A Conference Between an Orthodox Christian AND A SOCINIAN IN FOUR DIALOGUES Wherein The late distinction of a Real and Nominal Trinitarian is Considered By H. DE LVZANCY B. D. Vic. of Dovere and Harwich LONDON Printed by Tho. Warren for Thomas Bennet at the Half-Moon in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1698. THE PREFACE IT is hard to determine which is the greatest misfortune either to give an easy assent to whatever Doctrine is propos'd to us or value our selves upon pretended difficulties and deny incontestable Articles because they are not altogether free from them It seems to me as dangerous an errour to disbelieve as to believe every thing The one being the effect of a prodigious weakness and the other of an incredible presumption both equally inconsistent with Reason which cannot but be sensible that as there are things visibly false to the meanest Capacity so there are those which the greatest penetration cannot reach and yet are certainly true This carries so much evidence along with it that it is granted in all our Moral and Philosophical inquiries We are witnesses of innumerable events the causes of which we guess at but can give no clear account of The springs of most transactions in the World are hid from Mankind and lie in an unfathomable obscurity plain to none but him to whom Darkness is as light as the Day The same must be said of our search about natural objects Nature so obvious every where has yet secret recesses which all our sagacity cannot penetrate We are agreed concerning its operations but as for their principles they have been disputed of from the beginning and will be to the end of the World The Men of thoughts and reflexion concluding daily that there are on all sides mighty difficulties and never to be overcome But it is strange that this should be granted with so much equity and freedom in that sort of Matters and deny'd of Religion which being of a higher and more abstruse Nature and of a far greater Authority than all the Dictates of Men should by its own weight silence all Objections and put positive Mortals in mind that a transcendent Object ceases not to be because we cannot take an exact view of it and that a Divine Proposition loses not the Character of Truth because we form difficulties against it And yet this is the ease of Socinianism The Gentlemen who have suffer'd themselves to be led into it deny the Mysteries of Christianity insisting on their unreasonableness pretending that they are not oblig'd to believe that of which they have not a clear Notion and with a sort of assurance which becomes no Man and them least of all charging the Sacred Doctrine with the scandalous imputations of contradiction and nonsence This is the design of their last Collection of Prints the perpetual descant in conversation and a contrivance to keep the dispute alive till that being ruin'd they must of necessity set up something else But indeed either we argue to give life to a party or else we act sincerely conscientiously and with a design to find out and establish the Truth If the first God is greater than our Hearts and knows all things He will punish so mean and so sordid an end which does not vindicate but prostitute Religion But if the last I must beg leave to say that there is neither Truth Piety or Modesty in all that noise Is it come to that that I must call a Doctrine unreasonable because my Reason is weak and cannot understand every part of it Do I own my doubtfulness and ignorance in all other things and am only secure and clear-sighted in this Or admit Mysteries in most of Nature's Operations and exclude them only from Religion Happy Man who can tye the Hands of his Creatour and force him to impose nothing on his belief but what is plain and intelligible What high strain of good manners is this to call that Non-sence and Contradiction which the Church of God from the very beginning of Christianity to this time and in all the parts of the World where it is receiv'd has so highly reverenc'd As if our guides in Spiritual Matters had been no more than a company of Mad-men who have fill'd our Heads with crude impertinent and contradictory Notions This is so much the worse in these Gentlemen because they cannot but be acquainted that Philosophy was never and is not to be appeal'd to in these disputes The certainty of our belief depending on a nobler and more infallible Principle even the Authority of God speaking in the Sacred Scriptures The Fathers never doubted but that Difficulties would ever be rais'd in the treating of our Mysteries but thought this sufficiently over-rul'd by the very consideration of God's own determination in that Revelation which he has made of himself Whether these Gentlemen will or no this must be the last resolution of this great Controversy Let them think of it in earnest and they will agree with me that it cannot be otherwise This method I follow'd and urg'd again and again to a Friend for whose sake I writ and publish'd the Four Letters They seem'd to me to have made some impression on him and as he is a Person of Candor he own'd that it was beyond his Ability to Answer but would expect what the Socinian writers had to say to them After some time an Answer came out But as I must do them the justice to acknowledge that they have us'd me in it with a great deal of civility and show'd that deep studies had not spoil'd in them good breeding a fault too too common in Learned Men So I am forc'd to complain that they have not so much as touch'd any one part of my Book But taking no care either of vindicating the unwary Assertions of their Authors or answering those substantial Arguments which were laid before them they serv'd me as they had done others before contenting themselves with a handsome declamation about their new and chimerical distinction of Real and Nominal Trinitarians insisting on the incomprehensibility and contradiction of the Christian Doctrine and what is pleasant enough arguing against its unreasonableness without so much as examining any one of the plain Reasons given for it My Friend then was arm'd with two n w Topicks He would call upon me and ask me whether I was a Real or a Nominal Trinitarian He would maintain that his Reason could not yield to what is unreasonable or be bound to assent to what is Contradictory or at best Incomprehensible I thought then my self oblig'd for his sake in particular and in general for the good of the Christian Cause to which we are all debtors to take a view of these two Engines of the Socinian make This is the occasion of the following Papers in which this distinction is examin'd the dispute between them and us brought back to the true state of the question viz. the Authority of the Sacred Writings The nature of Faith and
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
simplicity of our Holy Faith wants not solid and rational arguments by which it is confirm'd Such I take to be the Authority of the Revelation which in strength and clearness is superiour to any Argument whatsoever But laying all this aside When you have done all you can and writ never so fine a Panegyrick on Reason the strength of it cannot be better judg'd of than by its use You will be asham'd of ever pleading for Reason when you consider how the great Masters of it have been distracted And you will say with Jesus Christ Matt. 6.23 If therefore the Light that is in thee be darkness how great is that darkness The first Men of the World though so near their beginning and the impressions of Reason so much the stronger because nearest to their spring yet generally run into Idolatry and Violence You know how few they were who call'd upon the Name of the Lord. The Church was confin'd to the Family of Noah The fury of the Flood was an eminent instance of a Reason which had so far wandred from its Principles that it was past recalling and was fit for nothing but destruction When the World after that was so far replenish'd as to afford great Monarchies and numerous Nations you see Reason as insufficient as before and Men as obstinately bent to depart from their Creator I will not run through their several Idolatries The Aegyptians so famous for their Learning who thought themselves and were look'd upon by others as highly Rational Men did debase Reason to that degree as to make Gods of their very Roots and Plants A happy People says pleasantly Juvenal who see their Deities grow in their Gardens But you will say they were unthinking People who had not consider'd the matter or inquir'd into the Nature of Reason But what must you think of the Ingrossers of Learning and Reputation I mean the Greeks Men who valu'd themselves upon being inquisitive treated all the parts of Philosophy and fill'd the World with Sects and Systems Good God! The Dogmaticks thought Reason so clear as to be certain of every thing and to doubt of nothing An extravagance of which they had a confutation in themselves These Socrates the wise Socrates takes up and is so far from taking Reason to be clear that he professes that if any thing was certain it was this That he knew nothing to be certain This Assertion Arcesilas and Pyrrho cannot be reconcil'd with carry the doubt yet further and find no certainty in that very Proposition but make Hesitation and Fluctuation the Principles of their Doctrine They are not more lucky in their search about Happiness Providence the Being of God and the Original of the World There is a strange confusion in their Opinions and an incredible weakness in their Arguments They have verify'd the saying of Solomon Eccles 3.11 Mundum tradâ—â—â—t disputationi eorum God has made the World the subject of their disputes Or as our Translation reads it He has set the World in their Heart so that no Man can find out the Work that God made from the beginning to the end And Eccles 8.17 Though a Man labour to seek it out yet he shall not find it yea further though a Wise Man think to know it yet he shall not be able to find it This is the Reason which you cry up so much and these are your Rational Men. Socin All this is a Satyr upon Reason and nothing else Yet it cannot detract from its dignity And it is a consequence ill drawn That because some Men have Reason'd ill therefore we cannot Reason well Several People have had but one Eye therefore we have not two The Aegyptians and Greeks have been delirious therefore we must be so too They did conclude at random in those days because they wanted all the means of Erudition which we have and therefore we must talk at the same rate though a long experience innumerable Books and accurate Methods in all Arts and Sciences have wonderfully resin'd our Notions With you the dawning of the Day gives more light than the full Noon and the Morning is wiser than the Evening of our Lives Pray let us lay aside these common places and come to a closer way of reasoning Is there such a thing as Reason or is there not If there is not then we are like the Beasts that perish uncapable of either Reward or Punishment because uncapable of Good and Evil. But if there is then it must be given us for some end and it must be fitted for the attainment of that for which it is given You have granted in your Definition of Reason that it is a Faculty of the Soul by which we endeavour to find out the Truth Is Truth then attainable or is it not If it is not then your Definition is worth nothing If it is then Reason is not only the instrument by which we find it but also the judge of that Truth which we find Not that I pretend that Truth is not greater than our Reason and that Reason penetrates the whole extent of the Truth which it contemplates But I maintain that as the object falls under the scrutiny of Reason it must judge of it and what it affirms or denies concerning it is true I know that Men have not the same strength of Apprehension That which seems a demonstration to me will be justly call'd an impertinence by another But I say that it is the touchstone of all that is propos'd to us and that nothing can be laid before us as Truth in which we are concern'd but Reason must inquire into and judge of it Orthod But what is all this but what has been said a thousand times and what you have offer'd to me already Does this resolve at all the difficulty propos'd It were easy to me to shew you that the Reason of this age is not better than that of the Greeks and the Romans That 't is not to Books or Experiments but to Religion that you owe the improvement of your Reason and that the best Christians ever made the best Philosophers But granting all that you can pretend from that which you call close Reasoning what is it to the purpose Admitting that you conclude right in all those things which are within the reach of Reason which is not only disputable but even false is it not altogether Deficient in what is above it Foolish and rash assertion that because Reason knows some things therefore it must know all things And that because it can grapple with natural therefore it may with super-natural Objects These three things Men are guided by SENSE REASON FAITH We believe first our Senses We see hear smell taste touch from these we receive the first impressions But because they are fallible imposing and like to make us draw false consequences Reason comes to help us It rectifies the mistakes of sense The larger operations of the Soul embrace Principles of a greater extent and with an
Form and Matter and indeed of all the Phaenomena's of Nature concerning which Authors have given us some good and solid Reasons others nothing but fansies and dreams This is the great weakness of Socinianism The Gentlemen of that perswasion reject a most important Truth in which all Christians but themselves agree because they cannot understand the manner of it We cannot tell say they how it is therefore it is not And they pretend to argue strongly when they affirm that there are divisions and subdivisions amongst us about it Whereas there is really none but in the explication our assent to the truth of the thing being firm and unmoveable We said something of this Nature the other Day but you have taken no notice of it Socin This sine Discourse is all a grand mistake We do not reject the Trinity because we understand it not but because we understand it We let the HOW or manner alone 'T is the thing it self which we exclaim against You worship you know not what Did you give your selves leisure to think and not thwart the very first impressions of a Rational Soul this very grand contradiction would stare you in the Face Three that are but one What need is there here of Reasoning Three Persons every one God and all but one God! May not I tell you what Tertullian says in another case Advoco te O Anima naturaliter philosophantem non qualis erudita es in Philosophorum Scholis c. I appeal to thee O Soul not such as thou hast been taught in the Schools of Philosophers but with those impressions which Nature has given thee Are one and one and one Three or is it but one Orthod Your citing of Tertullian puts me in mind of a passage of Boëtius brought in by the Bishop of Worcester in his vindication of this very doctrine pag. 65. The Catholick Doctrine of the Trinity is this says Boëtius the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God but they are not Three Gods but one God And yet the Bishop pleasantly observes that the Socinians may wonder at it this very Man having written a Learned Book of Arithmetick And so for all this eloquent exclamation of Tertullian that Father was a Zealous assertor of the Trinity that is of one and one and one not being three but one So were a World of Learned Men in those days who though cultivated by a Philosophical institution had not yet for all that taken their leave of the first impressions of Nature But to come to the point If the difference between us were of numbers or of any created substance I would cry out contradiction as loud as your self I would call the first Man that I see in the street and pray him only to tell But this is quite of another Nature It has no foundation on any thing that we know The question is of the Nature of God between whom and us there is an infinite disproportion We cannot Reason of him from any thing which we find in our selves or in our fellow Creatures God is so far above our small and weak perceptions that except he is pleas'd to acquaint us himself what he is We must remain in our ignorance If God then tells us that he is one and Three If what we say of him is that which he has said of himself Must we presume to talk or so much as to imagine any contradiction in it Socin I admire your prudence but I cannot commend your sincerity You are sensible on what rocks they split who pretended to prove the Trinity not contrary to Reason I think that the B. of G. Dr. S. Mr. H. and others have sufficiently smarted for it I will engage for them that they will return no more to such kind of ratiocinations You take another way and resolve all into God's Authority I grant that what God says must be true Nothing is true but according to that conformity which it has to the mind of God But God has said no such thing of himself that he is one and Three Trinus unus I deny that he has Orthod King Agrippa believ'st thou the Prophets May not I ask you do you believe the Scriptures It is in that Sacred Book that God speaks to us It is there that he asserts it Socin I believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God and as we have said in the brief Notes on the Athanasian Creed a Divine an infallible and compleat rule both of Faith and manners But I deny that there is any such thing in the Scripture Orthod I am glad to hear you speak so justly and so reverently of the Sacred Writings which part will you have me to prove The Unity of the Godhead or the Trinity of Persons in that one Divine Nature Socin You may spare your trouble in proving the first We are the great Assertors of it It is from thence that we take the name of Vnitarians Though you are obstinately bent to call us Socinians Orthod Your assuming that name is an invasion of the rights of all Christians Nay it is an affront to all the wise and sober part of Mankind You call your selves Vnitarians just as the Donatists in a poor little corner of Africa call'd themselves the Catholick Church Will you then have me to prove that in the Scripture the Father is call'd God the Son God and the Holy Spirit God Socin You may spare your self that trouble too I know all the places that you can alledge You have repeated them a hundred and a hundred times If you call this a proof any thing in the World may be a proof Orthod Pray let me lay them before you and let us fairly see what exceptions you have against them It is not Candid no it is not civil to tell an Adversary that you know all that he has to say to you Socin I may take the Liberty to be positive in that particular I have an answer ready which I am sure you cannot take ill I am sensible that you will produce several Texts but as it has been urg'd again and again by us and in particular against Mr. Luzancy in the Answer to his four Letters pag. 42. They are Texts clogg'd with abundance of uncertainties 'T is deny'd with great vehemence by the ablest Criticks of the Trinitarian Perswasion that some of these Texts were originally so read as they are now Publish'd in our common Bibles Nay some of them were not read at all in any Bible till five or six hundred years after the Decease of the Apostles and other Sacred Penmen But whether anciently read or thus read yea or no there is none of them but is more fairly capable of a sence consistent with the Vnity of God as 't is taught by the Vnitarians and Nominals and is actually so interpreted by divers of the most allow'd and celebrated Interpreters of the Church Who sees not here that to introduce and believe Monstrosities on
it I confess that when that which is propos'd is obscure intricate and capable of several sences the conclusions may be different and I cannot without injustice deny that you should examine the consistency or contradiction of my deductions But I maintain that most of the propositions by which our Holy Faith is establish'd are of such plainness that no equitable Man can fix any other sence upon them than what they offer themselves That I may not give you any occasion of mistaking me for your Friends are admirable at this and if they can but lay hold on it they presently expatiate and lose the question I mean no more than as to the existence of the Revelation that is that there is such a thing reveal'd though not as to the manner of the thing the HOW it is in it self Not to multiply instances take the places already cited Rom. 9.5 Whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the Flesh CHRIST came who is over all God blessed for ever What is that which the proposition offers That CHRIST is a Man descended from the Fathers and that he is God over all God blessed for ever It is a plain and as plain a proposition as can be But when I go further and say Then there are two Natures in Christ Jesus for as a Man he cannot be God and as God he cannot be Man He is Man because concerning the Flesh he came from the Father He is God because the Apostle says he is over all God blessed for ever I confess that this is an Inference but it is an inference which results so plainly and so fully from the Nature of the proposition that it is as clear and as undeniable as the proposition it self Again Phil. 2.6 Who being in the Form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God There is a plain proposition that CHRIST is equal with God and the inference is of the same nature and clearness as the proposition Therefore he must be God For none but God can be equal with God 1 Cor. 2.10 The Spirit searches all things even the deep things of God The Spirit knows all that God is his Nature his Perfections even those depths unfathomable to any created Being You will not quarrel with the proposition and can you quarrel with the inference which in effect is the same with the proposition and that is that he is God since none but God perfectly knows himself Pray what inference is there in Act. 5.3 4. when Peter in his Apostolical Zeal asks Ananias why Satan has fill'd his Heart to lye to the Holy Ghost Thou hast not ly'd unto Men but unto God If the Holy Ghost is not God how could he lye unto God You see the inference is drawn by St. Peter himself and lies in the very Heart of the Proposition How unreasonable is this noise about inferences will appear if you take notice of the beginning of St. John's Gospel Is Verse the 14th an Inference The Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his Glory the Glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father full of Grace and Truth Are the 1 2 3. Verses an Inference The Word was with God The Word was God The same was in the beginning with God All things were made by Him and without Him there was not any thing made that was made Is Joh. 20.28 an Inference And Thomas answer'd and said unto him my Lord and my God! Let us deal candidly if you call the Incarnation and the Union of the two Natures in CHRIST JESVS an Inference Is it not the plainest result of the plainest Propositions that ever were in the World Socin You are launch'd into a vast Sea of Discourse Orthod Oblige me so far as to suffer me to insist somewhat longer on this and I will repay your Patience with a serious attention to what you have to say to it Read 1 Joh. 5.7 There are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these Three are One. When we talk of a Trinity of Persons consistent with the Unity of the Divine Nature is it an Inference or is it not Is not the Trinity of Persons and the Unity of the God head clearly express'd in the Proposition You have made such a wonder at the word Trinity and been so rude as to call Trinity in Unity Jargon Contradiction Nonsence How can you reconcile all this with this noble Passage Is not this a Trinity in Unity not by way of Inference but by a full and plain Assertion But why should I be so earnest to prove this against the Socinians when they themselves cannot deny it For if our Doctrine consists in nothing but inferences and conclusions which we draw as we please What has made them so earnest to dispute these very texts and with poor and little Criticisms to endeavour to elude their force If these Texts had not star'd them in the face with an incontestable evidence what should make them so indefatigable in granting and denying adding Comma's changing or putting in particles as if Truth wanted such mean helps It short there are two sorts of inferences the one near and immediate such as I have given you some instances of which naturally flow from the thing propos'd and are of equal clearness with it The other remote and not appearing so easily at first but wanting the help of further inquiries and deductions Concerning the first I may challenge your Reason of error I may safely and truly say you offer violence to Reason I may appeal to all Mankind in the case But for the other I must not so freely affirm it nor say that my Reason is more infallible than yours When I am oblig'd to run through a long course of deductions I may mistake as much as you do The Church never pretended to any inferences but of the first kind If the Scripture proposes a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead If it represents these Persons incommunicably distinct from one another Their Consubstantiality Coequality Coeternity is a natural and a necessary consequence If it teaches me that CHRIST is God and Man the Union of the two Natures in one adorable Person is an inference of the same sort If there is a Father from ever and a Son from ever and if a Spirit proceeds from ever Eternal Generation and Eternal Procession are necessary deductions from those great truths and in a manner the same with the truths themselves I tell you once more you must either admit our doctrine or reject the Holy Scriptures Socin I confess that what you have said is well put together and has a very good face But still I am far from being satisfy'd There is nothing can make me believe a contradiction Let it be found in Sacred or humane Writings it is still a contradiction A contradiction is that to which all the World cannot reconcile me You say Revelation and a
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
above our Reason That we ought to rely upon the Divine Revelation and not pretend to give an account of things Incomprehensible This you have thought to be an evasion of all your pretended contradictions you have derided it and call'd it a Trinity of the Mob of ignorant and lazy Doctors Whereas if you weigh the Principles laid before you it will appear very firm and solid For to state contradictions in an object Reveal'd when that object is above all our Perceptions when all that we know is that it is and that too because it is Reveal'd but are altogether ignorant what it is Reason then soars above its nature and what you call contradictions are only the stumblings of Reason which striving to climb up an inaccessible rock is shamefully flung on its back and overthrown Socin But then you make Faith the obscurest thing in the World and what advantage is it to us if our darkness is remov'd by a greater even a darkness that may be felt If what you say is true I know little by the help of Reason and much less by that of Revelation Orthod I make Faith what God has made it The things which he proposes exist and are certain He is pleas'd to cast a veil over them and we ought not to presume to take it off It is he that has made us and not we our selves and in vain we strive to start out of the limits to which he has confin'd us Nor is the homage and submission of our understandings consistent with clear Perceptions of things It would no more be Faith but Knowledge We should not be in via as the Fathers speak in the way which leads to Heaven which is a state of obscurity labour humility and the fear of God But in Patria in Heaven it self a place of intuition tranquility glory and perfect love But let me tell you that Faith has that mighty advantage that if it is not the clearest evidence it is at least the greatest certainty in the World All our assurance in other things is humane The very Principles of Geometry are no more But Faith has a Divine Foundation and that is the Authority of God St. Chrysostom was so perswaded of the truth of this that Homil 21. in Epist ad Heb. he did not doubt to affirm that he had no Faith who believ'd not more firmly the things reveal'd than those which are daily the object of sense You know the Famous saying of St. Ambrose de sacram l. 1. cap. 5. Tolle argumenta ubi Fides quaeritur Away with all your Reasons where Faith is the question Socin If you get amongst the Fathers we shall have a Sea of Authorities which you know we have no very great esteem for I wish you would lay them all aside But if you will not what think you of Lactantius who Instit l. 2. cap. 7. speaks thus Oportet in ea re maxime c. Every Man is oblig'd particularly in that wherein his own being is concern'd to trust to himself and it is much better to endeavour with the best judgment and sense that we can to find out the truth than to suffer our selves to be deceiv'd by other People's errors as if we were wholly Strangers to Reason God having given all Men such a share of Wisdom as to be able to search into those things which are unknown to us and to examine those that are not The same Principle Minutius Foelix makes use of against Caecilius And this is the very Argument of Theodoret in his first Discourse de curand graec affect It may be said of Lactantius his assertion that nothing can be truer and better It does justice to God who is the Author and Giver of every good and perfect gift and to Man by owning his great and distinguishing Privilege You have spoke of Faith very well and accurately But for all that do you know what it is to blaspheme Reason It is to wound Mankind in the most sensible part and to put us out of a capacity of ever acting like Men. Reason is a light which comes down from the Father of lights As the natural light discovers it self and all other objects so Reason the light of the Soul discovers its native excellency and is the tryal of all other things It s eagerness in the pursuit of Truth is a proof that it is made for it and capable of it It looks much like Priest-craft to desire me to shut my Eyes and trust my self to another guide whilst I can see my way as perfectly as any other I had once a great respect for St. Austin but I have lost it since I read a passage of his wherein he strangely abuses humane nature It is lib. 2. c. 15. de serm dom in monte Hominis anima rationalis lumine veritatis vel tenuiter pro sui capacitate illustratur ut verum aliquid in ratiacinando sentiat The rational Soul of Man receives as â—â—ding to its capacity small illustrations and glances of light that by Reasoning it may feel something of Truth Thus the Doctors of the Church run down Reason and perceive not that they run down Mankind at the same time Orthod You are in the right to lay the Fathers aside for they are all against you I should be glad to be rid of a witness who I am sure will swear home against me The Author of Christianity not Mysterious has invalidated their evidence to some purpose He will not allow above five or six to have been Men of sence and to shew how contemptible they are he flatters himself that some ages hence he will be look'd on as a Father I hope he is no Prophet and does not see so much extravagance in the succeeding times Lactantius every way an admirable Author argues against Idolatry He says very well that no Religion is to be taken upon trust and that in so great a concern every one ought to judge for himself Idolatry is so unreasonable a thing that whosoever admits it must be a stranger to Reason God having given every Man such a measure of Wisdom as to reject that which is so openly bad and look for somewhat better But he never pretended that amongst Christians who so unanimously submit to the Revelation which God has made of himself in the Holy Scriptures Man was to dispute against God and Reason to struggle with Faith Read the first Chapter of the first and the greatest part of the third Book and you will see that from the contradictions of Philosophers he proves Reason to be insufficient to find out the truth and that it is only to be met with in that Religion where it is divinely Reveal'd Minutius Foelix argues after the same manner Caecilius pleaded a Tradition of Idolatry in which he thought himself secure Minutius answers that he ought to appeal to his own Reason which will evidently shew him the folly and impiety of Polytheism And all that Theodoret insists on is that the
unlearned part of the World is as capable of this as the learned Nay much more For besides the plainness of the Revelation their perceptions in what they understand are more direct and not clogg'd with subtilties as ours are They have I am afraid a more sincere respect for the Divine Revelation than we Take an honest Country-Man and ask him who is he that is blessed over all for ever He will answer immediately GOD. Shew him in the Scripture that this is said of Christ He will immediately conclude that Christ is GOD. Object to him that if Christ is God and the Father God then there are two Gods He will immediately reply No They are but one For God is but ONE You may puzle him with your Ratiocinations He may be at a stand and hear you cry till you are hoarse that two cannot be one and that he does his Reason an injury He will tell you that it is so indeed when he takes an account of his sheep and horses but in what concerns his Religion his Bible in his Reason It says so and he believes it The Learned will not wrangle to the end of the World except by the Learned you mean only the Socinians I am sure and you cannot but be so too that for many Ages and now in this very Age the Learned of all Societies agree in this And though the Socinians are infinitely fond of their objections against our Mysteries yet I despair not to see them come over to the Faith They are Rational and at one time or other will be equitable Men. But now let us see the Province of Reason when it is satisfy'd that such or such a truth is reveal'd Socin I know what you are going to say and it is this That Reason having once satisfy'd it self of the certainty of the Revelation it has no more to do but its duty is to submit to what God has reveal'd Let a proposition contain never such a gross or palpable contradiction it must be swallow'd contentedly But in good truth can this be done If this is Faith and believing who can believe Orthod God can reveal neither contradiction nor error There is a great difference between understanding the truth of a proposition and the Nature of the thing propos'd God was manifest in the Flesh and the Word was made Flesh are propositions so vastly plain that no other sence can be made of them but this God has appear'd in our Nature There is no error no contradiction in this In a word we understand it But the Nature of the thing propos'd is so unknown to us and so much above us that it is rash and bold for us to inquire into it or imagine error or contradiction in it I say then that the Truth once propos'd we ought to acquiesce in it That Reason is to be silent and give no way to further inquiries Socin But can Reason be silent when you impose on me the belief of that of which I have no kind of Notion Orthod If by Notion you mean an insight into the thing Reveal'd you are unjust We have discours'd already that the Nature of Faith is to be obscure or else it is no Faith This can be no difficulty at all It is enough for us that we understand that God has propos'd such a thing though we understand not at all the thing propos'd I cannot apprehend how God assumes our Nature and is manifest in the Flesh But I apprehend that God tells it me in clear and express terms and therefore I believe and think not my poor ignorant Brain a competent Judge of God's Veracity Socin But pray hold a little Will you be satisfy'd of the deficiency of your method if I shew you that after you have attain'd the certainty of the Revelation you must believe propositions which are inconsistent with and destroy one another You believe God to be one and yet Father Son and Holy Spirit to be every one God Does not the first proposition destroy the second and the second the first How can he be one and three three and one Orthod This is still begging of the question God can propose nothing Contradictory or Inconsistent I confess I cannot understand how this is but it is reveal'd therefore certainly true and on that account I believe it Socin You believe that Christ is God and Man Infinite and Finite Immortal and Mortal The Supreme most High God and yet suffering and Dying He is God and he is sent He is God and yet prays to God He is God over all and yet subject to him who put all things under him If this is not inconsistent I do not know what inconsistency is Orthod If Plato Aristotle or any of the Sons of Men should tell me this I would speak as you do But God is true and he says all this I adore the Divine Oeconomy though I understand it not To be God and Man is no Contradiction The Scripture represents Christ as God blessed over all for ever It represents him also as a Man Nothing can be more express than the declarations of his Divinity Nothing more clear than those of his Humanity Which part of the Revelation shall Reason overthrow Convinc'd by the proofs of his Humanity you will say that he is no God Another convinc'd by the proofs of his Divinity will deny that he is a Man Thus Reason more inconsistent with it self than you fansie Revelation to be will reject every part and destroy the whole Socin No. Reason will reconcile all and by an easy explication will make him an inferior or a deputed God and also the greatest of Men. Orthod A Socinian Explication But the misery is that our Texts are not capable of any God Blessed over all for ever The word was with God The word was God and twenty more such places admit of no explication A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief in the Form of a Servant humbling himself to the Death of the Cross becoming Sin for us and dying for Sinners contradicts all your explications Away with this obstinacy which really debases Reason Take the Revelation as a Rational Man as it lies in all its parts as it comes from God who in the fullness of time has sent his Eternal Son to assume our Nature and become a Sacrifice for us Socin But you can never perswade me that Reason has not as much right to examine the truth of the thing propos'd as the proposition it self and to reject it if it is not agreeable to its Principles Orthod But you can never prove that Reason is capable of examining that which is above Reason and such are things reveal'd Their truth indeed depend from the conformity which they have with the Supreme Reason which is God But in respect to us their Truth consists not in their agreeableness to yours or my Reason But wholly in the Authority of the Revelation They are true because they are reveal'd Socin But is not my