so many ages with embracing Errors and Nonsense and Contradictions for Mysteries of Faith I desire to know supposing it possible for the Christian Church to be so early so generally and so miserably deceived in a matter of such moment by what light they have discovered this great Error Have they any new Books of Scripture to judge by Truly they had need for they seem to be very weary of the old ones because they find they will not serve their turn Therefore they muster up the old Objections against them and give no answer to them they find fault with Copies and say they are corrupted and falsified to speak the Language of the Church they let fall suspicious words as to the Form of Baptism as though it were inserted from the Churches Practice they charge us with following corrupt Copies and making false Translations without any manner of ground for it And doth not all this discover no good will to the Scriptures at least as they are received among us And I despair of meeting with better Copies or seeing a more faithfull Translation than ours is So that it is plain that they have no mind to be tried by the Scriptures For these exceptions are such as a Malefactor would make to a Jury he is afraid to be condemned by But what then is the peculiar light which these happy men have found in a corner the want whereof hath made the Christian Church to fall into such monstrous Errors and Contradictions Nothing they pretend but the mere light of common sense and reason which they call after a more refined way of speaking clear Ideas and distinct Perceptions of things But least I should be thought to misrepresent them I will produce some of their own Expressions In one place they say We deny the Articles of the new Christianity or the Athanasian religion not because they are Mysteries or because we do not comprehend them we deny them because we do comprehend them we have a clear and distinct Perception that they are not Mysteries but Contradictions Impossibilities and pure Nonsense We have our reason in vain and all science and certainty would be destroy'd if we could not distinguish between Mysteries and Contradictions And soon after we are not to give the venerable name of Mystery to Doctrines that are contrary to nature's and reason's Light or which destroy or contradict our natural Ideas These things I have particular reason to take notice of here because they are published as an Answer to the foregoing Sermon about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith and this shews the general grounds they go upon and therefore more fit to be consider'd here To which I shall add one passage more wherein they insinuate that the Doctrine of the Trinity hath been supported only by interest and force Their words are after they have called the Doctrine of the Trinity a monstrous Paradox and Contradiction This is that say they which because all other arguments failed them in their disputations with the Photinians and Arians they at last effectually proved by the Imperial Edicts by Confiscations and Banishments by Seizing and Burning all Books written against it or them by capital Punishments and when the Papacy of which this is the chief Article prevailed by Fire and Faggot This is a new discovery indeed that the Doctrine of the Trinity as it is generally receiv'd in the Christian Church is the chief Article of Popery although it were embraced and defended long before Popery was known and I hope would be so if there were no such thing as Popery left in the world But if every thing which displeases some men must pass for Popery I am afraid Christianity it self will not escape at last for there are some who are building apace on such foundations as these and are endeavouring what they can to remove out of their way all revealed Religion by the help of those two powerfull Machines viz. Priest-craft and Mysteries But because I intend a clear and distinct Discourse concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity as it hath been generally received among us I shall proceed in these four Enquiries 1. Whether it was accounted a monstrous Paradox and Contradiction where Persons were not sway'd by Force and Interest 2. Whether there be any ground of common reason on which it can be justly charged with Nonsense Impossibilities and Contradiction 3. Whether their Doctrine about the Trinity or ours be more agreeable to the sense of Scripture and Antiquity 4. Whether our Doctrine being admitted it doth overthrow all certainty of reason and makes way for believing the greatest Absurdities under the pretence of being Mysteries of Faith CHAP. II. The Doctrine of the Trinity not received in the Christian Church by Force or Interest AS to the first it will lead me into an enquiry into the sense of the Christian Church as to this Doctrine long before Popery was hatched and at a time when the main force of Imperial Edicts was against Christianity it self at which time this Doctrine was owned by the Christian Church but disowned and disputed against by some particular Parties and Sects And the question then will be whether these had engrossed Sense and Reason and Knowledge among themselves and all the body of the Christian Church with their heads and governors were bereft of common Sense and given up to believe Nonsense and Contradictions for Mysteries of Faith But in order to the clearing this matter I take it for granted That Sense and Reason are no late inventions only to be found among our Vnitarians but that all Mankind have such a competent share of them as to be able to judge what is agreeable to them and what not if they apply themselves to it That no men have so little sense as to be fond of Nonsense when sense will do them equal service That if there be no Biass of Interest to sway them men will generally judge according to the evidence of reason That if they be very much concerned for a Doctrine opposed by others and against their interest they are perswaded of the truth of it by other means than by force and fear That it is possible for men of sense and reason to believe a Doctrine to be true on the account of divine Revelation although they cannot comprehend the manner of it That we have reason to believe those to be men of sense above others who have shew'd their abilities above them in other matters of Knowledge and Speculation That there can be no reason to suspect the integrity of such men in delivering their own Sense who at the same time might far better secure their interest by renouncing their Faith lastly That the more Persons are concerned to establish and defend a Doctrine which is opposed and contemned the greater evidence they give that they are perswaded of the truth of it These are Postulata so agreeable to sense and common reason that I think if an affront to human Nature
Sabellius called Persons But by this Foundation he doth not mean any distinct Essences but the incommunicable Properties belonging to them as Father Son and Holy Ghost It is plain from hence that the necessity of asserting three Hypostases came from thence that otherwise they could not so well distinguish themselves from the Sabellians whose Doctrine they utterly disowned as well as Arianism and Iudaism and it appears by the Testimonies of Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen and S. Basil that they look'd on one as bad as the other and they commonly joyn Iudaism and Sabellianism together But yet there arose Difficulties whether they were to hold one Hypostasis or three The former insisted on the generally received Sense of Hypostasis for Substance or Essence and therefore they could not hold three Hypostases without three distinct Essences as the Platonists and Marcionists held Upon this a Synod was called at Alexandria to adjust this matter where both Parties were desired to explain themselves Those who held three Hypostases were asked Whether they maintained three Hypostases as the Arians did of different Substances and separate Subsistences as Mankind and other Creatures are Or as other Hereticks three Principles or three Gods All which they stedfastly denied Then they were asked Why they used those terms They answered Because they believed the Holy Trinity to be more than mere Names and that the Father and Son and Holy Ghost had a real Subsistence belonging to them but still they held but one Godhead one Principle and the Son of the same Substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost not to be a Creature but to bear the same proper and inseparable Essence with the Father and the Son Then the other side were asked When they asserted but one Hypostasis whether they held with Sabellius or not and that the Son and Holy Ghost had no Essence or Subsistence which they utterly denied but said that their meaning was That Hypostasis was the same with Substance and by one Hypostasis they intended no more but that the Father Son and Holy Ghost were of the same individual Substance for the Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so they held but one Godhead and one divine Nature and upon these terms they agreed From whence it follows that the Notion of three Hypostases as it was received in the Christian Church was to be underâ—â—ood so as to be consistent with the Individual Vnity of the divine Essence And the great rule of the Christian Church was to keep in the middle between the Doctrines of Sabellius and Arius and so by degrees the Notion of three Hypostases and one Essence was look'd on in the Eastern Church as the most proper Discrimination of the Orthodox from the Sabellians and Arians But the Latin Church was not so easily brought to the use of three Hypostases because they knew no other Sense of it but for Substance or Essence and they all denied that there was any more than one divine Substance and therefore they rather embraced the Word Persona and did agree in the Name of Persons as most proper to signifie their meaning which was That there were three which had distinct Subsistences and incommunicable Properties and one and the same divine Essence And since the Notion of it is so well understood to signifie such a peculiar Sense I see no reason why any should scruple the use of it As to it s not being used in Scripture Socinus himself despises it and allows it to be no good reason For when Franciscus Davides objected That the terms of Essence and Person were not in Scripture Socinus tells him That they exposed their cause who went upon such grounds and that if the sense of them were in Scripture it was no matter whether the terms were or not Hâ—ving thus clear'd the Notion of three Persons I return to the Sense of Scripture about these matters And our Vnitarians tell us that we ought to interpret Scripture otherwise How doth that appear They give us very little encouragement to follow their Interpretations which are so new so forced so different from the general Sense of the Christian World and which I may say reflect so highly on the Honour of Christ and his Apostles i. e. by making use of such Expressions which if they do not mean what to honest and sincere Minds they appear to do must be intended according to them to set up Christ a meer Man to be a God And if such a thought as this could enter into the Mind of a thinking Man it would tempt him to suspect much more as to those Writings than there is the least colour or reason for Therefore these bold inconsiderate Writers ought to reflect on the consequence of such sort of Arguments and if they have any regard to Christianity not to trifle with Scripture as they do But say they The question only is Whether we ought to interpret Scripture when it speaks of God according to reason or not that is like Fools or like wise Men Like wise Men no doubt if they can hit upon it but they go about it as untowardly as ever Men did For is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men to take up some novel Interpretations against the general Sense of the Christian Church from the Apostles times Is this to act like wise Men to raise Objections against the Authority of the Books they cannot answer and to cry out of false Copies and Translations without reason and to render all places suspicious which make against them Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men to make our Saviour affect to be thought a God when he knew himself to be a mere Man and by their own Confession had not his divine Authority and Power conferr'd upon him And to make his Apostles set up the Worship of a Creature when their design was to take away the Worship of all such who by Nature are not Gods Is this like wise Men to tell the World that these were only such Gods whom they had set up and God had not appointed as though there were no Real Idolatry but in giving Divine Worship without God's Command CHAP. VIII The Socinian Sense of Scripture examined BUT they must not think to escape so easily for such a groundless and presumptuous saying that they interpret the Scripture not like Fools but like Wise Men because the true sense of Scripture is really the main point between us and therefore I shall more carefully examine the Wise Sense they give of the chief places which relate to the matter in hand 1. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise Men to make the Author to the Hebrews in one Chapter and that but a short one to bring no less than four places out of the Old Testament and according to their Sense not one of them proves that which he aimed at viz. that Christ was superiour to Angels Heb. 1.5 as will appear by the Sense they give of
Question his Fidelity in reporting however he might be unhappy in his Explications 3. Tertullian himself saith Schlichtingius in other Places where he speaks of the rule of Faith doth not mention the Holy Ghost and therefore this seems added by him for the sake of the Paraclete But this can be of no force to any one that considers that Tertullian grounds his Doctrine not on any New Revelation by the Paraclete but on the Rule of Faith received in the Church long before and upon the Form of Baptism prescribed by our Saviour Will they say the Holy Ghost was there added for the sake of Montanus his Paraclete And in another of his Books he owns the Father Son and Holy Ghost to make up the Trinity in Vnity Wherein Petavius himself confesses That he asserted the Doctrine of the Church in a Catholick manner although he otherwise speaks hardly enough of him The next I shall mention is Novatian whom Schlichtingius allows to have been before the Nicene-Council and our modern Vnitarians call him a great Man whoever he was and very ancient And there are two things I observe in him 1. That he opposes Sabellianism for before his time Praxeas and Noetus were little talked of especially in the Western Church but Sabellius his Name and Doctrine were very well known by the opposition to him by the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome He sticks not at the calling it Heresie several times and Disputes against it and answers the Objection about the Vnity of the Godhead 2. That he owns that the Rule of Faith requires our believing in Father Son and Holy Ghost and asserts the Divine Eternity of it and therefore must hold the Doctrine of the Trinity to be the Faith of the Church contained in the Form of Baptism For he saith The Authority of Faith and the Holy Scriptures admonish us to believe not only in the Father and Son but in the Holy Ghost Therefore the Holy Ghost must be considered as an object of Faith joyned in the Scripture with the other two which is no where more express than in the Form of Baptism which as S. Cyprian saith was to be administred in the full Confession of the Trinity in the place already mentionâ—d And it is observable that S. Cyprian rejects the Baptism of those who denied the Trinity at that time among whom he instances in the Patripassians who it seems were then spread into Africa The Dispute about the Marcionites Baptism was upon another ground for they held a real Trinity as appears by Dionysius Romanus in Athanasius and Epiphanius c. but the Question was whether they held the same Trinity or not S. Cyprian saith That our Saviour appointed his Apostles to baptize in the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost and in the Sacrament of this Trinity they were to baptize Doth Marcion hold this Trinity So that S. Cyprian supposed the validity of Baptism to depend on the Faith of the Trinity And if he had gone no farther I do not see how he had transgressed the Rules of the Church but his Error was that he made void Baptism upon difference of Communion and therein he was justly opposed But the Marcionites Baptism was rejected in the Eastern Church because of their Doctrine about the Trinity In the Parts of Asia about Ephesus Noetus had broached the same Doctrine which Praxeas had done elsewhere For which he was called to an account and himself with his Followers we cast out of the Churches Communion as Epiphanius reports which is another considerable Testimony of the Sense of the Church at that time Epiphanius saith he was the first who broached that Blasphemy but Theodoret mentions Epigonus and Cleomenes before him it seems that he was the first who was publickly taken notice of for it and therefore underwent the Censure of the Church with his Disciples When he was first summon'd to answer he denied that he asserted any such Doctrine because no man before him saith Epiphanius had vented such Poison And in the beginning he saith that Noetus out of a Spirit of Contradiction had utter'd such things as neither the Prophets nor the Apostles nor the Church of God ever thought or declared Now what was this unheard of Doctrine of Noetus That appears best by Noetus his answer upon his second appearance which was That he worshipped One God and knew of no other who was born and suffer'd and died for us and for this he produced the several places which assert the Vnity of the Godhead and among the rest one very observable Rom. 9.5 Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever From whence he inferr'd that the Son and the Father were the same and the same he affirmed of the Holy Ghost But from hence we have an evident Proof that the most ancient Greek Copies in Noetus his time which was long before the Council of Nice had God in the Text. Epiphanius brings many places of Scripture to prove the Distinction of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead but that is not my present business but to shew the general Sense of the Church at that time I do not say that Noetus was condemned by a general Council but it is sufficient to shew that he was cast out of the Church where he broached his Doctrine and no other Church received him or condemned that Church which cast him out which shews an after Consent to it Now what was this Doctrine of Noetus The very same with that of Praxeas at Rome Theodoret saith this his Opinon was That there was but One God the Father who was himself impassible but as he took our Nature so he was passible and called the Son Epiphanius more fully that the same Person was Father Son and Holy Ghost wherein he saith he plainly contradicts the Scriptures which attribute distinct Personalities to them and yet assert but one Godhead The Father hath an Hypostasis of his own and so have the Son and Holy Ghost but yet there is but one Divinity one Power and one Dominion for these distinct Persons are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same individual Essence and Power But Epiphanius was no Ante-Nicene Father however in matters of Antiquity where there is no incongruity in the thing we may make use of his Authority and I think no one will question that Noetus was condemned which was the thing I produced him to prove But although Noetus was condemned yet this Doctrine did spread in the Eastern parts for Origen mentions those who confounded the Notion of Father and Son and made them but one Hypostasis and distinguished only by thought and Denomination This Doctrine was opposed not only by Origen but he had the Sense of the Church concurring with him as appears in the Case of Beryllus Bishop of Bostra who fell into this Opinion and was reclaimed by Origen and Eusebius gives this
Creed is not liable to their charges of Contradiction Impossibilities and pure Nonsense 2. That we own no other Doctrine than what hath been received by the Christian Church in the several Ages from the Apostles Times 3. And that there are no Objections in point of reason which ought to hinder our Assent to this great point of the Christian Faith But the chief Design of this Preface is to remove this Prejudice which lies in our way from the different manners of Explication and the warm Disputes which have been occasion'd by them It cannot be denied that our Adversaries have taken all possible advantage against us from these unhappy differences and in one of their latest Discourses they glory in it and think they have therein out-done the foreign Unitarians For say they We have shewed that their Faiths concerning this pretended Mystery are so many and so contrary that they are less one Party among themselves than the far more learned and greater number of them are one Party with us this is spoken of those they call Nominal Trinitarians and for the other whom they call Real they prove them guilty of manifest Heresie the one they call Sabellians which they say is the same with Unitarians and the other Polytheists or disguised Pagans and they borrow arguments from one side to prove the charge upon the other and they confidently affirm that all that speak out in this matter must be driven either to Sabellianism or Tritheism If they are Nominal Trinitarians they fall into the former if Real into the latter This is the whole Design of this late Discourse which I shall here examine that I may remove this stumbling Block before I enter upon the main business 1. As to those who are called Nominal Trinitarians Who are they And from whence comes such a Denomination They tell us That they are such who believe three Persons who are Persons in Name only indeed and in truth they are but one subsisting Person But where are these to be found Among all such say they as agree that there is but one only and self-same divine Essence and Substance But do these assert that there is but one subsisting Person and three only in Name Let any one be produced who hath written in defence of the Trinity for those who have been most charged have utterly deny'd it That learned Person who is more particularly reflected upon in this Charge is by them said to affirm That God is one divine intellectual Substance or really subsisting Person and distinguished and diversified by three relative Modes or relative Subsistences And Mr. Hooker is produc'd to the same purpose That there is but one Substance in God and three distinct relaâ—ive Properties which Substance being taken with its peculiar Property makes the distinction of Persons in the Godhead But say they These Modes and Properties do not make any real subsisting Persons but only in a Grammatical and Critical Sense and at most this is no more than one Man may be said to be three Persons on the account of different Relations as Solomon was Son of David Father of Rehoboam and proceeding from David and Bathsheba and yet was but one subsisting Pâ—rson This is the force of what they say But then in a triumphing manner they add That the Realists have so manifest an advantage against them that they have no way to deâ—end themselves but by Recrimination i. e. by shewing the like Absurdity in their Doctrine And thus they hope either side will baffle the other and in the mean time the Cause be lost between them But in so nice a matter as this we must not rely too much on an Adversaries Representation for the leaving out some expressions may make an opinion look with another Appearance than if all were taken together it would have We must therefore take notice of other passages which may help to give the true Sense of the learned Author who is chiefly aimed at 1. In the very same Page he asserts That each of the divine Persons has an absolute Nature distinctly belonging to him though not a distinct absolute Nature and to the same purpose in another place 2. That the eternal Father is and subsists as a Father by having a Son and communicating his Essence to another And elsewhere that the Relation between Father and Son is founded on that eternal Act by which the Father communicates his divine Nature to the Son 3. That the foundation of the Doctrine of the Trinity is this 1. That there can be but one God 2. That there is nothing in God but what is God 3. That there can be no Composition in the Deity with any such positive real Being distinct from the Deity it self But the Church finding in Scripture mention of three to whom distinctly the Godhead does belong expressed these three by the Name of Persons and stated their Personalities upon three distinct Modes of Subsistence allotted to one and the same Godhead and these also distinguished from one another by three distinct Relations What do these men mean to charge one who goes upon these grounds with Sabellianism Doth he make the three Persons to be mere Names as S. Basil in few words expresses the true nature of Sabellianism that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One thing with different Denominations Can the communicating the divine Essence by the Father to the Son be called a Name or a Mode or a Respect only And these Men of wonderfull Subtilty have not learnt to distinguish between Persons and Personalities Where is the least Intimation given that he look'd on the divine Persons as Modes and Respects only That is impossible since he owns a Communication of the divine Essence and that each of the divine Persons hath the divine Nature belonging to him could it ever enter into any Man's head to think that he that owns this should own the other also But the Personality is a thing of another consideration For it is the reason of the distinction of Persons in the same undivided Nature That there is a distinction the Scripture assures us and withall that there is but one divine Essence How can this distinction be Not by essential Attributes for those must be in the divine Essence and in every Person alike otherwise he hath not the entire divine Nature not by accidents as Men are distinguished from each other for the divine Nature is not capable of these not by separate or divided Substances for that would be inconsistent with the perfect Vnity of the Godhead since therefore there can be no other way of distinction we must consider how the Scripture directs us iâ— this case and that acquaints us with the Father Son and Holy Ghost as having mutual Relation to each other and there is no Repugnancy therein to the divine Nature and therefore the distinction of the Persons hath been fixed on that as the most proper foundation for it
they not affirm them If they are false why do they not answer them Is this done like those who believe the Gospel of S. John to be divine to produce all the arguments they could meet with against it and never offer to shew the Weakness and Vnreasonableness of them Doth not this look like a design to furnish the Deists with such arguments as they could meet with against it Especially when they say That S. Iohn doth not oppose them Why then are these Arguments produced against his Gospel Men do not use to dispute against their Friends nor to tell the World what all People have said against them and give not a word of answer in vindication of them But they say The modern Vnitarians allow of the Gospel and other Pieces of S. Iohn A very great favour indeed to allow of them But how far As of divine Authority Not a word of that But as ancient Books which they think it not fit for them to dispute against But if the ancient Ebionites were their Predecessors as they affirm they can allow none but the Gospel according to the Hebrews and must reject the rest and all S. Paul's Epistles and in truth they make him argue so little to the purpose that they must have a very mean opinion of his Writings But of these things in the Discourse it self As to Church-men no professed Deists could express themselves more spitefully than they have done and that against those to whom they profess the greatest respect What then would they say of the rest They say in general That it is natural to Worldlings to mercenary Spirits to the timorous and ambitious in a word to all such as preferr not God before all other whether Persons or Considerations to believe as they would have it But although the words be general yet any one that looks into them may sâ—eâ— find that they were intended for such Church-men who had written against their opinions And the Insinuation is that if it were not for worldly Interests they would own them to be in the right Whereas I am fully perswaded that they have no way to defend their Opinions but to reject the Scriptures and declare themselves Deists and as long as we retain a just Veneration for the Scripture we can be of no other Opinion because we look on their Interpretations as unreasonable new forced and inconsistent with the circumstances of Places and the main Scope and Tenor of the New Testament But their Introduction to the Answer to the late Archbishop's Sermons about the Trinity and Incarnation shew their Temper sufficiently as to all Church-men He was the Person they professed to esteem and reverence above all others and confess that he instructs them in the Air and Language of a Father which at least deserved a little more dutifull Language from them But some Mens fondness for their Opinions breaks all bounds of Civility and Decency for presently after mentioning the Archbishop and other Bishops who had written against them they say it signifies nothing to the case That they are great Pensioners of the World For it is certain we have a mighty Propensity to believe as is for our Turn and Interest And soon after that their Opposers are under the power of such fatal Biasses that their Doctrine is the more to be suspected because it is theirs For the reason why they maintain the Doctrine of the Trinity is because they must The plain meaning of all this is that the late Archbishop as well as the rest was a mere self-interested Man which none who knew either the outside or inside of Lambeth could ever imagine that if he were really against them as none could think otherwise who knew him so well and so long as I did it only shew'd what a strange Power Interest hath in the Minds of all Church-men But what Bias was it which made him write with that Strength and Iudgment against their Opinions Let us set aside all Titles of Respect and Honour as they desire let Reason be compared with Reason and his Arguments with their Answers and it will be soon found that the advantage which he had was not from any other Dignity than that of a clearer Iudgment and a much stronger way of Reasoning Whereas their Answers are such as may well be supposed to come from those who had some such Bias that they must at least seem to answer what in truth they could not As hath been fully made appear in the Vindication of him to which no reply hath been given although other Treatises of theirs have come out since In the Conclusion of that Answer they say That they did not expect that their Answer should satisfie us and in truth they had a great deal of reason to think so But what reason do they give for it A very kind one no doubt because Prepossession and Interest have taken hold of us As though we were Men of such mean and mercenary Spirits as to believe according to Prepossession without Reason and to act only as serves our present Interest But we never made mean Addresses to Infidels to shew how near our Principles came to theirs nor made Parallels between the Trinity and Transubstantiation as some did and defended them as well as they could when Popery was uppermost But enough of this 3. We have seen how much they have gratified the Deists by representing Church-men in such a manner let us now see in what manner they treat the Deists It is with another sort of Language and which argues a more than ordinary kindness to them In one place they say That the Deists are mostly well-natured Men and Men of Probity and Understanding in effect that they are sincere honest-hearted Men who do good by the impulse of their natural Religion Honesty and good Conscience which have great Influence upon them What another sort of character is this from that of the greatest and in their opinion the best of our Clergy This must proceed from some Intimacy and Familiarity with them and it is easie to imagine from hence that they are upon very good Terms with one another because they must be Unitarians if they believe a God at all But where else are these honest conscientious Deists to be found It is rare indeed for others to find any one that rejects Christianity out of pure Conscience and that acts by principles of sincere Virtue I never yet could meet with such nor hear of those that have And I would fain know the reasons on which such conscientious Men proceeded for truly the Principles of natural Religion are those which recommend Christianity to me for without them the Mysteries of Faith would be far more unaccountable than now they are and supposing them I see no Incongruity in them i. e. That there is a just and holy God and a wise Providence and a future State of Rewards and Punishments and that God designs to bring Mankind
there were two Persons in Christ one Divine and the other Humane and two Sons the one by Nature the Son of God who had a Pre existence and the other the Son of David who had no subsistence before This is the opinion which Dionysius sets himself against in that Epistle and which therefore â—ome may imagine was written after Nestorius his Heresie But that was no new Heresie as appears by the Cerinthians and it was that which Paulus Samosatenus fled to as more plausible which not only appears by this Epistle but by what Athanasius and Epiphanius have delivered concerning it Athanasius wrote a Book of the Incarnation against the followers of Paulus Samosatenus who held as he saith Two Persons in Christ viz. One born of the Virgin and a divine Person which descended upon him and dwelt in him Against which opinion he disputes from two places of Scripture viz. God was manifest in the Flesh and the Word was made Flesh and from the ancient Doctrine of the Christian Church and the Synod of Antioch against Paulus Samosatenus And in another place he saith that he held That the divine Word dwelt in Christ. And the words of Epiphanius are express to the same purpose That the Logos came and dwelt in the Man Iesus And the Clergy of Constantinople charged Nestorius with following the Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus And Photius in his Epistles saith That Nestorius tasted too much of the intoxicated Cups of Paulus Samosatenus and in the foregoing Epistle he saith That Paulus his followers asserted two Hypostases in Christ. But some think that Paulus Samosatenus did not hold any subsistence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before but that the Word was in God before without any subsistence of its own and that God gave it a distinct subsistence when it inhabited in the Person of Christ and so Marius Mercator and Leontius understand him who say that he differ'd from Nestorius therein who asserted a Divine Word with its proper subsistence But according to them Paulus by the Word undersâ—ood that Divine Energy whereby Christ acted and which dwelt in him but Dionysius saith he made two Christs and two Sons of God But the Doctrine of the Christian Church he saith was that there was but one Christ and one Son who wâ—s the Eternal Word and was made Flesh. And it is observable that he brings the very same places we do now to prove this Doctrine as In the beginning was the Word c. and Before Abraham was I am It seems that some of the Bishops who had been upon the examination of his Opinions before the second Synod which deposed him sent him an account of their Faith and required his answer wherein they declare the Son not to be God according to God's Decree which he did not stick at but that he was so really and substantially and whosoever denied this they said was out of the Communion of the Church and all the Catholick Churches agreed with them in it And they declare that they received this Doctrine from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and bring the same places we do now as Thy Throne O God was for ever c. Who is over all God blessed for ever All things were made by him c. And we do not find that Paulus Samosatenus as subtle as he was ever imagin'd that these places belong'd to any other than Christ or that the making of all things was to be understood of the making of nothing but putting it into mens power to make themselves new Creatures These were discoveries only reserved for the Men of Sense and clear Ideas in these brighter Ages of the World But at last after all the arts and subterfuges which Paulus Samosatenus used there was a Man of Sense as it happen'd among the Clergy of Antioch called Malchion who was so well acquainted with his Sophistry that he drove him out of all and laid his Sense so open before the second Synod that he was solemnly deposed for denying the Divinity of the Son of God and his Descent from Heaven as appears by their Synodical Epistle It is pity we have it not entire but by the Fragments of it which are preserved by some ancient Writers we find that his Doctrine of the Divinity in him by Inhabitation was then condemned and the substantial Union of both Natures asserted I have only one thing more to observe concerning him which is that the Arian Party in their Decree at Sardica or rather Philippopolis do confess that Paulus Samosatenus his Doctrine was condemned by the whole Christian World For they say That which passed in the Eastern Synod was signed and approved by all And Alexander Bishop of Alexandria in his Epistle to Alexander of Constantinople affirms the same And now I hope I may desire our Men of Sense to reflect upon these Matters Here was no Fire nor Faggot threatned no Imperial Edicts to inforce this Doctrine nay the Queen of those parts under whose Jurisdiction they lived at that time openly espoused the cause of Paulus Samosatenus so that here could be nothing of interest to sway them to act in opposition to her And they found his interest so strong that he retained the Possession of his See till Aurelian had conquer'd Zenobia and by his authority he was ejected This Synod which deposed him did not sit in the time of Aurelian as is commonly thought but before his time while Zenobia had all the power in her hands in those Eastern parts which she enjoy'd five years till she was dispossess'd by Aurelian from whence Ant. Pagi concludes that Paulus kept his See three years after the Sentence against him but upon application to Aurelian he who afterwards began a Persecution against all Christians gave this rule That he with whom the Italian Bishops and those of Rome communicated should enjoy the See upon which Paulus was at last turned out By this we see a concurrence of all the Christian Bishops of that time against him that denied the Divinity of our Saviour and this without any force and against their interest and with a general consent of the Christian World For there were no mighty Awes and Draconic Sanctions to compell of which they sometimes speak as if they were the only powerfull methods to make this Doctrine go down And what greater argument can there be that it was then the general sense of the Christian Church And it would be very hard to condemn all his Opposers for men that wanted Sense and Reason because they so unanimously opposed him Not so unanimously neither say our Vnitarians because Lucian a Presbyter of the Church of Antioch and a very learned man joyned with him It would have been strange indeed if so great a Man as Paulus Samosatenus could prevail with none of his own Church to joyn with him especially one that came from the same place of Samosata as
words 1. They say That there is a Note of distinction and Superiority For Christ owns that his Power was given to him by the Father There is no question but that the Person who suffer'd on the Cross had Power given to him after his Resurrection but the true Question is whether his Sonship were then given to him He was then declared to be the Son of God with Power and had a Name or Authority given him above every Name being exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to give Repentance and Remission of Sins in order to which he now appointed his Apostles to teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost He doth not say in the name of Iesus who suffer'd on the Cross nor in the name of Iesus the Christ now exalted but in the name of Father Son and Holy Ghost and although there were a double Gift with respect to the Son and Holy Ghost the one as to his Royal Authority over the Church the other as to his extraordinary Effusion on the Apostles yet neither of these are so much as intimated but the Office of Baptism is required to be performed in the Name of these three as distinct and yet equal without any Relation to any Gift either as to the Son or Holy Ghost But if the ancient Iews were in the Right as we think they were then we have a plain account how these came to be thus mention'd in the Form of Baptism viz. that these three distinct Subsistences in the Divine Essence were not now to be kept up as a secret Mystery from the World but that the Christian Church was to be formed upon the Belief of it 2. They bring several places of Scripture where God and his Creatures are joyned without any Note of distinction or Superiority as The people feared the Lord and Samuel 1 Sam. 12.18 They worshipped the Lord and the King 1 Chron. 29.20 I charge thee before God the Lord Iesus Christ and his elect Angels 1 Tim. 5.21 The Spirit and the Bride say come Revel 22.17 But can any Man of Sense imagine these places contain a Parallel with a Form of Words wherein men are entred into the Profession of a new Religion and by which they were to be distinguished from all other Religions in the former places the Circumstances were so notorious as to God and the Civil Magistrate that it shews no more than that the same external Acts may be used to both but with such a different Intention as all men understood it What if S. Paul name the elect Angels in a solemn Obtestation to Timothy together with God and the Lord Iesus Christ What can this prove but that we may call God and his Creatures to be Witnesses together of the same thing And so Heaven and Earth are called to bear Witness against obstinate Sinners May men therefore be baptized in the name of God and his Creatures The Spirit and Bride may say come without any Incongruity but it would have been strange indeed if they had said Come be baptized in the Name of the Spirit and the Bride So that these Instances are very remote from the purpose But they say farther That the ancients of the first Four hundred years do not insist on this place to prove the Divinity or Personality of the Son or Spirit As to the first Three hundred years I have given an account already and as to the Fourth Century I could not have thought that they would have mention'd it since there is scarce a Father of the Church in that time who had occasion to do it but makes use of the Argument from this place to prove the Divinity and Personality of the Son and Spirit Athanasius saith That Christ founded his Church on the Doctrine of the Trinity contained in these Words and if the Holy Ghost had been of a different Nature from the Father and Son he would never have been joyned with them in a Form of Baptism no more than an Angel or any other Creature For the Trinity must be Eternal and Indivisible which it could not be if any created Being were in it and therefore he disputes against the Arian Baptism although performed with the same Words because they joyned God and a Creature together in Baptism To the same purpose argue Didymus Gregory Nazianzen S. Basil and others within the Compass of four hundred years whose Testimonies are produced by Petavius to whom I refer the Reader if he hath a mind to be satisfied in so clear a Point that I cannot but think our Vnitarians never intended to take in the Fathers after the Council of Nice who are so expressly against them and therefore I pass it over as a slip 4. They object That the Form of Baptism implies no more than being admitted into that Religion which proceeds from God the Father and deliver'd by his Son and confirmed by the Testimony of the Holy Ghost So much we grant is implied but the Question still remains whether the Son and Holy Ghost are here to be consider'd only in order to their Operations or whether the Persons of the Son and Holy Ghost from whom those Effects came are not here chiefly intended For if no more had been meant but these Effects then the right Form of Admission had not been into the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost but in the Name of the Father alone as Revealing himself by his Son and Confirming it by the miraculous Works of the Holy Ghost For these are only subservient Acts to the design of God the Father as the only subsisting Person 5. They tell us That it is in vain not to say ridiculously pretended that a Person or Thing is God because we are baptized into it for some were baptized into Moses and others into John's Baptism and so Moses and John Baptist would be Gods and to be baptized into a Person or Persons and in the name of such a Person is the same thing Grant this yet there is a great difference between being baptized in the name of a Minister of Baptism and of the Author of a Religion into which they are baptized The Israelites were baptized unto Moses but how The Syriac and Arabic Versions render it per Mosen and so S. Augustin reads it And this seems to be the most natural sense of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is Act. 7.53 compared with Gal. 3.19 And the force of the Apostle's Argument doth not lie in the Parallel between being baptized into Moses and into Christ but in the Privileges they had under the Ministery of Moses with those which Christians enjoyed The other place implies no more than being enter'd into that Profession which John baptized his Disciples into But doth any one imagine that because Iohn Baptist did enter his Disciples by Baptism therefore they must believe him to be God
I know none that lay the force of the Argument upon any thing parallel to those Places But it depends upon laying the Circumstances together Here was a new Religion to be taught mankind and they were to be entred into it not by a bare verbal Profession but by a solemn Rite of Baptism and this Baptism is declar'd to be in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which cannot be understood of their Ministery and therefore must relate to that Faith which they were baptized into which was concerning the Father Son and Holy Ghost And so the Christian Church understood it from the beginning as I have proved in the foregoing Discourse And from hence came the Instruction of Catechumens who were to be baptized about the Trinity and the first Creeds which related only to them as I have already observed And so much our Vnitarians grant in one of their latest Pamphlets that a Creed was an Institution or Instruction what we are to believe in the main and fundamental Articles especially concerning the Persons of Father Son and Holy Ghost But they contend That the Creed which bears the Name of the Apostles was the Original Creed framed by the Apostles themselves because they suppose this Creed doth not assert the Son and Holy Ghost to be Eternal and Divine Persons and therefore they conclude that the Makers of this Creed either did not know that any other Person but the Father is God or Almighty or Maker of Heaven and Earth or they have negligently or wickedly concealed it This is a matter so necessary to be clear'd that I shall examine these two things before I put an end to this Discourse 1. What Proofs they bring that this Creed was framed by the Apostles 2. What Evidence they produce that this Creed excludes the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost 1. As to the Proofs they bring that this Creed was framed by the Apostles We believe the Creed to be Apostolical in the true Sense of it but that it was so in that Frame of Words and Enumeration of Articles as it is now receiv'd hath been called in question by some Criticks of great Judgment and Learning whom I have already mentioned Erasmus saith He doth not question the Articles being Apostolical but whether the Apostles put it thus into Writing And his chief Argument is from the Variety of the Ancient Creeds of which no Account can be given so probable as that they were added Occasionally in opposition to a growing Heresie As for Instance the Word Impassible was inserted with Respect to the Father in the ancient Eastern Creed against the Doctrine of Sabellius but it was not in the old Western Creed And he argues That the Apostolical Creed ended with the Holy Ghost because the Nicene Creed did so And Vossius thinks the other Articles which are in Cyril were added after the Nicene Council which would not have omitted them if they had been in the former Creed And when there were so many Creeds made afterwards it is observable that they do all end with the Article of the Holy Ghost which they would never have done in so jealous a time about Creeds if they had left out any Articles of what was then receiv'd for the Apostolical Creed The first Creed after the Nicene which made great noise in the World was that framed at Antioch and that Creed not only ends with the Article of the Holy Ghost but mentions the Form of Baptism and our Saviours commanding his Apostles to baptize in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as the Foundation of the Creed For it hereby appears that the Father is true Father and the Son true Son and the Holy Ghost true Holy Ghost not bare Names but such as import three distinct Subsistences For Hilary observes That this Council chiefly intended to overthrow Sabellianism and therefore asserted tres Subsistentium Personas as Hilary interprets their meaning and so doth Epiphanius which was to remove the Suspition that they asserted only triplicis vocabuli Vnionem as Hilary speaks The next Creed is of the Eastern Bishops at Sardica and that ends wiâ—h the Holy Ghost and so do both the Creeds at Sirmium and the latter calls the Article of the Trinity the close of our Faith which is always to be kept according to our Saviour's command Go teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost So that in all these Creeds about which there was so much heat in the Christian Church there was not the least Objection that any Articles of the Apostolical Creed were omitted It is no Argument That there was then no contest about these Articles for they were bound to give in an entire Creed and so the Council of Antioch declares that they would publish the Confession of the Faith of the Church and how could this be if they left out such Articles which had been always receivâ—d from the Apostles times But certainly our Vnitarians would not attack such Men as Erasmus and Vossius in a matter relating to Antiquity if they had not some good Arguments on their side Their first business is to shew that some of Vossius his Arguments are not conclusive such as they are I leave them to any one that will compare them with the Answers But there are two things they lay weight upon 1. That the whole Christian Church East and West could not have agreed in the same Creed as to Number and Order of Articles and manner of Expression if this Creed had not come from the same Persons from whom they receiv'd the Gospel and the Scriptures Namely from the Apostles and Preachers of Christianity 2. That it was receiv'd by a constant Tradition to have been the Apostles not a bare Oral Tradition but the Tradition of the ancient Commentators upon it Now these I confess to be as good Arguments as the Matters will bear and I will no longer contest this Point with them provided that we be allowed to make use of the same Arguments as to the second Point wherein they undertake to prove That the Apostles Creed doth exclude the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost What is now become of the general Consent of the Christian Church East and West and of the Commentators upon this Creed If the Argument hold good in one Case I hope it will be allowed to do so in the other also And what greater Testimony can be given of such a Consent of the Christian Church than that those who opposed it have been condemned by it and that the Church hath expressed her Sense of it in Publick and Private Acts of Devotion and Divine Worship and have defended it as a necessary part of the Christian Faith against the Assaults of Infidels and Hereticks So that although the Apostles Creed do not in express words declare The Divinity of the three Persons in the Vnity of the Divine
Essence yet taking the Sense of those Articles as the Christian Church understood them from the Apostles times then we have as full and clear Evidence of this Doctrine as we have that we receiv'd the Scriptures from them CHAP. X. The Objections against the Trinity in Point of Reason answer'd HAving in the foregoing Chapters endeavour'd to clear the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Charge of Contradictions and to prove it agreeable to the Sense of Scripture and the Primitive Church I now come in the last place to Examine the remaining Objections in Point of Reason and those are 1. That this Doctrine is said to be a Mystery and therefore above Reason and we cannot in reason be obliged to believe any such thing 2. That if we allow any such Mysteries of Faith as are above Reason there can be no stop put to any absurd Doctrines but they may be receiv'd on the same Grounds 1. As to this Doctrine being said to be above Reason and therefore not to be believ'd we must consider two things 1. What we understand by Reason 2. What ground in Reason there is to reject any Doctrine above it when it is proposed as a Matter of Faith 1. What we understand by Reason I do not find that our Vnitarians have explained the Nature and Bounds of Reason in such manner as those ought to have done who make it the Rule and Standard of what they are to believe But sometimes they speak of clear and distinct Perceptions sometimes of natural Ideas sometimes of congenit Notions c. But a late Author hath endeavour'd to make amends for this and takes upon him to make this matter clear and to be sure to do so he begins with telling us That Reason is not the Soul abstractedly consider'd no doubt of it but the Soul acting in a peculiar manner is Reason And this is a verâ— peculiar way of explaining it But farther we are told It is not the Order or Report respect I suppose which is naturally between all things But that implies a Reason in things But the thoughts which the Soul forms of things according to it may properly claim that Title i. e. such thoughts which are agreeable to the Reason of things are reasonable thoughts This is clear and distinct And I perfectly agree with him That our own Inclinations or the bare Authority of others is not Reason But what is it Every one experiences in himself a Power or Faculty of formâ—ng various Ideas or Perceptions of things of affirming or denying according as he sees them to agree or disagree and this is Reason in General It is not the bare receiving Ideas into the Mind that is strictly Reason who ever thought it was but the Perception of the Agreement or Disagreement of our Ideas in a greater of lesser Number wherein soever this Agreement or Disagreement may consist If the Perception be immediate without the Assistance of any other Idea this is not call'd Reason but Self-Evidence but when the mind makes use of intermediate Ideas to discover that Agreement or Disagreement this method of Knowledge is properly call'd Reason or Demonstration And so Reason is defined to be that Faculty of the Soul which discovers the certainty of any thing dubious or obscure by comparing it with something evidently known This is offer'd to the World as an Account of Reason but to shew how very loose and unsatisfactory it is I desire it may be consider'd that this Doctrine supposes that we must have clear and distinct Ideas of whatever we pretend to any certainty of in our Minds and that the only Way to attain this certainty is by comparing these Ideas together Which excludes all certainty of Faith or Reason where we cannot have such clear and distinct Ideas But if there are many things of which we may be certain and yet can have no clear and distinct Ideas of them if those Ideas we have are too imperfect and obscure to form our Judgments by if we cannot find out sufficient intermediate Ideas then this cannot be the Means of Certainty or the Foundation of Reason But I shall keep to our present Subject and our certainty of it in Point of Reason depends upon our Knowledge of the the Nature of Substance and Person and the Distinction between them but if we can have no such clear Ideas in our Minds concerning these things as are required from Sensation or Reflection then either we have no use of Reason about them or it is in sufficient to pass any Judgment concerning them 1. I begin with the Notion of Substance And I have great Reason to begin with it for according to this Man's Principles there can be no certainty of Reason at all about it And so our new Way of Reason is advanced to very good Purpose For we may talk and dispute about Substance as long as we please but if his Principles of Reason be true we can come to no certainty since we can have no clear Idea in our Minds concerning it as will appear from his own Words and the method he proceeds in 1. He saith That the Mind receives in Ideas two ways 1. By Intermission of the Senses as Colours Figures Sounds Smells c. 2. By the Souls considering its own Operations about what it thus gets from without as knowing doubting affirming denying c. 2. That these simple and distinct Ideas thus laid up in the great Repository of the Vnderstanding are the sole matter and Foundation of all our Reasoning Then it follows That we can have no Foundation of Reasoning where there can can be no such Ideas from Sensation or Reflection Now this is the Case of Substance it is not intromitted by the Senses nor depends upon the Operations of the Mind and so it cannot be within the compass of our Reason And therefore I do not wonder that the Gentlemen of this new way of reasoning have almost discarded Substance out of the reasonable part of the World For they not only tell us That we can have no Idea of it by Sensation or Reflection but that nothing is signified by it only an uncertain Supposition of we know not what And therefore it is parallel'd more than once with the Indian Philosophers He knew not what which supported the Tortoâ—se that supported the Elephant that supported the Earth so Substance was found out only to support Accidents And that when we talk of Substances we talk like Children who being ask'd a Question about somewhat which they know not readily give this satisfactory Answer that it is Something If this be the truth of the Case we must still talk like Children and I know not how it can be remedied For if we cannot come at a rational Idea of Substance we can have no Principle of certainty to go upon in this Debate I do not say that we can have a clear Idea of Substance either by Sensation or Reflection but from hence I argue that
the very Notion of Infinite implies that we can set no bounds to our Thoughts and therefore although the Infinity of the divine Attributes be evident to our Reason yet it is likewise evident to our Reason that what is infinite must be above our Comprehension II. I come now to the last enquiry which is that if we allow things above our Reason what stop can be put to any absurd Doctrine which we may be required to believe And this is that which our Vnitarians object in all their late Pamphlets In answer to my Sermon they say That on our principles our Reason would be in vain and all Science and Certainty would be destroy'd which they repeat several times And from hence they do so frequently insist on the Parallel between the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation They say That all the defence we have made for one will serve for the other or any other absurd and impossible Doctrine That what we say will equally serve all the Nonsense and impossible Doctrines that are to be found among Men and they particularly instance in Transubstantiation I need mention no more But I did not expect to have found this Parallel so often insisted upon without an answer to two Dialogues purposely written on that Subject at a time when the Doctrine of the Trinity was used as an argument to bring in Transubstantiation as that is now alledged for casting off the other But I must do them that right to tell the World that at that time a Socinian Answer was written to those Dialogues which I saw and wish'd might be Printed that the World might be satisfied about it and them But they thought fit to forbear and in all their late Pamphlets where this Parallel is so often repeated there is but once that I can find any notice taken of those Dialogues and that in a very superficial manner For the main Design and Scope of them is past over and only one particular mention'd which shall be answer'd in its due order But in answer to the general Enquiry I shall endeavour to state the due Bounds between Faith and Reason and thereby to shew that by those grounds on which we receive the Doctrine of the Trinity we do not give way to the Entertainment of any absurd Opinion nor overthrow the Certainty of Reason 1. We have no difference with them about the Vse of our Reason as to the Certainty of a Revelation For in this case we are as much as they for searching into the grounds of our Faith for we look on it as a reasonable Act of our Minds and if we did not allow this we must declare our selves to believe without grounds And if we have grounds for our Faith we can express them in Words that are intelligible and if we can give an account of our Faith in an intelligible manner and with a design to give others satisfaction about it I think this is making use of our Reason in matters of Faith 2. We have no difference with them about the use of our Reason as to the true Sense of Revelation We never say that Men are bound to believe upon the bare sound of Words without examining the Sense of them We allow all the best and most reasonable ways of attaining to it by Copies Languages Versions comparing of Places and especially the Sense of the Christian Church in the best and purest Ages nearest the Apostolical Times and express'd in solemn and publick Acts. By these Rules of Reason we are willing to proceed and not by any late and uncertain methods of interpreting Scripture 3. We differ not with them about the right use of the Faculties which God hath given us of right Vnderstanding such matters as are offer'd to our Assent For it is to no purpose to require them to believe who cannot use the Faculties which are necessary in order to it Which would be like giving the Benefit of the Clergy to a Man with a Cataract in both his Eyes And it would be very unreasonable to put his Life upon that Issue whether he could read or not because he had the same Organs of Seeing that other Men had for in this case the whole matter depended not on the Organ but the Vse of it This needs no Application 4. We differ not with them about rejecting some Matters proposed to our Belief which are contradictory to the Principles of Sense and Reason It is no great argument of some Mens Reason whatever they pretend to talk against admitting seeming Contradictions in Religion for who can hinder seeming Contradictions Which arise from the shallowness of Mens Capacities and not from the repugnancy of Things and who can help Mens Understandings But where there is evident proof of a Contradiction to the Principles of Sense and Reason we are very far from owning any such thing to be an Article of Faith as in the case of Transubstantiation Which we reject not only as having no foundation in Scripture but as repugnant to the common Principles of Sense and Reason as is made to appear in the two Dialogues before-mention'd But our Vnitarians find fault with the Author of them for laying the force of his argument upon this That there are a great many more Texts for the Trinity than are pretended for Transubstantiation whereas many other arguments are insisted on and particularly the great Absurdity of it in point of Reason Dial. 2. from p. 33. to the end And it is not the bare number of Texts which he relies upon but upon the greater Evidence and Clearness of the Texâ—s on one side than on the other which depends upon figurative Words not capable of a literal Sense without overthrowing the Doctrine designed to be proved by it See with what Ingenuity these Men treat the Defenders of the Trinity and the Enemies to Transubstantiation which they call only a Philosophical Error or Folly but the Doctrine of the Trinity is charged with Nonsense Contradiction and Impossibilities But wherein then lies the difference in point of Reason For thus far I have shew'd that we are far from overthrowing Reason or giving way to any absurd Doctrines It comes at last to the point already treated of in this Chapter how far we may be obliged to believe a Doctrine which carries in it something above our Reason or of which we cannot have any clear and distinct Ideas And of this I hope I have given a sufficient Account in the foregoing Discourse FINIS Consideraton the Ezplications of the Doctrine of the Trinity by Dr. W. c. p. 10. P. 9. P. 13. Discourse concerning the Real and Nominal Trinitarians A. D. 1695 p. 3. Letter to the Universities p. 15. Discourse of Nominal and Real Trinit p. 7. P. 10. P. 11. P. 13. Tritheism charged c. p. 157. Animadvers p. 245. Animadv c. p. 243. Ibid p. 240. Basil Ep. 64. Considerat on the Explication p. 23. Animadv p. 291. Tritheism