And for my better Method I shall distribute my Subject into Three Parts to wit The Proof of the Trinity from 1. Reason 2. Scripture And 3. Tradition And herein I shall pursue your Method and begin with Reason first REASON KNow then Sir to avoid all needless Arguments I will grant you that your Creed may in a Sence be rational and very near agreeable to what you have wrote in Sect. 2. thus I will agree with you as you ingeniously alledge pag. 49 and 68. That Three Persons Self-conscious and Immaterial may in a sence be called One Nay and not improperly give the first Commandment as One as being inseperably united in Will and Wisdom indeed Sir to do you right what you have in this alledg'd is the only thing that ever I saw like rational for the Trinity yet But then as you say your self As by Natural Religion there can be but One God pag. 147. And tho' there be several Persons yet they cannot act apart but always with One Energy pag. 136. So your own Argument destroys itself for surely where there are mean and under Offices between Persons the Energy is manifestly not One nor the Act simple Nor will your Arguments pag. 118 help you for 't is manifest by the Descent of the Holy Ghost on Christ like a Dove that the Three Divine Persons act separately as well as think so so that if your own Arguments be consistent pag. 124 and God be a pure and simple Act as you alledge pag. 129 and 167 And Alterity makes Duality as you likewise affirm pag. 122 't is plain these Three Persons cannot make up such a Deity as you would imagine indeed they might be One in a Metaphor and as in Scripture sence but to be really One is a Jest But you will say 't is their Self-consciousness which makes them One and that you apprehend consistent with this Personality I answer That is to run your self into as great Absurdities to avoid the present Is it rational Self-conscious and absolute Coequals should take or impose servile and underling Offices of each other Besides that the Son and Holy Ghost are conscious to the Father is absolutely false and groundless from Scripture as I shall shew you in order St. Austin's Explication But I see Sir you are resolv'd not to be at a loss you will rather have two Strings to your Bow than fail of your Mark and therefore now we must prepare our selves for St. Austin's Self-consciousness And in this you say The Trinity are conscious to each other as our Memory Will and Vnderstanding are which know and feel whatever is in each other v. pag. 50. Alas Sir I wonder how that you who live in the fuller Rays of Humane Learning can brook the comparing of Faculties to Persons or how you can repeat such Inconsistencies as they produce before you acknowledg'd each Person compleat and rational and now you make the Father impotent and only a Speculation pag. 132. and the reflex Wisdom or the Son of God only powerful to act and create And again by another turn pag. 169 you make him impotent too In short Sir I shall forbear to offend you with all those Comments I could make in this place did I rather study Malice than Truth but this you force me to declare that if you take such liberty to prove your Mystery as to make Persons Faculties and Faculties Persons as you do 't is impossible that any Reasoning should hold you For by the same liberty what may you not say And what Sir do these Wiles look as from God And that the Reader may see you have not treated of these Faculty-Gods by chance pag. 135 you attribute the Creation to them pag. 182 183 you make the Father to have no Mercy in himself indeed pag. 135 you would seem to palliate the matter by saying The essential Character of the Holy Ghost in the like case is Love. But Sir a running Eye shews this to be all Mystery indeed and really such an one as confounds Personality Trinity and Deity all at a stroke v. pag. 130. Besides Sir you make Love in the Father to be the Holy Ghost a Person and God p. 133. And pray Sir why is not Hatred a Person in God as well as Love The Reason you give why Love is a Person is because there can be no Accident in God and therefore even an Affection in him is real and makes a Person But what Sir may not this Reason serve for Hatred and an hundred Affections more REFLECTIONS I shall add no more at present concerning the Reason of the two Hypothesis's because it will fall more naturally in our way as we examine the Scriptures and indeed I have wrote nothing at all here of the Arrian Hypothesis because the Reasoning of it is so obvious that it were to fire Candles to enlighten the Day to illustrate it Give me leave therefore to advise you Sir that for the future you be wary to reason more perfectly or not at all 't is no light Truth that you have oppos'd and I believe many a Reader would have had less Charity for what you have done than I have and may be would condemn you for beguiling with the appearance of Reasoning but I neither think so of you nor believe otherwise than that your Paternal Zeal has misguided you As for the Contradictions of this Doctrine I shall speak of them in their proper place in the mean time I shall pass on to Examine your Scripture-Interpretations And by this time I hope you are convinc'd that you have jump'd out of the Frying-pan into the Fire and instead of helping out an Absurdity by a Nicety made it the more suspicious by defending it with a Fallacy Scripture Interpretation BEfore I descend into Particulars I shall write a little of the Interpretation of Scriptures in general and methinks here it grieves me to see how to make out this Mystery Men have not stopt at any Arts to force and wrest the Scriptures to this imaginary Truth Page 153 you say We ought not to force the Scriptures to preconceiv'd Notions But what is not this Mystery such Surely were a Pagan to read the Scriptures the first Commandment would keep him so much as from ever dreaming of a Trinity and I wonder really how it came into Mens Minds I know the World would be apt enough to embrace it when it once comes their as their Superstition has always enclin'd them to a Polytheism but I should have thought there had been a sufficient Guard against every colour of it in Christianity But to maintain this Hypothesis now once up let me beseech you to consider your own evasive Constructions of Scripture I am perswaded if you err as I have said `t is because you have continued in your first Faith with too little circumspection and that the Socinian Hypothesis has not appear'd natural to you for you seem to have much sincerity to do otherwise and therefore
I presume this liberty with you Of the SON Consider then I say is it not strange that you should make the Son know things as God and not know them as Man. p. 177 pray after what manner was the God head Incarnate and what kind of Person was this that by a kind of Ventriloquy you make to speak something as Divine when the ordinary Person knows nothing of them himself i p. 270. So what an Answer you have there that the Son was tempted as to his Manhood but not as to his Godhead And pray then where was the Godhead all the while like Baal's asleep or was the Man Christ now and then as it were possessed by Fits Methinks I am asham'd to handle the Absurdities of this Hypothesis they make me giddy when I consider them So in the same Page in Interpreting Mark 13. 32. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man no not the angels that are in heaven neither the Son but the Father Do you not think you wrest and destroy the Scripture Sence and in pretence of saying St. Matthew has not what St. Mark has blemish the clearest Text You had better write down-right St. Mark 's Gospel is not true or that Gradation Man Angel or Son is impertinent and then you would answer something-like as if you defended a Mystery But by the way you must excuse me Sir if for Truth's-sake I am forc'd thus to make such Reflections on your words which tho' they may seem hard yet are necessary and yet not that they belong so much unto you as your Cause which I cannot otherwise set to a full light which I believe you have hitherto embrac'd with too much inadvertency and in following the corrupt Interpretations of the Church with too much Zeal But to return to my purpose Nor will your Evasion of Self-consciousness make God and Man One Person here as you would insinuate pag. 262. for 't is plain God and Man are thus two Persons if they acted together and God commanded the Reason regularly as the Reason does the Sence as you urge pag. 268 9. there might be some pretence for their being One Person but you see plainly the Godhead exerts itsself may be now and then as it lists nay ever and anon as it did at Christ's Crucifixion and Acclamation left the Man by himself and crying out upon the Godhead My God my God why hast thou forsaken me And what Can here be any pretence then that the Godhead suffer'd For shame leave the Blasphemy and for his being conscious to the Man Christ Jesus that that should make him Incarnate is such a shuffle that you had as good say God is personally united to us all because he is conscious to all our thoughts as suppose a Personal Incarnation of God himself in Christ on that account So that all that you alledge of the Incomprehensibility of the Incarnation will not salve your Sores for all that you urge of that kind pag. 264 is but gratis dictum and you ought to have more Truth in your Foundation before you can justifie such profound Mysteries in the Building Of the FATHER So surely hereafter Sir you will be asham'd to see how groundlesly you have made the Person of the Father signifie the whole Trinity as you have done I am perswaded if God should mercifully open your eyes once to a Conviction your own wrested Allegations will settle and six you for ever from wavering What you say pag. 89 and 193. That the Son calls the Father the only true God Quatenus fons Deitatis and that not in opposition to the Persons in Vnion with him but the False Gods pag. 185 186. is so groundless and withal so perverting a Construction of Scripture and meerly on the presumption of your Hypothesis that I wonder how in fair Argument you can use it nay and when in the very Text you cite you have the Father called the only true God in opposition to the Son himself Sir Give me leave to tell you your Church and Self have by Time and Industry given your selves such Methods to blind your selves like the ancient Astronomers with so many Epicicles and blind and precarious Principles in leading your interpreting Scriptures that without singular Courage and Integrity lead you I may say the peculiar Grace of God do it indeed 't is almost impossible to shew you Truth you are so clouded and maz'd from it by your own corrupt Subtleties in defending Error But yet why do I accuse you so far you have already granted one half of what I desire That so many leading Terms as Hypostasis c. are to be blam'd pag. 139. be pleas'd but to move one step further clap Homo ousios among them which you confess is not in Scripture pag. 15 and yield me that our imposing Explanations must at least mud if not corrupt the stream of Truth and you shall see after that that you and I shall never disagree I shall add no more in this place but to shew you how deep you are dipt by your Zeal in this Error that pag. 150 you can tell us We ought not to interpret Scriptures by Reason the Reason you assign us is because we must observe the Propriety of Words and Phrases and the Scope of the Text And what then Sir is not Reason to enquire and rule those You had as good say she has no concern in Language And pray in what has she more But I shall forbear further Reflections INCARNATION I have hitherto shewn you how much you have err'd in your general Interpretation of Scripture I shall now proceed to rectifie your Errors in particulars wherein I shall be the larger that I may comprehend the Objections of the late Dr. S and others on my Subject I shall begin first with the Incarnation Now that I may the better shew the Errors of the Incarnation as in your Hypothesis I shall state it as it lies most natural in mine Know then that tho' I do not violently acknowledge the Son of God to be co-equal to the Father yet I freely grant him to be as Great and Eminent as God could possibly make him Sir I do not imagine a Prosopopeia Incarnate as you suggest p. 227. nor do I make the Godhead carry about and now and then possess a Body as I have shewn your Trinity Hypothesis will necessitate but I suppose the great God and Angel who under the Father fram'd all things to satisfie God's Justice and destroy the Malice of Satan and to redeem his own willingly condescended that through the Power of God his Being might be reduc'd as to a first Semen and so he might live with Purity and suffer under that Trial that no Creature but himself could be able besides to accomplish with any certainty for our Redemption This Sir I conceive is the great Mystery of the Incarnation and this methinks carries some semblance of Rationality for if we from little Semens may hereafter
he not then been wholly dependant on the Father and directed by the Holy Ghost and as so dependant on God's Grace he had been no apt Pattern for us as he is now when subject to like Infirmities and yet not but that I grant that after he was once rais'd again from the Dead by God after his Ascention he receiv'd his Power again Mat. 28. 18. Phil. 2. 6. Another Text you urge against us is That 't is said of Christ Phil. 2. 6. That he thought it not robbery to be equal to God v. pag. 240 244. But whatever you surmize this Text will do you but little benefit for what is this but to require what I have granted that Jesus Christ is absolute Lord to all the Glory of the Father and indeed Sir if you would have but look'd a little further to v. 9. and 10 you would have seen the Apostle himself apply this my Interpretation according to 1 Cor. 15. 27 28. So pag. 239 you tell us He took upon him the form of a Servant And pag. 242. you say That that proves his Pre-existence And I grant it you And what Sir is not this agreeable to my Hypothesis But you add pag. 242 That it was matter of free choice And have I not said the same Indeed you have added pag. 244 That there is not greater Nonsence than a Creature-God But Sir then you should have prov'd it John 2. 19. 21. Page 233 you tell us The Temple was a Type of Christ as you urge it more strongly pag. 234 235. And indeed Sir you are in the right but I hope you weild this Sword against the Socinians and not the Arrians So pag. 237 you tell us of the Types of Sacrifice but in all these things we agree with you Sir and our Cause ought to lose no Reputation by your Imputations and therefore excuse me if I put in thus a Caveat here and there least another Reader if not your self may be misled by them John 10. 30. But now I am come to your great Charge Sir I and my Father are One And here you prepar'd your self before with your Self-consciousness p. 57. but as to that I think I have answer'd you sufficiently already so that I hope even your self will judge that the Text John 17. 20 21. alledg'd by you p. 62 will be a sufficient Answer to you for all your sine-spun Evasions p. 61 62 63. 1 John 5. 7. The same Answer I shall return you to the Text There are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and those Three are One and indeed Sir without questioning the Authority of this place what can we rationally mean by this Text unless One in bearing Record according as 1 Cor. 3. 8. and the Context directs So pag. 51. you alledge that because Christ said The Father is in me and I in him that therefore they are essentially One as likewise because Christ is said to be in the Bosome of the Father But alas Sir your Inference is so weak and these Expressions so much better suit my Hypothesis than yours that they deserve not an Answer For pray Sir let me ask you Who is to be cherish'd in the Bosom What a Coequal And is not the other Expression adequate to both Hypothesis alike So pag. 50 you say The Son perfectly knows the Father And pag. 59 you alledge a Scripture to prove it which denies it indeed which shews you he knows but what the Father sees good to tell him Besides Sir in this matter you have us'd such a shuffling Method of answering as I shew'd you before in treating about the Hour of Judgment that Christ knows not something as Man and yet all things on occasion as God in the same Person that really till your Hypothesis let you write better you deserve no Answer John 2. 25. But as a strengthning to this may be alledg'd what you have wrote pag. 245. that Christ tells us He knew what was in man And no doubt of it Sir he needed not that any Man should testifie of Man but does this therefore argue he had not this knowledge from the Father by the Holy Ghost Besides Sir if you mean that in his pre-existent state he sees our Thoughts as you seem to alledge pag. 248 and 252 I answer you I never denied it but if you think he knew what was in Man whilst Incarnate otherwise than by Revelation I must confess you make me dissent from you for if he had he could never have ask'd Men occasionally so many Questions as he did as when he ask'd his Disciples What John thought of him And what Men said of him Mat. 28. 18. Page 247 you tell us That Christ had all power both in heaven and earth given him But I wonder you will cite a Text so much against you for if it was given him was there not a time then that he had it not that is during his Incarnation according to John 17. And if so what good will all your little Arguings p. 248 250 and 251. do you You know Sir whatever the Socinians do our Hypothesis supposes him eminently the Son of God and the Universal Lord nor do we deny him properly to be called a God provided it be expressed as in the Scripture in subordination to the Father Heb. 1. 8 9. for there in his highest Glory and Exaltation he is always put under the Father Mat. 9. 6. But you say pag. 249. That the son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins But what then That it was not his own Power appears by his Answer to the Sons of Zebbedee Mat. 20. 23. which he would not have given had he been a Supream and Coequal God nay more to confirm this he declares he knows not the Hour of Judgment Mark 13. 32. 1 Tim. 6. 15. Indeed after his Resurrection he tells us The Father hath put all Times and Seasons in his own Power Acts 1. 7. And tells us That God gave him even the Revelations to shew unto his Servants Rev. 1. 1. John 5. 23. The last Text I shall write of in general of the Son is That all Men should honour the Son as they honour the Father and this p. 173 you say Ought to be equal to the honour we pay the Father and I prettily observe that you put off that God appointed that Honour on pretence that 't is natural for the Son to receive Honour by the Father So pag. 253 254 255 you are upon a continuation of the same Argument But alas how woodenly No Reader can peruse you and not see Page 62 you can grant your self that as signifies a likeness and not always sameness in degree And if so why cannot our Brother Socinian's Answer serve you But however that we may put this matter out of all doubt Pray Sir consider a little is there no difference between the great Son of God our Mediator
his Minister whereof he is the Head to the Worship Honour and Glory of God And what Sir will you interpret against Scripture And this consider'd where stands any room for your Calumnies page 27 210 211 212 213 214. Is not the whole Foundation of your Argument rotten Does Baptism shew Worship And if not how can it be an open and barefac'd Idolatry What may not there be a Ceremony in it to shew us who under God are our Spiritual Governour as well as by Water to imitate the cleansing of Regeneration If so why may not my Construction of it agreeable to Scripture-Interpretation be as good as yours I protest before God did not my Hypothesis not only want Absurdity but suit most rationally yea most naturally to Truth and the Scriptures I would sooner dye than adhere to it Lastly Sir to put your Union in your Hypothesis beyond all doubt the Scriptures have plainly shewn us that these Three Persons have various and distinct Intellectual Powers John 16. 13 14 15 16. Mark 13. 32. John 12. 49. And indeed we might rationally have collected as much from their being given and sent did not our Mysteries quite shut our Eyes against Reason The FATHER Nor do the Scriptures cited of the Son and Three Persons only agree to strengthen our Hypothesis and destroy yours but even those that relate to the Father and Holy Ghost likewise I shall give you short Specimens of both beginning with the first first and then proceeding to the other and after that I shall conclude my Scripture-proofs in this and proceed Know then that the Scriptures plainly tell us that the Father is the One only true God only Good only wise greater than the Son only sitting on the Throne the Son and Holy Ghost being as his Attendants and his Name is I am in opposition to α and ω the First and the Last One signifying a pure and infinite Being the other the first and great Creature Rev. 3. 14. Further the Scriptures shew us it is not agreeable with a due reverence that we should confound the Titles of the Father with others thus Christ gives us a particular charge to remember not only that there is but One God but that we have but one Father and one Master Mat. 23. 8 9. and St. Paul 1 Cor. 8. 4 5 6. tells us That in truth there is but One God and One Lord to wit the Father and his Son Christ Jesus according to Phil. 2. 11. So they say the Father is the Supream Lord of all and greater than the Son and really his God too and that he is the Fountain of Grace and only invisible whereas the Son and Holy Ghost have been often seen so he is only reveal'd by the Son But what need I repeat more of these proofs The Scriptures are full of them and were not Men blinded as they are with the Epicicles of their Two Natures in Christ and Mediatory Offices c. whereby they beg the thing in dispute and anticipate all Proofs they would see the Sun is not clearer than the Proofs I have given them hereafter I believe Men will admire at our blindness as much as we do at the Papists now but I see the Hand of God is upon us we are cursed to it and only Prayers can remove it Of the Holy Ghost I come now to speak of the Holy Ghost to shew you how much in every Point your Hypothesis straggles and how you dissent from Scripture in every step you have made in your Mystery while the Arrian answers it may I say to the most exact Truth and keeps a due mean between your coequal Gods and the Socinians no less absurd meer Man and power of God. Know then the Holy Ghost the Spirit of Truth called so in opposition to Satan the lying Spirit is a great God or Principally and Christ's Universal Deputy and as so the Giver of all good Gifts Yet so as he is subject to the Son and receives his Authority from him and thence I believe it peremptory to blaspheme his Evidence for to lie to him is to lie to God that is through him though he be but in reality an Angel Rev. 2. 1. 2. 11. compar'd to Acts 22 34. Luke 3. 21 22. where he made the like Visions and indeed Blasphemy against him otherwise were absurd it should rather be against the Father and Son especially the Father as Fons Deitatis and whom the Jews reverenc'd when they knew not the Holy Ghost Further as God made the Son his Instrument in the Angelical Creation so he sub-deputed the Holy Ghost in the Formation of Man and of the Earth and upon this account the Spirit is called Eminenter the Spirit of God that is the greatest next to God the Father and the Lord Christ and the most extraordinary Gift of God in his assistance But yet he is absolutely Christ's Deputy and sent by the Son from the Father that till Christ went he could not come and yet 't is he that under Christ bestows all variety of Spiritual Gists that dwells in us that spake by the Prophets that helps our Prayers and indeed that assists our ordinary Discourse by his Grace or holy anointing But to shut up all he is in no place of the whole Scripture either direâ—tly called God or order'd to be worship'd which last thing you are so modest as to grant page 194 195 so that upon the whole matter to Idea him in coequality to the Father as you see were so plain a violence to the Scripture he not having so much Honour allow'd him as even the Son has that I declare I admire it And by this time I hope Sir you see plainly that your reasoning about the Holy Ghost page 179 193 are meer shuffles and that your Texts 1 Cor. 2. 10. quoted by you page 53. That the Spirit searcheth all things yea the deep things of God has no other sence than that the Holy Ghost co-operating with our Spirit reveals us the greatest knowledge we attain and that is what agrees with the Context and the Text you cite in the next Page but if it does with your Hypothesis I am mistaken As for your other Reasons page 54 55. and 64 65. brought to prove the self-consciousness of the Father and Holy Ghost they are as groundless as the rest of your Mystery and therefore I shall only shew you I take notice of them indeed if the Holy Ghost knew all things thus of himself what need the Son shew them him REFLECTION Sir I hope by this time I have given you as ample satisfaction in your Scripture-proof as you can desire you cannot but be so ingenious as to grant that you have had all the advantages that a Succession of Commentators can give you whereas I you see for all that can heap you up the
beginning of the Creation of God for Righteousness exalted to be God's Son and yet as so wholly dependant on the Father So he is likewise made our Universal Lord and Ruler nay even Lord of All with express Eminence and Judge who before his Incarnation was that Word by whom God made the Worlds and fram'd all Things whether visible or invisible but yet so as an Instrument only Which Texts I must agree with you Sir I think the Socinians wrongfully wrest to a new Creature Further tho' the Son be often called God in Scripture as yet that can give us no ground to equal him to the Father the Supream God because God is not only a Title as I have said often bestow'd on Creatures but is particularly intended to the Son as such as you may see where he is only declared to be Lord by it which is a Title inferiour and subordinate to God. Prov. 8. 30. Your next Text I shall shall speak to is Prov. 8. 30. Then I was by him as one brought up with him and I was daily his delight rejoicing always before him And what Sir does this look as if there was a coequality to be represented No surely the Text aggrandizes the Person of the Father too much and when you consider it I doubt not but you will grant me so Nor need I give you other Answer here since you know I grant Christ in his pre-existent state to be a Spirit of a Universal Power who laying aside his blessed State was deputed into Incarnation and rewarded for it being made our Mediatour the Lord of our Temple and Sabbath and King and Spouse to the Universal Church Exod. 23. 20. Page 299. you say That there are many Texts in the Old Testament even by Christ and his Apostles applied to himself as then in being and I grant it you thus Zech. 12. 10. They shall look on me whom they have pierced page 208 and in Malacby Behold I will send my Messenger and he shall prepare the way before me page 235 answering to Mat. 3. 3. But what benefit will these Texts do you Nothing really but confound your Hypothesis 'T is true Christ did appear in-being in the Old Testament but as but an Angel bearing the Name of God once in Eminence called The Angel of the Presence and as he is sometimes called in the New Testament too Who taking flesh upon him shew'd as much by the Agonies he was in But to pretend that there could be the Union of two Rationals a God and a Soul in a Body to make a Person or that the Godhead could possibly divest itself of Power and Knowledge to possess the Body of an Infant or that it was otherwise in Christ who like others was a Child and grew in Knowledge by degrees are such Principles that without Men lay by their Reason with their Religion beyond retrieve I wonder they are not asham'd of Besides even the satisfaction of Christ as God seems irrational What must we make our Creatour suffer for us e're he can pardon us and imaginarily manage the Machine of a humane Body to attone to himself and by himself What looks more impertinent and absurd But that Christ the Lord of all Creatures should attone their God for them nothing seems more rational or just if he design'd to satisfie God's Justice to destroy the Works of the Devil in Adam and bring us to Glory Heb. 2. 9 10. And upon this account it was that for all Christ's Prayer That if it were possible this Cup should pass from him God's Justice would not let it indeed he is too impartial even to spare his own Son. Heb. 1. Next I should speak of the Text Heb. 1. quoted from Psal 102. 25 26 27. and mention'd in your Book pag. 200. How Christ fram'd the World which you know I deny not however give me leave to tell you that that Context utterly destroys your Hypothesis tho' it does not mine for how you will reconcile these words Being made so much better then the Angels v. 4. And thou hast lov'd Righteousness and hated Iniquity and therefore God even thy God has anointed thee with the oyl of gladness above thy fellows viz. Angels in the Context I know not and yet you see Christ is called God that it is mentioned in his highest degree in the same Context v. 8. 9. So that I hope Sir if our Brother Socinus cannot please you as wresting too much the Scriptures in his Interpretations as you complain pag. 229 230 yet the Arrian may give you satisfaction and shew you there is an Hypothesis more apt may I say almost infinitely than the Trinity John 3. 16 Page 238 you tell us The Fundamental Mystery of Christianity is that God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting Life And I agree with you Sir provided you will but take away your additional stretch of an Eternal Generation to the Words and let the Scripture interpret them Now the ground upon which the Scriptures say Christ is called God's Son you may see plainly and so for his Resurrection which God accomplish'd for him But where is it we are to find he is his Son through an Eternal Generation Not surely because he is called God's Son for that he was not unless prophetically before his Incarnation nor only begotten for that might be only as he was God's eminentest and only peculiar Creature indeed the Texts before-cited take away all other Mystery from the Word whatever So for his being without Sin in the Flesh it might be because as I said he was immediately God's Creation whereas all things else were made by him and through him and consequently more imperfect and for that cause too he may properly be called his only begotten Son and his express Image as no one besides has or is capable of managing an entire Deputation under him And upon this account indeed it was too that he alone was able to bear the weight of the Prophecies and Tryals incident to our Redemption for if I may so say not only the Tryals were too hazardous to be ventur'd at by an ordinary Angel but no One except the Great Lord of the Creation would be like to shew so great a Love to it in its Redemption Heb. 2. 9 10. Besides as God's Justice is most impartial so even tho' the Son undertook the Office he was not favour'd in it thus when he became Incarnate he had no Power of his own nor was he called to his Office till he had first sought to God with tears and when he was too he was often left to the sharpest Tryals alone or else he could never have cry'd out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me when he was upon the Cross as he did Indeed had
a Devil create Men meerly for Damnation Or would you have him damn them to support your Hypothesis See how your Mystery has misled you Sir that Men should be sav'd only by parrotting over a few unintelligible words I might have expected this from some ignorant Sectarist but I never thought a a skilful Doctor should make God so hard a Task-master as to require Men to believe so penally what 't is plain not One in a Million understands Alas Sir you mistake the Redemption of Christ 't was to purchase us a new Covenant and not only teach us a new Faith On Adam's Fall we chang'd our State our Tryal by a single Precept for the Law of Nature but had not the Seed of the Woman begun even then to have broke the Serpent's Head at least through a Covenant to be fulfill'd Can you blaspheme God so as to say he would let him be fruitful Will not a Prophet be able to vindicate his Justice that has declar'd long since every Man and he alone should bear his own iniquity I say then Christ has purchased us a new Covenant and since he is come there is some reason for us to honour him with the necessity of our Faith through him to lead us to Salvation and to obey his excellent Precepts to conduct us through the Second Covenant the Law of Nature to Perfection But where could be the necessity 〈◊〉 this 〈◊〉 I see Sir your Virtues have no Extreams you have Faith but allow no Credulity if you did you could never swallow these things you confirm the old Sentence Credo quia impossibile est But alas Sir do you think to make your Doctrine prevail by these means by a dead anathematizing implicite Faith fitter for Paganism than Christianity No your uncharitableness cannot but blemish you even among your own Friends indeed the Predestinarian does not exceed this and may be Men seeing thus how one Errour leads you into another so black will be brought by it to see the Truth they consider'd not before Besides Sir had you consulted Scripture in this the Apostle tells you plainly that Christ died for the Sins of the whole World 1 John 2. 1 2. And if not think you God's Mercy would have detain'd him till the latter Ages of the World besides Sir are we not charg'd not to judge them that are without and are we not told that where there is no Law there is no Sin John 9. 41. James 4. 17. and that they that have not been able to receive a Law or Revelation are to be tried by Natural Religion and their Conscience as a Law within themselves Rom. cap. 1. 2. Acts 24. 13. And indeed which is the Law improv'd by Christ himself and which is written in our Heart according to the Apostle to the Hebrews Alas Sir had you judg'd of the wilfully ignorant and perverse you had left some colour for your Censure to be true and yet even then were I in your case I should be very unwilling to fling the first Stone especially since Christ has told us as we judge we shall be judg'd I had rather let Men be guilty and God condemn them then condemn my self by judging them Faith Necessary But methinks I hear you object to me What Faith is necessary then if this be not I say the Faith of Enoch Abraham and Moses that God is a Rewarder of the just in tender Consciences is enough and that without Idolizing Works as you reflect page 25. I add also that a particular Faith of Mercy through Christ is necessary where offer'd with Conviction but whatever you do or say God will never require Consent where he has not given Evidence enough and what is it to me if it can be had in a Cause if I cannot come at it To these may be also added by consent the Apostles Creed or any other so it be not enforc'd but for your nice and speculative Creeds they are unnecessary or else you accuse Christ and his Apostles of a cowardly lukewarmness for omitting them for all you insinuate page 29. that we would be at Creed-making too Sir but we beg your Pardon and have more Charity for if we explain our Hypothesis 't is only to confute yours Consider therefore Sir by your own Reasoning 't is Popery to judge of the Catholick Church by its multitude page 36. So remember 't is our heat magnifies our Zeal in this Hypothesis above others for any other explain'd as nicely would have as bad effects and give me leave to retort your Argument Tho' I am modest yet you have given me occasion to oppose you as Popular and tho' I am cautious yet Truth bids me not fear whether your Mystery prove true but warn you that under Protection of a Mystery you do not oppugn Truth v. page 44. To conclude in Charity I shall give you one Advice more and that is that you do not at every turn like the Papists Cap Hereticks and repeat Catalogues of Heresies as you are apt to do page 107. You are a Protestant Sir and you should rather lament that Church-Impositions so long took away an innocent liberty of Opinion from the World and by an immoderate Self-love of impos'd Opinions and Disciplines rent the Bond of Peace and Unity in sunder CONCLVSION I Hope Sir by this time you see that we Unitarians do understand what we write of for all what you charge us with p. 4. Nay and more I 'll add We do it without mazing Metaphysicks to help us indeed we have not your Breath of the Populace to encourage us into large and fair Volumes but I hope we have Truth far better to recommend us to the sincere I hope Sir too you see we do not arrogate infinite Knowledge as you asperse us page 5. but vindicate a Truth clear as the day Indeed 't is plain the First Commandment except to exclude Persons is Nonsence and who in this Case must bear the Reflection you or God surely we must acquit God and if we do our Faith must fling you into all the Absurdities and Contradictions of Transubstantion The Case is not whether in Idea there may not be Three self-conscious coequal Beings but whether an Interpreter of the First Commandment can justifie such a thing and that I am sure he cannot for all your struggles after Vindications without Absurdity and Nonsence But you 'll say here is some colour for the Trinity And what is there not then as much sor Transubstantiation This is plain our Bodies are not Two Years together the same and tho' differing thus Twenty times in our Lives we call it still the same Body May not we on this as justly salve Transubstantiation that the Spirit of Christ is able to dwell in infinite Bodies at once and will not this make as properly the same Body as my Body at Twenty is my Body at Thirty but you answer you have Scripture of your side and pray shew me half so strong a
Chapter for the Trinity as John the 6th is for Transubstantiation Alas Sir you see your Fallacies do but divert your Causes being expos'd for a time till a nice Refutation makes it look the blacker for its Sophistry And now you may see who 't is that brings down the plain Scriptures to be wrested by the absurd Reason of a Mystery page 141. And now Men and Angels may see who are those absurd and senceless Insidels that reject what they have evidence for v. page 6. In short I dare appeal to all the World tho' against me whether suppression of Books be not your best Argument You tell us page 148 That our Business is to prove Three Persons Three Gods And we do it by this That if God be more than One Person when not particularly reveal'd and contrary to his first Commandment his Commandment is of no effect But shall we grant that No we 'll turn the havock of the first Commandment justly in Contradictions upon you we need not ask with Nicodemus How can these things be page 150. but we 'll tell you with the same reason we may make three thousand Gods that you believe a Lye Thess 2. 11. And you had as good make all Mankind One Man and destroy all Plurality and Numbers c. But for Peace-sake I shall forbear further Reflections page 109. Hence should you invent a thousand Metaphysick strains more this one plain Truth would ruine them all indeed did not Mystery the Authority of the Whore Rev. 17. and the great support of Popery bear up your Hypothesis her Epitaph might have been wrote I doubt not many hundred Years ago Mystery do I say Mystery and Persecution are the Devil's Twins and stand and fall both together Persecution without Mystery were too cruel and Mystery without Blood too much Nonsence to be born 't is these two are Popery and the worst of Popery Transubstantiation without these were an innocent Error And what are not Protestants asham'd to weild the Sword of Antichrist Yes surely But if they are why do they stille us and our Books is it not that they fear our Truths Are you not asham'd to rail at us for Blasphemers and Hereticks as you do if I am not mistaken we mean as sincerely and Interpret the Scripture as well as you for all your boasts pag. 141. and you shall sind God in the Great Day will shew which is the Heretick What have we not as much reason to complain of the blemishes of the first and great Commandment as you have and cannot the Controversie of Elisha and Baal remember you that 't is not Numbers but Minds that God seeks But you say This is a Mystery And pray who has authoris'd it for one You be-ly God in his Scriptures if you say that he has no 't is Man's own invention and that 't is that makes him idolize the uncharitable Imposition so much What shall God bid us publish what none understand Pray who can agree in this Mystery Or were the Copy of it lost who would be able exactly to hammer it out Is this clear like a heavenly Truth Are we not asham'd to cast this stumbling-block in Christianity that has so justly offended all Jews Turks and Pagans it ever came neer indeed does not Mahomet support his division by this very thing and does he not complain above an hundred times against the abuse of the Unity in his Alchoran What shall I say if we repent not this Error shall we not justly stand branded to all Posterity a Race of pretended Protestants but really a Philosophick Sect of Christian Atheists Besides what but the corruption of this Unity in the Godhead can have so long prosper'd the Mahometan above the Christian and the Papists above the Protestants I shall add no more at present but that were this Mystery the greatest Truth yet considering Mens weakness 't were both hateful and seditious to impose it on one another in pain of Salvation to subscribe it only as an Article of Peace in some cases might be tolerable but to force their Consciences to they know not what themselves is in plain terms Antichristian Uncharitable and Devilish And alass now we see wherein our Reformation is imperfect that it has not preserv'd our eternal liberty of Opinion in things not expresly reveal'd this is the Root of all Controversie and this must be cur'd if ever we hope for Peace indeed in a free Remonstrancy where all Impositions are cut off Heresies of course pine and die with their Authors for want of room to be regarded EXHORTATION And now Sir I shall more particularly address my stile to yourself And in the first place I beg you to pardon all my Reprehensions and if they are any where bitterer than they ought reckon it my frailty not my injustice and at least you ought to thank me for my good intention but if you approve what I have wrote return God the Glory for your information and I am satisfied I assure you Sir in myself I am griev'd to write against a good Man nor would I but that my love to God and Truth commands me nor do I write this that I think you want either Piety or Ability indeed you shine for both in your Church but I would advise you that you have mistook the Truth nor wonder at it for the greatest Fathers in the Church have done it before you You have ventur'd to be singular once in Conscience already and your Treatise of Death shews you sincere dare once a deeper Resignation and a more singular Truth if you fall not back you know not what Service God may have for you to do Remember Sir 't is Constancy to follow Truth in all changes of Notions and but obstinacy to remain stiff after conviction Besides 't will be as much your Glory as St. Austin's that you recant and if you are a Christian indeed you cannot hate your Friend or Glass for shewing you your wrinkles nor will your singularity be worse if you see them unless in Piety that others are as bad or worse than your self and dare not see it What tho' I am singular and contemptible my Truths if sincere are Divine and St. Paul as well as you had both Zeal and Popularity and yet was in an Error if you are in an Error pray God open your eyes and if I am I beg him to grant me to be rectified by your Instruction 't will be hard if a Miracle be necessary to instruct and reconcile us I cannot perswade myself that you will continue to pervert this grand Truth and by Reflections and Niceties endeavour further to obscure and cloud it what you have hitherto done I hope nay believe you have done ignorantly and because the Socinian Hypothesis was not sincere enough you oppos'd it but for the Arrian I almost dare promise myself more Charity from you if not Conviction At first I declin'd this Book as not thinking it proper to be wrote