and National Synods We have her Mind in her publick Confessions of Faith She is so far from espousing any sort of explication that she ever thought that that great Mystery could not be explain'd The Church suffers Men to write concerning these matters St. Austin has given several considerable reasons for it in his Books on this very Subject and in that de utilit credend The opposing of Heresy the improvement of Piety the study of the Holy Scriptures of which this makes so considerable a part are the principal But to think that the Church will stand by all the Opinions of private Writers and own their errours and mistakes is a prodigious inadvertency What Church in the World can be safe if made to answer for all the Authors of her Communion What becomes then of the objection It is all overthrown in this one word The Church has nothing to do with those explications which the Socinians fansie they have so much expos'd And as for the explications themselves I believe that if the Judicious Hooker and the Learned Cudworth were alive you durst not so much as name them The rest are Men of great abilities who can arm in their defence no better Pens than their own Socin But do you put Bishops and eminent Bishops too in the rank of private Persons Who can best speak the sence of the Church but those who are call'd by the Fathers the Husbands of their Churches the Keepers of the Canons and the Successors of the Apostles Some seem to be Tritheists and others seem to be Sabellians Orthod Truly you have us'd the Bishops in your Writings as if they had been no more than private Persons the reflections on their Lordships having been so sharp and so many His Grace the late Arch-Bishop whom by your own confession you ought to have reverenc'd was not free from your aspersions My Lord of Glocester has had his share In the latest answer to my Lord of Sarum you forget the large Encomiums given him before The Bishop of Worcester for whom the Learned World has so just a value met in the answer to his late Book with the same way of Entertainment But laying all this aside and answering your meaning A Bishop with all the respect due to the Sacred Dignity is still a private Doctor Nor can the Church be favourable to his explications if they are contrary to her Doctrine But what of all this Our Bishops are all Orthodox Socin I do not know what you mean by Orthodox There is no Orthodoxy but Truth They who teach Three Gods cannot be Orthodox and this is done by the Real Trinitarians The Socinians believe and adore but one and this is done by the Nominals The greatest part of the Church goes I confess that way and therefore it is Orthodox because Socinian In short we may talk till Doom's day and never be the Wiser The question at last must be this are you a Real or a Nominal Trinitarian If a Real then we shall never be reconcil'd If a Nominal then we are certainly agreed Orthod What I have said already seems to me to be satisfactory But since you are not contented with it let us examine the several parts of your distinction What is the meaning of Real Trinitarians But let me beg of you to answer plainly and directly Socin I will answer in the very words of the Author of the Discourse concerning them He says pag. 7. The Realists are denominated from their believing Three distinct Divine Spirits or Minds who are so many Real subsisting Persons Again p. 19. They are every day Challeng'd and impeach'd of Tritheism And again p. 25. Themselves do sometimes almost openly and explicitely own and profess their Tritheism Their doctrine of the Trinity manifestly implies Three Gods Orthod What is the meaning of Nominal Trinitarians Socin They are they who maintain a Trinity which Consists only in the several Names Offices Relations and Modes of Existence of the Divine Nature This was first taught by Noëtus and Sabellius embrac'd afterwards by the assertors of the Homoousios and receiv'd by the Schools and Divinity Chairs ever since This is the substance of what he says of the Nominals in the first part of the Discourse Orthod And this you make the Foundation of that difference which you imagine to be in the Church and has of late fill'd up all your Prints Socin Yes indeed and with a great deal of Reason You are all afraid of the distinction It is of your side so notorious a giving up of the Cause that we have parted with all our Old Arguments and retrench'd our selves there as in a place from whence we cannot be driven Orthod Then pray set your heart at rest and suffer your selves to be forc'd from it For I presume positively to averr that there is no such thing in nature as these Trinitarians of your own making You pretended already to a God of your own making You wish'd for a Scripture of your own making To make a Trinity too is a little too hard I say then and pray forgive the sharpness of the words that all this is a mistake a slander and a calumny upon the Church Socin How much must you abate of your assurance when I shew you in several late Writings that the Three Persons of the Trinity are Three distinct Infinite Minds Spirits and Substances I appeal to your self whether this is not manifest Tritheism For what is God but an Infinite Mind Spirit or Substance Orthod I have told you already and tell you again that such expressions are wholly unknown to the Church and therefore cannot with any candor be fastn'd upon it Oblige me so far as to shew me a Church in the World this day or formerly which uses them or else be pleas'd to own that you are guilty of a great deal of disingenuity But though such a denial is sufficient because it is of a thing which you cannot and dare not undertake to prove yet it will be much clearer if you give your self the trouble to consider that such a notion in the Christian Church is impossible and has not the least ground or appearance of truth You are acquainted with the Sacred Writings of the New Testament and no doubt have inform'd your self of the Confessions of Faith of the Ancient Councils the assertions of the generality of the Fathers the doctrine of the Schoolmen the sense of the Greek and Latin Church even since the fatal separation and in the division of so many Kingdoms from the last in these two Ages you know perfectly all the Articles which the Famous Societies of Protestants have declar'd to be the points of their belief This suppos'd I lay before you these plain and easy but Substantial Observations First That the Church of God has always asserted the Vnity of the Divine Nature as the Foundation of all Religion It has been its great and distinguishing Character You will tell me that the Philosophers did so
of Creator Preserver c. But that this leaves an Internal incommunicable Character essentially inseparable from the Deity That it may be said that God might never have been a Creator But that it cannot be said that he might never have been a Father the former being only an effect of his will but this latter the necessary result of his Nature This you have pag. 243. But that which sinks for ever this miserable imputation of Sabellianism or Nominalism call it which you please is the noble Principle which this Learned and worthy Man has laid down Animadv p. 245. in which as in the rest he has truly spoke the sence of the Church Upon the whole matter in discoursing of the Trinity two things are absolutely necessary to be held and insisted upon One that each and every Person of the Blessed Trinity entirely contains and includes in himself the whole Divine Nature The other that each Person is incommunicably different and distinct from one another I thought you look'd dissatisfy'd when speaking of this famous distinction of Realists and Nominals I us'd the words of slander calumny disingenuity Let me now beg of you to give it a name Socin Truly I must be forc'd to tell you that I saw this distinction urg'd so often our late Prints so full of it and honest Mr. E. valuing himself so highly upon it that I thought it was more solid than really it is I will take time to consider of what you have said to it When I have next the happiness to see you you shall have my Thoughts of it In the mean time .... Orthod No I cannot leave you yet I must before we part complain of another injustice which your Friends have done us Socin What is that Orthod That which My Lord Bishop of Sarum calls in his Pastoral Letter the heaviest of all imputations that they submit to his Lordship's whole doctrine which differs in nothing from what the Vnitarians profess'd in all their Writings That is to say in plain English that he is a Socinian A cruel and barbarous sort of a compliment to a Catholick and an English Bishop They do the same in effect to My Lord of Worcester in their last Answer to his Lordships Book pag. 62. To the University of Oxford to Dr. South whom they call in derision Brother South as they had done Dr. Wallis Father Wallis In the Answer to My Lord of Chichester they speak very plain pag. 27. It is say they by this Declaration of our meaning that all our Books Past or to come are to be interpreted We never intend to oppose any Body in the Article of the Trinity but the Tritheists or Realists who are Hereticks to the Church as well as to us nor in the Article of the Divinity of our Saviour but the Eutychians who make the Communication of Idioms to be Real and not only Verbal which is an Heterodoxy condemn'd in divers General Councils That word General Councils which they esteem'd so little before is now of great value They tell this very Bishop that they do not in the least suspect that he will disown the Catholick Doctrine and be of a Party of Hereticks who have been Condemn'd by so many General Councils Socin Well and where lies the injustice of all this If the Socinians are become Orthodox and embrace the Doctrine of the Church is it not an honour to these Great Men to have reason'd them into this Submission I remember that in some of our Prints we have call'd the Bishop of Sarum the Eusebius of the Age. As the Famous Eusebius brought over many Bishops to the subscribing the Homoousion Is it the heaviest of all imputations to his Lordship that he has perswaded the Socinians out of their Errors Must you your self take it ill that Persons of whom I have heard you often give a great Character should return to the Faith and Obedience of the Church All that I dislike in those Complements is the Books past or to come For the Books past speak no such thing and I fear the Books to come will not much mend the matter Orthod I did not expect that you would not be serious in so mighty a concern as this I confess that it would be to me and to all good Men an incredible satisfaction to see an end of this Controversy But I tell you there is no sincerity in all this They are no more return'd to the Sence and Faith of the Church than you are They build still upon that foolish distinction of Realists or Tritheïsts and Nominals or Sabellians The first is a Monster of their own making 〈◊〉 other is a shelter to their Heterodoxy 〈◊〉 they maintain a Trinity which is no Trinity 〈◊〉 strive to advance error under her 〈…〉 the Pillar of Truth In short If the Trinity believ'd and taught by the Church is Sabelliaâ—â—sm they are your humble servants It is that that they would cover Socinianism by But how can they believe as the Church when the doctrine which they pretend to return to is that to which the Church is irreconcilable Socin How must they do then to convince you that they sincerely desire a peace and are come over to you Orthod By writing with that respect which is due to Bishops of whom in the Answer to Mr. Edwards pag. 13. they own the institution to be of Divine right Let them receive the Catholick Creeds that of the Great Athanasius the Doxology and the Articles of the Church of Englang Then and not before I will believe that they are sincere Socin These are large strides I am not for running so fast Suffer me to take my leave of you I will think on what we have discours'd and then you shall hear from me Adieu The Second DIALOGUE Orthod I had promis'd my self the happiness of seeing you before this Socin Truly I design'd it but was resolv'd not to do it till I had been as good as my word that is till I had consider'd what we discours'd of some days since For whatever you may think of me I have a sense of Religion I am fully convinc'd that there is a God to whom I owe all my service and a future state of happiness and misery on which I cannot reflect without a mighty concern I am not so much an enemy to my own interest as to cheat my self of the one and willfully to fall into the other Orthod What is the result then of your consideration Socin To speak sincerely my Thoughts I am come off from the distinction of Real and Nominal Trinitarians and do you the justice to own that it appears to me to be ill grounded Though I believe at the same time that he who first invented it did it bona fide and had the occasion given him by the inadvertency of your own Writers But there are still two difficulties in my way which I cannot overcome I would not be thought to suspect your Learning or Candor But I am
They may give some sway to curiosity and the Gay Novelty may take for a while But Conscience returns and will not suffer them to shake off at once all the Principles of our Holy Religion That the young Gentlemen greedily swallow the Poison is a real mistake I confess and it is much to be lamented that several amongst them are much debauch'd in their Morals and that the rage of Lust and that of Wine have strangely obscur'd their understandings But believe me profane and dissolute Persons are no Honour to any Profession whatsoever If you are fond of such an Addition take them and call them Socinians I promise not to be angry at it Socin What you say is true in a great measure but give me leave Orthod But give me leave your self to make an end of speaking to what you said of the Wits of the Town I ever had a Notion of Wit different from that of the Wits themselves They are careful to distinguish Wit from Sence And with this poor Notion the Poets have courted or anger'd the Pit these twenty years in their Prologues and Epilogues As if he could be a Man of Wit who is not a Man of Sence For Wit and Sence are inseparable An Effervescency of imagination breaking out into some sine Expressions is not Wit but a sort of lucky Madness He that thinks and speaks well is exact and coherent grave or florid according to his Subject but always modest and inoffensive is to me the Man of Wit Pray tell me how many of these are Socinians But for the Men of Sallies and unbounded Thoughts who value themselves upon Writing a few Verses and perhaps a small Pamphlet who think as they live and live as they think that is most irregularly I abandon them to you They shall be Socinians if you please I promise once more not to be angry at it What sort of Wit is that conscientious Spark who writ lately an Apology for self-murder What think you of the Author of Christianity not Mysterious Or of the Writer of one of the two Epistles to Mr. Gailhard I mean the second which is as wild and ill written as the first is modest and fine Put these also into the Catalogue and then boast of your Conquests Socin I hope you are not of this Mr. Gailhard's mind who is for sanguinary Laws to be enacted against us and would have us meet at Smithfield with the fate of Servetus at Geneva and Valentinus Gentilis at Berne Orthod I never heard of Mr. Gailhard or of his design against you till I read your Letters against him But if there were such Laws you would still be safe For I dare say neither you nor your Friends will ever be the Martyrs of Socinianism But to speak seriously my thoughts that Gentleman does not know what Spirit he is of It is against that Religion of which Christ is the Author to thirst after the Blood of any Man The Church of Rome is admirably well acquainted with these methods of reclaiming People Ours is a stranger to it and takes a way much more agreeable both to the nature of the Gospel and the condition of a Rational Creature and that is to deliver the Truth which God hath trusted her with adding to it all suitable Arguments of persuasion and leaving the rest to the Mercy and Providence of God In a word if exhorting disputing arguing persuading will not do I know no other way except excommunication It being highly just that the Church should cut off an infected Member which by an obstinate opposition to her Doctrine is like to spread the contagion through the other parts of the Body Socin It is not because I am a Socinian that I acknowledge this to be a truly Christian temper For it is the very Voice of Religion But I hope you will not take it ill if I tell you that if you have no other way to assert and propagate your Doctrine than exhorting persuading disputing I am afraid this design of yours though good and honest will at last prove unsuccessful Orthod Why it should be so I cannot imagine For with a Rational Agent what can prevail more than Reason And with Learned Men what more than Learning What can you prescribe besides disputing to bring them to the acknowledgment of their Errours Socin But you have disputed so long and yet to so little purpose that it shews a deficiency in your very Method Not only your ordinary Divines have been concern'd in the quarrel but even Men of vast esteem amongst you and yet what have they done When I read their Books and compare them with the Socinian Answers or the Socinian Books with your Vindications and Apologies Good God! How clearly do I see the strength of our reasons You keep always in a Cloud afraid of being seen Whereas all is clear and safe about us Orthod It is so far from that that with People of Ordinary equity the quite contrary will appear The Socinian Controversy is certainly the greatest of all those which ever exerciz'd the Church of God The modern disputes you are perfectly acquainted with and cannot but be sensible that though many and large volumes have been written about them yet they lie within a very narrow compass Rob the controverted Points between us and the Church of Rome of the Trappings of Discourse Digressions and Clamors of their Authors they are brought to a very plain and short issue Transubstantiation worship of Images Purgatory praying to the Saints the Divine right of the Pope's supremacy and his pretended infallibility are doctrines easily made to appear to be not only false but even new in the Church of Rome it self As the subject is absolutely within our reach so are the Arguments for and against them The same you must own of the unhappy differences between us and the Nonconformists and though much has been written on both sides yet at last whether the exceptions against the Publick Liturgy are solid Whether a Schism may be grounded upon the imposition of a few innocent Ceremonies Whether disobedience to Episcopal Government can be justify'd for which without inquiring whether the institution is Divine or not there appears so Ancient so Universal and so uncontested a Tradition Are questions of so easy a resolution that if there was nothing but Religion at the bottom that War would quickly be at an End Read also the Catalogue of Ancient Heresies as they have been left us by Ecclesiastical Writers supposing them all to be Heresies though indeed many are only Foolish and Simple Opinions There is scarce one of any importance but as it relates some way or other to this great Controversy The rest are trifles and dreams which we now wonder how they could ever fall into and busy Rational Men's heads as Posterity will be amaz'd when they come to examine the poor and silly differences of this quarrelling Age. Socin But what of all this Orthod This is to shew you
such a craz'd foundation as this is to give up common sence without a tolerable cause for it Whereas indeed there can be no cause so great as may induce us to part with it 'T is to admit and defend contradictions and that in a capital Article of Religion when we need not 'T is to Sacrifice the clearest and most important dictates of Reason not to any necessity but to our secular interests or wantonness And has not the Author of the Letter of Resolution told you plainly that you have given up all your places of strength Orthod There is in what you have said Declamation and Argument To introduce and believe Monstrosities on such a craz'd foundation To give up common Sense without a tolerable cause for it To admit and defend contradictions and that in a Capital Article To sacrifice the clearest and most important Dictates of Reason to our secular interests or wantonness All this is Declamation That sort of Imbellishments are very rude and severe As if Conscience were all of the Socinian and none of the Church's side I know how you would exclaim if we talk'd to you at this rate The rest seems to be Argument But in this I must confess that I admire at your vehemency as vou call it when there is not a single word of Truth in the Allegation Forgive me if I say that it is false that those Texts are clogg'd with abundance of uncertainties The Form of our Baptism in the name of the Holy and Blessed Trinity is clear Genuine Authentick and so far from being clogg'd with uncertainties that all the Fathers all the Schoolmen all the Modern Interpreters have acknowledg'd it I wonder what you mean by the ablest Criticks of the Trinitarian Perswasion This is perpetually in your Writings But you are very careful not to name any of them and I commend you for it I would beg it as a favour of you that in your next Print you would name some of these ablest Criticks and shew us what uncertainties they have found those Texts charg'd with I am satisfy'd that if it had not been for Hugo Grotius and one or two more whom you have sadly misrepresented your cause must have starv'd for want of such Authorities as these It is false again that the substantial Text which we alledge to prove the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit were read at any time otherwise than they are now You say that some of them were not read at all till 5 or 600 years after the decease of the Apostles This has as little Truth as the rest There is but one and no more which you have pretended to dispute and that is 1 Joh. 5.7 and you cannot but know that it has been cited by St. Cyprian and is in the famous Edition of the Bishop of Oxford whom Father Simons though of another communion calls deservedly the Learned Bishop of Oxford It was in that of Pamclius It is to be found in the Catalogue of the Texts cited by the Great Athanasius and Printed in the latest Edition of that Father It had been us'd before by Tertullian against Praxeas And both St. Ambrose and St. Hierom complain'd that the Arrians had ras'd this Text out of all the Copies which they could come at The last part of the verse and these Three are One not being capable of the petit novel interpretation of their agreeing in one but being look'd upon by the Ancients who were more sincere in their disputes than we are as a direct proof of the consubstantiality of the Divine Persons You say that there is none of them but what is more fairly capable of a sense consistent with the Unity of God as is taught by the Vnitarians and Nominals I have convinc'd you already that there is no such thing in the Catholick Church as Nominal Trinitarians and the exception is needless since we maintain with all Christians that the Trinity of Persons is no contradiction to the Unity of the Divine Nature Socin But supposing your Texts to be true they are still contested Texts They are not so clear as to be capable but of one sense You give them one and I give them another Perhaps they may admit of a third Thus you build demonstrations on things really very uncertain Then you thunder in our Ears Scripture Scripture whereas at the bottom you say nothing by using Texts capable of different senses I commend you for resolving this great controversy into the Authority of the Sacred Writings but then as it has been said to Mr. Luzancy pag 42. The Revelation for it ought to be most clear so clear that a fair and ingenuous Reasoner will not contest the positiveness and evidence of the Revelation You understand a Text your way and I do it mine and so there is an end of your Method Orthod You will not name us those ablest Criticks of whom you speak so much in your Writings You keep them in the dark as the Deus in Machina of the old Heathens that their sudden appearing may the more surprize But I fear you are one of them you come at once to impeach the Christian World and tell this present age and those that are past that the Texts us'd by them may be true but they are contested and so worth nothing Is the contesting then of a Text enough to have it rejected Is my sense oppos'd to the sense universally receiv'd by the Church of God enough to turn that sense out of Doors Whither will this wild way of arguing hurry a Man Do you perceive the consequences of such a Principle By this an Atheist a Deist or any Heretick-in the World is secure It is but giving another sense to a proposition than what it naturally has And when you argue with never so much clearness from Authority he will tell you there is no proposition in the World but what is capable of several senses What you say may be true But it is contested and I contest it This is your sense of the thing but it is not mine Socin You both mistake and misrepresent me I have no such thoughts By contestation I mean such an opposition as is well grounded It is not enough to say 't is not my sense but I must have substantial Reasons to say so I demand as I have told you already a Text so clear that a sair and an ingenuous Reasoner will not contest the positiveness of the Revelation Orthod That is you demand no Text at all For whosoever will contradict it will think himself a fair Reasoner Do not all the Socinians believe that they are the fairest Reasoners in the World Are they not cry'd up by their party for Men of mighty Reason Your self are perswaded that you are a fair and ingenuous Reasoner Those silly Criticisms which you have obtruded upon all the Texts of Scripture are look'd upon by you as great efforts of Reason So that this can be no rule at all but is a
shameful begging of the Question Every Contester will call himself a fair Reasoner Socin What! Is there no such thing then as fair reasoning Is there not in Men an equitable disposition to judge of and assent to the Truth Orthod Yes certainly but you have it not There are vast many Texts produc'd to assert the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit For we do not only alledge one or two solitary places of Scripture But we maintain also this to be the Foundation of Christianity and taught in the Scriptures Plainly Frequently Irrefragably Which is the way to reason fairly in this case First It is to see the sense which offers it self in the Texts which we produce Give me leave to bring in an instance or two Rom. 9.5 St. Paul speaking of Christ says that he is over all God blessed for ever The natural sence of the proposition is that he is truly God Over all and Blessed for ever being the Notion which we have of an Eternal Being You cannot without an incredible violence make any other sense of that proposition The same is Phil. 2.6 Who being in the Form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God That which the proposition naturally offers is that Christ is God None but a King can say that he thinks it not robbery to be equal with a King None but he who is God can pretend an equality with God Secondly I must see whether that sence which offers it self so naturally to me has the same effect on other People It is a mighty confirmation to me that I take a proposition right when the wise the good the inquisitive part of Mankind takes it as I do Now our Texts have not only the advantage of a natural evidence but they have also another and that is the consent of the Christian Church The Church of God has spoke as we speak understood as we understand believ'd as we believe It is the Voice of the Sacred Councils in their Decisions of the Fathers in their Writings of the Universities in their Chairs and of all Christians in their Praises Prayers and Adorations You own'd it to me and you said that it was the sence of the Socinians that the Scripture is an Infallible Divine and Compleat rule of Faith and Manners But it can never be so if there is not an universal sence in those propositions in which the Faith is deliver'd For to whom is it a rule even to all Christians And how can Christians follow this rule if there is not a common sence in which they may be united But what is that sence but that which appears to the Church in the propositions and become the sence of the Church A sence of so much the more weight and Authority because no Scripture is of private interpretation This with all Men who pretend to any acquaintance in those Matters is fair and ingenuous Reasoning Socin I thank'd you once for an Argument in the behalf of Transuastantiation and now I do it for Tradition The denial of it is a Protestant Principle Orthod You are so press'd by the evidence of what I offer'd that because you cannot answer you would endeavour to divert it Know then by the way that Protestants deny and that on very good grounds Tradition to be the last and supreme judge of Controversies But maintain Tradition and particularly so Universal and uncontested as it is in this particular to be the â—â—â—test humane evidence in the World The unanimous consent of the Church in a point of Faith is not to be oppos'd by any sober Christian But to return Let us see what is your fair and ingenuous way of reasoning You are so far from the method propos'd by me that you reject the natural sence of the Texts Some you must give me leave to say it you have openly falsify'd As for instance Rom. 9.5 You will not have it God Blessed but God be blessed for ever against the Faith of all Copies against the Authority of all Writers Some you have loaded with little Criticisms as Phil. 2.6 Upon others you have trumpt new unnatural and incoherent explications as Joh. 1.1 And followed Dreams of Yesterday unknown to the Church of God or to any one Writer in it Others you have eluded with poor Allegories as Col. 1.16 In a word there is scarce a part of Scripture but what you have put to the Rack and then you come to tell us of fair and ingenuous reasonings of your elaborate Prints to prove the Unity of God which no Christian ever deny'd The Trinity of the Divine Persons appears so visibly in the Sacred Writings that if you design to deal as a fair or ingenuous reasoner you must either embrace the doctrine or reject their Authority Socin I will do neither I am perswaded of the truth of the one but not at all of the other Observe what the ingenious Author of the Answer to Mr. Luzancy has said to him pag. 44 45 46. I will put it in as few words as I can and yet I hope without losing any thing of the force of the Argument You charge that upon the Scripture which is no Scripture at all and you oblige us to believe as the word of God that which is no word of God but only your inferences from it You draw conclusions those conclusions you rest in and though they are no Articles of Faith because only the work of your reason yet you propose them as Faith to us I would fain ask whether your reason is more infallible than ours Or whether you have a privilege which we have not of making inferences The Trinity is no doctrine of Scripture but only an inference from it May not I have the Liberty either to make a contrary inference to yours or to review your deductions to judge the consistency or contradiction of these inferences I honour the Scripture but I am not oblig'd to receive your Argumentations These are not indeed his words but I am sure it is his sence Get out of this as well as you can Orth. But pray what is all this to the purpose I â—an assent due to a plain and express proposition an inference Or if you will call it an inference is it not the natural result of that plain proposition And must not whosoever has any share of understanding give the same assent to it which I do What are all our perceptions but inferences and all our talk and conversation but conclusions The Plow-Man does it as much as the Philosopher and there are propositions of that evidence that if offer'd to all Mankind all Mankind will agree in them The question is not here between your Reason and mine Nor do I pretend to more infallibility than you in reasoning But I say that Reason is so much the same in you and me that a plain and express proposition being offer'd us you and I must equally assent to it If you do not you wrong Reason and are unjust to
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
and the Revelation so express what I imagine to be contradiction is only the weakness of my Reason which must not stand against the Authority of God Suffer me to retort the Argument upon you I propose the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity and produce the Divine Revelation for it You cry out Contradiction Impossibility Incomprehensibility I say all this in the case of Creation You justly over-rule it by the Authority of the Revelation why must I be deny'd the same privilege and conclude that as I admit the one so you ought to admit the other Socin But then what signifies Reason if it ought not to be judge in Religious Matters And what Oppression must it lie under if it is over-rul'd by every thing which the Church will call Mystery Orthod The Church calls nothing Mystery but what is really such Some sublime important Truth which has an influence on Religion and a perfect coherence with it Of which we see some part the rest remaining abstruse and Reason being at a stand in its several inquiries about it Thus 1 Tim. 3.16 And without Controversy great is the Mystery of Godliness God was manifest in the Flesh What is propos'd to us is very plain God assuming our Nature and being made Man This is a strong engagement to all the duties of Religion And yet which way soever you take it it is still a great Mystery Reason is infinitely puzzl'd and has innumerable questions ready to offer which it can never be satisfy'd in because God has reveal'd so much and no more It s duty is to submit and make to the veracity of God a sacrifice of its curiosity The same may be said of the Resurrection from the Dead which St. Paul calls 1 Cor. 15.51 a Mystery He shews clearly the certainty and advantage of a glorious coming to Life again Yet it is still a Mystery Take away the Divine Revelation and Reason humane Reason will charge the doctrine of the Resurrection with contradiction nonsence impossibility The same pretended objections will lie against the Mystery of the Holy Trinity only with this difference that you are contented in the other points to bring your Reason to the obedience of Faith but in this you will be refractary It is strange to see Men's odd ways of manageing Reason In the study of Natural things when they can go no farther then they enlarge upon the weakness of Reason the misery of our Nature the shortness of our sight and the inability of our faculties They a knowledge that God has hid abundance of objects from our eyes But in the search after Mysteries then Reason is strong it soars as high and can look on the Sun as stedfastly as the Eagle Nothing ought to be Mysterious Faith must not be our guide It is no more the light of the Soul but usurpation and tyranny Socin You have a perpetual inclination to misrepresent us We affirm and we have affirm'd it a thousand times that we ought to be guided by Faith But Faith must be rational It is says St. Paul Rom. 12.1 our Reasonable service If it is not such it is neither worthy of God who requires it nor of Man who pays that debt to him I ought not to believe at random or give my assent to every thing which even the Scripture proposes But I must examine how it is consistent with the principles of that Reason which he has given me Thus far I must believe and no further Reason first and last is to be the judge Orthod Pray let us avoid those perpetual Equivocations Faith and Reason are always consistent I do not speak of Reason as it is in us but as it is in it self with that admirable coherence of Principles flowing from one another and concentring in God who is its Author Had we Reason in that state and to that degree such I believe was that of innocent ADAM I should be reconcil'd to all your noise of Contradictions But Reason as it is in us is obscure apt to be intangl'd in the smallest thread and uncertain where and how to fix it self But let it be consider'd either of these ways the consistency of Faith and Reason must be always understood in subordination of the latter to the former What a monstrous attempt is this to determine Faith by Reason and not Reason by Faith Socin What a pleasant distinction is this of Reason consider'd in it self or as it is in us Of ADAM's Reason and ours As if ADAM was not such another Man as I am and Reason consider'd in it self could be different from what it is in me and all Mankind Orthod Yes indeed Innocent ADAM just come out of the hands of his Maker and taught immediately by that Infinite Spirit who had given him his being did Reason better than you or I. His perceptions were clearer His apprehensions quicker His abilities greater Passion and Prejudice had not found the way to his Soul Wine and Lust had not inflam'd him Ambition and the Thirst of Gold had not deprav'd him In a word he was little Inferiour to the Angels themselves both in Purity and Knowledge And why may not Reason be consider'd in it self in that Divine Relation which it has to the Supream Truth calm and free in its propositions sincere and true in its inferences without a desire of appearing what it is not from what it is when clog'd with the impressions of a sinful Body captivated by a corrupted Will led into a thousand silly errours ever seeking and never finding a place to rest in These are the sad effects of the first Transgression Man was made upright at the beginning but they sought out many inventions says one to whom the Scripture gives the character of the most Knowing of Men. I tell you that in this crazy Age of the World and in the great decay of Christianity what we call Reason are only the miserable relicks of it Socin You know by whom it is deny'd that ADAM's Transgression had any other influence on his Posterity than to shew them an ill example For my part I believe that the World is the same as ever it was and that if ADAM had not sinn'd we had still been subject to the same Infirmities Your Doctrine of Original Sin is as Mysterious as the rest Orthod It is so far from being Mysterious that nothing discovers it self with greater clearness All the Pride of Man cannot hide it Our own unhappy experience contradicts our pretended demonstrations against it and in this our Heart evidently opposes our Mind But we have lost the main question let us return to it I say then that you give Reason too great a Scope and that in our present state it ought not to determine Faith but be determin'd by it Socin But still we talk of Faith and Reason and have not yet agreed what they are Pray tell me what is Reason But tell it me plainly Let us have no Cartesianism no Metaphysical Abstractions no Notions
no Ideas If I cannot walk in a smooth and open Path I am resolv'd to stay at Home Orthod I am my self of your Mind I take then Reason to be a Faculty of the Soul by which we endeavour to find out the Truth either by way of Inference or by a plain and simple Perception What have you to Except against this Socin Nothing at all For I think that all our Knowledge comes these two ways Yet if the word Endeavour falls upon the last as well as upon the first part of the definition it seems somewhat incongruous For simple Perceptions offer themselves to us and are almost the only things of which the Certainty is not disputed But yet as it is by comparing the least Known with the most Known Principles that we do Reason and that every thing which we call a simple Perception is not such I willingly agree in it Then go on and tell me what is Faith Orthod Faith is the Gift of God by which he Inlightens our Mind and inclines our Heart to assent to what he proposes to us to believe Socin This I do not like so well as the other Though I know it comes from St. Austin and is commonly receiv'd by the admirers of that Father Faith is the Gift of God as all things are in a general sense But if by it you suppose an immediate Act of his Grace by which we believe then Faith is no more our choice or a favour offer'd to all Men but confin'd only to few How can it be said that God inlightens our Mind when what you call Mysteries are as obscure and unknown after as before we believe And for that expression of inclining our Will it is not sufferable it borders so much upon the Doctrine of Calvin which you know the Church of England is not fond of It shews an impossibility of believing in them whose Hearts are not inclin'd and consequently it makes unbelief to be no Sin Orthod The Definition is I confess of St. Austin But I maintain that it is both Christian and Catholick The Scripture has taught and the Church embrac'd it Joh. 6.4 No Man can come unto me except the Father which has sent me draw him Ibid. v. 65. No Man can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father Phil. 1.29 To you it is given in the behalf of Christ not only to believe on him but also to suffer for his sake Rom. 12.3 We are commanded to think soberly according as God has dealt to every Man the measure of Faith Hence the Church has express'd her self in these words Can. 7. of the Council of Aurange If any thinks that by the strength of Nature he can think or do any good thing relating to Salvation or assent to the Truth reveal'd without the illumination or inspiration of the Holy Spirit HERAETICO FALLITUR SPIRITU HE IS DECEIV'D BY AN HERETICAL SPIRIT not understanding this place of the Apostle 2 Cor. 3.5 Not that we are sufficient of our selves to do any thing as of our selves But our sufficiency is of God This does not hinder Faith from being our choice any more than it does Vertue the assistance of God helping but not altering our Nature The obscurity of Mysteries even when we believe is no objection against the inlightning of the Mind For this supposes not a clear insight into the Nature of the thing but only a conviction that there is such a thing reveal'd 1 Cor. 13.12 For now we see through a Glass darkly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in aenigmate as in a riddle ... Now. I know in part but then shall I know even as I am also known But how can you give to the inclining of the will the name of insufferable and bordering upon Calvinianism when you cannot but know that it is the Work of God and the Prayer of Man to him Psal 119.27 Make me to understand the way of thy Precepts v. 35. Make me to go in the Path of thy Commandments v. 36. Incline my Heart to thy Testimonies Prov. 16.1 The preparation of the Heart is from the Lord. The Church you say is not fond of Calvin's Principles True but our abhorrency from Clavinianism must not drive us to Pelagianism I may detest an opinion inconsistent with the goodness of God without throwing my self into an excess injurious to the Grace of CHRIST The Definition then is good and safe but because I am willing if possible to remove all your prejudices I will put it in fewer words Faith then is a Firm assent to what God has reveal'd to us Socin I cannot quarrel with this It is well that once at least you will be plain Orthod It is well that there is something which you will not deny This Definition though not so exact as it ought to be is enough to shew you the insufficiency of Reason For if Reason can embrace all that is necessary for a Man to know there can be no necessity of Revelation This of it self supposes and is a convincing proof of our ignorance For if there are objects which Reason cannot reach but must owe their discovery to a higher and more infallible Principle then Reason is palpably weak and imperfect There cannot be a more sensible Argument of its Deficiency But there is another inconvenience as discernible as this Reason not only cannot reach the object which Revelation presents but also the object once presented it cannot be conversant about it nor examine the several parts or prospects of it It cannot come to a view near enough to employ its Faculties in it The account of which is very plain and it is this That as Reason with all its sagacity and penetration could never find out such an object and knows only that there is such a thing because God presents it and must rely for the truth of it upon God's veracity so the nature of the object propos'd must still remain obscure because there is as great an impossibility in finding out the nature of the object as the object it self In natural things Reason meets with an object fit for its inquiry and not only finds out the object but even penetrates what can be known of it because both are commensurate Or to avoid hard words which neither you nor I love because there is a fair proportion between the object and the powers and faculties of Reason But in things supernatural which word is enough to decide the difference if you would but consider of it there is so infinite a distance between the object propos'd and the weak perceptions of Reason that if we are just to our selves and have any respect for the order which the All-wise God has establish'd we cannot so much as pretend to an inquiry into the Nature of the thing offer'd This highly vindicates the wise and sober Answer of abundance of Learned Men amongst us who in the disputes about the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation have told you that these are Mysteries
a light which God has given us to know him and our selves But that light suffers frequent Eclipses It shines dim and is often put out We are not wise all the hours of the day Sometimes our thoughts rise as the Sea when it overflows the neighbouring Shoars and sometimes again they sink into a small and contemptible Channel We own and disown admit and reject are pleas'd this minute with a conclusion and the next lay it aside look upon those things as Errors which we formerly embrac'd as Truths and take those for Truths which we once rejected as Errors Secondly You must grant me that Reason is not the same in all Men I mean as to its vigor and efficacy In some a happy Nature with the addition of a careful Education Reading Conversation and Experience makes it quick and active It is admirable to see how some Men will like lightning run through a mass of propositions and understand a thing as soon as it is offer'd But in others it is heavy and dull oppress'd by the matter in which it is inclos'd almost sunk and as the Physicians say of Blood incapable of circulating through the abundance of viscous humours by which it is detain'd The far greater part of Mankind is of this sort Of the common Saylors Souldiers Labourers Women it may be said that the Body is truly the gaol of the Soul from which it seldom breaks out to exert any acts answerable to the dignity of its nature Thirdly I beg also that you would not deny that though there is so visible a difference in the exercise of Reason and some Men do almost as far exceed others as these exceed irrational Creatures yet there is some universal Principle fitted to every one's capacity and in which all Mankind agree Such is the search after Happiness The grossest and most illiterate of the Sons of ADAM are as much convinc'd of this as your self whose erudition is certainly great This is not learned from Books or taken up upon the credit of Authors but is an invincible inclination which every one finds in his own Heart Socin I grant all this but your compliment to me Orthod All this granted I proceed and presume to be positive that Reason can never shew to Man the way to Happiness For though it concludes very well from the Works of Creation that there is a God who is the Author and giver of that happiness and that the service of God is the way to obtain it yet what we ought to believe of that God how he is willing to be serv'd and which way we can appease his anger and secure his favour to us is altogether above the reach of Reason Rom. 11.13 His ways are past finding out The Doctrine of a Covenant of Grace of a Redeemer in whom we are pardon'd and accepted and who by the Sacrifice of himself should reconcile us to God are Mysterious depths to which Reason the most clear sighted Reason has not the least access It was necessary then that Authority should supply that want and God reveal what it was impossible Man should acquaint himself with Revelation is that which informs our understandings cures our ignorance rectifies our mistakes and by a short and infallible way leads us to happiness This the Philosophers aim'd at by the strength of Natural Reason but very unsuccessfully You know what Socrates and Plato what the School of Epicurus what Zeno and the Porticus said to it Their Systems were vain foolish flat and unpracticable This important discovery was to be the work of him who had the words of Eternal Life And the wisest and best Definition that ever was given of it is Joh. 17.3 And this is Life Eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent I call this a short and an infallible way It is infallible because propos'd by him who can neither deceive nor be deceiv'd It is short because it cuts off all the Ambages and uncertainties which Reason is intangl'd in and rests upon a rock and that is the Authority of God You make Faith so difficult a thing and exclaim loud when we endeavour to bring you over to it But for my part when I take a view of those Principles which Mankind rely upon I find it much easier to believe than to reason Can I be safer than when God himself is my Guide Shall I find more truth any where than in what God proposes Or are the Mazes or Labyrinths of humane Argumentations easier to run through than the Asseverations of Scriptures This has made St. Austin to say de Trin. l. 14. c. 1. that many of the Faithful have Faith in a very high degree though they have little or no Learning Socin That is it is easier to swallow any thing than to inquire whether it is true or no Orthod No For if you Consider this Principle of the Authority of the Divine Revelation you will find that it prevents all sorts of mistakes and makes us give over reasoning and disputing not because we design to avoid the labour and trouble of it but because we are satisfy'd that here lies the Truth and that it is impossible to find it any where else That whatsoever God is pleas'd to reveal is true is a proposition to which all Mortals in any capacity whatever give a most ready assent There is none of us but what has in some measure or other Notions of God agreeable to that Divine Being In some they are more ripe and refin'd than in others in Christians most of all But all agree that as he is Wise and Holy so he is True and that what he delivers to us has an indelible Character of Truth This has not only been taught by us but by the Heathens themselves Homer and Hesiod have acknowledg'd it Euripides owns in Helen v. 1164. seq that he has found nothing certain amongst Men but this that the words of the Gods are true And I think it is Porphyrius a Man of mighty prejudice against Christianity who comparing the ways of the Greeks and of the Jews towards the attainment of the Truth says that the latter who sought after it by Faith that is by the means of a Divine Revelation were much more in the right than the former who made use only of Reason to attain it This once admitted which indeed cannot be deny'd I hope to let you see that I am not unjust to Reason You will give me leave to consider it before in and after the admitting of the Revelation Socin Consider it which way you will Orthod Faith then pre-supposes Reason They must be Rational Creatures whom it is infus'd into and without the one we are not capable of the other Though the Almighty has an absolute power over us yet he is pleas'd not to force our assent but proposes the Faith and perswades us to it It comes by hearing says St. Paul Rom. 10.17 that is it is
Reason Seeing must not be restrain'd to sense but extended to whatsoever God proposes Doctrines as well as Matters of Fact rely upon the Divine Authority But let us see how CHRIST the Light of the World has done in the delivery of his Heavenly Doctrine Has he courted our Minds to an assent by explaining the Nature of the Mysteries which he offers Or after the manner of the then Philosophers by disputing and endeavouring to remove the prejudices of Reason Not at all but first he establishes his own Authority and then commands our belief This grand point once settled He tells us Mark 16.16 He that believes shall be sav'd he that believes not shall be damn'd Once more CHRIST gives the Jews no liberty of examining his doctrine or as you Gentlemen of the Socinian perswasion are us'd to do to admit or reject it as you think it agreeable or disagreeable to your Reason He proves what he is by two undeniable Principles The First is the Prophecies accomplish'd in him Act. 10.43 To him give all the Prophets witness The Second is the Miracles which he does Joh. 10.37 38. If I do not the works of my Father believe me not but if I do though you believe not me believe the works that you may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in him And before v. 25. the works that I do in my Father's name they bear witness of me He had reveal'd to them a great Mystery viz. his Unity with the Father an Unity of Nature and Essence v. 30. I and my Father are one The Reason of the Jews stumbles at this and even to that degree that they take up stones to stone him He uses no other Arguments but will have them to obey and submit and this upon the account of the greatest and most convincing demonstration that can be even the miraculous works of God To deal sincerely can any thing be objected against this Socin Yes truly You know that we deny this to be an Unity of Nature and appeal to v. 36. But not to insist on this which we have often objected and you pretend to have as often answer'd and not start from the main question I say that he proves nothing who proves too much You strain the point too high You not only debase but totally extinguish Reason You leave it bare naked destitute and like the Idols Psam 115.5 Which have Eyes and see not Mouths and speak not Have a care of v. 8. They that make them are like unto them Is it to be imagin'd that we can renounce Reason The will indeed is free and may embrace and reject But the Mind is not capable of choice It must necessarily assent or dissent It can never be brought to believe a contradiction For my part I openly declare that against what part soever of my self I practise self denial it shall never be against my Reason Orthod How often have we said and how often must we say it again That nothing in Religion is contrary to the Principles of true Reason That what you call Contradictions are not real because God can reveal no contradiction and that Reason over-rules all its reluctancies by that most Rational Principle that we owe our assent to what God has reveal'd This is not then to renounce your Reason but only its irregularities and excesses to divest it of its pride and folly and bring it to all the purity and strength of which it is capable on this side the grave But how can one hear without horror that you will not practise self denial against your Reason that is you are resolv'd not to be a Christian For he that is so must as we have said already bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ There is a poverty of Spirit to which CHRIST has annex'd a blessing The living contentedly under the hard circumstances of want and a willingness to part with our riches to become poor for CHRIST's sake is but one part of it The other consists in robbing the mind of oppositions of science falsly so call'd which puffs us up and through the vain additions of Philosophy gives us a high opinion of our selves The various notions which we have of things are the riches of our mind which we must be ready to part with when ever CHRIST commands it Learning without Piety looks upon this as an injury to Reason unwilling to stoop and be overcome But Piety with Learning puts the Servant of God in that humble frame of submission to what he reveals Socin This is perfect Enthusiasm and Fanaticism all over This the Priest perswades the people to that he may command their Faith That point gain'd he will quickly dispose of the rest Orthod If this is Enthusiasm and Fanaticism then all the World but the Socinians have been Enthusiasts and Fanaticks The first Men of the World liv'd altogether by Faith The Apostle gives the same Character to the Patriarchs and Prophets Whatsoever they did was the Work of Faith Reason then was in subjection to it But when Man substracted himself from the Service of God and suffer'd himself to be guided by his own notions then Reason grew proud shook off the easy yoak and gave birth to the opinions of Philosophers whom Tertullian calls elegantly Haereticorum Patriarchas the Patriarchs of Hereticks Some of the wise Heathens themselves were not insensible how many errors this pretence of Reason threw them into Tully lib. 3. de nat Deor. makes Cotta to speak smartly to this purpose against Balbus the Stoick I omit Socrates and Plato Philostratus de vit Apollon lib. 5. c. 14. asserts that Philosophy is good to lead us into the Knowledge of Natural but not at all of Divine Truths And Jamblichus is positive that Man by the strength of Reason cannot understand Sacred and Religious matters To increase the number of those Enthusiasts I dare to say that this has been the Unanimous sence of the Fathers Hence that saying of St. Austin Epist 3. so highly Reverenc'd by the succeeding Ages Tota Ratio facti est potentia facientis All the Reason which we can give of any thing that is done is his power who does it And the great Arch-Bishop of Milan in Epist ad Rom. Magni meriti est apud Deum qui contra scientiam suam Deo credidit non dubitans posse illum utpote Deum quod secundum mundi rationem fieri non possit He is very dear to God who believes God against all the Principles of his Reason not doubting but that he can as God do that which cannot be done according to the Course and Reason of the World You stare at this as very strange and unaccountable But yet this is the Language of the Masters of the Church Thus spoke these Primitive Bishops and if we have any Zeal for Primitive Truths and Primitive Manners we ought to speak so too Nay this Notion is so Universal that of all them who
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