Words on purpose to keep Christians within the Bounds of the Faith of their Ancestors Metaphysical Terms whereof Men have no fixed Notion and yet they stop the Mouths of Hereticks by making the Church speak more clearly and reasonably than the Holy Ghost did But this is not all some of the same Men who inveighed so much against the Inquisition and Popish Violences set up among themselves a Holy Inquisition and will hear of no Toleration but oppress the Liberty of the Christians who dare speak out their Mind so far are they from venturing on Writings and a publick Profession One would think that by our many Disputes with the Roman Church concerning Infallibility we have acquired the Priviledg thereof to our selves Give me leave therefore dear Cousin since you call me to God's Tribunal to summon you to the same Pray tell me Ought we not to fear that God should require from us the Truth of the Holy Scripture with which we have been intrusted that Light which we have put under a Bushel and his gracious Talent which we have buried If he asks from whence we took those prosane Novelties of a Science falsly so called I mean that most strange and barbarous Language in his Church O Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity three Persons and one God have Mercy upon us What shall we answer him What if he shall oblige us to give an Account of our Faith of that monstrous Creed of Athanasius with which we honour our great Holy Days and which you mention as the most illustrious Monument of the Faith of our Fathers Where is the Scribe where is the Philosopher of this World that can answer him to one of those many nonsensical Articles How came ye will he say to find in my Word one Essence and three Persons rather than one Person and three Essences By what Partiality have you discovered a Figure in these Words This is my Body and have found none in these The Word was God Why did you distinguish two Natures in the Christ whom I sent you whilst you refused to admit of two sorts of Being in the Sacramental Body which he gave you You were afraid of those Words To eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of God and you had no Repugnancy for the literal Sense of these A Virgin brought forth God The Jews crucified God He can ask a thousand such Questions to which we shall be able to give no reasonable Answer by reason of the Inequality of the Reverence we pretend to pay to his Word and of our Unsteadiness in the Use we make of our Reason and Senses In Effect I would fain have our Teachers to tell us by what Principle of Philosophy by what Rule of Language that Conclusion is irght and necessary viz. the Father is a Divine Person the Son is a Divine Person the Holy Ghost is a Divine Person Therefore there are three Divine Persons and this should not likewise be so The Father is God the Son is God the Holy Ghost is God Therefore there are three Gods Doth not common Reason tell us that those two Conclusions are like this Gabriel Raphael and Michael are three Angelical Persons therefore they are three Angels The same might be said of Peter James and John who are both three humane Persons and three Men. This Principle of natural Reason ought to prevail unless we are taught by the Scripture that three Divine Persons are not the same with three Gods or that a God is three Persons and three Persons a God But where doth it tell us so What Texts can they alledg that are clearer to prove that Mystery than those alledged by the Papists are to prove their supposed Mystery of one Christ and many Bodies and of many Bodies and one Christ How is it that with respect to the Sacrament we are helped by our Senses to put a reasonable Sense upon the Scripture but with respect to the Trinity Reason forsakes us so far as to ascribe to Scripture an absurd Sense and contrary to its Simplicity Is the Light of a sensible Man more certain than that of an understanding and reasonable Man Have we a greater Certainty that a Piece of Bread is not a humane Body than that two and one make three Is the Mystery of Christ's Sacramental Body more suitable to our Apprehension than the Mystery of his real and natural Body How come we to know that there is something that is incomprehensible in that Man whom we see born and dead and that there is no such thing in the Bread which we take and eat A God is joined to that say ye and why not to this But we see still some Bread will ye reply It is true your Senses do not deceive you But have not the Apostles too seen with their Eyes and touched with their Hands the Man who is called the Word of Life and their Senses have not deceived them This is true who can doubt of it How shall we come off Shall we fly to another Nature hypostatically united to this which is the Object of our Senses But then the Hereticks who err about the Sacrament may have Recourse to the same Shift to avoid the Testimony of the Senses Some will say that the Senses can judg only of the Species which remain in the Sacrament Some that there is an invisible Object in the Bread which is the glorious Body of Christ Some that there is an hypostatical Union of that Bread with the eternal Word which raises the Mystery so much above our Reason that it loses thereby the Right and Liberty of judging thereof and lies under the Necessity of submitting to the Authority of the Revelation which is clear upon this Point for it says This is my Body Now if our Reason is rash in the Judgment it bears concerning the Incarnation notwithstanding the Evidence of the literal Sense of the Scripture which is on her side what Rashness will it not be to interpose her Judgment in the Mysteries of Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation against the express Revelation of God's Word This is my Body I will only ask you one Question upon this Matter and I desire you to answer me in the Fear of God and the Sincerity of your Heart Why do you think you may with Dr. Wallis say that the Terms of Person Father Son Begotten c. are metaphorical whilst you cannot endure that those you call Hereticks should use the same Right and according to Reason and Scripture pretend likewise that the Title of God ascribed to Christ is also a metaphorical Expression Can any thing be more unjust Furthermore why do you take the Liberty to explain the Words of the Eucharist thus This Bread is the Representation and the Figure of my Body And why do you deny me at the same time the same Liberty when I explain the Words in the Beginning of St. John's Gospel by these And the Word was the Image of God Your Injustice is
so much the greater because I may ground my Interpretation upon other Expressions of the Scripture wherein Christ is formally called the Image of God and because you have no express Texts of the same Scripture wherein the Sacramental Bread is called the Figure of Christ's Body Now neither in my Proposition nor in yours the Image cannot be the Original As the Bread hath but a Conformity of Qualities with Christ's Body not the same Qualities and the same Substance Thus Christ as he is the Image of God cannot have the same Qualities nor the same Nature with God He only hath the Impression of the Divine Substance which God hath communicated to him by honouring him with his Unction bearing Testimony to him and crowning him with Glory as a Reward of his Sufferings Because he humbled himself to the Death of the Cross therefore the Father hath highly exalted him and hath given him a Name which is above every Name Now if Christ hath been dignified with that high Name by reason of his Obedience and Vertue it follows from thence that he had it not by the Priviledg of his eternal Generation For if so the pompous Description of Christ's Elevation set down in the Gospel would be but a Shew and mere Pageantry Therefore dear Cousin if you find in those clear Texts of the Scripture the true Reason of Christ's being called God believe me do not fetch any other from the extravagant Notions of the Athanasian Creed wherein neither you nor I can apprehend any thing except we apprehend nothing Notwithstanding you are so bold as to pronounce against me a Sentence of Damnation upon the Words of that doting Writer who was not Athanasius and even to damn all those who will give no Credit to his Ravings let them be never so pious and charitable O strange Prejudice of Men As for me I 'le make bold likewise to tell you that how false and ill grounded soever the Assurance of Salvation may be which that Author promises to those that believe his Visions it is yet more false that those good Christians who refuse to believe them shall be damned For there is nothing more certain and clear in the Gospel than this viz. That all honest and pious Men shall be saved and that all those who shall be saved will be saved without believing the curious Mysteries of the pretended Athanasius Do but peruse all the Evangelical Promises and look if you can find any one that promises Salvation to those who believe the Vnity in Trinity and the Trinity in Vnity I can shew you a thousand which make Salvation sure to Piety or to a Faith inconsistent with the Faith of Athanasius What Guide shall we then follow this Creed which says That whosoever will be saved ought to believe three Divine Persons and one Divine Essence or Christ who assures us that eternal Life consists in acknowledging his Father the only true God and himself Christ Jesus to be he whom the Father hath sent that is to say the Messias What Creed shall we pitch upon to be the Badg of our Christianity either the new ones which speak of God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost as three equal Persons or the ancient Creed of the universal Church commonly called the Apostles Creed which only speaks of God the Father Jesus Christ his Son and the Holy Ghost without giving the Title of God to these two last and which expresly ascribing to the Father the Attributes of the Godhead of Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth ascribes only to the Son that which is only consistent with a Man and cannot be ascribed to the supream God without Blasphemy viz. That he was conceived born died was buried and raised Now as it is not the Language of the Apostles Creed to say God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost so it is neither the Stile of the Scripture which never gives the Title of God to Christ when it joins him with the Father in those Places wherein it sets before us the Objects of our Knowledg and Worship and makes as it were a kind of Form or Confession of Faith The Reason of it is this Christ is God with Respect to the Empire which he hath received from God over the new Creatures which he hath taken out of the Chaos of Sin and governs by his Father's Power But with Respect to God his Father he is only the Minister of his Will his Messenger and is at most called the Lord which is a Term of Inferiority in the New Testament to denote him whom the Father hath made his Lieutenant who hath received his Empire from another and is to deliver it to him that intrusted him with it God say the Holy Apostles having made him Lord and Christ According to this Rule which the Scripture exactly follows it doth not only deny the Title of God to Christ in the Abridgments of Faith which it affords but it is wont to ascribe it only to the Father exclusively of the Son saying expresly that the Father is the only true God and the Son the only Lord as often as it puts together those two Objects of our Faith And in this remarkable Opposition it is that we are to look for the true Sense of the Scripture about this Mystery not in those other Places wherein it doth not affect the same Exactness Here dear Cousin I intreat you again if you are a true Lover of Truth seriously to consider those Texts of the Gospel upon which my Remark is grounded This is Life eternal says Christ to his Father to know Thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent But to us says St. Paul There is but one God the Father of whom are all things and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him One God says the same Apostle and one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus Where is the Trinitarian who on such an occasion would not say One God the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost yet there is no mention made of the Holy Ghost and as for the Son he bears only the Title of sent Lord and Mediator that of God being not at all bestowed upon him in those Places Who is the Trinitarian that would not say on the last cited Place One God and one Mediator between God and Men Christ God-man But God-man is too barbarous an Expression and the Holy Ghost is too wise to make such a Conjunction Lastly who is the Trinitarian who would call the Father the only God the only true God to distinguish him from the Son by opposing God to Man the only God to the only Lord and Mediator in a Word the Father to the Son and one Person to another Do they not pretend that the Father cannot be called the only true God but by Opposition to the false Gods of the Heathens But the Holy Apostle doth not only oppose him
most infallible Mark of an Orthodox Man he that is endowed with it though he may err cannot be an Heretick If I was as bold as you dear Cousin I would apply to you a fine Passage of our worthy Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in his Sermon upon Luke 10.42 wherein he blames the Rashness of those who like you dare censure Error and Heresy in others whilst they themselves do not think of curing those Lusts Vices and Passions which so visibly reign in them But I shall only cite that general Reflection of his concerning those pretended Orthodox Deluded People says he that do not consider that the greatest Heresy in the World is a wicked Life because it is so directly and so fundamentally opposite to the whole Design of the Christian Faith and Religion and that God will sooner forgive a Man an hundred Defects of his Vnderstanding than one Fault of his Will And to shew you in one Word that when you attribute Immodesty Wantonness and Pride to Hereticks you act against the Spirit of your Church the Testimony of one of your Teachers only will suffice since he speaks for the whole Clergy I mean the Author of the Vindication of the conformed Clergy from the unjust Aspersions of Heresy That Heresy was no less than Pelagianism and Socinianism See how he vindicates your Teachers The Reason says he why they are accused of Heresy is their Moderation in Points of Controversy They do not confute their Opponent with a rude and infignificant Noise nor think they shall ever convince him by hard Words and ill Names which are the only Arguments that some Men are able to manage but they consider and are willing to make Allowances for the common Infirmities of humane Understandings and the strong Prejudices of Education and therefore they treat all Men gently and are not rudely clamorous in their Discourses but hope the best and think as charitably as they can of those that are of a different Perswasion See the Moderation of your Church imitate so charitable and Christian a Judgment and cease to damn like Jews and Heathens proud and conceited Men those good Men who work out their Salvation with Fear and Trembling lest with what Judgment ye judg ye may be judged The same Author will tell you that the Term of Heretick is a Name that is given now-a-days liberally and at a good rate and that It is nothing but the Passion of the Opponents that hath made that Name so very common as it is for it is grown no more now than an ordinary Term of Reproach for every angry Man that would fain be dealing with controversial Divinity that it serves for one of the principal Topicks for the great Professors of artificial Scolding c. Read but p. 70. As to that great Conceit and Confidence of their own Knowledg of which you think Hereticks are so full that they resolve never to allow that to be the Sense of the Revelation however plain and evident the Words are which is not agreeable to their Reason but will put another Sense upon them though never so sorced and violent As to this I will tell you First that they have borrowed that Method from the very Principle of the Reformation When dear Cousin those Words of Christ are objected to you This is my Body My Flesh is Meat indeed My Blood is Drink indeed Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood c. When I say those Places of the Scripture are objected to you who follow the Spirit of the Reformation Are you not resolved never to allow that to be the Sense of the Revelation however plain and evident these Words are which is not agreeable to your Senses and Reason and will you not put another Sense upon them though never so forced and violent as in effect you do when you say that by the Body of Christ is meant the Figure of his Body by eating his Flesh to believe in him c But I have already touched that Article in my Letter and therefore I shall insist no longer upon it Secondly Who puts upon the Scripture a more unnatural Sense than you do in this Controversy Who hath a greater Pride of Understanding and is more conceited of his Reasonings Hereticks so called make Religion to consist in the Profession of a simple Faith which they express in the very Terms of Scripture holding fast the Form of sound Words so afraid they are to indulge their Reason too much and to wrest the Language and Intention of the Holy Ghost But you on the contrary who rely altogether upon humane Expressions taken out of the Pagan Philosophy metaphysical Arguments and Abstractions or remote Consequences you I say must needs violate the sacred Reverence due to God's Word put a forced Sense upon the Words of the Holy Ghost and shew at the same time a proud Confidence by making the Scripture speak any thing that agrees with your Notions There is not one Word or Proposition in that Scripture but will signify quite contrary things according to your Distinctions and Consequences You distinguish between the Son of Man and the Son of God yet you confound those two Terms when you think fit and make the Son of Man to be the Son of God and the Son of God to be the Son of Man If we say that it was the Son of Man that came down from Heaven you reply that the Son of Man signifies there the Son of God If we object that the Son of God knew not the Day of Judgment you answer that by the Son of God in that Place is meant the Son of Man If one asks you What 's the Name of the first Person of the Trinity you answer the Father and insist earnestly upon that Distinction of Persons to avoid the Force of this Objection viz. That if Christ were the most high God he would be the Father of himself But if we object that the Father only knows the Day of Judgment and that he only is the true God and Creator of all things then the Word Father signifies no more what it signified before I mean the first Person of the Trinity but the whole Trinity and the very Son whom he hath begotten so great is your Skill in doing and undoing the Work of the Holy Ghost by contradicting Hereticks in Season and out of Season Let this suffice as to what concerns Words The same may be said of the Propositions of the Scripture either affirmative or negative By the enchanting Virtue of your Distinctions the Affirmative becomes Negative and the Negative Affirmative when there is any need of it and two contradictory Propositions are equally true and divine if at any time it can serve your turn It may be said that Christ hath wrought Miracles and hath wrought no Miracles that he knew not the Day of Judgment and knew it that he was born and not born In a word one may overthrow the whole Gospel and Creed all those