too and that the Jews were witnesses to all the World of this Sacred Truth I grant it The Unity of God was the Fundamental Article of the Mosaical dispensation Pythagoras Socrates Plato Aristotle the Academicks have spoke admirably well to it But I say that Christianity has been as far superior to them in this point as they themselves exceeded the rest of Mortals For the Jews kept this to themselves without propagating it to others and the wise Heathen confuting their doctrine by their practice openly embrac'd Polytheism None treated of God and his Divine Attributes of which the Vnity is the Center as the Holy Jesus and his disciples have done This the Apostles spread through the World This the Fathers taught indefatigably One God One Divine Nature Spirit Mind substance has been the constant Voice of the Church He is not a Christian who believes not that God is one and can be but one If it were not too tedious I would produce some of their Authorities Socin It is altogether needless This is our very Doctrine I am fully perswaded of this and infinitely pleas'd to hear you speak so home to it Orthod I am afraid you will not be so well pleas'd with my second observation and it is this That the same Church of God which so Zealously asserted his Vnity never did it without asserting at the same time a Trinity of Persons in that One Divine Nature No matter of fact which depends from Testimony can be made to appear more incontestably true than this You have a large Collection of Books at home Let us step to your Library and I dare engage to convince you of this by the most exact induction of particulars which can ever be made from the very Apostolical Creed to this time I say once more and presume to be positive in it that the Church in delivering the Faith ever taught the Existence of God to be necessary and Eternal and his Vnity so perfect and entire that it transcends what notion soever we have of Unity even that which we call Numerical coming much short of it But at the same time she taught and profess'd to believe and adore in that Vnity of Nature a Trinity of Hypostases or Persons the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit Thus run the Apostolical the Nicene Ephesine and Constantinopolitan Creeds Thus speak the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Thus all the Learning of the Schools and all the now Churches in the World express themselves Thirdly But least the belief of a Trinity of Persons whose Coeternity and Coequality is asserted should affect the Vnity of the Divine Nature the Church has stated it in one and the same indivisible and inseparable simple and uncompounded Essence They are Coeternal and Coequal because Coessential And they are Coessential because Subsisting in that Nature which cannot be multiply'd It is true to say of each Person that he is God and yet it is false to say that they are Three Gods The Trinity multiplying the Persons but the Vnity remaining the same that is the greatest and most unconceivable Vnity in the World And therefore the Sacred Councils and the Fathers have been carefull to the utmost to distinguish the Personality from the Nature as afraid of multiplying the one as of confounding the other You see then that the first member of your distinction is worth nothing The charge laid against the Church in that particular is not only false but impossible You have attempted to divide the Church of God into two Parties The first you have accus'd of Tritheism or of teaching the belief and Worship of Three Gods Unfortunate in this that the very exposition of the Doctrine of the Church the very reading of any one Creed is an open confutation of what you have pretended to make us guilty of Socin I hope you will not take it ill If I make some remarks as well as you First I confess that the Nicene and following Councils spoke as you do and that many of the Post-Nicene Fathers the Schoolmen and the present Churches agree with you in this but I deny it of the Apostolical Creed which ought to have been the Form of all the rest Where can you find there a Trinity in Vnity Where can you see Coeternity Coequality Coessentiality and all those Famous Terms which the Church perserv'd ever since For my part I can perceive no such thing To this Creed we stand as to a rule left us by the Apostles themselves Suffer us to keep but that and take you all the rest Secondly I challenge the Ante-Nicene Fathers we say they are strangers to your Doctrine The Answer to Dr. Bull has made it invincibly appear Have you taken notice how the Learned Author of that answer has discover'd the impostures of Pseudo-Hermas and the pretended Epistles of Barnabas and Ignatius What clear account he has given of the Nazarens Mineans and Alogi And what a plain proof he has brought against your Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ out of the Epistle of Clemens of Rome to the Church of Corinth Thirdly Admitting all your allegations to be true A Trinity in Vnity Three Gods in one God is a thing wholly unaccountable Orthod The question between you and me is not whether it is unaccountable or not The question is whether those whom you call Real Trinitarians have departed from the doctrine of the Unity of God and have actually and manifestly as you speak own'd their Tritheism The matter of Fact and not the Reasonableness or Unreasonableness of the thing is the Point in dispute Your mistake is Palpable For the Trinity in Vnity is not Three Gods in one God a Language which the Church ever abhorr'd but Three Persons in one God Three Subsistences in one Divine Nature Pray name me one Man in the Church even of those who have most abounded in their own sense and spoke most loosly in the explication of our Mysteries who was not as Zealous a defender of the Unity of God as yourself can be This is then the most unpardonable want of Candor imaginable You call me a Tritheist I deny it You prove it because I believe the Blessed Trinity I own I do Then you exclaim I believe Three Gods The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit I say No! For though the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost God yet they are but one God For God can be but one The Divine Nature is incapable of Multiplication Division or Augmentation You may and will urge again that this is very unreasonable I hope to shew you one day that it is highly Rational But in the mean time I gain the point and complain that you do me wrong and are inexcusable in charging me with destroying the Unity of God 2ly You are positive that the Ante-Nicene Fathers asserted the Vnity but not the Trinity I suppose you mean in our sence of a Trinity or else the mistake is not
pardonable Origen and other Ante-Nicenes make out the Unity of God in a Ternary of Persons though they did not believe the Equality Says the Author of the Answer to Dr. Bull pag. 22. unjust in this to Origen and the rest I have some Remarks on that Answer which I design to make publick What the Author has said concerning the Epistle of St. Barnabas and those of the Holy Martyr Ignatius is far from invalidating their Authority We must have more than suspicions and bare denials to illegitimate a Book They are certainly works of great Antiquity and acknowledg'd to be such by the succeeding Ages But what must we say of a Person of his great erudition who pretending to answer a Book full of all the Testimonies which those early times could afford quarrels only with two or three Authors against whom he says nothing substantial and is wholly silent to Justin Martyr St. Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Tatianus Miltiades Melito Dionysius of Alexandria Tertullian Lactantius c. Is it enough to confute the Ante-Nicene Fathers to say as this Author pag. 7. That all their Glory is wholly due to the vanity of Modern Learned Men who quote these Books not because they value them but because being ancient monuments known to few and understood by fewer he seems to be a great Learned Man who can drop sentences out of these antique Books But this is mild and obliging if compar'd with pag. 63. Where this Author having said that Trinitarianism is not so much a Religion as the Law of the Byzantine or Constantinopolitan Emperours stiles the then Doctors of the Church THE PARASITES OF THESE TIMES whom now in regard of their antiquity we call Fathers You are not insensible how this might be taken up and expos'd If Hosius Spiridio Paphnutius If the Gregories the Basils the Cyrils the Theodorets the Chrysostoms the Hieroms the Hilaries the Ambroses the Austins were the Parasites of their times where shall we find any Vertue Piety or Learning in this World But I am willing to over-look those excesses and tell you that it is a folly to wrangle with this or that passage sometimes to inveigh against Platonicism and sometimes to complain that those Writings are lost which might have inform'd us better To be plain we have enough left and from what remains of the times before the Council of Nice it appears that the Vnity of God and the belief of a Trinity of Persons in that one God Father Son and Holy Spirit was the belief of the Christian Church The Arrians indeed might challenge some of the then Fathers who spoke more obscurely and were easier Misinterpreted But Socinianism has not the least pretence to any He must have forfeited all modesty who asserts it Socin But what have you to say to the Apostolical Creed Is it not an evidence beyond all other evidences Orthod Of what Socin Of the Vnity of the Great God Orthod And so are all our Creeds from the first to the last Socin But it is an Evidence against your Trinity Orthod Against that Trinity which you have falsly imputed to us and that is A Trinity of Gods But not against a Trinity of Persons in one God What is the first assertion of that Creed I believe in One God For you affirm that it was anciently thus read Ans to Doctor Bull pag. 16. What is the second but an Explication of the first This One God is the Father Almighty His only begotten Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit Three Persons in One God Socin This is so dragg'd in so strain'd so unnatural that to any unprejudic'd Person it will visibly appear not to be the Doctrine design'd to be taught in the Creed Orthod I am apt to think that I can substantially prove that it is I believe the Creed to be truly Apostolical notwithstanding what some learned Men have said against it Not because it was made by the Apostles themselves though nothing appears to the contrary but by reason of its great Antiquity Now when you and I dispute about the sence and design of that Creed we have but one way to take and that is First to see what the Scripture teaches concerning its Articles which indeed are no more than an Epitome or Collection of the Principal Truths deliver'd by Christ and his Apostles Secondly To examine the Doctrine of the Fathers who liv'd before the Church thought it fit and necessary to make a larger Explanation of the Faith Thirdly To satisfy our selves of the sence which the immediately following Councils gave to that Creed in their Decrees All this is Highly reasonable For if the Scripture which has taught so expresly God to be one has also expresly taught the Father to be God the Son God and the Holy Spirit God then it is plain that the sence of the Creed is such and no other The Authority of that Creed or of any Creed whatever is from the Scripture It cannot therefore be contrary to it and that excellent Rule must be brought to that Primitive Rule from whence it is deriv'd And alas has not this been prov'd to you so often and so fully that after a World of wrangling you have been driven from your new and unnatural Criticisms and forc'd to shelter your selves under the weak defence of your Philosophical disceptations But if this Creed has no other sence but that which you put upon it The Father only God The Son only Man and the Holy Spirit only an Energy or Operation How come the Fathers of that time so openly to contradict it I will not do again what has been so excellently done by the Learned Dr. Bull who has oblig'd the Christian Church with two Books which indeed you may speak or discourse against but can never substantially Answer Has he not undeniably prov'd out of their Writings that those Fathers believ'd the two Natures in Jesus Christ The Divine and the Human That they have asserted his Pre-existence and if his Pre-existence then his Eternity and if his Eternity then his Consubstantiality with the Father If the second part of the Creed is to be understood of Christ only Man How comes Irenaeus lib. 1. advers Haeres c. 2. in delivering the Belief of the Catholick Church or as he speaks of the Church all the World over to call him Our Lord Our God Our Saviour Our King to whom every Knee ought to bow c. How comes Tertullian who has deliver'd this very rule of Faith to talk as we do of the Blessed Trinity designedly and positively against Praxeas and say that he is warranted by the Apostle to speak of Christ as of him who is God blessed over all for ever If he believ'd the Holy Spirit to be only an Energy How comes he to stile him Tertium Numen Deitatis tertium Nomen Majestatis The Third Person of the Deity The Third Name of Majesty and Power Certainly Novatianus was acquainted with this Creed and yet Lib. de Trin.
that in our debates with the Socinians as the dispute is so are the Arguments of another nature than those in that sort of Controversies which we have been speaking of The matter is abstruse and mysterious We are not willing to speak more of God than he himself has taught us This you call obscurity and want of satisfaction and because the Socinians are perpetually reasoning of an Increated and Incomprehensible Substance as they do of Finite and Created Beings and are never weary of applying their notions of what they understand to what they understand not at all and has no sort of proportion to it Then you say that their writings are clear I appeal to your self whether you are not highly unjust to us Nay whether any one Controversy in the World was ever manag'd with so little Candor as this is by you Socin But pray how have you manag'd it Forgive me if I tell you that the Church never shew'd so much Weakness in any thing as in this very particular You are angry with us for Reasoning too much and you have Reason'd your selves out of doors You pretended to assert a Trinity and cannot tell us what that Trinity is You are Trinitarians indeed but at the same time the sad Assertors of a Trinity which is too much or too little Degenerates into Tritheism or Sabellianism and if receiv'd according to some explications is Real and Blasphemous and if according to others is Nominal and signify's nothing Orthod Truly I wonder this was not yet come out For you cannot now speak to a Socinian but he brings in this right or wrong The Author of the considerations of the several explications of the Trinity made the best of it and perswaded himself that he had given us the mortal wound The Writer of the discourse concerning the Real and Nominal Trinitarians promises himself no less than the ruine of the Church if the fatal distinction is carry'd on and improv'd as it ought to be He that dawbs with untemper'd mortar and calls himself a Prebyter of the Church of England is of the same mind The whole Church say they Condemns the Real Trinitarians and the Nominals being rank Sabellians must of course be condemn'd too Blessed discovery which when truly examin'd is the greatest piece of unsincerity imaginable Socin I must beg leave to interrupt you and blame you for denying that which is clearer than the Sun Where lies then the unsincerity Is it in affirming that you will not tell us what your Trinity is Or is it in distributing you into Real and Nominal Trinitarians Orthod 'T is in every part of the Allegation Can any thing be more unsincere than for you to tell us that we oblige you to believe a Trinity and are not willing to tell you what that Trinity is Pray were you ever Baptiz'd Have you ever paid your Duty to God in the solemn use of our excellent Liturgy Did you ever join in the Doxology by which the Church in the Primitive Ages down to ours put in the mouth of her Children a confutation of the Samosatenian Sabellian Arrian Nestorian and Macedonian Heresies Did you ever make a profession of that Faith which you embrac'd in your Baptism by reciting the Apostolical and Catholick Creeds Did you ever read the Articles of the Church of England or of any other Church in the World For I positively averr that they do all and every one of them speak and assert the same thing Socin True They tell us of a Trinity but do not tell us what that Trinity is Orthod Do they not tell you that God is one That in that one adorable and Divine Nature are Father Son and Holy Spirit That the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and yet not three Gods but one God This is to tell you that there is a Blessed Trinity and what that Trinity is Socin True again But they do not tell us how God can be One and Three How that Trinity and Unity are reconcil'd How every Person is God and yet but one God and if they do not say this in effect they say nothing Orthod This is the arrantest Sophism that ever was or can be us'd in a dispute The Church asserts the thing because God has asserted it He has not been pleas'd to reveal the manner and therefore the Church says nothing to it All is built upon the Divine Revelation Must we not believe that a thing is when God has affirm'd that it is because he has not thought fit to make clear to us how it is Should I tell you that the Sun is a luminous Body which by dispersing its Beams over all the Creation gives Light and Colour to every thing and that the earth is impregnated by certain qualities which with an admirable luxuriancy cover it with Fruits and Flowers Would you deny this because I do not acquaint you how that Body is luminous how the impressions of light mix with all things and shew what they are Would you deny the fruitfulness of the Earth because I cannot explain those qualities by which it is impregnated Socin This reaches not at all the difficulty For these are things of sense which I am satisfy'd to be and to exist Besides I am capable of Philosophical inquiries by which if I do not certainly know the How I come at least very near it Orthod But this not only reaches the difficulty but wholly resolves it For your Philosophical inquiries are but inquiries things for the most part uncertain But that wherein the stress of the difficulty lies is the degree of certainty by which we are assur'd that such a thing is And I say that the Divine Revelation is infinitely more certain than the fullest testimony of Sense and that if I am satisfy'd that God has reveal'd a Trinity I am more assur'd that there are Three Persons in the Divine Nature than I am assur'd that the Sun is a luminous and the Earth a fruitful Body though I could understand how the one shines and how the other is actuated into so many several forms Socin Then now the Church of Rome will give you thanks For this is the very Topick us'd in the famous case of Transubstantiation Orthod This is one of the Socinian Common Places But not to spend time about so little an objection which will carry the digression too far let me tell you that a Topick may be good but yet ill and falsly apply'd In that dispute between them and us we deny the Divine Revelation We say God has not reveal'd it But to return You make a mighty noise with your distinction of Real and Nominal Trinitarians and pretend that it is the natural result of several explications of the Trinity To overthrow this at once it is enough to say that the Church owns no particular explication of this Divine Mystery nor concerns herself with what private Authors have said of it The Church has spoke in general Councils
c. 13. he tells you that the Scriptures deliver so Manifestly Christ to be God that several Hereticks Divinitatis ipsius magnitudine veritate commoti mov'd by the great sence and truth of his Divinity have confounded him with the Father But if we had no such proofs as these there is still one which according to your late Principles you cannot oppose I say your late Principles for you change every day Socin No! You do us wrong we are still the same Orthod I may at some time or other have an occasion to prove the defection of the Outlandish Socinians from Socinus of you from the Outlandish Socinians and of your selves from your selves in your first and latest Prints But let us not digress from the thing in dispute The proof which I speak of is the great Council of Nice Socin What That Council which has publish'd Establish'd and infected the World with its infidelity As the Answer to Dr. Bull judiciously observes pag. 25. Orthod That first Oecumenical Council which could not be ignorant both of the sense of the Apostolical Creed and of the Fathers whom they immediately succeeded A Council so venerable for its Antiquity so reverenc'd for the number of Holy and Learned Men who voted in it so highily honour'd by the following Ages to this day Did they know the Apostolical Creed or did they not If you say they did not you overthrow all that you can pretend from it A Creed can neither be Apostolical or Universal which the Nicene Fathers were not acquainted with And if they did then your sense of it is not that of these Primitive times For they are so far from interpreting as you do Jesus Christ to be only Man and the Holy Spirit to be only an Energy or operation that you know how positively how earnestly they assert them to be Consubstantial to the Father I may be mistaken but if this way of reasoning is not plain I don't know what can be plain Socin But what have we to do with the Council of Nice or indeed with any Council whatsoever We have innumerable objections against that and the following Councils Orthod I confess you speak as a Socinian of the first edition Thus Socinus and his first Disciples answer'd to those great Authorities Thus did your selves Write in your first Prints The World indeed star'd at you But however it had an air if not of reason at least of sincerity But a Socinian of the second edition runs another way I told you that you change every day Pray open the Discourse concerning the Real and Nominal Trinitarians Socin What then Orthod There you may sind your Condemnation in that particular out of your own mouth Pag. 4. The Author speaking of the Great Lateran Council observes that a doctrine is not Heresy because rejected by a great number of Learned Men or by a National Council But only when censur'd by a General Council The Catholick Church is never understood to speak but by a General Council pag. 5. Is not a General Council the Highest Court of the Church Her Canons declare the Faith her Anathema's Heresy And pag. 16. A General Council is the last Tribunal on earth from which there lies no appeal pag. 4. He call this an Incontestable Argument Now pray deal sincerely and apply this to the Nicene Council No body ever yet disputed its universality It was assembl'd under and by the first Christian Emperor It represented the whole Church The Creed then of that Council determin'd the sense of any preceeding Creed Whatever you can say to the contrary is insignificant because such a determination comes from the highest Tribunal on earth from which there lies no appeal Upon the whole the Church ever asserted a Trinity consistent with the Vnity of God and an Unity inseparable from a Trinity of Persons in one adorable and Divine Nature Where is then again the first part of your Distinction You charge us with teaching a Trinity which infers Three Gods We say this is false this is impossible not only from the Nature of the thing but also from an Authority which you dare not reject because you own your selves that it is the highest Tribunal on earth from which there can lie no appeal Socin This seems home indeed But yet not without exception For the Vnity asserted by the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers was only an Vnity of Monarchy An Vnity of love and agreement An Vnity of subordination and subjection to him who is the first God Such an Vnity as is that of the Individuals of the same Species This the Author of the Answer to Dr. Bull is positive in pag. 75. He charges the Fathers with this all over his Writing and the greatest part of it is spent in the confutation of such strange Hypotheses Orthod Pray learn to mistrust your Books For I may say without breaking the Cartel of honour and civility agreed upon amongst Writers as this Author speaks both Pleasantly and Elegantly pag. 77. that not one word of this is true and that such an account of the Vnity of God never came from the Church but owes its birth to the School of Arrius This Author though a Person of great erudition has suffer'd himself to be strangely mistaken as any one may who will take all the expressions illustrations resemblances us'd by the Fathers in treating of the Blessed Trinity for an exact account of their Doctrine For there is a great difference between speaking at large and endeavouring to give some kind of a Notion of a Mystery and writing dogmatically concerning it I have a plain reason which I humbly conceive is sufficient to overthrow all this And that is that the Fathers in explaining how the Three Persons are one God never confin'd themselves to the Terms of Numerical or specifick Vnity This last is meerly Notional and is no more than an act of the Mind comparing and abstracting from several Individuals It does not really exist The first though never so expressive still comes short of the incomprehensible dignity and simplicity of the Subject Socin What Vnity then did they assert Orthod An Vnity which no Nature but the Divine is capable of which transcends all expressions or imaginations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says the Council of Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Justin Martyr Hoc solum ex ea comprehendimus quod comprehendi non potest says St. Ambrose Thus speak Basil the Great Nazianzen Gregory Nyssen and the generality of the Fathers And yet this Author has spent 13 pages to tell us that they believ'd a specifick Vnity and Vnity of Monarchy and order an Vnity of love and agreement a Consubstantiality like that of several pieces of Gold and of a Star to another Star As if these trifles deserv'd the name of Incomprehensible and if we could say of any of them as Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not bringing those things which are so far above our thoughts to the
scrutiny of human Reasonings Do all these Vnities transcend the capacity of Human Nature Are they above the reach of an inquisitive Philosopher or a profound Divine Socin I confess that you startle me and I begin to have no great opinion of the first part of the distinction I see you are no Tritheists but then you must of course fall into Nominalism or Sabellianism and that is as bad I am afraid that part of the charge will stick cruelly against you Orthod The notion of Nominal Trinitarians is if possible more extravagant than the other Can you think in good earnest that the Ancient or modern Church if such an expression may be us'd for the Church is always the same Can you think I say that the Church in the first and in these last Ages oppos'd Sabellianism with so much Zeal and Vigor that is that very impiety which you fasten on her and condemn'd it with so unanimous a consent and yet would make it the foundation of her Faith The vast labours of the Fathers and of all the Doctors who succeeded them aim'd at this to assert a Real distinction of Persons against Sabellius and their Consubstantiality Coequality and Coeternity against Arrius And you come resolutely to tell us that for all that the Church is Sabellian and teaches Sabellianism How heartily would you laugh at a Man who should come to tell you that he has attentively read all the Socinian Prints and finds at last that they believe the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of our Saviour Socin Had they said so much for these two Articles as you have for Sabellianism in all your Books I protest I could not laugh at it Orthod Let us see then what is Sabellianism and if found in the Church I promise to give up the cause But if not I expect that you will have the justice to own that to charge us with it is a crying unsincerity We cannot have the sense of Sabellius better than from Dionysius of Alexandria the other Dionysius of Rome Athanasius St. Basil Nazianzen Ruffinus c. You will Learn from them that Sabellius own'd the Divine Nature but confounded the Hypostases or Persons and maintain'd one only Person or Hypostasis the Father And that when they objected to him the different operations of the Son and Holy Spirit he answer'd that they were only denominations of the Father resulting from his several appearances or offices to us If you mistrust this account take what the Author of the discourse says pag. 16. In a word says he the Noëtians and Sabellians held that God is but one subsisting Person yet that with respect to things without him he may be call'd as the modern Nominals now speak three Relative Persons The one subsisting Person of God sustains the three names of Father Son and Spirit which being the Relations of God towards things without him he is so many Relative Persons in a Classical Critical sense Now I will do more for you than you can expect I will not confine you to our English Authors But I dare you to produce any one Man in the Church of God who ever understood those matters and spoke at this rate But if you do not as I am positive that you cannot what becomes of your distinction and with what face can it be us'd any more Socin I will not go out of the Kingdom no not out of London for it Dr. South shall be the Man You will not deny that he understands the sense of the Church He says himself animadvers ch 8. pa. 242. And this I affirm to be the current doctrine both of the Fathers and the Schools concerning the Persons of the Blessed Trinity and the constantly receiv'd account given by them of a Divine Person so far as they pretend to explain what such a Person is Pag. 240. He tells you That the commonly receiv'd Doctrine of the Schools concerning the Blessed Trinity is this That the Christian Faith has laid this sure foundation that there is but one God That there is no positive real Being strictly and properly so call'd in God but what is God That there can be no composition in the Deity with any such positive real Being distinct from the Deity it self And yet that the Church finding in Scripture mention of Three to whom distinctly the Godhead does belong has by warrant of the same Scripture Heb. 1.3 express'd these Three by the names of Persons and stated their Personalities upon three distinct Modes of Subsistence alloted to one and the same Godhead and these also distinguish'd by three distinct Relations Then pag. 241. To explain these modes of Subsistence and these Relations he tells you That they are neither substance nor accident That they are not a Being but only the affection of a Being and that they add no entity to it such as are dependance mutability presence absence c. And that they have no Existence of their own after a separation or division from the things or beings to which they do belong Having thus in general explain'd what a mode is he applys it pag. 242. And says that the Personalities by which the Deity stands Diversify'd into three distinct Persons are call'd and accounted Modes .... That every Person is properly the Godhead as subsisting with and under such a certain Mode or Relation Now put all this together and see whether this is not the very Doctrine of Sabellius Did not Sabellius say that God is one even the Father acting under several Names sustaining several Relations by which he sometimes is the Father and sometimes the Son What does Dr. South say more He must be very clear sighted who can perceive any difference between these two Hypotheses Orthod There is as much difference as between affirming and denying between Light and Darkness Sabellius admits only one Person in the Divine Nature Dr. South Three When Sabellius by the great evidence of Scripture is forc'd to own Three Persons and confess the Relations He will have them to be Persons only in a Classical Critical sence having no other but a Metaphorical being He confounds the Persons and makes the Son and the Holy Spirit to be the Father Dr. South affirms them to be Persons in a Real Sence by an Eternal Communication of the Divine Nature and so really distinct that the Son cannot be the Father or the Holy Spirit Father or Son or the Father Son or Holy Spirit Sabellius makes the Relations to be wholly extrinsecal as he sustains the Three Names of Father Son and Spirit which being the Relations of God towards things without him he is so many Relative Persons Dr. South affirms pag. 242. the Relations to be Intrinsecal founded upon those Internal Acts by which one Person produces another or proceeds from another He tells you that God may sustain an extrinsecal Relation founded upon some external act issuing from him as Creation Preservation c. Which adds to the Deity only an extrinsecal denomination as
afraid you cannot resolve them The first is this If you are neither for a Real nor a Nominal Trinity then you are for no Trinity at all For there is no medium between them The second is that in what sense soever you hold a Trinity I cannot believe it A Trinity of Persons of which every one is God and yet but one God is to me the most absurd notion in the World I have study'd the matter with as much application as I can But to me it still appears to be a perpetual affront to Reason and good sense Orthod Give me leave to tell you that the first is no difficulty at all The Church believes a Real Trinity Not in that sense of Real which your Friends have made so much noise about and so unjustly imputed to us which infers three Gods But in that sense which in the asserting three Divine Persons preserves still the Unity of the Divine Nature To speak plainly and prevent that wrangling to which obscurity generally leads Men what the Church proposes to our belief consists in this The Unity of God is so clearly prov'd both by Reason and the Authority of the Sacred Writings that there is not in the World a truer or a plainer assertion than this God is one and can be but one But the same Sacred Writings speaking of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit and giving those Characters of them by which they appear incommunicably distinct from one another It makes this second assertion The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit Nor the Son the Father or the Holy Spirit Nor the Holy Spirit Father or Son But the Scripture being express and positive in giving to every one of these Persons the Name Nature Attributes and Operations of God there arises a third assertion The Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God But the first of these propositions standing unmoveable and God ceasing to be if he ceases to be one All at last are resolv'd into this Fourth That in that ONE adorable and Divine Nature are Father Son and Holy Spirit every one God and yet but ONE God This is the Real Trinity which the Church believes which the Apostles have taught For which the Martyrs dy'd and notwithstanding all the oppositions of Hereticks has obtain'd and will obtain to the end of the World I cannot read the Ecclesiastical History but I adore the veracity of Christ and see in that very particular the fullfilling of his promise to the Church that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her Your second difficulty is as easily resolv'd as the first For how can that be an affront to Reason and good Sense which God has commanded us to believe Socin There must be a great deal more in it than what you have laid down Vast many Books have been written on this Subject You are not ignorant how from the first and intermediate ages of Christianity to this time it has been the ground of irreconcilable disputes I do not speak only when the Emperours espous'd the Cause and this or that Opinion prevail'd because it was the Religion of the Court But I speak of the retirements of the Schools where the dispute was furious and the Doctors more set one against another than Marius and Sylla Caesar and Pompey This grand and Mysterious Contradiction has given birth to infinite Contradictions which like the Hydra's head multiply daily without number The Socinians in that Print of theirs call'd A Letter of Resolution concerning the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation pag. 10. have charg'd this home upon you The Author tells you roundly that there is no fewer than fifteen divisions amongst you each division consisting of two Parties at the least some of them of four or five So that they are in all about forty Parties of them A strong Argument by the way against the pretended Vnity of the Church Orthod What I have propos'd to you is the simplicity of the Revelation God has reveal'd so much and in that there is enough to satisfy our selves The disingenuity of the Author of that Letter appears in this that he talks of divisions and Parties and pretends to enumerate them whereas there never was any about this Socin Can you think that a Learned Person as this Author is durst have the confidence to assure such a thing if he had not very good grounds for it Orthod Call it what you please I dare to averr that he has none at all But to make this clear I must needs tell you that in a Revelation two things are to be consider'd The one is the thing reveal'd as in this case the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Spirit God and yet not three but one God The other is the manner how these things are which are reveal'd How the Father is a Father how the Son is a Son how the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son How every one of these is God and yet but one God I dare say that there has not been nor can never be a more universal agreement than there has been in the first Had we been contented to adore and believe there had never been any Schisms or Divisions in that particular But Man will be curious pretend to unfold Mysteries and clearly see into his Nature who has made darkness his Pavilion round about him He must of course receive the punishment due to his Presumption and instead of that noble pleasure which results from knowing meet with all the sad consequences of a confident ignorance Any one moderately acquainted with Ecclesiastical Learning will see that this has been the conduct of the Church to stick to that first part as certain and undoubted and not at all to meddle with the other as full of danger This is visible in all the confessions of Faith of the Primitive Councils which are full in asserting the Vnity of God and the Trinity of Persons and all upon the certainty of the Divine Revelation But pretend to no kind of explication of the HOW or manner of it I confess that private Doctors have done it and that with heats not becoming the matter in dispute The Schools have given way to a World of impertinent questions and have been as impertinent in their resolutions as impertinence can be They have commented upon one another and still the Commentary has been obscurer than the Text. But when all is done they have stuck firmly to the doctrine reveal'd and unanimously agreed in this though they disagreed in there explications about it I should look upon it as the greatest Miracle that ever was done if they had explain'd that which is inexplicable Is there no such thing as the Heavens because some Philosophers have maintain'd that they were Fluid and others that they were Solid bodies Is there no such thing as the Earth because that sort of Men have wrangl'd about its figure and motion The same may be ask'd of
Form and Matter and indeed of all the Phaenomena's of Nature concerning which Authors have given us some good and solid Reasons others nothing but fansies and dreams This is the great weakness of Socinianism The Gentlemen of that perswasion reject a most important Truth in which all Christians but themselves agree because they cannot understand the manner of it We cannot tell say they how it is therefore it is not And they pretend to argue strongly when they affirm that there are divisions and subdivisions amongst us about it Whereas there is really none but in the explication our assent to the truth of the thing being firm and unmoveable We said something of this Nature the other Day but you have taken no notice of it Socin This sine Discourse is all a grand mistake We do not reject the Trinity because we understand it not but because we understand it We let the HOW or manner alone 'T is the thing it self which we exclaim against You worship you know not what Did you give your selves leisure to think and not thwart the very first impressions of a Rational Soul this very grand contradiction would stare you in the Face Three that are but one What need is there here of Reasoning Three Persons every one God and all but one God! May not I tell you what Tertullian says in another case Advoco te O Anima naturaliter philosophantem non qualis erudita es in Philosophorum Scholis c. I appeal to thee O Soul not such as thou hast been taught in the Schools of Philosophers but with those impressions which Nature has given thee Are one and one and one Three or is it but one Orthod Your citing of Tertullian puts me in mind of a passage of Boëtius brought in by the Bishop of Worcester in his vindication of this very doctrine pag. 65. The Catholick Doctrine of the Trinity is this says Boëtius the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God but they are not Three Gods but one God And yet the Bishop pleasantly observes that the Socinians may wonder at it this very Man having written a Learned Book of Arithmetick And so for all this eloquent exclamation of Tertullian that Father was a Zealous assertor of the Trinity that is of one and one and one not being three but one So were a World of Learned Men in those days who though cultivated by a Philosophical institution had not yet for all that taken their leave of the first impressions of Nature But to come to the point If the difference between us were of numbers or of any created substance I would cry out contradiction as loud as your self I would call the first Man that I see in the street and pray him only to tell But this is quite of another Nature It has no foundation on any thing that we know The question is of the Nature of God between whom and us there is an infinite disproportion We cannot Reason of him from any thing which we find in our selves or in our fellow Creatures God is so far above our small and weak perceptions that except he is pleas'd to acquaint us himself what he is We must remain in our ignorance If God then tells us that he is one and Three If what we say of him is that which he has said of himself Must we presume to talk or so much as to imagine any contradiction in it Socin I admire your prudence but I cannot commend your sincerity You are sensible on what rocks they split who pretended to prove the Trinity not contrary to Reason I think that the B. of G. Dr. S. Mr. H. and others have sufficiently smarted for it I will engage for them that they will return no more to such kind of ratiocinations You take another way and resolve all into God's Authority I grant that what God says must be true Nothing is true but according to that conformity which it has to the mind of God But God has said no such thing of himself that he is one and Three Trinus unus I deny that he has Orthod King Agrippa believ'st thou the Prophets May not I ask you do you believe the Scriptures It is in that Sacred Book that God speaks to us It is there that he asserts it Socin I believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God and as we have said in the brief Notes on the Athanasian Creed a Divine an infallible and compleat rule both of Faith and manners But I deny that there is any such thing in the Scripture Orthod I am glad to hear you speak so justly and so reverently of the Sacred Writings which part will you have me to prove The Unity of the Godhead or the Trinity of Persons in that one Divine Nature Socin You may spare your trouble in proving the first We are the great Assertors of it It is from thence that we take the name of Vnitarians Though you are obstinately bent to call us Socinians Orthod Your assuming that name is an invasion of the rights of all Christians Nay it is an affront to all the wise and sober part of Mankind You call your selves Vnitarians just as the Donatists in a poor little corner of Africa call'd themselves the Catholick Church Will you then have me to prove that in the Scripture the Father is call'd God the Son God and the Holy Spirit God Socin You may spare your self that trouble too I know all the places that you can alledge You have repeated them a hundred and a hundred times If you call this a proof any thing in the World may be a proof Orthod Pray let me lay them before you and let us fairly see what exceptions you have against them It is not Candid no it is not civil to tell an Adversary that you know all that he has to say to you Socin I may take the Liberty to be positive in that particular I have an answer ready which I am sure you cannot take ill I am sensible that you will produce several Texts but as it has been urg'd again and again by us and in particular against Mr. Luzancy in the Answer to his four Letters pag. 42. They are Texts clogg'd with abundance of uncertainties 'T is deny'd with great vehemence by the ablest Criticks of the Trinitarian Perswasion that some of these Texts were originally so read as they are now Publish'd in our common Bibles Nay some of them were not read at all in any Bible till five or six hundred years after the Decease of the Apostles and other Sacred Penmen But whether anciently read or thus read yea or no there is none of them but is more fairly capable of a sence consistent with the Vnity of God as 't is taught by the Vnitarians and Nominals and is actually so interpreted by divers of the most allow'd and celebrated Interpreters of the Church Who sees not here that to introduce and believe Monstrosities on
it I confess that when that which is propos'd is obscure intricate and capable of several sences the conclusions may be different and I cannot without injustice deny that you should examine the consistency or contradiction of my deductions But I maintain that most of the propositions by which our Holy Faith is establish'd are of such plainness that no equitable Man can fix any other sence upon them than what they offer themselves That I may not give you any occasion of mistaking me for your Friends are admirable at this and if they can but lay hold on it they presently expatiate and lose the question I mean no more than as to the existence of the Revelation that is that there is such a thing reveal'd though not as to the manner of the thing the HOW it is in it self Not to multiply instances take the places already cited Rom. 9.5 Whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the Flesh CHRIST came who is over all God blessed for ever What is that which the proposition offers That CHRIST is a Man descended from the Fathers and that he is God over all God blessed for ever It is a plain and as plain a proposition as can be But when I go further and say Then there are two Natures in Christ Jesus for as a Man he cannot be God and as God he cannot be Man He is Man because concerning the Flesh he came from the Father He is God because the Apostle says he is over all God blessed for ever I confess that this is an Inference but it is an inference which results so plainly and so fully from the Nature of the proposition that it is as clear and as undeniable as the proposition it self Again Phil. 2.6 Who being in the Form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God There is a plain proposition that CHRIST is equal with God and the inference is of the same nature and clearness as the proposition Therefore he must be God For none but God can be equal with God 1 Cor. 2.10 The Spirit searches all things even the deep things of God The Spirit knows all that God is his Nature his Perfections even those depths unfathomable to any created Being You will not quarrel with the proposition and can you quarrel with the inference which in effect is the same with the proposition and that is that he is God since none but God perfectly knows himself Pray what inference is there in Act. 5.3 4. when Peter in his Apostolical Zeal asks Ananias why Satan has fill'd his Heart to lye to the Holy Ghost Thou hast not ly'd unto Men but unto God If the Holy Ghost is not God how could he lye unto God You see the inference is drawn by St. Peter himself and lies in the very Heart of the Proposition How unreasonable is this noise about inferences will appear if you take notice of the beginning of St. John's Gospel Is Verse the 14th an Inference The Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his Glory the Glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father full of Grace and Truth Are the 1 2 3. Verses an Inference The Word was with God The Word was God The same was in the beginning with God All things were made by Him and without Him there was not any thing made that was made Is Joh. 20.28 an Inference And Thomas answer'd and said unto him my Lord and my God! Let us deal candidly if you call the Incarnation and the Union of the two Natures in CHRIST JESVS an Inference Is it not the plainest result of the plainest Propositions that ever were in the World Socin You are launch'd into a vast Sea of Discourse Orthod Oblige me so far as to suffer me to insist somewhat longer on this and I will repay your Patience with a serious attention to what you have to say to it Read 1 Joh. 5.7 There are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these Three are One. When we talk of a Trinity of Persons consistent with the Unity of the Divine Nature is it an Inference or is it not Is not the Trinity of Persons and the Unity of the God head clearly express'd in the Proposition You have made such a wonder at the word Trinity and been so rude as to call Trinity in Unity Jargon Contradiction Nonsence How can you reconcile all this with this noble Passage Is not this a Trinity in Unity not by way of Inference but by a full and plain Assertion But why should I be so earnest to prove this against the Socinians when they themselves cannot deny it For if our Doctrine consists in nothing but inferences and conclusions which we draw as we please What has made them so earnest to dispute these very texts and with poor and little Criticisms to endeavour to elude their force If these Texts had not star'd them in the face with an incontestable evidence what should make them so indefatigable in granting and denying adding Comma's changing or putting in particles as if Truth wanted such mean helps It short there are two sorts of inferences the one near and immediate such as I have given you some instances of which naturally flow from the thing propos'd and are of equal clearness with it The other remote and not appearing so easily at first but wanting the help of further inquiries and deductions Concerning the first I may challenge your Reason of error I may safely and truly say you offer violence to Reason I may appeal to all Mankind in the case But for the other I must not so freely affirm it nor say that my Reason is more infallible than yours When I am oblig'd to run through a long course of deductions I may mistake as much as you do The Church never pretended to any inferences but of the first kind If the Scripture proposes a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead If it represents these Persons incommunicably distinct from one another Their Consubstantiality Coequality Coeternity is a natural and a necessary consequence If it teaches me that CHRIST is God and Man the Union of the two Natures in one adorable Person is an inference of the same sort If there is a Father from ever and a Son from ever and if a Spirit proceeds from ever Eternal Generation and Eternal Procession are necessary deductions from those great truths and in a manner the same with the truths themselves I tell you once more you must either admit our doctrine or reject the Holy Scriptures Socin I confess that what you have said is well put together and has a very good face But still I am far from being satisfy'd There is nothing can make me believe a contradiction Let it be found in Sacred or humane Writings it is still a contradiction A contradiction is that to which all the World cannot reconcile me You say Revelation and a
of the approaching Night Socin No! I should be then an incomprehensible Creature my self I own to my grief that there are abundance of that sort of things I say to my grief For I would if I could know every thing But when I find a bar which stops me from going further then I make a stand and cannot conceive that I am any way concern'd in it In a word as I have said before what is incomprehensible is nothing to me Orthod You put me in mind of a verse in Hesiod wherein the old Mythologist says that Credulity and Incredulity have equally undone Mankind A thought more becoming a Christian than a Heathen From the first have sprung Superstition and Idolatry Men have brought down their Adoration as low as their thoughts They have worship'd Beasts and Plants as irrational as the one and as insensible as the other The second has run them into other extreams From Polytheism to Atheism from believing every thing to the believing nothing at all It has produc'd Deism not such as was the Deism of the first race of the World when Nature taught Men sincerely to serve their Creator but such as loose and profane Persons have embrac'd the better under that venerable Name to destroy Reveal'd Religion Pardon me if I say that Socinianism is another of its branches Credulity has undone others but Incredulity has ruin'd you Socin You do us a double injury First In puting us with Deists and Atheists whom you know we are no favourers of Secondly By charging us with Incredulity when in all our Books and Prints we publickly profess to believe Orthod That is you assent to what comes within the compass of your Reason but no further You believe what you please or how you please What squares with your Thoughts shall be Faith What does not must be rejected You are then Believers at large and such as St. Austin represents the Manichaeans lib. de util creden who would have Faith to be nothing but Reason Socin No we distinguish them The one is not the other We are satisfy'd of the Truth of those things which Reason could never have demonstrated We acknowledge a Reveal'd Religion and think it an infinite mercy of the Creator to have sent the Lord Christ into the World to teach us the way to Heaven But we are perswaded that Revelation contains nothing but what is Possible Consistent with Reason and easily understood You have made Christianity Mysterious That is the plainest Religion in the World is become in your hands obscure and intricate and when you have nothing to say for your selves you appeal to Faith as to the last remedy Orthod Give me leave to shew you the disingenuity and weakness of this way of reasoning You say that you are satisfy'd of the Truth of those things which Reason could never have demonstrated But at the same time you confine this principally to the matters of Fact related in the Gospel Nay the Learned Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity would unreasonably have confin'd it to the bare belief of CHRIST being the Messias But is there nothing else besides matter of Fact in the sacred Writings Are we not told what that Messias is as well as what he has done his Nature as well as his Actions Does not this matter of Fact depend upon a Series or Concatenation of Divine Verities which the Scripture has carefully attested Does not the whole Oeconomy of the Gospel turn upon Father Son and Holy Spirit Are we not initiated in their Names to our Holy Religion And does not that Religion teach us what they are in themselves and what in relation to us But you have an easy and possible way and that is to maim and mangle Religion When it is thus murder'd and disfigur'd then it is consistent with Reason and easily understood when it has nothing to say Thus Socinianism by pretending to remove Mysteries from our Holy Religion becomes it self a Mystery It takes away the greatest part of the Credenda Let another Socinus arise and take away the Agenda too and then the World will be sitted with a delicate System of Religion Socin Now I see you grow hot Orthod No but would it not amaze any Man to see Christianity thus abus'd by Men who own themselves to be Christians and under a pretence of making Religion plain easy and rational remove out of the way the most substantial parts of it May not I wonder to see you deny your assent to things because you pretend that they are not comprehensible when at the same time you believe things of which you can give no sort of account and which you must at last as well as we resolve into the Authority of the Reâ—ciation Socin Pray prove that Orthod Yâ—â— very easily For instance amongst many things of this sort you believe the Creation of the World that is you believe that the World and all that is in it was made of nothing Now any thing to proceed of nothing every thing to be made of nothing is as great a contradiction 〈…〉 as one and one and 〈…〉 but one Oâ—â— of nothing is made is a 〈…〉 the most sagacious Philosopher On this the Lycaeum built the Eternity of the World Tertullian Apolog. c. 11. attributes it to Pythagoras and Proclus to Plato both I fear falsly Others made matter to be eternally pre-existent Others said that God was the World I maintain that though we can never conceive it yet it is easier to imagine how Three Persons can subsist in one Nature than that any one thing should be made of nothing Socin No I can easily conceive the Creation The notion of an Almighty God producing all things is neither arduous nor difficult I may say with the Ancient of whom Clemens Alexand. speaks Str. 5. That when I contemplate this great Fabrick of the World I think I hear the Voice of God who commands it to Exist That infinite Essence in whose mind are reposited the Essences of all things can give them their several Existences when he pleases None but Moses spoke worthy of God when he brings in the Almighty commanding all things out of nothing with a word of his mouth Orthod I must beg leave to say that this does not reach the difficulty For if you run to the power of God and the relation made of it by 〈…〉 for it But does it 〈…〉 comprehensible Do you know 〈…〉 how something is 〈…〉 the contradiction the 〈…〉 as your Friends exâ—â—◠〈…〉 not in the words only 〈…〉 thing it self How would you 〈…〉 your very principle I should say that the Revelation must be made consistent with Reason that a possible sence is to be inquir'd after that God is said to create because he orders and disposes the eternally pre-existent Matter Should I criticise and as you have done in other places alter particles in the Text of Moses you would think that I am mad and say that when the Text is so plain
not impos'd tyrannically without reasons or arguments to inforce its necessity and usefulness but with all the proper methods to engage our assent We believe because we have all the Reason in the World so to do And Faith becomes our choice upon the noblest and strongest Motives that can be I do Reason all the justice and honour which it can expect or deserve by saying that our most Holy Religion is built on this most rational Principle than which Man has none stronger none more evident Whatsoever God reveals is true and therefore the Mysteries of Christianity are true because God has reveal'd them There is no exception against the first of these Propositions In abundance of other things Reason is in the dark but it meets with no sort of obscurity in this The second then is its work and exercise to which it ought to be apply'd Reason must satisfy it self whether God has reveal'd what Religion offers It is highly just that it should be so or else every thing will be call'd Revelation and every folly consecrated by pretending to have God for its Author Men will see vanity and divine lyes saying thus says the Lord when the Lord has not spoken Ezek. 22.28 Thus St. Paul exhorts the Thessalonians 1 Thess 5.21 to prove all things and hold fast that which is good Compare all the Sects which have pretended to instruct Men in relation to a better Life Try even those Systems which boast an infallible Judge Let nothing that assumes the Name of Truth escape a severe inquiry But when all is done hold fast that which is good to wit that which we are perswaded cannot deceive us even the Revelation of God You see then a large Province for Reason to act in And at the same time how easy is that task which brings us at last to the Author of our being to receive the Truth at his hands Socin All this is well But still vast difficulties present themselves First Where is this Revelation which you suppose I know you will answer immediately that it is to be found in the Sacred Writings But then you make it to be the Province of Reason to satisfy it self in the Truth of the Revelation If by this you mean the certainty of the Divine Records you plunge your self in endless and I will say unsuccessful questions about their Inspiration You will be forc'd to shew which of them are inspir'd and which are not You will find them who have pleaded for the Gospels of Basilides Apelles and Tatianus For that according to St. Peter St. Paul St. Thomas c. For the Acts of the Apostles by St. Andrew St. Philip c. For other Epistles of St. Paul than those which we have and several Writings related by St Hierom de Scriptor Eccl. in Luc. and censur'd by Gelasius you will meet with Prochorus and Abdias the Babylonian and a world of spurious Writers pretending the Divine Revelation Secondly If you pass from the certainty of the Records to the particular places by which you affirm that God has reveal'd your Doctrine their sence will be still disputed It will be said that God indeed has reveal'd them but not in the sence which you understand them in And it will be the same as if you had no Revelation at all Thirdly Supposing that Reason can effect all this whose Reason must it be Is it that as you were pleas'd to speak of the common Saylor the Souldier the labouring Man Indeed the Principle will stand unmoveable what God has reveal'd is true But your Assertion that he has reveal'd the Mysteries of Christian Religion will be disputed partly from the uncertainty whether the Records are truly Divine partly from the doubt of the sence of the particular places which you alledge So that Reason in most Men will have nothing to do because they are not capable of learned inquiries and the few that are will wrangle with you to the end of the World Orthod The first of your objections cannot be propos'd by a Socinian It is of some force in the Mouth of a Heathen or of a Deist Were I to argue against either of them I ought not to take it ill if they oblig'd me to prove the certainty and inspiration of the Divine Records Nor is this so difficult as you imagine Criticks have made that a Controversy which is none in it self and never was so before So great and venerable are the Arguments by which the Divinity of the Sacred Writings is prov'd that nothing has yet been said of any moment against it It is to no purpose to insist on this with you who own the Scripture to be a compleat and infallible rule of Faith Nor is it more necessary to make it appear that the Books in dispute in the Primitive Ages of the Church were spurious For besides that we have nothing left of them but their Names and that too with some diversity and that they obtain'd very little because the cheat was presently found out it would not be fair in you to put one to the trouble of disproving Books which you disprove your self You admit with all the rest of Christians the Canon of the old and new Testament Pag. 6. of the Answer to Mr. Edwards Whereas Mr. Edwards says the Author would intimate that we reject divers Books of Scripture on the contrary we receive into our Canon all the Books of Scripture that are receiv'd or own'd by the Church of England and we reject the Books rejected by the Church of England So then all this difficulty is over Your second objection is as easily resolv'd When ever any thing is propos'd as Faith the business of Reason is to see whether it is to be found in those Writings wherein we all confess that God has reveal'd what we ought to believe Thus the Beraeans Act 17.11 at the preaching of Paul Search'd the Scriptures daily whether the things which he said to them were so They sound his allegations true and therefore many of them believ'd Nor will this as you insinuate resolve it self into a dispute about the sence of the places alledg'd For as we have said before those places are so plain so uncapable of any other sence than what they offer The deductions from them are so Natural and easy that all disputing is wholly exciuded For instance the Debate between you and me is about the Holy Trinity You deny and I affirm it We both agree upon a Medium to find whether it is so or no And that is the Authority of the Sacred Writings If in them there is a clear Revelation that God is one and if I produce those Texts which plainly and naturally attributes those qualifications to Father Son and Holy Spirit which are communicable to no created Being and cannot be diverted any other way without changing the sence of the proposition you must as the Noble and Candid Spirits of Beraea certainly yield Against your third objection I say that the
unlearned part of the World is as capable of this as the learned Nay much more For besides the plainness of the Revelation their perceptions in what they understand are more direct and not clogg'd with subtilties as ours are They have I am afraid a more sincere respect for the Divine Revelation than we Take an honest Country-Man and ask him who is he that is blessed over all for ever He will answer immediately GOD. Shew him in the Scripture that this is said of Christ He will immediately conclude that Christ is GOD. Object to him that if Christ is God and the Father God then there are two Gods He will immediately reply No They are but one For God is but ONE You may puzle him with your Ratiocinations He may be at a stand and hear you cry till you are hoarse that two cannot be one and that he does his Reason an injury He will tell you that it is so indeed when he takes an account of his sheep and horses but in what concerns his Religion his Bible in his Reason It says so and he believes it The Learned will not wrangle to the end of the World except by the Learned you mean only the Socinians I am sure and you cannot but be so too that for many Ages and now in this very Age the Learned of all Societies agree in this And though the Socinians are infinitely fond of their objections against our Mysteries yet I despair not to see them come over to the Faith They are Rational and at one time or other will be equitable Men. But now let us see the Province of Reason when it is satisfy'd that such or such a truth is reveal'd Socin I know what you are going to say and it is this That Reason having once satisfy'd it self of the certainty of the Revelation it has no more to do but its duty is to submit to what God has reveal'd Let a proposition contain never such a gross or palpable contradiction it must be swallow'd contentedly But in good truth can this be done If this is Faith and believing who can believe Orthod God can reveal neither contradiction nor error There is a great difference between understanding the truth of a proposition and the Nature of the thing propos'd God was manifest in the Flesh and the Word was made Flesh are propositions so vastly plain that no other sence can be made of them but this God has appear'd in our Nature There is no error no contradiction in this In a word we understand it But the Nature of the thing propos'd is so unknown to us and so much above us that it is rash and bold for us to inquire into it or imagine error or contradiction in it I say then that the Truth once propos'd we ought to acquiesce in it That Reason is to be silent and give no way to further inquiries Socin But can Reason be silent when you impose on me the belief of that of which I have no kind of Notion Orthod If by Notion you mean an insight into the thing Reveal'd you are unjust We have discours'd already that the Nature of Faith is to be obscure or else it is no Faith This can be no difficulty at all It is enough for us that we understand that God has propos'd such a thing though we understand not at all the thing propos'd I cannot apprehend how God assumes our Nature and is manifest in the Flesh But I apprehend that God tells it me in clear and express terms and therefore I believe and think not my poor ignorant Brain a competent Judge of God's Veracity Socin But pray hold a little Will you be satisfy'd of the deficiency of your method if I shew you that after you have attain'd the certainty of the Revelation you must believe propositions which are inconsistent with and destroy one another You believe God to be one and yet Father Son and Holy Spirit to be every one God Does not the first proposition destroy the second and the second the first How can he be one and three three and one Orthod This is still begging of the question God can propose nothing Contradictory or Inconsistent I confess I cannot understand how this is but it is reveal'd therefore certainly true and on that account I believe it Socin You believe that Christ is God and Man Infinite and Finite Immortal and Mortal The Supreme most High God and yet suffering and Dying He is God and he is sent He is God and yet prays to God He is God over all and yet subject to him who put all things under him If this is not inconsistent I do not know what inconsistency is Orthod If Plato Aristotle or any of the Sons of Men should tell me this I would speak as you do But God is true and he says all this I adore the Divine Oeconomy though I understand it not To be God and Man is no Contradiction The Scripture represents Christ as God blessed over all for ever It represents him also as a Man Nothing can be more express than the declarations of his Divinity Nothing more clear than those of his Humanity Which part of the Revelation shall Reason overthrow Convinc'd by the proofs of his Humanity you will say that he is no God Another convinc'd by the proofs of his Divinity will deny that he is a Man Thus Reason more inconsistent with it self than you fansie Revelation to be will reject every part and destroy the whole Socin No. Reason will reconcile all and by an easy explication will make him an inferior or a deputed God and also the greatest of Men. Orthod A Socinian Explication But the misery is that our Texts are not capable of any God Blessed over all for ever The word was with God The word was God and twenty more such places admit of no explication A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief in the Form of a Servant humbling himself to the Death of the Cross becoming Sin for us and dying for Sinners contradicts all your explications Away with this obstinacy which really debases Reason Take the Revelation as a Rational Man as it lies in all its parts as it comes from God who in the fullness of time has sent his Eternal Son to assume our Nature and become a Sacrifice for us Socin But you can never perswade me that Reason has not as much right to examine the truth of the thing propos'd as the proposition it self and to reject it if it is not agreeable to its Principles Orthod But you can never prove that Reason is capable of examining that which is above Reason and such are things reveal'd Their truth indeed depend from the conformity which they have with the Supreme Reason which is God But in respect to us their Truth consists not in their agreeableness to yours or my Reason But wholly in the Authority of the Revelation They are true because they are reveal'd Socin But is not my