However I can do no less than conclude and expect every judicious Man's Assent to it 1. That the Doctrine of the Trinitarians is no necessary or fundamental Doctrine of Christianity 2. That 't is unjust and unchristian to lay the Vnitarians or Socinians under any Penalties or Forfeitures upon the account of their Doctrine 3. That Trinitarians ought to own the Vnitarians for Christian Brethren and behave themselves towards them as such First I said the Doctrine of the Trinitarians is no necessary or fundamental Doctrine of Christianity For to say it is doth 1. Reflect upon the Goodness of God and his Love to Mankind as making that fundamental and necessary to Salvation the Truth whereof must be confessed to be so very obscure and uncertain that where the Prejudices of Education Respect of Men and Fear of Penalties do not prevail the vulgar who are ten to one of Mankind either do not believe it at all or confess it as Parrots speak Words without Understanding 2. To make the Doctrine of the Trinity fundamental is to joyn Hands with Papists in contradiction to Protestant Doctrine owning with them that the Scriptures are obscure and unsufficient even in Fundamentals and so bringing in a necessity of admitting and believing unscriptural Traditions Of this the Papists are so sensible that it is the chief of those Arguments with which they attack Protestants and which they urge in their former and latter Writings wherein they not only seem to have but have in reality great Advantage as will I am perswaded appear to those that impartially consider it It will not be here impertinent to tell you a story that hapned in the present Reign A certain great Lord was assaulted in his Faith by a Jesuit or other Seminary who began with him thus My Lord I know you believe the Creed of Athanasius to which the Lord wisely perceiving what he would build upon that Concession answer'd Who told you so which quick Answer by Question did so surprize and disappoint the Seminary that he had no more to say It seems his intended Arguments leaned on that Pillar alone to wit the Belief of the Creed commonly called the Athanasian 3. The Trinitarian Doctrine reflects Weakness and Unsufficiency upon the whole Christian Church and Faith of the first Ages which as our Author has noted knew or professed no other but the Apostles Creed which doth fully agree with the Vnitarian or Socinian but by no means with the Trinitarian Doctrine of fundamental Faith. 4. They that urge the Doctrine of the Trinity as fundamental do clearly impugn the sixth Article of the Church of England which saith Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation So that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith. Such also was the Judgment of Mr. Chillingworth that eminent Defender of Protestantism ch 6. n. 56. where he saith By the Religion of Protestants I understand that wherein they all agree THE BIBLE THE BIBLE I say THE BIBLE only is the Religion of Protestants Whatever else they believe besides it and the plain irrefragable and indubitable Consequences of it well may they hold it as a matter of Opinion but not as a matter of Faith or Religion neither can they with Consistence to their own Grounds believe it themselves nor require the Belief of it from others without most high and most scismatical Presumption Secondly I said it follows from the foregoing Discourses that it is unjust and unchristian to lay the Vnitarians or Socinians under any Penal Laws or other Hardships on the account of their Conscience and Doctrine For we may see here that an honest and sincere Man may in the Pursuit of his own Salvation and in adhering to Protestant Principles of the Clearness and Sufficiency of Scripture in Fundamentals as also in reverence of the ancient Faith held forth in the Apostolick Creed and of the Church of the first Ages he may I say with clear Satisfaction in his own Conscience disbelieve the Trinitarian Doctrine But how can Christians with Satisfaction to their Consciences punish such a Man As for the publick Peace there is not only nothing in the Nature of their Doctrine that inclines them to Unpeaceableness but they have also always been extremely candid to those that differ from them from a Principle common I think to them and the Remonstrants only that Conscience ought to be free in matters of Faith This is a Principle with the Socinians and the Remonstrants other Families of Christians take it up as an expedient when they have need of it Briefly If the Socinians appear to be as careful and diligent to know the Truth as Athanasians if they are in their Stations as learned as they and as innocent and virtuous Men in their Conversations how can any Christian judg and condemn them without incurring our Saviour's Judgment and Condemnation He that believes the whole Bible heartily and indeavours sincerely to know the Mind of God and Christ therein and to purge himself from those carnal Affections and worldly Interests that hinder Men from seeing and obeying the Truth and perhaps as a Testimony thereof suffers the Loss of Advantages and Goods Kinsfolk and Country nay undergoes Penury and other Hardships in foreign Countries as many do at this Day how can any who pretend to give Obedience to the Law of common Reason of Moses and the Prophets and of Christ himself in his Sermon on the Mount to wit of doing to others as we would they should do to us how I say can such think a Socinian so qualified as we have but now described him doth deserve Punishment for his Faith And how can any Man without transgressing Christ's Law of Charity judge such a one to be guilty without any Appearance of Guilt more than may be easily seen in himself Is it not the common Principle of all Protestants to believe the Holy Scriptures are sufficient to all Religion and clear in all Necessaries of Faith and Manners and that every Man is obliged by our Lord Christ to believe and practise according to his own Knowledg Light and Understanding of the Scriptures He that does so is not only a Christian but a Protestant that is a reformed Christian I am fully assured says Mr. Chillingworth and consequently those learned Persons the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford the Regius Professor and others who licensed and approved his Book that God does not and therefore Men ought not require more of any Man than this to believe the Scripture to be God's Word to endeavour to find the true sense of it and to live according to it ch 6. n. 56. The same Author says ch 5. n. 96. I have learnt from the ancient Fathers that nothing is more against Religion than to force Religion and of St. Paul that the Weapons of the Christian Warfare are not carnal The famous Salvian of
of Mans Wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of Power that your Faith should not stand in the Wisdom of Men but in the Power of God. Luke 1. 35. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee Blessed Mary and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee Luke 11. 20. I with the Finger of God that is by the Power of God Exod. 8. 19. cast out Devils Mat. 12. 28. I cast out Devils by the Spirit of God. Compare also Luke 24. 49. with Acts 1. 4 5 8. 2. A manifest Distinction is made as between God and Christ so also between God and the Holy Spirit or Power and Inspiration of God so that 't is impossible the Spirit should be God himself Rom. 5. 5. The Love of God is shed abroad in your Hearts by the Ho-Ghost which is given to us 1 Cor. 3. 16. The Grace or Favour of our Lord Jesus Christ the Love of God and the Communion of the Holy Ghost be with you Rom. 8. 27. He the Spirit v. 26. maketh Intercession for the Saints according to the Will of God. They note here that God's Spirit or Inspiration being designed to be a continual Director and Guide to the Faithful it is spoken of in these and some other Texts as a Person by the same Figure of Speech that Charity is described as a Person 1 Cor. 13. 4 5. and Wisdom Prov. 9. 11. and the Law or Commandments of God Psal 119. 24. They note also that in some Texts 't is called the Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit in the same sense that we commonly say the Holy Wisdom Holy Will of God. 3. The Spirit is obtained for us of God by our Prayers therefore it self is not God. Acts 15. 8. God which knoweth the Hearts bare them witness giving them the Holy Spirit as he did to us Luke 11. 13. How much more shall your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him If we say these Texts are to be understood not of the Person of the Holy Ghost but of his Gifts and Graces the Socinians readily confess it but they say also that if the Holy Spirit were at all a Person much more a God his Gifts and Graces would be bestowed by himself and asked of himself not bestówed by and asked of another Person as 't is manifest and by all confessed they are in these Texts They add there is neither Precept nor Example in all Holy Scripture of Prayer made to the Spirit on this or any other occasion which on the Trinitarian Supposition that the Holy Spirit is a Person and God no less than the Father is very surprizing nay utterly unaccountable 4. If the Holy Spirit and our Lord Christ are Gods or God no less than the Father then God is a Trinity of Persons or three Persons but this is contrary to the whole Scripture which speaks of God as but one Person and speaks of him and to him by singular Pronouns such as I Thou Me Him c. Job 13. 7. Will ye speak wickedly for God Will ye accept his Person Heb. 1. 1. God hath in these last times spoken to us by his Son who being the Brightness of his Glory and the express Image of his Person sat down at the right Hand of the Majesty on high Deut. 6. 4 5. Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine Heart In the Hebrew thus O Israel hearken to Jehovah our God Jehovah is one and thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thine Heart The Jews by a most ancient Tradition and Custom are obliged to repeat this Verse every Morning and Evening to keep it in perpetual Memory that Jehovah or God is one only not two or three Isa 45. 5. I am the Lord there is no God but Me. Psal 102. 25. O my God of old hast thou laid the Foundation of the Earth Matth. 4. 10. the Lord thy God him only shalt thou serve No Instance say the Socinians can be given in any Language of three Persons whoever spoke of themselves or were spoken to by the singular Pronouns I Thou Me Him Thee c. Such speaking is contrary to Custom Grammar and Sense which are the Laws of Speech therefore the Holy Scriptures always speaking thus of God either he is only one Person or the Scriptures are one continued ungrammatical Soloecism and Impropriety and that in the capital Article of Faith which no reasonable or good Man can or ever will allow For it no way helps the Trinitarians that God according to some Translations says at Gen. 1. 26. Let Vs make Man. Because nothing is so usual in common Speech as for single Persons to speak of themselves indifferently by singular or plural Pronouns thus 2 Cor. 10. 2. I think to be bold against some who think of Vs saith Paul of himself only as if We walked according to the Flesh Briefly they contend that when God speaks of himself in the plural Number or by plural Pronouns which yet some deny he ever does and if he doth 't is not above once or twice in the whole Scripture he speaks according to the Custom of single Persons especially Princes and great Persons in all Nations and Languages but were Almighty God three Persons they could never speak of themselves or be spoken to by the singular Pronouns I Thou Thee Him Me because 't is contrary not only to Grammar which is always to be observed when there is no Custom to the contrary but to the Custom of all Nations which understand to speak intelligibly and sensibly 5. Had the Son or Holy Ghost been God this would not have been omitted in the Apostles Creed This Creed say they which is of next if not equal Authority to any part of Holy Scripture after having declared that God is the Father Almighty and Maker of Heaven and Earth speaks not a Word of the Godhead of the Son or Holy Ghost It describes the Son by all the characters of a Man and by such only it says he was conceived or begotten by the Holy Ghost on Blessed Mary that accordingly he was born of her that he was crucified died and was buried that he rose on the third day and ascended into Heaven all these are the Descriptions of a Man for God cannot be conceived or be born or die no nor ascend into Heaven for he is always there Not content to take no notice that he is God this Creed distinguishes him very plainly from God that is denies him to be God by adding He sits at the right Hand of God. i. e. He is advanced to be next to God and is under the immediate and particular Protection of God. Concerning the Holy Ghost this Creed says no higher thing than it says of the Church I believe in the Holy Ghost and in the Holy Catholick Church For in the Greek the same Preposition in is before both alike and so also is this Creed
adv Prax. c. 3. 2. They say farther that none of the objected and above-cited Texts are by Trinitarians themselves thought to be true and demonstrative Proofs either of the Trinity or of the Divinity of the Son or Spirit Every one of these Texts but John 1. 1 c. is given up to the Socinians as an incompetent and unconcluding Proof by some or other of the most learned and allowed Criticks and Interpreters of the Protestant Party As to the Catholick Doctors so called Chr. Sandius hath made a great Collection of Testimonies out of them to this Effect that neither the Trinity nor the Divinity of the Lord Christ or of the Holy Spirit can be proved by the Scripture but by Tradition only Some of them confess that the Scriptures rather favour the Socinian Doctrine and that the Trinity is not only above but contrary to Reason finally that if the Authority of the Church did not oblige them to be Catholicks they should choose to be Socinians See for these things Sandius Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. de Ario and Cingallus in Script Trin. Revel An English Author of the Romish Persuasion has these Words in Fiat Lux. p. 379 380. I may truly say Christ is the Pope's God. For if the Pope had not been or had not been so vigilant and resolute a Pastor as he is he means such a Persecutor Christ whom the Pope both worships himself and propounds to the World to worship as the very true God that made all things Christ I say had not been taken for any such Person as this day we believe him to be Whereas besides the above-cited Texts the Orthodox object that if Christ were not God as well as Man he could not satisfy the Justice of God for our Sins or be a full and sufficient Atonement for them The Socinians answer 1. That the Lord Christ is a Propitiation and Atonement for Sin is a Demonstration that he is not God for God doth not give or make but receive the Satisfaction for our Sins 2. They wonder that the Son of God though he is a Man only should not be judged a sufficient Satisfaction and Propitiation for Sin through the gracious Acceptance of God when 't is so known and evident that the Oblation and Sacrifice of Beasts under the Mosaic Law and from Adam till those times was accepted as a full Atonement and Satisfaction in order to Forgiveness Lev. 6. 6. He shall bring his Trespass-Offering a Ram without Blemish and the Priest shall make Atonement for him before the Lord for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing See the whole Context Finally whereas the Orthodox do decline many of the Socinian Arguments by the Distinction of two Natures a Divine and humane Nature in Christ For Example when the Socinians object John 14. 28. My Father is greater than I or John 5. 30. I can do nothing of my self We answer that these things are spoken of Christ only according to his humane Nature but that he hath also a Divine Nature by which he is equal to the Father and can do all things of himself To this they reply 1. That the Distinction of two Natures a Divine and Humane in Christ is clearly overthrown by the 8th 9th 10th and 11th Arguments mentioned in the the first Letter 2. If a thing otherways true of Christ may be denied of him because 't is only in one of these pretended Natures and not in the other if our Saviour saith he can do nothing of himself only because he can do nothing of himself according to his humane Nature and can do all things of himself according to his pretended Divine Nature then 't is lawful and allowable to say Christ is no Man was never born of the Virgin was not crucified dead or buried did not rise again from the dead ascended not into Heaven under pretence that according to his Divine Nature he never was born of the Virgin never was crucified dead or buried c. Now who does not see that to speak thus were to deny the whole New Testament and renounce Christianity Have not we say the Socinians reason to reject and abhor a Distinction that if it incommodes our Doctrine and the Allegations for it does as effectually fight against the most evident and acknowledg'd Points of the Christian Faith Nay the Distinction and Evasions founded on it do at least as much hurt to the Trinitarians as to the Socinians For if the Distinction of two Natures be true and the Answers founded on it allowable then no Fault can be found with a Socinian when he shall say Christ is not true God was not generated of the Essence of the Father was not from Eternity for all this may be said of him according to use their own Words his humane Nature for according to that he is not true God was not generated of the Fathers Essence was not from Eternity Do not Trinitarians absolutely disallow as false and Heretical these Forms of Speech though defended by the Distinction of the two Natures why then do they expect that their Adversaries in this Controversy should admit their Answers which are founded on the same and no other Defence This Sir is the Sum of what these Gentlemen say on this great Question a Brief of their Arguments and Answers by which they would support their Doctrine that God is but one Person and that as some of them add our Lord Christ nor the Holy Spirit neither are nor ever are called Gods or God in Holy Scripture as also that neither Creation whether New or Old nor any of the Attributes of God are ascribed to our Blessed Saviour For a Conclusion give me leave to advise you in the Words of St. Paul 1 Thess 5. 21. Prove all things hold fast that which is good SIR I am Your most Obliged The Publisher to whom the foregoing Letters were written having left them some time with a Gentleman a Person of excellent Learning and Worth they were returned to him with this following Letter SIR HAving had the Favour of perusing these Letters I cannot but greatly esteem the Learning and Judgment of the Author who has brought so large a Controversy and that has been debated with the utmost Industry Learning and Subtilty for many hundred Years even from soon after the time of the Apostles into so small a Compass that one may soon see the Allegations from Scripture on both sides with the most material Distinctions and Answers Wherein it seems obvious to me what is said in one of the Paragraphs of the first Letter that the Vnitarian Doctrine is an accountable and reasonable Faith grounded on clear and evident Scripture-Arguments so far as a negative Proposition can reasonably be expected to be Whereas the Trinitarian Doctrine is founded upon obscure or mistaken Texts and defended by such unreasonable Distinctions as cannot be admitted by any Man of a free Judgment being either contradictory in themselves or utterly unintelligible
Marseils who wrote about the Year of our Lord 460 saith thus concerning one sort of Vnitarians viz. Arians They are Hereticks but not knowingly They do so much judg themselves Catholicks that they defame us with the Name of Hereticks They err but with a good Mind not of Hatred but of the Love of God. How they shall be punish'd in the Day of Judgment for this Error of a false Opinion none can know but the Judg. De Gubern Dei. l. 5. where may be read more to the same purpose Though this Author according to the Vogue of Those times calleth the Arians Hereticks yet that which he says farther of them shows they were not so for the Character he gives of them shews them to be conscientious Christians and Lovers of God. St. Austin against the Manichees a sort of People that held there were two Gods one good the other evil saith thus Let them be fierce against you who know not how laborious a thing it is to find out the Truth and how difficultly we escape Errors Let them be fierce against you who know not how rare and hard a thing it is to overcome carnal Imaginations by the Serenity of a pious Mind c. Contr. Ep. Fausti Thirdly I added that the Trinitarians ought to own the Vnitarians for Christian Brethren and to behave themselves towards them as such For Protestants do agree that all necessary and fundamental matters of Faith are clear and plain in Scripture but other matters not so evident but that good Christians may err concerning them as we see they did even in the times of the Apostles now this Doctrine of the Trinitarians appearing to be no fundamental Doctrine it does by no means unchristian those that hold the contrary nor excuse the Trinitarians from those Offices which are due to them as Christians And the rather because they are not only willing to make Confession of Faith in all the forms of Words contained in the Holy Scripture but in the Words also of the Apostles Creed as also because they are not liable to any charge of Idolatry or Superstition in their Worship or of Uncharitableness in condemning those of contrary Minds as the Confederacy of Rome is Therefore I cannot but wonder at some learned Men that are so far carried away with an overweaning Opinion of their own Judgment that they will not allow those the name of Christians who do not believe besides the Bible and the Creed of the Apostles also the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds Nay some account the Trinitarian Doctrines to be so necessary to Christianity that though those who deny them be otherways very pious and useful Men yet going against the sense of the Catholick Church they err not for want of Instruction but from a certain Wantonness and Pride of Vnderstanding and are guilty of such unpardonable Immodesty as admits of no Excuse If what is hinted in these Letters concerning the Catholick Church of the Apostles times and first Ages be true then that Author builds his Condemnation upon a false and rotten Foundation and the Building falling impresses Rashness and Uncharitableness upon himself I mean as to this particular Case for otherways I readily acknowledg the Worth and Learning of the Author Neither can I sufficiently admire that another learned Man and a Sufferer for his Conscience should in a Pacifick Discourse treat the Socinians in the same contumelious manner not allowing them worthy of the Name of Christians because they go about saith he to overthrow the whole frame of the Christian Doctrine by arrogant Presumptions of false Reasonings and Sophistical Arguments Yea it is commonly objected against them that they exalt their Reasonings above plain and express Revelation in Scripture Which Crimination seems to me to be clearly taken away by the four Letters in which it appears by the many Unconcluding Texts false Translations unintelligible Reasonings and Distinctions cited and urged on the Behalf of the Trinitarian Doctrine and on the other hand by the numerous clear Texts allowed Translations Reasonings and Distinctions common to Mankind produced by the Vnitarians that these last may reasonably retort this great Objection on their Opposites the Trinitarians who in a thousand express Texts of Scripture do exalt their Reasonings to maintain another sense than the plain Words require For one Instance how many express Texts ascribe Parts and Members Affections and Passions Shape and Figure Place and Circumscription to God all which as the Author of these Letters notes are otherways expounded by learned Men because they judg these things in reason unsuitable to God. But what Principle more clear both in Reason and Scripture than this that there is but one God or that God is one All Christians and all Jews and all Mahometans who are said to be more in Number than Christians besides the wise Heathens do acknowledg it and all these understand by the term God a necessary existent Person Upon these clear Grounds the Vnitarians deny that there are three such as contrary to that Unity and introducing into the Godhead two unnecessary or superfluous Persons For if one be sufficient and he cannot be God if he be not sufficient then the two more are supernumerary and unnecessary and consequently not God. For my own part I was bred up in the Trinitarian Faith and took the Truth of it for granted but when these Scriptures and Reasons came into my View and I had got over the Fear of examining what some Men who name themselves the Church call Fundamentals I conld not avoid the Force of them though it grieves me that I cannot continue in consent with my old Friends as well in this as other parts of Christian Doctrine But certainly as in Philosophy Truth should be more dear to us than Plato or Socrates so in Theology the Testimony of plain Scripture agreeing with evident Reason should prevail with those who believe the Scriptures Divine more than obscure Texts dissonant to the clear Reason of Mankind And it may well allay any ones Fear of examining and judging concerning pretended Fundamentals when he shall consider that even the Church of England in another of her Articles says that as the Church of Jerusalem Alexandria and Antioch have errred so also the Church of Rome which contends that she is the Catholick Church hath erred not only in her living and manner of Ceremonies but also in matter of Faith. So also Chillingworth with his Approvers says I see plainly and with mine own Eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councils against Councils some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a consent of Fathers of one Age against a consent of Fathers of another Age. There is no sufficient Certainty but in the Scripture only for any considering Man to build upon As to the boast of their Numbers 't is well known there was a time when the Christian World was Arian that is Vnitarian so that the Council of Ariminum and Seleucia in which 560 Bishops were present the greatest Convention of Bishops that ever was decreed for the Vnitarian Faith. Was number in those times an Argument of Truth If not how can it be so now The Author of these Letters has well observed besides that the Doctrine of the Trinitarians in these days is widely different from the Doctrine decreed in the first Council of Nice from whence I infer that their Boast of Antiquity is as vain as the other of Number I will only add to this Observation that though the more ancient and the modern Trinitarians may agree in terms yet those times and these have different senses of the same Words and Phrases SIR I pray accept of my hearty Thanks for this Publication and shew the Author how great an Honour I have for him I am Yours c. FINIS