A DISCOURSE Concerning the Nominal and Real Trinitarians Non Partûm Studiis agimur sed sumsimus arma Consiliis inimica tuis Discordia vecors Printed in the Year 1695. Of the Nominal and Real TRINITARIANS The Distinction of Trinitarians into Nominals and Realists and the Design of these Sheets IT will easily appear to all that have seen the late Prints between the Trinitarians and Unitarians That the Questions controverted between us are managed here on another Foot as they speak in another Method and by different Arguments than in Foreign parts or by the Latin Writers Among other remarks that we have made and urged the English Vnitarians show That their Opposers do indeed all go under the common name of Trinitarians but are in truth a great many several and contrary Sects They all cast up their Caps and cry Trinity Trinity But the Ideas they have of the Trinity and consequently their Faiths concerning this pretended Mystery are so many and so contrary that they are less one Party among themselves than the far more Learned and far greater Number of them I mean hereby the Nominal Trinitarians are one Party with Us. As much as the Socinians are clamour'd on for abominable intolerable Hereticks there is nothing more certain than that the Nominal Trinitarians who are truly and properly the Church and who are by much the Majority of Christians are altogether in the same Sentiments concerning Almighty GOD and the Person of our Saviour that we are This is one of the Points that I shall insist on and evince in these Sheets but I shall argue divers other Matters these two especially That the several Sects of Real Trinitarians are guilty of a manifest Tritheism their Doctrine necessarily and immediately infers three Gods and that the Nominal Trinitarians have causlesly innovated the Language of the Holy Scripture and of the Primitive Church concerning GOD and the Person of the Lord Christ I said in the Language of Scripture and of the antient Church for they have retained the Primitive and true Doctrine only they have not kept to the Form of sound Words I will speak first of our Brethren the Nominal Trinitarians then of the Tritheistick Tribes or Realists Of the Nominal Trinitarians that these are the Church THE first observation to be made on the Nominals is that these are the Church which I prove by two incontestable Arguments 1. Their Doctrine has been espoused by a General Council The Council assembled at the Lateran in the Year 1215 established in the most ample manner and most express Terms the Doctrine of the School-Divines or Nominal Trinitarians and condemns in the Person and Writings of Abbat Joachim the Doctrine of the Real Trinitarians as Heretical and Mad I use the very words of the 2d Canon of that Council To this Argument I must note two things First This Council was more truly General than almost any of the Councils that are so called Here were present 1200 Fathers the Ambassadours of the Emperour of Constantinople the King of the Romans the Kings of France England Arragon Hungary Jerusalem Cyprus and divers others Here also were the five Patriarchs partly in Person partly by their Legats the Roman Constantinopolitan he of Jerusalem the Antiochian and Alexandrian whose Presence by themselves or their Legats is supposed necessary towards constituting an Oecumenical or General Council Secondly Divines and Canonists do not give the name of Heresy to any Doctrine because 't is rejected by a great number of Learned Men or by a National Council but they reckon it Heresy if it has been censur'd by a General Council which represents the Vniversal Church Be the mistake never so great let it have been condemned by never so many Writers whether Fathers or Moderns or both 't is only Error 't is not Heresy unless it has been Anathematiz'd by the Catholick or Universal Church and the Catholick Church is never understood to speak but by a General Council which for that reason is called the Church Representative Briefly Heresy and the Faith can be declared but only by a General Council the General Council at the Lateran in Rome has avowed the Doctrine of the Nominal Trinitarians and Anathematiz'd the Hypothesis and Explication of the Real Trinitarians therefore say I the former are the Church the latter are Hereticks I am amazed when I hear some Real Trinitarians say in their Books That the Doctrine of the Nominals never had any other publick Authority but the Creed and 2d Canon of the Council of Lateran for what other equal Authority thereto can it have is not a General Council the highest Court of the Church Her Canons declare the Faith her Anathemas Heresy And what other Council ever was so General as this in which were assembled the Emperour and Kings of the East and West the Latin and Greek Churches 1200 Fathers and what especially makes a General Council the five Patriarchs of Christendom What will the Realists say here that this was a Popish Council First it would be News indeed that the Roman Catholicks are not Orthodox in the Questions concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation It has ever been granted to them both by the Lutherans Calvinists and Church of England that they are sound in Fundamentals in the Doctrines of the Trinity the Incarnation the Satisfaction and such like their Error consists in the Additions they have made to the Fundamentals and namely by their Doctrines of Indulgences Transubstantiation Worship and Invocation of Images and Saints and the rest And is the Greek Church also Heretical in the Doctrine of the Trinity for in this Council the Greek Emperour and Church were represented as well as the Latin Church nay of the five Patriarchs here present four of them belong to the Orient or Greek Church When the Realists have turned themselves all ways they will find themselves held and even bound by the Authority of this Council which is too Great and Venerable to be openly or directly disclaimed 'T is objected to this Council by Mr. Spanheim the present Learned Professor at Leyden that they assented to and published 70 Canons in 20 days Time and that the Canons were not framed by the Fathers but by the Pope These are frivolous Exceptions unworthy of so Learned an Historian for 't is not at all to the purpose who contrived these Canons seeing they were approved assented to and published by the Council Canons are oft-times composed by some particular Father in a Council sometimes by a Committee of the Council sometimes as in the present Case by the President but by whomsoever they are drawn up they are not the Canons of that Person or Persons but of the Council when the Council has examined approved and voted them But Mr. Spanheim doth not find Fault with this Council for their Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity or the Canons that refer to any part of that Article but because it was convened under pretence indeed to carry on
should maintain such an Opinion and after having made such Concessions to the Nominals and to the Unitarians as the Realists do They grant it to be certain and incontestable not only in Reason but in Holy Scripture that there is but one God but one Creator they allow this to be so true and evident that the Scripture ought never to be so interpreted as in any degree to contradict this first Article of all revealed Religion because to interpret Holy Scripture at any Time or in any part of it inconsistently with that Article were to make it contradict it self and that too where it speaks most plainly and expresly I say this Foundation being laid and agreed on all Hands I have often wondred at the pretence of the Realists for their Doctrine being a manifest Tritheism as explained by them in saying 'tis what the Holy Scriptures teach they say that the Sacred Scriptures contradict themselves They would have it understood as a great deference on their Parts towards the Holy Scriptures that they imbrace and profess the Doctrine therein contained though such Doctrine very flatly contradicts all Reason and common Sense and withal other parts of the same Scriptures but it were far more becoming such as they are to express their Reverence for the Scripture by interpreting it consistently with it self and with Reason as the Nominals and Unitarians do than to expose it to the contempt and unbelief of all others by such a Reverence of it as this Book needs not that is to say by pretending to believe it indeed but believe it as manifestly inconsistent with it self as well as with that Reason which God has infused into the Human Nature for a Guide and Judg in all either obscure or doubtful Matters It is the Church and the Unitarians that truly reverence the Scriptures by rescuing them from senseless and contradictory which is to say impossible Senses But supposing it were true that the meer Words of some few suspected or ambiguous Texts did seem very much to favour the Doctrine of the Realists yet seeing those Texts as interpreted by the Realists too plainly contradict evident Reason and the Nature of things why will not these Gentlemen see that in such a Clash as this We must interpret the Scripture consistently with Reason and the nature of things because words will bear to be somewhat strained much rather than things The nature of Things and the dictates of Reason are Eternal and Immutable they will not admit or bear the least Stretch Strain or Violence done to them but Words are of a very desultory and vagrant Meaning they are sometimes to be taken Literally or as they Sound sometimes in a metaphorical or figurative Sense sometimes in an Hyperbolical that is excessive nay sometimes in an Ironical which is to say contrary Sense which being the Case of all Books and Writings whatsoever there can never be a real Necessity of so interpreting the Scripture that it should contradict the known Nature of things plain Reason or it self Whereas some say here and are willing always to repeat it that the current of Scripture is so much and so clearly for such a Trinity as the Realists profess that it would be manifest Violence done to the Divine Word to interpret it as the Socinians do I answer Cedò locum name me the Text or Context alledged for the Doctrine of the Trinity that is not interpreted by some of the most Learned Criticks and Interpreters of the Trinitarian Party in the same manner as 't is understood by the Unitarians Why do they pretend that they are constrained and by the clearness and the current of Scripture to profess a Trinity of Divine subsisting Persons when all Learned Men know that the Texts they have to alledg are so far from being the current of Scripture that they are few in Number and also of very suspected Authority that is they are justly doubted of whether they are genuine original Parts of Scripture or have been added to it and so far from being clear that they are extreamly Ambiguous and accordingly not only some but even the generality of Trinitarian Criticks interpret most of them as we do and not only most of them but the Principal of them more particularly the objected Texts that seem to impute the Creation of Things to our Saviour As I said but now Cedò locum I demand that Text or Context which I will not show is interpreted by the most sufficient of their own Party as we take it but if so as 't is not the first Time this Challenge has been made to them why do they so untruly pretend that they are carried away by the Current of Scripture and by the clearness of it both on their sides May they call a few single Texts or rather shreds of Texts the Current of Scripture or talk of the clearness of their Texts when they cannot alledg so much as one but is interpreted to an Unitarian Sense by some of their own best Writers on the Scriptures and of Controversy With how much more Reason and Sincerity may the Unitarians claim the current of Scripture and that 't is clear also on their Side For there is not a Page there but speaks of God in the singular Number there God is never called Persons but Person he is always spoken of and to by singular Pronouns such as I Thou Thee He Him Me which are never used in any Language but only of one single Person never of three subsisting Persons When the Realists say the Scriptures are clear of their side they mean it chiefly of those Texts wherein Christ is called God and of those in which the Creation of the World and of all things is or seems to be attributed to him But how often is the name God given in Holy Scripture to those that either represent God as Kings and Magistrates or that are like to him in some very distinguishing Respect or in whom he dwells after a peculiar manner as Prophets and Heroical Persons is not Moses for one Instance on all these accounts called God and by God himself And is it a Marvel then that the Mediator also of the New Testament as well as he of the Old is dignified with this Name And yet as I have said elsewhere I am well assured that the Realists will never prove against the Author of the Brief History of the Socinians that the name God is really given to the Lord Christ in any Text that is a genuine Part of Scripture that is to say that hath not been corrupted by the Zeal of Catholicks to make it more conformable to their Sentiments As to the Texts that impute the Creation of things to the Son that is to the Lord Christ do not all Learned Men know that the best of the Trinitarian Interpreters some of the zealousest Men of the Party understand all those Texts of the New Creation that is of the Renovation of things on Earth by the Ministry of
Christ and in Heaven by his Exaltation above the Angels And secondly That neither is there any need of this for those Texts may be thus translated all things were made for him and without regard to him was nothing made that was made Were made for him that is to say they were originally made by God for the Messiah namely to subject them in fulness of Time to him and to his Law Which is the Interpretation of St. John Chrysostom a most Learned Trinitarian in the Opus Imperfectum on St. Matthew In short I would not have it said that the current of Scripture is much less is clearly on their side who contend for a Trinity of Divine subsisting Persons because 't is so well known that this senseless extravagant boast of some small Writers of Controversy is the Jest and Sport of their own Criticks and Interpreters of Note who have far more scorn for such Sciolists than they have Enmity to the Socinians Of the Unitarians their Agreement with the Church THE Unitarians called also Socinians are a Sect or Party or Denomination of Christians who have indeavoured to perfect that Reformation that was so happily begun by Dr. M. Luther Mr. J. Calvin and here in England by Archbishop Cranmer Dr. Luther subverted the Infallibility and Supremacy of the Pope the Worship and Invocation of Angels and Saints the superstitious monastick Vows the Merchandize of Indulgencies by which poor Sinners had been long cozen'd into a Belief that they could buy the Pardon of their Sins from the Pope and his Factors and this not only without Restitution Amendment or Repentance but without Confession for that also was sometimes a Clause in their Bulls of Indulgence that the Purchaser should be absolved of all his Sins whether Confessed or not Confessed The forms of Indulgences were so ample that is so General and Comprehensive that Men of any Wealth never cared what Sins they were guilty of because they knew they could at any time whether Dead or Alive purchase their Pardon if they had neglected it in their Life Time 't was but leaving so much Money by Will for Masses and Indulgences and they were sure all should be forgiven The Story of the French Gentleman is well known who being admonished by his Friend of his horrible Cursing and Blaspheming answered Man there is no fear cannot I buy my Pardon of the Friars Austins I would be forgiven for an Ounce of Gold though I had ravish'd the Mother of God and cut off both her Breasts This was the state of Things when Dr. Luther appeared and opposed himself so successfully to these Corruptions as I said he intirely ruin'd the Market of Indulgences Monastick Vows Invocation of Saints and Angels the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Chair of Rome Mr. J. Calvin besides that he greatly strengthned and confirmed what Dr. Luther had begun by his extraordinary Erudition fine Wit and indefatigable Diligence in all which Mr. Calvin excelled the very greatest of the first Reformers he carried the Reformation somewhat farther than Luther had done He took away the use of Images which can serve only for a snare to the Weak and for an Avocation and Amusement to the Discerning His Doctrine concerning the Sacraments has fewer Follies than not only that of Rome but than Luthers he rejected the Consubstantiation as well as the Transubstantiation and was not imposed on by the Doctrine of Ubiquity I need say nothing of Arch-bishop Cranmer because his Reformation is known to every Englishman his Doctrine and Discipline being expressed in the 39 Articles the Books of Homilies of Canons and the Common-Prayer All Protestants have a great Reverence for these famous and excellent Men even those of us who think that their Reformation is yet very incompleat I may add that as much as these Reformers are detested by the Papists the very Papists all Orders of them from the highest to the lowest from the Pope to the Begging and discalceate Friar are greatly in their Debt For now they have Learned Priests Holy Popes and the Kings and States of the Roman Communion are no longer the Slaves of the Pope all which was otherways when there were no Protestants of whom the Pope and Conclave and the rest of their Hierarchy might stand in some awe The Popes consider now that they must act Soberly live Exemplarily and inspect the Conduct and Sufficiency of the Clergy else the Princes and People now in their Communion will desert to the Protestants It was Dr. Luther as odious as his Name among them is who took off the Yoke and filed the Chains from the Necks and Hands of Emperours of Kings and Nations From laying prostrate under the Feet of the Pope from holding his Bridle and his Stirrup from expecting after their Election by the Princes of the Empire till the Pope should please to crown them and thereby give them the Name and Power of Emperours from Trembling every time that a crouching Friar was turned into a boisterous Pope I say from this miserable Vassalage the German Emperors and other Catholick Kings and States are delivered and care now just so much and no more for his Holiness's Love or Anger as the Example of his Life or the actual Assistance he can lend to 'em shall merit Since Luther the Clergy also of the Roman Communion are Learned and exemplary Men in their own Defence and for their own Security they must be so And they dare now withstand any new Incroachments on their Privileges or their Revenues by the Court of Rome Nay they have retrieved in some Degree their antient Rights and Authority for Rome dreads and ever will dread another Luther in case she should unjustly or rashly either oppress or offend the inferior Clergy Those of the Lay-Communion of that Church are now led with a Pastoral-Staff not hared with the Church's Thunder Excommunications and deliverings up to Satan They are sent of no more Errands to Syria and Asia in pretence to rescue the Holy Sepulchre in Deed to inlarge the Papal Bounds and Authority They are fed now with much sounder Doctrine and led by a better Example For now the necessity of Repentance and Amendment are taught Indulgences are now owned to be only Prudential and Charitable relaxations of Penance Images are now used only as Memorials of departed Saints and Incentives to imitate their Example the Sacrifice of the Mass is now only a commemorative Sacrifice which even Protestants believe it to be the Virgin Mary and the Saints are prayed to only to pray with us and for us and the like abatement is made in other Articles And whereas with reference to the Example of their Priests it has been a Proverb in some Places He that will give his Child to the Devil let him make him a Priest now and for almost two Ages last past their danger from the Protestants as was said before has reformed their Manners These are the Services done by the first Reformers as well