things in this Text of St. John are all things relating to the Christian Faith Doctrine and Discipline for it follows Therefore said I He the Spirit shall take of mine and shew it to you The meaning of the whole Passage is all things relating to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Christian Church which the Father hath in his Mind and Design are mine that is are known to me and shall for the most part of them be ordered by my self as for the rest which I my self do not discover or order the Spirit shall receive it and shew it to you 30. John 17. 5. Glorify me with thine own self with the Glory I had with thee before the World was Answ 1. St. Austin and many other learned and Orthodox Interpreters not only grant but contend that the meaning here is Let me now actually receive that Glory with thy self which I had with thee in thy Decree and Design before the World was This Interpretation is confirmed by this that the Sufferings of Christ were to precede his actual Glory 1 Pet. 1. 11. Searching what and what manner of time the Spirit did signify when it testified before-hand the Sufferings of Christ and the Glory that should follow 2. As 't is here said The Glory that I had with thee before the World was so 't is said 2 Cor. 5. 1. We have a Building of God an House not made with Hands Where we have is we have it in God's Decree and Intention or it is prepared for us 2 Tim. 1. 9. Grace was given us in Christ before the World was Where again was given to us is was given in God's Decree and Intention Therefore so also we may understand that Christ had Glory before the World was 31. John 17. 10. All mine are thine and thine are mine Answ It appears by the foregoing verse and by what follows that Christ speaks of such as were or should be his Disciples His meaning is all that are my Disciples are of thy giving to me and still remain thine and all that are true Servants and Lovers of God readily become mine that is Disciples to me 32. John 17. 24. For thou lovedst me from the Foundation of the World. Answ None can deny that God loved all the Elect from the Foundation of the World. To God all things are present not only what is past but what is to come is present to the Divine Mind and Knowledg 33. John 20. 28. Thomas answered and said unto him my Lord and my God Or O my Lord and O my God! For 't is an Attic Vocative Answ 1. Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople was of Opinion that these Words were not designed to Christ but to God. For though the Evangelist saith Thomas answered and said unto him i. e. to Christ O my Lord and O my God. Yet the Exclamation might be addressed to God as it's Object tho it was also an Answer to our Saviour or in Answer to our Saviour and to what he had said at ver 27. Or if the Words were addressed to our Saviour also it may be admitted as true what others say here Namely 2. When Thomas had felt the Prints of the Spear and Nails in our Saviour's Side and Hands and was thereby fully satisfied that he was indeed risen again he breaks forth into this Exclamation the first part of which he directed to Christ the other to God. O my Lord are Words of Congratulation to our Saviour And O my God! Words of Admiration and Praise to God. 34. Acts 5. 3 4. Why hath Satan filled thine Heart to lie to the Holy Ghost Thou hast not lied unto Men but unto God. Answ Some of the most celebrated Interpreters among the Trinitarians have owned that this Text ought to be thus understood Why hast thou lied to the Holy Ghost i. e. to us Apostles who have thou knowest the Holy Spirit or Inspiration of God in us Thou hast not lied unto Men but unto God i. e. thou hast not hereby lied to Men only or chiefly but to God who is in us by his Spirit and Inspiration This
recited by St. Cyril and by St. Cyprian ad Numid and by Socrates Hist l. 1. c. 26. If the Compilers of this Creed had believed that either the Son or Spirit is God t is unaccountable that they should take no notice of it in a Greed and such a Creed as was purposely drawn up to represent all the necessary Articles of Religion If a Socinian say they were to draw up a Confession of his Faith he would do it in no other Words but these of the Apostles and on the contrary no Trinitarian after having described the Father by all the usual Characters of God saying he is God Almighty and Maker of Heaven and Earth would fail to mention the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit whence we must needs infer that the Apostles believed as the Socinians not as the Trinitarians believe concerning God Christ and the Holy Spirit 6. To conclude Theirs they say is an accountable and a reasonable Faith but that of the Trinitarians is absurd and contrary both to Reason and to it self and therefore not only false but impossible For you say they teach there are three almighty and most wise Persons and yet but one God as if every Almighty and most wise Person were not a God and consequently three such Persons three Gods. You add yet more absurdly that there are three Persons who are severally and each of them true God and yet there is but one true God This is an Error in counting or numbring which when stood in is of all others the most brutal and inexcusable and not to discern it is not to be a Man. But we would not say they trouble our selves at the non-sense of this Doctrine if it did not impose false Gods on us by advancing two to be Gods who are not so and rob also the one true God of the Honour due to him and of which he is jealous This Sir is the Doctrine of the Vnitarians more commonly by others call'd Socinians concerning Almighty God and these their Arguments which I have so related as not to judg or rail of their Persons because however learned and reasonable Men which is their Character among their worst Adversaries may be argued out of their Errors yet few will be swagger'd or chode out of them It remains that I make a brief and fair Deduction of their History from the time that they have been taken notice of in the World. They whom we call Socinians were by the Fathers and first Ages of Christianity called Nazarens by which name St. Paul is accused before Felix Acts 24. 5. They were also in those first times called Ebionites Mineans Artemonites Theodotians Symmachians Paulinists Samosatenians Photinians and Monarchians The Writings of these Ancients are all lost being destroyed by the Arians and Catholicks Notwithstanding they had I find some very considerable Men among them as 1. Theodotian who translated the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek about the Year of our Lord 182. 2. Symmachus who published another Translation from the Hebrew also into Greek in the Year 193. Eusebius assures us both these were Ebionites or Nazarens and their Translations were greatly esteemed and much used in the Greek Churches 3. Paulus of Samosatum Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch a Man not only learned and eloquent but so much esteemed in that Capital City of the East that an Episcopal Council there assembled were not of sufficient Authority with his Citizens to cast him out of St. Peter's Chair 4. Photinus Bishop of Sirmium against whom other Bishops being by Imperial Authority assembled proceeded by Conciliary Acts and Censures of the Church but neither would his City part with him till the Emperour sent an Army to expel him Eusebius Hist l. 5. c. 28. and Theodoret Haer. Fab. l. 2. c. de Artem. say that these Nazarens constantly affirmed that they derived their Doctrine from the Apostles of our Lord and that it was the general Doctrine of the Church till the Popes Victor and Zepherin set themselves to root it up Victor say the Socinians began to persecute the Apostolick Doctrine of one God or what is the same that God is one in the Year 194 but with little Success till that which was afterwards the Doctrine of the Arians grew into general Credit and Accepance For Justin Martyr Origen and other principal Fathers teaching as the Arians afterwards did that the Father is indeed before the Son and Holy Spirit in Time in Dignity and in Power yet that the Word or Son who in the fulness of time took our nature on him was generated or created some time before the World and was the Father's Servant and Minister in making the World and that the Holy Ghost was the Creature of the Son and subservient to him in making all things this Doctrine being advanced by Justin Origen and others of note in the Church and seeming more for the Honour of the Son than the plain and simple Doctrine of the Nazarens by the Help of Persecution prevailed against theirs and became the more current Doctrine of the Church till in the Council of Nice it was condemned and another more popular and so more taking than that as attributing to the Son Eternity and Equality with the Father did generally obtain being supported by Imperial Authority But did Superstition say the Socinians stop here No for there shortly arose another Doctrine that the Son and Holy Spirit are the same God with the Father not only as the Nicene Fathers explained this matter by Unity of Wills and specifical Identity or sameness of Substance but by numerical or true Identity and sameness of Substance and Nature This last has been establish'd by so many terrible penal Laws partly obtained of the Roman Emperours by Catholick Bishops partly made by Popes in the times of their Omnipotence that now not only the Nazaren Faith but the Arian and the Nicene truly so called are no where openly profest in the Territories of Christian Princes and States except in a few Cities of Transilvania and some Churches of the United Netherlands in which Countries Liberty of Conscience makes a part of their Civil Rights and Franchises But in the Turkish and other Mahometan and Pagan Dominions where also the conquered Provinces of Christians have Liberty of Conscience the Nazaren and Arian Churches are very numerous Much of the new Conquests of his present Imperial Majesty in Hungaria Sclavonia and Illyricum are Arian But though the open and avowed Profession of the Unity of God as 't is taught by the Nazarens or Socinians and by the Arians be supprest yet 't is observed that not a few of the most learned and celebrated Writers of the Church whether Catholick or Reformed have certainly been either Arians or Socinians or great Favourers of them though they have used much Caution in so expressing themselves as not to lye too open to Exception Envy or a legal Prosecution 1. D. Erasmus the restorer of Learning hath given
occasion both to his Friends and Enemies to think him an Arian He saith that Phil. 2. 6. was the principal Argument of the Fathers against the Arians but that to say true it proves nothing against them He notes on Eph. 5. 5. that the word God being used absolutely doth in the Apostolick Writings always signifie the Father In his Scholia on the third Tome of St. Jerom's Epistles he denies that the Arians were Hereticks he adds farther that they were superior to our Men in Learning and Eloquence 'T is believed Erasmus did not make himself a party to that which he esteemed the ignorant and dull side of the Question In his Epistle to Bilibaldus he speaks as openly as the times would permit a wise Man to speak I saith Erasmus could be of the Arian Perswasion if the Church approved it 2. H. Grotius is Socinian all over This great Man in his younger Years attacked the Socinians in a principal Article of their Doctrine But being answered by J. Crellius he not only never replied but thank'd Crellius for his Answer and afterwards publishing some Annotations on the Bible he interpreted the whole according to the mind of the Socinians There is nothing in all his Annotations which they do not approve and applaud His Annotations are a compleat System of Socinianism not excepting his Notes on John 1. 1 c. which are written so artificially and interwove with so many different Quotations that he has cover'd himself and his sense of that Portion of Scripture from such as do not read him carefully 3. D. Petavius the most Learned of the Jesuits has granted that generally the Fathers who lived before the Nicene Council and whose Writings are preserved agreed in their Doctrine concerning God with the Nazarens or Socinians and concerning the Son our Lord Christ and the Holy Spirit with the Arians For 't is to be noted that the Arians and Socinians agree in their Doctrine concerning God that he is only one Person the God and Father of our Lord Christ but they differ concerning the Son and Holy Spirit The Son according to the Arians was generated or created some time before the World and in process of time for great and necessary causes became incarnate in our Nature The Holy Ghost they say is the Creature of the Son and subservient to him in the Work of Creation But the Socinians deny that the Son our Lord Christ had any Existence before he was born of Blessed Mary being conceived in her by the holy Spirit of God They say the Spirit is the Power and Inspiration of God saving that Mr. Bidle and those that follow him take the holy Spirit to be a Person chief of the Heavenly Spirits prime Minister of God and Christ and therefore called the Spirit by way of excellence and the Holy Spirit to discriminate him from Satan Prince and Chief of the wicked and Apostate Spirits This difference notwithstanding because they agree in the principal Article that there is but one God or but one who is God both parties Socinians and Arians are called Vnitarians and esteem of one another as Christians and true Believers as may be seen on the part of the Arians in their Historian Chr. Sandius Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. de Paul. Semosat and for the Socinians in the Disputation of Alba. But to return to Petavius He often affirms that the Doctrine of the Trinity and of the Divinity of the Son and Spirit cannot be proved by Scripture only and that those who have attempted it have always been baffled He adds there is no way to Unity in the Church about these matters but by contenting our selves to speak concerning them as the Fathers who lived nearest to the Apostles time did speak 4. S. Episcopius so much esteemed by our English Divines seems to have been an Arian He saith the Father is so first as to be first in order i. e. time in Dignity and in Power He saith that to make three equal Persons in God or in the Godhead is to make three Gods. He denies that the Lord Christ is the Son of God by substantial Generation that is by Generation from the Father's Substance or Essence Speaking of the Creeds that express the Catholick Doctrine of the Trinity and the Divinity of the Son and Spirit he saith that Bishops in general Councils being led by Fury Faction and Madness did not so much compose as huddle up Creeds for the Church See for these things Episc Inst Theol. l. 4 c. 32 33 34. 5. C. Sandius a Gentleman of prodigious Industry and Reading and no less ingenious then learned in all his Books refuses in Words to be called either Arian or Socinian but has written an Ecclesiastical History in Quarto with Addenda to it Coloniae 1678 on purpose to prove that all Antiquity was Arian and that the Vnitarian Doctrine has been reduced so low by the Persecutions of Rome and the puissant Arms of Charles the Great and other Kings of France for which Services they have been requited by the Roman Pontiff with the Titles of Most Christian Kings and Eldest Sons of the Church He has also under the borrowed Name of Cingallus written a small Treatise with this Title Scriptura Trinitatis Revelatrix here under pretence of asserting the Trinity he has as much as he could defeated all the strengths of the Catholick Cause and shews that there is no considerable Text objected to the Arians or Socinians but is given up as an incompetent and insignificant proof by some or other of the principal Critics and Authors who were themselves Trinitarians so that among them they have given away the Victory to their Adversaries But Sir I perceive I have drawn out this account of the Socinians to already a sufficient length for a Letter I will therefore conclude with a Passage out of Dr. Burnet's second Book of the History of the Reformation abridged George van Parr a Dutch Man refused to abjure so he was burnt in the year 1549 by virtue of a Law or Writ since abolished by Act of Parliament for affirming that only the Father is God and denying the Divinity of the Son our Lord Christ He had led a very exemplary Life for Fasting Devotion and a good Conversation and suffered with extraordinary Composedness of Mind These things cast a great Blemish on the Reformers It was said they only condemned Cruelty when acted on themselves but were ready to practise it when they had Power The Papists made great use of this in the next Queen Mary's Reign and what Arch-Bishop Cranmer and Bishop Ridly Authors of Van Parrs Punishment suffered in her time was thought a just Retaliation on them by that wise Providence which disposes all things justly to all Men. Thus far Dr. Burnet SIR I am most sincerely Yours A Second Letter TO A FRIEND Concerning the UNITARIANS Called also SOCINIANS Containing the Texts objected to them out of the Old Testament and their Answers Acts 24.
adv Prax. c. 3. 2. They say farther that none of the objected and above-cited Texts are by Trinitarians themselves thought to be true and demonstrative Proofs either of the Trinity or of the Divinity of the Son or Spirit Every one of these Texts but John 1. 1 c. is given up to the Socinians as an incompetent and unconcluding Proof by some or other of the most learned and allowed Criticks and Interpreters of the Protestant Party As to the Catholick Doctors so called Chr. Sandius hath made a great Collection of Testimonies out of them to this Effect that neither the Trinity nor the Divinity of the Lord Christ or of the Holy Spirit can be proved by the Scripture but by Tradition only Some of them confess that the Scriptures rather favour the Socinian Doctrine and that the Trinity is not only above but contrary to Reason finally that if the Authority of the Church did not oblige them to be Catholicks they should choose to be Socinians See for these things Sandius Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. de Ario and Cingallus in Script Trin. Revel An English Author of the Romish Persuasion has these Words in Fiat Lux. p. 379 380. I may truly say Christ is the Pope's God. For if the Pope had not been or had not been so vigilant and resolute a Pastor as he is he means such a Persecutor Christ whom the Pope both worships himself and propounds to the World to worship as the very true God that made all things Christ I say had not been taken for any such Person as this day we believe him to be Whereas besides the above-cited Texts the Orthodox object that if Christ were not God as well as Man he could not satisfy the Justice of God for our Sins or be a full and sufficient Atonement for them The Socinians answer 1. That the Lord Christ is a Propitiation and Atonement for Sin is a Demonstration that he is not God for God doth not give or make but receive the Satisfaction for our Sins 2. They wonder that the Son of God though he is a Man only should not be judged a sufficient Satisfaction and Propitiation for Sin through the gracious Acceptance of God when 't is so known and evident that the Oblation and Sacrifice of Beasts under the Mosaic Law and from Adam till those times was accepted as a full Atonement and Satisfaction in order to Forgiveness Lev. 6. 6. He shall bring his Trespass-Offering a Ram without Blemish and the Priest shall make Atonement for him before the Lord for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing See the whole Context Finally whereas the Orthodox do decline many of the Socinian Arguments by the Distinction of two Natures a Divine and humane Nature in Christ For Example when the Socinians object John 14. 28. My Father is greater than I or John 5. 30. I can do nothing of my self We answer that these things are spoken of Christ only according to his humane Nature but that he hath also a Divine Nature by which he is equal to the Father and can do all things of himself To this they reply 1. That the Distinction of two Natures a Divine and Humane in Christ is clearly overthrown by the 8th 9th 10th and 11th Arguments mentioned in the the first Letter 2. If a thing otherways true of Christ may be denied of him because 't is only in one of these pretended Natures and not in the other if our Saviour saith he can do nothing of himself only because he can do nothing of himself according to his humane Nature and can do all things of himself according to his pretended Divine Nature then 't is lawful and allowable to say Christ is no Man was never born of the Virgin was not crucified dead or buried did not rise again from the dead ascended not into Heaven under pretence that according to his Divine Nature he never was born of the Virgin never was crucified dead or buried c. Now who does not see that to speak thus were to deny the whole New Testament and renounce Christianity Have not we say the Socinians reason to reject and abhor a Distinction that if it incommodes our Doctrine and the Allegations for it does as effectually fight against the most evident and acknowledg'd Points of the Christian Faith Nay the Distinction and Evasions founded on it do at least as much hurt to the Trinitarians as to the Socinians For if the Distinction of two Natures be true and the Answers founded on it allowable then no Fault can be found with a Socinian when he shall say Christ is not true God was not generated of the Essence of the Father was not from Eternity for all this may be said of him according to use their own Words his humane Nature for according to that he is not true God was not generated of the Fathers Essence was not from Eternity Do not Trinitarians absolutely disallow as false and Heretical these Forms of Speech though defended by the Distinction of the two Natures why then do they expect that their Adversaries in this Controversy should admit their Answers which are founded on the same and no other Defence This Sir is the Sum of what these Gentlemen say on this great Question a Brief of their Arguments and Answers by which they would support their Doctrine that God is but one Person and that as some of them add our Lord Christ nor the Holy Spirit neither are nor ever are called Gods or God in Holy Scripture as also that neither Creation whether New or Old nor any of the Attributes of God are ascribed to our Blessed Saviour For a Conclusion give me leave to advise you in the Words of St. Paul 1 Thess 5. 21. Prove all things hold fast that which is good SIR I am Your most Obliged The Publisher to whom the foregoing Letters were written having left them some time with a Gentleman a Person of excellent Learning and Worth they were returned to him with this following Letter SIR HAving had the Favour of perusing these Letters I cannot but greatly esteem the Learning and Judgment of the Author who has brought so large a Controversy and that has been debated with the utmost Industry Learning and Subtilty for many hundred Years even from soon after the time of the Apostles into so small a Compass that one may soon see the Allegations from Scripture on both sides with the most material Distinctions and Answers Wherein it seems obvious to me what is said in one of the Paragraphs of the first Letter that the Vnitarian Doctrine is an accountable and reasonable Faith grounded on clear and evident Scripture-Arguments so far as a negative Proposition can reasonably be expected to be Whereas the Trinitarian Doctrine is founded upon obscure or mistaken Texts and defended by such unreasonable Distinctions as cannot be admitted by any Man of a free Judgment being either contradictory in themselves or utterly unintelligible
Marseils who wrote about the Year of our Lord 460 saith thus concerning one sort of Vnitarians viz. Arians They are Hereticks but not knowingly They do so much judg themselves Catholicks that they defame us with the Name of Hereticks They err but with a good Mind not of Hatred but of the Love of God. How they shall be punish'd in the Day of Judgment for this Error of a false Opinion none can know but the Judg. De Gubern Dei. l. 5. where may be read more to the same purpose Though this Author according to the Vogue of Those times calleth the Arians Hereticks yet that which he says farther of them shows they were not so for the Character he gives of them shews them to be conscientious Christians and Lovers of God. St. Austin against the Manichees a sort of People that held there were two Gods one good the other evil saith thus Let them be fierce against you who know not how laborious a thing it is to find out the Truth and how difficultly we escape Errors Let them be fierce against you who know not how rare and hard a thing it is to overcome carnal Imaginations by the Serenity of a pious Mind c. Contr. Ep. Fausti Thirdly I added that the Trinitarians ought to own the Vnitarians for Christian Brethren and to behave themselves towards them as such For Protestants do agree that all necessary and fundamental matters of Faith are clear and plain in Scripture but other matters not so evident but that good Christians may err concerning them as we see they did even in the times of the Apostles now this Doctrine of the Trinitarians appearing to be no fundamental Doctrine it does by no means unchristian those that hold the contrary nor excuse the Trinitarians from those Offices which are due to them as Christians And the rather because they are not only willing to make Confession of Faith in all the forms of Words contained in the Holy Scripture but in the Words also of the Apostles Creed as also because they are not liable to any charge of Idolatry or Superstition in their Worship or of Uncharitableness in condemning those of contrary Minds as the Confederacy of Rome is Therefore I cannot but wonder at some learned Men that are so far carried away with an overweaning Opinion of their own Judgment that they will not allow those the name of Christians who do not believe besides the Bible and the Creed of the Apostles also the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds Nay some account the Trinitarian Doctrines to be so necessary to Christianity that though those who deny them be otherways very pious and useful Men yet going against the sense of the Catholick Church they err not for want of Instruction but from a certain Wantonness and Pride of Vnderstanding and are guilty of such unpardonable Immodesty as admits of no Excuse If what is hinted in these Letters concerning the Catholick Church of the Apostles times and first Ages be true then that Author builds his Condemnation upon a false and rotten Foundation and the Building falling impresses Rashness and Uncharitableness upon himself I mean as to this particular Case for otherways I readily acknowledg the Worth and Learning of the Author Neither can I sufficiently admire that another learned Man and a Sufferer for his Conscience should in a Pacifick Discourse treat the Socinians in the same contumelious manner not allowing them worthy of the Name of Christians because they go about saith he to overthrow the whole frame of the Christian Doctrine by arrogant Presumptions of false Reasonings and Sophistical Arguments Yea it is commonly objected against them that they exalt their Reasonings above plain and express Revelation in Scripture Which Crimination seems to me to be clearly taken away by the four Letters in which it appears by the many Unconcluding Texts false Translations unintelligible Reasonings and Distinctions cited and urged on the Behalf of the Trinitarian Doctrine and on the other hand by the numerous clear Texts allowed Translations Reasonings and Distinctions common to Mankind produced by the Vnitarians that these last may reasonably retort this great Objection on their Opposites the Trinitarians who in a thousand express Texts of Scripture do exalt their Reasonings to maintain another sense than the plain Words require For one Instance how many express Texts ascribe Parts and Members Affections and Passions Shape and Figure Place and Circumscription to God all which as the Author of these Letters notes are otherways expounded by learned Men because they judg these things in reason unsuitable to God. But what Principle more clear both in Reason and Scripture than this that there is but one God or that God is one All Christians and all Jews and all Mahometans who are said to be more in Number than Christians besides the wise Heathens do acknowledg it and all these understand by the term God a necessary existent Person Upon these clear Grounds the Vnitarians deny that there are three such as contrary to that Unity and introducing into the Godhead two unnecessary or superfluous Persons For if one be sufficient and he cannot be God if he be not sufficient then the two more are supernumerary and unnecessary and consequently not God. For my own part I was bred up in the Trinitarian Faith and took the Truth of it for granted but when these Scriptures and Reasons came into my View and I had got over the Fear of examining what some Men who name themselves the Church call Fundamentals I conld not avoid the Force of them though it grieves me that I cannot continue in consent with my old Friends as well in this as other parts of Christian Doctrine But certainly as in Philosophy Truth should be more dear to us than Plato or Socrates so in Theology the Testimony of plain Scripture agreeing with evident Reason should prevail with those who believe the Scriptures Divine more than obscure Texts dissonant to the clear Reason of Mankind And it may well allay any ones Fear of examining and judging concerning pretended Fundamentals when he shall consider that even the Church of England in another of her Articles says that as the Church of Jerusalem Alexandria and Antioch have errred so also the Church of Rome which contends that she is the Catholick Church hath erred not only in her living and manner of Ceremonies but also in matter of Faith. So also Chillingworth with his Approvers says I see plainly and with mine own Eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councils against Councils some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a consent of Fathers of one Age against a consent of Fathers of another Age. There is no sufficient Certainty but in the Scripture only for any considering Man to build upon As to the boast of their Numbers 't is well known there was a time when the Christian World was Arian that is Vnitarian so that the Council of Ariminum and Seleucia in which 560 Bishops were present the greatest Convention of Bishops that ever was decreed for the Vnitarian Faith. Was number in those times an Argument of Truth If not how can it be so now The Author of these Letters has well observed besides that the Doctrine of the Trinitarians in these days is widely different from the Doctrine decreed in the first Council of Nice from whence I infer that their Boast of Antiquity is as vain as the other of Number I will only add to this Observation that though the more ancient and the modern Trinitarians may agree in terms yet those times and these have different senses of the same Words and Phrases SIR I pray accept of my hearty Thanks for this Publication and shew the Author how great an Honour I have for him I am Yours c. FINIS