of natural Reason does it contradict Reason tells us that Three Gods cannot be One God but does 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 Is not this an admirable Argument which consists only in an Interrogation and in a meer denial of the difficulty proposed in the Objection What Principle of natural Reason does it contradict Does Reason tell us that Three Divine Persons cannot be one God Here is the Interrogation or Query To which I answer Yes it does contradict a plain Principle of natural Reason even this that Three cannot be One If my Reason be like other Mens I am sure my Reason says nothing at all about it doth neither affirm nor deny it Here is a meer denial of the difficulty I judge the Author's Reason must needs be very weak and corrupted seeing it likes well this falshood that Three are One and finds no fault with it Those unquestionably have a better sight and a more sound Reason who discern it implies a Contradiction that Three be but One because they perceive and acknowledg that Three is three times One and therefore cannot be only once One. Well saith the Doctor pleading for his Adversaries 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 He may be either without contradicting the natural Notions we have of One God and then there is free scope for Revelation and if Revelation teaches there is but One God and that there are Three Divine Persons each of which hath in Scripture not only the Title but the Nature and Attributes of God ascribed to him 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 this Objection against this Faith that Three distinct Divine Persons must be Three distinct Gods if each of them be God is sensless and ridiculous I have transcribed this whole Paragraph because it deserves some particular Reflection 1. I observe that it contains no positive Proofs but a meer denial The Author is extreamly confident and bold and yet all his reasonings may be resolved into I hope not and this we deny Indeed this is a very short way of answering Objections and as easy as to burn Books that are unanswerable There lies an Objection cross in his way that if we believe Three distinct Divine Persons we must believe Three distinct Gods To this he answers I hope not when we profess to believe but one God Is this a direct Confutation must we be satisfied with such an Answer because Trinitarians profess that Three Divine Persons are but one God does it follow that it is true and cannot be doubted of He hopes not and he denies it therein lies the strength of his Argument and Answer 2. I should have added he challenges for this is his third way of confuting Objections He challenges us to produce any plain Principle of Reason to prove that Three distinct Divine Persons must be Three Gods But we have a plain Principle of Reason at hand to answer his Challenge to wit that it implies a Contradiction that Three be but One. 3. Here is a most absurd and ridiculous Paradox as I ever heard of Natural Reason teaches nothing about the Personality of God or the Godhead it teaches One God but whether this One God be One or Three Persons it says not What If Reason tells us that there is One God He must be One Intelligent Being Now according to Reason we have no other Idea of Unity but such as we have of a Man a Beast and a Tree Therefore as Reason teaches that a Man is one Person because he is one Intelligent Being so it follows that according to Human Reason God is but one Person being but one Intelligent Being Reason does not tell us that the Unity of God is different from the Unity of a Man it produces in our Minds the same Idea of both which being applied to God as well as to Man must needs denote One Person or Intelligent Being in opposition to Two or Three Nay if Reason teaches nothing about the Personality of the Godhead which the Author does not think fit to prove what Idea can we have of the Vnity of God by Reason As long as we are ignorant whether God be one or three Persons our Idea of him must needs be more imperfect than of any other Being in that very Notion which is so familiar to us and which God himself has so much urged viz. his Unity This is so false a Principle and so contrary to the Dictates of Reason that there never was any Man taught by Reason that there is but one God but did believe at the same time that He is but one Person The Author should not have ventur'd abroad such a Philosophy contrary to the Reason of all Mankind but ought to have kept it for himself Now I find that the Scripture doth perfectly agree with Reason This tells me that there is but one God who is but one Person That teaches me the same and also that the Father of our Lord Christ is that one God both of them contrary to the Doctrine of the Trinity 4. He saith that there are Three Divine Persons each of which have in Scripture not only the Title but the Nature and Attributes of God ascribed to them But where is the Holy Ghost called God in Scripture He is indeed called the Spirit of God but never God himself and being the Power of God 't is no wonder that such things are ascribed to him as are ascribed to God himself Thus it is ordinary to ascribe to a Man's Courage what he has done himself and yet his Courage is no Person nor distinct from him This I say only by the way to shew the strangeness of his Consequences But I shall say nothing here of the Son and indeed seeing he brings no particular Instances of what he advances there is no need to insist any longer upon it CHAP. III. I come now to examine his Answers to the Objections against the Trinity in the brief History of the Unitarians THE First Objection p. 154. 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 Let us hear How the
if he be but sincere that those Fathers follow the Ideas of Plato concerning the three Principles and therefore speak rather like Arians than Orthodox They tell us that the Son and Holy Ghost have each of them his own Nature and Essence whereby they are distinguish'd from each other and that the Son is subordinate and inferior to the Father both in Nature and Power as likewise the Holy Ghost is subordinate to the Son If any one desires to see some undeniable Proofs of what I assert I refer him to the Quaternio of Curcellaeus whereby he will be fully satisfied The succeeding Fathers finding fault with this Notion brought into the World a new Interpretation of the three Principles They won't have them to be subordinate but equal both in Nature and Power However they acknowledg them to be three Essences or Collateral Beings If you ask them how they can avoid admitting a Plurality of Gods They will answer That those three Beings are but one God as Peter James and John are but one Man If you deny that Peter James and John are but one Man they will tell you that you are mistaken because in Propriety of Speech this term Man ought not to signify an Individual as Peter or James or John but a specifical Nature common to them all so that thô they be three Individuals or three Persons yet they are but one Man being Partakers of the same specifical common Nature This they apply to their three Principles They are indeed say they three Hypostases or Persons yet they are but one God This term God denoting not an Individual Hypostasis but a Nature common to the three Persons of the Trinity whereby thô they are three yet they are said to be but one God Thus they made shift as well as they could It was indeed a very unsufficient way of explaining the Unity of God and did by no means resolve the difficulty They made an abstract specifical God as the Heathens might equally have done but there were still three Individual or Numerical Gods as Peter James and John may be said to be by Abstraction one specifical Man because they have the same specifical Nature but however they are still three Individual Numerical Men. Therefore the Schoolmen disliking this Notion as favouring Polytheism found out a new one more agreeable as they thought to the Unity of God They won't have the three Persons of the Trinity to have each of them his own Essence and Nature No this too plainly destroys the Unity of God There is say they but one Divine Essence Right but then they must not part with three Persons of the Trinity Therefore what are those three Persons They are Three Subsistences Three Modes Three Relations Three I know not what 's This is meer Nonsense for a Person is an Intelligent Being and Three Persons must needs be Three Intelligent Beings So true it is that whosoever acknowledges Three Persons in the Godhead if he takes the Word in its proper sense must admit Three Gods Which the Learned Doctor cannot avoid who says they are Three distinct Minds Three substantial Beings Three intelligent Beings therefore unavoidably Three Gods Now is it fair to boast so much of the Tradition concerning the Trinity as if it had been constant and unalterable in all the Ages of the Church when the contrary appears to any sincere Reader The Fathers who lived before the Council of Nice speak like Platonic Philosophers and Arians the Nicene Fathers like Tritheists and the School-men like Mad-men Where now is that unchangeable Tradition so much cried up Considering the ridiculousness of those Men who in their respective Ages set up new Notions of the Trinity I am apt to say contrary to Averroes his Wish Let not my Soul be with the Philosophers To conclude this Chapter those great Boasters of the pretended Tradition should do well to apply themselves to the confuting the Quaternio of Curcellaeus before mentioned which when they have fully and truly performed we may perhaps begin to think of parting with Tradition which indeed is not the Foundation whereon we build our Faith Knowing only the Scriptures which are able to make wise unto Salvation CHAP. II. Containing an Examination of the Doctor 's Answers to the Arguments against the Trinity in the History of the Unitarians HAving premised this general Observation I come to examine what Answer the Doctor returns to the Arguments alledged against the Trinity by the Author of the Brief History of the Vnitarians But I must first consider his Reflections concerning the use of Reason in expounding Scripture This is saith he 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 he plainly contained there he would conclude how Vnintelligible soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught in Scripture p. 141. But is this Impudence to say Transubstantiation cannot be contained in Scripture because it implies a Contradiction I hope not Well then if the Trinity implies no less Contradiction than Transubstantiation why can't we say that it cannot be contained in Scripture We say Transubstantiation cannot be found in Scripture because it is a plain Contradiction to our Reason but if the Trinity be also a plain Contradiction to our Reason why shan't we be allowed to say that it cannot be contained in Scripture I think both Consequences are right But saith the Author A modest Man would first inquire whether it be in Scripture or not But we have already made such an Inquiry and cannot find the Trinity in Scripture We never could read there that there are Three Persons in one Numerical God Indeed how could we We might as well find there that the Bread of the Sacrament is Transubstantiated into Christ's Body But he goes on And if it be plainly contained there he should conclude how Vnintelligible soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught in Scripture I beg the Author's pardon there is a vast difference between Vnintelligible and Contradictions He should not have said How Unintelligible soever but how Contradictions soever And thus his Words ought to run He should conclude how Contradictions soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught by Scripture I perceive the Author found it too harsh to say that how Contradictions soever a thing appears to be that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught by Scripture and therefore he puts the word Vnintelligible instead of the word Contradictions In effect we do not say that every Unintelligible Thing contained in Scripture is a Contradiction We acknowledg the Resurrection plainly set down in Scripture does imply no Contradiction
how Unintelligible soever it be because we do very clearly conceive that God is able to raise our dead Bodies We don't apprehend the manner of this Resurrection how it shall be performed is a thing Unintelligible to us but however 't is altogether free from a Contradiction Were the Trinity as clearly set down in Scripture and as free from Contradiction we would not disbelieve it how Unintelligible soever it appeared to us no more than we disbelieve the Resurrection But the Trinity being not only Unintelligible but Contradictions we deny it is taught in Scripture which is altogether free from Contradiction Let us hear the Author a little farther We must not indeed saith he 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 them but what is revealed we must not pretend some imaginary Contradictions to reject the plain and express Authority of Revelation For 't is impossible to know what is a Contradiction to the Nature of Things whose Natures we do not understand We must not indeed expound Scripture contrary to common Sense and the common Reason of Mankind in such Matters as every Man knows and every Man can judge of I grant it but what if the Trinity doth contradict the common Reason of Mankind and is of such a Nature as every Man knows and every Man can judge of Then certainly it cannot be contained in Scripture according to this Author himself Indeed we cannot fathom the Essence of an infinite Being no more than as this Author saith the Essence of any created Being yet as we have a distinct knowledg of some Properties of a Finite Being so we have a clear Apprehension of the Attributes of God We cannot be mistaken in the Notion of One and Three we are most certain that One is not Three and that Three are not One. The most simple Men have a clear Apprehension of those two Numbers and therefore are able to judge of them Now the Scripture plainly tells us that there is but One God and every one knows that One God is One Intelligent Infinite Person and therefore cannot be Three such Persons He that has an Idea of One and an Idea of Three must needs perceive that it implies a Contradiction that One be Three and Three One that one God be Three Intelligent Infinite Persons or Beings and Three Intelligent Infinite Beings One God This every one can judge of Therefore we must not expound Scripture saith the Author contrary to common Sense and the common Reason of Mankind in such Matters as every Man knows and every Man can judge of Therefore say I all being capable of judging whether One may be Three and Three One and finding it a plain Contradiction to the common Reason of Mankind all may be assured that it cannot be contained in Scripture But saith the Author in Matters of pure Revelation which we have no natural Idea of and know nothing of 'em but what is revealed we must not pretend some imaginary Contradictions to reject the plain and express Authority of Scripture and Revelation for it is impossible to know what is a Contradiction to the Natures of Things whose Natures we do not understand Now what does the Author mean by the plain and express Authority of Revelation Does he mean that he has found somewhere in Scripture in plain and express Words that there are Three Persons in one Divine Nature or Godhead If it be so let him shew us it I doubt he calls plain and express Authority some false Consequences which he is pleased to draw from Scripture and which none but prejudiced Men would ever think of I wish we could shew a Chinese the Gospel well translated into his own Language and ask him after a serious reading of it what he thought Christ to be It is very likely I think that he would not take him to be the supream God and if any Man should tell him he had overseen so great a Mystery he would undoubtedly answer that he is sure there is no such thing in the Gospel which he read unless there he another Gospel wherein such a Notion is contained I confess there are some Matters of Revelation which we have no natural Idea of and know nothing of them but what is revealed such is the Resurrection of the Dead But then those Matters imply no Contradiction and therefore ought not to be rejected This first the Resurrection may be discovered to us by the Light of Revelation and discovering no Contradiction in it we ought to believe it The second the Trinity clashing altogether with our natural Ideas can be no Matter of Revelation and therefore ought not to be believed The Resurrection is such a Thing as we could never have discovered by the Light of Nature yet as soon as we come to know it we assent to it because we clearly perceive the Possibility thereof and are sure it implies no Contradiction at all but it is not so with the Trinity such a Mystery can never be revealed to us because Revelation cannot be contrary to Reason and therefore the Trinity being contrary to this cannot be the Matter of that God indeed may reveal to us such Objects as are unknown to Humane Reason but let them be never so much above our Reason they will never contradict it It is impossible to know what is a Contradiction to the Nature of Things whose Natures we do not understand Right But we know so much of the Nature of God that He is One and not Three and this is sufficient to show that the Trinity is a Contradiction to the Nature of God What I say is so clear and so notorious a Truth that the Author himself is forced to acknowledg it He saith p. 147. 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 cannot 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 All this he grants only he saith that we must be sure there is such a Contradiction it must be evident and express and not made out by uncertain Consequences which many times are not owing to the Nature of Things but to the Imperfection of our own Knowledge This I grant too But the Author won't allow the Trinity to be such a Contradiction and endeavours to prove it Let us hear him He soon perceives the difficulty and therefore brings it in by way of an Objection 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
is meant of Christ's Incarnation The second that in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render he dwelt amongst us St. John alludes to God's dwelling in the Tabernacle I begin with the first It cannot be denied that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendred was as well as was made Thus it is taken Luke 1. 5. and 24. 19. and even at Verse 6. of this Chapter Nor can it be doubted that the word Flesh signifies not only Humane Nature but very often Humane Nature as subject to Infirmities and Afflictions Now is it not more agreeable to Reason and Scripture to interpret these words thus And the Word Jesus was a Man like unto us in all things Sin excepted having the same Mortal Nature being exposed to the same Miseries and Afflictions than to say The Word was Incarnate which is a Language unknown to Scripture wherein we never find that God made himself Man and altogether repugnant to Reason And this I confirm by Heb. 2. 14. Forasmuch then as the Children are Partakers of Flesh and Blood He likewise himself took part of the same that thrô Death he might destroy him that had the Power of Death even the Devil Here Christ is said to be Partaker of Flesh and Blood as pious Men are which cannot be meant in a sense of Incarnation for pious Men are not said to be Incarnate but the one and the other are Partakers of Flesh and Blood that is of Infirmities and Sufferings This he explains farther at Verse 17. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his Brethren but his Brethren were not Incarnate But at Ver. 10 and 18. he expresly expounds this of Christ's Sufferings Ver. 10. It became him for whom are all things and by whom are all things to make the Captain of their Salvation perfect through Sufferings Ver. 18. For in that he himself hath suffered he is able to succour them that are tempted Mr. Limborck saw and confessed this that I have been saying his Words are these Theol. Christ pag. 226. The true sense of this place is that the Word was Flesh That is a true fleshly Substance subject to all the Infirmities that attend our Flesh that is to say He was Mortal Vile and Contemptible Which appeared more especially in the days of his Passion and of his Death which are called at Heb. 5. 7. The days of his Flesh 2. Our Author charmed with Allegories and mysterious Interpretations has found out that St. John alludes here to God's dwelling in the Tabernacle and this he thinks God did to make the Anti-type answer the Type Christ's Body to the Tabernacle or Temple Since he is so much in love with Allegories it may be I may do him a kindness to help him to one which I have ready at hand it is this As the Tabernacle in the Wilderness had no fixed place to stand in as the Temple afterwards had but was carried from one place to another according to the several Incampments of the Israelites So Christ to fulfil that Type was always wandring with his Disciples having no where to lay his Head Mat. 8. 20. This Allegory is as probable and more natural than his without supposing an impossible Incarnation I cannot tell whether the Author will like it better than his own I am sure I like neither of them No no there is no Mystery in the Greek Word Our Version renders it well He dwelt among us So does Seb. Castalio Et apud nos Gratiae Veritatisque plenus habitavit And he full of Grace and Truth dwelt among us And the same word is thus used without any Mystery Rev. 12. 12. and 13. 6. where it is applied to the Inhabitants of Heaven By way of conclusion I will set down the sense of the whole Verse which is an Abridgment of the Life of Christ The Word was Flesh a mortal Man obnoxious to Sufferings and Death here is his Priestly Office He dwelt among us full of Grace and Truth here is his Prophetic Office We have seen his Glory here is his Kingly Office Thus therefore we ought to paraphrase the whole Jesus Christ was a Mortal Man Partaker of Flesh and Blood subject to the same Infirmities that we are in a word like unto us in all things but Sin And he dwelt among us preaching the happy News of Reconciliation with God and the Doctrine and Truth revealed to him by the Father But thô he were a Mortal Man a Man of Sufferings and Griefs yet we have seen his Glory shining in his Miracles his Transfiguration his Resurrection his Ascension into Heaven c. Such a Glory as was well becoming the beloved Son of God Having spoken of the Temple he comes to discourse of Sacrifices and tells us The true meaning of the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World is not meerly that he was slain in God's Decree for what God has decreed to be done is not therefore said to be done before it is done But this Lamb was slain in Types and Figures from the Foundation of the World ever since the fall of Adam in those early Sacrifices which were offered after the Fall which were Typical of the Sacrifice of Christ But 1. Where has he found that those early Sacrifices were Typical of the Sacrifice of Christ The Scripture is silent about it and the Apostle to the Hebrews who inlarges on the Sacrifices of the Mosaical Law does not so much as mention those that were offer'd before which is unaccountable if they were Figures of the Sacrifice of Christ 2. But he says He knows no Principle of natural Reason that teaches us to offer the Blood of Beasts to God and therefore he must think the Sacrifices of Beasts to be an Institution But suppose those early Sacrifices were an Institution does it follow from thence that they were instituted to be Types of the Sacrifice of Christ By no means God might have other Reasons for such an Appointment But since the Scripture does not mention the appointing of those Sacrifices we have good reason to believe that they were of Humane Institution for had God appointed them it would not it should seem have been omitted in Scripture 'T is reasonable to think that Abel and Cain thought fit to offer Sacrifices and Oblations to God to shew by such visible Marks the Sense they had of God's Majesty and to express the Reverence they ought to pay to him 3. To deny that the Lamb was slain from the Foundation of the World meerly in God's Decree because what God has decreed to be done is not therefore said to be done before it is done is no very accurate reasoning in a Divine because 't is contrary to the stile of Scripture Is there any thing more usual with the sacred Writers especially with the Prophets than to speak of things to come as if they were come to pass already by reason of their certainty and the immutable Decree of God
was certainly by Revelation If our Author should reply that it is well known that Elisha was but a Prophet and could know no such thing but by Inspiration or Revelation I answer It is likewise well known that Christ knew not all things and particularly not the Day of Judgment Mark 13. 32. therefore he could not be God for God knows all things Besides the Scripture assures us that God gave to Christ his Revelation Rev. 1. 1. which proves that all his extraordinary Knowledg was derived from God But he always knew all Men saith the Author which cannot be done by Revelation which is particular and occasional Why not God's Revelation may be perpetual if he pleases There is no Contradiction or Impossibility in it But how has he perverted the first Verse of St. John's Revelations The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to shew unto his Servants things which must shortly come to pass This says he doth not signify that this was a Revelation made to Jesus Christ but that Revelation which Christ made for thô God is said to give to him it is to shew unto his Servants that is by appointment of God Christ shewed this Revelation unto John Alas if our Author was not able to answer this place he should not have studied to clude it If Christ made this Revelation because he is God how is it said to be given to him which can in no sense agree to him who is true God He received it says our Author to shew unto his Servants But of whom can the true God receive either Knowledg or Authority to dispense it But here are two Arguments against our Author's Doctrine 1. That God gave to Christ a Revelation But he that is God can need no Revelation because himself knoweth all things 2. That He is appointed to shew this Revelation to others Which no more can agree to one who is God than Revelation does He concludes that He desires a Mediator who knows more and in a more perfect manner But I think 't is fit we should be contented with such a Mediator as God was pleased to give us IV. His last Charge is that Socinianism justifies at least excuses both Pagan and Popish Idolatries at least as it is taught by those Men who allow of the Worship of Christ which it is certain too the Christian Religion teaches In answer hereto I will 1. Shew in what consists the Worship or Honour due to Christ 2. Compare this Worship with the Worship which Pagans exhibited to their false Gods and Papists to their Saints 1. I observe that in the Unitarian Hypothesis the Worship or Honour due to Christ is not a supream Worship such as we ought to pay to God Christ being a Creature can never be worshipped as God is Thô he be never so great and glorious a supream Worship is proper only to Almighty God and can never be bestowed on any Creature 2. As it cannot be denied that there are divers Orders of Creatures so the Honour paid to them ought to be proportionable to their Greatness and Dignity Thus in a Kingdom those who by reason of their Dignity are above the common sort of Men deserve a greater Respect and Honour than others and the King who is above them all has an Honour paid to him which is incommunicable to the rest of his Subjects By the same reason Angels who are more excellent than Men are worthy of greater Honour But Christ who has been exalted above both Men and Angels since he is King of Kings and Lord of Lords hath a proper Worship due to him which can never be given either to Angels or Men. He is God's Beloved Son by way of Excellence all Power is given to him in Heaven and Earth he is at the Right-hand of God having all things put under his Feet he deserves therefore an Honour so much greater than theirs as he is greater Phil. 2. 9 10 11. God also hath highly exalted him and given him a Name above every Name that at the Name of Jesus every Knee should bow of things in Heaven and things in Earth and things under the Earth and that every Tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord to the Glory of God the Father The Apostle does not say that every Knee ought to bow at the Name of Jesus because he is the Supream God but because God has exalted him above Men and Angels because he has obtained of God a Name above every Name the most eminent and glorious Dignity that ever was This is the true ground of the Honour which is due to Christ This St. Paul teaches and this the Unitarians profess to believe and perform 3. When we worship Christ it is to the Glory of God the Father as the Apostle speaks The Honour we pay to Christ is terminated in God we worship him as God's Ambassador and Image As he who believes in him believes in God also so he who honours him honours God also 2. Let us compare the Worship of Christ the Reader will remember we mean not thereby a Supream Worship with the Worship of False Gods among Pagans and of Saints among Papists Pagans were guilty of Idolatry because First they had no Divine Command for such Worship but even our Author confesses there is such a Command for the Worship of Christ To worship Creatures without the Warrant of God is Usurpation on and Contempt of God Secondly They worshipped and served Creatures more than the Creator as St. Paul says They set up an infinite number of Gods who had been meer Men and ascribed to them such Power as did not belong to them and such Worship as was infinitely above them They offered Sacrifices to them consecrated Temples to their Honour prayed to them in a word they paid to them such Worship as was terminated in them and so made True Gods of Men. But it is not so with the Worship of Christ We ascribe to him no other Power but what we know from the Scriptures God has bestowed on him and no other Honour but what is proportionable to that Power to the Dignity of his Person and what God himself commands us to pay him This may be applied to the Papists Let them show us any Text of Scripture which obliges us to worship St. Peter St. Paul St. Francis Were they content to keep within the bounds of Respect and Honour due to glorified Saints they should be guilty of no Fault But to pray to them as many do as Mediators both of Intercession and Merit to dedicate Churches to them to kneel down before their Images and to their Images nay to their vilest Relicks this approaches too near to Idolatry Our Author therefore mistakes when he says The greatest hurt on the Vnitarian Hypothesis seems to be that they Pagans and Papists lose their Labour but according to these Principles they do no Injury to God What then Is it all one to worship Christ by God's Appointment and to worship False Gods and Apocryphal Saints without any Warrant from God Is it all one to pay to Christ such Honour as neither exceeds his Power nor is greater than his Dignity and honour False Gods and Saints in such manner as exceeds both their Power and Merit That is Obedience to God's Will the Other detestable Usurpation and Rebellion I conclude therefore that the Vnitarians by the Worship they pay to Christ cannot be said to justify or excuse Pagans or Papists Which if it had not been an invidious Charge is so apparently False that it would not have deserved any notice And thus I have done with that part of the Doctor 's Book which I undertook to answer It may be the Historian himself might upon some Texts and to some of our Author's Objections have either explained or defended himself otherways than is here done and that we may it seems shortly see unless Dr. Sherlock thinks sit to own that he desires it not In the mean time it may be the Historian is satisfied that in these Papers I have done wrong neither to him nor to the Inviolable Truth of God God be pleased to Inspire Christians with the Spirit that leads into all Truth and with that Infallible Note of true Disciples to love one another John 13. 35. Now to him that is of Power to establish us according to his Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ to God only wise be Glory through Jesus Christ for ever Amen FINIS