pardonable Origen and other Ante-Nicenes make out the Unity of God in a Ternary of Persons though they did not believe the Equality Says the Author of the Answer to Dr. Bull pag. 22. unjust in this to Origen and the rest I have some Remarks on that Answer which I design to make publick What the Author has said concerning the Epistle of St. Barnabas and those of the Holy Martyr Ignatius is far from invalidating their Authority We must have more than suspicions and bare denials to illegitimate a Book They are certainly works of great Antiquity and acknowledg'd to be such by the succeeding Ages But what must we say of a Person of his great erudition who pretending to answer a Book full of all the Testimonies which those early times could afford quarrels only with two or three Authors against whom he says nothing substantial and is wholly silent to Justin Martyr St. Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Tatianus Miltiades Melito Dionysius of Alexandria Tertullian Lactantius c. Is it enough to confute the Ante-Nicene Fathers to say as this Author pag. 7. That all their Glory is wholly due to the vanity of Modern Learned Men who quote these Books not because they value them but because being ancient monuments known to few and understood by fewer he seems to be a great Learned Man who can drop sentences out of these antique Books But this is mild and obliging if compar'd with pag. 63. Where this Author having said that Trinitarianism is not so much a Religion as the Law of the Byzantine or Constantinopolitan Emperours stiles the then Doctors of the Church THE PARASITES OF THESE TIMES whom now in regard of their antiquity we call Fathers You are not insensible how this might be taken up and expos'd If Hosius Spiridio Paphnutius If the Gregories the Basils the Cyrils the Theodorets the Chrysostoms the Hieroms the Hilaries the Ambroses the Austins were the Parasites of their times where shall we find any Vertue Piety or Learning in this World But I am willing to over-look those excesses and tell you that it is a folly to wrangle with this or that passage sometimes to inveigh against Platonicism and sometimes to complain that those Writings are lost which might have inform'd us better To be plain we have enough left and from what remains of the times before the Council of Nice it appears that the Vnity of God and the belief of a Trinity of Persons in that one God Father Son and Holy Spirit was the belief of the Christian Church The Arrians indeed might challenge some of the then Fathers who spoke more obscurely and were easier Misinterpreted But Socinianism has not the least pretence to any He must have forfeited all modesty who asserts it Socin But what have you to say to the Apostolical Creed Is it not an evidence beyond all other evidences Orthod Of what Socin Of the Vnity of the Great God Orthod And so are all our Creeds from the first to the last Socin But it is an Evidence against your Trinity Orthod Against that Trinity which you have falsly imputed to us and that is A Trinity of Gods But not against a Trinity of Persons in one God What is the first assertion of that Creed I believe in One God For you affirm that it was anciently thus read Ans to Doctor Bull pag. 16. What is the second but an Explication of the first This One God is the Father Almighty His only begotten Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit Three Persons in One God Socin This is so dragg'd in so strain'd so unnatural that to any unprejudic'd Person it will visibly appear not to be the Doctrine design'd to be taught in the Creed Orthod I am apt to think that I can substantially prove that it is I believe the Creed to be truly Apostolical notwithstanding what some learned Men have said against it Not because it was made by the Apostles themselves though nothing appears to the contrary but by reason of its great Antiquity Now when you and I dispute about the sence and design of that Creed we have but one way to take and that is First to see what the Scripture teaches concerning its Articles which indeed are no more than an Epitome or Collection of the Principal Truths deliver'd by Christ and his Apostles Secondly To examine the Doctrine of the Fathers who liv'd before the Church thought it fit and necessary to make a larger Explanation of the Faith Thirdly To satisfy our selves of the sence which the immediately following Councils gave to that Creed in their Decrees All this is Highly reasonable For if the Scripture which has taught so expresly God to be one has also expresly taught the Father to be God the Son God and the Holy Spirit God then it is plain that the sence of the Creed is such and no other The Authority of that Creed or of any Creed whatever is from the Scripture It cannot therefore be contrary to it and that excellent Rule must be brought to that Primitive Rule from whence it is deriv'd And alas has not this been prov'd to you so often and so fully that after a World of wrangling you have been driven from your new and unnatural Criticisms and forc'd to shelter your selves under the weak defence of your Philosophical disceptations But if this Creed has no other sence but that which you put upon it The Father only God The Son only Man and the Holy Spirit only an Energy or Operation How come the Fathers of that time so openly to contradict it I will not do again what has been so excellently done by the Learned Dr. Bull who has oblig'd the Christian Church with two Books which indeed you may speak or discourse against but can never substantially Answer Has he not undeniably prov'd out of their Writings that those Fathers believ'd the two Natures in Jesus Christ The Divine and the Human That they have asserted his Pre-existence and if his Pre-existence then his Eternity and if his Eternity then his Consubstantiality with the Father If the second part of the Creed is to be understood of Christ only Man How comes Irenaeus lib. 1. advers Haeres c. 2. in delivering the Belief of the Catholick Church or as he speaks of the Church all the World over to call him Our Lord Our God Our Saviour Our King to whom every Knee ought to bow c. How comes Tertullian who has deliver'd this very rule of Faith to talk as we do of the Blessed Trinity designedly and positively against Praxeas and say that he is warranted by the Apostle to speak of Christ as of him who is God blessed over all for ever If he believ'd the Holy Spirit to be only an Energy How comes he to stile him Tertium Numen Deitatis tertium Nomen Majestatis The Third Person of the Deity The Third Name of Majesty and Power Certainly Novatianus was acquainted with this Creed and yet Lib. de Trin.
c. 13. he tells you that the Scriptures deliver so Manifestly Christ to be God that several Hereticks Divinitatis ipsius magnitudine veritate commoti mov'd by the great sence and truth of his Divinity have confounded him with the Father But if we had no such proofs as these there is still one which according to your late Principles you cannot oppose I say your late Principles for you change every day Socin No! You do us wrong we are still the same Orthod I may at some time or other have an occasion to prove the defection of the Outlandish Socinians from Socinus of you from the Outlandish Socinians and of your selves from your selves in your first and latest Prints But let us not digress from the thing in dispute The proof which I speak of is the great Council of Nice Socin What That Council which has publish'd Establish'd and infected the World with its infidelity As the Answer to Dr. Bull judiciously observes pag. 25. Orthod That first Oecumenical Council which could not be ignorant both of the sense of the Apostolical Creed and of the Fathers whom they immediately succeeded A Council so venerable for its Antiquity so reverenc'd for the number of Holy and Learned Men who voted in it so highily honour'd by the following Ages to this day Did they know the Apostolical Creed or did they not If you say they did not you overthrow all that you can pretend from it A Creed can neither be Apostolical or Universal which the Nicene Fathers were not acquainted with And if they did then your sense of it is not that of these Primitive times For they are so far from interpreting as you do Jesus Christ to be only Man and the Holy Spirit to be only an Energy or operation that you know how positively how earnestly they assert them to be Consubstantial to the Father I may be mistaken but if this way of reasoning is not plain I don't know what can be plain Socin But what have we to do with the Council of Nice or indeed with any Council whatsoever We have innumerable objections against that and the following Councils Orthod I confess you speak as a Socinian of the first edition Thus Socinus and his first Disciples answer'd to those great Authorities Thus did your selves Write in your first Prints The World indeed star'd at you But however it had an air if not of reason at least of sincerity But a Socinian of the second edition runs another way I told you that you change every day Pray open the Discourse concerning the Real and Nominal Trinitarians Socin What then Orthod There you may sind your Condemnation in that particular out of your own mouth Pag. 4. The Author speaking of the Great Lateran Council observes that a doctrine is not Heresy because rejected by a great number of Learned Men or by a National Council But only when censur'd by a General Council The Catholick Church is never understood to speak but by a General Council pag. 5. Is not a General Council the Highest Court of the Church Her Canons declare the Faith her Anathema's Heresy And pag. 16. A General Council is the last Tribunal on earth from which there lies no appeal pag. 4. He call this an Incontestable Argument Now pray deal sincerely and apply this to the Nicene Council No body ever yet disputed its universality It was assembl'd under and by the first Christian Emperor It represented the whole Church The Creed then of that Council determin'd the sense of any preceeding Creed Whatever you can say to the contrary is insignificant because such a determination comes from the highest Tribunal on earth from which there lies no appeal Upon the whole the Church ever asserted a Trinity consistent with the Vnity of God and an Unity inseparable from a Trinity of Persons in one adorable and Divine Nature Where is then again the first part of your Distinction You charge us with teaching a Trinity which infers Three Gods We say this is false this is impossible not only from the Nature of the thing but also from an Authority which you dare not reject because you own your selves that it is the highest Tribunal on earth from which there can lie no appeal Socin This seems home indeed But yet not without exception For the Vnity asserted by the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers was only an Vnity of Monarchy An Vnity of love and agreement An Vnity of subordination and subjection to him who is the first God Such an Vnity as is that of the Individuals of the same Species This the Author of the Answer to Dr. Bull is positive in pag. 75. He charges the Fathers with this all over his Writing and the greatest part of it is spent in the confutation of such strange Hypotheses Orthod Pray learn to mistrust your Books For I may say without breaking the Cartel of honour and civility agreed upon amongst Writers as this Author speaks both Pleasantly and Elegantly pag. 77. that not one word of this is true and that such an account of the Vnity of God never came from the Church but owes its birth to the School of Arrius This Author though a Person of great erudition has suffer'd himself to be strangely mistaken as any one may who will take all the expressions illustrations resemblances us'd by the Fathers in treating of the Blessed Trinity for an exact account of their Doctrine For there is a great difference between speaking at large and endeavouring to give some kind of a Notion of a Mystery and writing dogmatically concerning it I have a plain reason which I humbly conceive is sufficient to overthrow all this And that is that the Fathers in explaining how the Three Persons are one God never confin'd themselves to the Terms of Numerical or specifick Vnity This last is meerly Notional and is no more than an act of the Mind comparing and abstracting from several Individuals It does not really exist The first though never so expressive still comes short of the incomprehensible dignity and simplicity of the Subject Socin What Vnity then did they assert Orthod An Vnity which no Nature but the Divine is capable of which transcends all expressions or imaginations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says the Council of Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Justin Martyr Hoc solum ex ea comprehendimus quod comprehendi non potest says St. Ambrose Thus speak Basil the Great Nazianzen Gregory Nyssen and the generality of the Fathers And yet this Author has spent 13 pages to tell us that they believ'd a specifick Vnity and Vnity of Monarchy and order an Vnity of love and agreement a Consubstantiality like that of several pieces of Gold and of a Star to another Star As if these trifles deserv'd the name of Incomprehensible and if we could say of any of them as Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not bringing those things which are so far above our thoughts to the
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
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