be a true Man and yet a true Vine is indeed an incomprehensible Mystery but Almighty God hath a Right to require of us to believe on his Word what we cannot comprehend or understand He hath already posed us with divers Mysteries and seeming Contradictions in visible and ordinary Objects both of Sense and Reason thereby to prepare and dispose us to receive with an humble Faith what himself should reveal in his Word That the Lord Christ is a true Man and at the same time a true and very Vine is a Point of pure and mere Revelation and no way knowable by Sense or Reason therefore as to his Viney Nature we ought to acquiesce in Revelation without further Scruple or Inquiry The Revelation concerning it is so clear and express I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the true Vine that to quarrel with this Doctrine is to give the Lie to God and prefer our Knowledg before his What is the Union of the Soul with the Body How do the Parts of Matter hold together Are Bodies made up of divisible Parts or of indivisible If we cannot answer to these and such like Questions without involving our selves in great Difficulties and even in Contradictions Why do we admire that there may be some seeming Contradictions in our Lord Christ's being both a Man and a Vine Do we better comprehend how GOD possesses eternal Life all at once or how he is whole and all present to every several Point of Space than we apprehend how the Lord Christ may be both a Man and a Vine Who can comprehend infinite Wisdom infinite Justice or ought else that is infinite but if we do not comprehend those Attributes why do we pretend to comprehend the Extent of infinite Power or to say of it Hitherto shalt thou come and no further thou canst make a Man or a Vine but canst not make an humane Vine or a Viney Man How many have been as confident that the very Notion of a Spirit implies a Contradiction to our Reason and that there can possibly be no Antipodes as any Anti-Scripturist and Idolater of Reason can be that 't is a Contradiction and impossible that a Man should be a true Vine and a Vine a true Man This should make us cautious and modest it should serve to instruct us that 't is easy for us to mistake our own Shallowness and Errors for Impossibilities and Contradictions to true Reason And as hot as some many perchance be against this Scripture-Mystery that a Man is both a Man and a Vine themselves find greater Mysteries in the same Holy Scripture 'T is for Example a greater Leap from Finite to Infinite and from Man to God than from Man to Vine downwards or from Vine to Man upwards whatever Explication will make the former of these but possible will make either of the other two easy We shall have no Difficulty in apprehending that a Man may be a Vine and a Vine a Man if we can get but the Glimpse of a Conception how a Man may be GOD or GOD a Man or how there can be such a Person as GOD-MAN If you tell me Sir that this Parallel is somewhat too light in so serious and grave a Question as that depending between as and the Trinitarians I must intreat you to show me where I have made a false Step for if I have made none I must take leave to tell you the Parallel is no more light than the Doctrines which gave occasion to it Mean and childish Errors are never so effectually and successfully detected as by the most familiar and easy Parallels and he that makes the Comparison is not to be blamed but he or they that gave the Occasion of it I think the Parallel I have made serves to show that we are never to talk of clear Revelation or express Revelation in Excuse or Defence of absurd Doctrines but that 't is necessary to interpret all both Speech and Writing in Consistence with common Sense and our natural Knowledg In fine it serves to establish this Rule if the Person speaking or writing is fallible we must try the Truth of what is said or written by Reason but if he is infallible 't is always his meaning that we should interpret what he hath said or written by that Reason and according to those natural Notions which he hath bestowed on us chiefly for that purpose I pass to our Third Reason or third Exception against these Doctrines These Doctrines are as little consistant with Piety toward GOD as they are with Reason and with natural Knowledge Piety in proper Speaking is that part of the Christians Duty which he owes to GOD. And though the Goodness of GOD had divers other Ends Ends respecting the Comfort and Good of his Creatures why he was pleased to make what he hath made yet it becomes us to esteem and regard Piety or our Duty and Service to GOD as the great End that we ought to pursue The chief Parts or Branches of Piety are Praise Love Faith Devotion Obedience Let us see what Agreement these or any of these have with the Doctrines of which we are discoursing 1. The respectful and thankful Recognition both in our Minds and by our Words of the Works of God and of his Divine Attributes is what all Men call the Praise of GOD. But doth he or she thus praise GOD who ascribe his Works Creation Conservation Miracles all providential Acts to any other Person or Persons besides him who is indeed the Author of them But when besides this we give to the Gods of our own devising the Glory of all the incommunicable Attributes even infinite and underived Wisdom Justice Power and Goodness when we affirm that in all these Properties they are equal to the supream Father and GOD of Gods what farther Detraction from his Praise can be conceived but absolute Atheism 2. For the LOVE of GOD. How can we love the true God in such manner as he requires with all the Heart and all the Soul and all the Mind if we have and profess also to have as much Love for two other Persons as for him who is the only true and legitimate Object of our highest Love If we consider that Love which we owe to GOD in its Causes they are his supream Excellence and his Merit and Desert towards us if in its Effects they are a Conformity to his Will a Readiness Proneness and Desire to suffer the extremest Evils for his Sake and Service If therefore this Love be transferred if it be communicated to other Objects besides that one to which we owe it We do thereby and therein ascribe to them his Excellence we impute to them his Merit we pay to them his Dues Is it no Impiety or rather is it not a deadly Wound to true Piety thus to misplace the Propensions of our Minds the Affections of our Hearts the Use and Service of our whole Man 3. I do not say How lame but what a
A Letter of Resolution concerning the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation YOU are pleased Sir to demand of me the general Reasons why the Vnitarians or as others now call us the Socinians have departed from the Catholick Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation in which all other Sects and Denominations of Christians do agree and contend also for them as Fundamental Doctrines 'T is true Sir that we are alone in our Belief or Opinion of but one GOD or what is the same but one who is GOD even the GOD and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ And as we are alone so we are a little Flock If our Reasons were no more considerable than our Number we should be very contemptible to our Opposers The Case was once otherwise there is no Ecclesiastical Historian but has noted the time when All the World was against Athanasius and Athanasius against all the World But it avails very little that we can say Fuimus Trees suit Ilium And that which you have demanded of me is What are our Reasons not how it has come to pass or by what Persecutions we have been reduced to so small a Number I answer therefore Our first Reason is The Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation have no solid or good Foundation in Revelation or Holy Scripture A Stranger in this Controversy who hears the Sermons or reads the Books of some of our Opposers would think that the Question between us and the Trinitarians is on their side as clear in Revelation as 't is confess'd to be on ours in Point of Reason for this is the Fault with which they continually charge us that we exalt Reason above Revelation and that we pretend that a Force how great soever is to be put upon the Words of Revelation rather than we will admit of any Doctrine which is contrary to Reason Now First 'T is not true that we prefer our Reason before Revelation On the contrary Revelation being what GOD himself hath said either immediately or by inspired Persons 't is to be preferred before the clearest Demonstration of our Reason But because we cannot suppose without Disrespect and Injury to GOD to his Goodness and Veracity that he has so made us that our Faculties should be deceived in what they clearly and distinctly perceive and because GOD hath in Revelation frequently appealed to our Faculties to our Understanding and Reason therefore we conclude that what is clearly and distinctly discerned by Reason as true or false is so And from thence we infer that what is false in Reason can never be true in Revelation or by Revelation So that whatsoever in Revelation doth seem to contradict Reason can be nothing but our Blunder our unskilful injudicious and too close Adherence to the mere Letter and Words of Revelation 'T is so true that we ought to interpret the most clear Revelation so as not to contradict evident Reason that if we neglect this Rule we shall oft times make Revelation contrary to and inconsistent with it self as well as to or with Reason We shall be forced for Instance to say the Lord Christ is a Rock a Way a true Vine a Door and twenty more such different and contrary things because Revelation has clearly and expresly called him all these I desire therefore to know Why our Opposers take care not to make themselves contemptible by maintaining 'tis a Scripture-Doctrine that the Lord Christ is a Rock a Way a true Vine a Door on the Account that such a Doctrine though founded on the express Words of Holy Scripture is contrary to Reason and yet have no regard to avoid the Imputation of Folly Incogitance and Inadvertence by contending this is a Scripture-Doctrine which is no less contrary to Reason and natural Light even this that there are three Almighty and Infinite Persons and yet but one GOD. No Man ever had by Nature or Reason nor can have any other Notion of Three Gods but only this Three Infinite and Almighty Persons Is it supposable that GOD should give forth contrary Manifestations of himself that he should teach us by Nature and Reason to apprehend one GOD as but one Almighty and Infinite Person and yet command us by Revelation to believe one GOD is Three such Persons Or can we our selves obey contrary Commands or believe contrary Manifestations concerning the same thing at the same time This Foundation being laid we say Three Divine Persons an Almighty Father an Almighty Son and an Almighty Spirit distinct from both being in Reason and common Sense but the Periphrasis and Circumlocution for Three Gods so that we can have no other Conception of Three Gods but only Three such Persons that Revelation which by Confession of all Parties obliges me to believe but one GOD can never be supposed to require me to believe Three Almighty Persons So also Reason assuring me that the Disproportion between Infinite and Finite is such that they can never be commensurate or made one and the same That Revelation or Holy Scripture which tells me GOD is infinite that the Heaven of Heavens contains him not cannot be interpreted or understood as bidding me believe that a Person who is GOD or an Infinite Person and such they say every Person of the Trinity is can be Whole and All Incarnate that is united and commensurate to a finite Man We abide Sir by this Argument here we fix our Foot never to be removed that the Inconsistence of the Trinity and the Incarnation with Reason and natural Knowledg being undeniably evident therefore those Doctrines can have no real Foundation in Divine Revelation that is to say in Holy Scripture But Secondly As we consider that though Revelation is to be preferred before Reason and always interpreted by Reason for the Causes already given so we cannot but profess our selves surprized that any should have the Confidence to pretend that there is clear and express Revelation on behalf of the Trinity and Incarnation In the Name of Wonder what do these Gentlemen mean by express and clear Revelation do they mean that they have found out some Texts which directly and expresly say There is a Trinity of Divine Persons who are but one GOD or which say The Son or second Person of the Trinity was incarnate If they have any such Texts to produce we shall grant them they have an express Revelation for those Doctrines But in very Deed they mean no such thing but by clear and express Revelation they mean what was never meant by any but themselves nor by themselves in any other Case or Question but this of the Trinity They mean the Trinity and Incarnation are provable by certain most remote and strained Consequences from some such Texts of Revelation or Scripture as either are of suspected Authority and Credit in the Original among the Learned of their own Party or are denied by the Learnedest of their own side to be truly translated or finally are interpreted by their own
are of a Mind And the Dissent among them is so bitter and unreconcilable that the Anathema's fly as thick and fast at one another as at the Unitarians As many Parties as they are each Party is heretical and in a State of Damnation in the Opinion of all the rest Their Divisions do respect some of them the Doctrine of the Trinity and some the Incarnation I will reckon them up as they shall occur to my Mind without regarding that Method which might be given to Error 1. The first Difference is about the Filiâ—que or whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only or from the Father and the Son This Quarrel divides them into two great and almost equal Parties into the Church of the East and the Church of the West The Eastern Church that is to say all Asia and Africa Greece and the Islands of the Archipelago all Muscovy and the Provinces of Illyricum a good Part of Poland and some Part of Hungary all these maintain that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only But the Western Church that is all the Roman Catholick Nations and all the Reformed or Protestants contend that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son There is no Trinitarian but is in one of these Parties and consequently none of them but who is an heretick and in a State of Damnation in the Judgment and Opinion of the one Moyety or half of his Fellow-Trinitarians But because this damning of one another upon this Difference between them has been of late so confidently denied by Dr. Wallis and Dr. Sherlock I am obliged to take notice of the publick Declarations of these two Churches against one another The whole Western Church in the first Canon of the second general Council of Lions saith Damnamus reprobamiss c. i. e. We damn and reprobate all such as presume to deny that the Holy Spirit doth eternally proceed from the Father and from the Son On the other Hand the Eastern Church excommunicates as Scismaticks and Hereticks all the Latins so they call the Western Churches which hold the Filioque or that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son on every Holy Thursday and all other principal Holy-days F. Simon Crit. Hist of the Religions of the East p. 16 17. 2. These two mighty Parties are again subdivided into a great many factious Differences Into those for instance who teach that but one Person of their supposed Trinity was incarnate and those who contend that the whole Trinity was incarnate 3. Into those who say all the Persons in the Trinity are equal and those who on the contrary ascribe to the Father a Prerogative and Superiority above the other two Persons a Superiority not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Order and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Dignity but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Power 4. Into those who say the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. hath underived Godhead or is GOD of himself and those that hold he is GOD of GOD that is deriveth from the Father Being Life and Godhead 5. Into those who say the Son is so the Wisdom of the Father that he is the Wisdom by which the Father is wise and into those who deny this as little better than Blasphemy because 't is as much as to say that the Father without the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 irrational and unwise 6. In what Sense the three Persons are consubstantial that is have the same Substance or Essence or Nature doth unreconcilably divide them the Ancients from the Moderns and the Moderns from one another One Party saith Father Son and Spirit are generically or if you will specifically consubstantial that is as three Men are consubstantial to one another because all of them partake of the same specifick Nature even the humane or as three Guineas are consubstantial being all of them Gold The contrary Party saith the Divine Persons are numerically consubstantial i. e. do all subsist in the self-same Substance or Essence as Understanding Will and Memory subsist in one and the same Soul 7. They dispute whether upon the Incarnation of the Son the Lord Christ became two Persons or was only one Person whom they call by a compound and monstrous Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or GOD-MAN If the latter of these the Virgin Mary was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mother of God if the other she was only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mother of Christ 8. Besides the Dispute about the Persons there is a great Controversy among them about the Natures in the Lord Christ The Eutychian Trinitarians say the Lord Christ hath but one Nature the rest of them called Melchites affirm two distinct Natures an humane as well as a divine 9. 'T is controverted among them whether in Consequence of the Incarnation of the Son or WORD there followed two Wills and two Actions in the Lord Christ or only one Action and one Will Also 10. Whether by Virtue of the Incarnation the Body of the Lord Christ became incorruptible and exempt from humane Affections and Passions or not Farther 11. Whether the humane Nature of Christ being personally united to the Son or WORD were not by Virtue of that Union Omniscient knowing even when the Day of Judgment shall be 12. Whether this Proposition be Orthodox or on the contrary the Seed of the Devil one Person of the Blessed Trinity hath suffered for us 13. Whether the Son and Spirit have been once generated and breathed and that from all Eternity or whether they are continually and always begotten and breathed 14. They all agree that there are three Divine Persons but to make this no Agreement they are divided in explaining what is to be understood by the Word Persons Some say the three Persons are three Properties of the Divine Nature But these agree not some making them to be Properties in the same numerical Nature Others take them to be discretive Properties in the specifick Nature Others say the three Persons are three Modes of Subsistence or three Relations or three Respects of GOD towards his Creatures or three Operations Others affirm the three Persons to be so many several or distinct intellectual Beings and Spirits as distinct from one another as three humane Persons or three Men are 15. To add now no more They require us to believe that three Almighty Persons are but one God but in what Sense or Manner three such Persons make one GOD is not only disputed among them but they are here also Apostates and Hereticks to one another Some resolve this Mystery as they call it by an Unity or Oneness of Affection Will and Design between the three Persons as St. Paul speaking of himself and Apollos saith He that planteth and he that watereth are one 1 Cor. 3.8 Others say the Son and Spirit are one GOD with the Father by their most perfect Subordination or Subjection to him All