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
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.
that we may know him that is true and we are in him that is true even in his Son Jesus Christ This is the true God. Answ This was a very negligent Translation say the Socinians For whether you interpret him that is true to be God or to be Christ no sense can be made of the Words The latter part of the Text ought to have been thus rendred We are in him that is true i. e. in God by his Son Jesus Christ This is the true God i. e. He whose Son Christ is and in whom we are he and no other is the true God. So that this Text plainly denies that Christ is the true God. When we are said to be in God by Christ the meaning is we are united to God by his Love to us and ours again to him by the Procurement and means of the Lord Christ who hath by his Gospel revealed God to us and by the highest Arguments engaged us to love and serve him 46. Rev. 1. 8. I am Alpha and Omega saith the Lord which is and which was c. Answ This verse speaks of God only not of Christ for at ver 4. and 5. Christ is distinguished from him which is and which was 47. Rev. 1. 11. I am Alpha and Omega the first and the last Answ 1. This part of the verse is not in the Latin nor in any good Greek Bible 2. But admitting the Words it has been said on Isai 44. 6. in the second Letter in what sense these terms may be used of the Lord Christ 48. Rev. 1. 17. I am the first and the last Answ See on Isai 44. 6. 49. Rev. 2. 23. I am he which searchesh the Reins and Heart Every one knows this is an Hebrew and Scripture Phrase signifying I know the most secret Thoughts which is a Property belonging only to God. Answ The Knowledg which the Lord Christ had or hath of any ones secret Thoughts is a Revelation made to him by God as it was also sometimes to former Prophets Rev. 1. 1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to shew unto his Servants 2 Kings 6. 12. The Prophet that is in Israel telleth the King of Israel the Words that thou speakest in thy Bedchamber 2 Kings 8. 12. I know the Evil that thou wilt do to the Children of Israel Prophets search the Heart that is know the Thoughts and Propensions of the Heart by the Spirit or Inspiration of God in them But the Lord Christ hath a far greater measure of that Spirit than any of the former Prophets ever had 50. Rev. 3. 14. The Beginning of the Creation of God. Answ 1. These Words prove that Christ is not God but a Creature 2. But the Truth is the Greek should have been thus rendred The Prince or chief of the Creation of God. 51. Rev. 5. 5. The Root of David Answ That is a Root springing from David As a Root of the Earth is a Root which springeth from the Earth not on the contrary a Root from which the Earth springeth 52. Rev. 5. 6. I heheld in the midst of the Throne a Lamb as it had been slain having seven Eyes which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the Earth Answ This Text confirms what has been often said namely that the Knowledg which our Lord Christ now hath of Affairs on Earth is partly by means of those ministring Spirits which are sent forth into all the Earth as his Eyes to see and relate the state of things for what other reason can they be here called his Eyes 53. Rev. 5. 8. Having every one of them Vials full of Odors which are the Prayers of the Saints Answ In this Vision the Prayers of the Saints are by the Elders or Presbyters offered to Christ as the Mediator that is with Intention that he should recommend them to God by his Intercession But note also that 't is not here said that these Prayers were at all offer'd to Christ 54. Rev. 17. 4. Lord of Lords and King of Kings Answ Christ is so Lord of Lords as that himself hath one who is not only his Lord but his God. John 20. 17. I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God. 55. Rev. 21. 6. I am Alpha and Omega Answ These Words are spoken by and of God only 56. Rev. 22. 20. Even so come Lord Jesus Answ 'T is a Wish not a Prayer 57. Rev. 22. 21. The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you Answ In what sense the Grace or Favour of Christ is wished to Christians hath been explained on 1 Cor. 1. 2. and on 2 Cor. 13. 14. Besides these Answers to particular Texts the Socinians say farther in general to all the Quotations out of the New Testament that 1. Whereas they differ from the Church in translating several and in interpreting all the before-cited Texts their Translations and Interpretations ought to be admitted and those of the Church or Trinitarians rejected because that Interpretation of Scripture can never be true which holds forth either a Doctrine or a Consequence that is absurd or contradictory and impossible Is it not say they manifestly contradictory and impossible that there should be three Almighty and most wise Persons and yet but one God when nothing can be more certain or evident than that every Almighty and most wise Person is a God a most perfect God to whom nothing can be added Is it not doubly contradictory and absurd to say there are three Persons who are severally and each of them the true and most high God and yet there is but one true and most high God Unless you mean one thing by a true and most high God in the first clause and another thing in the other clause and if so you introduce two sorts of true and most high Gods which I think all Christians abhor We reject the Doctrine of the Anthropomorphites that God hath humane Parts and Passions though grounded if you regard only the sound of the Words on a great many clear Texts of Scripture as may be seen in Mr. Biddles Catechism because 't is absurd and impossible that he who has humane Parts and Passions and resides in Heaven only should create and preserve the World and should be conscious to Mens Thoughts on Earth What can be more express than this is my Body yet we justly reject the Doctrine of the Transubstantiation because 't is contradictory and impossible that the same Body should at the same time be in more places than one Therefore any other Doctrine that plainly appears to be absurd and contradictory ought also to be rejected how agreeable soever it may seem to the meer Chime and Jingle of the Words of some few Texts We are as Tertullian rightly saith to interpret Scripture not by the sound of Words but the Nature of things Malo saith the Father te ad sensum rei quam ad sonum vocabuli exerceas Turtul
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