and what is the Rule of Faith are two very distinct Questions and to apply what is said of the Catholick Faith to the Rule of Faith becomes the Wit and understanding of an Heretick This is the very Argument which the Papists use against our Authors Compleat and Infallible Rule of Faith the Scriptures that they do not contain all things necessary to Salvation because they do not prove the great Fundamental of the Protestant Faith that the Canon of Scripture which we receive is the Word of God now what Answer he would give to Papists with reference to the sufficiency of Scripture let him suppose I give him the same Answer in Vindication of the Catholick Faith of the Athanasian Creed and we are right again But his parting blow is worth some little observation That if the Scriptures be a compleat Rule of Faith then this Creed of Athanasius is at least an unnecessary Rule of Faith But why did he not say the same thing of the Apostles Creed or Nicene Creed or any other Creeds as well as of the Athanasian Creed for it seems a Creed as a Creed for there is no other sense to be made of it is a very unnecessary thing if the Scripture be a compleat Rule of Faith And thus both Catholicks and Hereticks even his dear Arians and Socinians have troubled themselves and the World to no purpose in drawing up Creeds and Confessions of Faith But this Author ought to be sent to School to learn the difference between a Creed and a Rule of Faith A Rule of Faith is a divinely inspired Writing which contains all matters to be believed and upon the Authority of which we do believe a Creed is a Summary of Faith or a Collection of such Articles as we ought to believe the Truth of which we must examine by some other Rule the sum then of our Author's Argument is this That because the Scripture is the Rule of Faith and contains all things necessary to be believed therefore it is very unnecessary to collect out of the Scripture such Propositions as are necessary for all Christians explicitely to believe He might as well have proved from the Scriptures being a compleat Rule of Faith that therefore there is no necessity of Commentators or Sermons or Catechisms as that there is no necessity of Creeds But as senseless as this is there is a very deep fetch in it for he would have no other Creed but that the Scripture is the Divine Infallible Compleat Rule of Faith which makes all other Creeds unnecessary and then he can make what he pleases of Scripture as all other Hereticks have done before him But let me ask this Author whether to believe in general that the Scripture is the compleat Rule of Faith without an explicite belief of what is contained in Scripture will carry a Man to Heaven There seems to me no great difference between this general Faith in the Scriptures without particularly knowing and believing what they teach and believing as the Church believes We suppose then he will grant us the necessity of an explicite belief of all things contained in the Scripture necessary to Salvation and ought not the Church then to instruct People what these necessary Articles of Faith are and what is the true sense of Scripture about them Especially when there are a great many damnable Heresies taught in the Church by Men of perverse Minds who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction and does not this shew the necessity of Orthodox Creeds and Formularies of Faith And this puts me in mind of the great usefulness of ancient Creeds though the Holy Scripture be the only Divine and Infallible Rule of Faith viz. That they are a kind of secondary Rule as containing the Traditionary Faith of the Church It is no hard matter for witty Men to put very perverse senses on Scripture to favour their heretical Doctrines and to defend them with such Sophistry as shall easily impose upon unlearned and unthinking Men and the best way in this case is to have recourse to the ancient Faith of the Christian Church to learn from thence how these Articles were understood and professed by them for we cannot but think that those who conversed with the Apostles and did not only receive the Scriptures but the sense and interpretation of them from the Apostles or Apostolical Men understood the true Christian Faith much better than those at a farther remove and therefore as long as we can reasonably suppose this Tradition to be preserved in the Church their Authority is very Venerable and this gives so great and venerable Authority to some of the first General Councils and therefore we find Tertullian himself confuting the Hereticks of his days by this argument from Prescription or the constant Tradition of all Apostolick Churches which was certain and unquestionable at that time and as much as Papists pretend to Tradition we appeal to Tradition for the first Three or Four Centuries and if the Doctrine of the Athanasian Creed have as good a Tradition as this as certainly it has it is no unnecessary Rule though we do not make it a primary and uncontroulable Rule as the Holy Scripture is where there are two different Senses put on Scripture it is certainly the safest to embrace that sense if the words will bear it which is most agreeable to the received Doctrine of the Primitive Church contained in the Writings of her Doctors or Ancient Creeds or such Creeds as are conformed to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church Then for taking ought from this Creed the whole Greek Church diffused through so many Provinces rejects as Heretical that Period of it The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son contending that the Holy Spirit is from the Father only which also they clearly and demonstratively prove as we shall see in its proper place And for the menace here of Athanasius that they shall perish everlastingly they laugh at it and say He was drunk when he made that Creed Gennad Schol. Arch Bishop of Constantin This Addition of the Filioque or the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and from the Son which was disputed between the Greek and Latin Church is no corruption of the Essentials of the Christian Faith about the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity as I observed before nor does Athanasius deny Salvation to those who do not believe it For he that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity does not relate to every particular Word and Phrase but to that Doctrine which immediately proceeds That the Trinity in Vnity and Vnity in Trinity is to be Worshipped which the Greeks acknowledged as well as the Latins and therefore agreed in the Substantials of Faith necessary to Salvation And that I havereason for what I say appears from this that after the Latins were perswaded that the Holy Ghost did proceed from the Son they were far enough from denying Salvation to those who
and whoever rejects them whatever name he goes by can be no better than a Socinian in disguise but however there are no Texts alledged by learned Trinitarians but are acknowledged by some or other of his learned Trinitarians and thus it is as broad as long but it is not the Authority of any modern Expositors which we rely on but their Reason and if a learned Trinitarian should reject any Text without Reason or Learning it signifies no more to us than the Expositions of a learned Socinian when we seek for Authority we go higher to the Primitive Fathers of the Catholick Church and there we find it They not only delivered to us the traditionary Doctrines of a Trinity which had always been taught in the Catholick Church but the Traditionary Exposition of those Scriptures too whereon this Doctrine is founded and they being so near the Head and Fountain of Tradition the Apostolick Age their Authority is venerable and a modest and prudent Man will not reject any Interpretation of Scripture which relates to Articles of Faith and is unanimously delivered by the Ancient Fathers if the words in any tolerable construction will bear the sense for though a Text should fairly bear two different Interpretations that is most likely to be true which has been from the beginning taught by the Catholick Church And I challenge this Author to name any Text which is alledged for the proof of a Trinity by learned Trinitarians which has not been used to the same purpose by many or most or all the ancient Fathers who have alleadged those Texts But his Conclusion from hence that therefore the Scripture does not compel us to acknowledge a Trinity in Unity because the Unitarians and some or other of the most Learned Trinitarians expound these Texts to another Sense is very pleasant and shows what a great Master of Reason he is for his Argument is this the Scripture does not compel us to believe any thing while there are other men who expound the Scripture to a contrary Sense and thus I am sure the Scripture compels us to believe nothing for it will be hard to name any Text which concerns any Article of Faith how plain and express soever it be but what has been expounded to a contrary Sense by one Heretick or other I would ask this Author whether the Scripture compels him to believe but One God in his Sense of it that is but One who is God If it does not why does he believe it and insist so peremptorily on it in defiance of the whole Catholick Church and yet how can the Scripture compel him to this when the Catholick Church and the Catholick Doctors in all Ages have expounded Scripture to a contrary sense that there are Three Divine Persons who are this One God At this rate when Men differ in their Expositions of Scripture the Scripture does not compel us to believe either and thus notwithstanding the Scripture we may believe nothing If the Scripture have a determined Sense we are bound to believe that Sense and must answer it to God and to our Saviour if we do not whoever expounds it otherwise and therefore when it is said in the Creed that we are compelled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are under a necessity by the Christian Verity to acknowledge each Person by himself to be God and Lord the meaning is not that men are under any force to believe or acknowledge it or to expound Scripture to this sense but that the true Sense and Exposition of Scripture does make this Acknowledgment necessary if we will believe as the Scripture teaches and this may be true whatever the Unitarians or any Learned Trinitarians teach He adds That the Contest between the Vnitarians and Trinitarians is not a clash of Reason with Scripture but whether we ought to interpret holy Scripture when it speaks of God according to Reason or not that is like fools or like wise men Now this is all sham and falacy for to expound Scripture by Reason may signifie two very differeent things 1. To use our own Reason to find out the true Sense and Interpretation of Scripture 2. To expound Scripture in Conformity to the Principles and Maxims of Natural Reason In the first sense he expounds Scripture according to Reason who considers the Use and Propriety of Words the Scope and Design of the place what goes before and what follows and how one place of Scripture is consistent with another just in the same way as we find out the sense of any Humane Writing and he who does not thus expound Scripture by Reason expounds it like a fool that is if he put such a sense upon it as the words will not bear or the scope and design of the Text will not admit and as no man would think of who were not prepossessed and prejudiced against what appears to be the plain and obvious Sense of the Text and whether they or we in this sense expound Scripture according or contrary to Reason like fools or like wise men shall be examined presently As for the other Sense of Expounding Scripture according to Reason that is in Conformity to the Principles and Maxims of Natural Reason we allow this too so far that we must not expound Scripture to such a sense as contradicts the plain and express Maxims of Natural Reason for though God reveals such things to us as Natural Reason could not discover and cannot comprehend yet Revelation cannot contradict plain Reason for Truth can never contradict it self what is true in Revelation can never be false in Reason and what is true by Natural Reason can never be false in Revelation but then as I observed before we must be sure that there is such a Contradiction it must be evident and express and not made out of uncertain Consequences which many times are not owing to the Nature of Things but to the Imperfection of our own Knowledge As to keep to the Matter of our present Dispute Natural Reason tells us That there is and can be but One Supreme God the Soveraign Lord of the World and should any man pretend to prove from Scripture that there are Three Gods this would be an express Contradiction to the Natural Belief of One God and therefore we must reject this Sense of Scripture as contrary to Reason but to prove from Scripture that there is but One God and that there are Three who are this One God this is no Contradiction to Reason which teaches but One God for Scripture teaches the same and all Trinitarians acknowledge the same and must do so if they believe the Athanasian Creed and therefore the belief of the Trinity does not contradict the natural belief of One God Yes you 'l say that there should be Three Persons each of which is God and yet but One God is a Contradiction but what Principle of Natural Reason does it contradict Reason tells us that Three Gods cannot be One God but does
Concerning Expounding Scripture by Reason FOR like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord. So are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say there be Three Gods and Three Lords By the Christian Verity I suppose is meant the Sacred Books which contain the Christian Religion that is the Books of the Old and New Testament But do these Books and does this Verity compel us to the acknowledgment of Three Persons each of which is by himself Supreme God and Lord and yet all of them together but One God Doth I say the Holy Scripture compel us to this contradictory acknowledgment Is there any Text alleadged from Scripture which all the Vnitarians and some or other of the most learned Trinitarians do not easily interpret in such Sense that the Vnity of God is preserved and no more than One Person even the God and Father of our Lord Iesus Christ acknowledged to be God See the History of the Vnitarians But if there is no Text of Scripture but what is in the Opinion of some or other of their own Learned Men fairly capable of a Sense contrary to the Faith delivered in this Creed then we are not compelled to acknowledge this Faith And the truth is the Contest between the Vnitarians and Trinitarians is not as is commonly thought a Clash of Reason with Scripture but it layeth here whether when the Holy Scripture may be understood as teaching only One God or but One who is God which agrees with the rest of Scripture and with Natural Reason we must notwithstanding prefer an Interpretation of it that is absurd and contrary to it self to reason and to the rest of Scripture such as the Trinitarians Interpretation exprest in this Creed appears to be In a word the Question only is Whether we ought to Interpret Holy Scripture when it speaks of God according to Reason or not that is like fools or like wise men There is nothing in this long Paragraph to trouble an Answerers thoughts but a great deal to exercise his Patience if he be apt to be provoked by Arrogance and Folly His first Argument to prove that the Holy Scriptures do not compel us to confess each Person in the ever blessed Trinity to be God and Lord and yet that there is but one God is because it is a contradictory acknowledgment So he says and has endeavoured to prove it and how vainly and impertinently I leave the Reader to judge but if a Trinity in Unity imply no Contradiction as I am perswaded I have evidently proved then I hope the Scripture may teach this Doctrine and require the belief of it but this is an impudent Argument which brings Revelation down in such sublime Mysteries to the level of our Understandings to say such a Doctrine cannot be contained in Scripture because it implies a Contradiction whereas a modest man would first inquire whether it be in Scripture or not and if it be plainly contained there he would conclude how unintelligible soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught by Scripture we must not indeed expound Scripture contrary to common Sense and to the common Reason of Mankind in such Matters as every man knows and every man can judge of but in Matters of pure Revelation which we have no natural Idea of and know nothing of but what is revealed we must not pretend some imaginary Contradictions to reject the plain and express Authority of a Revelation for it is impossible to know what is a Contradiction to the Natures of Things whose Natures we do not understand as I shewed before His next Proof That the Scripture does not compel us to this Acknowledgment is that the Unitarians and some of the most Learned Trinitarians expound these Texts of Scripture which are alledged for a Trinity in Unity to another Sense and easily reconcile them with the Belief and Acknowledgment of One only who is God as well as of One God and for this he refers us to that Learned Piece the History of the Unitarians As for examining particular Texts which are alledged on both sides in this Controversie it is too voluminous a Work at present and besides my present Undertaking which is only to vindicate the Athanasian Creed and the true Christian Doctrine of a Trinity in Unity from the pretended Absurdities and Contradictions charged on it in these Notes and when that is done and I hope I have done it I dare trust any man of competent Understanding to judge which is most agreeable to the Scope and Language of Scripture But as for what he says that the Unitarians or Socinians can easily reconcile all the Texts of Scripture alledged for the proof of a Trinity to their Notion of One God in opposition to Three Divine Persons in the Godhead we must let him say so because he will say it as all other Hereticks pretend Scripture to be on their side but to say that they can easily do this is a little impudent when all Men who understand this Controversie see what Art they use and what forced and arbitrary Interpretations they put on Scripture to reconcile it to their Opinions especially when some of the most learned Socinians stick not to confess That they will expound Scripture to any sense rather than acknowledge such Doctrines as they think so contradictory to the Reason and Understanding of Mankind which no modest Man would own were he not sensible of the harshness and uncouthness of his own Expositions for things are come to a desperate pass when they shall resolve upon any sense or no sense rather than that which the words most aptly and properly signifie but lies cross to their Prejudices and pre-conceived Opinions But what thinks he of Socinus's Exposition of that Text where Christ says That he came down from Heaven which he could not do if he had no being before he was born of the Virgin Mary Did Socinus find it so easie a thing to reconcile this Text to his darling Opinion when he was fain to fast and to pray for it and to pretend Revelation because he wanted Reason to support it viz. That Christ before he entred on his Prophetick Office was taken up into Heaven to be instructed in the Gospel and then came down from Heaven again to publish it to the World Whereas our Saviour plainly speaks of his first coming into the World when he was born of the Virgin and the whole History of the Gospel takes no notice of his being taken up into Heaven before his Resurrection from the dead I think this was no easie Exposition but of this more presently That there are no Texts of Scripture alledged for the proof of a Trinity but what are rejected by one or other of the most learned Trinitarians is as true as the other There are many Texts which all hearty Trinitarians do and must agree in
any Man that this is the mutual consciousness which I have described and by this St. Austin represents the Trinity in Unity and I hope his Authority will defend me from the charge of Innovation and I am sure the reason of the thing will defend itself But for the better understanding of this we must further observe that the Fathers resolve the Unity of the Godhead into the Unity of Principle that is though there be Three Divine Persons in the Godhead Father Son and Holy Ghost yet the Father is the Original Fountain of the Deity who begets the Son of his own Substance and from whom and the Son the Holy Ghost eternally proceeds of the same Substance with Father and Son So that there is but one Principle and Fountain of the Deity and therefore but One God But this as Petavius well observes does not of itself prove the Unity of the Godhead but only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or sameness of Nature and therefore the Fathers add That God begets a Son not without but within himself for the Wisdom of God is within him and inseparable from him This they illustrated by the Sun its light and splendour which are coaeval and inseparable by the Fountain and its Streams by a Tree and its Branches which are united in One which Comparisons must not be strained farther than they were intended as if Father Son and Holy Ghost were one in the same manner as the Sun and its Light or the Tree and its Branches or the Fountain River and Streams but only that there is such a natural and essential Union between the Divine Persons as makes them One numerical God But there is something still to be added to this to compleat this Notion that as the Father is the Fountain of the Deity and the Son and Holy Ghost inseparably united to him so Father Son and Holy Ghost are essential to One God as St. Austin calls the Trinity Vnam quandam summam rem One Supreme Thing And as all acknowledge that the Three Persons are One God and since God is the most necessary Being all Three Persons are necessary and essential to One God That there must necessarily be Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead and there can be no more For the explication of this I shall proceed by these steps which are all plain and universally acknowledged 1. That there are no Accidents nor Qualities nor Faculties in God as there are in created Spirits but whatever is in God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence and Substance a pure and simple Act. This is universally acknowledged by all Christians St. Austin affirms That there are no Accidents in God Athanasius That there is no Composition in God as between Substance and Accident and it is much alike as to Mind and its different Faculties and Powers which is a Composition but that God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pure simple Act but there is no need of Testimonies to prove that which Natural Reason proves for nothing can be Eternal and Self-orginated but a pure and simple Act for what is compounded is made for it wants a Maker 2. That it is essential to an eternal Mind to know itself and to love itself for this is essential to a Mind no human Mind can be without it much less the most perfect and excellent Mind and therefore God does know himself and love himself and his own Image 3. That Original Mind and Wisdom and the Knowledge of it self and love of it self and its own Image are distinct Acts and never can be One simple individual Act. They are distinct Powers and Faculties in men Knowledge Self-reflexion and Love and are so distinct that they can never be the same Knowledge is not Self-reflection nor love either Knowledge or Self-reflection though they are inseparably united they are distinct 4. Therefore these three Acts which are so distinct that they can never be the same must be three substantial Acts in God that is three Divine subsisting Persons for there is nothing but Essence and Substance in God no Accident or Faculties as there are in Creatures 5. That these are the true and proper Characters of the distinct Persons in the ever blessed Trinity The Father is Original Mind and Wisdom the Son the Word and Wisdom of the Father that is the reflex knowledge of himself which is the perfect Image of his own Wisdom the Holy Ghost that Divine Love which Father and Son have for each other It would be very impertinent to confirm this by the Authority of the ancient Fathers because all men who know any thing of them know that this is their constant language I am sure this is very agreeable to the Language of Scripture and Answers all those Characters we find there of the Son and Holy Ghost The Son is expresly called the Word and the Wisdom of God That Word which was in the beginning which was with God and was God 1 Iohn 1. For God did certainly always know himself and therefore this Word was always with God intimately present with him not as our transient and vanishing Reflections are but as a permanent and substantial Word the subsisting and living Image of his Fathers Wisdom as he is called the Brightness of his Fathers Glory and the express Image of his Person 1 Heb. 2. His Fathers Glory and Person is Eternal and Original Wisdom He is his Fathers begotten Wisdom or the bright Reflexion of his Wisdom which is as perfect and exact as the Fathers Knowledge of himself And therefore St. Iohn might well say No man hath seen God at any time the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father he hath declared him 1 Iohn 18. And our Saviour might well tell us As the Father knoweth me even so know I the Father 10 Iohn 15. that he seeth all that the Father doth That he receiveth all his Commands from the Father that he that seeth him seeth the Father and many such like Expressions he uses to signifie his perfect knowledge of his Father for he is that Wisdom and Knowledge wherewith his Father knows himself and if the Father perfectly knows himself he is the perfect Image and Wisdom of the Father For this reason he is called the Son because he is the perfect Image of the Father begotten of his own Eternal Wisdom by a reflex Act upon himself for he begets his own Son in his own likeness by knowing himself and therefore the Son must be of the same Nature the very Wisdom of the Father unless the Father knows himself otherwise than he really is This is the Eternal Son and Word of God whereby he made the Worlds for it is this reflex Knowledge and Wisdom which makes all things The Eternal Ideas of Truth and Wisdom in the Divine Mind effect nothing no more than meer Speculation does in us till it is brought into Act by reflexion for it was this reflex
Reason tell us That Three Divine Persons cannot be One God if my Reason be like other Mens I am sure my Reason says nothing at all about it does neither affirm nor deny it and therefore when the Scripture assures us that there is but One God as Natural Reason teaches and that this One God is Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost this contradicts nothing which Reason teaches but adds something which Natural Reason could not discover which is the proper use of Revelation Scripture teaches that there is but one God and that there are Three Divine Persons who are this One God Reason teaches that there is but One God but does not teach that there are Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead nor does it teach that there are not and therefore though the Scripture teaches more then Natural Reason does which I suppose may be allowed by these Adorers of Reason yet it teaches nothing contrary to what Natural Reason teaches nay these men can not graft any Contradiction upon it without perverting the Faith of the ever blessed Trinity as it is taught in Scripture and has always been taught in the Catholick Church that is to find a Contradiction their business is to prove that these Three Divine Persons each of which is God must be Three distinct Gods and then Three distinct Gods cannot be One God this I grant and their Argument is unanswerable to those who own these Three Divine Persons to be Three distinct Gods but what is that to us who teach that they are not Three distinct Gods but One God as the Scripture teaches and the Catholick Church always taught and as of necessity we must teach if we believe a Trinity in Unity so that there is no Contradiction is not our Faith for that which they make a Contradiction is not our Faith but a Contradiction to our Faith as well as to common Sense and Reason Well! but if we believe Three distinct Divine Persons each of which is God we must believe Three distinct Gods I hope not when we profess to believe but One God yes whatever we profess to believe Three such distinct Persons must be Three Gods now this we deny and challenge them to produce any plain Principle of Reason to prove that it must be so Natural Reason teaches nothing about the Personality of the Godhead it teaches One God but whether this One God be One or Three Persons it says not and therefore it may be either without contradicting the Natural Notions we have of One God and then here is free scope for Revelation and if Revelation teaches that there is but One God and that there are Three Divine Persons each of which in Scripture have not only the Title but the Nature and Attributes of God ascribed to them then we must of necessity believe a Trinity in Unity Three Persons and One God for what the Scripture affirms and Reason does not deny is a proper Object of our Faith and then their Objection against this Faith that these Three Divine Persons must be Three distinct Gods if each of them be God is sensless and ridiculous for it is demonstrable that if there be Three Persons and One God each Person must be God and yet there cannot be Three distinct Gods but One. For if each Person be not God all Three cannot be God unless the Godhead have Persons in it which are not God and if all Three are but One God they cannot be Three distinct Gods so that whoever believes the Three Divine Persons to be Three distinct Gods does not believe a Trinity in Unity and whoever believes a Trinity in Unity cannot believe Three distinct Gods and if there be a Trinity in Unity each Person must be God and yet there cannot be Three Gods but One God and now let him go look for his Contradiction in the belief of Three Persons and one God and when he has found it let me hear from him again So that all his Absurdities and Contradictions are vanished only into Nicodemus his Question How can these things be and if I could give him no other Answer I should think it a very good one to say God knows Must we deny every thing that we can't conceive and comprehend though it be expresly taught by God himself Must we deny what we read in the Bible to be there because Reason does not teach it and cannot frame an Adequate Idea of it But I have not done with our Author thus but must give him a little more about expounding Scripture according to Reason For I affirm that Natural Reason is not the Rule and Measure of Expounding Scripture no more than it is of Expounding any other Writing The true and only way to interpret any Writing even the Scriptures themselves is to examine the use and propriety of Words and Phrases the Connexion Scope and Design of the Text its Allusion to ancient Customs and Usages or Disputes c. for there is no other good Reason to be given for any Exposition but that the Words signifie so and the Circumstances of the Place and the apparent Scope of the Writer requires it But our Author as many others do seems to confound the Reasons of believing any Doctrine with the Rules of Expounding a Writing We must believe nothing that contradicts the plain and express Dictates of Natural Reason which all Mankind agree in whatever pretence of Revelation there be for it well say they then you must expound Scripture so as to make it agree with the necessary Principles and Dictates of Reason No say I that does not follow I must expound Scripture according to the use and signification of the Words and must not force my own Sense on it if it will not bear it But suppose then that the Natural Construction of the Words import such a Sense as is contrary to some evident Principle of Reason then I won't believe it How not believe Scripture no no I will believe no pretended Revelation which contradicts the plain Dictates of Reason which all Mankind agree in and were I perswaded that those Books which we call the Holy Scriptures did so I would not believe them and this is a fairer and honester way than to force them to speak what they never intended and what every impartial man who reads them must think was never intended that we may believe them to put our own sense on Scripture without respect to the use of Words and to the Reason and Scope of the Text is not to believe Scripture but to make it is not to learn from Scripture but to teach it to speak our Language is not to submit to the Authority of Scripture but to make Scripture submit to our Reason even in such Matters as are confessedly above Reason as the infinite Nature and Essence of God is Though I am never so well assured of the Divine Authority of any Book yet I must expound it as I do other Writings for
when God vouchsafes to speak to us in our own Language we must understand his Words just as we do when they are spoke by men Indeed when I am sure that it is an inspired Writing I lay it down for a Principle that it contains nothing absurd and contradictious or repugnant to the received Principles of Natural Reason but this does not give me authority to Expound the Words of Scripture to any other sense than what they will naturally bear to reconcile them with such Notions as I call reason for if one man has this liberty another may take it and the Scripture will be tuned to every mans private Conceits and therefore in case the plain sense of Scripture contradicts those Notions I have of things if it be possible to be true I submit to the Authority of Scripture if it seems to include a Contradiction and Impossibility if that Contradiction be not plain and notorious and in such Matters as I am sure I perfectly understand there I submit again and conclude it is no Contradiction though I cannot comprehend how it is if I can by no means reconcile it I will confess I do not understand it and will not pretend to give any Sense of it much less to give such a Sense of it as the Words will not bear This shows that men may pretend to Expound Scripture according to Reason when the Dispute is nothing else but a Clash of Reason with Scripture as this Author phrases it for so it is when the usual signification of the Words and the Scope and Circumstances of the Place require one Sense and men force another Sense on it upon pretence of Expounding Scripture by Reason that is to reconcile Scripture to their pre-conceived Notions and Opinions of Things for what the Words signifie that is the Sense of Scripture and when they will not admit this Sense because they apprehend it contrary to Reason though most agreeable to the Words and Scope of the Place that is nothing else but a Controversie between Scripture and Reason My present Undertaking does not oblige me to examine all the Scriptures which are alleadged by the Socinians against the Doctrine of the Trinity or by others for it this is a voluminous Work and has often been done by others and if there were any just Occasion of doing it again it deserves a Treatise by it self but indeed it is the Doctrine it self which the Socinians dislike more then our Expositions which they cannot deny to be reasonable enough were the Doctrine so but they must not expound Scripture contrary to Reason and therefore must never allow that the Scripture teaches such a Doctrine which they think contradicts the plain and self-evident Reason of Mankind reconcile men to the Doctrine and the Scripture is plain without any farther Comment this I have now endeavoured and I believe our Adversaries will talk more sparingly of Absurdities and Contradictions for the future and then they will loose the best Argument they have against the Orthodox Expositions of Scripture but yet I am unwilling to dismiss this Argument without some few Observations about the Sense of Scripture This Author refers us to the History of the Vnitarians which though it be but a little Book in all Senses is too large to be particularly examined now but however I shall give some taste of it In the first Letter the Author marshals those Texts which he thinks overthrow the Doctrine of the Trinity and because this may be most dangerous to unskilful Readers I shall more particularly examine that He reduces the Scriptures under several Topicks or Heads of Arguments 1. If our Lord Christ were himself God there could be no Person greater than he none that might be called his Head or God none that could in any respect command him Now this Argument is fallacious for though Christ be God himself yet if there be Three Persons in the Godhead the equality and sameness of Nature does not destroy the Subordination of Persons a Son is equal to his Father by Nature but inferiour to him as his Son if the Father as I have explained it be Original Mind and Wisdom the Son a personal subsisting but reflex Image of his Fathers Wisdom though their Eternal Wisdom be equal and the same yet the Original is superior to the Image the Father to the Son and therefore though I know such Texts as he alleadges My Father is greater than I. The Head of Christ is God I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God are both by Ancient and Modern Expositors applied to Christ's Human Nature yet I see no Inconvenience in owning this to be true with respect to his Divine Person and his Relation to his Father For the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity and the Son is God of God and therefore the Father may be called his God As for Christ's receiving Commands from the Father though this relates to the Execution of his Mediatory Office and so concerns him as God Incarnate as by the Dispensation of the Gospel he is the Minister of God's Will and Pleasure yet I grant even as God he receives Commands from his Father but it is no otherwise than as he receives his Nature from him by Nature he is the Word the Wisdom the Command of the Father his reflex Image whereby he produces all the Designs of his own Wisdom and Counsel into act Thus St. Austin answered the Arrian Objection That Christ was but God's Instrument and made the World by God's Command Let them consider with what other words the Father commanded his only Word But they frame to themselves an Imagination of two near one another but separated by their distinct Places one commanding another obeying Nor do they understand that the Fathers Command it self that all things should be made is no other Word of the Father but that by which all things are made that is the substantial Word and Wisdom and Command of the Father his only begotten Son 2. If our Lord Christ were indeed God it could not without blasphemy be absolutely and without Restriction affirmed of him that he is the Creature the Possession the Servant and Subject of God It is well he added absolutely and without restriction but he had done better if he had remembred it in his Proofs that Christ is called a Creature he proves because he is the first-born of every Creature but here he should have remembred his absolutely and without restriction for he is so to the first-born of every Creature that he is the Image of the Invisible God and therefore no Creature so born before all Creatures as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies That by him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in Earth visible and invisible whether they be Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers all things were created by him and for him and he is before all
cannot be for it is a debasement of the Divine Nature and a reproach to the Divine Wisdom as if God did not better know how to dispose of his Grace and Mercy than any Creature does For Creatures to pray to God for themselves or others as humble Supplicants is part of the Worship which Creatures owe to God but to intercede with the Authority of a Mediator is above the Nature and Order of Creatures and God can no more give this to any Creature than he can commit his own Soveraign Power and Authority to them But his own Eternal Wisdom can intercede with Authority for Original Mind and Wisdom must yield to the Intercessions of his own Eternal Wisdom which is not to submit to any Foreign Authority but to his own To proceed 7. His next Argument to prove that Christ is not God is this That Iesus Christ is in Holy Scripture always spoken of as a distinct and different Person from God and described to be the Son of God and the Image of God This we own and he has no need to prove it and this is a wonderful Argument to convince those who acknowledge Three distinct Persons in the Godhead to prove that Christ is not God because he is a distinct Person from the Father for so according to the Language of Scripture God signifies God the Father when he is distinguished from the Son and the Holy Spirit as all men grant and to say 'T is as impossible that the Son or Image of the One true God should himself be that One true God as that the Son should be the Father and the Image that very thing whose Image it is is meer Sophistry for if the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost be the One true God they are the same One true God and yet the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father 8. His next Argument is from many Texts which expresly declare that only the Father is God Now this I confess would be a demonstration could he produce any one Text which asserts the Father only to be God in opposition to the Son and to the Holy Ghost for then the Father must signifie the Person of the Father in opposition to the Person of the Son and to the Person of the Holy Ghost but when the Father is called the Only true God only in opposition to all the false Gods which the world then worshipped there Father does not signifie personally but that One Godhead or Divinity of which the Father is the Source and Fountain and Original he being that Eternal and Original Mind which begets his own Image or Eternal Son and from whom and the Son the Holy Spirit proceeds in the Unity of the same Godhead When the Father is said to be the only true God and the One God that the Son and Holy Ghost are not hereby excluded from the Unity of the same Godhead is evident from those other Texts of Scripture which plainly teach the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost for if the Scripture teaches that the Son is God and the Holy Ghost God it can never separate the Father from his only begotten Son and Eternal Spirit and therefore the Dispute will issue here Whether the Scripture does teach the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit When the Father is called the only true God it must be in opposition to all those who were at that time worshipped for Gods in the World but were not true Gods and therefore when Christ calls his Father the only true God it could not be in contradistinction to himself and the Holy Spirit for they were not then distinctly worshipped And when St. Paul calls the Father the One God he expresly opposes it to the many Gods of the Heathens For though there be that are called Gods whether in Heaven the Sun and Moon and Planets and Deified men or in the Earth the several Elements Birds Beasts c. as there be Gods many and Lords many but to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and One Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him where the One God and One Lord and Mediator is opposed to the many Gods and many Lords or Mediators which were worshipped by the Heathens These Texts indeed do plainly distinguish between the Father and Christ This is Life eternal to know thee the only true God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent And to us there is but One God the Father and One Lord Iesus Christ which is no more than what St. Paul teaches There is one God and One Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Iesus The One God and the One Mediator ought to be distinguished for the whole Christian Religion and the salvation of sinners depends upon this distinction but this does not exclude Christ from being One God with the Father though he have a distinct additional Glory of a Mediatory Kingdom I consider farther when the Father is called the One God and the only true God it can be understood only of those who are distinct and separated Gods from the Father and are not One God with him but it cannot exclude those who are united in the Unity of the same Godhead for they are but One God with the Father And this is plainly signified in the Title of the Father and the Father of our Lord Jesus which is God's peculiar Name under the Gospel as the Maker of Heaven and Earth was before for the Title of the Father does not exclude but includes the Son and therefore if it appears from Scripture that this Son is true and real God begotten of his Father from Eternity the Son at least must be included in this Character of the only true God His other Texts which he cites under this Head prove no more but that the Father of Christ is God not that Christ is not One God with the Father 9. He adds If Christ were indeed God as well as Man or as Trinitarians speak God the Son incarnate in an Human Nature it had been altogether superfluous to give the Holy Spirit to his said Human Nature as a Director and Guide for what other help could that Nature need which was One Person with as they speak God the Son and in which God the Son did personally dwell Now the account of this is plain and short for the whole Trinity is but One Energy and Power and the Divine Persons cannot act separately ad extra what the Father does that the Son does and that the Holy Ghost does by one individual Act as I have shown at large but the sanctification of all Creatures and such the Human Nature of Christ is is peculiarly attributed to the Holy Spirit and he might as well have asked Why the sanctification of the Church is ascribed to the Holy Spirit for the Church is the Body of Christ and Christ the Head from