of them a perfect God all of them but one God are real Contradictions to the human Reason as we now have it No but he says our Reason because 't is so narrow and corrupt is not to be heard against God Right but we expect it may be heard against Men that is concerning the Possibility or Consistency of mere Inferences made by Men from God's Word In a word we contend that the human Reason is as qualified to judg of Inferences as to frame them We insist upon this as a full Answer to this usual Subterfuge and great nay only Defence of all our Opposers We call every body to witness that 't is not only frivolous but wholly impertinent When they have declamed never so long upon the Corruption and Narrowness of the human Reason if it may not be a Judg of Inferences from Scripture neither should it presume to make contrive or draw any such Inferences Our Opposers dare not say this latter therefore neither can they with Consistency to themselves say the former But because this is a famous Topick I will say something farther upon it Secondly When they infer Doctrines from Scripture which by their own Confession imply manifest Contradictions that is seem to our Reason as it now is to imply manifest Self-Contradictions and these Inferences when once made become so sacred with 'em that they must not be judged of no not by that human Reason that made ' em I say when this is the case do they not say hereby that very Reason is infallible which in the same Breath they decry as corrupt narrow and uncapable of making a right Judgment The Doctrines inferred by Reason from the Word of God are certain and sacred they say but when the malepert Unitarian offers to examine the Consistency or Possibility of those Doctrines which Reason inferred from Scripture all on the sudden they surprize us with a contrary Pretence that Reason is narrow and corrupt and therefore has no Right of Suffrage in things of this nature they are above Reason not to be judged by it Methinks there cannot easily be a more apparent Contradiction than this very Defence of our Opposers implies they give and take back in the same Cause and Thing They exclude Reason from a bare Suffrage and yet make it a Judg they allow it to stamp an infallible and sacred Character on the Inferences it makes but will not permit it should re-examine those very Inferences or should review its own Acts to see whether they are consistent yea or no. Reason according to them is all Eye and at the same time 't is Cimmerian or Egyptian Darkness When 't is wire-drawing Doctrines from Scripture its Deductions are as sacred and certain as their Divine Original but it loses all its happy Dexterity and Ability so soon as it presumes to re-examine those Deductions whether they are consistent with themselves or are truly made But this once more How strangely has the Divine Wisdom dealt with Men in the Hypothesis of these Gentlemen He requires us in his Word they say to believe there are three eternal and infinite Spirits and that tho each of them is a perfect God yet all of them are but one God but he has set up in us another Light even Reason that shows us the quite contrary namely That there can be but one infinite all-perfect Spirit and that if there were three such Spirits there would be three Gods and not one only that is he requires us by the written outward Word to believe and by the inward Word to disbelieve he imploys the Authority of his Revelation to tell us one thing and makes Faith impossible by clearly showing us the contrary by Reason It is a most certain Truth in Heaven they say what on Earth seems an over-grown Absurdity the most dangerous as well as the flattest and most obvious Contradiction I grant Divine Revelation is infallible and the human Reason sometimes fallible by Accident as when it makes too much haste in judging and when it soars to Objects that are above it But it has always been held that the Veracity of God is concerned in it that our Faculties should be true and be able to judg truly of what they distinctly and clearly perceive And if this be denied the Doctrine of our Opposers is upon no better bottom not only than ours but than the most Chimerical Figments that Fancy or Invention can advance They can have no degree of Certainty in the clearest Inferences that Reason at any time makes either from the Nature or Revelation of God and consequently also not of their Trinity of the three eternal and infinite Spirits there will always lie this Exception that the Deductions made are indeed clear and distinct but they are concerning Objects above the human Reason Besides it ought to be consider'd that how much soever an Object may be above us yet the things affirmed or denied concerning it may lie within the Sphere of Reason and be as subject to its Cognizance as any other Matters are God is infinitely above me I am infinitely far from knowing all that God is but if I am taught either in express Terms or in Words that imply it that there are three Gods and not one only I can as easily judg of those Words and Expressions and as certainly as if they were said of a finite Being I can as certainly know that to say three eternal and all-sufficient Spirits or to say three Spirits each of which is a perfect God amounts to this or implies this there are three Gods and not one only as I can know three Angelical Spirits or three human Beings implies or amounts to this three Angels and three Men. The mere Sublimity of an Object doth not annul or so much as weaken the Certainty of those Affirmations or Negations concerning it that are common to such Object with other Objects that are the proper and immediate Subjects of Reason If the Definition of God even this an eternal and all-perfect Spirit is multiplied by our saying three eternal all-perfect Spirits We thereby as truly and also as plainly and certainly multiply Gods as when we multiply the Definition of the Sun or Earth or other created and finite Beings we thereby multiply Suns and Earths In a word Propositions that are eternal Verities are also infinite Verities and are as much a Rule by which to judg unerringly concerning an infinite Object as concerning a finite As for the rest of Monsieur De Luzancy's Book or four Letters I know not whether we are concerned in it till I know more certainly in what Sense he holds a Trinity of Divine Persons and the Divinity and Satisfaction of our Saviour He pretends to examine the late Prints of the Unitarians Those Prints are of two sorts or have two Parts one part of 'em contains the Arguments from Holy Scripture or from Reason which evince the Vnity of God by which we mean that there is but
and corrupted Reason starts Contradictions in a Subject so much above our Capacities It looks indeed like Charity but is certainly an Inadvertence to answer the Socinians in their own Way that is to run with them upon the same false Scent of reasoning on things which we ought to believe and adore But in very Deed are Faith and Reason two things so that what is the Object of Faith cannot be the Object of Reason as Mr. L. here affirms I had thought Faith had been nothing else but an Assent given to Propositions or Facts upon reasonable Proof made of them And when the Apostle defines Faith to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Proof or Demonstration or as our Translation has it the Evidence of things not seen he teaches not only that the Object of Faith and of Reason is the same but that there cannot be Faith without Reason and that Faith is the Product of Reason It is surely a very rash Proposition that what is the Object of Faith cannot be the Object of Reason For hath Faith no other Objects but either unintelligible Mysteries or flat Non-sense All other things are the proper Objects of Reason The short of what Mr. L. advances is the Trinity and Incarnation are Scripture-Mysteries therefore if a thousand Contradictions be implied in the Belief of them yet we must believe them on the Authority of Scripture It is certain to me this learned Gentleman does not believe according to this loose Scheme I crave leave to ask him a few Questions Would he himself believe a Contradictory Proposition or that so seemed to his Reason if he found it taught in Scripture Would he believe that One and Two are not Three if the Scripture said it Why does he calumniate Reason the Light set up in us by God himself under the Names of narrow and corrupted when he himself would make this same narrow and corrupted Reason the Supream and last Judg of any Proposition that seemed to him plainly contradictory or flatly impossible Is there one Law for him and another for the Unitarians Are the Unitarians obliged to believe Contradictions while Mr. L. is exempt from that absurd and impracticable Law Mr. L. may pretend what he pleases upon hope that we cannot look into the Recesses of his Heart but I will not accept any Man's Oath for it that he would assent to a Proposition or Doctrine that seemed to him a flat Contradiction if it were affirmed in Scripture But if so if neither Mr. L. nor any Man else will believe a Doctrine that seems to him to be plainly Contradictory it follows that the Unitarians rightly require that the Contradictions they find in the Notion and Belief of a Trinity as 't is stated by the Realists be tolerably satisfied and that to reason upon these Questions is not as Mr. L. pretends to run upon a false Scent This therefore is the first Question that I desire Mr. L. to resolve will he believe a Doctrine that seems to him to imply manifest and incontestable Contradictions if such Doctrine or Proposition were indeed found in Scripture Would he not say that to establish the Credibility of any Record or Book these two Qualifications are equally requisite that it hath the external Attestation of sufficient Witnesses to it and the internal of being consistent with it self and to confest and indubitable Truths that is that it be free from Contradictions and Impossibilities If this or such like is the Answer he would make he must be content to argue these Questions about the Trinity and Incarnation not from Scripture only but from Reason also nay from Reason chiefly and ultimately Secondly I ask again if Mr. L. will believe what seems to his Reason a flat Contradiction supposing it to be found in Scripture yet does he advise us to believe clear Contradictions that are not clearly revealed in Scripture Three infinite and eternal Spirits each of them singly and by himself a most perfect God and yet all of them together but one God this seems to me a most clear Contradiction am I bound to believe it if 't is not as clearly and incontestably revealed as 't is incontestably and clearly a Contradiction Whatever Mr. L. may think fit to answer here I judg that most People will be of Opinion that the Revelation for it ought to be most clear so clear that a fair and ingenuous Reasoner will not contest the Positiveness and Evidence of the Revelation But now the Texts and Contexts that are alledged to prove three eternal and infinite Spirits each of them a perfect God are clogged Mr. L. knows with abundance of Vncertainties 'T is denied he knows with great Vehemence by the ablest Criticks of the Trinitarian Perswasion that some of these Texts were originally so read as they are now published in our common Bibles nay some of them were not read at all in any Bible till 5 or 600 Years after the Decease of the Apostles and other sacred Penmen But whether antiently read or thus read yea or no there is none of them but is most fairly capable of a Sense consistent with the Unity of God as 't is taught by the Vnitarians and Nominals and is actually so interpreted by divers of the most allowed and celebrated Interpreters of the Church Who sees not here that to introduce and believe Monstrosities on such a craz'd Foundation as this is to give up common Sense without a tolerable Cause for it whenas indeed there can be no Cause so great as may induce us to part with it 'T is to admit and defend Contradictions and that in a capital Article of Religion when we need not 't is to sacrifice the clearest and most important dictates of Reason not to any Necessity but to our secular Interests or our Wantonness From which for my part I desire to be ever clear Again I would know of Mr. L. who so despises those poor Trifles Contradictions and Impossibilities and thinks them to be no Blemishes to Religion nor any Hindrances of Faith whether in sober Sadness he believes that a contradictory either Proposition or Doctrine can be true It seems to me that what is contradictory is impossible and 't is agreed I think by Divines of all Perswasions that Impossibilities and Contradictions whether they be Propositions or Facts cannot be verified by the Divine Omnipotence it self If a Doctrine or Proposition that consists of contradictory Parts such as three infinite Spirits each of which is a perfect God and all of them but one God can be true there will be no such thing as Falshood For we therefore say such a Doctrine or Proposition is false either because 't is an absolute Nullity or because we perceive that the Parts of it contradict one another or they contradict some other Proposition or Doctrine that is a certain and agreed Truth If once 't is granted that two Truths may contradict one another or what is the same that contradictory Propositions or
Doctrines may be both of 'em true when shall any Proposition but a mere Nullity be yielded to be false seeing as I said Falshood is nothing else but a Contradiction to what is true And if Propositions that imply Contradictions to one another may yet both of them be true they must both be true while they are also both false for while they contradict one another and yet both of them are true each denies the other to be true In short I intreat Mr. L. to answer would he believe a Doctrine said to be revealed in Scripture which Proposition or Doctrine himself judged to be a clear and certain Contradiction Or if he would yet are clear and incontestable Contradictions to be believed that are not clearly and incontestably revealed but are founded on Authorities of very disputable Credit and Verity and most uncertain Sense in the Judgment of some of the ablest Orthodox Criticks and Interpreters And lastly can a Doctrine consisting of contradictory Parts be true is it Truth or is it Falshood that contradicts certain Truth I would not have Mr. L. to hope he may elude the first and last of these Questions by saying that real Contradictions or Doctrines that consist of Propositions really contradictory cannot be true but it may happen that what shall seem to us to our corrupted and narrow Reason a Contradiction is not so As for Instance three eternal Spirits each singly and by himself a perfect God and all of them together but one God seems indeed a Contradiction to our corrupted Reason but is therefore not a real Contradiction because 't is revealed in the Word of God For 1. He says Three infinite Spirits each of them a God are all of them but one God This is no real Contradiction because 't is found in Holy Scripture Suppose now he should also say Three finite Spirits each of them an Angel are all of them but one Angel Is it not a Contradiction in what Book soever Mr. L. may pretend to discover it If this latter is a real Contradiction so of necessity is the former because the two Propositions as to the formal Reason of them are identically the same they differ only in their Application One is falsly affirmed of God the other not more falsly affirmed of an Angel but the thing that makes them to be false every one sees is this that concerning one and the same Subject we affirm different Numbers one and three 2. Mr. L's only Elusion to so much sound Sense as the Unitarians object to him is that human Reason is narrow and corrupt and therefore we must not make it a Judg of what is revealed in Scripture but silently adore and believe the Scriptures notwithstanding all the idle Clatter made by Reason concerning Contradictions and Impossibilities I answer First If the Question were concerning something that is expresly delivered in Holy Scripture it might be plausibly alledged that our narrow and as Mr. L. pretends corrupted Reason should silently submit to the Revelation of God infinitely wise If it were said in express Terms There are three eternal infinite Spirits and tho each of them is a perfect God yet all of them are but one God Mr. L. might colourably object the Narrowness of the human Reason when Men offer'd to reject the express Declaration of God as if it implied some obvious Contradictions But the case is otherwise it is this Some People require us to believe there are three infinite Spirits each of them a God and all of them but one God It seems to us a Belief contradictory to it self and inconsistent with the numerical Vnity of God delivered every where in Scripture To the first part of this Exception that the Belief propounded to us by some that falsly call themselves the Church is contradictory to it self Mr. L. answers No Matter for that for the human Reason is narrow and corrupted and therefore must not be allowed to judg of what God has revealed to us in his Word We challenge this Answer of Mr. L. and others of manifest Impertinence because it supposes that we pretend to charge with Self-contradiction a Revelation or Declaration of God and that we reason against something delivered expresly in Holy Scripture which is the Word of God If Mr. L. could show us the Belief he exacts of us set down in express Words in the Word of God his Answer were just and to the purpose but seeing it is confessed to be only an Inference that some Men draw from Scripture Mr. L. in vain insists on the Narrowness or Corruption of the human Reason by occasion of our denying what is only an Inference from Scripture I do not think he will say that the Reason of the Unitarians is narrower or more corrupt than their Neighbours if not what Trifling is it to urge the Narrowness or Corruption of the human Reason for if Mens Reason being so narrow and corrupt as Mr. L. pretends is not to be trusted in judging of or arguing upon a Divine Revelation may it not be as fallible in drawing Inferences from Scripture as in judging the Consistency or the Self-Contradiction of those Inferences Briefly let Mr. L. show me these Words in Scripture There are three eternal and infinite Spirits And again these Words three infinite Spirits each of which is perfect God yet all of them but one God He will say he cannot show me these very Words but there are in Scripture other Words from whence those Propositions may be rightly inferred and the human Reason is too corrupted and narrow that it may be set up as a Judg of what is delivered in the Word of God whatsoever Contradictions or Self-Contradictions Reason pretends to find in the Doctrines of Scripture it is too fallible because 't is both narrow and corrupted to be heard against the infinite Wisdom of God speaking in his Word We reply let the human Reason be as corrupted and narrow as Mr. L. and others fancy it to be yet still it will be as able and fit to judg of the Consistency or Self-Contradiction of Doctrines or Propositions not expresly contained in Scripture but only inferred by Reason from Scripture as it is to infer or draw those Propositions or Doctrines from Scripture If Reason may not be trusted to judg of Doctrines that are but only Mens Inferences from Scripture it can as little be trusted to frame or draw those Inferences from Scripture its Narrowness and Corruption must be distrusted as much in the one case as in the other If Mr. L. hopes to set aside the Contradictions that Reason finds in this Creed there are three infinite Spirits c. we claim it as our Right to set aside that Creed because 't is only an Inference drawn from Scripture by the human Reason which is altogether corrupted he saith and extremely narrow Does Mr. L. deny that the Contradictions we find in this Inference which some make from Scripture There are three infinite Spirits each
punished and their Punishment is this to utterly cease or perish for ever The unquenchable Fire is nothing but Annihilation I do not know that the Scriptures or the Catholick Church do require any to believe that Sinners shall be examined concerning their past Life at the Day of the General Judgment To what purpose I pray Doth the all-knowing Judg need to be informed concerning the Particulars of their Guilt If every Person is to be severally examined concerning the Particulars of his transacted Life the Day of Judgment will extend it self to many Millions of Ages more than the whole Duration of the World from its Beginning to its Consummation It should seem Mr. Edwards thinks that because the Scriptures speak of the great Judgment by God in the Terms and Language of Men and of humane Judicatories such as Trumpets the Throne of the Judg a formal Sentence the Pleadings of the Guilty the Answers of the Judg that therefore in very deed we are to expect such a Scene at the Judgment by God as at a common Assize I conceive on the contrary that all such Expressions and Words wheresoever they are found in Scripture are not intended as real Descriptions but as Comparisons or Resemblances by which the Capacities of the Vulgar may be assisted and their Affections wrought upon All that is intended by such Expressions is only this that every one shall be so recompensed at the Resurrection as is worthy of the Holy Judg and compassionate Father of the World But we hold he saith that the Punishment of the Wicked is only Extinction their Life shall be destroyed for ever by the unquenchable Fire into which they are cast Which Opinion that it may look ridiculous he words for us thus The unquenchable Fire is nothing but Annihilation What the Scriptures have said concerning the Punishment of the Wicked after the Resurrection is not so clear but that the Opinions of Learned Men Fathers and Moderns have been very different about it Some of which Number is Origen the most considerable of the Ante-Nicenes held that not only wicked Men but the very Devils will repent and reform under the Punishments they indure that therefore they will be pardoned be admitted to a new Trial of their Behaviour and may attain to Blessedness These say that Man being a reasonable is therefore a docile or teachable Creature and it not looking probable that the Wisdom of God will lose any part of his Creation but will bring it to the Perfection and upon that to the Blessedness of which 't is capable therefore what by Instructions what by Punishments and Encouragements God will reclaim the Bad will perfect and confirm the Good and so in the long-run of things be acclaimed the Saviour of All. Others among whom have been some it may be the most of the foreign Unitarians have thought that the Righteous are rewarded with an everlasting Life of Blessedness and the impenitent Wicked punish'd by that unquenchable Fire which will wholly destroy their Being They believe this is the Reason why the Punishment by Hell-fire is called eternal Death in Holy Scripture But the more current Opinion among all Denominations of Christians is that the Punishment of the Impenitent in Hell-fire is called Death not because it utterly destroys the Life of the Sufferer but because 't is a continual and endless Dying The extreme Pains of Hell may well be called an everlasting Dying or an eternal Death tho the Sufferer is never extinct I do not find any thing in the Books of the English Unitarians concerning these Opinions they may hold as variously concerning them as the Christians of other Denominations But if I may answer for them by what I judg of 'em by Conversation with 'em I would say We approve the Doctrine delivered by Archbishop J. Tillotson in a Sermon before her late Majesty of happy Memory March 7 1689. on Mat. 25.46 which Sermon was printed by their Majesties special Command VIII I believe as to Christianity it self that every thing in it is to be submitted to the Dictates of human Reason and that there are no Doctrines in it that are mysterious Neither of these was ever said by any Unitarian and all our Prints more particularly those in the English Tongue are express that there are many things as well in Religion as Nature that are far above the Capacity of the human Reason to declare or understand the manner of 'em or how they should be what we either see or are infallibly taught they are We never pretended that the human Reason is the Measure of Truth as Mr. Edwards and Mr. Norris charge us so that what our Reason does not comprehend we will not believe on any other Evidence whatsoever We never said it or thought it we reject no Doctrines but such as are contrary to Reason and of that I will speak fully in the Answer to Mr. De Luzancy IX As to Divine Worship I believe it may be given to another besides God to Christ who is but a Creature But we have disavowed nothing more in all our Prints than giving Divine Worship to any but only God that 't is a marvel to me that Mr. Edwards should impute to us such a Doctrine we have scarce an English Print where we do not expresly oppose it Nor do we reckon of the Lord Christ as but a Creature I have said before He is God and Man The Divinity doth so inhabit the Humanity of Christ doth so exert in it the most glorious Effects of Omnipotence and Omniscience that if others have been called God because they represented God Christ is to be so called because he exhibits God X. I believe Prayer was not required under the Old Testament The Lord's Day is a ceremonious Observance abolished by the Gospel There is no spiritual Blessing conferred in the Use of the Sacraments Baptism is an useless Rite and the Baptism of Children altogether vain There is no distinct Function or Office of Ministers in the Christian Church the very Lord's Supper it self may be administred by a private Person I think Mr. Edwards is in the right against those if any such there were who denied that Prayer was a Duty or Precept of the Old Testament and the Law when he says it is included and implied in the general Precepts of Fearing Serving or Worshipping God But he is as much out in the next Article that some have said that the Lord's-day is abolished by the Gospel for it was never taught by any He meant I suppose that the Seventh Day or Sabbath is abolisht and I take it to be the Doctrine of the Catholick Church that the Seventh-day-Sabbath was Ceremonial and is abolisht It may better however be said that the Sabbath is transferred from the Seventh to the First Day than that 't is absolutely abolisht or taken away In short the English Unitarians hold no private Opinion about either the Sabbath or the Lord's-day but as well in Principle as
shall be rewarded by God Concerning obscene Words Riot Gluttony Drunkenness impure Desires not forbidden by the Law and not strictly unlawful till prohibited by the Gospel We are not much concerned in such a Dispute it being confest on all hands that they are forbid in the Writings of the New Testament Notwithstanding I wonder that any should say they are not prohibited in the Mosaick Law Some of them were punishable with Death by that Law as Gluttony and Drunkenness by the Law at Deut. 21.20 Luxury Riot Lust and such like are contrary to the Good of a Man's Children and of himself or of his Neighbour and the Commonwealth and therefore are implicitely forbid by that Commandment at Lev. 19.18 which requires that a Man should love his Neighbour as himself I do not love my Neighbour as my self if I am guilty of Luxury or Riot by which my Heir and the Poor are defrauded or if I am guilty of Ambition Covetousness or Lust by which I spoil or grind or wrong my Neighbour Nay Lust Riot Excess Covetousness do unfit us and very much for the Service of God and for the honest and honourable Discharge of our Station whatsoever that be in the Commonwealth therefore they are implicitely forbidden by all those Commandments of the Law that require either the Fear Regard and Service of God or the Welfare and Esteem of our Neighbour or selves XII Concerning Magistrates I believe 't is not lawful for them under the Gospel to inflict Capital Punishment Death on any Offenders no not on Murderers This was the Doctrine of divers of the Fathers of the 3 first Ages scarce any of them believed otherwise Nay they added it is not lawful to go to War as a Souldier or to assist at Executions or even to defend a Man 's own Life by any such resistance as will take away the Life of the injurious Aggressor The Reason they gave for this last was that by killing a Person who attempts to murder me he is dispatched out of the World without Repentance and therefore is certainly damned but the Christian by being killed loses only this Life and enters upon a blessed Immortality Some Unitarians have been of this mind while others have written against the whole Doctrine In short it is not their Doctrine as Vnitarians for some of them have held it while others I believe the most disallow it XIII Concerning some other Points I believe as the Church of Rome believes for we agree with them in several Points of Doctrine What these Points are he tells us at Ch. 9. from p. 201. namely that some things were said by our Saviour by way only of Monition or Counsel not of Command That we Merit by a good Life and may be perfect That all Sins are not damnable That the Prayers of the Living may help the Dead Nay the Author of the Considerations on the Explications of the Trinity speaks favourably of Transubstantiation Let us begin at the foot of this Account The Author of the Considerations is no otherwise favourable to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation than by saying of it 't is only a Philosophical Error or Folly not an Impiety page 21. And again at page 22. 'T is a Mistake into which the Papists have been cozened by the Philosophy of Aristotle Would Mr. Edwards think a Man favoured the Doctrines in his Books if he called them Mistakes Errors and Follies Mr. Edwards finds Impiety Irreligion Atheism and what not in all Doctrines and all Authors he dislikes We are not so dextrous We sometimes think that we spy an Error or Mistake and sometimes it seems so gross as to deserve the Name of a Folly but to call it Impiety Irreligion Abnegation of Christianity how much soever Mr. Edwards delights in it and makes it his constant Practice as well in Preaching as Writing we cannot approve the Example it being always contrary to Charity Good Manners and Truth The Prayers of the Living may help the Dead There is no Example in Scripture nor I think any solid ground in Reason for such a Belief Mr. Edwards quotes for it but one Socinian Writer nor is that Author positive in the Case He only says Those who believe a middle State of the Dead do well to pray for them That is in case you suppose besides Heaven and Hell some middle place where Souls may repent and reform or where they have not yet received their Doom it is Charity to intercede by our Prayers for them as much as we would for the Living I believe he is the only Writer of his Sect that can be charged with any such thing but we have it in Print concerning a late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Dr. Sheldon that he prayed for the Dead in his daily Prayers But what one particular Man does or says ought not to be imputed to his whole Party and reported to the World as an Article of their Creed All Sins are not damnable A Christian may Merit by his good Works and may be perfect Merit and Perfection may be truly or falsly said of the Works and Life of a Christian Man according as you interpret the Terms Merit and Perfection Taking 'em in the sense that Protestants use them no Man can merit of God the infinite Recompences of Heaven and of Blessedness everlasting nor was any Man perfect or without Sin but only that Lamb of God who taketh away the Sins of the World But Merit and Perfection are sometimes used in a popular Sense namely for that tho imperfect yet sincere Obedience to God's Commandments to which God has graciously appointed the recompence of everlasting Blessedness in Heaven and for universal Obedience as it is opposed not to Oversights and Frailties but to a wilful Indulging our selves in particular Sins In this Sense every sincere Christian both merits and is perfect Yet I own divers Unitarian Writers have spoke either too loosly or too incorrectly on the Point of Perfection but they have been as much opposed by some of their own Number The same cannot be said concerning the distinction of Sin into Mortal and Venial for our People are positive and unanimous that as St. John words this Matter there is Sin which is not unto Death 1 John 5.16 God Almighty they say hath not appointed Hell-fire for our Frailties and Inadvertencies but for our Contempts and advised Breach of his Laws Some things said by our Saviour are Counsels to such as would be perfect not absolute indispensible Commands to all the Faithful without exception He quotes for this an obscure Passage of one single Socinian Writer who never was espoused in that matter by any of his Party We judg the distinction of Counsels and Commands is a great and very dangerous Presumption a Back-door by which to escape from almost a Man's whole Duty The two Doctrines of Counsels for the Perfect and probable Opinions will furnish the most profligate Wretch in the World with Defences for his very greatest Enormities
of our Saviour or the Incarnation We have no Contest with the Catholick Church concerning either of these we do not indeed approve the Churches Language or Terms because they are unscriptural and liable to Heretical Interpretations but we embrace her whole Meaning and Sense 1. The Church says and we assent to it that there is one only eternal infinite and all powerful Spirit or Mind and this Mind or Spirit is what we call God or the Divinity 2. But whereas in God the Church owns also a threefold distinction which she calls three Persons or more explicitly original unbegotten Wisdom the Logos or begotten reflex Wisdom the Procession or Spiration of Divine Love and these for the Reasons above-mentioned are also named Father Son and Spirit three Relations three Properties Modes and divers the like We cry remove your Jargon and give us only the Words of Scripture The Church answers No you shall submit to these Terms because as much as they seem improper being now out of common Use they were once as proper and apposite because in common Use and you admit the whole that we intend by these antiquated Words and Phrases We submit 3. Then as to the Incarnation or that the Lord Christ is God and Creator is to be invocated and worshipt the Church professes that this is said or required only in respect of God in him How in him is the infinite God commensurate to a finite Manhood No but in respect of God in him that is Illuminating Conducting Actuating and as much as Infinite can inhabit Finite dwelling in Him as intimately immediately and powerfully as the Soul the Body Nay exerting in him the Divine Attributes Omniscience or the Knowledg of the Future and of the Thoughts and Omnipotence or Miraculous Actions If the Angel that only represented God and the Cloud illuminated by that Angel have all that often said of 'em in Holy Scripture that is wont to be said of or to God how much more when 't is for Peace and with Liberty of declaring your Meaning may you call the Lord Christ whatsoever they are called Here again we would willingly demur as Nestorius did but Charity and Peace are two such great Goods that we will not Non-conform for the sake of dangerous Terms honestly explained It is by this Declaration of our Meaning that all our Books past or to come are to be interpreted We never intend to oppose any Body in the Article of the Trinity but the Tritheists or Realists who are Hereticks to the Church as well as to us nor in the Article of the Divinity of our Saviour but the Eutychians who make the Communication of Idioms to be Real and not only Verbal which is an Heterodoxy condemned in divers General Councils When we oppose the Doctrine of the Trinity 't is only the Chimerical Trinity of three Infinite All-perfect Spirits when we deny the Lord Christ is God the Creator may be invocated or worshipt we mean not this of the Divinity in him but of the Humanity The inhabiting Divinity or Christ in respect of God in him is God over all all things were made by him and God is undoubtedly to be worshipt and invocated If his Lordship assents not to these things he contravenes the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and espouses Philoponus Joachim Gentilis and Eutychius but we do not in the least suspect that this Learned Prelate will disown the Catholick Doctrine or be of Party to Hereticks that have been condemned by so many General Councils If any object to us that as much as we now claim to be Catholicks and profess to assent to the Churches Doctrine tho we wish she would discharge her humanly-invented Terms and Phrases yet we have been always disowned and opposed nay persecuted by the Church and by that very Party of Nominals whom we pretend to be the Catholick Church I answer there has been an unhappy Misunderstanding between the genuine Members of the Catholick Party The Vnitaries who dislike nothing but the Liberty that is taken to use any other but Scripture-words and Language in declaring the Faith and the Nominals who also wish that all would return to and content themselves with the Simplicity of Scripture have pelted one another as Enemies but upon such a gross Mistake as the two German Cavaliers are noted for in the beginning of the Reformation who quarrelled and challenged one another upon difference of Religion one of them being a Martinist and the other a Lutheran I doubt not that the Author of the Discourse concerning the Nominals and Realists has convinced all Learned and Ingenuous Men that Dr. S th for instance and Dr. Wallis and other Nominals had no more Reason to fall foul on the Unitarians than the Lutheran on the Martinist and the Misunderstanding between them being discovered to proceed from a Mistake of one anothers true Opinions they ought now to own each other as Brethren If the Nominals are shy of closing with us and owning us for Orthodox we seek not their Patronage and the common Opposers of both the Realists will always tell 'em that the Nominals and Unitarians differ just as the Martinists and the Lutherans On the rest of his Lordship's Book and an Application of what hath been said FOR the rest of his Lordship's Book one great part of the first Section is imployed in finding out Answers to the Arguments of some of the antient Unitarians who pretended to prove that St. John was not the Author of the Gospel or the Revelation which now bear his Name The Remainder of the Section is an Endeavour to wire-draw the first Verses of that Gospel to a purpose in my Judgment very contrary to the true Intention of the Evangelist and to impress some other Texts into the Service of the Realists The present Unitarians whether in England or elsewhere receive the Gospel of St. John as his But as Faith has degrees or is not always such a Plerophory of Assent as to be without all Alloy of doubt so we wish this Gospel had never been questioned and that the Reasons of the Alogians who imputed this Gospel and the Revelation to Cerinthus were incontestably satisfied We cannot take his Lordship's Answers or Arguments as at all satisfactory because his Reasonings are oftentimes very Inaccurate and because as often they are contrary to notorious Matter of Fact For instance who can bear it when he says Cerinthus taught that Christ was a mere and a late-born Man but St. John tells us the WORD always was and came down from Heaven and was made Flesh Therefore Cerinthus could not be Author of the Gospel of St. John without most plainly contradicting himself For it is certain on the contrary that Cerinthus never said that Christ was a mere and late-born Man but an eternal and impassible Spirit In the Person of our Saviour Cerinthus distinguish'd Jesus and Christ he called the Humanity by the Name of Jesus but Christ or the WORD according to
allow the eternal Generation of the Logos Son or Wisdom he explains also the Incarnation or Divinity of our Saviour He makes the Incarnation of God in the human Nature to be such and to have like Effects as God's inhabiting the Cloud of Glory during some part of the Old-Testament Ages for this Cloud was worshipped he saith and he might have added is called God because of God in it But in his Letter he contends that the Indwelling of the Godhead in Christ was a vital Indwelling like that of the Soul in the Body and not an assisting Indwelling like that of Inspiration or the Gift of Tongues or of Miracles This must be candidly interpreted or it is the Apollinarian Heresy condemned in so many General Councils but I am perswaded he meant no Heterodoxy by a vital Indwelling He meant not that the Humanity lives by its Union with the Divinity which was the Doctrine of Apollinaris he intends only that the Humanity of the Lord Christ is entirely under the Impressions and Conduct of the Indwelling Divinity and receives constant Communications of Light and Impulse from it So I find him speaking at p. 107. And in the next Page thus The eternal WORD assumed the Man into an inward Oeconomy so as always to illuminate conduct and actuate it This is the clearest Thought we can have of the human Nature's subsisting by the Subsistence of the WORD that is of the Incarnation or Hypostatical Union This is far enough to be Orthodox but the Unitarians believe somewhat more they are a degree or two more Catholick and Orthodox They believe indeed with his Lordship not only that God did inspire our Saviour or so far communicated himself that the Lord Christ wrought Miracles by the Virtue that was always in him and not by a Power bestowed only occasionally and incidentally but that our Saviour's Humanity was constantly illuminated conducted and actuated by God in him and had unfading Communications of Light and Impulse from the Divinity he was entirely under the Impressions and Conduct thereof Yet as his Lordship also adds at p. 107. still leaving to the inferiour Mind to the rational Soul of Christ it s own Liberty and all its natural Powers And we reflect also on it that 't is with much more Justice and Propriety that our Saviour is called God on the account of such Indwelling of God than Moses or Solomon or even than Angels themselves who can be called Gods but only by Representation or at most on the account of God's assisting and inspiring them as occasion hapned to require But the Unitarians as I said believe somewhat more They do not appropriate the Incarnation to merely the WORD They hold that the whole Deity or Godhead dwelt in our Saviour all the Fulness of the Godhead as St. Paul speaks and not only the WORD dwelt in him bodily Not that the whole Essence of the Infinite God became commensurate to a finite Man or that there followed hereupon a real Communication of Idioms as some have heretically conceited which is in very deed a Revival of Eutychianism but only as God is every where whatsoever he is he is God perfect God in one Place in any Point of Space no less than in the whole interminable Extension of Place or Space This being the Unitarian Doctrine concerning the Incarnation hypostatical or personal Union and Divinity of our Saviour always believed and professed by 'em his Lordship had no Reason to snatch at so many Occasions of venting his Choler on the Considerer as if he were in danger of losing his Bishoprick by occasion of the Growth of Unitarianism which he mistakes to be a Departure from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church when 't is nothing but an Opposition to the Heresy of the Realists Of which this Prelate has made it appear he has not the least Tang. Of the Satisfaction as 't is stated in the Letter THE Unitarians differ somewhat from some other Catholicks in explaining the Doctrine of the Satisfaction but they approve of his Lordship's Notions concerning that Subject There are two Accounts given of the Satisfaction One of them supposes there was a Necessity that an adequate Satisfaction should be made to the Justice of God for the Sins of Men and that otherwise God could not dismiss us of the personal Punishment due by the Divine Law to our Sins The other supposes there was no Necessity of an adequate Satisfaction on our Behalf there being no such vindictive Justice essential to God whereby he is obliged to punish unless a full Satisfaction be given for Offences and Offenders The greater Number of the more learned Catholicks whether they be Protestants or Romanists hold the latter of these as well as the Unitarians do they believe It was neither necessary nor perhaps possible that a Satisfaction should be given to the Divine Justice every way equal to the eternal Punishment of an infinite Number of Sinners As my Lord of Sarum argues at p. 35. The Acts of Christ tho infinite in Value have not a strict Equality with all the Sins of so many Men every one of which is of infinite Guilt He confesses hereby that an adequate Satisfaction was not only not necessary but not possible in the nature of the thing unless there had been as many Redeemers not only as there are Sinners but as there are Sins But let us consider yet more particularly what his Lordship's Doctrine is He saith The Lord Christ was loaded with all the ill Usage that malicious Men could invent he suffer'd inexpressible Agonies both in Body and Mind and last of all was crucified But in all this he willingly offer'd himself to suffer upon our Account and in our stead which was so accepted by God that he not only raised him from the Dead and exalted him on High but gave to him even as he is Man all Power both in Heaven and Earth and offers also to the World Pardon of Sin Of this Account of the Satisfaction the Considerer said the Unitarians have ever professed it His Lordship in the Letter replies that the Racovian Catechism and the first Writers of the Socinians expresly deny the expiatory Virtue of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross but he owns that some Socinians are come off from that Error and do own the expiatory Virtue of that Sacrifice He adds that Dr. Outram's learned Performance on this Subject is universally applauded and acquiesced in and all he saith may be satisfied by Dr. Outram's Book what is the Doctrine generally received in the Church of England But as to the poor Wretch the Considerer he is a Stranger his Lordship pronounces to the History of this Controversy His Lordship frequently discovers his great Passion for the Considerer often bestows on him his formed Compliments and this particular Compliment I suppose has the Property of most other Compliments that is to say the Speaker knows 't is more than measure while he gives it for just