whose Doctrine perfectly agrees with his own Saving that with the Oxford-Heads we believe it to be Heresy to profess the Faith of more than one infinite Being which is a compleat Being distinct from all other Beings but his Lordship holds it to be indifferent whether we affirm or deny three infinite Beings and Spirits His Lordship proposed to write with that Caution and Guard that no Body should be able to attack him and by Trimming between the Nominals and Realists to set up for a Healer of the Breaches a Mediator of Peace But the Event wholly fails him He utterly disobliges the Realists by denying in Terms what the Archbishop with all other Realists had affirmed in Terms and the whole Realist Party look upon as a Fundamental Article The Nominals are as much displeased with him because he sets no Value on the Catholick Faith but represents it as a very indifferent Truth that may be as orthodoxly denied as affirmed The Unitarians complain of him as having pretended to Principles of Latitude and a true Catholick Charity but using neither but perhaps as the turns of Popularity and Rules of secular Policy ingage him But this was a Digression Let us take up our Point again that the Unitarians hold the Faith of the Catholick Church or Nominal Party that is they believe but one eternal and infinite Spirit and as to three Divine Persons they admit the Church's Doctrine viz. that they are relative Subsistences Properties of the Divine Substance concerning them They agree that there are three Distinctions in God which may be fitly called Original Mind Reflex Wisdom and Divine Love the first unbegotten and Generating and therefore named the Father the other Generated and therefore in the Language of Men called the Son the third a Spiration and therefore stiled the Holy Spirit Whether you call these Properties Modes Relations Persons relative Subsistences or ought the like we will not contend with the Church for it being agreed that they are not distinct Beings divers Spirits and Minds several Substances but one infinite Substance Mind Spirit and Being with one only Understanding Will and Energy it is plain that the Unity of God is preserved and that the Terms used are only obsolete and odd but imply no Falshood nor any real Innovation in Religion And I say hereupon that unless my Lord of Chichester will profess three Divine Beings Spirits Substances and Minds contrary to the Decisions of divers General Councils the Consent of Writers since the Determination in the Council of Lateran Anno 1215. and the late Decree of the University of Oxford I say if he will not contravene all these neither ought he to have defended the Archbishop's Sermons nor could he oppose the Considerations that were not for all that I see written against the Doctrine of the Church but the Error of the Realists As we accord with the Catholick Church in the Article of the Trinity so also in that of the Incarnation or the Divinity of our Saviour For when the Church says the Lord Christ is God when she worships him invocates him imputes to him the Creation of all things and for all this alledges Authorities and Examples out of Holy Scripture nothing of all this is intended of his Humanity or to his Humanity but to the indwelling Divinity In short she means that as the Cloud of Glory in the Times of the Old Testament was called God and was worshipped because God dwelt in it after an especial manner so and much more may we call the Lord Christ God and Creator and the rest because of the Godhead dwelling in him after an ineffable unexplicable manner and without measure but whatsoever of Divine is said of him is said merely in respect of the inhabiting Divinity and not of the Humanity The Communication of Idioms as Divines speak is merely verbal not real Christ is God and the Creator is worshipped and invocated because of the Deity in him for tho these things are said of the Man Christ Jesus they are said only in respect of the Divinity and are intended only of that If any say no Indwelling or as the Church speaks Incarnation in what soever manner or measure can give to such Person the Name of God much less of Creator So indeed Nestorius thought and therefore refused to call our Saviour God or to ascribe to him either the Works or Attributes of God and many learned Men have contended that Nestorius was as rashly condemned as he was afterwards barbarously used Yet upon serious weighing the matter it appears not necessary to litigate about Terms and Words on which the Authority that imposes them puts an honest Sense and Meaning The Church would never have obliged Nestorius to call the Man Christ Jesus God and Creator but declaring at the same time that tho it is the Man that is called God he is so called only in respect of the Indwelling of God in him which Indwelling is after a manner so extraordinary so abundant or rather so ineffable that Christians may with greater Right call him God than the Cloud of Glory is so named because of the Angel in it who represented God or than any other Appearance of God whatsoever or in what manner soever mentioned in the Old Testament The Brightness of the Cloud of Glory was only from the Power of the inhabiting Angel yet because the Angel represented God the bright Appearance between the Cherubims was named Jehovah and God How much more may the Lord Christ be so called in whom the Divinity it self did dwell not as a Man in his House but as the Soul in the Body that is to say constantly illuminating conducting and actuating him nay and exerting in him the most glorious Effects of Omniscience and Omnipotence the principal Attributes of the Divinity 2 Kings 19.15 Hezekiah prayed and said O Lord God of Israel which dwellest between the Cherubims thou art God even thou alone 1 Chron. 13.6 David went up and all Israel to Baalah to fetch thence the Ark of GOD JEHOVAH that dwelleth between the Cherubims whose Name is called on it It cannot I think be denied that here the bright Appearance between the Cherubims because God was in it tho only by his Angel not by the Exertion of any miraculous Acts by no Acts of Omniscience or other Divine Attribute is named Jehovah God and only God or alone God The Church never required of Nestorius to say the Lord Christ is Creator or God without this Explication in respect of God in him which seeing Nestorius owned and having the Precedent of the Jewish Church and Writers of the Old Testament who called the Appearance between the Cherubims by all the Names and Titles of God he needed not to have contended but should have consulted the Churches Peace for no words are to be refused when the Authority that imposes 'em interprets 'em to a sound Sense This is what the Unitarians believe concerning the Trinity and concerning the Divinity
and Spirit without Division or Separation which is Orthodoxy We ought therefore to say Dr. Sherlock has only contradicted himself but is not a Heretick He holds what indeed is Heresy three Substances three Minds and three Spirits but he holds also the Truth one individual Substance one Deity His Lordship touches upon this divers times as well in his Book as in his Preface nay he is so satisfied with it that at p. 107. he cannot he saith now see what is the difference between Dr. S th and his Nominals and Dr. Sherlock and the Realists The short of this Defence is that if one part of a Contradiction is true and orthodox the other false and heretical the Person affirming it shall be denominated not from his Heresy but from the orthodox Part of his Contradiction For my part I very readily agree to this charitable way of bringing off the Dr. but then let the Charity be truly Catholick let us extend it to others as well as to him and else it is not Charity but Partiality A Motley of Heresy and Orthodoxy his Lordship says is to be named a parte potiori from the sound part without reckning at all of the unsound but then I pray let Philoponus Joachim and Gentilis be judged by the same Law For they said as the Doctor does three infinite Substances three eternal Minds and Spirits and they asserted also as he does one Deity one Essence and one Substance by the mutual Inexistence of the Persons the Subordination of the second and third to the first and the concurrence of all of them to the Making and Government of the World while Dr. Sherlock resolves the whole Unity of the Deity and of the Divine Substance into only the mutual Consciousness of the three Personal Gods And this not only in all his former Books but in his last Pamphlet or the Distinction between Nominal and Real Trinitarians examined in Answer to the Disinterested A Book so monstrously erroneous that if it escapes all other hands I think verily his Second against the Jesuit Sabrand would take up Arms against him the Foot-boy would detect and expose his gross Heterodoxies We have heard his Lordship's way of ending all Controversies concerning the Blessed Trinity that is to say among Friends Persons of the same Church and Communion namely if they will but say what all have always said even Arius Philoponus Dr. Sherlock and Socinus that there is but one Deity and one Divine Substance let 'em contradict this as much as they will provided they do not absolutely and in Terms renounce it they shall be Catholicks Dr. Pain in his Letter to my Lord the Bp. of R. has much the same Salvo For after he had said Postscr p. 25. that God or the Trinity is an Original Eternal Mind with an Eternal Logos Wisdom or Substantial Ennoia or Knowledg and an Eternal Divine Spirit proceeding from both He concludes p. 26. that whosoever believes this Trinity whether with or without Explications whether with right or with wrong Explications he is undoubtedly Orthodox And at p. 11. he commends the wise Bishops of the Roman Church who tho they have Plenitude of Ecclesiastical Authority suffer the Jesuits and other Learned Men to vent their different Sentiments in these high Questions without interposing much less censuring either Party so long as they subscribe and consent to the general Doctrine of the Church They allow their Writers to say there are three Gods in a Personal Sense or three Personal Gods and to profess three Eternals and three Omnipotents But then he saith this Favour is extended only to Friends to one another to Sons of the Church for if Men of another Communion make the least Trip in explaining what is above all Explication nay is incomprehensible and unintelligible immediately they shall be charged with Blasphemy and Atheism He not obscurely intimates that the like Christian Charity Love and good Will so he speaks p. 13. should be used among Protestants especially among Clergy-men who are of the same Faith If our Friend S th accords to this so will we for we are of the same Faith with the English Church for the Church of England never believed or taught three Eternal All-perfect Minds and Spirits the denial of which is the only Heresy of which we are guilty we submit to all other Explications of the Trinity tho as we have said we utterly dislike some Words and Ways of expressing them His Lordship has also reprinted his Book concerning the Satisfaction with a new Preface to it What he hath affirmed there concerning that Point more than has been granted and assented to in these and 20 more publick Papers is not the Doctrine either of the Catholick Church or of the Church of England 't is only the unauthorised Opinion and Fancy of particular Writers who are as various about those Matters as they are about most others My Conclusion Sir seeing we have been so roughly as well as unjustly treated by these Antagonists shall be only to your self That I am With much Respect and Affection Yours March 10. 1696. FINIS
Divine an Infallible and Compleat Rule both of Faith and Manners Br. Notes p. 1. The Church neither requires nor desires that they should say more II. I believe concerning God that he is not a Spirit properly speaking but a sort of Body such as Air or Aether is That he is not Immense Infinite or every where present but confined to certain Places That he hath no Knowledg of such future Events as depend on the Free Will of Man and that it is impossible such things should be foreseen by him That there is a Succession in God's eternal Duration as well as in Time which is the measure of that Duration which belongs to finite Beings That Almighty God is Incorporeal Omni-present and Omni-scient has not only been confessed but proved by the Unitarians of this Nation in divers of their late Prints As to the other that all Duration that of God as well as of Creatures consists in a Succession is affirmed by some learned Men of all Perswasions and Ways as well as by the Unitarians It should seem Mr. Edwards holds that God possesses eternal Life all at once that Eternity is to God one standing permanent Moment St. John is of another Mind for he describes the Duration of God by a Succession by was is and is to come Grace be to you and Peace says he from him who is was and is to come Rev. 1.4 'T is undeniable by any but affected Wranglers that here the Duration of God his Continuance in Being is distinguished by the threefold Succession was is and shall be which is common to all other Beings Eternal Life possessed all at once is one of the monstrous Paradoxes which our Opposers maintain for all that I see merely from a Spirit of Contradiction for it has no manner of ground either in Reason or Holy Scripture I desire to know of 'em how the Duration of God is the less perfect because 't is said to consist in a Succession or what is the same to be distinguished by was is and shall be seeing 't is confessed on all hands that he carrieth all Perfections into every Succession of his Duration But is it not a Scandal that some Unitarians of foreign Parts have denied the Spirituality or Incorporeity of God his Omnipresence and Omniscience saying and contending for it that he is a Body with such Configuration of Parts as Men have consequently that he is in Heaven inspecting indeed and governing all things but by the Ministry of the several Orders of Angels and that he doth not foresee contingent Events but only such Events as are necessarily not arbitrarily produced by their Causes Doubtless but no more a Scandal to the Unitarians than to their Opposers for they are Errors which some of the Fathers even the most Antient Learned and Pious of them have defended as Truths Nay it should seem they were sometime the prevailing Opinions in some Places namely when the Anthropomorphite Doctrine was so zealously espoused that the Hermits and Caenobites could not indure their Bishops if they but suspected 'em of Origen's Doctrine that God is a Spirit without Parts or Passions And in denying the Spirituality and Omni-presence of God they must needs be understood not to believe his certain and absolute Prescience of contingent Events About the Year 400 when almost every body concerned themselves in condemning and departing as far as possible from the Opinions of Origen the Anthropomorphite Doctrine and its Consequences were the Standard-Orthodoxy of many Places and were Heresy no where Even St. John Chrysostom at Constantinople hardly defended the Fratres longi from the Prosecutions of Theophilus Archbishop and Patriarch of Alexandria who was a profest Anthropomorphite and had expelled the Fratres longi for adhering to Origen's Doctrine of the Spirituality and Omni-presence of God But as I said we not only dislike but utterly reject the dangerous Doctrine that God hath a Body is like to Man together with its Consequences that he is neither Omni-present nor Omni-scient It may as well be said he is not at all nay this latter tho the Anthropomorphites see it not seems to be implied and included in the former But we condemn not the Schechinah or glorious Appearance of God in Heaven which learned Men hold neither the spiritual Body of Christ III. I believe farther concerning God that there is no Distinction of Persons or Subsistencies in God And that the Son and Holy Ghost are not God the former of them being only a Man the latter no other than the Power or Operation of God That there was nothing of Merit in what Christ did or suffered that therefore he could not make Satisfaction for the Sins of the World But Mr. Edwards too much mistakes The Question is not at all concerning three Persons or three Subsistencies in God but whether there are three Infinite Substances three eternal Minds and Spirits We deny the latter with the whole Catholick Church against the Realists We never questioned the former Persons or Subsistencies but only as Persons and Subsistencies are taken for Spirits Minds and Beings Whoever denies this to be the true Faith is himself a Heretick and out of the Catholick Church But of this more hereafter in my Reply to the Bishop of Chichester and to the Bishop of Worcester But we say Christ is only a Man and the Holy Spirit only the Power of God No we say the Lord Christ is God and Man He is Man in respect of his reasonable Soul and human Body God in respect of God in him Or more scholastically in respect of the Hypostatical or Personal Union of the Humanity of Christ with the Divinity By which the Catholick Church means and we mean the Divinity was not only occasionally assisting unto but was and is always in Christ illuminating conducting and actuating him More than this is the Heresy of Eutyches and less we never held tho we confess that careless or less accurate Expressions may have been used by both Parties of which neither ought to take Advantage against the other when it appears there is no Heterodox Intention That by the Spirit of God is sometimes meant in Holy Scripture the Power of God cannot be denied but concerning the three Divine Persons we believe as the Catholick Church believes that they are relative Subsistencies internal Relations of the Deity to it self Or as the Schools explain this Original unbegotten Wisdom or Mind reflex or begotten Wisdom and the eternal Spiration of Divine Love But we do not think these Terms fit to express that Sense But do you not say There was no Merit in what Christ did or suffered and that he could not make Satisfaction for our Sins He may for our Parts be Anathema that teaches or believes that Doctrine We believe that the Lord Christ by what he did and what he suffered was by the gracious Acceptance of God a true and perfect Propitiation for Sinners that repent and turn to the good ways IV. In the next
of our Saviour or the Incarnation We have no Contest with the Catholick Church concerning either of these we do not indeed approve the Churches Language or Terms because they are unscriptural and liable to Heretical Interpretations but we embrace her whole Meaning and Sense 1. The Church says and we assent to it that there is one only eternal infinite and all powerful Spirit or Mind and this Mind or Spirit is what we call God or the Divinity 2. But whereas in God the Church owns also a threefold distinction which she calls three Persons or more explicitly original unbegotten Wisdom the Logos or begotten reflex Wisdom the Procession or Spiration of Divine Love and these for the Reasons above-mentioned are also named Father Son and Spirit three Relations three Properties Modes and divers the like We cry remove your Jargon and give us only the Words of Scripture The Church answers No you shall submit to these Terms because as much as they seem improper being now out of common Use they were once as proper and apposite because in common Use and you admit the whole that we intend by these antiquated Words and Phrases We submit 3. Then as to the Incarnation or that the Lord Christ is God and Creator is to be invocated and worshipt the Church professes that this is said or required only in respect of God in him How in him is the infinite God commensurate to a finite Manhood No but in respect of God in him that is Illuminating Conducting Actuating and as much as Infinite can inhabit Finite dwelling in Him as intimately immediately and powerfully as the Soul the Body Nay exerting in him the Divine Attributes Omniscience or the Knowledg of the Future and of the Thoughts and Omnipotence or Miraculous Actions If the Angel that only represented God and the Cloud illuminated by that Angel have all that often said of 'em in Holy Scripture that is wont to be said of or to God how much more when 't is for Peace and with Liberty of declaring your Meaning may you call the Lord Christ whatsoever they are called Here again we would willingly demur as Nestorius did but Charity and Peace are two such great Goods that we will not Non-conform for the sake of dangerous Terms honestly explained It is by this Declaration of our Meaning that all our Books past or to come are to be interpreted We never intend to oppose any Body in the Article of the Trinity but the Tritheists or Realists who are Hereticks to the Church as well as to us nor in the Article of the Divinity of our Saviour but the Eutychians who make the Communication of Idioms to be Real and not only Verbal which is an Heterodoxy condemned in divers General Councils When we oppose the Doctrine of the Trinity 't is only the Chimerical Trinity of three Infinite All-perfect Spirits when we deny the Lord Christ is God the Creator may be invocated or worshipt we mean not this of the Divinity in him but of the Humanity The inhabiting Divinity or Christ in respect of God in him is God over all all things were made by him and God is undoubtedly to be worshipt and invocated If his Lordship assents not to these things he contravenes the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and espouses Philoponus Joachim Gentilis and Eutychius but we do not in the least suspect that this Learned Prelate will disown the Catholick Doctrine or be of Party to Hereticks that have been condemned by so many General Councils If any object to us that as much as we now claim to be Catholicks and profess to assent to the Churches Doctrine tho we wish she would discharge her humanly-invented Terms and Phrases yet we have been always disowned and opposed nay persecuted by the Church and by that very Party of Nominals whom we pretend to be the Catholick Church I answer there has been an unhappy Misunderstanding between the genuine Members of the Catholick Party The Vnitaries who dislike nothing but the Liberty that is taken to use any other but Scripture-words and Language in declaring the Faith and the Nominals who also wish that all would return to and content themselves with the Simplicity of Scripture have pelted one another as Enemies but upon such a gross Mistake as the two German Cavaliers are noted for in the beginning of the Reformation who quarrelled and challenged one another upon difference of Religion one of them being a Martinist and the other a Lutheran I doubt not that the Author of the Discourse concerning the Nominals and Realists has convinced all Learned and Ingenuous Men that Dr. S th for instance and Dr. Wallis and other Nominals had no more Reason to fall foul on the Unitarians than the Lutheran on the Martinist and the Misunderstanding between them being discovered to proceed from a Mistake of one anothers true Opinions they ought now to own each other as Brethren If the Nominals are shy of closing with us and owning us for Orthodox we seek not their Patronage and the common Opposers of both the Realists will always tell 'em that the Nominals and Unitarians differ just as the Martinists and the Lutherans On the rest of his Lordship's Book and an Application of what hath been said FOR the rest of his Lordship's Book one great part of the first Section is imployed in finding out Answers to the Arguments of some of the antient Unitarians who pretended to prove that St. John was not the Author of the Gospel or the Revelation which now bear his Name The Remainder of the Section is an Endeavour to wire-draw the first Verses of that Gospel to a purpose in my Judgment very contrary to the true Intention of the Evangelist and to impress some other Texts into the Service of the Realists The present Unitarians whether in England or elsewhere receive the Gospel of St. John as his But as Faith has degrees or is not always such a Plerophory of Assent as to be without all Alloy of doubt so we wish this Gospel had never been questioned and that the Reasons of the Alogians who imputed this Gospel and the Revelation to Cerinthus were incontestably satisfied We cannot take his Lordship's Answers or Arguments as at all satisfactory because his Reasonings are oftentimes very Inaccurate and because as often they are contrary to notorious Matter of Fact For instance who can bear it when he says Cerinthus taught that Christ was a mere and a late-born Man but St. John tells us the WORD always was and came down from Heaven and was made Flesh Therefore Cerinthus could not be Author of the Gospel of St. John without most plainly contradicting himself For it is certain on the contrary that Cerinthus never said that Christ was a mere and late-born Man but an eternal and impassible Spirit In the Person of our Saviour Cerinthus distinguish'd Jesus and Christ he called the Humanity by the Name of Jesus but Christ or the WORD according to
Doctrines may be both of 'em true when shall any Proposition but a mere Nullity be yielded to be false seeing as I said Falshood is nothing else but a Contradiction to what is true And if Propositions that imply Contradictions to one another may yet both of them be true they must both be true while they are also both false for while they contradict one another and yet both of them are true each denies the other to be true In short I intreat Mr. L. to answer would he believe a Doctrine said to be revealed in Scripture which Proposition or Doctrine himself judged to be a clear and certain Contradiction Or if he would yet are clear and incontestable Contradictions to be believed that are not clearly and incontestably revealed but are founded on Authorities of very disputable Credit and Verity and most uncertain Sense in the Judgment of some of the ablest Orthodox Criticks and Interpreters And lastly can a Doctrine consisting of contradictory Parts be true is it Truth or is it Falshood that contradicts certain Truth I would not have Mr. L. to hope he may elude the first and last of these Questions by saying that real Contradictions or Doctrines that consist of Propositions really contradictory cannot be true but it may happen that what shall seem to us to our corrupted and narrow Reason a Contradiction is not so As for Instance three eternal Spirits each singly and by himself a perfect God and all of them together but one God seems indeed a Contradiction to our corrupted Reason but is therefore not a real Contradiction because 't is revealed in the Word of God For 1. He says Three infinite Spirits each of them a God are all of them but one God This is no real Contradiction because 't is found in Holy Scripture Suppose now he should also say Three finite Spirits each of them an Angel are all of them but one Angel Is it not a Contradiction in what Book soever Mr. L. may pretend to discover it If this latter is a real Contradiction so of necessity is the former because the two Propositions as to the formal Reason of them are identically the same they differ only in their Application One is falsly affirmed of God the other not more falsly affirmed of an Angel but the thing that makes them to be false every one sees is this that concerning one and the same Subject we affirm different Numbers one and three 2. Mr. L's only Elusion to so much sound Sense as the Unitarians object to him is that human Reason is narrow and corrupt and therefore we must not make it a Judg of what is revealed in Scripture but silently adore and believe the Scriptures notwithstanding all the idle Clatter made by Reason concerning Contradictions and Impossibilities I answer First If the Question were concerning something that is expresly delivered in Holy Scripture it might be plausibly alledged that our narrow and as Mr. L. pretends corrupted Reason should silently submit to the Revelation of God infinitely wise If it were said in express Terms There are three eternal infinite Spirits and tho each of them is a perfect God yet all of them are but one God Mr. L. might colourably object the Narrowness of the human Reason when Men offer'd to reject the express Declaration of God as if it implied some obvious Contradictions But the case is otherwise it is this Some People require us to believe there are three infinite Spirits each of them a God and all of them but one God It seems to us a Belief contradictory to it self and inconsistent with the numerical Vnity of God delivered every where in Scripture To the first part of this Exception that the Belief propounded to us by some that falsly call themselves the Church is contradictory to it self Mr. L. answers No Matter for that for the human Reason is narrow and corrupted and therefore must not be allowed to judg of what God has revealed to us in his Word We challenge this Answer of Mr. L. and others of manifest Impertinence because it supposes that we pretend to charge with Self-contradiction a Revelation or Declaration of God and that we reason against something delivered expresly in Holy Scripture which is the Word of God If Mr. L. could show us the Belief he exacts of us set down in express Words in the Word of God his Answer were just and to the purpose but seeing it is confessed to be only an Inference that some Men draw from Scripture Mr. L. in vain insists on the Narrowness or Corruption of the human Reason by occasion of our denying what is only an Inference from Scripture I do not think he will say that the Reason of the Unitarians is narrower or more corrupt than their Neighbours if not what Trifling is it to urge the Narrowness or Corruption of the human Reason for if Mens Reason being so narrow and corrupt as Mr. L. pretends is not to be trusted in judging of or arguing upon a Divine Revelation may it not be as fallible in drawing Inferences from Scripture as in judging the Consistency or the Self-Contradiction of those Inferences Briefly let Mr. L. show me these Words in Scripture There are three eternal and infinite Spirits And again these Words three infinite Spirits each of which is perfect God yet all of them but one God He will say he cannot show me these very Words but there are in Scripture other Words from whence those Propositions may be rightly inferred and the human Reason is too corrupted and narrow that it may be set up as a Judg of what is delivered in the Word of God whatsoever Contradictions or Self-Contradictions Reason pretends to find in the Doctrines of Scripture it is too fallible because 't is both narrow and corrupted to be heard against the infinite Wisdom of God speaking in his Word We reply let the human Reason be as corrupted and narrow as Mr. L. and others fancy it to be yet still it will be as able and fit to judg of the Consistency or Self-Contradiction of Doctrines or Propositions not expresly contained in Scripture but only inferred by Reason from Scripture as it is to infer or draw those Propositions or Doctrines from Scripture If Reason may not be trusted to judg of Doctrines that are but only Mens Inferences from Scripture it can as little be trusted to frame or draw those Inferences from Scripture its Narrowness and Corruption must be distrusted as much in the one case as in the other If Mr. L. hopes to set aside the Contradictions that Reason finds in this Creed there are three infinite Spirits c. we claim it as our Right to set aside that Creed because 't is only an Inference drawn from Scripture by the human Reason which is altogether corrupted he saith and extremely narrow Does Mr. L. deny that the Contradictions we find in this Inference which some make from Scripture There are three infinite Spirits each
THE AGREEMENT OF THE Unitarians WITH THE Catholick Church BEING ALSO A full Answer to the Infamations of Mr. Edwards and the needless Exceptions of my Lords the Bishops of Chichester Worcester and Sarum and of Monsieur De Luzancy PART I. In Answer to Mr. Edwards and my Lord the Bishop of Chichester Printed in the Year MDCXCVII In Answer to Mr. Edwards MR. Edwards after having written some trifling Books some indifferent ones divers good ones and one excellent Book his Demonstration of the Existence and Providence of God found an Inclination in himself that he could not resist of contriving a New Religion or rather Impiety and of imputing it to the Socinians By whom he means it appears the Unitarians Those in England who call themselves Unitarians never were in the Sentiments of Socinus or the Socinians Notwithstanding as our Opposers have pleased themselves in calling us Socinians we have not always declined the Name because in interpreting many Texts of Scripture we cannot but approve and follow the Judgment of those Writers who are confessed by all to be excellent Criticks and very judicious As particularly and chiefly H. Grotius who it must be granted was Socinian all over and D. Erasmus who tho he lived considerably before Socinus commonly interprets that way and therefore is charged by Cardinal Bellarmine as a downright Arian Non poterat says the Cardinal Arianam causam manifestius propugnare Erasmus could not more openly espouse the Arian side than he has done in his Notes on the Fathers and the principal Texts of Scripture Pref. ad Libros 5. de Christo But tho as I said we are not Socinians nor yet Arians seeing Mr. Edwards has contrived a Creed for us under the Name of Socinians I will answer both directly and sincerely concerning the several Articles of the Creed which he pretends to be ours As to the References unto places in particular Authors where Mr. Edwards would have it thought the Articles of that Creed are affirmed I have examined some of his principal References and can say of 'em they are either Perversions or downright Falsifications of what the Authors referred to did intend Dr. Wallis whose dishonest Quotations out of the Socinians have been detested by every Body is hardly more blamable in that kind than Mr. Edwards saving that the Doctor being as one rightly tells him somewhat more than a Socinian did but foul his own Nest by his Forgeries but we cannot certainly say what is the Opinion of Mr. Edwards in the great Article in question among us But come we to the Creed which he says is ours As I promised I will answer to every Article of it sincerely and directly I. I Believe concerning the Scripture that there are Errors Mistakes and Contradictions in some places of it That the Authority of some Books of it is questionable yea that the Whole Bible has been tampered with and may be suspected to be corrupted That there are Errors Mistakes and Contradictions in the Bible was never said by any that pretended to be a Christian if by the Bible you mean the Bible as it came out of the hands of the inspired Authors of it As on the other hand that there are Errors Mistakes or Contradictions in the vulgar Copies of the Bible used by the Church of Rome for instance or the English Church was never questioned by any Learned Man of whatsoever Sect or Way and least of all can Mr. Edwards say it He has published a Book concerning the Excellency and Perfection of Scripture in which Book he finds great Fault with our English Bible he saith of it in the Title of his 13th Chapter It is Faulty and Defective in many places of the Old and New Testaments and I offer all along in this Chapter particular Emendations in order to render it more exact and compleat As to the Hebrew and Greek Copies of the Bible 't is well known some are more perfect and some less they differ very much for in the Old Testament the Hebrew Criticks have noted 800 various Readings in the New there are many more Mr. Gregory of Oxford so much esteemed and even venerated for his admirable Learning says hereupon and says it cum Licentia Superiorum There is no Book in the World that hath suffered so much by the hand of time as the Bible Preface p. 4. He judged and judged truly that tho the first Authors of the Bible were divinely instructed Men yet the Copiers Printers and Publishers in following Ages were all of them Fallible Men and some of them ill-designing Men. He knew that all the Church-Historians and Criticks have confessed or rather have warned us that some Copies of the Bible have been very much Vitiated by the hands as well of the Orthodox as of Hereticks and that 't is matter of great Difficulty at this distance of time from the Apostolick Age to ascertain the true Reading of Holy Scripture in all places of it Yet we do not say hereupon as Mr. Edwards charges us that the Bible much less as he imputes to us the Whole Bible is corrupted For as to the faulty Readings in the common Bibles of some Churches and in some Manuscript Copies the Providence of God has so watched over this Sacred Book that we know what by Information of the antient Church-Historians and the Writings of the Fathers what by the early Translations of the Bible into Greek Syriac and Latin and the concurrent Testimony of the more Antient Manuscript Copies both who they were that introduced the corrupt Readings and what is the true Reading in all Texts of weight and consequence In short as to this matter we agree with the Criticks of other Sects and Denominations that tho ill Men have often attempted they could never effect the Corruption of Holy Scripture the antient Manuscripts the first Translations the Fathers and Historians of the Church are sufficient Directors concerning the authentick and genuine Reading of doubtful Places of Holy Scripture Farther whereas Mr. Edwards would intimate that we reject divers Books of Scripture On the contrary we receive into our Canon all those Books of Scripture that are received or owned by the Church of England and we reject the Books rejected by the Church of England We know well that some Books and Parts of Books reckoned to be wrote by the Apostles or Apostolical Men were questioned nay were refused by some of the Antients but we concur with the Opinion of the present Catholick Church concerning them for the Reasons given by the Catholick Church and which I shall mention by and by in the Reply to my Lord of Chichester If Mr. Edwards would have truly represented the Opinion of the Socinians concerning the Scriptures he knew where to find it and so expressed as would have satisfied every body He knows that in their brief Notes on the Creed of Athanasius they have declared what is their Sense in very unexceptionable Words viz. The Holy Scriptures are a