shameful begging of the Question Every Contester will call himself a fair Reasoner Socin What! Is there no such thing then as fair reasoning Is there not in Men an equitable disposition to judge of and assent to the Truth Orthod Yes certainly but you have it not There are vast many Texts produc'd to assert the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit For we do not only alledge one or two solitary places of Scripture But we maintain also this to be the Foundation of Christianity and taught in the Scriptures Plainly Frequently Irrefragably Which is the way to reason fairly in this case First It is to see the sense which offers it self in the Texts which we produce Give me leave to bring in an instance or two Rom. 9.5 St. Paul speaking of Christ says that he is over all God blessed for ever The natural sence of the proposition is that he is truly God Over all and Blessed for ever being the Notion which we have of an Eternal Being You cannot without an incredible violence make any other sense of that proposition The same is Phil. 2.6 Who being in the Form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God That which the proposition naturally offers is that Christ is God None but a King can say that he thinks it not robbery to be equal with a King None but he who is God can pretend an equality with God Secondly I must see whether that sence which offers it self so naturally to me has the same effect on other People It is a mighty confirmation to me that I take a proposition right when the wise the good the inquisitive part of Mankind takes it as I do Now our Texts have not only the advantage of a natural evidence but they have also another and that is the consent of the Christian Church The Church of God has spoke as we speak understood as we understand believ'd as we believe It is the Voice of the Sacred Councils in their Decisions of the Fathers in their Writings of the Universities in their Chairs and of all Christians in their Praises Prayers and Adorations You own'd it to me and you said that it was the sence of the Socinians that the Scripture is an Infallible Divine and Compleat rule of Faith and Manners But it can never be so if there is not an universal sence in those propositions in which the Faith is deliver'd For to whom is it a rule even to all Christians And how can Christians follow this rule if there is not a common sence in which they may be united But what is that sence but that which appears to the Church in the propositions and become the sence of the Church A sence of so much the more weight and Authority because no Scripture is of private interpretation This with all Men who pretend to any acquaintance in those Matters is fair and ingenuous Reasoning Socin I thank'd you once for an Argument in the behalf of Transuastantiation and now I do it for Tradition The denial of it is a Protestant Principle Orthod You are so press'd by the evidence of what I offer'd that because you cannot answer you would endeavour to divert it Know then by the way that Protestants deny and that on very good grounds Tradition to be the last and supreme judge of Controversies But maintain Tradition and particularly so Universal and uncontested as it is in this particular to be the â—â—â—test humane evidence in the World The unanimous consent of the Church in a point of Faith is not to be oppos'd by any sober Christian But to return Let us see what is your fair and ingenuous way of reasoning You are so far from the method propos'd by me that you reject the natural sence of the Texts Some you must give me leave to say it you have openly falsify'd As for instance Rom. 9.5 You will not have it God Blessed but God be blessed for ever against the Faith of all Copies against the Authority of all Writers Some you have loaded with little Criticisms as Phil. 2.6 Upon others you have trumpt new unnatural and incoherent explications as Joh. 1.1 And followed Dreams of Yesterday unknown to the Church of God or to any one Writer in it Others you have eluded with poor Allegories as Col. 1.16 In a word there is scarce a part of Scripture but what you have put to the Rack and then you come to tell us of fair and ingenuous reasonings of your elaborate Prints to prove the Unity of God which no Christian ever deny'd The Trinity of the Divine Persons appears so visibly in the Sacred Writings that if you design to deal as a fair or ingenuous reasoner you must either embrace the doctrine or reject their Authority Socin I will do neither I am perswaded of the truth of the one but not at all of the other Observe what the ingenious Author of the Answer to Mr. Luzancy has said to him pag. 44 45 46. I will put it in as few words as I can and yet I hope without losing any thing of the force of the Argument You charge that upon the Scripture which is no Scripture at all and you oblige us to believe as the word of God that which is no word of God but only your inferences from it You draw conclusions those conclusions you rest in and though they are no Articles of Faith because only the work of your reason yet you propose them as Faith to us I would fain ask whether your reason is more infallible than ours Or whether you have a privilege which we have not of making inferences The Trinity is no doctrine of Scripture but only an inference from it May not I have the Liberty either to make a contrary inference to yours or to review your deductions to judge the consistency or contradiction of these inferences I honour the Scripture but I am not oblig'd to receive your Argumentations These are not indeed his words but I am sure it is his sence Get out of this as well as you can Orth. But pray what is all this to the purpose I â—an assent due to a plain and express proposition an inference Or if you will call it an inference is it not the natural result of that plain proposition And must not whosoever has any share of understanding give the same assent to it which I do What are all our perceptions but inferences and all our talk and conversation but conclusions The Plow-Man does it as much as the Philosopher and there are propositions of that evidence that if offer'd to all Mankind all Mankind will agree in them The question is not here between your Reason and mine Nor do I pretend to more infallibility than you in reasoning But I say that Reason is so much the same in you and me that a plain and express proposition being offer'd us you and I must equally assent to it If you do not you wrong Reason and are unjust to
of Creator Preserver c. But that this leaves an Internal incommunicable Character essentially inseparable from the Deity That it may be said that God might never have been a Creator But that it cannot be said that he might never have been a Father the former being only an effect of his will but this latter the necessary result of his Nature This you have pag. 243. But that which sinks for ever this miserable imputation of Sabellianism or Nominalism call it which you please is the noble Principle which this Learned and worthy Man has laid down Animadv p. 245. in which as in the rest he has truly spoke the sence of the Church Upon the whole matter in discoursing of the Trinity two things are absolutely necessary to be held and insisted upon One that each and every Person of the Blessed Trinity entirely contains and includes in himself the whole Divine Nature The other that each Person is incommunicably different and distinct from one another I thought you look'd dissatisfy'd when speaking of this famous distinction of Realists and Nominals I us'd the words of slander calumny disingenuity Let me now beg of you to give it a name Socin Truly I must be forc'd to tell you that I saw this distinction urg'd so often our late Prints so full of it and honest Mr. E. valuing himself so highly upon it that I thought it was more solid than really it is I will take time to consider of what you have said to it When I have next the happiness to see you you shall have my Thoughts of it In the mean time .... Orthod No I cannot leave you yet I must before we part complain of another injustice which your Friends have done us Socin What is that Orthod That which My Lord Bishop of Sarum calls in his Pastoral Letter the heaviest of all imputations that they submit to his Lordship's whole doctrine which differs in nothing from what the Vnitarians profess'd in all their Writings That is to say in plain English that he is a Socinian A cruel and barbarous sort of a compliment to a Catholick and an English Bishop They do the same in effect to My Lord of Worcester in their last Answer to his Lordships Book pag. 62. To the University of Oxford to Dr. South whom they call in derision Brother South as they had done Dr. Wallis Father Wallis In the Answer to My Lord of Chichester they speak very plain pag. 27. It is say they by this Declaration of our meaning that all our Books Past or to come are to be interpreted We never intend to oppose any Body in the Article of the Trinity but the Tritheists or Realists who are Hereticks to the Church as well as to us nor in the Article of the Divinity of our Saviour but the Eutychians who make the Communication of Idioms to be Real and not only Verbal which is an Heterodoxy condemn'd in divers General Councils That word General Councils which they esteem'd so little before is now of great value They tell this very Bishop that they do not in the least suspect that he will disown the Catholick Doctrine and be of a Party of Hereticks who have been Condemn'd by so many General Councils Socin Well and where lies the injustice of all this If the Socinians are become Orthodox and embrace the Doctrine of the Church is it not an honour to these Great Men to have reason'd them into this Submission I remember that in some of our Prints we have call'd the Bishop of Sarum the Eusebius of the Age. As the Famous Eusebius brought over many Bishops to the subscribing the Homoousion Is it the heaviest of all imputations to his Lordship that he has perswaded the Socinians out of their Errors Must you your self take it ill that Persons of whom I have heard you often give a great Character should return to the Faith and Obedience of the Church All that I dislike in those Complements is the Books past or to come For the Books past speak no such thing and I fear the Books to come will not much mend the matter Orthod I did not expect that you would not be serious in so mighty a concern as this I confess that it would be to me and to all good Men an incredible satisfaction to see an end of this Controversy But I tell you there is no sincerity in all this They are no more return'd to the Sence and Faith of the Church than you are They build still upon that foolish distinction of Realists or Tritheïsts and Nominals or Sabellians The first is a Monster of their own making 〈◊〉 other is a shelter to their Heterodoxy 〈◊〉 they maintain a Trinity which is no Trinity 〈◊〉 strive to advance error under her 〈…〉 the Pillar of Truth In short If the Trinity believ'd and taught by the Church is Sabelliaâ—â—sm they are your humble servants It is that that they would cover Socinianism by But how can they believe as the Church when the doctrine which they pretend to return to is that to which the Church is irreconcilable Socin How must they do then to convince you that they sincerely desire a peace and are come over to you Orthod By writing with that respect which is due to Bishops of whom in the Answer to Mr. Edwards pag. 13. they own the institution to be of Divine right Let them receive the Catholick Creeds that of the Great Athanasius the Doxology and the Articles of the Church of Englang Then and not before I will believe that they are sincere Socin These are large strides I am not for running so fast Suffer me to take my leave of you I will think on what we have discours'd and then you shall hear from me Adieu The Second DIALOGUE Orthod I had promis'd my self the happiness of seeing you before this Socin Truly I design'd it but was resolv'd not to do it till I had been as good as my word that is till I had consider'd what we discours'd of some days since For whatever you may think of me I have a sense of Religion I am fully convinc'd that there is a God to whom I owe all my service and a future state of happiness and misery on which I cannot reflect without a mighty concern I am not so much an enemy to my own interest as to cheat my self of the one and willfully to fall into the other Orthod What is the result then of your consideration Socin To speak sincerely my Thoughts I am come off from the distinction of Real and Nominal Trinitarians and do you the justice to own that it appears to me to be ill grounded Though I believe at the same time that he who first invented it did it bona fide and had the occasion given him by the inadvertency of your own Writers But there are still two difficulties in my way which I cannot overcome I would not be thought to suspect your Learning or Candor But I am
afraid you cannot resolve them The first is this If you are neither for a Real nor a Nominal Trinity then you are for no Trinity at all For there is no medium between them The second is that in what sense soever you hold a Trinity I cannot believe it A Trinity of Persons of which every one is God and yet but one God is to me the most absurd notion in the World I have study'd the matter with as much application as I can But to me it still appears to be a perpetual affront to Reason and good sense Orthod Give me leave to tell you that the first is no difficulty at all The Church believes a Real Trinity Not in that sense of Real which your Friends have made so much noise about and so unjustly imputed to us which infers three Gods But in that sense which in the asserting three Divine Persons preserves still the Unity of the Divine Nature To speak plainly and prevent that wrangling to which obscurity generally leads Men what the Church proposes to our belief consists in this The Unity of God is so clearly prov'd both by Reason and the Authority of the Sacred Writings that there is not in the World a truer or a plainer assertion than this God is one and can be but one But the same Sacred Writings speaking of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit and giving those Characters of them by which they appear incommunicably distinct from one another It makes this second assertion The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit Nor the Son the Father or the Holy Spirit Nor the Holy Spirit Father or Son But the Scripture being express and positive in giving to every one of these Persons the Name Nature Attributes and Operations of God there arises a third assertion The Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God But the first of these propositions standing unmoveable and God ceasing to be if he ceases to be one All at last are resolv'd into this Fourth That in that ONE adorable and Divine Nature are Father Son and Holy Spirit every one God and yet but ONE God This is the Real Trinity which the Church believes which the Apostles have taught For which the Martyrs dy'd and notwithstanding all the oppositions of Hereticks has obtain'd and will obtain to the end of the World I cannot read the Ecclesiastical History but I adore the veracity of Christ and see in that very particular the fullfilling of his promise to the Church that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her Your second difficulty is as easily resolv'd as the first For how can that be an affront to Reason and good Sense which God has commanded us to believe Socin There must be a great deal more in it than what you have laid down Vast many Books have been written on this Subject You are not ignorant how from the first and intermediate ages of Christianity to this time it has been the ground of irreconcilable disputes I do not speak only when the Emperours espous'd the Cause and this or that Opinion prevail'd because it was the Religion of the Court But I speak of the retirements of the Schools where the dispute was furious and the Doctors more set one against another than Marius and Sylla Caesar and Pompey This grand and Mysterious Contradiction has given birth to infinite Contradictions which like the Hydra's head multiply daily without number The Socinians in that Print of theirs call'd A Letter of Resolution concerning the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation pag. 10. have charg'd this home upon you The Author tells you roundly that there is no fewer than fifteen divisions amongst you each division consisting of two Parties at the least some of them of four or five So that they are in all about forty Parties of them A strong Argument by the way against the pretended Vnity of the Church Orthod What I have propos'd to you is the simplicity of the Revelation God has reveal'd so much and in that there is enough to satisfy our selves The disingenuity of the Author of that Letter appears in this that he talks of divisions and Parties and pretends to enumerate them whereas there never was any about this Socin Can you think that a Learned Person as this Author is durst have the confidence to assure such a thing if he had not very good grounds for it Orthod Call it what you please I dare to averr that he has none at all But to make this clear I must needs tell you that in a Revelation two things are to be consider'd The one is the thing reveal'd as in this case the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Spirit God and yet not three but one God The other is the manner how these things are which are reveal'd How the Father is a Father how the Son is a Son how the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son How every one of these is God and yet but one God I dare say that there has not been nor can never be a more universal agreement than there has been in the first Had we been contented to adore and believe there had never been any Schisms or Divisions in that particular But Man will be curious pretend to unfold Mysteries and clearly see into his Nature who has made darkness his Pavilion round about him He must of course receive the punishment due to his Presumption and instead of that noble pleasure which results from knowing meet with all the sad consequences of a confident ignorance Any one moderately acquainted with Ecclesiastical Learning will see that this has been the conduct of the Church to stick to that first part as certain and undoubted and not at all to meddle with the other as full of danger This is visible in all the confessions of Faith of the Primitive Councils which are full in asserting the Vnity of God and the Trinity of Persons and all upon the certainty of the Divine Revelation But pretend to no kind of explication of the HOW or manner of it I confess that private Doctors have done it and that with heats not becoming the matter in dispute The Schools have given way to a World of impertinent questions and have been as impertinent in their resolutions as impertinence can be They have commented upon one another and still the Commentary has been obscurer than the Text. But when all is done they have stuck firmly to the doctrine reveal'd and unanimously agreed in this though they disagreed in there explications about it I should look upon it as the greatest Miracle that ever was done if they had explain'd that which is inexplicable Is there no such thing as the Heavens because some Philosophers have maintain'd that they were Fluid and others that they were Solid bodies Is there no such thing as the Earth because that sort of Men have wrangl'd about its figure and motion The same may be ask'd of
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
above our Reason That we ought to rely upon the Divine Revelation and not pretend to give an account of things Incomprehensible This you have thought to be an evasion of all your pretended contradictions you have derided it and call'd it a Trinity of the Mob of ignorant and lazy Doctors Whereas if you weigh the Principles laid before you it will appear very firm and solid For to state contradictions in an object Reveal'd when that object is above all our Perceptions when all that we know is that it is and that too because it is Reveal'd but are altogether ignorant what it is Reason then soars above its nature and what you call contradictions are only the stumblings of Reason which striving to climb up an inaccessible rock is shamefully flung on its back and overthrown Socin But then you make Faith the obscurest thing in the World and what advantage is it to us if our darkness is remov'd by a greater even a darkness that may be felt If what you say is true I know little by the help of Reason and much less by that of Revelation Orthod I make Faith what God has made it The things which he proposes exist and are certain He is pleas'd to cast a veil over them and we ought not to presume to take it off It is he that has made us and not we our selves and in vain we strive to start out of the limits to which he has confin'd us Nor is the homage and submission of our understandings consistent with clear Perceptions of things It would no more be Faith but Knowledge We should not be in via as the Fathers speak in the way which leads to Heaven which is a state of obscurity labour humility and the fear of God But in Patria in Heaven it self a place of intuition tranquility glory and perfect love But let me tell you that Faith has that mighty advantage that if it is not the clearest evidence it is at least the greatest certainty in the World All our assurance in other things is humane The very Principles of Geometry are no more But Faith has a Divine Foundation and that is the Authority of God St. Chrysostom was so perswaded of the truth of this that Homil 21. in Epist ad Heb. he did not doubt to affirm that he had no Faith who believ'd not more firmly the things reveal'd than those which are daily the object of sense You know the Famous saying of St. Ambrose de sacram l. 1. cap. 5. Tolle argumenta ubi Fides quaeritur Away with all your Reasons where Faith is the question Socin If you get amongst the Fathers we shall have a Sea of Authorities which you know we have no very great esteem for I wish you would lay them all aside But if you will not what think you of Lactantius who Instit l. 2. cap. 7. speaks thus Oportet in ea re maxime c. Every Man is oblig'd particularly in that wherein his own being is concern'd to trust to himself and it is much better to endeavour with the best judgment and sense that we can to find out the truth than to suffer our selves to be deceiv'd by other People's errors as if we were wholly Strangers to Reason God having given all Men such a share of Wisdom as to be able to search into those things which are unknown to us and to examine those that are not The same Principle Minutius Foelix makes use of against Caecilius And this is the very Argument of Theodoret in his first Discourse de curand graec affect It may be said of Lactantius his assertion that nothing can be truer and better It does justice to God who is the Author and Giver of every good and perfect gift and to Man by owning his great and distinguishing Privilege You have spoke of Faith very well and accurately But for all that do you know what it is to blaspheme Reason It is to wound Mankind in the most sensible part and to put us out of a capacity of ever acting like Men. Reason is a light which comes down from the Father of lights As the natural light discovers it self and all other objects so Reason the light of the Soul discovers its native excellency and is the tryal of all other things It s eagerness in the pursuit of Truth is a proof that it is made for it and capable of it It looks much like Priest-craft to desire me to shut my Eyes and trust my self to another guide whilst I can see my way as perfectly as any other I had once a great respect for St. Austin but I have lost it since I read a passage of his wherein he strangely abuses humane nature It is lib. 2. c. 15. de serm dom in monte Hominis anima rationalis lumine veritatis vel tenuiter pro sui capacitate illustratur ut verum aliquid in ratiacinando sentiat The rational Soul of Man receives as â—â—ding to its capacity small illustrations and glances of light that by Reasoning it may feel something of Truth Thus the Doctors of the Church run down Reason and perceive not that they run down Mankind at the same time Orthod You are in the right to lay the Fathers aside for they are all against you I should be glad to be rid of a witness who I am sure will swear home against me The Author of Christianity not Mysterious has invalidated their evidence to some purpose He will not allow above five or six to have been Men of sence and to shew how contemptible they are he flatters himself that some ages hence he will be look'd on as a Father I hope he is no Prophet and does not see so much extravagance in the succeeding times Lactantius every way an admirable Author argues against Idolatry He says very well that no Religion is to be taken upon trust and that in so great a concern every one ought to judge for himself Idolatry is so unreasonable a thing that whosoever admits it must be a stranger to Reason God having given every Man such a measure of Wisdom as to reject that which is so openly bad and look for somewhat better But he never pretended that amongst Christians who so unanimously submit to the Revelation which God has made of himself in the Holy Scriptures Man was to dispute against God and Reason to struggle with Faith Read the first Chapter of the first and the greatest part of the third Book and you will see that from the contradictions of Philosophers he proves Reason to be insufficient to find out the truth and that it is only to be met with in that Religion where it is divinely Reveal'd Minutius Foelix argues after the same manner Caecilius pleaded a Tradition of Idolatry in which he thought himself secure Minutius answers that he ought to appeal to his own Reason which will evidently shew him the folly and impiety of Polytheism And all that Theodoret insists on is that the
simplicity of our Holy Faith wants not solid and rational arguments by which it is confirm'd Such I take to be the Authority of the Revelation which in strength and clearness is superiour to any Argument whatsoever But laying all this aside When you have done all you can and writ never so fine a Panegyrick on Reason the strength of it cannot be better judg'd of than by its use You will be asham'd of ever pleading for Reason when you consider how the great Masters of it have been distracted And you will say with Jesus Christ Matt. 6.23 If therefore the Light that is in thee be darkness how great is that darkness The first Men of the World though so near their beginning and the impressions of Reason so much the stronger because nearest to their spring yet generally run into Idolatry and Violence You know how few they were who call'd upon the Name of the Lord. The Church was confin'd to the Family of Noah The fury of the Flood was an eminent instance of a Reason which had so far wandred from its Principles that it was past recalling and was fit for nothing but destruction When the World after that was so far replenish'd as to afford great Monarchies and numerous Nations you see Reason as insufficient as before and Men as obstinately bent to depart from their Creator I will not run through their several Idolatries The Aegyptians so famous for their Learning who thought themselves and were look'd upon by others as highly Rational Men did debase Reason to that degree as to make Gods of their very Roots and Plants A happy People says pleasantly Juvenal who see their Deities grow in their Gardens But you will say they were unthinking People who had not consider'd the matter or inquir'd into the Nature of Reason But what must you think of the Ingrossers of Learning and Reputation I mean the Greeks Men who valu'd themselves upon being inquisitive treated all the parts of Philosophy and fill'd the World with Sects and Systems Good God! The Dogmaticks thought Reason so clear as to be certain of every thing and to doubt of nothing An extravagance of which they had a confutation in themselves These Socrates the wise Socrates takes up and is so far from taking Reason to be clear that he professes that if any thing was certain it was this That he knew nothing to be certain This Assertion Arcesilas and Pyrrho cannot be reconcil'd with carry the doubt yet further and find no certainty in that very Proposition but make Hesitation and Fluctuation the Principles of their Doctrine They are not more lucky in their search about Happiness Providence the Being of God and the Original of the World There is a strange confusion in their Opinions and an incredible weakness in their Arguments They have verify'd the saying of Solomon Eccles 3.11 Mundum tradâ—â—â—t disputationi eorum God has made the World the subject of their disputes Or as our Translation reads it He has set the World in their Heart so that no Man can find out the Work that God made from the beginning to the end And Eccles 8.17 Though a Man labour to seek it out yet he shall not find it yea further though a Wise Man think to know it yet he shall not be able to find it This is the Reason which you cry up so much and these are your Rational Men. Socin All this is a Satyr upon Reason and nothing else Yet it cannot detract from its dignity And it is a consequence ill drawn That because some Men have Reason'd ill therefore we cannot Reason well Several People have had but one Eye therefore we have not two The Aegyptians and Greeks have been delirious therefore we must be so too They did conclude at random in those days because they wanted all the means of Erudition which we have and therefore we must talk at the same rate though a long experience innumerable Books and accurate Methods in all Arts and Sciences have wonderfully resin'd our Notions With you the dawning of the Day gives more light than the full Noon and the Morning is wiser than the Evening of our Lives Pray let us lay aside these common places and come to a closer way of reasoning Is there such a thing as Reason or is there not If there is not then we are like the Beasts that perish uncapable of either Reward or Punishment because uncapable of Good and Evil. But if there is then it must be given us for some end and it must be fitted for the attainment of that for which it is given You have granted in your Definition of Reason that it is a Faculty of the Soul by which we endeavour to find out the Truth Is Truth then attainable or is it not If it is not then your Definition is worth nothing If it is then Reason is not only the instrument by which we find it but also the judge of that Truth which we find Not that I pretend that Truth is not greater than our Reason and that Reason penetrates the whole extent of the Truth which it contemplates But I maintain that as the object falls under the scrutiny of Reason it must judge of it and what it affirms or denies concerning it is true I know that Men have not the same strength of Apprehension That which seems a demonstration to me will be justly call'd an impertinence by another But I say that it is the touchstone of all that is propos'd to us and that nothing can be laid before us as Truth in which we are concern'd but Reason must inquire into and judge of it Orthod But what is all this but what has been said a thousand times and what you have offer'd to me already Does this resolve at all the difficulty propos'd It were easy to me to shew you that the Reason of this age is not better than that of the Greeks and the Romans That 't is not to Books or Experiments but to Religion that you owe the improvement of your Reason and that the best Christians ever made the best Philosophers But granting all that you can pretend from that which you call close Reasoning what is it to the purpose Admitting that you conclude right in all those things which are within the reach of Reason which is not only disputable but even false is it not altogether Deficient in what is above it Foolish and rash assertion that because Reason knows some things therefore it must know all things And that because it can grapple with natural therefore it may with super-natural Objects These three things Men are guided by SENSE REASON FAITH We believe first our Senses We see hear smell taste touch from these we receive the first impressions But because they are fallible imposing and like to make us draw false consequences Reason comes to help us It rectifies the mistakes of sense The larger operations of the Soul embrace Principles of a greater extent and with an
incredible eagerness will search what they are as well as what they appear This is the ground of Philosophical inquiries But Man is not contented with this For besides that the way is painful tedious and yielding very often neither profit nor pleasure he can fix no where He finds in himself a desire of happiness which no created being can procure Supposing that he can measure the Heavens understand luminous Bodies be acquainted with the laws of Motion and Matter this is still far from answering the vast capacity of a Soul which distasted with inferior objects aspires at the Knowledge of God's Nature of his own Immortality and of a future State after this Life There is somewhat which he is sensible is wanting to the perfection of his own Being He sees at a mighty distance great and venerable objects but cannot draw near to them being kept back by his inaccessible light of one side and the obscurity and weakness of his Reason of the other The merciful God will not discover himself plainly to him If he did he could not bear the Splendor For no Man shall see God and live But he has ordain'd Faith as a Medium between the darkness of this Life and the Glory of the next He has commanded Man to believe fixing thereby all the uncertainties and rectifying all the mistakes of Reason And has given him the greatest encouragement that can be by assuring him that he shall know hereafter what he now believes Supposing that one should argue for Sense against Reason as you do for Reason against Faith you would say to him that Sense in a Matter which depends from Sense is the best judge but that in a Matter about which Reason alone is conversant it has nothing to do because the object is much above its reach Should Sense reply God has fitted me for some end and that end is the apprehending of Truth and consequently attainable or else it is no end and by this I am fitted to judge of such and such objects you would say to him Sense is one thing and Reason is another Sense is to be so far from pretending to be the judge of Reason that is has nothing to do with it Pray be just and say the same of Reason It will strive to inquire into the business of Faith Faith will own that concerning things within the compass of Reason there can be no fitter judge Reason will tell Faith that it contradicts it self that it proposes impossibilities that it is every way incomprehensible Faith will laugh at this and ask how Reason can talk of contradictions and impossibilities and incomprehensibilities where it has nothing to do and has no sort of aptitude to see whether it is so or no. I am sure this is their Sence who ever pretended to understand those matters St. Austin in his Book de morib Eccl. Cathol In the third Book contra Acad. c. 19 ..... Socin I have declar'd my self already against citations of the Fathers Favour me so far as to bring in no more 'T is not what they say but what you say which I am willing to hear What St. Austin tells Adimantus Volusianus Honoratus is nothing to me He was a Man of Sence but I build no part of my Faith upon his or the Fathers sayings I like your way of speaking very well Pray go on Orthod What you require of me is highly unjust For though I build my Faith no more than your self upon the Fathers but only upon the reveal'd word of God yet I think their Authority to be great and considerable As our Holy Faith is the same now as in the beginning of Christianity because a part of its Character is to have been once deliver'd so I conceive that it is now best defended by the same methods which the Christian Doctors us'd at first When our Mysteries were propos'd to the Heathens they were as quick as you can be at objecting contradictions They magnify'd Reason as much as any of you have done since The Fathers did strenuously apply themselves to shew its weakness and insufficiency and by asserting the necessity of Faith over-rul'd all their objections When you have done all that you can you must at last come to this only with a far greater disadvantage of your side because the Heathens rejected that very principle which you admit and that is the Divine Revelation You cannot oppose the Authority of the Fathers without doing the Christian Church a vast injury and robbing it of one of its greatest Ornaments This very thing must be a prejudice against you that you have renew'd the old objections of the Heathens against this Sacred Doctrine and despis'd those very ways which were us'd by the Fathers in the confutation of their errors Socin You perpetually cry up the Fathers and yet would not be bound in this very point to make good their Reasonings Are there not three Faculties of the Soul and yet but one Soul the Root Bark and Branches of a Tree and yet the same Tree Peter James and John three Men and yet the same humane Nature are not these and twenty more such instances delicate proofs of a Trinity in Vnity Orthod They are no proofs nor ever were intended to be such What can be made of them is that they are Illustrations faint Adumbrations or Resemblances of the inexplicable Mystery The Fathers requir'd believing and not reasoning They affirm'd Reason incapable of judging of Mysteries and resolv'd all into Faith that firm assent to what God has Reveal'd You may see this Elegantly treated by Arnobius who calls Reason blind uncertain weak and owing to the Mercy of God that himself has spoken to inform it Lactantius is positive lib. 3. c. 1. that the knowledge and worship of God cannot be attain'd by Reason or Sense and therefore that laying aside all these Masters of an earthly Philosophy who have so contradicted one another and have left nothing certain we should look up to God who Tradidit Sacramentum verae Religionis ut revelatae divinitùs veritatis cognitionem consequamur Has given us the Sacred Institution of the true Religion that we may attain the Knowledge of that Truth which is Divinely Reveal'd And in the same place Divina tradita sunt breviter nude Nec decebat aliter ut cum Deus ad hominem loqueretur argumentis assereret suas voces tanquam fides ei non haberetur sed ut oportuit est locutus quasi rerum omnium supremus Judex cujus non est argumentari sed pronunciare verum Divine things are deliver'd in a short and plain manner Nor was it fit that it should be otherwise As if God was not to be believ'd except he gives Reasons for what he says He has spoke as the supreme Judge of all things whose part is not to dispute but simply to pronounce what is true Tertullian de anim Cui enim veritas comperta sine Deo Cui Deus cognitus sine Christo Cui
Reason a part of that Supreme Reason Truth is but one either in the Creator or in the Creature Revelation cannot make that true which appears to me unreasonable Orthod You will never be weary of urging the same things over and over again Whatsoever God reveals is true But you say it does not square with my apprehensions Nay it contradicts them Therefore it is not true What a strange way of Reasoning is this Truth in God is truth in Man Granted But is it in the same extent or degree Do we know as much as God A spark will pretend to be as Luminous as the Body of the Sun I see as through a glass darkly and I will judge of him who inhabits a fulness of light which no Mortal can come near unto Job 10.4 He must have Eyes of Flesh and see as a Man sees or else I will not believe what he says This is monstrous and not worth insisting upon Let us therefore proceed Reason then being satisfy'd in the truth of the Revelation cannot act like it self except it receives with the humblest and firmest submission what God has reveal'd and as St. Paul expresses it 2 Cor. 10.5 casts down imaginations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 REASONINGS and every high thing that exalts it self against the Knowledge of God And brings into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ It is a great part of a Christian's duty to correct the extravagances of Reason For it is stubborn restless and impatient of Government It must be cast down and chain'd up as one which if let alone will be outrageously mad It will never want pretences to rise against its Soveraign and in them it will obstinately persist This is the ground of those frequent exhortations in Scripture to mistrust Men's inquiries and give glory to the veracity of God Rom. 3.4 Let God be true but every Man a lyar Rom. 4.20 Abraham is commended for not following the insinuations of Reason but giving himself wholly to the conduct of Faith He stagger'd not at the promise of God through unbelief but was strong in Faith giving Glory to God St. Paul would have us Rom. 11.20 to stand by Faith the Principles of Reason being too weak but this standing unmoveable Rom. 16.26 He tells us plainly and forcibly that Faith requires the obedience of our minds According to the revelation of the Mystery which was kept secret since the World began but now is made manifest and by the Scriptures of the Prophets according to the commandment of the Everlasting God made known to all Nations for the obedience of Faith Socin But I must interrupt you and tell you plainly and forcibly that what colour soever the places which you have cited to prove Faith above Reason this has none at all You have found Mystery and Obedience of Faith together and it has deceiv'd you Read page 7. of that Print of ours call'd an impartial account of the word Mystery The Author tells you that whatsoever is revealed is no more a Mystery Orthod I wish it were not out of our way to give you some remarks on this same Print of yours A perpetual Equivocation runs through the whole Work and a willful misunderstanding of the words Knowing Delivering Revealing Making Manifest which imply indeed a discovery but not at all an explication of the Truth reveal'd Never did I see a greater unsincerity in any Writing This very particular Text he has confin'd to the Vocation of the Gentiles which extends to all Christian Mysteries which are indeed Reveal'd as to their existence the quod sint as Divines speak but not the quid sint what they are in themselves He has not given one single instance of a Mystery made known but after the Revelation is still a Mystery The Creation Resurrection Incarnation Trinity though clearly reveal'd are still Mysteries The very Attributes of God though not only made manifest in the Scriptures but also in a great measure obvious to Reason as Eternity Immensity c. are still Mysterious and Incomprehensible Let me beg of you then not to interrupt me with objections of that nature which really make against you But suffer me to go on in shewing you how God in his word has establish'd the dominion of Faith over Reason and the submission and obedience of Reason to Faith Socin I will not on condition that you cite no Texts capable of being contested Orthod I have not yet and will not for the future What can be plainer than 2 Cor. 5.7 We walk by Faith not by sight We trust not to our little Reasonings which we are so weak as to call sight and demonstration but rely upon a higher nobler and more infallible Principle Faith in God 1 Cor. 2.4 5. St. Paul declares that his preaching has not been drawn from Mens Arguments or adorn'd with a vain ostentation of Eloquence But in demonstration of the Spirit and power of God that is by the Writings of the Prophets inspir'd by the Holy Spirit by the voice of the Spirit it self by the Miracles of CHRIST and his Apostles as Origen expresses it l. 5. contr Cels That your Faith should not stand in the Wisdom of Men but of God That your Faith should not rest upon Men's Arguments but the Authority of God Colos 1.23 He would have the Colossians to crush and suppress the suggestions of Reason and sence and continue in the Faith settled and grounded and not be mov'd away from the hope of the Gospel The same is urg'd 1 Pet. 1.7 8. and indeed in very many other places which it would be too tedious to cite But what has the Saviour of the World said himself in the case Joh. 20.29 Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believ'd Socin Here I must interrupt you This relates to the particular Fact of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ It does not infer at all the belief of a doctrine contrary to my Reason You offer no violence to the mind when upon a solid Testimony I am perswaded that such a thing or Person is or has been I never was at Rome But I believe as firmly as the Romans themselves that there is such a place I never was bless'd with the sight of my Saviour or acquainted with the Glory of his Resurrection yet I believe as firmly as any one that he was in the World and rose from the dead But what is all this to your Doctrines Orthod Be not so injurious to a Noble Passage which though occasion'd by a particular matter of Fact the Resurrection of Jesus Christ yet is a General maxim and of a vast influence on Religion It holds not only as to the Resurrection but also as to all Reveal'd Truths Blessed are those who believe what they have not seen with the Eyes of the Body and they also are Blessed who believe what they cannot see with the Eyes of the Mind Happy in both that they come to God with an absolute resignation of their
Reason and the Superiority of the first over the last establish'd and the bounds of both assign'd I hope that having no other end in this but doing good they will satisfy him for whom they are written and work on those whom a mistaken Conscience has made to persist in so dangerous an errour All this is treated by way of Conference and Dialogues A manner of Writing usual in the Primitive times as appears by Justin Martyr Theodoret St. Jerom c. And famous amongst us by several late excellent Books of that kind It has that advantage that being properly an imitation of Conversation all is easy and natural in it A Reader is not put on the rack by that intense study which a tedious Argument requires And even the Repetitions and Digressions which in a Conference are unavoidable have somewhat in them which is very taking I have been as sparing as I could of citations hard words or any thing which might obscure or perplex the Subject For besides the Solidity of our Reasonings there must be an exquisite plainness and familiarity in Dialogues which if an Author can attain nothing more is to be desir'd in that sort of Writing But before I conclude this I must say that of all Writers these Gentlemen ought not to value themselves because they have rais'd a great deal of dust which their own prejudice hinders them from laying They complain of difficulties and at every word cry out Unreasonable Contradictory Incomprehensible Whereas no People who attempted to put our Holy Religion out of doors ever oppos'd to it a more Vereasonable Contradictory and Incomprehensible System than they have done I will not speak of their Incomprehensible explications such as are that of Joh. 1. that of Phil. 2. Coloss 1. Heb. 1. c. which no Man in his right senses can make any thing of and are a direct Contradiction to the other part of the Divine Oracles But I will only beg of them to reconcile their robbing Christ of his Divinity to the adoring of him praying to him and making him an object of Divine Worship I should be glad they would shew us how it is consistent with Reason that A meer Man A meer Creature such as they make Christ to be can offer himself a sufficient Expiation a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the whole World This the Author of the Brief History has granted This is reported to have been acknowledged by Charitable Mr. F. at his death This Mr. T. one of their writers so largely commended by the Author of the last Answer to My Lord of Worcester's late Vindication of the Holy Trinity has plainly call'd an Extravagance I am mistaken says he Christianity not Myster pag. 25. if either the Socinians or the Arrians can make their Notions of a DIGNIFY'D AND CREATURE-GOD CAPABLE OF DIVINE WORSHIP appear more reasonable than the extravagancies of other Sects touching the Article of the Trinity When they have justify'd all this and a great deal more which may be objected to them then and not before they may lay claim to and stand by their pretended Inconsistencies But till that is done they must only be look'd upon as a remarkable instance of humane infirmity which not contented to rely on that solid Foundation which the Redeemer of the World and his Apostles have left us settles in a barren and dry Ground where no Water is There is no Man but what can easier pull down than build up Let us but want Humility and abound in our own Sence which is as often our Sin as our Misfortune and we shall easily have objections in store against the Christian Faith But then we leave the Rock to build on the Sand And when we have done all that we can by our fine discourses it will be Sand still The Structure will tumble to the ground and great will be the fall of it If these Gentlemen think fit to say any thing to these Papers they are humbly intreated that they will not use them as they did the Four Letters that is put out an Answer where nothing either directly or indirectly is answer'd If they only write to satisfy me that they are Men of Learning and Masters of all the Graces of Elocution I am convinc'd of it already and they may spare themselves that trouble 'T is not so much Language and Oratory as Argument and Reason which we expect at their hands Books Printed for Thomas Bennet at the Half-Moon in St. Paul's Church-Yard REmarks on some late Writings of the English Socinians in Four Letters done at the Request of a Socinian Gentleman By H. de Luzancy B. D. Minister of Doverc and Harwich The Inspiration of the New Testament asserted and explained in answer to the Six Letters of Inspiration from Holland c. By Mr. Le Moth. A Conference with a Theist in two Parts By W. Nicholls Rector of Selsey in Sussex The Certainty and Necessity of Religion in General or the first Grounds and Principles of Humane Duty Established In eight Sermons at Mr. Boyle's Lecture for the Year 1697. By F. Gastrell B. D. and Studient of Christ-Church Oxon. Certain Considerations for the better Establishment of the Church of England with a Preface by James Harrington Esq A Sermon Preach'd before the Honourable House of Commons on the Anniversary Fast for the Martyrdoom of King Charles the first By E. Langford D. D. A Sermon before the Lord Mayor Judges and Aldermen at the Cathedral of St. Paul on the thirtieth of January 1697. By S. Estwick B. D. and Chaplain of Christ-Church Oxon. In the Press Twelve Sermons upon several Occasions By Robert South D. D. Never before Printed Dr. Bentley's Dessertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris c. and the Fables of Aesop Examined By the Honourable Charles Boyle Esq A Conference Between an Orthodox Christian AND A SOCINIAN The First DIALOGUE Socinian WELL I see there is no end of disputing and if that spirit once possesses Men they have the misfortune never to know when to have done Yesterday at four in the afternoon the Doctor and your Friend enter'd the lists It was Nine at Night before they could be perswaded to sit down and take their share of a Curious entertainment which Mr. N. at whose House they were had prepar'd for them Every thing was neat and fine the Company select and good and yet all this which makes Men Sociable and inclin'd to please one another had no such effect on these two great Spirits They had much ado to forbear breaking out and if they had been let alone I really believe that they would be disputing still Orthodox Pray what was the subject of this long dispute Socin The great Controversy of the Age Socinianism That which the Church of England endeavours to run down with so much vehemency and has been lately defended by several ingenious Men whose Writings I am satisfy'd you are no stranger to Orthod What could they say in all that time They are
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.
Form and Matter and indeed of all the Phaenomena's of Nature concerning which Authors have given us some good and solid Reasons others nothing but fansies and dreams This is the great weakness of Socinianism The Gentlemen of that perswasion reject a most important Truth in which all Christians but themselves agree because they cannot understand the manner of it We cannot tell say they how it is therefore it is not And they pretend to argue strongly when they affirm that there are divisions and subdivisions amongst us about it Whereas there is really none but in the explication our assent to the truth of the thing being firm and unmoveable We said something of this Nature the other Day but you have taken no notice of it Socin This sine Discourse is all a grand mistake We do not reject the Trinity because we understand it not but because we understand it We let the HOW or manner alone 'T is the thing it self which we exclaim against You worship you know not what Did you give your selves leisure to think and not thwart the very first impressions of a Rational Soul this very grand contradiction would stare you in the Face Three that are but one What need is there here of Reasoning Three Persons every one God and all but one God! May not I tell you what Tertullian says in another case Advoco te O Anima naturaliter philosophantem non qualis erudita es in Philosophorum Scholis c. I appeal to thee O Soul not such as thou hast been taught in the Schools of Philosophers but with those impressions which Nature has given thee Are one and one and one Three or is it but one Orthod Your citing of Tertullian puts me in mind of a passage of Boëtius brought in by the Bishop of Worcester in his vindication of this very doctrine pag. 65. The Catholick Doctrine of the Trinity is this says Boëtius the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God but they are not Three Gods but one God And yet the Bishop pleasantly observes that the Socinians may wonder at it this very Man having written a Learned Book of Arithmetick And so for all this eloquent exclamation of Tertullian that Father was a Zealous assertor of the Trinity that is of one and one and one not being three but one So were a World of Learned Men in those days who though cultivated by a Philosophical institution had not yet for all that taken their leave of the first impressions of Nature But to come to the point If the difference between us were of numbers or of any created substance I would cry out contradiction as loud as your self I would call the first Man that I see in the street and pray him only to tell But this is quite of another Nature It has no foundation on any thing that we know The question is of the Nature of God between whom and us there is an infinite disproportion We cannot Reason of him from any thing which we find in our selves or in our fellow Creatures God is so far above our small and weak perceptions that except he is pleas'd to acquaint us himself what he is We must remain in our ignorance If God then tells us that he is one and Three If what we say of him is that which he has said of himself Must we presume to talk or so much as to imagine any contradiction in it Socin I admire your prudence but I cannot commend your sincerity You are sensible on what rocks they split who pretended to prove the Trinity not contrary to Reason I think that the B. of G. Dr. S. Mr. H. and others have sufficiently smarted for it I will engage for them that they will return no more to such kind of ratiocinations You take another way and resolve all into God's Authority I grant that what God says must be true Nothing is true but according to that conformity which it has to the mind of God But God has said no such thing of himself that he is one and Three Trinus unus I deny that he has Orthod King Agrippa believ'st thou the Prophets May not I ask you do you believe the Scriptures It is in that Sacred Book that God speaks to us It is there that he asserts it Socin I believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God and as we have said in the brief Notes on the Athanasian Creed a Divine an infallible and compleat rule both of Faith and manners But I deny that there is any such thing in the Scripture Orthod I am glad to hear you speak so justly and so reverently of the Sacred Writings which part will you have me to prove The Unity of the Godhead or the Trinity of Persons in that one Divine Nature Socin You may spare your trouble in proving the first We are the great Assertors of it It is from thence that we take the name of Vnitarians Though you are obstinately bent to call us Socinians Orthod Your assuming that name is an invasion of the rights of all Christians Nay it is an affront to all the wise and sober part of Mankind You call your selves Vnitarians just as the Donatists in a poor little corner of Africa call'd themselves the Catholick Church Will you then have me to prove that in the Scripture the Father is call'd God the Son God and the Holy Spirit God Socin You may spare your self that trouble too I know all the places that you can alledge You have repeated them a hundred and a hundred times If you call this a proof any thing in the World may be a proof Orthod Pray let me lay them before you and let us fairly see what exceptions you have against them It is not Candid no it is not civil to tell an Adversary that you know all that he has to say to you Socin I may take the Liberty to be positive in that particular I have an answer ready which I am sure you cannot take ill I am sensible that you will produce several Texts but as it has been urg'd again and again by us and in particular against Mr. Luzancy in the Answer to his four Letters pag. 42. They are Texts clogg'd with abundance of uncertainties 'T is deny'd with great vehemence by the ablest Criticks of the Trinitarian Perswasion that some of these Texts were originally so read as they are now Publish'd in our common Bibles Nay some of them were not read at all in any Bible till five or six hundred years after the Decease of the Apostles and other Sacred Penmen But whether anciently read or thus read yea or no there is none of them but is more fairly capable of a sence consistent with the Vnity of God as 't is taught by the Vnitarians and Nominals and is actually so interpreted by divers of the most allow'd and celebrated Interpreters of the Church Who sees not here that to introduce and believe Monstrosities on
such a craz'd foundation as this is to give up common sence without a tolerable cause for it Whereas 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 wantonness And has not the Author of the Letter of Resolution told you plainly that you have given up all your places of strength Orthod There is in what you have said Declamation and Argument To introduce and believe Monstrosities on such a craz'd foundation To give up common Sense without a tolerable cause for it To admit and defend contradictions and that in a Capital Article To sacrifice the clearest and most important Dictates of Reason to our secular interests or wantonness All this is Declamation That sort of Imbellishments are very rude and severe As if Conscience were all of the Socinian and none of the Church's side I know how you would exclaim if we talk'd to you at this rate The rest seems to be Argument But in this I must confess that I admire at your vehemency as vou call it when there is not a single word of Truth in the Allegation Forgive me if I say that it is false that those Texts are clogg'd with abundance of uncertainties The Form of our Baptism in the name of the Holy and Blessed Trinity is clear Genuine Authentick and so far from being clogg'd with uncertainties that all the Fathers all the Schoolmen all the Modern Interpreters have acknowledg'd it I wonder what you mean by the ablest Criticks of the Trinitarian Perswasion This is perpetually in your Writings But you are very careful not to name any of them and I commend you for it I would beg it as a favour of you that in your next Print you would name some of these ablest Criticks and shew us what uncertainties they have found those Texts charg'd with I am satisfy'd that if it had not been for Hugo Grotius and one or two more whom you have sadly misrepresented your cause must have starv'd for want of such Authorities as these It is false again that the substantial Text which we alledge to prove the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit were read at any time otherwise than they are now You say that some of them were not read at all till 5 or 600 years after the decease of the Apostles This has as little Truth as the rest There is but one and no more which you have pretended to dispute and that is 1 Joh. 5.7 and you cannot but know that it has been cited by St. Cyprian and is in the famous Edition of the Bishop of Oxford whom Father Simons though of another communion calls deservedly the Learned Bishop of Oxford It was in that of Pamclius It is to be found in the Catalogue of the Texts cited by the Great Athanasius and Printed in the latest Edition of that Father It had been us'd before by Tertullian against Praxeas And both St. Ambrose and St. Hierom complain'd that the Arrians had ras'd this Text out of all the Copies which they could come at The last part of the verse and these Three are One not being capable of the petit novel interpretation of their agreeing in one but being look'd upon by the Ancients who were more sincere in their disputes than we are as a direct proof of the consubstantiality of the Divine Persons You say that there is none of them but what is more fairly capable of a sense consistent with the Unity of God as is taught by the Vnitarians and Nominals I have convinc'd you already that there is no such thing in the Catholick Church as Nominal Trinitarians and the exception is needless since we maintain with all Christians that the Trinity of Persons is no contradiction to the Unity of the Divine Nature Socin But supposing your Texts to be true they are still contested Texts They are not so clear as to be capable but of one sense You give them one and I give them another Perhaps they may admit of a third Thus you build demonstrations on things really very uncertain Then you thunder in our Ears Scripture Scripture whereas at the bottom you say nothing by using Texts capable of different senses I commend you for resolving this great controversy into the Authority of the Sacred Writings but then as it has been said to Mr. Luzancy pag 42. 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 You understand a Text your way and I do it mine and so there is an end of your Method Orthod You will not name us those ablest Criticks of whom you speak so much in your Writings You keep them in the dark as the Deus in Machina of the old Heathens that their sudden appearing may the more surprize But I fear you are one of them you come at once to impeach the Christian World and tell this present age and those that are past that the Texts us'd by them may be true but they are contested and so worth nothing Is the contesting then of a Text enough to have it rejected Is my sense oppos'd to the sense universally receiv'd by the Church of God enough to turn that sense out of Doors Whither will this wild way of arguing hurry a Man Do you perceive the consequences of such a Principle By this an Atheist a Deist or any Heretick-in the World is secure It is but giving another sense to a proposition than what it naturally has And when you argue with never so much clearness from Authority he will tell you there is no proposition in the World but what is capable of several senses What you say may be true But it is contested and I contest it This is your sense of the thing but it is not mine Socin You both mistake and misrepresent me I have no such thoughts By contestation I mean such an opposition as is well grounded It is not enough to say 't is not my sense but I must have substantial Reasons to say so I demand as I have told you already a Text so clear that a sair and an ingenuous Reasoner will not contest the positiveness of the Revelation Orthod That is you demand no Text at all For whosoever will contradict it will think himself a fair Reasoner Do not all the Socinians believe that they are the fairest Reasoners in the World Are they not cry'd up by their party for Men of mighty Reason Your self are perswaded that you are a fair and ingenuous Reasoner Those silly Criticisms which you have obtruded upon all the Texts of Scripture are look'd upon by you as great efforts of Reason So that this can be no rule at all but is a
it I confess that when that which is propos'd is obscure intricate and capable of several sences the conclusions may be different and I cannot without injustice deny that you should examine the consistency or contradiction of my deductions But I maintain that most of the propositions by which our Holy Faith is establish'd are of such plainness that no equitable Man can fix any other sence upon them than what they offer themselves That I may not give you any occasion of mistaking me for your Friends are admirable at this and if they can but lay hold on it they presently expatiate and lose the question I mean no more than as to the existence of the Revelation that is that there is such a thing reveal'd though not as to the manner of the thing the HOW it is in it self Not to multiply instances take the places already cited Rom. 9.5 Whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the Flesh CHRIST came who is over all God blessed for ever What is that which the proposition offers That CHRIST is a Man descended from the Fathers and that he is God over all God blessed for ever It is a plain and as plain a proposition as can be But when I go further and say Then there are two Natures in Christ Jesus for as a Man he cannot be God and as God he cannot be Man He is Man because concerning the Flesh he came from the Father He is God because the Apostle says he is over all God blessed for ever I confess that this is an Inference but it is an inference which results so plainly and so fully from the Nature of the proposition that it is as clear and as undeniable as the proposition it self Again Phil. 2.6 Who being in the Form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God There is a plain proposition that CHRIST is equal with God and the inference is of the same nature and clearness as the proposition Therefore he must be God For none but God can be equal with God 1 Cor. 2.10 The Spirit searches all things even the deep things of God The Spirit knows all that God is his Nature his Perfections even those depths unfathomable to any created Being You will not quarrel with the proposition and can you quarrel with the inference which in effect is the same with the proposition and that is that he is God since none but God perfectly knows himself Pray what inference is there in Act. 5.3 4. when Peter in his Apostolical Zeal asks Ananias why Satan has fill'd his Heart to lye to the Holy Ghost Thou hast not ly'd unto Men but unto God If the Holy Ghost is not God how could he lye unto God You see the inference is drawn by St. Peter himself and lies in the very Heart of the Proposition How unreasonable is this noise about inferences will appear if you take notice of the beginning of St. John's Gospel Is Verse the 14th an Inference The Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his Glory the Glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father full of Grace and Truth Are the 1 2 3. Verses an Inference The Word was with God The Word was God The same was in the beginning with God All things were made by Him and without Him there was not any thing made that was made Is Joh. 20.28 an Inference And Thomas answer'd and said unto him my Lord and my God! Let us deal candidly if you call the Incarnation and the Union of the two Natures in CHRIST JESVS an Inference Is it not the plainest result of the plainest Propositions that ever were in the World Socin You are launch'd into a vast Sea of Discourse Orthod Oblige me so far as to suffer me to insist somewhat longer on this and I will repay your Patience with a serious attention to what you have to say to it Read 1 Joh. 5.7 There are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these Three are One. When we talk of a Trinity of Persons consistent with the Unity of the Divine Nature is it an Inference or is it not Is not the Trinity of Persons and the Unity of the God head clearly express'd in the Proposition You have made such a wonder at the word Trinity and been so rude as to call Trinity in Unity Jargon Contradiction Nonsence How can you reconcile all this with this noble Passage Is not this a Trinity in Unity not by way of Inference but by a full and plain Assertion But why should I be so earnest to prove this against the Socinians when they themselves cannot deny it For if our Doctrine consists in nothing but inferences and conclusions which we draw as we please What has made them so earnest to dispute these very texts and with poor and little Criticisms to endeavour to elude their force If these Texts had not star'd them in the face with an incontestable evidence what should make them so indefatigable in granting and denying adding Comma's changing or putting in particles as if Truth wanted such mean helps It short there are two sorts of inferences the one near and immediate such as I have given you some instances of which naturally flow from the thing propos'd and are of equal clearness with it The other remote and not appearing so easily at first but wanting the help of further inquiries and deductions Concerning the first I may challenge your Reason of error I may safely and truly say you offer violence to Reason I may appeal to all Mankind in the case But for the other I must not so freely affirm it nor say that my Reason is more infallible than yours When I am oblig'd to run through a long course of deductions I may mistake as much as you do The Church never pretended to any inferences but of the first kind If the Scripture proposes a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead If it represents these Persons incommunicably distinct from one another Their Consubstantiality Coequality Coeternity is a natural and a necessary consequence If it teaches me that CHRIST is God and Man the Union of the two Natures in one adorable Person is an inference of the same sort If there is a Father from ever and a Son from ever and if a Spirit proceeds from ever Eternal Generation and Eternal Procession are necessary deductions from those great truths and in a manner the same with the truths themselves I tell you once more you must either admit our doctrine or reject the Holy Scriptures Socin I confess that what you have said is well put together and has a very good face But still I am far from being satisfy'd There is nothing can make me believe a contradiction Let it be found in Sacred or humane Writings it is still a contradiction A contradiction is that to which all the World cannot reconcile me You say Revelation and a
not impos'd tyrannically without reasons or arguments to inforce its necessity and usefulness but with all the proper methods to engage our assent We believe because we have all the Reason in the World so to do And Faith becomes our choice upon the noblest and strongest Motives that can be I do Reason all the justice and honour which it can expect or deserve by saying that our most Holy Religion is built on this most rational Principle than which Man has none stronger none more evident Whatsoever God reveals is true and therefore the Mysteries of Christianity are true because God has reveal'd them There is no exception against the first of these Propositions In abundance of other things Reason is in the dark but it meets with no sort of obscurity in this The second then is its work and exercise to which it ought to be apply'd Reason must satisfy it self whether God has reveal'd what Religion offers It is highly just that it should be so or else every thing will be call'd Revelation and every folly consecrated by pretending to have God for its Author Men will see vanity and divine lyes saying thus says the Lord when the Lord has not spoken Ezek. 22.28 Thus St. Paul exhorts the Thessalonians 1 Thess 5.21 to prove all things and hold fast that which is good Compare all the Sects which have pretended to instruct Men in relation to a better Life Try even those Systems which boast an infallible Judge Let nothing that assumes the Name of Truth escape a severe inquiry But when all is done hold fast that which is good to wit that which we are perswaded cannot deceive us even the Revelation of God You see then a large Province for Reason to act in And at the same time how easy is that task which brings us at last to the Author of our being to receive the Truth at his hands Socin All this is well But still vast difficulties present themselves First Where is this Revelation which you suppose I know you will answer immediately that it is to be found in the Sacred Writings But then you make it to be the Province of Reason to satisfy it self in the Truth of the Revelation If by this you mean the certainty of the Divine Records you plunge your self in endless and I will say unsuccessful questions about their Inspiration You will be forc'd to shew which of them are inspir'd and which are not You will find them who have pleaded for the Gospels of Basilides Apelles and Tatianus For that according to St. Peter St. Paul St. Thomas c. For the Acts of the Apostles by St. Andrew St. Philip c. For other Epistles of St. Paul than those which we have and several Writings related by St Hierom de Scriptor Eccl. in Luc. and censur'd by Gelasius you will meet with Prochorus and Abdias the Babylonian and a world of spurious Writers pretending the Divine Revelation Secondly If you pass from the certainty of the Records to the particular places by which you affirm that God has reveal'd your Doctrine their sence will be still disputed It will be said that God indeed has reveal'd them but not in the sence which you understand them in And it will be the same as if you had no Revelation at all Thirdly Supposing that Reason can effect all this whose Reason must it be Is it that as you were pleas'd to speak of the common Saylor the Souldier the labouring Man Indeed the Principle will stand unmoveable what God has reveal'd is true But your Assertion that he has reveal'd the Mysteries of Christian Religion will be disputed partly from the uncertainty whether the Records are truly Divine partly from the doubt of the sence of the particular places which you alledge So that Reason in most Men will have nothing to do because they are not capable of learned inquiries and the few that are will wrangle with you to the end of the World Orthod The first of your objections cannot be propos'd by a Socinian It is of some force in the Mouth of a Heathen or of a Deist Were I to argue against either of them I ought not to take it ill if they oblig'd me to prove the certainty and inspiration of the Divine Records Nor is this so difficult as you imagine Criticks have made that a Controversy which is none in it self and never was so before So great and venerable are the Arguments by which the Divinity of the Sacred Writings is prov'd that nothing has yet been said of any moment against it It is to no purpose to insist on this with you who own the Scripture to be a compleat and infallible rule of Faith Nor is it more necessary to make it appear that the Books in dispute in the Primitive Ages of the Church were spurious For besides that we have nothing left of them but their Names and that too with some diversity and that they obtain'd very little because the cheat was presently found out it would not be fair in you to put one to the trouble of disproving Books which you disprove your self You admit with all the rest of Christians the Canon of the old and new Testament Pag. 6. of the Answer to Mr. Edwards Whereas Mr. Edwards says the Author would intimate that we reject divers Books of Scripture on the contrary we receive into our Canon all the Books of Scripture that are receiv'd or own'd by the Church of England and we reject the Books rejected by the Church of England So then all this difficulty is over Your second objection is as easily resolv'd When ever any thing is propos'd as Faith the business of Reason is to see whether it is to be found in those Writings wherein we all confess that God has reveal'd what we ought to believe Thus the Beraeans Act 17.11 at the preaching of Paul Search'd the Scriptures daily whether the things which he said to them were so They sound his allegations true and therefore many of them believ'd Nor will this as you insinuate resolve it self into a dispute about the sence of the places alledg'd For as we have said before those places are so plain so uncapable of any other sence than what they offer The deductions from them are so Natural and easy that all disputing is wholly exciuded For instance the Debate between you and me is about the Holy Trinity You deny and I affirm it We both agree upon a Medium to find whether it is so or no And that is the Authority of the Sacred Writings If in them there is a clear Revelation that God is one and if I produce those Texts which plainly and naturally attributes those qualifications to Father Son and Holy Spirit which are communicable to no created Being and cannot be diverted any other way without changing the sence of the proposition you must as the Noble and Candid Spirits of Beraea certainly yield Against your third objection I say that the
unlearned part of the World is as capable of this as the learned Nay much more For besides the plainness of the Revelation their perceptions in what they understand are more direct and not clogg'd with subtilties as ours are They have I am afraid a more sincere respect for the Divine Revelation than we Take an honest Country-Man and ask him who is he that is blessed over all for ever He will answer immediately GOD. Shew him in the Scripture that this is said of Christ He will immediately conclude that Christ is GOD. Object to him that if Christ is God and the Father God then there are two Gods He will immediately reply No They are but one For God is but ONE You may puzle him with your Ratiocinations He may be at a stand and hear you cry till you are hoarse that two cannot be one and that he does his Reason an injury He will tell you that it is so indeed when he takes an account of his sheep and horses but in what concerns his Religion his Bible in his Reason It says so and he believes it The Learned will not wrangle to the end of the World except by the Learned you mean only the Socinians I am sure and you cannot but be so too that for many Ages and now in this very Age the Learned of all Societies agree in this And though the Socinians are infinitely fond of their objections against our Mysteries yet I despair not to see them come over to the Faith They are Rational and at one time or other will be equitable Men. But now let us see the Province of Reason when it is satisfy'd that such or such a truth is reveal'd Socin I know what you are going to say and it is this That Reason having once satisfy'd it self of the certainty of the Revelation it has no more to do but its duty is to submit to what God has reveal'd Let a proposition contain never such a gross or palpable contradiction it must be swallow'd contentedly But in good truth can this be done If this is Faith and believing who can believe Orthod God can reveal neither contradiction nor error There is a great difference between understanding the truth of a proposition and the Nature of the thing propos'd God was manifest in the Flesh and the Word was made Flesh are propositions so vastly plain that no other sence can be made of them but this God has appear'd in our Nature There is no error no contradiction in this In a word we understand it But the Nature of the thing propos'd is so unknown to us and so much above us that it is rash and bold for us to inquire into it or imagine error or contradiction in it I say then that the Truth once propos'd we ought to acquiesce in it That Reason is to be silent and give no way to further inquiries Socin But can Reason be silent when you impose on me the belief of that of which I have no kind of Notion Orthod If by Notion you mean an insight into the thing Reveal'd you are unjust We have discours'd already that the Nature of Faith is to be obscure or else it is no Faith This can be no difficulty at all It is enough for us that we understand that God has propos'd such a thing though we understand not at all the thing propos'd I cannot apprehend how God assumes our Nature and is manifest in the Flesh But I apprehend that God tells it me in clear and express terms and therefore I believe and think not my poor ignorant Brain a competent Judge of God's Veracity Socin But pray hold a little Will you be satisfy'd of the deficiency of your method if I shew you that after you have attain'd the certainty of the Revelation you must believe propositions which are inconsistent with and destroy one another You believe God to be one and yet Father Son and Holy Spirit to be every one God Does not the first proposition destroy the second and the second the first How can he be one and three three and one Orthod This is still begging of the question God can propose nothing Contradictory or Inconsistent I confess I cannot understand how this is but it is reveal'd therefore certainly true and on that account I believe it Socin You believe that Christ is God and Man Infinite and Finite Immortal and Mortal The Supreme most High God and yet suffering and Dying He is God and he is sent He is God and yet prays to God He is God over all and yet subject to him who put all things under him If this is not inconsistent I do not know what inconsistency is Orthod If Plato Aristotle or any of the Sons of Men should tell me this I would speak as you do But God is true and he says all this I adore the Divine Oeconomy though I understand it not To be God and Man is no Contradiction The Scripture represents Christ as God blessed over all for ever It represents him also as a Man Nothing can be more express than the declarations of his Divinity Nothing more clear than those of his Humanity Which part of the Revelation shall Reason overthrow Convinc'd by the proofs of his Humanity you will say that he is no God Another convinc'd by the proofs of his Divinity will deny that he is a Man Thus Reason more inconsistent with it self than you fansie Revelation to be will reject every part and destroy the whole Socin No. Reason will reconcile all and by an easy explication will make him an inferior or a deputed God and also the greatest of Men. Orthod A Socinian Explication But the misery is that our Texts are not capable of any God Blessed over all for ever The word was with God The word was God and twenty more such places admit of no explication A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief in the Form of a Servant humbling himself to the Death of the Cross becoming Sin for us and dying for Sinners contradicts all your explications Away with this obstinacy which really debases Reason Take the Revelation as a Rational Man as it lies in all its parts as it comes from God who in the fullness of time has sent his Eternal Son to assume our Nature and become a Sacrifice for us Socin But you can never perswade me that Reason has not as much right to examine the truth of the thing propos'd as the proposition it self and to reject it if it is not agreeable to its Principles Orthod But you can never prove that Reason is capable of examining that which is above Reason and such are things reveal'd Their truth indeed depend from the conformity which they have with the Supreme Reason which is God But in respect to us their Truth consists not in their agreeableness to yours or my Reason But wholly in the Authority of the Revelation They are true because they are reveal'd Socin But is not my
Reason Seeing must not be restrain'd to sense but extended to whatsoever God proposes Doctrines as well as Matters of Fact rely upon the Divine Authority But let us see how CHRIST the Light of the World has done in the delivery of his Heavenly Doctrine Has he courted our Minds to an assent by explaining the Nature of the Mysteries which he offers Or after the manner of the then Philosophers by disputing and endeavouring to remove the prejudices of Reason Not at all but first he establishes his own Authority and then commands our belief This grand point once settled He tells us Mark 16.16 He that believes shall be sav'd he that believes not shall be damn'd Once more CHRIST gives the Jews no liberty of examining his doctrine or as you Gentlemen of the Socinian perswasion are us'd to do to admit or reject it as you think it agreeable or disagreeable to your Reason He proves what he is by two undeniable Principles The First is the Prophecies accomplish'd in him Act. 10.43 To him give all the Prophets witness The Second is the Miracles which he does Joh. 10.37 38. If I do not the works of my Father believe me not but if I do though you believe not me believe the works that you may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in him And before v. 25. the works that I do in my Father's name they bear witness of me He had reveal'd to them a great Mystery viz. his Unity with the Father an Unity of Nature and Essence v. 30. I and my Father are one The Reason of the Jews stumbles at this and even to that degree that they take up stones to stone him He uses no other Arguments but will have them to obey and submit and this upon the account of the greatest and most convincing demonstration that can be even the miraculous works of God To deal sincerely can any thing be objected against this Socin Yes truly You know that we deny this to be an Unity of Nature and appeal to v. 36. But not to insist on this which we have often objected and you pretend to have as often answer'd and not start from the main question I say that he proves nothing who proves too much You strain the point too high You not only debase but totally extinguish Reason You leave it bare naked destitute and like the Idols Psam 115.5 Which have Eyes and see not Mouths and speak not Have a care of v. 8. They that make them are like unto them Is it to be imagin'd that we can renounce Reason The will indeed is free and may embrace and reject But the Mind is not capable of choice It must necessarily assent or dissent It can never be brought to believe a contradiction For my part I openly declare that against what part soever of my self I practise self denial it shall never be against my Reason Orthod How often have we said and how often must we say it again That nothing in Religion is contrary to the Principles of true Reason That what you call Contradictions are not real because God can reveal no contradiction and that Reason over-rules all its reluctancies by that most Rational Principle that we owe our assent to what God has reveal'd This is not then to renounce your Reason but only its irregularities and excesses to divest it of its pride and folly and bring it to all the purity and strength of which it is capable on this side the grave But how can one hear without horror that you will not practise self denial against your Reason that is you are resolv'd not to be a Christian For he that is so must as we have said already bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ There is a poverty of Spirit to which CHRIST has annex'd a blessing The living contentedly under the hard circumstances of want and a willingness to part with our riches to become poor for CHRIST's sake is but one part of it The other consists in robbing the mind of oppositions of science falsly so call'd which puffs us up and through the vain additions of Philosophy gives us a high opinion of our selves The various notions which we have of things are the riches of our mind which we must be ready to part with when ever CHRIST commands it Learning without Piety looks upon this as an injury to Reason unwilling to stoop and be overcome But Piety with Learning puts the Servant of God in that humble frame of submission to what he reveals Socin This is perfect Enthusiasm and Fanaticism all over This the Priest perswades the people to that he may command their Faith That point gain'd he will quickly dispose of the rest Orthod If this is Enthusiasm and Fanaticism then all the World but the Socinians have been Enthusiasts and Fanaticks The first Men of the World liv'd altogether by Faith The Apostle gives the same Character to the Patriarchs and Prophets Whatsoever they did was the Work of Faith Reason then was in subjection to it But when Man substracted himself from the Service of God and suffer'd himself to be guided by his own notions then Reason grew proud shook off the easy yoak and gave birth to the opinions of Philosophers whom Tertullian calls elegantly Haereticorum Patriarchas the Patriarchs of Hereticks Some of the wise Heathens themselves were not insensible how many errors this pretence of Reason threw them into Tully lib. 3. de nat Deor. makes Cotta to speak smartly to this purpose against Balbus the Stoick I omit Socrates and Plato Philostratus de vit Apollon lib. 5. c. 14. asserts that Philosophy is good to lead us into the Knowledge of Natural but not at all of Divine Truths And Jamblichus is positive that Man by the strength of Reason cannot understand Sacred and Religious matters To increase the number of those Enthusiasts I dare to say that this has been the Unanimous sence of the Fathers Hence that saying of St. Austin Epist 3. so highly Reverenc'd by the succeeding Ages Tota Ratio facti est potentia facientis All the Reason which we can give of any thing that is done is his power who does it And the great Arch-Bishop of Milan in Epist ad Rom. Magni meriti est apud Deum qui contra scientiam suam Deo credidit non dubitans posse illum utpote Deum quod secundum mundi rationem fieri non possit He is very dear to God who believes God against all the Principles of his Reason not doubting but that he can as God do that which cannot be done according to the Course and Reason of the World You stare at this as very strange and unaccountable But yet this is the Language of the Masters of the Church Thus spoke these Primitive Bishops and if we have any Zeal for Primitive Truths and Primitive Manners we ought to speak so too Nay this Notion is so Universal that of all them who