Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	doctrine_n	scripture_n	tradition_n	1,725	5	9.4842	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49188	The scripture-terms of church-union, with respect to the doctrin of the trinity confirmed by the unitarian explications of the beginning of St. John's Gospel; together with the Answers of the Unitarians; to the chief objections made against them: whereby it appears, that men may be unitarians, and sincere and inquisitive, and that they ought not to be excluded out of the church-communion. With a post-script, wherein the divinity of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, according to the generality of the terms of scripture, is shewn, not to be inconsistent with the unitarian systems. Most earnestly and humbly offered to the consideration of those, on whom 'tis most particularly incumbent to examin these matters. By A.L. Author of the Irenicum Magnum, &c.	Lortie, André, d. 1706.	1700 (1700)	Wing L3078A; ESTC R221776	144,344	120

Primitive Doctrin and that 't is most credible it is agreeable to the true sense of Scripture it being the general Sentiment of the Disciples of the Apostles and their Successors in the following Ages And further to evince the Antiquity Vniversality and Credibility of the Trinitarian Doctrin some add that the ancient Jews and the Heathens have believed a Trinity in Vnity to which purpose they quote Plato Philo's Works the Cabbala or Tradition delivered from Father to Son since the time of Moses and the Chaldaïck Paraphrase wherein the Word of God seems to be represented as a Person To all this the Vnitarians answer in the following Particulars 1. The Jews have never held the Doctrin of three Persons in God And as for the Authority of the Heathens it cannot much credit the Trinitarian Cause 2. The Passages in Pliny's Letter and in the Dialogue entituled Philopatris are incontestably invalid Arguments 3. No very considerable Argument can be drawn out of the Ante-nicene Authors because they were but few that wrote and it was not impossible for them to deviate from the Simplicity of the Gospel 4. Many excellent Works of the Primitive Writers have been suppressed and destroyed which were most express for the Vnitarian Sentiment 5. Of the few remaining Writings that are ascribed to the Fathers of the first three Centuries 't is very credible that some are corrupted and some supposititious 6. Howbeit it still in a great measure appears that the generality of the Primitive Christians were Vnitarians and even that the generality of the remaining Authors of the first three Centuries were far enough from being of that Opinion which now is called Orthodox it being evident that they incline more to the Vnitarian than to the Trinitarian Sentiment of the latter Ages 7. The prevailing Sentiment of the following Ages is of no weight against the Vnitarians 8. The Prevalency in general of an Opinion is no Argument that it is agreable to Truth and acceptable to God 9. The only Authority therefore that we can and ought to rely upon is that of the Bible 1. The Jews have never held the Doctrin of three Persons in God and as for the Authority of the Heathens it cannot much credit the Trinitarian Cause The Vnitarians readily grant the Trinitarian Sentiment to be Heathenish seeing it effectually sets up a Plurality of Gods or several supremely and really Divine Persons And they think it very probable that at first some Christians took this Doctrin out of Plato's School whose Philosophy was generally studied and admired tho' perhaps the original meaning of it as to this Point was little understood or considered by the generality of his Disciples For there is much reason to believe that Plato and those of the same Sentiment with him who believed but one God at first personalized the essential or chief Attributes of the Deity to accommodate themselves to the Theology of the Heathens to hide and take off the Odium of their own Notions of the Divine Vnity which otherwise would have been looked upon as next to Atheism wherefore they would seem to hold more Divine Persons or more Gods than one it being reckoned essential to Religion to own a Plurality of Gods These Philosophers therefore so reasoned about the Divine Attributes as if they really held several distinct Gods Indeed 't is very credible that many of 'em afterwards were induced to Error by those Expressions and Philosophized so high about them that they lost themselves and understood not what they said But as for Plato 't is very likely that he meant by his several Persons but the several Attributes of the same Divine Being only he was willing to vail his Sentiment for fear of exposing himself to Socrates his fate having no mind to suffer for his Opinion This appears in his Letters to Dyonisius wherein he tells him It is difficult to find out the Father of the Universe and when you have found him it is not lawful to divulge it to the People I shall then speak of this subject enigmatically that every one may not be able to understand me He sets up therefore a Trinity above all other Gods or Angels and as may be gathered from his Cautiousness from his Sentiment and that of Socrates of one God and from the Current of his Expressions by this Trinity he understood infinite Goodness infinite Wisdom and infinite Love or Power but to wrap up his Doctrin under mysterious terms he represents this Trinity as being three Divine Hypostases or Persons He says the first is the Origin of the other two the Good Being or the first Principle is the Father of the Reason or Wisdom which he has begotten and made and produced and so it might be considered by some as a Creature God and the First-born of the Good Being and the Love or Power is the third most excellent God and the second Production of the Good This Theology most obscurely expressed Plato's Followers have explained according to their own Imaginations till they made it by their Explications still more obscure and more unintelligible But of what Authority are these Philosophical Fancies and Heathenish Mysteries Tho' it seem to some that they may be accomodated to some Expressions in Scripture yet there is no reason to interpret Scripture by that fanciful and fantanstical Rule as is well observed by Beza who calls those Philosophical Conceits Platonica Deliria in his Annotations on John 1.1 Whether or no some Heathen Sages before Plato may then have had the like thoughts and design with him so that he was in some measure but an imitator of them what is that also to Christians What if Parmenides had learned of the Pythagoreans and Pythagoras of Pherecides the Notion of three Hypostases so that the accommodation of Polytheism to a dissembled Unitarianism was perhaps older than Plato by an Age or two And what if the Authors of this Theology whoever they were took these Hypostases to be real Deities Ought such an Egyptian Darkness to be of any weight with Us And can we make it a Question Which is the best either to regard these Heathenish Philosophical Whimsies or to be guided by the clear Light of Reason and the most express Texts of Scripture After all the Platonick Cant is so obscure that for ought that can be pretended to the contrary all that Platonism implies of a Trinity may amount to no more than Semi-Arianism or even Arianism As for the Opinion of the Jews Tho' it be certain that the People of God were Vnitarians yet it is not impossible but that a few of their Metaphysick Wits might Philosophize after the way of Heathen and be infatuated with Plato and conceive as well as many Christians that those strange and admired Speculations might agree with Scripture and be reconciled with the Doctrin of the Unity of God But of what consequence is the Particular Fancy of three or four Visionaries to the whole Body of the Jews Because these

Eusebius tho' he professed the Nicone Trinitarianism was a Semi-Arian and favoured the Arians and perhaps he thought good to excuse Hegesippus notwithstanding what he himself professed as several learned Men in the Church of Rome defend Jansenius at the same time that they openly abjure Jansenism 5. Of the few remaining Writings that are ascribed to the Fathers of the first three Centuries 't is very credible that some are Corrupted and some Suppositious For instance the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas in Easecius's time were reckoned to be Supposititious Euseb Hist. Eccl. L. 3. C. 25. And Dalaeus has particularly concended that the Epistles of Ignatius deserve no credit Indeed those Sentiments have been thought by some and in particular by the Socinians to have been foisted therein which the Semi-Arian Fathers did afterwards openly maintain● Yet some contend that those Writings expresly contain the same Doctrin that was originally Apostolical and afterwards defended by Arius when it had been disguis'd by the Platonists Howbeit it is certain those that had either particular Opinions of their own or particular interests to serve made often no scruple to forge some Writings favouring them which in order to gain them the more credit they ascribed to some Great Men. Several Apocryphal Books were put out under the Apostles's Names How much more then says Dalaeus would they make bold with others Nay he observes that the Fathers themselves have been guilty of such Frauds See the third Chap. of his first Book De usu Patrum And you need but read his following Chapter to see that the genuine Writings of the Fathers have been corrupted St. Jerom complains of the Impudence of Copists in corrupting of Books Ep. 28. ad Lucin. T. 1. p. 247. And yet he owns that himself in translating Origen omitted what was noxious or dangerous that is what suited not to his own Sentiments and says that St. Hilary and others did the like You may see the Quotations and many more Allegations to the same purpose in that Chapter of Dalaeus where he quotes Epiphanius his Saying that the Catholicks scrupled not to correct or put out some things in the Scripture it self fearing the use that the Hereticks might make of those Passages Dalaeus determines not whether Epiphanius spake true or not herein but he infers from thence that those ancient Catholicks would have made no difficulty to correct in like manner as much as they could the Writings of the Primitive Fathers where they widely differ'd from the Sentiments that had prevailed and where those that were reckoned Hereticks might have found too undeniable Authorities for their Opinions After this can those be blamed who will be determined by nothing but the Current of Scripture and the most incontestable Axioms of Reason Such Catholicks as Dalaeus represents to us we may think made no great scrupse to invent Stories that might favour them or to give easily credit to such tho' upon the weakest Grounds and to use such like shifts to defend what they took for Truth Witness the Book of Hermas and what Jerom owns of himself and of the freedom he thought in such cases lawful to take A Man says he argues as he pleases He may make a shew of presenting you with Bread as says the Proverb and all the while he may hold nothing but a Stone He may say one thing and think another Consider the Arguments made use of by Origenes Methodius Eusebius Appollinaris They are often forced to alledge many things which they did not believe but which were necessary to support their Sentiments I say nothing of the Latin Authors Tertullian Cyprian Minucius Victorinus Lactantius Hilary lest I should seem to accuse others rather than defend my self Ep. 50. ad Pamm T. 2. p. 136. When I write my Books says he I call for my Copist or Amanuensis and I often dictate the thoughts of others that I have read tho' I don't believe 'em my self and sometime don't very well remember their Sense Ep. 89 ad Aug. T. 2. p. 304. and 525. After this found your Faith not on Scripture and Reason but on a History concerning Simon Magus related in Epiphanius or another concerning Cerinthus which Irenaeus had heard Those Stories or Traditions after all might be true and not prejudice the Vnitarians as it might easily be shewn For the Vnitarians do not believe as Cerinthus is reported to have done that a Divin Person and that distinct from the Father dwelled in Jesus Besides he is said to have had many other grievous errors If it were true therefore that St. John would not be in the same Bath with him what is that to the Vnitarians And if Simon Magus believed three Divin Manifestations or Powers why should it be thought that he believed nothing that is true But if he asserted three distinct Divin Persons as Dr. Sherlock thought must be inferred from Epiphanius his monstrous Story that he pretended he was both the Father and the Son and affirmed his lewd Woman Helena to be the Holy Ghost why may we not think he might be among corrupted Christians the first Founder of the Dr's Notion or that which now passes for Orthodox that is that of the Platonists and Realists It may be indeed Simon Magus pretended that the Father and Son were manifested in and by him c. But if it be as Dr. Sherlock would have it the Matter is of no importance to Us but rather concerns the Platonick Trinitarians For those ancient Fathers Ireneus and Eusebius who evidently incline more to the Vnitarians then to the Scholastick Trinitarians assert that Simon Magus was the Father and Author of all the Heresies and particularly the Homousian See Sandi Nu●l L. 1. Secul 2. De Gnostic Iren. L. 1. C. 20. 30. L. 4. C. 58. Euseb H. E. L. 11. C. 13. Howbeit pin who will his Faith on Simon Magus or Cerinthus his Sleeve who if not misrepresented were thorow-pac'd Platonists or even Improvers of Platonism Yet the Stories themselves reported concerning their Heresies may perhaps want a little Confirmation considering the Humor of some of those times as we have seen and what Eusebius H. E. L. 1. C. 1. testifies that he had a World to do to compile his History finding so little Light in any Writing before him the continual Persecutions having caused that Confusion as to the Ecclesiastical History the generality of Christians contenting then themselves with the Writings of the New Testament Dalaeus towards the beginning of the fourth Chap. of his said Book seems to intimate that we have nothing much to be relied on but the Holy Scripture which says he has always been preserved with much greater care than other Writings which all Nations have learned which all Languages have translated and which all Sects have retained the Hereticks as well as the Orthodox the Schismaticks as well as the Catholicks the Greeks and Latins Muscovites and Aethiopians c. We may then conclude this

wanderers strayed aside from the Simplicity of Religion and preferred the arbitrary Notions of a vain Philosophy before it doth it follow that the generality of the Jews were Platonists As for Philo Eusebius conjectures and Photius expresly affirms that he was a Christian if so it must be a Platonick Christian or kind of Semi-Arian Some then have thought it not impossible but that this Philo whose Works we have is not he who went on the Embassage to Caligula but is another Philo of the Second Century Neither do they think it impossible but that the Monks may have very much corrupted his Writings Indeed it seems improbable that a Jew should have written all that is attributed to Philo. Howbeit it suffices that he was a Platonist and had a great many extravagant Notions See Mr. Nye's Second Letter to a Peer p. 66. c. After all the Platonists as was observed are very obscure And some contend that all that Philo says of a Trinity amounts not above Arianism See Sandi Hist. Eccl. enucl Lib. 1. Secul 1. But what do we say of the Cabbala or Traditionary Knowledg delivered from Father to Son since the time of Moses Why in good earnest what can we say of it but that it is a Chimera a rabinnical Legend a pharisaïcal Device to deceive the People and make every thing pass as Sacred that the Doctors please All Protestants look upon Tradition as a most unsafe and uncertain Means of transmitting from Age to Age Divine Truths and as no fixed Rule of Religion And we see Our Saviour never mentions the Jewish Tradition but to oppose it After all it can never be shewn that the Cabbala asserts a Trinity of Persons in God Ever since that Doctrin has been broached the generality of the Jews have expressed the Offense they have taken at it and have made it an Objection against Christians Origen says that tho' he had often disputed with the Jewish Rabbins that were of most esteem he never saw any of them approve this Doctrin that the Word is God or a God in the Platonick or Trinitarian Sense And he asserts that it is not the Opinion of the Jews that the Messias whom they expect is to be a God or a Divin Person but they believe he is to be a meer Man and an Earthly King Con. Cels. L. 2. p. 79. and L. 4. p. 162. See Bull. Judic Eccl. p. 170. And in Mr. Nye's 2d Letter to a Peer p. 50 51 52. you may see some more Quotations to the same purpose out of Justin Martyr St. Athanasius and others Indeed some Jewish Books treat very mysteriously and sometimes almost unintelligibly of the Names and Attributes of God Howbeit the Authors never meant thereby so many Divine Persons or any more than one such Person the Jews all along strongly opposing the Doctrin of more Persons than one in God As for the manifestly forged Writings of some Christians they are not to be attributed to the Jews See Mr. Nye's 2d Letter p. 53. You may see his Account of the Cabbala in his 3d. Letter p. 100. c. Maimonides determines this Matter in these words There are some things says he in which Jews Mahometans and Christians do agree But the Mahometans and Christians have divers Doctrines that are peculiar to themselves the Doctrin for instance of the Trinity is proper to Christians and to defend it they have been obliged to invent some very singular Principles More Nevochim Part. 1. Chap. 71. Mr. Nye has several other Quotations to the same import as also Vorstius in his Bilibra veritatis But what do we say to the Chaldee Paraphrase which often mentions the Word of God and represents him as a Person We say perhaps it is not exactly known what Philosophical Notions Onkelos and Jonathan might have who were the Authors of that Paraphrase it may be they were Platonists and accommodated some of Plato's expressions to the Jewish Sentiments howbeit we do not doubt but that all which they say of the Word is consistent with the Vnitarian Sense and we are certain that as we have shewn the Body of the Jews were Vnitarians The same Expression then in an Author may somtimes be taken in divers Significations The Word of God may sometimes signify the Message and somtimes the Messenger of God somtimes the Command it self and somtimes the Person that carries the Divine Command to Men somtimes a Divine Influence or a Divine Virtue the Wisdom and Energy of God or his Inspiration figuratively represented as a Person or his Will and Decree and somtimes a Creature in Office and Dignity an Archangel a Minister of God or one who acts for God and by God's Commission and who in some measure represents him By these Observations 't is easy to explain in an Vnitarian Sense all the Places where the Chaldee Paraphrasts mention the Word of God Probably they thereby commonly understand in speaking of God the Wisdom of God attended and set forth with Command and Authority in acting which Word or Authority God somtimes communicates in different manners or measures to some Creatures And therefore somtimes by the Word of God they understand a Creature for instance at the 1st Verse of the 110th Psalm they give that Name to Solomon because the Kings of Israel were God's Deputies and perhaps they interpreted that Verse like some other Places of the Messiah to whom it is applicable and who as they expected was to be a Temporal King of the House of David No reason can be assigned why they could not give that Title in that sense to the Messiah holding him only as a Creature tho' sometimes they gave it to some of God's Attributes Dr. Allix fancies that Philo actually personalized one of the Divin Attributes namely the Divin Wisdom whom he called the Word of God Yet as we have before remark'd the Dr. himself observ'd that Philo calls also Angels in the Plural the Words of God Philo. De Migrat Abrah p. 415. The same Title then may be given both to God or some Divin Influence or Divin Virtue and to some Creatures who act for God and who peculiarly represent him and in and by whom he extraordinarily manifests his Wisdom and Authority What belongs to God may be accomodated or figurativly attributed to such Crearures And it is incontestable that by the Word in speaking of God and by the Divin Spirit or the Breath of his Mouth may be meant the Actings or most eminent Manifestations of his Wisdom and Power As for such expressions as these in the Old Testament O God I have waited for thy Salvation when they are accommodated to the Messiah or the times of the Messiah they may import no more than this O God I have waited for thy Succor or the Deliverance of thy People from the Power of their Enemies by the means of thy Victorious Messenger the Great King of Israel Howbeit the Messiah acting for God and being a King might be called

is to know them to know the Father will do them for him and to desire them of the Father For tho' it be said that Christ did and is to do most wonderful Works yet the Scripture is very far from saying that he doth them of Himself or by his own Power Himself says the quite contrary John 5.19 The Son can do nothing of himself John 14. ●0 The Father that dwelleth in me He doth the Works Matth. 12.28 I cast out Devils by the Spirit of God And John 11.41 42. Father I thank thee that thou Hearest me always How could Christ have declared more expresly that he doth not the Supernatural Works by his own Power but by the Means which have been said Namely By knowing that the Father will do them for him and By desiring the Father to do them by his Divine Power and by what Means He pleases to use Seeing that the Father has promised our Saviour to hear him always he may truly say that all things which the Father has are his And therefore it is certain that not only there never was such another Prophet as Christ but also that he is the most Excellent and most Dignified Creature that can be But yet we see it doth not follow that because he doth what none but God can do he is therefore hypostatically united with a Divine Person and that distinct from the Father The Scripture shews us How Christ doth all Supernatural Things he himself tells us he desires the Father to do them and the Father always grants his requests and doth what he desires and he desires nothing but what he knows the Father will grant and the Father has promis'd and constantly gives him whatsoever is necessary for the Discharge of his Office Christ then may truly say that as the Father has Life in himself or at his disposal so has he given to the Son to have Life in himself For as the Father doth all things by Willing them so Christ doth all things by Desiring them As God has put Power in the Natural Sun to vivify all Seeds in the Earth so he has in an infinitely more excellent way invested Christ the Sun of Righteousness with Power to quicken the Dead But still the Power of the Lord Jesus is the Divine Power And we see that as we have said God makes Christ to be Partaker thereof So that as the Father has Divine Power in him so has He given to the Son to have Divine Power in him insomuch that when the Father has shewn him a Miraculous Thing the Son can do the same likewise by the Assistance of the Divine Power which dwells in him and which he constantly has the use of by Willing and Asking or affectionately Desiring Thus Christ knows the Hearts by the same Means by the Divine Power that is in him or annexed to him and that reveals them to him See the Brief History of the Vnitarians on John 2.25 and Revel 2.23 So that as Dr. Sherlock himself says at the top of the 196th Page of his last Book the Knowledg of Christ is from the Father's dwelling in him And by that Means Christ Governs the Vniverse and will Judge the World As to Christ's Efficacy in obtaining Forgiveness for all those Sinners whom he persuades and excites to forsake their Sins and to become Obedient and New Creatures it is the strangest thing in the World to imagin that God cannot grant that which is altogether agreable to the Propensions of his own Nature to his most beloved Son even upon that Act and Submission of his which argues the most perfect Obedience and makes the most solemn Reparation to the Divine Justice and Authority As Dr. Whichcot expresses himself upon this Subject Pages 62 d and 63 d of his Select Sermons We are in the hands of him that is Primarily and Originally Good And He will certainly commiserate every Case so far as it is compassionable Now the Case of a Sinner is compassionable if he be Penitent God might then surely accept of Christ's Sacrifice as as sufficient Attonement seeing that it so fully confirms God's Hatred to Sin and his Good Will to those that Obey him and is consequently the powerfullest Motive and the likeliest Means to engage those for whom that Sacrifice is offered and who are not yet incorrigible to forsake their evil Ways to accept the Offers of Grace and to be reconciled to God Christ's Death is the fullest Confirmation of God's Good Will to those that obey him seeing that upon the account of his Son 's perfect Obedience He has exalted him to the highest Glory even of being Partaker of the Divine Nature and Power And it is also the fullest Confirmation of God's absolute Hatred to Sin seeing He would not pardon the Sins of Men without this Consideration Condition that he who was Innocent the most Perfect Excellent Creature pleaded for the Fallen Race of Mankind should as their Advocate suffer in their stead expiate their Sins with his Blood and thus exhibit a most solemn Demonstration of the Demerit of Sin But this no where is represented in Scripture as a perfectly equivalent Satisfaction in the most rigorous sense And neither Scripture nor Reason shew that God can Pardon but upon such Terms See the aforesaid Sermons of Dr. Whichcot Pag. 301 c. on Act. 13.38 As the Bishop of Gloucester observes at the 85th and following Pages of his aforesaid Reflections on the Book of Dr. Sherlock against him Christ's meriting of God the Father cannot be understood in the highest sense of meriting as we may merit of one another that is by doing acts of Kindness and Beneficeace from mere Good Will or no antecedent Obligation to the Person to whom the Kindness is shewn 'T is nothing but the wretched Popish Doctrin of Merit that has made it an offensive word in relation to God But taking Meritum and Mereri in the Fathers sense there is no offence to be taken at it as respecting God For they meant no more than having a right to be rewarded by him from the performance of that Obedience or Service to which he has annexed the reward by a most gracious Promise But as it is impossible to do God Almighty a Kindness or Benefit so I cannot understand how the Son of God himself could in this sense merit of his Father the Redemption of Mankind since he did or suffered by vertue of the Union nothing but what the Will of his Father obliged him unto Lo I come said he to do thy Will O God And his perfectly complying with this Will was his meriting our Redemption of his Father as He willed to make him the Author thereof upon that Condition And therefore Mr. Calvin says well Totum Meritum Christi pendet à Voluntate Divina Now will any Man say that Christ as Man did not thus merit Then by the most wonderful Submission and Self-Resignation of the Man Christ Jesus who was most

it were a Property or a Faculty of God Christ a Man and a Creature should have the Preheminence over it and be named before it and be honour'd above it If these things are unaccountable what do the Vnitarians get by their differing from the Trinitarians Then the remoteness of the Vnitarian Interpretations may in particular be argued by these Instances When the generality of Christians read these Texts that the Word is God and that by him all things whether in Heaven or Earth were made and created is it likely that it will come into their minds that thereby is meant that all things were New-modelled by Christ or that supposing that all things were created by him yet he is but a Creature that bears the Name of God If these Senses are so far from being obvious that we may imagine they can scarce so much as enter into the thoughts of any ordinary Christians is it credible that they are the true Meaning of those Texts For can We think the Holy Writers have so expressed themselves as that it should not be possible for the greatest part of Men to understand them We may then be confident 3. That several Texts of Scripture whether put together or taken asunder amount to a firm Evidence of the Trinitarian Sentiment Besides those aforementioned these seem express which call Christ by way of eminency the Son of God and which not only shew that Christ may and is to be Pray'd to but declare that God will have Men Honour the Son even as they Honour the Father Which it seems after all that the Vnitarians have said concerning the Worship of the Man Jesus Christ is an invincible Demonstration that the Son is God like the Father In fine the Trinitarians esteem all these Arguments may also be strength'ned by the following and last proposed Consideration 4. That it seems there is no express Text for the Vnitarian Doctrin or against the Trinitarians If the Vnitarians will confute the Trinitarian System let them produce any decisive Text for their Sentiment thereby they will incontestably shew that all the Texts which the Trinitarians alledge must be understood in the Vnitarian Sense but this the Trinitarians do defy the Vnitarians to do This is so weighty a Consideration that Dr. Sherlock thinks sit to inculcate and repeat it a great many times in his last Book intituled The Scripture-Proofs of our Saviour's Divinity explain'd c. To this purpose for instance Page 47. How harsh and unusual soever the Expositions of the Vnitarians might appear I should allow them to be very Reasonable had they first well prov'd that Christ is but a Creature that is in the Vnitarian Sense and not the eternal and almighty God himself for that alone would be reason enough to attribute nothing to him which cannot belong to a Creature Page 50. We must understand Words in a proper and natural Sense where there is no apparent reason for a Figure and here is none to take figuratively as the Vnitarians do these words God and Son of God when applied to Christ unless they think fit to assign his being a mere Creature Which indeed would be a very good reason could they prove that Christ is but a Creature Page 55. Could any Text be produced that proves Christ to be but a Creature that is the Dr. must mean as was before remark'd but such a Creature as the Vnitarians hold as most eminently acts for God represents God and is assisted of and united to God according to the Vnitarian System it would put an end to this Controversy and either excuse or justify all their other Interpretations of Scripture how harsh soever they might otherwise appear Page 58. The whole Controversy may be put upon this Issue if they can confute ours or establish their own Interpretations of Scripture so as to prove ours to be necessarily false and theirs consequently necessarily true c. CHAP. XI An Answer to the First Branch of the Objection TO the Four Branches of the foregoing Argument the Vnitarians answer in these Four Particulars 1. The Vnitarians do not lay the whole stress of their Cause upon Arguments drawn from Reason yet very justly on the other hand they think like all Protestants that Reason ought not wholly to be Slighted 2. They maintain that none of their Assertions are uncredible and that their Interpretations are rational and agreeable to the stile and current of Scripture and therefore natural and obvious enough 3. It is possible and easy and warrantable to understand in an Vnitarian Sense all the Texts which the Trinitarians alledge for their Sentiment 4. The Vnitarians produce several Texts of Scripture which seem express and most evident for the Vnitarian System it manifestly appearing that they are not susceptible of any other tolerable Sense or that they cannot tolerably be reconciled to the Trinitarian Sentiment so that if Men do not own and discern the force of them it seems it must be either because they make no attention to them or because they are moved and acted by Passion blinded by Prejudice and Partiality and resolved not to acknowledge the Truth 1. The Vnitarians do not lay the whole stress of their Cause upon Arguments drawn from Reason yet very justly on the other hand they think like all Protestants that Reason ought not wholly to be Slighted If this Subject be duly consider'd it will be found that Protestants and Vnitarians do not differ in Principles concerning this Question What Vse of Reason ought to be allowed in Matters of Religion Now if it be so there can be nothing less pertinent than to make a Dispute about it or to pretend a Difference where there is none It is as if a Papist should make long Harangues to Protestants to prove that Scripture is the Word of God that God cannot be suppos'd willing to deceive Men and that therefore we must heartily assent to and firmly believe whatsoever is contain'd in the Bible Why Man What Protestant is there that knows not this or that denies it Protestants profess to believe the Holy Scripture as much to the full as any Member of the Church of Rome doth Pretty then make no Controversy about that Matter But if thou wilt do any thing to the purpose shew that Protestants reject some Doctrines certainly taught in God's Word In like manner Vnitarians maintain that a Protestant is out of the way who Quarrels with them about the Vse of Reason and they challenge him to shew that they make any other Use of it than Protestants themselves make in Matters of Religion So that whenever Protestants Quarrel with the Vnitarian Principles with relation to this Point they deviate from their own Rule and accuse their own Measures than which nothing can be more unreasonable and unwarrantable Either make not Use of the Principle or Quarrel not at a like Use of it If after all you think that Vnitarians make a different Use of Reason I say a different Use in