Two Letters touching the Trinity and Incarnation. The First urging the Belief of the Athanasian Creed. The Second, an Answer thereto.  

The First LETTER.  
Loving Cousin;  
IT'S no small Trouble to me to hear you are fallen into the horrid Heresy of the Socinians and Arians, viz. to deny the Holy Trinity and Incarnation of our Saviour: For you commend a printed Sheet, that is dispersed under the Title of Brief Notes on the Creed of St. Athanasius, and are not afraid of the Damnation which is there pronounced against all such as do not firmly believe the Doctrines contained therein, which have been always and are at this Day held to be the Great Fundamentals of Christianity. And I take them to be so clearly revealed in Holy Scripture, that no Man well acquainted with Scripture, (as you are) can disbelieve them, without some Wantonness and Pride of Understanding, a great Conceit and Confidence of their own Knowledge, and such unpardonable Immodesty, as admits of no Excuse: And though such Persons may be otherwise pious and useful Men, yet there's no Reason why they should not be damned as well as devout and virtuous Jews and Heathens.  
I always took you for a modest Man, and one that had a great Reverence for what is revealed in Holy Scripture. But if you now resolve never to allow that to be the Sense of the Revelation, however plain and evident the Words are, which is not agreeable to your Reason, but will put another Sense upon them, though never so forced and violent, as in this Controversy you do; I can no longer account you modest, but that you now betray the Pride and Conceitedness, which before lay hid, and that if you persist in the Denial of the supreme Divinity of the Son of God and of the Holy Ghost, you are to be rejected of all good Christians as an Heretic, one that is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. For that it is not consistent with any Man, but him that has long indulged in himself that Arrogance and Singularity which stops his Ears to sober Truth, and shuts out of his Heart the Fear and Awe of God, or at least never sets himself seriously before the Divine Tribunal in the Consideration of these Matters (as I am persuaded befalls some heady and hot Controvertists) to shut his Eyes against the Meridian Light of these necessary Doctrines, the Foundation of Christian Religion as it is Christian. For the Mystery of the Trinity runs through it, and gives it all the Strokes of Life and Greatness, as it is a positive Religion different from natural. I beseech you therefore, Cousin, retire yourself into your own Heart, and set our Lord Jesus upon his Throne before your Eyes, and consider what you will answer to him, whom you have denied to be your God, and say he is but a made Lord, and that as a Mediator he is not God-Man, but Man only; and concerning the Holy Ghost, in whose Name you are baptised as well as in the Father and the Son, you yet deny him to be another Divine and Almighty Person. Consider, I pray, that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not a speculative Point, but that the whole Frame of Christianity is built upon it, and that it is necessary to support both our Christian Worship, and our Christian Hope and Comfort. Consider also that all Heresies are Works of the Flesh, which notwithstanding many great Bishops, and some great Councils have been guilty of, even in this Point denying of three equal Persons in God: And we know, that for many Ages the Church of Rome has maintained the gross Heresies of Transubstantiation, and Idolatrous Worship of the Host, with many other Superstitions; all which show that our corrupted Wills and Passions are as inclinable to Heresy and Superstition as to other Vices and Immoralities. Faith is a Christian Virtue, and a Man shall be punished for the Faults of his Understanding as well as any others. We must be as careful then to bring our Reason to whatever is divinely inspired, as our Will to whatever is divinely commanded. I beseech you therefore again and again, examine your Conscience seriously, and the Holy Scripture sincerely. Do not impose upon yourself to your own Destruction, by uncouth, nice, unintelligible and trifling Distinctions, for God will not be mocked. Sincerity is necessary to every good Christian, and they that want it shall have their Portion with Hypocrites and Sinners. As you harken to this altogether necessary Advice, you shall have me,  
Your Condoling, or Congratulating Kinsman.   

The ANSWER.  
Dear Cousin;  
AS I was meditating on the little or no care Christians take of their own Salvation, that unhappy Carelessness afforded me the true Reason of their being so little concerned for the Salvation of their Neighbours: I am glad to hear you are not of that Number, and I don't question but you will be pleased that I am none of them neither, and that following your Example, I desire your Salvation with as much Earnestness as you do mine. Most of those whom the Church has set up for the Conduct of Souls, are much more earnest to get Preferments, and defend the Party wherein they are engaged, by subtle Disputes and violent Persecutions, than sincerely to examine the Doctrines which they teach, and feed their Flocks with those pure and solid Truths, which free from Sin and Error: Nor do they think that thereby they become accountable before God's Tribunal for all the Wander of their Disciples. And lastly, that both the blind Guide, and the Blind whom he guides, shall fall into the Ditch. Do but separate from their Study whatever is profane, and belongs not to the Character of a Pastor, and the Treasure of their Minds will soon be exhausted; therefore imitate them not in such a Disorder. For my part, though I am a Layman, I think I am bound earnestly to exhort my Brethren, and you particularly, to restore the Principle of our Reformation, which is almost degenerated into Popery; and to make use of our own Light, that we may be able to keep the Way set before us in the Scripture: This is the Protestants Right, we are in Possession thereof, and we must not suffer ourselves to be deprived of it.  
I beseech you, dear Cousin, in the Name of God, to consider, that when we were first delivered from the Roman Tyranny, we inveighed against the absurd Doctrines, that were imposed upon our Faith, we cried down the Word of Men, and recommended only the Word of God, the Bible, the Bible, the Bible only, says Chillingworth. But we no sooner got out of our former Slavery, by the help of so clear a Light; but we are fallen into a new one by a most unequal Conduct. The Question is no more concerning the pure Word of God; it is, say they, too equivocal and uncertain, and it is no hard Matter for Heretics to make it agree with their particular Opinions. What then? we hear of nothing but Fathers, Tradition, Councils, Creeds, and new-coined Words, on purpose to keep Christians within the Bounds of the Faith of their Ancestors; Metaphysical Terms, whereof Men have no fixed Notion, and yet they stop the Mouths of Heretics, by making the Church speak more clearly and reasonably than the Holy Ghost did. But this is not all; some of the same Men who inveighed so much against the Inquisition and Popish Violences, set up among themselves a Holy Inquisition, and will hear of no Toleration, but oppress the Liberty of the Christians, who dare speak out their Mind, so far are they from venturing on Writings and a public Profession. One would think that by our many Disputes with the Roman Church, concerning Infallibility, we have acquired the Privilege thereof to ourselves.  
Give me leave therefore, dear Cousin, since you call me to God's Tribunal, to summon you to the same. Pray tell me, Ought we not to fear that God should require from us the Truth of the Holy Scripture, with which we have been entrusted; that Light which we have put under a Bushel, and his gracious Talon, which we have buried? If he asks, from whence we took those prosane Novelties of a Science falsely so called, I mean that most strange and barbarous Language in his Church, O Holy, Blessed and Glorious Trinity, three Persons and one God, have Mercy upon us; What shall we answer him? What if he shall oblige us to give an Account of our Faith of that monstrous Creed of Athanasius, with which we honour our great Holy Days, and which you mention as the most illustrious Monument of the Faith of our Fathers. Where is the Scribe, where is the Philosopher of this World, that can answer him to one of those many nonsensical Articles? How came ye, will he say, to find in my Word one Essence and three Persons, rather than one Person and three Essences? By what Partiality have you discovered a Figure in these Words, This is my Body, and have found none in these, The Word was God? Why did you distinguish two Natures in the Christ, whom I sent you, whilst you refused to admit of two sorts of Being in the Sacramental Body, which he gave you? You were afraid of those Words, To eat the Flesh, and drink the Blood of the Son of God; and you had no Repugnancy for the literal Sense of these, A Virgin brought forth God; The Jews crucified God? He can ask a thousand such Questions, to which we shall be able to give no reasonable Answer, by reason of the Inequality of the Reverence we pretend to pay to his Word, and of our Unsteadiness in the Use we make of our Reason and Senses.  
In Effect, I would fain have our Teachers to tell us by what Principle of Philosophy, by what Rule of Language, that Conclusion is irght and necessary, viz. the Father is a Divine Person, the Son is a Divine Person, the Holy Ghost is a Divine Person; Therefore there are three Divine Persons: and this should not likewise be so; The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God; Therefore there are three Gods? Doth not common Reason tell us, that those two Conclusions are like this? Gabriel, Raphael, and Michael, are three Angelical Persons; therefore they are three Angels? The same might be said of Peter, James and John, who are both three humane Persons, and three Men. This Principle of natural Reason ought to prevail, unless we are taught by the Scripture, that three Divine Persons are not the same with three Gods, or that a God is three Persons, and three Persons a God. But where doth it tell us so? What Texts can they allege that are clearer to prove that Mystery, than those alleged by the Papists are, to prove their supposed Mystery of one Christ and many Bodies, and of many Bodies and one Christ? How is it that with respect to the Sacrament, we are helped by our Senses to put a reasonable Sense upon the Scripture; but with respect to the Trinity, Reason forsakes us so far, as to ascribe to Scripture an absurd Sense, and contrary to its Simplicity? Is the Light of a sensible Man more certain than that of an understanding and reasonable Man? Have we a greater Certainty, that a Piece of Bread is not a humane Body, than that two and one make three? Is the Mystery of Christ's Sacramental Body more suitable to our Apprehension, than the Mystery of his real and natural Body? How come we to know that there is something that is incomprehensible in that Man, whom we see born and dead, and that there is no such thing in the Bread which we take and eat? A God is joined to that, say ye, and why not to this? But we see still some Bread, will ye reply. It is true, your Senses do not deceive you: But have not the Apostles too seen with their Eyes, and touched with their Hands, the Man, who is called the Word of Life? and their Senses have not deceived them. This is true, who can, doubt of it? How shall we come off? Shall we fly to another Nature hypostatically united to this, which is the Object of our Senses? But then the Heretics, who err about the Sacrament, may have Recourse to the same Shift, to avoid the Testimony of the Senses. Some will say that the Senses can judge only of the Species which remain in the Sacrament; Some, that there is an invisible Object in the Bread, which is the glorious Body of Christ; Some that there is an hypostatical Union of that Bread with the eternal Word, which raises the Mystery so much above our Reason, that it loses thereby the Right and Liberty of judging thereof, and lies under the Necessity of submitting to the Authority of the Revelation, which is clear upon this Point; for it says, This is my Body. Now if our Reason is rash in the Judgement it bears concerning the Incarnation, notwithstanding the Evidence of the literal Sense of the Scripture, which is on her side, what Rashness will it not be to interpose her Judgement in the Mysteries of Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation, against the express Revelation of God's Word, This is my Body?  
I will only ask you one Question upon this Matter, and I desire you to answer me in the Fear of God, and the Sincerity of your Heart. Why do you think you may with Dr. Wallis say, that the Terms of Person, Father, Son, Begotten, etc. are metaphorical, whilst you cannot endure that those you call Heretics should use the same Right, and according to Reason and Scripture, pretend likewise that the Title of God ascribed to Christ, is also a metaphorical Expression? Can any thing be more unjust? Furthermore, why do you take the Liberty to explain the Words of the Eucharist thus, This Bread is the Representation and the Figure of my Body? And why do you deny me at the same time the same Liberty, when I explain the Words in the Beginning of St. John's Gospel by these, And the Word was the Image of God? Your Injustice is so much the greater, because I may ground my Interpretation upon other Expressions of the Scripture, wherein Christ is formally called the Image of God, and because you have no express Texts of the same Scripture wherein the Sacramental Bread is called the Figure of Christ's Body. Now neither in my Proposition nor in yours, the Image cannot be the Original. As the Bread hath but a Conformity of Qualities with Christ's Body, not the same Qualities, and the same Substance: Thus Christ, as he is the Image of God, cannot have the same Qualities nor the same Nature with God: He only hath the Impression of the Divine Substance, which God hath communicated to him, by honouring him with his Unction, bearing Testimony to him, and crowning him with Glory as a Reward of his Sufferings: Because he humbled himself to the Death of the Cross, therefore the Father hath highly exalted him, and hath given him a Name which is above every Name. Now if Christ hath been dignified with that high Name, by reason of his Obedience and Virtue, it follows from thence, that he had it not by the Privilege of his eternal Generation: For if so, the pompous Description of Christ's Elevation set down in the Gospel would be but a Show and mere Pageantry.  
Therefore, dear Cousin, if you find in those clear Texts of the Scripture the true Reason of Christ's being called God; believe me, do not fetch any other from the extravagant Notions of the Athanasian Creed, wherein neither you nor I can apprehend any thing, except we apprehend nothing. Notwithstanding you are so bold as to pronounce against me a Sentence of Damnation upon the Words of that doting Writer, (who was not Athanasius) and even to damn all those who will give no Credit to his Rave, let them be never so pious and charitable. O strange Prejudice of Men! As for me i'll make bold likewise to tell you, that how false and ill grounded soever the Assurance of Salvation may be, which that Author promises to those that believe his Visions, it is yet more false, that those good Christians who refuse to believe them, shall be damned. For there is nothing more certain and clear in the Gospel than this, viz. That all honest and pious Men shall be saved, and that all those who shall be saved, will be saved without believing the curious Mysteries of the pretended Athanasius. Do but peruse all the Evangelical Promises, and look if you can find any one that promises Salvation to those who believe the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity; I can show you a thousand which make Salvation sure to Piety, or to a Faith inconsistent with the Faith of Athanasius. What Guide shall we then follow, this Creed which says, That whosoever will be saved, aught to believe three Divine Persons, and one Divine Essence, or Christ, who assures us, that eternal Life consists in acknowledging his Father the only true God, and himself Christ Jesus to be he whom the Father hath sent, that is to say, the Messiah? What Creed shall we pitch upon to be the Badge of our Christianity, either the new ones, which speak of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, as three equal Persons, or the ancient Creed of the universal Church, commonly called the Apostles Creed, which only speaks of God the Father, Jesus Christ his Son, and the Holy Ghost, without giving the Title of God to these two last? and which expressly ascribing to the Father the Attributes of the Godhead, of Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth; ascribes only to the Son that which is only consistent with a Man, and cannot be ascribed to the supreme God without Blasphemy, viz. That he was conceived, born, died, was buried, and raised?  
Now as it is not the Language of the Apostles Creed, to say, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; so it is neither the Style of the Scripture, which never gives the Title of God to Christ, when it joins him with the Father, in those Places wherein it sets before us the Objects of our Knowledge and Worship, and makes, as it were, a kind of Form or Confession of Faith. The Reason of it is this, Christ is God with Respect to the Empire which he hath received from God over the new Creatures, which he hath taken out of the Chaos of Sin, and governs by his Father's Power: But with Respect to God his Father, he is only the Minister of his Will, his Messenger, and is at most called the Lord, which is a Term of Inferiority in the New Testament, to denote him whom the Father hath made his Lieutenant, who hath received his Empire from another, and is to deliver it to him, that entrusted him with it; God, say the Holy Apostles, having made him Lord and Christ. According to this Rule, which the Scripture exactly follows, it doth not only deny the Title of God to Christ in the Abridgements of Faith which it affords; but it is wont to ascribe it only to the Father exclusively of the Son, saying expressly, that the Father is the only true God, and the Son the only Lord, as often as it puts together those two Objects of our Faith. And in this remarkable Opposition it is that we are to look for the true Sense of the Scripture about this Mystery; not in those other Places wherein it doth not affect the same Exactness. Here, dear Cousin, I entreat you again, if you are a true Lover of Truth, seriously to consider those Texts of the Gospel upon which my Remark is grounded. This is Life eternal, says Christ to his Father, to know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. But to us, says St. Paul, There is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things; and we by him. One God, says the same Apostle, and one Mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus. Where is the Trinitarian, who on such an occasion would not say, One God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? yet there is no mention made of the Holy Ghost; and as for the Son he bears only the Title of scent, Lord and Mediator, that of God being not at all bestowed upon him in those Places? Who is the Trinitarian that would not say on the last cited Place, One God, and one Mediator between God and Men, Christ God-man? But God-man is too barbarous an Expression, and the Holy Ghost is too wise to make such a Conjunction. Lastly, who is the Trinitarian, who would call the Father, the only God, the only true God, to distinguish him from the Son, by opposing God to Man, the only God to the only Lord and Mediator, in a Word, the Father to the Son, and one Person to another? Do they not pretend that the Father cannot be called the only true God, but by Opposition to the false Gods of the Heathens? But the Holy Apostle doth not only oppose him to the Idols of the Pagans, as the true one to the false ones, but to the only Lord, whom Christian's worship; inasmuch as God by Excellence, God by himself, is opposed to the inferior and subordinate Gods, whom he hath made such out of his Grace and Liberality, I said, ye are Gods: But to us, says the Holy Apostle, to us Christians, there is but one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ: Two Objects of our Faith really distinguished; the one by the Name of one only God, the other by the Title of one only Lord. From whence it follows, as I have already said, that Christ indeed is God, or rather a God, if considered as the Head of all the new Creatures, which God hath subjected to his Empire; but when joined to the Father, this Title vanishes away, and he bears only that of his Minister and Ambassador; so true it is, that before the true and supreme God, any other God besides him must fall and disappear.  
You accuse me of wresting the Scripture, yet you see how I have brought you to the Necessity of putting a hard Sense upon it, if you will maintain your Hypothesis. The Texts that I allege to you are clear and formal, and you cannot avoid the Strougth of them, but either by a Philosophy altogether incomprehensible, or by some gross and contradictory Shifts, or by a pitiful Wrangling, or even by Impiety and Blasphemies. The Number of such Shifts is endless, and I shall be contented to bring an Instance about every one of those, which I have just now intimated. When we allege that Crowd of Texts, which say, that God is one, you fly to that famous Distinction of one Essence and three Persons, and three Persons and one Essence. If at the same time we allege those primitive Facts of the Gospel, wherein we see a most exact History, not of a God, but of a Man like unto us, who was born, died, and was raised; you answer with another Distinction of two Natures and one Person, and one Person and two Natures. This is your incomprehensible Philosophy, which will have one to be three times one, three times himself: and pretends that by Virtue of I know not what hypostatical Union, a Man is the supreme God, and the supreme God a Man; so that it may be said, The most high God was born, the most high God died. O! Who shall raise him from the dead? Again when we show that the Question concerning Christ's Divinity was decided by himself before the Jews, who accused him that being a Man, he made himself equal to God; when one shows you, I say, that Christ vindicates himself from Blasphemy, by protesting that he said he was the Son of God, only in such a Sense as is approved by the Law, founding his Right, not upon an eternal Generation, but upon a Heavenly Commission and Unction, just as the other Gods, whose Example he alleges, If those are called Gods, to whom the Word of God came, etc. say ye that I blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God? When one sets before you so clear a Decision, and at the same time so favourable to those you call Heretics, how do you make shift? You say that Christ spoke only according to the Need of the Jews, that there was no Necessity for him to give them further Instructions. Yet at the same time that you return this curious Answer, which supposes that it was enough for the Jews, that Christ should teach them, that he was a God by Office, you make an Objection taken out of the same Discourse of Christ, wherein you pretend that he told the Jews he was God by Nature, when he says, that he and the Father were one, which Words you insist upon to prove the Unity of Nature. This I call your gross and contradictory shifts. Again, when one citys the famous Text of St. John's Gospel, wherein Christ makes eternal Life to consist in knowing the Father the only true God, etc. What do you answer to so strong an Objection? You put upon those Words a most forced and unnatural Sense, and say that they ought to be translated thus, This is Life eternal, to know that thou Father and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent, are the only true God. This I call your rash and impertinent Wranglings. In effect you are so bold as to make use of this in your Disputes, to make shift as well as you can. But none of your Orthodox Translations durst take the same Liberty, neither the Latin, nor the English, nor the French, nor the Germane, nor the Dutch, etc. And I am sure that if you would undertake a new Translation, you have still Modesty enough not to fly to so shameful an Extremity. Lastly, (for I should never have done, were I willing to insist upon every thing) when one shows you in the 13th Chapter of St. Mark, that Christ is not the most high God, since he was ignorant of the Day of Judgement, (for God knows all things) of that Day, says Christ, no Man knoweth it, not the Son, but the Father only. In answer to this unanswerable Objection, you put into Christ's Mouth a Jesuitical Equivocation, pretending his meaning was, that he knew it not as a Man, though he knew it well as God. This I call your Impiety and Blasphemy. Methinks, dear Cousin, you should blush to impute to Christ a mental Reservation, which you so much detest in the Priests of the Church of Rome. Read Dr. Stillingfleet in his Sermon upon Matth. 10.16. pag. 31, 32. The common Answer, says he, (speaking of those Priests Equivocations) is, That in Confession the Priest doth not know as Man, but as God, and therefore when he is asked any thing as a Man, he may deny what he knows as God. But the Doctor shows the Folly and Absurdity of this Answer, Because, says he, this doth not salve the Contradiction; for to say, he doth not know, is as much as to say, he doth not any way know it, which is false, if he doth know it in any Capacity, because he knows it as a Priest, and as such he is not God, but Man. Give me leave therefore to look upon the Words you put into the Mouth of Christ, who is Truth itself, as an Impiety and a Folly. He doth not know it, signifies that he doth not any way know it, which is false, if he knows it in any Capacity. Furthermore, it is false, that he doth not know it as Man, since he knows it as Mediator, and as such he is not only God, but God and Man, say you. This is a Pattern of your unnatural Explications. I pass by a great many others, to be short.  
For the same Reason, I will only undertake to overthrow the two Foundations of your Mysteries; which being done, nothing remains to build your Faith upon. The one is the eternal Generation, and the other the Incarnation or the Union of the two Natures. To begin with the eternal Generation; it is no difficult thing to demonstrate to you, that it hath no ground in the Scripture. For forasmuch as Christ, as you say, is God only upon the Account of his being begotten of God, or being the Son of God, we have nothing to do but to consult the same Scripture, to see upon what grounds the Title of Son of God bestowed upon Christ is founded therein. And if among those Reasons alleged by it, that of an eternal Generation is not to be found, it will necessarily follow, that such a Generation is the Invention of your Teachers. Let us pass by, if you will, that famous Place, wherein the Angel grounds the Title of Son of God upon the miraculous Conception of our Saviour in the Womb of a Virgin by the Power of the Holy Ghost: The Holy Ghost, says he to the Virgin, shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore that holy thing that shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. Again, let us omit that remarkable Passage, wherein Christ derives his Title of Son of God from his Unction and Heavenly Commission, Say ye that I blaspheme whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the World, because I said, I am the Son of God? It seems to me impossible to find two Causes or two Reasons of Christ's being the Son of God, more clear and express than these two; because he was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the Womb of a Virgin, and because the Father hath sanctified him, and sent him into the World. However I will not insist upon them, to stay the longer upon those, in which the Word to beget is expressly set down. I know but three Texts belonging to this Subject: The first is in Acts 13.33. where it is said, that God hath begotten his Son by raising him from the dead; God, says the Apostle, hath fulfilled the Promise unto us, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this Day have I begotten thee. The second, Heb. 5.5. where it is expressly set down, that God hath begotten his Son, by making him his Highpriest: Christ, says the Apostle, glorified not himself to be made an Highpriest, but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to Day have I begotten thee. The third is in the same Epistle, chap. 1.5. where the same Apostle tells us, that God hath begotten his Son by exalting him above the Angels: For unto which of the Angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this Day have I begotten thee? In all these Texts there is no other Generation mentioned, but what is grounded upon the high Glory, which God hath conferred upon his Messiah, by raising him from the dead, and making him Lord and Christ. And this Generation is so far from being eternal, that it is expressly said, it was performed to day, viz. the Day of his Resurrection and Ascension. Your Teachers have been often challenged to produce one single Text of Scripture, wherein the eternal Generation is expressly contained, and is the true Ground of Christ's being called the Son of God. If there is any, you will do me a Kindness to let me know it. Till this be done, I ought to acknowledge no other Generation, but what the Scripture teaches, in those clear and express Texts which I have cited. Hereupon I will acquaint you with an Observation, for which I am beholden to a learned Man, viz. That there is a vast Difference between the manner of the Father's speaking of Christ's Divinity, and that of the Apostles. The first fetched his Original from I know not what Generation, which was made in the Beginning of the World: it is almost the only Generation spoken of by them, and their Platonic Style always runs that way. On the contrary, the last show the Source of it in his miraculous Birth, especially in his Resurrection and Exaltation. Hence it is that though Christ never called himself God, whilst he had but a Glimpse of his future Glory; yet the Apostles made no Scruple to honour him with that glorious Title, when they saw him crowned with his highest Glory & Honour. Now that Difference in treating of the same Doctrine, which is to be seen between the sacred Writers and your Teachers, is a material one, and aught to convince you, that they had not both the same Principles, as your Church pretends. This general Observation concerning the Fathers, is sufficient to make me refuse their Testimony, and look upon them as no good Interpreters of the Scripture, and unfaithful Guardians of Tradition.  
I come now to the Incarnation or the Union of two Natures. You must confess, dear Cousin, that if we can from any Place learn the Distinction of two Natures in Christ, it is undoubtedly from Rom. 1.3. where he is called the Son of David according to the Flesh, and the Son of God according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the Resurrection from the Dead. Here is the Son of David and the Son of God, the Flesh and the Spirit, or the Word. Yet this Text is so far from proving two Natures in Christ, such as you understand, that it is the strongest Argument that can be brought against you, to confute that foolish and absurd Distinction, and the clearest Commentary we have, to explain the other Passages, which speak of Christ as a Man and a God. To be convinced of the Truth of this Assertion, you need only compare together the 23d, 28th and 29th Verses of the 4th to the Galatians: The Apostle says, that Ishmael was born according to the Flesh, or that he was the Son of Abraham according to the Flesh, that is, according to the ordinary Course of Nature; but that Isaac was born according to the Spirit, or by a miraculous Birth, that is, he was not so much the Son of Abraham, as the Son and Heir of the Divine Promise. This is granted by all. Now according to St. Paul's Style, it is plain that Christ is the Son of David according to the Flesh, that is, according to his natural Birth, because he was born of a Woman, and Son of God according to the Spirit, viz. according to his supernatural Birth, because he was born of a Virgin by the Operation of the Holy Spirit, and because he was raised from the dead, according to the Spirit of Holiness, as the Apostle speaks: In which Sense he is not so much the Son and Heir of David, as the Son and Heir of God, or the Son of that great Promise, which God had made to the Patriarches. According to the Spirit, can therefore signify only by the Divine Power, by his miraculous Birth and Resurrection: Which plainly shows that the Distinction of two Natures, in the Sense you take them, is a mere Fancy; because the eternal Generation is not at all mentioned by the Apostle in his Opposition between the Son of David and the Son of God, the Flesh and the Spirit, the Humanity and the Divinity of Christ; and because, speaking of those two Natures, taken in a right Sense, he says, that Christ did partake of this last, when he was constituted the Son of God, not by an eternal Generation, but a Divine Sanctification, and the Virtue of his Resurrection.  
From what hath been said, it doth plainly appear, dear Cousin, that those are truly Heretics, who forsake the Simplicity and Purity of the Scripture, to coin Mysteries unknown to that Divine Revelation: Unknown, I say, as it is evident from the new Words that have been coined to express them: Which so plainly argues their Novelty, that any one that is but sincere, must needs be no less prejudiced against the strange Words of Consubstantiality and Incarnation, than against the monstrous Term of Transubstantiation. They have both the same Original, Growth and Scope, and consequently, with respect to us, they must have the same Destiny, and be looked upon by all good Christians, as the Effects of humane Passions, and the dismal Causes of our Divisions. In this you do condemn yourselves. For if you pretend to teach the same Doctrines, which are taught in the Scripture, why do not you use the same Words? Your new Terms do betray your Cause, and plainly show, that according to the Character of an Heretic set down by St. Paul, you do act not only against your own Conscience, but against the Design of the Holy Ghost: Seeing you can never speak differently from him, but you must perceive at the same time, that you think differently, and by changing his Words, altar his Notions too. It is an easy thing to change a Doctrine by the Help of a new Word, especially when to this new Word another is added, and the Explication thereof extended as far as possible, as Councils commonly do, who under Pretence of clearing Truth to its highest degree of Evidence, do so far departed from its Simplicity, that they quite lose the sight of it: so that it may be said, that after so many new Pieces have been borrowed and sewed to that first Garment, it hath lost its Form and Colour, and is no more the same Cloth. But lest you should say, that it is still the same Doctrine, expressed several ways, I shall prove the contrary in few Words. Observe therefore, (dear Cousin) that when the Scripture or the Creed of the Apostles, (which is for the most part made up of scriptural Terms) sets down any Capital Doctrine, it makes use of so plain and intelligible Terms, either proper or metaphorical, that they may be understood by all Men. None can be deceived by them, if he is sincere: For Example, when the Apostles Creed says, that there is an Almighty God, Maker of Heaven and Earth; that that most high God hath a Son, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, was born, died, was raised from the Dead, etc. any one presently apprehends with the whole Catholic Church, what is an Almighty God, Creator of all things; and what is a Son of God, who is his only Son, because none but he hath a Virgin for his Mother, and God for his Father; what it is to be born, to die, and to be raised from the dead, and such other Terms, whereby the Doctrines of our Religion are expressed. There is no Dispute about them, because all Christians have the same Notions of them: so that the Heretics who rejected the Doctrines contained in them, were forced to reject those Scriptures, wherein they were mentioned. But pray how dare you pretend that the Terms which you have contrived, were contrived to signify the same things, seeing they are not commonly used by Men, being all taken out of Philosophy? Besides, their Signification is liable to so many Changes and Alterations, that sometimes they signify one thing, and sometimes another. This is so true, that the very Men of that Age in which they were coined, could not agree about their natural Meaning, one Doctor taking the Word Hypostasis for that we call a Person, and another for that which we call a Substance; one Council rejecting the Word Consubstantial as favouring Heresy, and the other looking upon it as a Word fit to confute it. What may be the Reason, that when the Holy Ghost speaks, his Words are so popular and so clear, that reasonable Men cannot mistake the meaning of them? How comes it to pass, that there is no Dispute among Men concerning these Words, Son of God, who was conceived of the Holy Ghost, was born, died, & c? But when Men speak, and introduce a Son consubstantial with the Father, begotten, not made, etc. some do not understand them at all, let them be never so reasonable; some, though very teachable, cannot endure such a Language; and some disagree about their meaning, though every one of them considers it with a good Intention, and in the Fear of God. You need but consult your Divines hereupon; some by three Persons understand three Relations; some, three Capacities; some, three Minds; some, three Somewhats; and some, three individual Natures, as Peter, James, and John. The Reason of that Difference is obvious and plain: The Holy Ghost sets before us the Divine Revelation full of Wisdom, and accommodated to our Knowledge, and he fixes popular Notions to his Terms: But Men join to their Words remote, abstruse and metaphysical Ideas, and they put such an unnatural Sense upon the Word of God, that even when they use it, it is only to defend their foolish and extravagant Fancies.  
Do not tell me that it was wisely done by the Church, to coin those new Words, that the Sense of the Scripture might be fixed thereby, and the Liberty of Heretics stopped. So pitiful an Excuse doth not justify your Rashness, it only justifies the Innocence of the pretended Heretics. For what could hinder those Heretics, whom you accuse of wresting the Scripture, to use the same Subtlety, in order to the eluding of those new Terms, which you will have them to subscribe to? They could easily do it, by putting upon them such a Sense as would not be prejudicial to their Opinions. However this very thing, viz. their refusing to submit to those new Impositions, is an undeniable Argument of their Sincerity: and if they cannot be brought, though in order to the saving of their Lives and Estates, to put an unnatural Sense upon men's Words, which they despise; much less will they wrest the Sense of God's Word, to which they pay the greatest Reverence. From whence it follows, dear Cousin, that you yourself are a Heretic: I am sorry to tell you so, but you force me to it. I have yet something more to say to you, give me leave to speak it out; for I do impart my Thoughts to you not in Anger, but with a Desire of making you more attentive to those things, in which your Salvation is so much concerned. I mean that you run the Danger of being one of those Antichrists spoken of by St. John, when he says, that whosoever doth not confess that Christ, who came in the Flesh, (for thus it must be rendered) the same is Antichrist. For first, since Christ signifies Anointed, an Antichrist is one that is an Enemy to the Lord Christ's Anointing. Now do not you destroy that Divine Unction, pretending that Christ is the Son of God by an eternal Generation, which makes him uncapable of Unction or Exaltation, and overthrows that Fundamental Truth, viz. that God made him Lord and Christ? Secondly, since to come in the Flesh, signifies to come not like a conquering Prince, but like a Man of Sorrows, do not you destroy his Flesh and Sufferings, pretending on one hand, that he is the most high God, who can neither be born, nor die; and on the other affirming, that Christ hath not the proper Personality of a Man, but the borrowed Personality of the eternal Word? so that according to your Notions, the Holy Virgin did not bring forth a Man, but an humane Nature; the Jews have not crucified a Man, but an Humanity. An humane Nature is but an Ens rationis, and a mere Fancy: an Humanity can neither be born, nor die, nor be raised; which overthrows the first Articles of the Christian Faith, and may convince you of mere Antichristianism. For my part, dear Cousin, I can boast, Thanks be to God, of a contrary Character, viz. that he that confesseth that Jesus, who came in the Flesh, is Christ, is born of God. For I do not believe him to be the most high God, who can neither be born, nor die; but I believe he is a Man like unto us in all things, Sin excepted, who died for our Sins, and was raised for our Justification. I confess at the same time, that Jesus is Christ the Lord, to the Glory of God the Father, who hath highly exalted him, and given him Power, Might, Honour and Glory. I am amazed to see that instead of building your Faith upon the Rock of that solid Confession, you will by all means found it upon such Doctrines as have no Influence upon Practice. What Advantage is it to your Religion to reckon three Almighty and three Incomprehensible Ones, as Objects of Confidence and Worship? Is Infinity capable of more or less? Is one the richer for having ten thousand, than one only infinite? But to believe the only all good, wise, just and Almighty God was pleased to manifest himself to us by his Messiah, who is the Prophet that declares his Will to us, the King who engages himself to fulfil his Promises, and the faithful and merciful Highpriest, who can be touched with the feeling of our Infirmities: This, I say, is the Notion of a most wise Religion, which contains a great many Doctrines, wherewith the Mind is enlightened, and the Heart moved, a firm Support to our Faith, a solid Foundation to our Hopes, and a thousand Encouragements to Holiness of Life. I exhort you, dear Cousin, to a serious Consideration of so simple, but so rich a Religion. Do it with an honest and sincere Heart, and I hope by God's Grace, that so great a Light will scatter the Mist that surrounds you, and help you to overcome the Prejudices of a Party. For it is to be presumed that they are on your side; and one that owes his Religion to his Birth and Education, ought always to mistrust them. You are already gone a great way, adopting St. Augustin's Maxim, viz. That whatever Expression of the Scripture seems to command a Crime, must needs be figurative. Go on and be sure, that any Expression of the Scripture, which seems to require the Belief of an Absurdity and a Contradiction, must needs be figurative. The Reason is the same, for if the Scripture cannot require of you any thing that is contrary to the natural Notions you have of Piety; for Example, to eat humane Flesh; it can neither impose upon your Belief any thing that is contrary to your natural Ideas of Truth; as for Example, That a Man who dies is the living and immortal God. I leave it to your Consideration, recommending you to God, and the Word of his Grace. I am,  
Dear Cousin, Yours, etc.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
Dear Cousin;  
AFter a second Reading of your Letter, I have observed some Fragments of the Writings of your Teachers, which you took the Pains to transcribe, and upon which you seem to rely much as upon good Authorities. I shall tell you, that several of your Teachers have over-strained the Matter, and that a modest Man ought not to depend upon their Expressions. Some others have been so inconstant in their Judgement concerning Heretics, that they have blown hot and cold with the same Mouth, according to the several Circumstances they have been in. However we need only, in opposition to them, to consider the Testimony of some more wise and moderate Divines, whose Names are no less eminent and respected in the Church of God. These are so far from damning devout Christians that are in Error, that they will not damn devout and virtuous Jews and Heathens. Do but read the Christian Life, Vol. 3. p. 2. wherein Dr. Scot tells you, that to live according to mere natural Reason, is all that God expects from those to whom Christianity hath never been proposed: and as for those to whom it hath been sufficiently proposed, he lays upon them no other Obligations, but those wherewith Christ hath strengthened natural Religion. Since Christianity, says he, hath improved the Duties of natural Religion upon new Principles, and enforced them with new Obligations; to render our Piety and Virtue strictly and properly Christian, it is necessary that we should receive those new Principles, and act according to those new Obligations. But lest you should dispute about those Principles and Obligations, which the Gospel adds to natural Religion; I shall abridge this Dispute by a fine Place taken out of the Design of Christianity: The pious Author of that excellent Book says, (p. 236.) that if one would be sure that one keeps the Foundation of Christianity, and is in no damnable Error, he must examine himself thus: Am I sincerely willing to obey my Creator and Redeemer in all things commanded by them? Do I entertain and harbour no Lust in my Breast? Do I hearty endeavour to have a right Understanding of the Holy Scriptures, and chief of the Gospel, and to know what Doctrines are delivered there, in order to the bettering of my Soul by them, and the Direction of my Life and Actions according to them? If we can answer those Questions in the Affirmative, (who can doubt but all pious Heretics may do it) whatsoever Mistakes we may labour under, they can be none of them such as will undo our Souls, because we shall have Cause to conclude from thence, that the Design of Christianity is in some measure effected in us: And whatsoever Tenets may be accompanied and consist with the true Love of God, and a solicitous Care to keep a Conscience void of Offence towards him and Men, we may be certain that they belong not to the Catalogue of fundamental Errors. This obedient Temper is the most infallible Mark of an Orthodox Man; he that is endowed with it, though he may err, cannot be an Heretic. If I was as bold as you, dear Cousin, I would apply to you a fine Passage of our worthy Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Sermon upon Luke 10.42. wherein he blames the Rashness of those, who like you dare censure Error and Heresy in others, whilst they themselves do not think of curing those Lusts, Vices and Passions, which so visibly reign in them. But I shall only cite that general Reflection of his concerning those pretended Orthodox. Deluded People, says he, that do not consider that the greatest Heresy in the World is a wicked Life; because it is so directly and so fundamentally opposite to the whole Design of the Christian Faith and Religion, and that God will sooner forgive a Man an hundred Defects of his Understanding, than one Fault of his Will.  
And to show you in one Word, that when you attribute Immodesty, Wantonness and Pride to Heretics, you act against the Spirit of your Church; the Testimony of one of your Teachers only will suffice, since he speaks for the whole Clergy: I mean the Author of the Vindication of the conformed Clergy from the unjust Aspersions of Heresy: (That Heresy was no less than Pelagianism and Socinianism.) See how he vindicates your Teachers. The Reason, says he, why they are accused of Heresy, is their Moderation in Points of Controversy. They do not confute their Opponent with a rude and infignificant Noise, nor think they shall ever convince him by hard Words and ill Names, which are the only Arguments that some Men are able to manage; but they consider and are willing to make Allowances for the common Infirmities of humane Understandings, and the strong Prejudices of Education: and therefore they treat all Men gently, and are not rudely clamorous in their Discourses, but hope the best, and think as charitably as they can of those that are of a different Persuasion. See the Moderation of your Church, imitate so charitable and Christian a Judgement, and cease to damn, like Jews and Heathens, proud and conceited Men, those good Men, who work out their Salvation with Fear and Trembling, lest with what Judgement ye judge, ye may be judged. The same Author will tell you, that the Term of Heretic is a Name that is given  liberally, and at a good rate, and that, It is nothing but the Passion of the Opponents, that hath made that Name so very common as it is; for it is grown no more now than an ordinary Term of Reproach, for every angry Man, that would fain be dealing with controversial Divinity, that it serves for one of the principal Topics for the great Professors of artificial Scolding, etc. Read but p. 70. As to that great Conceit and Confidence of their own Knowledge, of which you think Heretics are so full, that they resolve never to allow that to be the Sense of the Revelation, however plain and evident the Words are, which is not agreeable to their Reason, but will put another Sense upon them, though never so forced and violent: As to this, I will tell you; First, that they have borrowed that Method from the very Principle of the Reformation. When, dear Cousin, those Words of Christ are objected to you, This is my Body; My Flesh is Meat indeed: My Blood is Drink indeed: Whoso eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, etc. When, I say, those Places of the Scripture are objected to you, who follow the Spirit of the Reformation, Are you not resolved never to allow that to be the Sense of the Revelation, however plain and evident these Words are, which is not agreeable to your Senses and Reason; and will you not put another Sense upon them, though never so forced and violent, as in effect you do, when you say that by the Body of Christ is meant the Figure of his Body; by eating his Flesh, to believe in him, & c? But I have already touched that Article in my Letter, and therefore I shall insist no longer upon it. Secondly, Who puts upon the Scripture a more unnatural Sense than you do in this Controversy? Who hath a greater Pride of Understanding, and is more conceited of his Reasonings? Heretics so called, make Religion to consist in the Profession of a simple Faith, which they express in the very Terms of Scripture, holding fast the Form of sound Words, so afraid they are to indulge their Reason too much, and to wrest the Language and Intention of the Holy Ghost. But you on the contrary, who rely altogether upon humane Expressions, taken out of the Pagan Philosophy, metaphysical Arguments and Abstractions, or remote Consequences; you, I say, must needs violate the sacred Reverence due to God's Word, put a forced Sense upon the Words of the Holy Ghost, and show at the same time a proud Confidence, by making the Scripture speak any thing that agrees with your Notions. There is not one Word or Proposition in that Scripture, but will signify quite contrary things, according to your Distinctions and Consequences. You distinguish between the Son of Man, and the Son of God, yet you confound those two Terms, when you think fit, and make the Son of Man to be the Son of God, and the Son of God to be the Son of Man: If we say that it was the Son of Man that came down from Heaven: you reply, that the Son of Man signifies there the Son of God. If we object that the Son of God knew not the Day of Judgement; you answer, that by the Son of God in that Place is meant the Son of Man: If one asks you, What's the Name of the first Person of the Trinity? you answer, the Father, and insist earnestly upon that Distinction of Persons, to avoid the Force of this Objection, viz. That if Christ were the most high God, he would be the Father of himself. But if we object, that the Father only knows the Day of Judgement, and that he only is the true God and Creator of all things; then the Word Father signifies no more what it signified before, I mean the first Person of the Trinity, but the whole Trinity, and the very Son whom he hath begotten: so great is your Skill in doing and undoing the Work of the Holy Ghost, by contradicting Heretics in Season and out of Season. Let this suffice as to what concerns Words. The same may be said of the Propositions of the Scripture, either affirmative or negative. By the enchanting Virtue of your Distinctions, the Affirmative becomes Negative, and the Negative Affirmative, when there is any need of it, and two contradictory Propositions are equally true and divine, if at any time it can serve your turn. It may be said, that Christ hath wrought Miracles, and hath wrought no Miracles; that he knew not the Day of Judgement, and knew it; that he was born, and not born. In a word, one may overthrow the whole Gospel and Creed, all those Contradictions are Orthodox, if one doth but keep in his Mind the blessed Distinction of two Natures, which directs the Intention, and hinders a Man from telling a Lie.  
By such Tricks as these you pretend to Orthodoxy, and boast of a Principle that promotes Holiness and Piety; and, as you say, hath a great Influence upon all the Parts of Religion. But, dear Cousin, don't you know that the learned Dr. Hammond, who made a large practical Catechism, could find no Place in his Book for the great Spring of the Trinity? No question but he looked upon it as a thing altogether useless and uncapable of moving the Heart of Man. Make no doubt of it, it is a dry and empty Opinion, a Bone without Marrow or Meat, which can afford a Christian Soul no sort of good Nourishment in order to Piety. I confess there is a Trinity that hath Influence upon the Life of all true Christians, viz. that in which you and I have been baptised, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. But I must confess at the same time, that it is very different from yours, if understood according to Scripture. We have the Doctrine of the Father revealed by his Son, his Interpreter and Messiah, and confirmed by the Gifts and Miracles of the Holy Spirit. This Doctrine hath so necessary an Influence upon the Practice of Christians, that without a right Knowledge of that Revelation we could neither obey God's Commands, nor hope for his Rewards. And I confess, that with respect to this primitive and capital Truth, any Man to whom that great Object is proposed, shall be no less accountable for the Faults of his Understanding than the Vices of his Will. There is a plain Reason for it, viz. that this Object doth not consist in Philosophical Speculations, which the Simple cannot attain to, and the Ignorance whereof must needs be excusable; but in plain and sensible Facts, for the believing of which, nothing else is required but the same Honesty and Sincerity necessary to practise the Precepts. For Example, We believe a Father, Creator of all things; a Son born, dead, raised, etc. and a Holy Ghost setting the Seal of his Miracles to that Revelation. Here is a Faith grounded upon undeniable Facts, which doth not require from us a seraphic Understanding, but some Honesty to receive the Testimony of those who relate them with as much Evidence as is necessary to satisfy an honest and reasonable Mind. The Want of Faith or Understanding in this Respect, is the Want of Probity and Uprightness; and therefore the Fault is inexcusable. But if instead of so simple and sensible a Faith, you introduce your Athanasian Faith of three Eternal, Almighty, and Incomprehensible Ones, you make Unbelief of all things the most pardonable, nay, and the most reasonable too, because such a Faith is above the Reach of our Senses, Reason, and Revelation. So that we must read in the Gospel, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, because thou hast hid these things from Babes, and hast revealed them unto the Wise and Prudent. I can assure you that not only many eminent Bishops and great Councils have rejected the Belief of such a Mystery, as you confess it, but that no good Christian knew it, except perhaps in his Catechism, or a Book of Controversy. How many Monuments of Antiquity have we lost, of which we could boast with great Reason? Who can tell but most Fathers had been on our side, if the Malice of their Enemies, the Superstition of Monks, and the Flames of the Emperors had not destroyed their Books? As for those that remain, nothing but this can be concluded from them, viz. that the Party that prevailed (History tells us by what means) took Possession of Tradition and Orthodoxy. However we have still in the Apostles Creed the Primitive Truths, which unite all Christians, the saving Truths wherewith God's Providence fed the Faith of Christians during the Quarrels of their Teachers, and the only Truths, for whose sake true Martyrs have shed their Blood. I shall add, that the same Providence hath preserved in all Sects and Ages a Body of Christian Morality, which makes the great and whole Design of the Gospel. Let us conclude here, and seriously think, dear Cousin, that you and I shall be judged by Christ in the last Day only according to this Rule, independently on those Opinions, which now a-days make the Subject of our Disputes. I rest,  
Yours, etc.   
FINIS.