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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Reason a part of that Supreme Reason Truth is but one either in the Creator or in the Creature Revelation cannot make that true which appears to me unreasonable Orthod You will never be weary of urging the same things over and over again Whatsoever God reveals is true But you say it does not square with my apprehensions Nay it contradicts them Therefore it is not true What a strange way of Reasoning is this Truth in God is truth in Man Granted But is it in the same extent or degree Do we know as much as God A spark will pretend to be as Luminous as the Body of the Sun I see as through a glass darkly and I will judge of him who inhabits a fulness of light which no Mortal can come near unto Job 10.4 He must have Eyes of Flesh and see as a Man sees or else I will not believe what he says This is monstrous and not worth insisting upon Let us therefore proceed Reason then being satisfy'd in the truth of the Revelation cannot act like it self except it receives with the humblest and firmest submission what God has reveal'd and as St. Paul expresses it 2 Cor. 10.5 casts down imaginations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 REASONINGS and every high thing that exalts it self against the Knowledge of God And brings into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ It is a great part of a Christian's duty to correct the extravagances of Reason For it is stubborn restless and impatient of Government It must be cast down and chain'd up as one which if let alone will be outrageously mad It will never want pretences to rise against its Soveraign and in them it will obstinately persist This is the ground of those frequent exhortations in Scripture to mistrust Men's inquiries and give glory to the veracity of God Rom. 3.4 Let God be true but every Man a lyar Rom. 4.20 Abraham is commended for not following the insinuations of Reason but giving himself wholly to the conduct of Faith He stagger'd not at the promise of God through unbelief but was strong in Faith giving Glory to God St. Paul would have us Rom. 11.20 to stand by Faith the Principles of Reason being too weak but this standing unmoveable Rom. 16.26 He tells us plainly and forcibly that Faith requires the obedience of our minds According to the revelation of the Mystery which was kept secret since the World began but now is made manifest and by the Scriptures of the Prophets according to the commandment of the Everlasting God made known to all Nations for the obedience of Faith Socin But I must interrupt you and tell you plainly and forcibly that what colour soever the places which you have cited to prove Faith above Reason this has none at all You have found Mystery and Obedience of Faith together and it has deceiv'd you Read page 7. of that Print of ours call'd an impartial account of the word Mystery The Author tells you that whatsoever is revealed is no more a Mystery Orthod I wish it were not out of our way to give you some remarks on this same Print of yours A perpetual Equivocation runs through the whole Work and a willful misunderstanding of the words Knowing Delivering Revealing Making Manifest which imply indeed a discovery but not at all an explication of the Truth reveal'd Never did I see a greater unsincerity in any Writing This very particular Text he has confin'd to the Vocation of the Gentiles which extends to all Christian Mysteries which are indeed Reveal'd as to their existence the quod sint as Divines speak but not the quid sint what they are in themselves He has not given one single instance of a Mystery made known but after the Revelation is still a Mystery The Creation Resurrection Incarnation Trinity though clearly reveal'd are still Mysteries The very Attributes of God though not only made manifest in the Scriptures but also in a great measure obvious to Reason as Eternity Immensity c. are still Mysterious and Incomprehensible Let me beg of you then not to interrupt me with objections of that nature which really make against you But suffer me to go on in shewing you how God in his word has establish'd the dominion of Faith over Reason and the submission and obedience of Reason to Faith Socin I will not on condition that you cite no Texts capable of being contested Orthod I have not yet and will not for the future What can be plainer than 2 Cor. 5.7 We walk by Faith not by sight We trust not to our little Reasonings which we are so weak as to call sight and demonstration but rely upon a higher nobler and more infallible Principle Faith in God 1 Cor. 2.4 5. St. Paul declares that his preaching has not been drawn from Mens Arguments or adorn'd with a vain ostentation of Eloquence But in demonstration of the Spirit and power of God that is by the Writings of the Prophets inspir'd by the Holy Spirit by the voice of the Spirit it self by the Miracles of CHRIST and his Apostles as Origen expresses it l. 5. contr Cels That your Faith should not stand in the Wisdom of Men but of God That your Faith should not rest upon Men's Arguments but the Authority of God Colos 1.23 He would have the Colossians to crush and suppress the suggestions of Reason and sence and continue in the Faith settled and grounded and not be mov'd away from the hope of the Gospel The same is urg'd 1 Pet. 1.7 8. and indeed in very many other places which it would be too tedious to cite But what has the Saviour of the World said himself in the case Joh. 20.29 Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believ'd Socin Here I must interrupt you This relates to the particular Fact of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ It does not infer at all the belief of a doctrine contrary to my Reason You offer no violence to the mind when upon a solid Testimony I am perswaded that such a thing or Person is or has been I never was at Rome But I believe as firmly as the Romans themselves that there is such a place I never was bless'd with the sight of my Saviour or acquainted with the Glory of his Resurrection yet I believe as firmly as any one that he was in the World and rose from the dead But what is all this to your Doctrines Orthod Be not so injurious to a Noble Passage which though occasion'd by a particular matter of Fact the Resurrection of Jesus Christ yet is a General maxim and of a vast influence on Religion It holds not only as to the Resurrection but also as to all Reveal'd Truths Blessed are those who believe what they have not seen with the Eyes of the Body and they also are Blessed who believe what they cannot see with the Eyes of the Mind Happy in both that they come to God with an absolute resignation of their