Doctrines may be both of 'em true when shall any Proposition but a mere Nullity be yielded to be false seeing as I said Falshood is nothing else but a Contradiction to what is true And if Propositions that imply Contradictions to one another may yet both of them be true they must both be true while they are also both false for while they contradict one another and yet both of them are true each denies the other to be true In short I intreat Mr. L. to answer would he believe a Doctrine said to be revealed in Scripture which Proposition or Doctrine himself judged to be a clear and certain Contradiction Or if he would yet are clear and incontestable Contradictions to be believed that are not clearly and incontestably revealed but are founded on Authorities of very disputable Credit and Verity and most uncertain Sense in the Judgment of some of the ablest Orthodox Criticks and Interpreters And lastly can a Doctrine consisting of contradictory Parts be true is it Truth or is it Falshood that contradicts certain Truth I would not have Mr. L. to hope he may elude the first and last of these Questions by saying that real Contradictions or Doctrines that consist of Propositions really contradictory cannot be true but it may happen that what shall seem to us to our corrupted and narrow Reason a Contradiction is not so As for Instance three eternal Spirits each singly and by himself a perfect God and all of them together but one God seems indeed a Contradiction to our corrupted Reason but is therefore not a real Contradiction because 't is revealed in the Word of God For 1. He says Three infinite Spirits each of them a God are all of them but one God This is no real Contradiction because 't is found in Holy Scripture Suppose now he should also say Three finite Spirits each of them an Angel are all of them but one Angel Is it not a Contradiction in what Book soever Mr. L. may pretend to discover it If this latter is a real Contradiction so of necessity is the former because the two Propositions as to the formal Reason of them are identically the same they differ only in their Application One is falsly affirmed of God the other not more falsly affirmed of an Angel but the thing that makes them to be false every one sees is this that concerning one and the same Subject we affirm different Numbers one and three 2. Mr. L's only Elusion to so much sound Sense as the Unitarians object to him is that human Reason is narrow and corrupt and therefore we must not make it a Judg of what is revealed in Scripture but silently adore and believe the Scriptures notwithstanding all the idle Clatter made by Reason concerning Contradictions and Impossibilities I answer First If the Question were concerning something that is expresly delivered in Holy Scripture it might be plausibly alledged that our narrow and as Mr. L. pretends corrupted Reason should silently submit to the Revelation of God infinitely wise If it were said in express Terms There are three eternal infinite Spirits and tho each of them is a perfect God yet all of them are but one God Mr. L. might colourably object the Narrowness of the human Reason when Men offer'd to reject the express Declaration of God as if it implied some obvious Contradictions But the case is otherwise it is this Some People require us to believe there are three infinite Spirits each of them a God and all of them but one God It seems to us a Belief contradictory to it self and inconsistent with the numerical Vnity of God delivered every where in Scripture To the first part of this Exception that the Belief propounded to us by some that falsly call themselves the Church is contradictory to it self Mr. L. answers No Matter for that for the human Reason is narrow and corrupted and therefore must not be allowed to judg of what God has revealed to us in his Word We challenge this Answer of Mr. L. and others of manifest Impertinence because it supposes that we pretend to charge with Self-contradiction a Revelation or Declaration of God and that we reason against something delivered expresly in Holy Scripture which is the Word of God If Mr. L. could show us the Belief he exacts of us set down in express Words in the Word of God his Answer were just and to the purpose but seeing it is confessed to be only an Inference that some Men draw from Scripture Mr. L. in vain insists on the Narrowness or Corruption of the human Reason by occasion of our denying what is only an Inference from Scripture I do not think he will say that the Reason of the Unitarians is narrower or more corrupt than their Neighbours if not what Trifling is it to urge the Narrowness or Corruption of the human Reason for if Mens Reason being so narrow and corrupt as Mr. L. pretends is not to be trusted in judging of or arguing upon a Divine Revelation may it not be as fallible in drawing Inferences from Scripture as in judging the Consistency or the Self-Contradiction of those Inferences Briefly let Mr. L. show me these Words in Scripture There are three eternal and infinite Spirits And again these Words three infinite Spirits each of which is perfect God yet all of them but one God He will say he cannot show me these very Words but there are in Scripture other Words from whence those Propositions may be rightly inferred and the human Reason is too corrupted and narrow that it may be set up as a Judg of what is delivered in the Word of God whatsoever Contradictions or Self-Contradictions Reason pretends to find in the Doctrines of Scripture it is too fallible because 't is both narrow and corrupted to be heard against the infinite Wisdom of God speaking in his Word We reply let the human Reason be as corrupted and narrow as Mr. L. and others fancy it to be yet still it will be as able and fit to judg of the Consistency or Self-Contradiction of Doctrines or Propositions not expresly contained in Scripture but only inferred by Reason from Scripture as it is to infer or draw those Propositions or Doctrines from Scripture If Reason may not be trusted to judg of Doctrines that are but only Mens Inferences from Scripture it can as little be trusted to frame or draw those Inferences from Scripture its Narrowness and Corruption must be distrusted as much in the one case as in the other If Mr. L. hopes to set aside the Contradictions that Reason finds in this Creed there are three infinite Spirits c. we claim it as our Right to set aside that Creed because 't is only an Inference drawn from Scripture by the human Reason which is altogether corrupted he saith and extremely narrow Does Mr. L. deny that the Contradictions we find in this Inference which some make from Scripture There are three infinite Spirits each
Cerinthus was a certain Divine and Impassible Spirit which descending on Jesus at his Baptism dwelt in him and forsook him not till the very moment of his Death when he cried out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Iren. Lib. 1. c. 25. I do not see how this Account contradicts any thing in St. John whose Gospel the Alogians said was written by Cerinthus But I will not dispute with his Lordship about this matter for as I said the Unitarians do receive that Gospel and the Revelation as St. John's as they receive the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of St. James the Second of St. Peter the Second and Third of St. John all which were sometime doubted of nay rejected by divers Catholick Writers and Churches but have at length been owned by the whole Church Tho the Catholick Church now owns these Epistles and some Chapters and Sections in the Gospels as written by the Apostles whose Names they bear yet not with the degree of Assurance that she receives those Parts of Scripture that were never controverted The Assurance cannot be equal where the Grounds of Assent are unequal but the Grounds of Assent to the Writings of which we are speaking cannot be said to be equal because in Matters whether of Record or Fact what was always allowed and granted by all is more authentick and credible than what has been questioned and even rejected by divers of the Antients Writers and Churches who were Catholicks In short concerning all Books and Sections of Books of the New Testament sometime doubted of by some of the Antients the Unitarians acquiesce in the Judgment of the Catholick Church and for the Reasons given by the Church As first because tho they were questioned and even rejected by some Writers and Churches yet it appears they were approved by many more by so considerable a Majority that in a short time they were admitted by all We see in Epiphanius that even Paulus Samosatenus and Photinus received the Gospel of St. John Secondly because not only they contain nothing that is certainly contrary to the unquestioned Parts of Scripture but they are written with the same kind of Spirit that the undoubted Portions of Scripture are there is a Likeness in the Thoughts Expressions and whatsoever else recommends to us the other Books of Scripture as written by Apostles and Apostolical Men. These are sufficient Motives of Assent and ought to prevail with us tho there are some Difficulties not easy to be removed we submit to the weight of these Arguments tho we confess that what has been alledged by the Alogians and others is not despicable or ridiculous To conclude we receive with the Catholick Church the controverted Books without censuring in the mean time much less condemning those Antients or Moderns who were or are of another Mind What remains of his Lordship's first Section is a Scuffle with the Considerer on behalf of the Arch-Bishop's Explication of the first Verses of St. John's Gospel and of some other Texts alledged by his Grace to confirm his said Explication To all which I answer There is no Form of Words that were not conceived designedly to preclude all Exception but is liable to cavil nay our Lawyers scarce obtain their purpose when in Deeds and Conveyances they imploy the whole Art of Grammar to ascertain the Meaning and Intent of the Conveyance or Deed it is not therefore to be wondred at that Persons highly interested by their Education Honour and Parties can and with some colour interpret obscure or ambiguous Texts to a Sense not intended by the Original Author If People are not disposed to be ingenuous a little Wit some Learning and a long Practice in the Polemics will enable 'em to maintain a Squable till Doomsday about the Sense of any ordinary and familiar Context I do not think therefore that the Contention between the Unitarians and the Realists will ever be healed by that Pretence of either Party that theirs is the only Interpretation or Sense of which the litigated Texts are capable in the Court of Grammar and Criticism But towards a Coalition it will be necessary to agree in some common Principles confessed to be clearly asserted in Scripture by Consonancy to which Principles all otherwise doubtful Texts and Contexts of Scripture and their Interpretations shall be judged of This Rule of interpreting is very certain none can distrust it without supposing either that the Sacred Scripture contradicts it self or that the human Understanding is not capable of judging the Agreement or the Dissonance of Scripture with it self No Body I believe will say the former that the Scripture contradicts it self and if any say the other that we cannot judg of the Dissonance or Agreement of Scripture with it self or of particular Interpretations with Principles that are yielded to be found in Scripture all Disputation is at an end on both sides But if the Rule be allowed that some common agreed Principles are to be establisht by which all obscure that is all controverted Texts must be interpreted the Questions and Interpretations debated between us being thus brought before the Bar of Reason and common Sense will soon be judged of Is there but one only God Or if this be a Principle of too much Latitude and capable of more Senses Is there more than one numerical or self-same eternal and infinite Spirit meaning by one eternal and infinite Spirit one eternal and spiritual Substance with one only Vnderstanding Will and Power of Action If it be agreed as a Principle manifestly laid down in Scripture as well as certain in Reason that there is but one such Spirit either we shall all presently accord in interpreting this famous Context of St. John and other obscure and doubtful Passages of Scripture or our difference in interpreting it or them will no way affect any Article of our Creed so that there will be no real Controversy left The Unitarians are far from denying the Trinity of Divine Persons the Incarnation of God the Divinity or Satisfaction of our Saviour provided that those Doctrines be interpreted to a Consistency with this Principle of Holy Scripture and of the Catholick Church that there is but one infinite Spiritual Substance with one only infinite Understanding Will and Energy Or more briefly thus but one infinite and eternal Spirit Either his Lordship says there is but one such Spirit and therefore interprets the Term Persons and the Words Father Son and Holy Spirit not to be so many distinct Spirits but one Spirit distinguished by three Relative Properties in explaining the Nature of which the Church has always indulged some Variety and Latitude and if so we have no controversy with him nor he with us and he may for us interpret the first of St. John and the other Texts on which he insists as himself shall please Or he saith there are three eternal and infinite Spirits and that the Divine Persons are so many spiritual Substances Minds
and corrupted Reason starts Contradictions in a Subject so much above our Capacities It looks indeed like Charity but is certainly an Inadvertence to answer the Socinians in their own Way that is to run with them upon the same false Scent of reasoning on things which we ought to believe and adore But in very Deed are Faith and Reason two things so that what is the Object of Faith cannot be the Object of Reason as Mr. L. here affirms I had thought Faith had been nothing else but an Assent given to Propositions or Facts upon reasonable Proof made of them And when the Apostle defines Faith to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Proof or Demonstration or as our Translation has it the Evidence of things not seen he teaches not only that the Object of Faith and of Reason is the same but that there cannot be Faith without Reason and that Faith is the Product of Reason It is surely a very rash Proposition that what is the Object of Faith cannot be the Object of Reason For hath Faith no other Objects but either unintelligible Mysteries or flat Non-sense All other things are the proper Objects of Reason The short of what Mr. L. advances is the Trinity and Incarnation are Scripture-Mysteries therefore if a thousand Contradictions be implied in the Belief of them yet we must believe them on the Authority of Scripture It is certain to me this learned Gentleman does not believe according to this loose Scheme I crave leave to ask him a few Questions Would he himself believe a Contradictory Proposition or that so seemed to his Reason if he found it taught in Scripture Would he believe that One and Two are not Three if the Scripture said it Why does he calumniate Reason the Light set up in us by God himself under the Names of narrow and corrupted when he himself would make this same narrow and corrupted Reason the Supream and last Judg of any Proposition that seemed to him plainly contradictory or flatly impossible Is there one Law for him and another for the Unitarians Are the Unitarians obliged to believe Contradictions while Mr. L. is exempt from that absurd and impracticable Law Mr. L. may pretend what he pleases upon hope that we cannot look into the Recesses of his Heart but I will not accept any Man's Oath for it that he would assent to a Proposition or Doctrine that seemed to him a flat Contradiction if it were affirmed in Scripture But if so if neither Mr. L. nor any Man else will believe a Doctrine that seems to him to be plainly Contradictory it follows that the Unitarians rightly require that the Contradictions they find in the Notion and Belief of a Trinity as 't is stated by the Realists be tolerably satisfied and that to reason upon these Questions is not as Mr. L. pretends to run upon a false Scent This therefore is the first Question that I desire Mr. L. to resolve will he believe a Doctrine that seems to him to imply manifest and incontestable Contradictions if such Doctrine or Proposition were indeed found in Scripture Would he not say that to establish the Credibility of any Record or Book these two Qualifications are equally requisite that it hath the external Attestation of sufficient Witnesses to it and the internal of being consistent with it self and to confest and indubitable Truths that is that it be free from Contradictions and Impossibilities If this or such like is the Answer he would make he must be content to argue these Questions about the Trinity and Incarnation not from Scripture only but from Reason also nay from Reason chiefly and ultimately Secondly I ask again if Mr. L. will believe what seems to his Reason a flat Contradiction supposing it to be found in Scripture yet does he advise us to believe clear Contradictions that are not clearly revealed in Scripture Three infinite and eternal Spirits each of them singly and by himself a most perfect God and yet all of them together but one God this seems to me a most clear Contradiction am I bound to believe it if 't is not as clearly and incontestably revealed as 't is incontestably and clearly a Contradiction Whatever Mr. L. may think fit to answer here I judg that most People will be of Opinion that the Revelation for it ought to be most clear so clear that a fair and ingenuous Reasoner will not contest the Positiveness and Evidence of the Revelation But now the Texts and Contexts that are alledged to prove three eternal and infinite Spirits each of them a perfect God are clogged Mr. L. knows with abundance of Vncertainties 'T is denied he knows with great Vehemence by the ablest Criticks of the Trinitarian Perswasion that some of these Texts were originally so read as they are now published in our common Bibles nay some of them were not read at all in any Bible till 5 or 600 Years after the Decease of the Apostles and other sacred Penmen But whether antiently read or thus read yea or no there is none of them but is most fairly capable of a Sense consistent with the Unity of God as 't is taught by the Vnitarians and Nominals and is actually so interpreted by divers of the most allowed and celebrated Interpreters of the Church Who sees not here that to introduce and believe Monstrosities on such a craz'd Foundation as this is to give up common Sense without a tolerable Cause for it whenas indeed there can be no Cause so great as may induce us to part with it 'T is to admit and defend Contradictions and that in a capital Article of Religion when we need not 't is to sacrifice the clearest and most important dictates of Reason not to any Necessity but to our secular Interests or our Wantonness From which for my part I desire to be ever clear Again I would know of Mr. L. who so despises those poor Trifles Contradictions and Impossibilities and thinks them to be no Blemishes to Religion nor any Hindrances of Faith whether in sober Sadness he believes that a contradictory either Proposition or Doctrine can be true It seems to me that what is contradictory is impossible and 't is agreed I think by Divines of all Perswasions that Impossibilities and Contradictions whether they be Propositions or Facts cannot be verified by the Divine Omnipotence it self If a Doctrine or Proposition that consists of contradictory Parts such as three infinite Spirits each of which is a perfect God and all of them but one God can be true there will be no such thing as Falshood For we therefore say such a Doctrine or Proposition is false either because 't is an absolute Nullity or because we perceive that the Parts of it contradict one another or they contradict some other Proposition or Doctrine that is a certain and agreed Truth If once 't is granted that two Truths may contradict one another or what is the same that contradictory Propositions or
hand the Books whether they be Answers or Attacks of the Men of superiour Learning and Wit as his Lordship compliments himself and Friends at p. 45. of his Preface bless me how like old German Monastries or Inquisition-Prisons do they look such is the Intricacy of the Subject How dusky dim and dark are the Rooms and Passages Between Obscurity and Ruggedness a Man cannot forbear to hug himself so soon as he is got out and while he is within he can discern nothing or however not with ease to himself or Satisfaction in the thing I cannot but complain that his Lordship's Vindication is somewhat of this Nature for tho it has much of that same superiour Learning and Wit yet when he argues or answers but especially when he explains I do not take his meaning under two or three Readings And when I have strained my Jaws and hazarded my Teeth to break the Shell most commonly it proves nothing but a Shell that I am tempted to renounce Nuts for ever As to the Contents of his Book he shows that neither Antiquity nor Reason nor Scripture is at all for us they are all against us He has up and down some Offers at an Explication of the Trinity the which we throughly approve We judg him to be as Catholick and Orthodox in that matter as any of our own number Tho he has called us as many Names and imputed as many bad things to us as Dr. Wallis himself whether in his Letters or Vindication did he is for all that no more our Enemy in Doctrine than Father Wallis himself is or than our Brother S th Farther he takes up the Quarrel between Dr. S th and Dean Sherlock he shows that they are both of 'em good Catholicks the one in Intention the other in Reality and sober Sadness 'T is a very reconcilable Difference according to his Lordship whether it be said namely in words only while the Intent is Orthodox and Catholick that there are three Divine Persons who are three eternal Spirits three All-perfect Minds three infinite Substances with so many distinct Understandings Wills and Omnipotencies which is the Doctrine of Dean Sherlock or whether it be said there are three Divine Persons in the Metaphysical and Critical Sense of the Term Persons that is which are but one infinite All-perfect Spirit with one only Understanding Will and Omnipotence one self-same infinite Substance or Essence with the three Properties to be of none to be begotten and to proceed I will go over these parts of the Vindication in the order I have proposed them Of Antiquity OF Antiquity we claim in the first place the vast Period from Adam to our Saviour being a Tract of 4000 Years That is two parts in three of all Time The Patriarchs are ours the Prophets ours Adam Seth Enoch Noah Sem Abraham Moses David ours so ours that they are yielded to us on all hands 't is not so much as pretended that these believed otherwise than the Unitarians do concerning God 'T is an Argument of our Opposers themselves that if Adam or the Antediluvian Patriarchs bad believed or known the Trinity understand here of the Realists namely three Almighty Eternal Spirits it would have descended to Noah to Sem and from Sem to Abraham from Abraham to Isaac and Jacob and their Posterity the Jewish Church especially to Moses But it appears clearly by Scripture that Moses or the Church of the Jews knew it not therefore neither did the afore-mentioned Patriarchs whether Antediluvians or Postdiluvians But Dr. Bull and the Bp. of Worcester fearing that such an Advantage as the whole Old Testament-time on the side of the Vnitarians should furnish them with unanswerable Arguments and Considerations for the Doctrine they maintain answer That tho the Trinity does not appear to have been known to the Patriarchs or the Jews by any of the Books of the Old Testament it is to be remembred that the Jews had also a Kabbala or Oral Tradition derived to them from Moses and from God and the Trinity was a part of this Kabbala Where is Conscience or is Religion nothing but a Name Do the Bp. and Dr. Bull believe the Kabbala that 't is derived from Moses and from God No more than they believe the Alchoran that it was given by Angels as the Impostor the Author of it pretends They contend for the Trinity and the Kabbala 't is certain that they believe not the latter how then will they now perswade any Man that they believe inwardly the former They dare to set up a Fiction of the Pharisees and which one cannot imagine but they believe to be a Fiction as of Divine Original and as the unwritten Word of God after such a Prevarication who shall take their Words for what they pretend to believe or not to believe I scorn to argue with 'em about the Truth of the Kabbala for which they have nothing to alledg and the Credit of which is eternally overthrown by the Author of the Answer to Dr. Bull I shall only mind 'em that if they are Jews or rather if they are Pharisees for the sounder part of the Jews the Karaites disclaim the Kabbala they disown their being Protestants for 't is a Fundamental Article of Protestantism that there is no other Word of God but only his written Word Well but supposing the Kabbala doth it say any thing of a Trinity or an eternal Son of God Not the least Word Why then is it alledged Because the Chaldee Paraphrases speak of the WORD as God and how should those Paraphrases come to know the WORD or speak of him as God but out of the Kabbala But if the Kabbala has nothing of the Trinity or the WORD how should the Paraphrases take what they say of the WORD from the Kabbala But after all what is it that the Paraphrases say of the WORD do they call him God or speak of him as a Person Of the Places produced by the Bp. at p. 128 129. not one of them does so much as seem to the purpose but only the first They speak either of the Ten Commandments or of the Law or of the Command or Order of God to Moses or of the Power of God which in the Books of the Old Testament is expressed by the Word or Mandate of God because God effects whatsoever he wills by only willing commanding or saying that it shall be But the first Text alledged by his Lordship I know not what to say of it for he quotes Gen. 20.21 when there are but 18 Verses in that whole Chapter nor is there any thing in the whole Chapter that bears the least Resemblance to what he quotes out of it Therefore so much for Chaldee and Kabbala despised by all Learned Men Jews as well as Christians and never used but when the People are to be gull'd with noisy Nothings The next is the important Period from our Saviour's beginning to preach to the taking of Jerusalem by the
THE AGREEMENT OF THE Unitarians WITH THE Catholick Church BEING ALSO A full Answer to the Infamations of Mr. Edwards and the needless Exceptions of my Lords the Bishops of Chichester Worcester and Sarum and of Monsieur De Luzancy PART I. In Answer to Mr. Edwards and my Lord the Bishop of Chichester Printed in the Year MDCXCVII In Answer to Mr. Edwards MR. Edwards after having written some trifling Books some indifferent ones divers good ones and one excellent Book his Demonstration of the Existence and Providence of God found an Inclination in himself that he could not resist of contriving a New Religion or rather Impiety and of imputing it to the Socinians By whom he means it appears the Unitarians Those in England who call themselves Unitarians never were in the Sentiments of Socinus or the Socinians Notwithstanding as our Opposers have pleased themselves in calling us Socinians we have not always declined the Name because in interpreting many Texts of Scripture we cannot but approve and follow the Judgment of those Writers who are confessed by all to be excellent Criticks and very judicious As particularly and chiefly H. Grotius who it must be granted was Socinian all over and D. Erasmus who tho he lived considerably before Socinus commonly interprets that way and therefore is charged by Cardinal Bellarmine as a downright Arian Non poterat says the Cardinal Arianam causam manifestius propugnare Erasmus could not more openly espouse the Arian side than he has done in his Notes on the Fathers and the principal Texts of Scripture Pref. ad Libros 5. de Christo But tho as I said we are not Socinians nor yet Arians seeing Mr. Edwards has contrived a Creed for us under the Name of Socinians I will answer both directly and sincerely concerning the several Articles of the Creed which he pretends to be ours As to the References unto places in particular Authors where Mr. Edwards would have it thought the Articles of that Creed are affirmed I have examined some of his principal References and can say of 'em they are either Perversions or downright Falsifications of what the Authors referred to did intend Dr. Wallis whose dishonest Quotations out of the Socinians have been detested by every Body is hardly more blamable in that kind than Mr. Edwards saving that the Doctor being as one rightly tells him somewhat more than a Socinian did but foul his own Nest by his Forgeries but we cannot certainly say what is the Opinion of Mr. Edwards in the great Article in question among us But come we to the Creed which he says is ours As I promised I will answer to every Article of it sincerely and directly I. I Believe concerning the Scripture that there are Errors Mistakes and Contradictions in some places of it That the Authority of some Books of it is questionable yea that the Whole Bible has been tampered with and may be suspected to be corrupted That there are Errors Mistakes and Contradictions in the Bible was never said by any that pretended to be a Christian if by the Bible you mean the Bible as it came out of the hands of the inspired Authors of it As on the other hand that there are Errors Mistakes or Contradictions in the vulgar Copies of the Bible used by the Church of Rome for instance or the English Church was never questioned by any Learned Man of whatsoever Sect or Way and least of all can Mr. Edwards say it He has published a Book concerning the Excellency and Perfection of Scripture in which Book he finds great Fault with our English Bible he saith of it in the Title of his 13th Chapter It is Faulty and Defective in many places of the Old and New Testaments and I offer all along in this Chapter particular Emendations in order to render it more exact and compleat As to the Hebrew and Greek Copies of the Bible 't is well known some are more perfect and some less they differ very much for in the Old Testament the Hebrew Criticks have noted 800 various Readings in the New there are many more Mr. Gregory of Oxford so much esteemed and even venerated for his admirable Learning says hereupon and says it cum Licentia Superiorum There is no Book in the World that hath suffered so much by the hand of time as the Bible Preface p. 4. He judged and judged truly that tho the first Authors of the Bible were divinely instructed Men yet the Copiers Printers and Publishers in following Ages were all of them Fallible Men and some of them ill-designing Men. He knew that all the Church-Historians and Criticks have confessed or rather have warned us that some Copies of the Bible have been very much Vitiated by the hands as well of the Orthodox as of Hereticks and that 't is matter of great Difficulty at this distance of time from the Apostolick Age to ascertain the true Reading of Holy Scripture in all places of it Yet we do not say hereupon as Mr. Edwards charges us that the Bible much less as he imputes to us the Whole Bible is corrupted For as to the faulty Readings in the common Bibles of some Churches and in some Manuscript Copies the Providence of God has so watched over this Sacred Book that we know what by Information of the antient Church-Historians and the Writings of the Fathers what by the early Translations of the Bible into Greek Syriac and Latin and the concurrent Testimony of the more Antient Manuscript Copies both who they were that introduced the corrupt Readings and what is the true Reading in all Texts of weight and consequence In short as to this matter we agree with the Criticks of other Sects and Denominations that tho ill Men have often attempted they could never effect the Corruption of Holy Scripture the antient Manuscripts the first Translations the Fathers and Historians of the Church are sufficient Directors concerning the authentick and genuine Reading of doubtful Places of Holy Scripture Farther whereas Mr. Edwards would intimate that we reject divers Books of Scripture On the contrary we receive into our Canon all those Books of Scripture that are received or owned by the Church of England and we reject the Books rejected by the Church of England We know well that some Books and Parts of Books reckoned to be wrote by the Apostles or Apostolical Men were questioned nay were refused by some of the Antients but we concur with the Opinion of the present Catholick Church concerning them for the Reasons given by the Catholick Church and which I shall mention by and by in the Reply to my Lord of Chichester If Mr. Edwards would have truly represented the Opinion of the Socinians concerning the Scriptures he knew where to find it and so expressed as would have satisfied every body He knows that in their brief Notes on the Creed of Athanasius they have declared what is their Sense in very unexceptionable Words viz. The Holy Scriptures are a
Article he makes us believe a great many things as that the first Man was not created in a State of Vprightness As if it were possible that Men in their right Senses should think the first Man was created a Sinner That by his Fall Adam did not lose Righteousness and Holiness which are part of the Image of God As who should say that by being a Sinner he did not sin or become unlike to God That Adam's Posterity have received no hurt or stain by his Apostacy As if you should say that neither his bad Example nor the Curse that made the Earth so much less fruitful was any hurt and that the Rebellion of an Ancestor no not against God is no blot in his Family I shall grow quite out of Conceit with these Unitarians if they say many more such weak things But in very deed I imagine Mr. Edwards had a mind to have charged 'em more home when he does we shall consider what to answer I am of opinion that in this part of the Article he is somewhat ashamed of his own Doctrine and that he feared to make himself and Party ridiculous by a clear and distinct Representation of their Opinion That Mankind notwithstanding Adam's Fall have by Nature an Ability to desire and imbrace all spiritual Good and to avoid all that is sinful or vitious They are bold Britans What imbrace all the Gospel-Precepts by mere Nature When 't is not possible so much as to know divers of them but by Revelation Divine And can they avoid too all that is vitious by only Nature In good truth they are better and stronger by Nature than ever I hope to be in this Life by the super-added Grace of the Gospel But here again he did not strike home he intended more than he durst say and he durst not say it lest we should ask him whether he believes the just contrary That there is no need of the Spirit to repent believe and perform religious Acts. 'T is a serious Point We answer with St. Paul the Spirit HELPETH our Infirmities Rom. 8.26 But we judg for all that the Holy Scripture giveth no occasion to any to turn Enthusiasts and to resolve the whole Duty we owe and must perform to God and to our Neighbour into praeternatural Impulses as if we were Machines and not Men. Or Puppets moved by invisible Wires not Men that act by their own Reason and Choice That Men are Righteous before God not by the Merit of Christ but by their own good Works We answer with all but Antinomians and the more rigid Calvinists the Merit of Christ is not reckoned to us without good Works of our own But I am not certain that the Calvinist or Antinomians would not assent to this Proposition or not allow it to be Orthodox V. Another Branch of our Creed according to Mr. Edwards runs thus I believe concerning a future State that the Souls of the Deceased have no Knowledg or Perception of any thing they are not sensible of any Rewards or Pains and their very Nature is absorpt That at Death the Soul as well as the Body sleeps was an Error of some of the most antient Fathers as well as of some Unitarians But neither of them said as Mr. Edwards pretends that in Death the very Nature of the Soul is absorpt they both held that there is a Resurrection of the Soul as well as Body But why does Mr. Edwards impute that Opinion to us when he had read for he quotes the Book in the first Part of the Considerations on the Explication of the Trinity what is our Sense of this Matter The Words there at p. 33. are these This Error was common to Socinus with some of the Fathers The learned Mr. Du. Pinn has noted in his Abridgment of the Fathers that Justin Martyr Irenaeus Minutius Foelix and Arnobius were in this Sentiment There was no Reason to object this to Socinus as if it were a peculiar Opinion of his much less to the English Unitarians who never defended it nor that I know of do any of them hold it VI. He says next I believe we shall not rise with the same Bodies that we now have but that another Matter or Substance shall be substituted in their Place I see most of our Opposers have affected to mistake our Meaning concerning the Resurrection of the Body We hold nothing that is singular in the case we differ not from the Catholick Church about it We say with St. Paul 1 Cor. 15.35 How are the Dead raised and with what Bodies do they come Thou sowest not the Body that shall be The Body that is raised is not in all respects the same that was committed to the Earth in divers perhaps in the most it is We rise not Infants or decrepit old Men or lame or deaf or any way distorted tho many so lived and so died Nay as to the Passions resulting from the Complexion of the present Body and therefore to be reckoned the Modifications and as it were Parts of our Body we rise not with them it is not the same Body in respect of those Passions that it here lived For instance some are by Complexion very cowardly or pensive or cholerick or jealous the Body that shall be will not be such it will be conformed to the Likeness of the glorious Body of the Lord Christ that is be freed from all both external and internal Imperfections Farthermore our present Body Physicians and Philosophers say is in a continual Flux all the Parts of it internal as well as external continually decay and are continually renewed They decay by the Perspiration that is continually caused by the internal Heat and are continually renewed by the Nourishment taken in and converted into Blood Spirits Flesh and Bones 'T is said by the Learned in these Matters that no Man's Body is the very same as to the Matter and Substance of it this present Year that it was the last Year and will be the next Year 't is wholly new-built by the Nourishment of the present Year We say therefore there shall be a Resurrection of the Body and as some of the antient Creeds spoke of the same Body as truly and as properly as N. N. is the same Man this Year that he was one or seven or twenty Years ago If Mr. Edwards requires us to say more he exacts more than the Church believes for by the Resurrection of the same Body the Church intends only that 't is as truly the same as a Man notwithstanding the Flux of his Parts is now the same N. N. that he was seven or ten Years past yet not altogether the same because inconceivably better that is without any external or internal Deformities or Weaknesses VII I believe that at the Day of Judgment Men shall not be required to give an Account of their Actions the most flagitious Sinners shall not be examined concerning any thing of their past Life only they shall be
punished and their Punishment is this to utterly cease or perish for ever The unquenchable Fire is nothing but Annihilation I do not know that the Scriptures or the Catholick Church do require any to believe that Sinners shall be examined concerning their past Life at the Day of the General Judgment To what purpose I pray Doth the all-knowing Judg need to be informed concerning the Particulars of their Guilt If every Person is to be severally examined concerning the Particulars of his transacted Life the Day of Judgment will extend it self to many Millions of Ages more than the whole Duration of the World from its Beginning to its Consummation It should seem Mr. Edwards thinks that because the Scriptures speak of the great Judgment by God in the Terms and Language of Men and of humane Judicatories such as Trumpets the Throne of the Judg a formal Sentence the Pleadings of the Guilty the Answers of the Judg that therefore in very deed we are to expect such a Scene at the Judgment by God as at a common Assize I conceive on the contrary that all such Expressions and Words wheresoever they are found in Scripture are not intended as real Descriptions but as Comparisons or Resemblances by which the Capacities of the Vulgar may be assisted and their Affections wrought upon All that is intended by such Expressions is only this that every one shall be so recompensed at the Resurrection as is worthy of the Holy Judg and compassionate Father of the World But we hold he saith that the Punishment of the Wicked is only Extinction their Life shall be destroyed for ever by the unquenchable Fire into which they are cast Which Opinion that it may look ridiculous he words for us thus The unquenchable Fire is nothing but Annihilation What the Scriptures have said concerning the Punishment of the Wicked after the Resurrection is not so clear but that the Opinions of Learned Men Fathers and Moderns have been very different about it Some of which Number is Origen the most considerable of the Ante-Nicenes held that not only wicked Men but the very Devils will repent and reform under the Punishments they indure that therefore they will be pardoned be admitted to a new Trial of their Behaviour and may attain to Blessedness These say that Man being a reasonable is therefore a docile or teachable Creature and it not looking probable that the Wisdom of God will lose any part of his Creation but will bring it to the Perfection and upon that to the Blessedness of which 't is capable therefore what by Instructions what by Punishments and Encouragements God will reclaim the Bad will perfect and confirm the Good and so in the long-run of things be acclaimed the Saviour of All. Others among whom have been some it may be the most of the foreign Unitarians have thought that the Righteous are rewarded with an everlasting Life of Blessedness and the impenitent Wicked punish'd by that unquenchable Fire which will wholly destroy their Being They believe this is the Reason why the Punishment by Hell-fire is called eternal Death in Holy Scripture But the more current Opinion among all Denominations of Christians is that the Punishment of the Impenitent in Hell-fire is called Death not because it utterly destroys the Life of the Sufferer but because 't is a continual and endless Dying The extreme Pains of Hell may well be called an everlasting Dying or an eternal Death tho the Sufferer is never extinct I do not find any thing in the Books of the English Unitarians concerning these Opinions they may hold as variously concerning them as the Christians of other Denominations But if I may answer for them by what I judg of 'em by Conversation with 'em I would say We approve the Doctrine delivered by Archbishop J. Tillotson in a Sermon before her late Majesty of happy Memory March 7 1689. on Mat. 25.46 which Sermon was printed by their Majesties special Command VIII I believe as to Christianity it self that every thing in it is to be submitted to the Dictates of human Reason and that there are no Doctrines in it that are mysterious Neither of these was ever said by any Unitarian and all our Prints more particularly those in the English Tongue are express that there are many things as well in Religion as Nature that are far above the Capacity of the human Reason to declare or understand the manner of 'em or how they should be what we either see or are infallibly taught they are We never pretended that the human Reason is the Measure of Truth as Mr. Edwards and Mr. Norris charge us so that what our Reason does not comprehend we will not believe on any other Evidence whatsoever We never said it or thought it we reject no Doctrines but such as are contrary to Reason and of that I will speak fully in the Answer to Mr. De Luzancy IX As to Divine Worship I believe it may be given to another besides God to Christ who is but a Creature But we have disavowed nothing more in all our Prints than giving Divine Worship to any but only God that 't is a marvel to me that Mr. Edwards should impute to us such a Doctrine we have scarce an English Print where we do not expresly oppose it Nor do we reckon of the Lord Christ as but a Creature I have said before He is God and Man The Divinity doth so inhabit the Humanity of Christ doth so exert in it the most glorious Effects of Omnipotence and Omniscience that if others have been called God because they represented God Christ is to be so called because he exhibits God X. I believe Prayer was not required under the Old Testament The Lord's Day is a ceremonious Observance abolished by the Gospel There is no spiritual Blessing conferred in the Use of the Sacraments Baptism is an useless Rite and the Baptism of Children altogether vain There is no distinct Function or Office of Ministers in the Christian Church the very Lord's Supper it self may be administred by a private Person I think Mr. Edwards is in the right against those if any such there were who denied that Prayer was a Duty or Precept of the Old Testament and the Law when he says it is included and implied in the general Precepts of Fearing Serving or Worshipping God But he is as much out in the next Article that some have said that the Lord's-day is abolished by the Gospel for it was never taught by any He meant I suppose that the Seventh Day or Sabbath is abolisht and I take it to be the Doctrine of the Catholick Church that the Seventh-day-Sabbath was Ceremonial and is abolisht It may better however be said that the Sabbath is transferred from the Seventh to the First Day than that 't is absolutely abolisht or taken away In short the English Unitarians hold no private Opinion about either the Sabbath or the Lord's-day but as well in Principle as
of them a perfect God all of them but one God are real Contradictions to the human Reason as we now have it No but he says our Reason because 't is so narrow and corrupt is not to be heard against God Right but we expect it may be heard against Men that is concerning the Possibility or Consistency of mere Inferences made by Men from God's Word In a word we contend that the human Reason is as qualified to judg of Inferences as to frame them We insist upon this as a full Answer to this usual Subterfuge and great nay only Defence of all our Opposers We call every body to witness that 't is not only frivolous but wholly impertinent When they have declamed never so long upon the Corruption and Narrowness of the human Reason if it may not be a Judg of Inferences from Scripture neither should it presume to make contrive or draw any such Inferences Our Opposers dare not say this latter therefore neither can they with Consistency to themselves say the former But because this is a famous Topick I will say something farther upon it Secondly When they infer Doctrines from Scripture which by their own Confession imply manifest Contradictions that is seem to our Reason as it now is to imply manifest Self-Contradictions and these Inferences when once made become so sacred with 'em that they must not be judged of no not by that human Reason that made ' em I say when this is the case do they not say hereby that very Reason is infallible which in the same Breath they decry as corrupt narrow and uncapable of making a right Judgment The Doctrines inferred by Reason from the Word of God are certain and sacred they say but when the malepert Unitarian offers to examine the Consistency or Possibility of those Doctrines which Reason inferred from Scripture all on the sudden they surprize us with a contrary Pretence that Reason is narrow and corrupt and therefore has no Right of Suffrage in things of this nature they are above Reason not to be judged by it Methinks there cannot easily be a more apparent Contradiction than this very Defence of our Opposers implies they give and take back in the same Cause and Thing They exclude Reason from a bare Suffrage and yet make it a Judg they allow it to stamp an infallible and sacred Character on the Inferences it makes but will not permit it should re-examine those very Inferences or should review its own Acts to see whether they are consistent yea or no. Reason according to them is all Eye and at the same time 't is Cimmerian or Egyptian Darkness When 't is wire-drawing Doctrines from Scripture its Deductions are as sacred and certain as their Divine Original but it loses all its happy Dexterity and Ability so soon as it presumes to re-examine those Deductions whether they are consistent with themselves or are truly made But this once more How strangely has the Divine Wisdom dealt with Men in the Hypothesis of these Gentlemen He requires us in his Word they say to believe there are three eternal and infinite Spirits and that tho each of them is a perfect God yet all of them are but one God but he has set up in us another Light even Reason that shows us the quite contrary namely That there can be but one infinite all-perfect Spirit and that if there were three such Spirits there would be three Gods and not one only that is he requires us by the written outward Word to believe and by the inward Word to disbelieve he imploys the Authority of his Revelation to tell us one thing and makes Faith impossible by clearly showing us the contrary by Reason It is a most certain Truth in Heaven they say what on Earth seems an over-grown Absurdity the most dangerous as well as the flattest and most obvious Contradiction I grant Divine Revelation is infallible and the human Reason sometimes fallible by Accident as when it makes too much haste in judging and when it soars to Objects that are above it But it has always been held that the Veracity of God is concerned in it that our Faculties should be true and be able to judg truly of what they distinctly and clearly perceive And if this be denied the Doctrine of our Opposers is upon no better bottom not only than ours but than the most Chimerical Figments that Fancy or Invention can advance They can have no degree of Certainty in the clearest Inferences that Reason at any time makes either from the Nature or Revelation of God and consequently also not of their Trinity of the three eternal and infinite Spirits there will always lie this Exception that the Deductions made are indeed clear and distinct but they are concerning Objects above the human Reason Besides it ought to be consider'd that how much soever an Object may be above us yet the things affirmed or denied concerning it may lie within the Sphere of Reason and be as subject to its Cognizance as any other Matters are God is infinitely above me I am infinitely far from knowing all that God is but if I am taught either in express Terms or in Words that imply it that there are three Gods and not one only I can as easily judg of those Words and Expressions and as certainly as if they were said of a finite Being I can as certainly know that to say three eternal and all-sufficient Spirits or to say three Spirits each of which is a perfect God amounts to this or implies this there are three Gods and not one only as I can know three Angelical Spirits or three human Beings implies or amounts to this three Angels and three Men. The mere Sublimity of an Object doth not annul or so much as weaken the Certainty of those Affirmations or Negations concerning it that are common to such Object with other Objects that are the proper and immediate Subjects of Reason If the Definition of God even this an eternal and all-perfect Spirit is multiplied by our saying three eternal all-perfect Spirits We thereby as truly and also as plainly and certainly multiply Gods as when we multiply the Definition of the Sun or Earth or other created and finite Beings we thereby multiply Suns and Earths In a word Propositions that are eternal Verities are also infinite Verities and are as much a Rule by which to judg unerringly concerning an infinite Object as concerning a finite As for the rest of Monsieur De Luzancy's Book or four Letters I know not whether we are concerned in it till I know more certainly in what Sense he holds a Trinity of Divine Persons and the Divinity and Satisfaction of our Saviour He pretends to examine the late Prints of the Unitarians Those Prints are of two sorts or have two Parts one part of 'em contains the Arguments from Holy Scripture or from Reason which evince the Vnity of God by which we mean that there is but