Shape because of this No we compare these with the necessary Attributes of God and from thence see a necessity of interpreting these Expressions in a Sense agreeable to the Divine Nature So if other Expressions of Scripture seem to affirm that of a Body which is inconsistent with the Nature of it as that it is not visible or may be in many Places at once there is some Reason for me to understand them in a Sense agreeable to the Essential Properties of a Body 4. There is a difference between our not apprehending the manner how a thing is and the apprehending the impossibility of the thing it self And this is the meaning of the distinction of Things above our Reason and contrary to our Reason If the Question be how the same individual Nature can be communicated to three distinct Persons We may justly answer we cannot apprehend the manner of it no more than we can the Divine Immensity or an Infinite Amplitude without Extension But if any go about to prove there is an impossibility in the thing he must prove that the Divine Nature can communicate it self no otherwise than a finite individual Nature can For all acknowledg the same common Nature may be communicated to three Persons and so the whole Controversie rests on this single Point as to Reason whether the Divine Nature and Persons are to be judged and measured as Human Nature and Persons are And in this I think we have the advantage in point of Reason of the Anti-trinitarians themselves although they pretend never so much to it P. Good night Sir I perceive you are in for an hour and I have not so much time to spare to hear such long Preachments For my part talk of Sense and Reason as long as you will I am for the Catholick Church Pr. And truly she is mightily obliged to you for oppoposing her Authority to Sense and Reason P. Call it what you will I am for the Churches Authority and the talk of Sense and Reason is but Canting without that Pr. The matter is then come to a fine pass I thought Canting had rather been that which was spoken against Sense or Reason But I pray Sir what say you to what I have been discoursing P. To tell you truth I did not mind it for as soon as I heard whither you were going I clapt fast hold of the Church as a Man would do of a Mast in a Storm and resolved not to let go my hold Pr. What! altho you should sink together with it P. If I do the Church must answer for it for I must sink or swim with it Pr. What Comfort will that be to you when you are called to an account for your self But if you stick here it is to no purpose to talk any more with you P. I think so too But now we are in methinks we should not give over thus especially since I began this Dialogue about the Trinity and Transubstantiation Pr. If you do we know the Reason of it But I am resolved to push this matter now as far as it will go and either to convince you of your Mistake or at least to make you give it over wholly P. But if I must go on in my Parallel I will proceed in my own way I mentioned three things Scripture Reason and Tradition And I will begin with Tradition Pr. This is somewhat an uncouth Method but I must be content to follow your Conduct P. No Sir the Method is very natural for in Mysteries above Reason the safest way is to trust Tradition And none can give so good account of that as the Church Pr. Take your own way but I perceive Tradition with you is the Sense of the present Church which is as hard to conceive as that a Nunc stans should be an eternal Succession P. As to comparing Tradition I say that the Mystery of the Trinity was questioned in the very Infancy of the Church and the Arians prevail'd much against it in the beginning of the fourth Age but Transubstantiation lay unquestion'd and quiet for a long time and when it came into debate there was no such opposition as that of Arius to call in question the Authority of its Tradition the Church received it unanimously and in that Sense continued till rash Reason attempted to fathom the unlimited Miracles and Mysteries of God. Pr. I stand amazed at the boldness of this Assertion But I find your present Writers are very little vers'd in Antiquity which makes them offer things concerning the Ancient Church especially as to Transubstantiation which those who had been modest and learned would have been ashamed of P. I hope I may make use of them to justify my self tho you slight them I mean the Consensus Veterum the Nubes Testium and the single Sheet about Transubstantiation Pr. Take them all and as many more as you please I am sure you can never prove Transubstantiation to have been and the Trinity not to have been the constant Belief of the Primitive Church P. Let me manage my own Argument first Pr. All the Reason in the World. P. My Argument is That the Doctrine of the Trinity met with far more Opposition than Transubstantiation did Pr. Good Reason for it because it was never heard of then You may as well say the Tradition of the Circulation of the Blood lay very quiet from the days of Hippocrates to the time of Parisanus Who was there that opposed things before they were thought of P. That is your great Mistake for Transubstantiation was very well known but they did not happen to speak so much of it because it was not opposed Pr. But how is it possible for you to know it was so well known if they spake not of it P. I did not say they did not speak of it but not so much or not half so express because it is not customary for Men to argue unquestionable Truths Pr. But still how shall it be known that the Church received this Doctrine unanimously if they do not speak expresly of it But since you offer at no Proof of your Assertion I will make a fair offer to you and undertake to prove That the Fathers spake expresly against it P. How is that Expresly against it God forbid Pr. Make of it what you please and answer what you can I begin with my Proofs P. Nay then we are in for all Night I am now full of business and cannot hearken to tedious Proofs out of the Fathers which have been canvassed a hundred times Pr. I will be as short as I can and I promise you not to transcribe any that have hitherto written nor to urge you with any spurious Writer or lame Citation at second or third hand and I shall produce nothing but what I have read considered and weighed in the Authors themselves P. Since it must be so let me hear your doubty Arguments which I cannot as well turn against the Trinity For that is
RR. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. a Sac. Dom. Ex Aedib Lambeth Feb. 4. 1686. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AND Transubstantiation COMPARED AS TO Scripture Reason and Tradition IN A New DIALOGUE between a Protestant and a Papist The Second part Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason and Transubstantiation repugnant to both LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun in Fleet-street over against St. Dunstan's Church MDC LXXX VII THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION Compared c. Pr. I Hope you are now at Leisure to proceed with your parallel between the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation as to Scripture and Reason P. Yes and am resolved to make good all that I have said as to both those Pr. And if you do I will yield the Cause P. I begin with Scripture And the whole Dispute as to both depends on this Whether the Scripture is to be understood Literally or Figuratively If Literally then Transubstantiation stands upon equal terms with the Trinity if Figuratively then the Trinity can no more be proved from Scripture than Transubstantiation Pr. As tho there might not be Reason for a figurative Sense in one place and a literal in another P. It seems then you resolve it into Reason Pr. And I pray into what would you resolve it Into no Reason P. Into the Authority of the Church Pr. Without any Reason P. No There may be Reason for that Authority but not for the thing which I believe upon it Pr. Then you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity meerly because the Church tells you it is the literal Sense of Scripture which you are to follow But suppose a Man sees no Reason for this Authority of your Church as for my part I do not have you no Reason to convince such a one that he ought to believe the Trinity P. Not I. For I think Men are bound to believe as the Church Teaches them and for that Reason Pr. What is it I pray to believe P. To believe is to give our Assent to what God reveals Pr. And hath God revealed the Doctrine of the Trinity to the Church in this Age P. No it was revealed long ago Pr. How doth it appear P. By the Scripture sensed by the Church Pr. But whence come you to know that the Church is to give the Sense of the Scriptures Is it from the Scripture or not P. From the Scripture doubtless or else we could not believe upon the Churches Testimony Pr. But suppose the Question be about the Sense of these places which relate to the Churches Authority how can a Man come to the certain Sense of them P. Hold a little I see whither you are leading me you would sain draw me into a Snare and have me say I believe the sense of Scripture from the Authority of the Church and the Authority of the Church from the sense of Scripture Pr. Do you not say so in plain terms P. Give me leave to answer for my self I say in the case of the Churches Authority I believe the Sense of Scripture without relying on the Churches Authority Pr. And why not as well in any other Why not as to the Trinity which to my understanding is much plainer there than the Churches Authority P. That is strange Is not the Church often spoken of in Scripture Tell the Church Upon this Rock will I build my Church c. Pr. But we are not about the Word Church which is no doubt there but the Infallible Authority of the Church and whether that be more clear in the Scripture than the Doctrine of the Trinity P. I see you have a mind to change your Discourse and to run off from the Trinity to the Churches Authority in Matters of Faith which is a beaten Subject Pr. Your Church doth not tell you so and therefore you may upon your own grounds be deceived and I assure you that you are so for I intended only to shew you that for Points of Faith we must examine and compare Scripture our selves and our Faith must rest on Divine Revelation therein contained P. Then you think the Trinity can be proved from Scripture Pr. Or else I should never believe it P. But those places of Scripture you go upon may bear a figurative Sense as John 10. 30. I and my Father are one and 1 John 5. 7. And those three are one and if they do so you can never prove the Trinity from them Pr. I say therefore That the Doctrine of the Trinity doth not depend merely on these places but on very many others which help to the true sense of these but Transuâ—stantiation depends upon one single Expression This is my Body which relates to a figurative thing in the Sacrament and which hath other Expressions joined with it which are owned to be figurative This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood and which in the literal sense cannot prove Transubstantiation as your own Writers confess and which is disproved by those places of Scripture which assert the Bread and the Fruit of the Vine to remain after Consecration P. Shew the Literal Sense as to the Trinity to be necessary for I perceive you would fain go off again Pr. Will you promise to hold close to the Argument your self P. You need not fear me Pr. I pray tell me Were there not false Religions in the World when Christ came into it to plant the true Religion P. Yes but how far is this from the business Pr. Have a little Patience Did not Christ design by his Doctrine to root out those false Religions P. That is evident from Scripture and Church History Pr. Then Christs Religion and theirs were inconsistent P. And what then Pr. Wherein did this Inconsistency lie P. The Gentiles worshipped false Gods instead of the true One. Pr. Then the Christian Religion teaches the worship of the true God instead of the false ones P. Who doubts of that Pr. Then it cannot teach the Worship of a false God instead of the true One. P. A false God is one that is set up in opposition to the true God as the Gods of the Heathens were Pr. Is it lawful by the Christian Doctrine to give proper Divine Worship to a Creature P. I think not for Christ said Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Which our Church understands of proper Divine Worship Pr. But the Scripture requires proper Divine Worship to be given to Christ which is to require proper Divine Worship to be given to a Creature if Christ be not true God by Nature P. May not God communicate his own Worship to him Pr. But God hath said He will not give his Glory to another Isa. 42. 8. And the Reason is considerable which is there given I am the Lord that is my name which shews that none but the true Jehovah is capable of Divine Worship for Adoration
more be without a Subject than Water without Moisture or Fire without Heat or a Stone without Hardness which are so joined together that they cannot be separated Methodius confutes Origen's Fancy about the Soul having the Shape of a Body without the Substance because the Shape and the Body cannot be separated from each other St. Augustin proves the Immortality of the Soul from hence because meer Accidents can never be separated from the Body so as the mind is by abstraction And in another place he asserts it to be a monstrous absurd Doctrine to suppose that whose Nature is to be in a Subject to be capable of subsisting without it Claudianus Mamertus proves That the Soul could not be in the Body as its Subject for then it could not subsist when the Body is destroy'd P. I hope you have now done with this Third Argument Pr. Yes and I shall wait your own time for an Answer I go on to a Fourth And that is from the Evidence of Sense asserted and allowed by the Fathers with respect to the Body of Christ. P. I expected this before now For as the Author of the Single Sheet observes This is the Cock-Argument of one of the Lights of your Church and it so far resembles the Light that like it it makes a glaring shew but go to grasp it and you find nothing in your hand Pr. Then it 's plain our Senses are deceived P. Not as to Transubstantiation for he believes more of his Senses than we do for his Eyes tell him there is the Colour of Bread and he assents to them his Tongue that it has the Taste of Bread and he agrees to it and so for his Smelling and Feeling But then he hath a notable fetch in his Conclusion viz. That his Ears tell him from the Words spoken by Christ himself that it is the Body of Christ and he believes these too Is not here one Sense more than you believe And yet you would persuade the World that we do not believe our Senses Pr. This is admirable Stuff but it must be tenderly dealt with For I pray what doth he mean when he saith he believes from Christ's own Words that it is the Body of Christ What is this It Is it the Accidents he speaks of before Are those Accidents then the Body of Christ Is it the Substance of Bread But that is not discerned by the Senses he saith and if it were will he say that the Substance of Bread is the Body of Christ If neither of these then his believing It is the Body of Christ signifies nothing for there can be no sense of it P. However he shews That we who believe Transubstantiation do not renounce our Senses as you commonly reproach us For we believe all that our Senses represent to us which is only the outward appearance For as he well observes If your Eyes see the Substance of things they are most extraordinary ones and better than ours For our parts we see no farther than the Colour or Figure c. of things which are only Accidents and the entire Object of that Sense Pr. Is there no difference between the Perception of Sense and the Evidence of Sense We grant that the Perception of our Senses goes no farther than to the outward Accidents but that Perception affords such an Evidence by which the Mind doth pass Judgment upon the thing represented by the outward Sense I pray tell me have you any certainty there is such a thing as a material Substance in the World P. Yes Pr. Whence comes the certainty of the Substance since your Senses cannot discover it Do we live among nothing but Accidents Or can we know nothing beyond them P. I grant we may know in general that there are such things as Substances in the World. Pr. But can we not know the difference of one Substance from another by our Senses As for instance can we not know a Man from a Horse or an Elephant from a Mouse or a piece of Bread from a Church Or do we only know there are such and such Accidents belong to every one of these but our Senses are not so extraprdinary to discover the Substances under them I pray answer me one Question Did you ever keep Lent P. What a strange Question is this Did you not tell me you would avoid Impertinencies Pr. This is none I assure you P. Then I answer I think my self obliged to keep it Pr. Then you thought your self bound to abstain from Flesh and to eat Fish. P. What of all that Pr. Was it the Substance of Flesh you abstained from or only the Accidents of it P. The Substance Pr. And did you know the difference between the Substance of Flesh and Fish by your Tast P. Yes Pr. Then you have an extraordinary Tast which goes to the very Substance P. But this is off from our Business which was about the Fathers and not our own Judgment about the Evidence of Sense Pr. I am ready for you upon that Argument And I only desire to know whether you think the Evidence of Sense sufficient as to the true Body of Christ where it is supposed to be present P. By no means For then we could not believe it to be present where we cannot perceive it Pr. But the Fathers did assert the Evidence of Sense to be sufficient as to the true Body of Christ so Irenoeus Tertullian Epiphanius Hilary and St. Augustin I will produce their Words at length if you desire them P. It will be but lost labour since we deny not as Cardinal Bellarmin well saith The Evidence of Sense to be a good positive Evidence but not a negative i. e. that it is a Body which is handled and felt and seen but not that it is no Body which is not Pr. Very well And I pray then what becomes of your single Sheet man who so confidently denies Sense to be good positive Evidence as to a real Body but only as to the outward appearance P. You mistake him for he saith We are to believe our Senses where they are not indisposed and no Divine Revelation intervenes which we believe there doth in this Case and therefore unless the Fathers speak of the Sacrament we have no reason to regard their Testimonies in this matter But we have stronger Evidence against you from the Fathers for they say we are not to rely on the Evidence of Sense as to the Sacrament So St. Cyril St. Chrysostom and St. Ambrose Pr. I am glad you offer any thing which deserves to be considered But have you already forgot Bellarmin's Rule That Sense may be a good positive Evidence but not a negative i. e. it may discover what is present as a Body but not what is not and cannot be so present viz. the Invisible Grace which goes along with it and as to this the Fathers might well say we are not to trust our Sense P. This is making an
he doth not explain the former For he puts the Sense upon Corpus meum by adding dicendo to them i. e. This is the meaning of that speech when he calleth the Bread his Body P. Doth not Tertullian say That it had not been the Figure unless it had been the Truth Pr. This is again perverting his words which are Figuratum non fuisset nisi veritatis esset Corpus i. e. there had been no place for a Figure of Christ's Body unless Christ had a true body For he was proving against Marcion that Christ had a true Body and among other Arguments he produces this from the Figure of his Body which he not only mentions here but in other places where he saith That Christ gave the Figure of his Body to the Bread which cannot relate to any Figure of the Old Testament P. But doth not Tertullian say afterwards That the Bread was the figure of Christ's body in the Old Testament Pr. What then He had Two Designs against Marcion one to prove that Christ had a true body which he doth here from the figure of his body and the other that there was a Correspondency of both Testaments and for that purpose he shews that the bread in Jeremiah was the figure of Christ's body P. But the Author of the Single Sheet cites another place of Tertullian where he saith that our flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ that our soul may be filled with God. Pr. By the body and blood of Christ he means there the Elements with Divine Grace going along with them as appears by his design which is to shew how the body and soul are joyned together in Sacramental Rites The flesh is washed and the soul is cleansed the flesh is anointed and the soul consecrated the flesh is signed and the soul confirmed the flesh hath hands laid upon it and the soul enlighten'd the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ that the soul may be filled with God. Now unless Tertullian meant the Elements the Parallel doth not proceed for all the rest are spoken of the external Symbols and so this doth not at all contradict what he saith elsewhere no more than the Passage in the second Book adUxorem doth For there he speaks of Christ with respect to the invisible Grace as he doth here as to the outward Symbols P. Clemens Alexandrinus saith That Melchisedeck gave Bread and Wine in figure of the Eucharist Pr. And what then What is this to Transubstantiation P. Origen saith When you eat and drink the body and blood of our Lord then our Lord enters under your roof c. Pr. Are you sure that Origen said this But suppose he did must he enter with his flesh and bones and not much rather by a peculiar presence of his Grace For is it not Origen who so carefully distinguishes the Typical and Symbolical body of Christ from the Divine Word and so expresly mentions the material part of the Elements after Consecration which pass into the Draught c. Is all this meant of the Accidents only P. What say you to St. Cyprian de Coena Domini Pr. I beg your pardon Sir this is now known and acknowledged to be a late Author in comparison and cannot come within your 600 years and therefore is not ancient enough to be considered P. But in his genuine Writings he speaks of those who offer'd Violence to the body and blood of our Lord in the Eucharist Pr. And I pray what follows That the substance of the Elements is gone Where lies the Consequence But St. Cyprian saith the bread was his body and the wine his blood therefore their substance must remain P. What say you to Eusebius Emesenus Pr. That he is not within our compass and withal that he is a known Counterfeit P. I perceive you are hard to please Pr. You say very true as to supposititious Writers P. I hope you have more Reverence for the Council of Nice Pr. But where doth that speak of Transubstantiation P. It calls the Eucharist the body of Christ. Pr. And so doth the Church of England therefore that holds Transubstantiation I pray bring no more such Testimonies which prove nothing but what we hold P. I perceive you have a mind to cut me short Pr. Not in the least where you offer any thing to the purpose But I pray spare those who only affirm that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ after Consecration For I acknowledg it was the Language of the Church especially in the fourth Century when the Names of the Elements were hardly mention'd to the Catechumens and all the Discourses of the Fathers to them tended to heighten the Devotion and Esteem of the Eucharist By which Observation you may easily understand the meaning of the Eloquent Writers of that Age who speak with so much Mystery and Obscurity about it If you have any that go beyond lofty expressions and Rhetorical flights I pray produce them P. I perceive you are afraid of S. Greg. Nazianzen and S. Basil but especially S. Chrysostom you fence so much beforehand against Eloquent Men. Pr. As to the other two there is nothing material alledged by any to this purpose but S. Chrysostom I confess doth speak very lofty things concerning the Sacrament in his popular Discourses but yet nothing that doth prove Transubstantiation P. What think you of his Homilies 51 and 83. on S. Mat. 46. Homily on S. John 24. Homily on 1st to the Corinth the Homilies on Philogonius and the Cross Are there not strange things in them concerning the Eucharist About eating Christ and seeing him lie before them slain on the Altar about touching his Body there and the Holy Spirit with an innumerable Host hovering over what is there proposed with much more to that purpose Pr. You need not to recite more for I yield that St. Chrysostom delighted in the highest flights of his Eloquence on this Subject in his Homilies and he tells for what Reason to excite the Reverence and Devotion of the People But yet himself doth afford us a sufficient Key to these expressions if we attend to these things concerning his manner of speaking 1. That he affirms those things which no side can allow to be literally understood As when he so often speaks of our seeing and touching Christ upon the Altar which is inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For Christ is utterly invisible on the Altar even by Divine Power saith Suarez He is invisible in the Sacrament saith Bellarmin and he saith also that he cannot be touched What then is to be said to such expressions of S. Chrysostom Behold thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him It is not his Sacrament only which is offer'd us to touch but himself What if you do not hear his Voice do you not see him lying before you Behold Christ lying before you slain Christ lies on the holy
is done to God only on the account of his incommunicable Perfections and therefore the Reason of Divine Worship cannot reach to any Creature P. Not without Gods Will and Pleasure But may not God advance a mere Creature to that Dignity as to require Divine Worship to be given to him by his fellow-creatures Pr. Wherein lies the nature of that which you call proper Divine Worship P. In a due esteem of God in our Minds as the first Cause and last End of his Creatures and such Acts as are agreeable thereto Pr. Then proper Divine Worship doth suppose an Esteem of God as infinitely above his Creatures and how then is it possible for us to give the same Worship to God and to a Creature For if the distance be infinite between God and his Creatures and we must judg of things as they are then we must in our minds suppose a Creature to be infinitely distant srom God and if we do so How is it possible to give the same Divine Worship in this sense to God and to any Creature P. And what now would you infer from hence Pr. Do not you see already viz. that God cannot be supposed to allow Divine Worship to be given to Christ if he were a mere Creature and therefore since such Divine Worship is required by the Christian Doctrine it follows that those expressions which speak of his being One with the Father cannot be figuratively understood P. But where is it that such Divine Worship is required to be given to Christ in Scripture For according to my Principles the Church is to set the bounds and measures of Divine Worship and to declare what Worship is due to God what to Christ what to Saints and Angels what to men upon Earth what to Images Sacraments c. And if we depart from this Rule I know not where we shall fix Pr. I pray tell me doth the difference between God and his Creatures depend on the will of the Church P. No. Pr. Is it then in the Churches Power to give that to a Creature which belongs only to God P. I think not Pr. Who then is to be judg what belongs to God and what not God or the Church P. God himself if he pleases Pr. Then our business is to search what his Will and Pleasure is in this matter by reading the Scriptures wherein his Will is contained And there we find it expressed That all men should hâ—nour the Son even as they honour the Father John 5. 23. Let all the Angels of God worship him Heb. 1. 6. Blessing and honour and glory and power be unto him that sitteth on the Throne and to the Lamb for ever and ever Revel 4. 13. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in Heaven and things in earth c. Phil. 2. 9. If it were Gods great design by the Christian Doctrine to restore in the world a due sense of the infinite distance between God and his Creatures could any thing be more repugnant to it than in the same Doctrine to advance a creature to a participation of the same Divine Honour with himself So that in plain truth the Idolatry of the world lay only in a bad choice of the Creatures they were to worship and not in giving proper Divine Worship to a Creature for that Christianity it self not only allows but requires on supposition that Christ were God merely by Office and was originally a Creature as we are But I pray observe the force of the Apostles Argument speaking of the Gentile Idolatry he saith it lay in this That they did service unto them which by Nature are no Gods Gal. 4. 8. P. You know I must now personate the Anti-Trinitarian and he answers That by Nature no more is implied than truly and really i. e. God did not advance those Creatures among the Gentiles to that Worship and Honour which he hath done Christ. Pr. Then you make it lawful by the Gospel to believe Christ to be a mere Creature and at the same time to give him Divine Worship which supposes him not to be a Creature and so you must believe him to be a Creature and not to be a Creature at the same time P. How do you make that appear Pr. From your own words for you say proper Divine Worship lies in a due esteem of God in our minds as the first Cause and last End and in actions agreeable thereto then to give Divine Worship to God we must believe him to be above all Creatures as to his Nature and Being and theresore to give Christ Divine Worship must imply our believing him not to be a Creature and to be a Creature at the same time P. But the meaning of Divine Worship here must not then relate to Acts of the Mind but to outward Acts of Adoration in the Church Pr. Were the Gentiles guilty of Idolatry in that respect or not P. Yes but not those whom God requires to Worship in such a manner Pr. Then the Sin of Gentile-Idolatry lay only in giving Divine Worship to a Creature without Gods command which lessens it to that degree as to make Will-worship and Idolatry the same and to blame the Apostles for making such a dreadful Sin of it and disswading Christians so much from returning to the Practice of it For they had the priviledg of giving Divine Worship to a Creature by Gods command which others were damned for doing without a command which makes the Christian Religion not to appear so reasonable as the Anti-Trinitarians contend it is But here are four foul mistakes in point of Reason which they are guilty of 1. In making the Sin of Idolatry so Arbitrary a thing which depends not on the Nature of the Object which is worshipped but on the will and Pleasure of God. 2. In making the Gentiles guilty of a great Sin meerly in wanting a Divine command which was out of their Power 3. In making the Christian Religion to set up the Worship of a Creature when its design was to root out Idolatry 4. In making a Fictitious God or a Creature to be advanced to the Throne of God. Which I think is far more contradictious to Reason than a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the same Nature For nothing can be more absurd than to make that to be God which wants all the essential Attributes and Perfections of God as every Creature must do Such as Self-Existence Eternity Independency Immensity Omnipotency c. What a Contradiction is it to suppose a weak impotent depending confined created God And such every Creature must be in its Nature or else it is no Creature I do not at all wonder to find the Socinians after this to lessen the natural knowledg of God and his infinite Perfections both as to Power and Knowledg for it was their concernment to bring the Notion of God as low as possible that a Creature might be in the nearer Capacity of being made