for the perusal of this most learned and judicious Letter which I return you and I congratulate the worthy Author whom the Divine Wisdom has made an Instrument for the vindicating of his glorious and incommunicable Attribute of Unity which he has in several Tracts even demonstrated not only by clear and express Scriptures and obvious Reason but also now at length from the Confessions of the Trinitarians themselves the Infringers of it For whilst each one condemns the several Explications of the rest as either inconsistent with the Unity or the Trinity they do all in their turns bear Witness to the Unitarians that their Opposition to the Trinitarian Doctrine is well-grounded and reasonable and consequently their Doctrine of the Unity the Truth of God For if each one of their Explications does either introduce the Worship of three Gods or the Heresy of Sabellianism as they call it the turning the Son and Holy Ghost into Names and Operations without any real Distinction of Persons or Things answering those distinct Names as it plainly appears they do then it undeniably follows there is no such Trinity as they imagine but a Numerical Unity of Person and Essence in God as the Unitarians hold and as some Trinitarians contend in their Opposition one to another It remains then that the Trinitarian Worshippers especially the common People do seriously and in the Fear of the one most High God consider what Notions Conceptions or Idea's they have of an Infinite and Almighty Holy Ghost distinct from the Almighty Father and Producer of them For they cannot possibly escape the Condemnation of one of the highest Crimes even the Worship of three Infinite Real Gods or two Imaginary Ones or two Names without Notions that is they know not what as this Author expresses it Condemnation I say not only by the Unitarians who worship the Father only as God in the highest and strictest Sense of that Term but also by all the Trinitarians that hold not the same Opinion or have not the same Notion I know the Times of Ignorance God winketh at as well now as before the preaching of the Gospel but after he has made his Unity manifest and vindicated it from the Scholastick Subtilties and absurd Distinctions that have been invented to hide the Truth he then commands all Men to whom this Evidence comes to repent Inconsideration or Negligence will not now excuse Men must not say or think as they commonly do this Point is too high for me to determine for they have already determined it whilst they profess to believe in and to worship three equal ones a Father a Son and a Spirit Neither can they alledg the Universality of the Trinitarian Faith For besides as this Author observes the worshipping of many Gods was formerly and is now far more universal we see that this Opinion and Worship which soever it be is condemned by at least four to one of those that go under that common Name of Trinitarians The rise of these divers and contrary Explications has been this as is observed by the Author in that which now obtains that Learned Men looking narrowly into former Explications have found them inconsistent with the Oneness of God and therefore have devised somewhat either more obscure that would hide the Contradiction or somewhat more consistent with the Unity tho it destroyed the Trinity or more consistent with the Trinity tho it destroys the Unity as Dr. Sherlock has done And perhaps others like him may devise other Hypotheses taking it for granted from the Prejudices of early Education and customary thinking that the Trinity is a Fundamental of Christianity But we see here they labour in vain to reconcile manifest Contradictions and in believing the Son and Holy Spirit to be equally God with the Father they offend against express Scriptures and clear Reason upon the account of their own Reasonings upon obscure Texts and therein transgress the plain Principles both of Natural Light and Revelation which require 1. That nothing be held for Truth contrary to evident and Fundamental Truth And 2. That obscure Passages are to be interpreted by clear Passages and the Current of Scripture and not otherwise The Jews walking contrary to these Principles was the cause of rejecting Christ and Christianity and it is indeed the ground of all Error whatever In vain do Men press a great many Texts that have even in the Opinion of Learned Trinitarians another meaning to prove that the Son and Holy Ghost are God till they can reconcile that Inference to plain Scripture and evident Reason In vain does the Author of The Snare broken who could not overcome the Prejudices of his Education and Converse perswade Men to lay aside their Philosophy and wholly to betake themselves to a Scriptural Consideration of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which I understand they must take the words of Scripture without understanding them or reconciling them to other Scriptures or even the Current of Scripture or common Reason Do they think that Scripture is to be interpreted contrary to it self Or that Divine Wisdom has made the Belief of Contradictions necessary to Salvation It seems strange that Christians should be very zealous in the Punctilio's of the Worship of God Ceremonies of Posture Gesture or Apparel Forms of Addresses to God the wording of Faith to an Iota and yet go on in the Worship of one God the Father and of two distinct from him God as perfectly as he and in which their Worship terminates equally with him They can love God the Father with all their Hearts and Strengths and two Persons distinct from him with the same All they can give all to one and all to another and all to a third and never question the Possibility of it as if there were a Trinity in Unity in every Man that his own Heart were three Hearts to be bestowed all and entirely upon each of three Objects and yet be but one Heart still But whither am I carried This Author needs none of my Notes or Illustrations and indeed both he and all others that have labour'd in this Controversy may surcease their Pains henceforth and leave what they have already said to the Judgment and Conscience of all considerate and sincere Men. I am Sir yours c.
is more honourable to own a clear and necessary Truth or to set one's self to darken and to obstruct it I confess the latter requires more Wit especially against an able and dexterous Defendant but 't is the other that deserves greater Praise especially before God because it argues Sincerity and Justice But I pass to the last sort of Trinity the Mystical Trinity Of the Mystical Trinity or the Trinity of the Mobile THE poor common People are first made to believe by the help of corrupted Copies and false Translations of the Bible that 't is a Scripture-Doctrine that there is a Trinity of Divine Persons an Almighty Father an Almighty Son and an Almighty Spirit distinct and different in Number from both Father and Son But because this at the very first sight appears contrary to Reason and common Sense therefore in the next place they are told that they must consider this Doctrine as a Mystery impossible indeed for us to understand yet necessary to be believed because God hath said it How many things say these Teachers are there in the Works of Nature which we understand not no more than we can understand the Trinity and yet we believe them to be as assuredly as if there were no Difficulty in conceiving how they should be As that there are Antipodes whose Feet are opposite to our Feet and who walk with their Heads downwards with respect to our Parts of the World Again that a Spirit can move a Body from place to place tho Reason first assures us that there can be no Motion without a Resistance and then that a pure Spirit can meet no Resistance from Matter or Bodies Also that the Parts of Matter or Bodies hold together tho no Cause can be assigned for it but what appears immediately to be unsufficient nay ridiculous All these are great Truths and we believe them even contrary to the Verdict of Reason how much more ought we to believe the Trinity which hath been propounded to us as an Article of Faith in the Word of God it self tho our fallible and frail Reason reclaims and kicks perhaps against it When the Socinians say these Gentlemen have accounted for all the Mysteries of Nature and Art let them begin to object to the Trinity that 't is a Mystery and that it hath sundry Contradictions to Reason but till they do the first 't is nothing else but a bold Impiety to insist on the other It must be confessed Sir that this is the most plausible Pretence the strongest Hold as well as the last Resort of our Opposers when we have drove them from all other Posts here they take Sanctuary I will therefore take care to remove this Occasion and Cover of Error I say 1. I might leave it wholly to Dr. S th to answer this Pretence of some of his Party At p. 2 and 3 c. of his Animadversions he shows at large what is a Mystery he saith that a Mistery is a Truth revealed by God above the reach of Human Reason to find out or to comprehend He vindicateth this Definition part by part he saith p. 3. first a Mystery is a Truth by which saith he I exclude every thing from being a Mystery which is absurd or contradictions Now we desire nothing else of our Oppoâ—â—â—â— but that they would abide by this Account of Mystery that 't is not something absurd or contradictory but only some Secret revealed by God because it was above Human Capacity to discover it and sometimes also even to comprehend how it can be For there is a vast Difference between my not being able to conceive how a thing should be and a clear Apprehension and Sight that it cannot be There are it may be Mysteries which we cannot comprehend how they should be but that three Divine Persons or three distinct Almighty and All-knowing Persons should be but one Almighty but one All-knowing or but one God a Man who considers but with never so little Intention and Sincerity clearly sees that it cannot be In short that 't is not a Mystery but as Dr. S th speaks an Absurdity and a Contradiction In a word we do not reject the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation because they are Mysteries but because they are plain Contradictions to Reason and common Sense and consequently Untruths for without doubt Reason and Truth are but two Names for the same thing and clear Reason is no other thing but clear Truth 2. I consider that what will equally serve to excuse all the Nonsense and impossible Doctrines that are to be found among Men we cannot admit of it as a Defence of the pretended Trinity and Incarnation especially in Opposition to such powerful Proofs both from Scripture and Reason as may be and actually are alledged against those Doctrines A Papist for Example does with equal colour alledg this Pretence for his Transubstantiation He says 'T is a Scripture-Doctrine delivered in these express words This is my Body and how many things are there in the Works of Nature which we comprehend not no more than we can comprehend the Miracle of the Transubstantiation and yet we believe them to be as assuredly as if there were no Difficulty in conceiving how they should be or that they can be Such as the Antipodes and that a pure Spirit can â—â—â—ve a Body in which it findeth no Resistance and that the Parts of Matter or Bodies are continuos or hold together and many the like Thus do the Papists argue and I deny that this Pretence can be wrested from them by any Trinitarian for 't is the same Defence that the Trinitarian makes for his Doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation Our Opposers will not vouchsafe so much as to hear Catholicks and Lutherans when they plead Mystery for the Transubstantiation or the Consubstantiation I desire of them therefore to give me but one Reason why that Plea is not as good in those Controversies as in these of the Trinity and Incarnation The Author of two Dialogues concerning the Trinity and the Transubstantiation finding himself pressed with this Difficulty answers to this effect that there are a great many more Texts of Holy Scripture for the Trinity than are pretended for the Transubstantiation But this is no Solution of the proposed Difficulty for 't is not at all the Question which Doctrine hath most Texts alledged for it but only whether the Pretence of Mystery be not a Plea as rational and allowable against all the Exceptions made against the Transubstantiation as an impossible inconceivable and contradictory Doctrine as 't is to the same Exceptions when urged by the Socinians against the Incarnation or Trinity But whereas that Author insists upon an Answer wholly foreign to this Difficulty and is so careful to bring together from Cardinal Bellarmine all the Texts alledged for the Trinity he is desired to name to us so much as one Text for either of those Doctrines that is not given up to the
CONSIDERATIONS ON THE EXPLICATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY By Dr. Wallis Dr. Sherlock Dr. S th Dr. Cudworth and Mr. Hooker as also on the Account given by those that say the Trinity is an Unconceivable and Inexplicable Mystery Written to a Person of Quality Printed in the Year MDCXCIII CONSIDERATIONS on the Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity c. SIR 't is the principal Design of both Testaments by Confession of all Parties to estabish the Worship and Belief of one only God 't was for this that all the Books of the Old Testament were written and delivered to the Jews and for this the New was bestowed on the Gentiles Of Jews and Gentiles as the Apostle observes There were none that understood none that sought after the true God They were all gone out of the way they became vain in their Imaginations and their foolish Heart was darkened Professing to be wise they became Fools and changed the Truth of God into a Lie by worshipping the Creature and doing Service to them who were not by Nature Gods This was the Condition of both Jews and Gentiles when first the Law and then the Light of the glorious Gospel of Christ who is the Image of God shone out upon them In the Law the Jews were charged Ye shall have no other Gods but ME and again Thou shalt know no other God but ME. In the Gospel the Gentiles are taught There is one God and there is none other but He There is no other God but one God is one Exod. 20. 3. Hosea 13. 4. Mark 12. 32. 1 Cor. 8. 5. Gal. 3. 20. These and an hundred more such like clear and express Declarations of holy Scripture have been the occasion that the Unity of God or that there is but one God is the first Article of Faith both with Jews and true Christians From the Christians and Jews it hath been learned and embraced by all the Mahometans and is now the general Belief even of the Pagan and Idolatrous Nations for tho these last own and worship many Gods yet they commonly own but one who is Supream Infinite Almighty and Pre-eternal they make the other Deities to be but the Ministers of his Providence and Will and their Mediators with Him But that there is an Almighty and All-wise Mind the Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all the Creatures and Kinds in them we discern plainly by the Order Beauty and Stability of Things and more especially by the admirable Designs in the Whole and in all the Parts of the Creation But as this Divine Beauty and Order and those numberless and most useful Designs Aims and Ends seen in the Creation do evince that there is a Thinking Designing and All-powerful Mind whom we call GOD so they no way intimate to us that there is more than one Creating and Governing Mind or GOD. They demonstrate to us beyond exception that one such Mind there is but not that there is more than one therefore we may say that we can own and worship but one such Mind or but one God because we know of no more Of one we are certain by the Order and Design of the Parts in the World of more than one we have no manner of Proof therefore we cannot own or worship or but talk or even think of more But the Revelation made to us in holy Scripture is Categorical Apodictical Express and Direct there we are told plainly and in terms There is no other God but one there is one God and there is none other but He the Lord thy God the Lord is one God is one As this Doctrine is so clearly delivered in Scripture so good Christians have been always very jealous that neither directly nor indirectly neither in express Words nor in Consequence any thing should be said or held contrary thereto They have considered that Polytheism and Atheism are much the same thing as 't is much one to acknowledg and contend for more Kings of England others besides King William and to renounce or deny him to be King of England Both the Covenants the Old as well as the New are between Us on the one part and the one true God on the other part he covenants to be our God and our exceeding great Reward we covenant to be his People and his only this Covenant is manifestly dissolved and the Premium or Promise of Eternal Life annexed to our Faithfulness to this Covenant is utterly forfeited if we take to our selves any other besides Him with whom we are in covenant and who alone is true God The Guilt of Polytheism or of affirming more than one God being so very great and the Forfeiture thereby made so unspeakable and the Unity of God being so often and so expresly delivered in holy Scripture 't is an amazing Circumstance that Polytheism is not only found among Christians but is also the more general and prevailing Belief of Christian States and Kingdoms It is true we all agree in the words There is one God and there is none other but He but when we come to explain our selves on these words the incomparable Majority of Modern Christians are found to affirm three Gods and not one only One would have thought that these words Thou shalt have no other Gods but ME the Lord thy God is one Lord thou shalt know no other God but ME there is none other God but one God is one I say one would have thought these Declarations to be so plain and so uncontestable that a Question could never have arose concerning their meaning But so it is that there are a great many Senses given of these Words which Senses are contrary to and destructive of one another The Doctrine of the Unitarians concerning God THe first of these Senses is the Unitarian For the Unitarians say there is none other God but one God is one the plain obvious and indubitable meaning of these words is this there is but One who is God or a God One God say they is to be understood in the same natural sincere and unsophisticated Sense as when we say one Sun one Earth one World When the Scriptures say they speak to us of so high an Object as God when they tell us there is one God and there is none other but He when they declare this Faith to be the very first of all God's Charges or Commandments to Men without doubt they speak without Artifice or Querk they have no double or deceitful meaning they don't lay Snares for us by intending such a meaning as is contrary to the usual the grammatical and proper Sense of the Words There is but one God say the Holy Scriptures where can be the Ambiguity of such usual and plain Words the meaning of the Terms One and God is perfectly known to all Men Why do we study Subtilties and Finenesses with which to deceive our selves into Polytheism and to destroy the Simplicity of the Faith When God says in the
manner that might be delivered out to all the Churches without the least danger of leading them into any Mistake about it but Moses and the Prophets tho inspired by God wanted this Dexterity They poor Men were forced to speak falsly of God as if he were but one Person not a Trinity of Persons lest they should commit some dangerous Blunder in the wording of their Doctrine and so lay an occasion of Polytheism in the way of the Jewish Church but Athanasius and the Nicene Fathers have happily got over this Difficulty they have blest the Christian Churches with a pair of Creeds worth an hundred first Commandments But to be short the Unitarian Explication of the Texts which say there is but one God is that there is but one who is God or but one Divine Person but one who is Almighty All-knowing and perfectly Good Our very Opposers confess that this was the antient and first Sense of the Words so the Faithful understood them for 1500 Years together They confess too 't is a very Natural and a very Rational Sense that it hath no Difficulties no Mysteries or Monstrosities in it They are constrained also to own that the before-mentioned Texts alledged by the Unitarians are so read in all Copies both of the Hebrew and Greek and can no other ways be rendred from the Original Text or more clearly thus as to these Texts there is no Variety or Difference in the reading in the Copies of the Original nor any Uncertainty in the Translations of those Copies This is a very great matter and cannot be said nor is so much as pretended for the Texts are urged by Trinitarians they have been often challenged to produce but one Text for their Doctrine of the Trinity but either 't is otherwise read in the most Antient and Eminent Copies of the Greek and Hebrew or 't is easily and naturally render'd and translated to another Sense or 't is given up by their own ablest Interpreters and Criticks as wholly impertinent and no Proof of the Doctrine in question From these confest and acknowledg'd Premises we have these two necessary and unavoidable Consequences 1. That the Account which the Unitarians give of God and his Unity is the very Voice of Nature and Reason supported by such Texts of holy Scripture as have neither Uncertainty nor Ambiguity 2. That the Trinitarian Faith is at best but precarious uncertain and doubtful because it is not only disclaimed by Reason but it hath no other Scripture-Proofs but such concerning which there is no Certainty either how they are to be read in the Originals or how they are to be translated from the Originals into the Modern Languages No Faith or Doctrine whatsoever can be more certain than the Proofs are on which 't is grounded if those Proofs are of suspected Authority and Credit or of uncertain meaning and sense the Doctrine it self must be altogether uncertain suspicious and precarious But because you expect from me a Letter not a Volume I will say no more now of the Unitarian Hypothesis but will briefly as I can compare and consider the Hypotheses or Explications advanced by our Opposers Of the Explication by Dr. J. Wallis ALL Men know that the Difference between the Unitarians and their Opposers the Trinitarians is in few words this Whether there be more than one Divine Person or more than one Person who is true and most High God The Unitarians say there can be but one Divine Person because not to mention the Scripture-Proofs of it a Divine Person being as much as to say a Divinity or a God if you say there are more Divine Persons you therein and thereby say there are more Gods As three Angelical Persons are three Angels and three Human Persons are three Men so three Divine Persons in Grammar and common Sense are three Divinities which all grant is as much as to say three Gods So they But saith Dr. Wallis Here 's a reasoning why 't is grounded on this silly Mistake that a Divine Person is as much as to say a Divinity or a God when indeed a Divine Person is only a Mode a Respect or Relation of God to his Creatures He beareth to his Creatures these three Relations Modes or Respects that he is their Creator their Redeemer and their Sanctifier this is what we mean and all we mean when we say God is three Persons he hath those three Relations to his Creature and is thereby no more three Gods than he was three Gods to the Jews because he calleth himself the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Three Human Persons say the Socinians are tres Homines or three Men and three Angelical Persons are three Angels therefore three Divine Persons are in Grammar and common Sense three Divinities or Gods Where I pray did they learn this Stuff Not from Tully that learned Orator and great Master and Director of elegant and proper speaking would have taught them that an Human Person is not as much as to say Homo or a Man but is a Qualification a Capacity a Respect or Relation of one Man to other Men. nâ—o unus tres Personas saith Tully i. e. I being but one Man do sustain or am three Persons that of my self that of my Adversary and that of a Judg. See here one Man sustains or is three Persons an Advocate an Accuser and a Judg without being three Men Why should it be thought incredible or harsh to say with the Church three Divine Persons are but one God when Tully maketh those three other Persons to be but one Man This is the Sum of what Dr. Wallis hath said in eight printed Letters and in three Sermons that were preached to the University of Oxford Sermons that have been preached to the University and not censured by them must be supposed to contain nothing Heretical no nor Dangerous Scandalous or Heterodox But besides that these Sermons have passed so great a Test as that of the University of Oxford the Doctor assureth us that he hath been thank'd and complemented in a great number of private Letters on account of his Sermons and Letters some of these Letters written to him have been published and it doth appear they were indeed written by able Men. We must also take notice of two other Considerations in favour of these Letters and Sermons of Dr. Wallis the first is that Dr. S th Author of the Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock having taken particular notice of the Letters written by and to Dr. Wallis speaks respectfully of the Authors of them calling them Reverend and very Learned Persons without making the least Reflection on his Doctrine as Heretical or as Heterodox The second is Dr. Sherlock himself tho Dr. Wallis had expresly said in his Answer to W. I. that Dr. Sherlock's Doctrine doth imply Tritheism and that so much had been proved upon him by W. I. yet does Dr. Sherlock who is so little wonted to carry Coals
or Essence of God diversified by three Modes of Subsistence But above all I would not have Dr. S th please himself overmuch in this that he hath cited some Passages of the Fathers which describe the Personalities of the Father Son and Spirit by Modes Justin and Irenaeus have called them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Modes of subsisting others call them Properties but by Modes Properties Characters and such like the Fathers meant quite another thing than Dr. S th and the Moderns do they meant what Dr. Sherlock and Dr. Cudworth mean By a Mode and Property they meant that discriminating Character by which the Individuals of any Specifick Nature are distinguished or differenced from all the Individuals of the same Species or Nature For Example the Individuals of the Specifick Nature of Humanity are particular Men and all these Individuals or particular Men are discriminated characterized differenced or modified each by his particular Properties Peter from John Peter and John from James by particular Properties Characters or Modes both of Body and Mind one for instance is bigger taller wiser or some other the like than the other This was what they meant when they described Personalities by Modes and when they said there were three Properties Modes or Characters in God they meant not in the least to deny that each Person is a particular Substance Essence or Nature different in Number from all other Substances Essences or Natures or to deny that each Person is a particular Being they meant only that each Individual or each Person besides the common Specifick Nature that is besides the meer Human Angelical or Divine Nature has also some particular Properties or Characters which ultimately distinguish him from all the Individuals or Persons of the same Species Specifick Nature or Kind It is not true therefore what Dr. S th pretends that by Modes of Subsistence the Antients meant no more than certain such Habitudes or Affections as Mutability Presence Absence Posture or such like they meant real discretive and characterizing Properties or Qualifications and by Person they meant a particular individual intelligent Substance or Essence and so modefied or characterized They were far from dreaming that the three Divine Persons an Almighty Son an Almighty Father and an Almighty Spirit distinct in Number from both were only one individual Substance distinguished or diversified by only three such lank and meagre Affections as Absence Posture Adherence or any other that are no more in a Spiritual Substance than those three are in Bodies to which they add no Perfection and from which they are every Moment separable But the Socinians are not concerned what becomes of the Dispute about Persons and Personalities in God whether they are adequately the same yea or no and again whether the Moderns who follow the Schools agree with the Antients in their Notion of them for I will put to Dr. S th a plain Question to which if he is disposed to give a clear and Categorical Answer it will appear to all Men that either he falls in with Dr. Sherlock or with the Unitarians that is to say he is either a Tritheist or what I doubt he will as much abhor a Socinian He saith there is one only Divine Substance Essence or Nature and thus far we agree with him but he adds this one Substance is so diversified by three Modes Affections or Habitudes or something like to them that we must say under pain of Heresy and Damnation that this one Substance is three Divine Persons a Father his Son and a Spirit distinct from both Therefore I ask have the three pretended Divine Persons each his own proper peculiar and personal Understanding Will and Energy so that there are in the Divine Substance or in God three distinct All-knowing Almighty Understandings Wills and Energies as there are three distinct Persons as Dr. Sherlock has affirmed Or have the three Persons but one only self-same Understanding Will and Energy in Number as there is but one self-same Substance in Number If he saith the former he joins Hands with Dr. Sherlock and is guilty of Tritheism no less than he for three Omniscient and Omnipotent Understandings Wills and Energies without doubt are three Gods If there be three Omnisciencies and Omnipotencies of necessity there must be three Omniscients and Omnipotents but that is Tritheism even in the Judgment of Athanasius himself who expresly denies three Almighties or three All-knowings And indeed I do not think Dr. S th will say that each Person hath his own proper and personal Understanding Will or Energy so that there are three distinct Understandings Wills and Energies in what his Party call the Godhead I see his Book is written with more Judgment and Precaution than Dr. Sherlock's or even than any that I have seen that have been written in Defence of the Trinitarian Cause But if he denies that there are three All-knowing Almighty Understandings Wills and Energies he is a Socinian he has granted to us the Point in Controversy he grants the whole that we contend for They will allow him to say there are three Persons or three thousand Persons in the Godhead so long as he grants but one Omnipotent Energy and Will and but one All-knowing Understanding or Wisdom If this be granted to us 't is plain to every one who gives but never so little heed that the Question about three Persons is a meer Strife of Words and the Authors of the Brief History and Brief Notes are tho not in their Words yet in their Senses as Orthodox as Dr. S th and the Schools I will affirm we have no need of our Brief Histories or Brief Notes we need not make an operose Proof of our Doctrine of the Unity of God from the Holy Scriptures or from Reason the whole Controversy with the Church is ended in the Resolution of this short and plain Question Is there more than one All-knowing Almighty Understanding Will and Energy If you say there is but one such Understanding Will and Energy in one self-same Divine Substance you may talk of as many Persons Fathers Sons Spirits Modes Properties Respects Nothings as you please we will only peaceably advise you that these are meer empty Words that have nothing to answer them in the thing under Consideration When you have granted to us that there is but one Divine Substance and but one Omniscient Omnipotent Understanding and Energy what you add more of Persons Properties Thingams and call them a Trinity 't is an Addition only of Words and Names not of Realities or Persons that are properly so called These things being so and so very evident I cannot wonder that so discerning a Philosopher as Dr. Cudworth never speaks of the Trinity of the Schools maintained by Dr. S th without calling it a Nominal Trinity a Trinity of Names and Words only a disguised Sabellianism which is to say Unitarianism or Socinianism drest up in the absurd Cant of the Schools But whereas the
Socinians by some of the most Learned Interpreters and Criticks of his own Party as indeed no Proof of the Trinity the Incarnation or the Divinity of the Son or Spirit What avails it for a Man to talk of the great number of Texts which he can alledg when the ablest Persons of his own Party do in the mean time owâ— the Unsufficiency of every one of them in particular If he thinks he has cause to deny that the Socinians have this great Advantage on their side whenever he shall do it publickly I will bear the Reproach if I do not justify what I have said by Citation of particular Authors of the first Note and Rank among our Opposers 3. Our Opposers urge that there are and the Sociâ—â—â—â—s themselves believe a great many Mysâ—â—â—â—â—s in Nature of which no Human Reason can give an Account nay Reason objects against them and professedly contradicts them as that a pure Spirit can move a Body In which it meets no Resistance that Bodies or Matter consist of indiuisible Parts and such like Well suppose the Socinians should grant these or other unaccountable Mysteries which not only are not comprehended but are contradicted by Reason What then Why then they are very inconsiderate to deny as they do the Trinity and Incarnation on this account that 't is contrary to Reason or implies Contradictions and Absurdities But our Opposers should have thought better of this Objection before they laid so great a Weight on it even the Weight of their whole Cause For tho we should grant that we believe some Mysteries of Nature or Art against which Reason objects and many ways contradicts them yet is this no Plea for the Trinity or the Incarnation For if we believe Natural or Artificial Mysteries 't is because we plainly see that so the thing is we see or we feel or have some other undeniable Proof of the thing some such Proof as no rational Man will or can resist Doth any Man believe Misteries or wonderful Tales contrary to his Reason and the Reason of all other Men without a most manifest and uncontestable Proof of them without some such Proof or Proofs as undeniably evince the thing so to be But will our Opposers pretend they have any such Proofs for the Incarnation or Trinity such manifest such evident such uncontestable Proofs that no sober Man or no reasonable Man can except against them or refuse to admit of them I do not think they will pretend to it if it be but for this only Reason because the Socinians are confest to be a Rational and Learned Party Are those Evidence or Proofs uncontestable which are rejected not without some Scorn by some of the learnedest and most unsuspected of their own Party Are they uncontestable that not only may be interpreted to another Sense but also are either otherways read in the best Copies of the Hebrew and Greek or may be otherways translated from those Languages and all this by confession of the more ingenious of our Opposers themselves Briefly we say Mysteries there are and it may be such Mysteries as are even contradicted by Reason that is are in some respects Contradictions to our present short-sighted and frail Reason but when we believe there are some such Mysteries it is because they appear to our Senses or are proved to us by some such either Reason or Authority as no reasonable Man much less any Number of such Men does or can deny to be uncontestable And otherways all the unwarrantable Nonsense in the World may be imposed on us under the Pretence and Cloak of Mystery But now the Doctrine of the Trinity hath not only no uncontestable Proofs but the Pretences for it are so feeble that none of them can be named but is not only rejected but despised by some of the learnedest of our Opposers themselves They would perswade us to acknowledg a Mistery full of Contradictions to the clearest Reason and to indisputable Texts of Holy Scripture and supported in the mean time only by some Texts that may be interpreted to a Rational Sense that is to a Sense that hath nothing contrary either to Reason or to the unquestionable Parts or Texts of the Holy Scripture For Peace sake we would do so if it were some light matter that they urged on us but when the Question is about one or more Gods one or more Divine Persons we judg it adviseable not to be too facile in admitting such dangerous Mysteries Mysteries that would destroy the Allegiance and Homage that we all owe to the one true God I have done Sir with the Explications of our Opposers You see what they are Dr. S th's Explication is only an absurd Socinianism or Unitarianism disguised in a Metaphysical and Logical Cant. Dr. Wallis his Explication is an ingenious Sabellianism and in very deed differs from Unitarianism no more than Dr. S th's that is to say only in the wording Dr. Sherlock's is such a flat Tritheism that all the Learned of his own Party confess it to be so and Dr. S th hath written a very accurate Book to prove it so Dr. Cudworth's is a moderate Arianism the Ariani molles ascribed as much to the Son as this Doctor doth and he denies as much to the Son as they did even an Equality of Power and Authority with the Father Mr. Hooker's is a Trinity not of Persons but of Contradictions and he hath advanced such a Son as of necessity destroys his Father What the Mystical Divines teach cannot be called an Explication they deny all Explications we must say therefore 't is Samaritanism for what our Saviour says of the Samaritans by way of Reproof and Blame that these Gentlemen profess concerning themselves that they worship they know not what These Sir are the Doctrines that we oppose I shall leave it with you whether it be without cause Before I conclude I beg your Leave to say two words to Mr. Basset who hath answer'd or thinks he has answered to the Brief History of the Unitarians and to Dr. Fulwood and Dr. Edwards Men of Dignity in the Church but who have not thought it below them to use the very vilest Language and the basest and most ungrounded Scandals that their Malice to our Persons and their Ignorance of the Points in question between us and the Church could suggest to them These two Doctors tell their Readers that the Unitarians deny the Omniscience of God or that he fore-knoweth contingent Events that they deny his Omnipresence making him to be present in all Places only by his Knowledg and his Power that they ascribe the same degree of Power and Knowledg and pay the self-same Worship to the Lord Christ whom they affirm to be a meer Man which they ascribe or pay to Almighty God and hereby say these Doctors they are guilty of an Idolatry that is equally evident and abominable They pretend to prove this Charge out of the Writings of Socinus Smalcius and some others