shameful begging of the Question Every Contester will call himself a fair Reasoner Socin What! Is there no such thing then as fair reasoning Is there not in Men an equitable disposition to judge of and assent to the Truth Orthod Yes certainly but you have it not There are vast many Texts produc'd to assert the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit For we do not only alledge one or two solitary places of Scripture But we maintain also this to be the Foundation of Christianity and taught in the Scriptures Plainly Frequently Irrefragably Which is the way to reason fairly in this case First It is to see the sense which offers it self in the Texts which we produce Give me leave to bring in an instance or two Rom. 9.5 St. Paul speaking of Christ says that he is over all God blessed for ever The natural sence of the proposition is that he is truly God Over all and Blessed for ever being the Notion which we have of an Eternal Being You cannot without an incredible violence make any other sense of that proposition The same is Phil. 2.6 Who being in the Form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God That which the proposition naturally offers is that Christ is God None but a King can say that he thinks it not robbery to be equal with a King None but he who is God can pretend an equality with God Secondly I must see whether that sence which offers it self so naturally to me has the same effect on other People It is a mighty confirmation to me that I take a proposition right when the wise the good the inquisitive part of Mankind takes it as I do Now our Texts have not only the advantage of a natural evidence but they have also another and that is the consent of the Christian Church The Church of God has spoke as we speak understood as we understand believ'd as we believe It is the Voice of the Sacred Councils in their Decisions of the Fathers in their Writings of the Universities in their Chairs and of all Christians in their Praises Prayers and Adorations You own'd it to me and you said that it was the sence of the Socinians that the Scripture is an Infallible Divine and Compleat rule of Faith and Manners But it can never be so if there is not an universal sence in those propositions in which the Faith is deliver'd For to whom is it a rule even to all Christians And how can Christians follow this rule if there is not a common sence in which they may be united But what is that sence but that which appears to the Church in the propositions and become the sence of the Church A sence of so much the more weight and Authority because no Scripture is of private interpretation This with all Men who pretend to any acquaintance in those Matters is fair and ingenuous Reasoning Socin I thank'd you once for an Argument in the behalf of Transuastantiation and now I do it for Tradition The denial of it is a Protestant Principle Orthod You are so press'd by the evidence of what I offer'd that because you cannot answer you would endeavour to divert it Know then by the way that Protestants deny and that on very good grounds Tradition to be the last and supreme judge of Controversies But maintain Tradition and particularly so Universal and uncontested as it is in this particular to be the â—â—â—test humane evidence in the World The unanimous consent of the Church in a point of Faith is not to be oppos'd by any sober Christian But to return Let us see what is your fair and ingenuous way of reasoning You are so far from the method propos'd by me that you reject the natural sence of the Texts Some you must give me leave to say it you have openly falsify'd As for instance Rom. 9.5 You will not have it God Blessed but God be blessed for ever against the Faith of all Copies against the Authority of all Writers Some you have loaded with little Criticisms as Phil. 2.6 Upon others you have trumpt new unnatural and incoherent explications as Joh. 1.1 And followed Dreams of Yesterday unknown to the Church of God or to any one Writer in it Others you have eluded with poor Allegories as Col. 1.16 In a word there is scarce a part of Scripture but what you have put to the Rack and then you come to tell us of fair and ingenuous reasonings of your elaborate Prints to prove the Unity of God which no Christian ever deny'd The Trinity of the Divine Persons appears so visibly in the Sacred Writings that if you design to deal as a fair or ingenuous reasoner you must either embrace the doctrine or reject their Authority Socin I will do neither I am perswaded of the truth of the one but not at all of the other Observe what the ingenious Author of the Answer to Mr. Luzancy has said to him pag. 44 45 46. I will put it in as few words as I can and yet I hope without losing any thing of the force of the Argument You charge that upon the Scripture which is no Scripture at all and you oblige us to believe as the word of God that which is no word of God but only your inferences from it You draw conclusions those conclusions you rest in and though they are no Articles of Faith because only the work of your reason yet you propose them as Faith to us I would fain ask whether your reason is more infallible than ours Or whether you have a privilege which we have not of making inferences The Trinity is no doctrine of Scripture but only an inference from it May not I have the Liberty either to make a contrary inference to yours or to review your deductions to judge the consistency or contradiction of these inferences I honour the Scripture but I am not oblig'd to receive your Argumentations These are not indeed his words but I am sure it is his sence Get out of this as well as you can Orth. But pray what is all this to the purpose I â—an assent due to a plain and express proposition an inference Or if you will call it an inference is it not the natural result of that plain proposition And must not whosoever has any share of understanding give the same assent to it which I do What are all our perceptions but inferences and all our talk and conversation but conclusions The Plow-Man does it as much as the Philosopher and there are propositions of that evidence that if offer'd to all Mankind all Mankind will agree in them The question is not here between your Reason and mine Nor do I pretend to more infallibility than you in reasoning But I say that Reason is so much the same in you and me that a plain and express proposition being offer'd us you and I must equally assent to it If you do not you wrong Reason and are unjust to
it I confess that when that which is propos'd is obscure intricate and capable of several sences the conclusions may be different and I cannot without injustice deny that you should examine the consistency or contradiction of my deductions But I maintain that most of the propositions by which our Holy Faith is establish'd are of such plainness that no equitable Man can fix any other sence upon them than what they offer themselves That I may not give you any occasion of mistaking me for your Friends are admirable at this and if they can but lay hold on it they presently expatiate and lose the question I mean no more than as to the existence of the Revelation that is that there is such a thing reveal'd though not as to the manner of the thing the HOW it is in it self Not to multiply instances take the places already cited Rom. 9.5 Whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the Flesh CHRIST came who is over all God blessed for ever What is that which the proposition offers That CHRIST is a Man descended from the Fathers and that he is God over all God blessed for ever It is a plain and as plain a proposition as can be But when I go further and say Then there are two Natures in Christ Jesus for as a Man he cannot be God and as God he cannot be Man He is Man because concerning the Flesh he came from the Father He is God because the Apostle says he is over all God blessed for ever I confess that this is an Inference but it is an inference which results so plainly and so fully from the Nature of the proposition that it is as clear and as undeniable as the proposition it self Again Phil. 2.6 Who being in the Form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God There is a plain proposition that CHRIST is equal with God and the inference is of the same nature and clearness as the proposition Therefore he must be God For none but God can be equal with God 1 Cor. 2.10 The Spirit searches all things even the deep things of God The Spirit knows all that God is his Nature his Perfections even those depths unfathomable to any created Being You will not quarrel with the proposition and can you quarrel with the inference which in effect is the same with the proposition and that is that he is God since none but God perfectly knows himself Pray what inference is there in Act. 5.3 4. when Peter in his Apostolical Zeal asks Ananias why Satan has fill'd his Heart to lye to the Holy Ghost Thou hast not ly'd unto Men but unto God If the Holy Ghost is not God how could he lye unto God You see the inference is drawn by St. Peter himself and lies in the very Heart of the Proposition How unreasonable is this noise about inferences will appear if you take notice of the beginning of St. John's Gospel Is Verse the 14th an Inference The Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his Glory the Glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father full of Grace and Truth Are the 1 2 3. Verses an Inference The Word was with God The Word was God The same was in the beginning with God All things were made by Him and without Him there was not any thing made that was made Is Joh. 20.28 an Inference And Thomas answer'd and said unto him my Lord and my God! Let us deal candidly if you call the Incarnation and the Union of the two Natures in CHRIST JESVS an Inference Is it not the plainest result of the plainest Propositions that ever were in the World Socin You are launch'd into a vast Sea of Discourse Orthod Oblige me so far as to suffer me to insist somewhat longer on this and I will repay your Patience with a serious attention to what you have to say to it Read 1 Joh. 5.7 There are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these Three are One. When we talk of a Trinity of Persons consistent with the Unity of the Divine Nature is it an Inference or is it not Is not the Trinity of Persons and the Unity of the God head clearly express'd in the Proposition You have made such a wonder at the word Trinity and been so rude as to call Trinity in Unity Jargon Contradiction Nonsence How can you reconcile all this with this noble Passage Is not this a Trinity in Unity not by way of Inference but by a full and plain Assertion But why should I be so earnest to prove this against the Socinians when they themselves cannot deny it For if our Doctrine consists in nothing but inferences and conclusions which we draw as we please What has made them so earnest to dispute these very texts and with poor and little Criticisms to endeavour to elude their force If these Texts had not star'd them in the face with an incontestable evidence what should make them so indefatigable in granting and denying adding Comma's changing or putting in particles as if Truth wanted such mean helps It short there are two sorts of inferences the one near and immediate such as I have given you some instances of which naturally flow from the thing propos'd and are of equal clearness with it The other remote and not appearing so easily at first but wanting the help of further inquiries and deductions Concerning the first I may challenge your Reason of error I may safely and truly say you offer violence to Reason I may appeal to all Mankind in the case But for the other I must not so freely affirm it nor say that my Reason is more infallible than yours When I am oblig'd to run through a long course of deductions I may mistake as much as you do The Church never pretended to any inferences but of the first kind If the Scripture proposes a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead If it represents these Persons incommunicably distinct from one another Their Consubstantiality Coequality Coeternity is a natural and a necessary consequence If it teaches me that CHRIST is God and Man the Union of the two Natures in one adorable Person is an inference of the same sort If there is a Father from ever and a Son from ever and if a Spirit proceeds from ever Eternal Generation and Eternal Procession are necessary deductions from those great truths and in a manner the same with the truths themselves I tell you once more you must either admit our doctrine or reject the Holy Scriptures Socin I confess that what you have said is well put together and has a very good face But still I am far from being satisfy'd There is nothing can make me believe a contradiction Let it be found in Sacred or humane Writings it is still a contradiction A contradiction is that to which all the World cannot reconcile me You say Revelation and a
and National Synods We have her Mind in her publick Confessions of Faith She is so far from espousing any sort of explication that she ever thought that that great Mystery could not be explain'd The Church suffers Men to write concerning these matters St. Austin has given several considerable reasons for it in his Books on this very Subject and in that de utilit credend The opposing of Heresy the improvement of Piety the study of the Holy Scriptures of which this makes so considerable a part are the principal But to think that the Church will stand by all the Opinions of private Writers and own their errours and mistakes is a prodigious inadvertency What Church in the World can be safe if made to answer for all the Authors of her Communion What becomes then of the objection It is all overthrown in this one word The Church has nothing to do with those explications which the Socinians fansie they have so much expos'd And as for the explications themselves I believe that if the Judicious Hooker and the Learned Cudworth were alive you durst not so much as name them The rest are Men of great abilities who can arm in their defence no better Pens than their own Socin But do you put Bishops and eminent Bishops too in the rank of private Persons Who can best speak the sence of the Church but those who are call'd by the Fathers the Husbands of their Churches the Keepers of the Canons and the Successors of the Apostles Some seem to be Tritheists and others seem to be Sabellians Orthod Truly you have us'd the Bishops in your Writings as if they had been no more than private Persons the reflections on their Lordships having been so sharp and so many His Grace the late Arch-Bishop whom by your own confession you ought to have reverenc'd was not free from your aspersions My Lord of Glocester has had his share In the latest answer to my Lord of Sarum you forget the large Encomiums given him before The Bishop of Worcester for whom the Learned World has so just a value met in the answer to his late Book with the same way of Entertainment But laying all this aside and answering your meaning A Bishop with all the respect due to the Sacred Dignity is still a private Doctor Nor can the Church be favourable to his explications if they are contrary to her Doctrine But what of all this Our Bishops are all Orthodox Socin I do not know what you mean by Orthodox There is no Orthodoxy but Truth They who teach Three Gods cannot be Orthodox and this is done by the Real Trinitarians The Socinians believe and adore but one and this is done by the Nominals The greatest part of the Church goes I confess that way and therefore it is Orthodox because Socinian In short we may talk till Doom's day and never be the Wiser The question at last must be this are you a Real or a Nominal Trinitarian If a Real then we shall never be reconcil'd If a Nominal then we are certainly agreed Orthod What I have said already seems to me to be satisfactory But since you are not contented with it let us examine the several parts of your distinction What is the meaning of Real Trinitarians But let me beg of you to answer plainly and directly Socin I will answer in the very words of the Author of the Discourse concerning them He says pag. 7. The Realists are denominated from their believing Three distinct Divine Spirits or Minds who are so many Real subsisting Persons Again p. 19. They are every day Challeng'd and impeach'd of Tritheism And again p. 25. Themselves do sometimes almost openly and explicitely own and profess their Tritheism Their doctrine of the Trinity manifestly implies Three Gods Orthod What is the meaning of Nominal Trinitarians Socin They are they who maintain a Trinity which Consists only in the several Names Offices Relations and Modes of Existence of the Divine Nature This was first taught by Noëtus and Sabellius embrac'd afterwards by the assertors of the Homoousios and receiv'd by the Schools and Divinity Chairs ever since This is the substance of what he says of the Nominals in the first part of the Discourse Orthod And this you make the Foundation of that difference which you imagine to be in the Church and has of late fill'd up all your Prints Socin Yes indeed and with a great deal of Reason You are all afraid of the distinction It is of your side so notorious a giving up of the Cause that we have parted with all our Old Arguments and retrench'd our selves there as in a place from whence we cannot be driven Orthod Then pray set your heart at rest and suffer your selves to be forc'd from it For I presume positively to averr that there is no such thing in nature as these Trinitarians of your own making You pretended already to a God of your own making You wish'd for a Scripture of your own making To make a Trinity too is a little too hard I say then and pray forgive the sharpness of the words that all this is a mistake a slander and a calumny upon the Church Socin How much must you abate of your assurance when I shew you in several late Writings that the Three Persons of the Trinity are Three distinct Infinite Minds Spirits and Substances I appeal to your self whether this is not manifest Tritheism For what is God but an Infinite Mind Spirit or Substance Orthod I have told you already and tell you again that such expressions are wholly unknown to the Church and therefore cannot with any candor be fastn'd upon it Oblige me so far as to shew me a Church in the World this day or formerly which uses them or else be pleas'd to own that you are guilty of a great deal of disingenuity But though such a denial is sufficient because it is of a thing which you cannot and dare not undertake to prove yet it will be much clearer if you give your self the trouble to consider that such a notion in the Christian Church is impossible and has not the least ground or appearance of truth You are acquainted with the Sacred Writings of the New Testament and no doubt have inform'd your self of the Confessions of Faith of the Ancient Councils the assertions of the generality of the Fathers the doctrine of the Schoolmen the sense of the Greek and Latin Church even since the fatal separation and in the division of so many Kingdoms from the last in these two Ages you know perfectly all the Articles which the Famous Societies of Protestants have declar'd to be the points of their belief This suppos'd I lay before you these plain and easy but Substantial Observations First That the Church of God has always asserted the Vnity of the Divine Nature as the Foundation of all Religion It has been its great and distinguishing Character You will tell me that the Philosophers did so
pardonable Origen and other Ante-Nicenes make out the Unity of God in a Ternary of Persons though they did not believe the Equality Says the Author of the Answer to Dr. Bull pag. 22. unjust in this to Origen and the rest I have some Remarks on that Answer which I design to make publick What the Author has said concerning the Epistle of St. Barnabas and those of the Holy Martyr Ignatius is far from invalidating their Authority We must have more than suspicions and bare denials to illegitimate a Book They are certainly works of great Antiquity and acknowledg'd to be such by the succeeding Ages But what must we say of a Person of his great erudition who pretending to answer a Book full of all the Testimonies which those early times could afford quarrels only with two or three Authors against whom he says nothing substantial and is wholly silent to Justin Martyr St. Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Tatianus Miltiades Melito Dionysius of Alexandria Tertullian Lactantius c. Is it enough to confute the Ante-Nicene Fathers to say as this Author pag. 7. That all their Glory is wholly due to the vanity of Modern Learned Men who quote these Books not because they value them but because being ancient monuments known to few and understood by fewer he seems to be a great Learned Man who can drop sentences out of these antique Books But this is mild and obliging if compar'd with pag. 63. Where this Author having said that Trinitarianism is not so much a Religion as the Law of the Byzantine or Constantinopolitan Emperours stiles the then Doctors of the Church THE PARASITES OF THESE TIMES whom now in regard of their antiquity we call Fathers You are not insensible how this might be taken up and expos'd If Hosius Spiridio Paphnutius If the Gregories the Basils the Cyrils the Theodorets the Chrysostoms the Hieroms the Hilaries the Ambroses the Austins were the Parasites of their times where shall we find any Vertue Piety or Learning in this World But I am willing to over-look those excesses and tell you that it is a folly to wrangle with this or that passage sometimes to inveigh against Platonicism and sometimes to complain that those Writings are lost which might have inform'd us better To be plain we have enough left and from what remains of the times before the Council of Nice it appears that the Vnity of God and the belief of a Trinity of Persons in that one God Father Son and Holy Spirit was the belief of the Christian Church The Arrians indeed might challenge some of the then Fathers who spoke more obscurely and were easier Misinterpreted But Socinianism has not the least pretence to any He must have forfeited all modesty who asserts it Socin But what have you to say to the Apostolical Creed Is it not an evidence beyond all other evidences Orthod Of what Socin Of the Vnity of the Great God Orthod And so are all our Creeds from the first to the last Socin But it is an Evidence against your Trinity Orthod Against that Trinity which you have falsly imputed to us and that is A Trinity of Gods But not against a Trinity of Persons in one God What is the first assertion of that Creed I believe in One God For you affirm that it was anciently thus read Ans to Doctor Bull pag. 16. What is the second but an Explication of the first This One God is the Father Almighty His only begotten Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit Three Persons in One God Socin This is so dragg'd in so strain'd so unnatural that to any unprejudic'd Person it will visibly appear not to be the Doctrine design'd to be taught in the Creed Orthod I am apt to think that I can substantially prove that it is I believe the Creed to be truly Apostolical notwithstanding what some learned Men have said against it Not because it was made by the Apostles themselves though nothing appears to the contrary but by reason of its great Antiquity Now when you and I dispute about the sence and design of that Creed we have but one way to take and that is First to see what the Scripture teaches concerning its Articles which indeed are no more than an Epitome or Collection of the Principal Truths deliver'd by Christ and his Apostles Secondly To examine the Doctrine of the Fathers who liv'd before the Church thought it fit and necessary to make a larger Explanation of the Faith Thirdly To satisfy our selves of the sence which the immediately following Councils gave to that Creed in their Decrees All this is Highly reasonable For if the Scripture which has taught so expresly God to be one has also expresly taught the Father to be God the Son God and the Holy Spirit God then it is plain that the sence of the Creed is such and no other The Authority of that Creed or of any Creed whatever is from the Scripture It cannot therefore be contrary to it and that excellent Rule must be brought to that Primitive Rule from whence it is deriv'd And alas has not this been prov'd to you so often and so fully that after a World of wrangling you have been driven from your new and unnatural Criticisms and forc'd to shelter your selves under the weak defence of your Philosophical disceptations But if this Creed has no other sence but that which you put upon it The Father only God The Son only Man and the Holy Spirit only an Energy or Operation How come the Fathers of that time so openly to contradict it I will not do again what has been so excellently done by the Learned Dr. Bull who has oblig'd the Christian Church with two Books which indeed you may speak or discourse against but can never substantially Answer Has he not undeniably prov'd out of their Writings that those Fathers believ'd the two Natures in Jesus Christ The Divine and the Human That they have asserted his Pre-existence and if his Pre-existence then his Eternity and if his Eternity then his Consubstantiality with the Father If the second part of the Creed is to be understood of Christ only Man How comes Irenaeus lib. 1. advers Haeres c. 2. in delivering the Belief of the Catholick Church or as he speaks of the Church all the World over to call him Our Lord Our God Our Saviour Our King to whom every Knee ought to bow c. How comes Tertullian who has deliver'd this very rule of Faith to talk as we do of the Blessed Trinity designedly and positively against Praxeas and say that he is warranted by the Apostle to speak of Christ as of him who is God blessed over all for ever If he believ'd the Holy Spirit to be only an Energy How comes he to stile him Tertium Numen Deitatis tertium Nomen Majestatis The Third Person of the Deity The Third Name of Majesty and Power Certainly Novatianus was acquainted with this Creed and yet Lib. de Trin.
scrutiny of human Reasonings Do all these Vnities transcend the capacity of Human Nature Are they above the reach of an inquisitive Philosopher or a profound Divine Socin I confess that you startle me and I begin to have no great opinion of the first part of the distinction I see you are no Tritheists but then you must of course fall into Nominalism or Sabellianism and that is as bad I am afraid that part of the charge will stick cruelly against you Orthod The notion of Nominal Trinitarians is if possible more extravagant than the other Can you think in good earnest that the Ancient or modern Church if such an expression may be us'd for the Church is always the same Can you think I say that the Church in the first and in these last Ages oppos'd Sabellianism with so much Zeal and Vigor that is that very impiety which you fasten on her and condemn'd it with so unanimous a consent and yet would make it the foundation of her Faith The vast labours of the Fathers and of all the Doctors who succeeded them aim'd at this to assert a Real distinction of Persons against Sabellius and their Consubstantiality Coequality and Coeternity against Arrius And you come resolutely to tell us that for all that the Church is Sabellian and teaches Sabellianism How heartily would you laugh at a Man who should come to tell you that he has attentively read all the Socinian Prints and finds at last that they believe the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of our Saviour Socin Had they said so much for these two Articles as you have for Sabellianism in all your Books I protest I could not laugh at it Orthod Let us see then what is Sabellianism and if found in the Church I promise to give up the cause But if not I expect that you will have the justice to own that to charge us with it is a crying unsincerity We cannot have the sense of Sabellius better than from Dionysius of Alexandria the other Dionysius of Rome Athanasius St. Basil Nazianzen Ruffinus c. You will Learn from them that Sabellius own'd the Divine Nature but confounded the Hypostases or Persons and maintain'd one only Person or Hypostasis the Father And that when they objected to him the different operations of the Son and Holy Spirit he answer'd that they were only denominations of the Father resulting from his several appearances or offices to us If you mistrust this account take what the Author of the discourse says pag. 16. In a word says he the Noëtians and Sabellians held that God is but one subsisting Person yet that with respect to things without him he may be call'd as the modern Nominals now speak three Relative Persons The one subsisting Person of God sustains the three names of Father Son and Spirit which being the Relations of God towards things without him he is so many Relative Persons in a Classical Critical sense Now I will do more for you than you can expect I will not confine you to our English Authors But I dare you to produce any one Man in the Church of God who ever understood those matters and spoke at this rate But if you do not as I am positive that you cannot what becomes of your distinction and with what face can it be us'd any more Socin I will not go out of the Kingdom no not out of London for it Dr. South shall be the Man You will not deny that he understands the sense of the Church He says himself animadvers ch 8. pa. 242. And this I affirm to be the current doctrine both of the Fathers and the Schools concerning the Persons of the Blessed Trinity and the constantly receiv'd account given by them of a Divine Person so far as they pretend to explain what such a Person is Pag. 240. He tells you That the commonly receiv'd Doctrine of the Schools concerning the Blessed Trinity is this That the Christian Faith has laid this sure foundation that there is but one God That there is no positive real Being strictly and properly so call'd in God but what is God That there can be no composition in the Deity with any such positive real Being distinct from the Deity it self And yet that the Church finding in Scripture mention of Three to whom distinctly the Godhead does belong has by warrant of the same Scripture Heb. 1.3 express'd these Three by the names of Persons and stated their Personalities upon three distinct Modes of Subsistence alloted to one and the same Godhead and these also distinguish'd by three distinct Relations Then pag. 241. To explain these modes of Subsistence and these Relations he tells you That they are neither substance nor accident That they are not a Being but only the affection of a Being and that they add no entity to it such as are dependance mutability presence absence c. And that they have no Existence of their own after a separation or division from the things or beings to which they do belong Having thus in general explain'd what a mode is he applys it pag. 242. And says that the Personalities by which the Deity stands Diversify'd into three distinct Persons are call'd and accounted Modes .... That every Person is properly the Godhead as subsisting with and under such a certain Mode or Relation Now put all this together and see whether this is not the very Doctrine of Sabellius Did not Sabellius say that God is one even the Father acting under several Names sustaining several Relations by which he sometimes is the Father and sometimes the Son What does Dr. South say more He must be very clear sighted who can perceive any difference between these two Hypotheses Orthod There is as much difference as between affirming and denying between Light and Darkness Sabellius admits only one Person in the Divine Nature Dr. South Three When Sabellius by the great evidence of Scripture is forc'd to own Three Persons and confess the Relations He will have them to be Persons only in a Classical Critical sence having no other but a Metaphorical being He confounds the Persons and makes the Son and the Holy Spirit to be the Father Dr. South affirms them to be Persons in a Real Sence by an Eternal Communication of the Divine Nature and so really distinct that the Son cannot be the Father or the Holy Spirit Father or Son or the Father Son or Holy Spirit Sabellius makes the Relations to be wholly extrinsecal as he sustains the Three Names of Father Son and Spirit which being the Relations of God towards things without him he is so many Relative Persons Dr. South affirms pag. 242. the Relations to be Intrinsecal founded upon those Internal Acts by which one Person produces another or proceeds from another He tells you that God may sustain an extrinsecal Relation founded upon some external act issuing from him as Creation Preservation c. Which adds to the Deity only an extrinsecal denomination as
Form and Matter and indeed of all the Phaenomena's of Nature concerning which Authors have given us some good and solid Reasons others nothing but fansies and dreams This is the great weakness of Socinianism The Gentlemen of that perswasion reject a most important Truth in which all Christians but themselves agree because they cannot understand the manner of it We cannot tell say they how it is therefore it is not And they pretend to argue strongly when they affirm that there are divisions and subdivisions amongst us about it Whereas there is really none but in the explication our assent to the truth of the thing being firm and unmoveable We said something of this Nature the other Day but you have taken no notice of it Socin This sine Discourse is all a grand mistake We do not reject the Trinity because we understand it not but because we understand it We let the HOW or manner alone 'T is the thing it self which we exclaim against You worship you know not what Did you give your selves leisure to think and not thwart the very first impressions of a Rational Soul this very grand contradiction would stare you in the Face Three that are but one What need is there here of Reasoning Three Persons every one God and all but one God! May not I tell you what Tertullian says in another case Advoco te O Anima naturaliter philosophantem non qualis erudita es in Philosophorum Scholis c. I appeal to thee O Soul not such as thou hast been taught in the Schools of Philosophers but with those impressions which Nature has given thee Are one and one and one Three or is it but one Orthod Your citing of Tertullian puts me in mind of a passage of Boëtius brought in by the Bishop of Worcester in his vindication of this very doctrine pag. 65. The Catholick Doctrine of the Trinity is this says Boëtius the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God but they are not Three Gods but one God And yet the Bishop pleasantly observes that the Socinians may wonder at it this very Man having written a Learned Book of Arithmetick And so for all this eloquent exclamation of Tertullian that Father was a Zealous assertor of the Trinity that is of one and one and one not being three but one So were a World of Learned Men in those days who though cultivated by a Philosophical institution had not yet for all that taken their leave of the first impressions of Nature But to come to the point If the difference between us were of numbers or of any created substance I would cry out contradiction as loud as your self I would call the first Man that I see in the street and pray him only to tell But this is quite of another Nature It has no foundation on any thing that we know The question is of the Nature of God between whom and us there is an infinite disproportion We cannot Reason of him from any thing which we find in our selves or in our fellow Creatures God is so far above our small and weak perceptions that except he is pleas'd to acquaint us himself what he is We must remain in our ignorance If God then tells us that he is one and Three If what we say of him is that which he has said of himself Must we presume to talk or so much as to imagine any contradiction in it Socin I admire your prudence but I cannot commend your sincerity You are sensible on what rocks they split who pretended to prove the Trinity not contrary to Reason I think that the B. of G. Dr. S. Mr. H. and others have sufficiently smarted for it I will engage for them that they will return no more to such kind of ratiocinations You take another way and resolve all into God's Authority I grant that what God says must be true Nothing is true but according to that conformity which it has to the mind of God But God has said no such thing of himself that he is one and Three Trinus unus I deny that he has Orthod King Agrippa believ'st thou the Prophets May not I ask you do you believe the Scriptures It is in that Sacred Book that God speaks to us It is there that he asserts it Socin I believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God and as we have said in the brief Notes on the Athanasian Creed a Divine an infallible and compleat rule both of Faith and manners But I deny that there is any such thing in the Scripture Orthod I am glad to hear you speak so justly and so reverently of the Sacred Writings which part will you have me to prove The Unity of the Godhead or the Trinity of Persons in that one Divine Nature Socin You may spare your trouble in proving the first We are the great Assertors of it It is from thence that we take the name of Vnitarians Though you are obstinately bent to call us Socinians Orthod Your assuming that name is an invasion of the rights of all Christians Nay it is an affront to all the wise and sober part of Mankind You call your selves Vnitarians just as the Donatists in a poor little corner of Africa call'd themselves the Catholick Church Will you then have me to prove that in the Scripture the Father is call'd God the Son God and the Holy Spirit God Socin You may spare your self that trouble too I know all the places that you can alledge You have repeated them a hundred and a hundred times If you call this a proof any thing in the World may be a proof Orthod Pray let me lay them before you and let us fairly see what exceptions you have against them It is not Candid no it is not civil to tell an Adversary that you know all that he has to say to you Socin I may take the Liberty to be positive in that particular I have an answer ready which I am sure you cannot take ill I am sensible that you will produce several Texts but as it has been urg'd again and again by us and in particular against Mr. Luzancy in the Answer to his four Letters pag. 42. They are Texts clogg'd with abundance of uncertainties 'T is deny'd with great vehemence by the ablest Criticks of the Trinitarian Perswasion that some of these Texts were originally so read as they are now Publish'd in our common Bibles Nay some of them were not read at all in any Bible till five or six hundred years after the Decease of the Apostles and other Sacred Penmen But whether anciently read or thus read yea or no there is none of them but is more fairly capable of a sence consistent with the Vnity of God as 't is taught by the Vnitarians and Nominals and is actually so interpreted by divers of the most allow'd and celebrated Interpreters of the Church Who sees not here that to introduce and believe Monstrosities on
no Ideas If I cannot walk in a smooth and open Path I am resolv'd to stay at Home Orthod I am my self of your Mind I take then Reason to be a Faculty of the Soul by which we endeavour to find out the Truth either by way of Inference or by a plain and simple Perception What have you to Except against this Socin Nothing at all For I think that all our Knowledge comes these two ways Yet if the word Endeavour falls upon the last as well as upon the first part of the definition it seems somewhat incongruous For simple Perceptions offer themselves to us and are almost the only things of which the Certainty is not disputed But yet as it is by comparing the least Known with the most Known Principles that we do Reason and that every thing which we call a simple Perception is not such I willingly agree in it Then go on and tell me what is Faith Orthod Faith is the Gift of God by which he Inlightens our Mind and inclines our Heart to assent to what he proposes to us to believe Socin This I do not like so well as the other Though I know it comes from St. Austin and is commonly receiv'd by the admirers of that Father Faith is the Gift of God as all things are in a general sense But if by it you suppose an immediate Act of his Grace by which we believe then Faith is no more our choice or a favour offer'd to all Men but confin'd only to few How can it be said that God inlightens our Mind when what you call Mysteries are as obscure and unknown after as before we believe And for that expression of inclining our Will it is not sufferable it borders so much upon the Doctrine of Calvin which you know the Church of England is not fond of It shews an impossibility of believing in them whose Hearts are not inclin'd and consequently it makes unbelief to be no Sin Orthod The Definition is I confess of St. Austin But I maintain that it is both Christian and Catholick The Scripture has taught and the Church embrac'd it Joh. 6.4 No Man can come unto me except the Father which has sent me draw him Ibid. v. 65. No Man can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father Phil. 1.29 To you it is given in the behalf of Christ not only to believe on him but also to suffer for his sake Rom. 12.3 We are commanded to think soberly according as God has dealt to every Man the measure of Faith Hence the Church has express'd her self in these words Can. 7. of the Council of Aurange If any thinks that by the strength of Nature he can think or do any good thing relating to Salvation or assent to the Truth reveal'd without the illumination or inspiration of the Holy Spirit HERAETICO FALLITUR SPIRITU HE IS DECEIV'D BY AN HERETICAL SPIRIT not understanding this place of the Apostle 2 Cor. 3.5 Not that we are sufficient of our selves to do any thing as of our selves But our sufficiency is of God This does not hinder Faith from being our choice any more than it does Vertue the assistance of God helping but not altering our Nature The obscurity of Mysteries even when we believe is no objection against the inlightning of the Mind For this supposes not a clear insight into the Nature of the thing but only a conviction that there is such a thing reveal'd 1 Cor. 13.12 For now we see through a Glass darkly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in aenigmate as in a riddle ... Now. I know in part but then shall I know even as I am also known But how can you give to the inclining of the will the name of insufferable and bordering upon Calvinianism when you cannot but know that it is the Work of God and the Prayer of Man to him Psal 119.27 Make me to understand the way of thy Precepts v. 35. Make me to go in the Path of thy Commandments v. 36. Incline my Heart to thy Testimonies Prov. 16.1 The preparation of the Heart is from the Lord. The Church you say is not fond of Calvin's Principles True but our abhorrency from Clavinianism must not drive us to Pelagianism I may detest an opinion inconsistent with the goodness of God without throwing my self into an excess injurious to the Grace of CHRIST The Definition then is good and safe but because I am willing if possible to remove all your prejudices I will put it in fewer words Faith then is a Firm assent to what God has reveal'd to us Socin I cannot quarrel with this It is well that once at least you will be plain Orthod It is well that there is something which you will not deny This Definition though not so exact as it ought to be is enough to shew you the insufficiency of Reason For if Reason can embrace all that is necessary for a Man to know there can be no necessity of Revelation This of it self supposes and is a convincing proof of our ignorance For if there are objects which Reason cannot reach but must owe their discovery to a higher and more infallible Principle then Reason is palpably weak and imperfect There cannot be a more sensible Argument of its Deficiency But there is another inconvenience as discernible as this Reason not only cannot reach the object which Revelation presents but also the object once presented it cannot be conversant about it nor examine the several parts or prospects of it It cannot come to a view near enough to employ its Faculties in it The account of which is very plain and it is this That as Reason with all its sagacity and penetration could never find out such an object and knows only that there is such a thing because God presents it and must rely for the truth of it upon God's veracity so the nature of the object propos'd must still remain obscure because there is as great an impossibility in finding out the nature of the object as the object it self In natural things Reason meets with an object fit for its inquiry and not only finds out the object but even penetrates what can be known of it because both are commensurate Or to avoid hard words which neither you nor I love because there is a fair proportion between the object and the powers and faculties of Reason But in things supernatural which word is enough to decide the difference if you would but consider of it there is so infinite a distance between the object propos'd and the weak perceptions of Reason that if we are just to our selves and have any respect for the order which the All-wise God has establish'd we cannot so much as pretend to an inquiry into the Nature of the thing offer'd This highly vindicates the wise and sober Answer of abundance of Learned Men amongst us who in the disputes about the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation have told you that these are Mysteries
call'd by the Ancients 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by the Apostle 1 Cor. 2.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the demonstration of the Spirit to distinguish it from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the demonstration of Power which consists in miraculous operations And therefore that Record is truly divine in which God has left such splendid and lasting monuments of his Holy Spirit But if a Book may truly be call'd Divine which transcends all Books whatsoever that Collection which we have of the Sacred Writings justly deserves that name For besides that it can be made to appear that all the Theology all the Philosophy all the Rites all the Laws all the Manners and Customs all the Heroes of the Heathens are deriv'd from thence and that this Truth is not unperceiveable though oppress'd and eclips'd with the interposition of innumerable Fables and Lyes pray what Book can compare with this for Antiquity for certainty in the discovery of the Creation of the World the formation of all things the History of the first Ages but above all for that vast number of Precepts of Morality of excellent rules of Piety and Holiness by which Man is acquainted with his duty to God and to his fellow Creatures and has the promise of an Eternal State as a Reward of his Obedience What Man ever spoke or could ever speak in the Stile of the Sacred Writings It is every where Inimitable and does not surprise by a numerous train of pompous expressions but by a natural and inward Majesty which no mortal Oratory can personate It speaks to the Heart as well as to the Ears and converts as well as instructs us God has shew'd himself no where better than in his Word In his operations he acts but in this he speaks like God Whosoever reads attentively the Holy Scriptures must needs upon the whole conclude that it is a Work which infinitely exceeds the most refin'd Reason the most intense Capacity and the vastest Industry of Man I will say no more only let me beg of you to lay this all together and then tell me whether I am an Enemy to Reason and whether it has receiv'd any injury from me Socin Your way of speaking shews the Excellency of Reason and you make an admirable use of it against it self You leave me but one thing to desire and that is that I could be so far satisfy'd with what you have said as to assent to it But it is not in my power Nor think I my self overcome though I cannot answer your Arguments For when all is done my Reason must be the Judge and it will not suffer me to believe your Mysteries I know that you will tell me that this is obstinacy and that at this rate no Man will ever be convinc'd of his errors but will make this his last refuge that he cannot indeed contradict the truth offer'd but that his Reason will not suffer him to submit I grant all this But still as long as I act sincerely in it I may be pity'd but I cannot be blam'd Orthod You have often told me of your sincerity in this matter But I am afraid you have not the true notion of it Socin I understand by it a serious mind willing to know the truth and taking all the ways that it can to attain it I have study'd my own heart and if I can pretend to any knowledge of my self I think that I am in that very disposition Orthod There is a great deal more in it than all this comes to Self-love will turn it self into a thousand shapes and represent us to our selves quite otherwise than really we are Information indeed is the way to Truth But other qualifications must be suppos'd without which it is not attainable Bare arguing will never do The Soul must be purify'd of those lusts which are so many clouds interposing between us and the Truth I shall never believe a Man sincere in this till a substantial Piety with an uniform humble and mortify'd Life has made way to Divine Illuminations I take the grand obstacle to Faith not so much to consist in what we call Reason as in the indisposition of the heart which resists the impressions of the Grace and Spirit of God Sincerity in our obedience to CHRIST's holy precepts is the Touch-stone of that other which we pretend to One may practise Religion though he understands it not but it can never be understood except it be seriously practis'd As long as we live a life of sense and neglect the duties of Religion we shall ever wrangle with the points propos'd to our belief Oblige me in not separating two things so wholly depending on one another Socin I perfectly agree with you in this But I believe that God is merciful and that there is an allowance for invincible errors Orthod I believe so too But the error which you have espous'd is certainly a damnable error and is not Invincible He who never had a revelation of the Gospel and lives up to the light of nature will no doubt find that the mercies of God are not so consin'd as some Zealots have made them But you have had it and that too attested with the blood of Martyrs and the voice of the Catholick Church which at this very time from all the parts of the World exclaims against and condemns you How guilty is that confidence which under the pretence of contradictions and poor Criticisms dares refuse an assent to God speaking in his Holy Scriptures and to his Church declaring her sence of those matters in all her decrees Your errour indeed is invincible not because you cannot but because you will not be overcome Socin But who is a better judge than my self whether I can or no Orthod All this is trifling with God and your self Every Man will give the same Answer and by this defend not only the most pernicious errours but even the most sinful habits However take the great help which God has provided in this case and that is Prayer Be never wanting in your publick and private Adorations of God to pour your Heart before him with humility and fervency that he would open your Eyes and remove from you blindness and hardness of Heart Alass my Friend the night of your Life and mine is far spent The day is at hand Few steps more and we launch into Eternity Have pity on your own Soul and hasten to secure your self Socin I cannot however but express my acknowledgment for your good and serious advice I promise you that I will consider of it in earnest But it grows late and I fear we have no more time than what will serve to take another turn in this fine Garden and then draw home Orthod Besure to be as good as your word Socin I will Orthod Then I am almost confident that you will have done Socinianizing FINIS