THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY From the Library of the Diocese of Springfield Protestant Episcopal Church Presented 1917 204 L5<2> J ‘ THE THEOLOGICAL WORKS OP THE REV. CHARLES LESLIE. THE THEOLOGICAL WORKS THE REV. CHARLES LESLIE. IN SEVEN VOLUMES. A'/ VOL. II. OXFORD, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. MDCCCXXXII. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015 https://archive.org/details/theologicalworks02lesl_0 2 . 04 - L5G C O N T E N T S OF THE SECOND VOLUME. OF THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. The Publisher’s Preface P. 3 The Author’s Preface . 14 The Epistle Dedicatory, or Address of the English Unita- rians to the Morocco Ambassador, in the year 1682. 17 The Socinian Trinity explained, in the First Letter 27 Wherein it is shewed, I. That one part of our Socinians or Unitarians make the Son and Holy Ghost to be persons, but crea- tures . ibid. II. Others deny them to be persons or creatures ..... 28 III. These compared with the Christian Trinity, and with each other 29 IV. The eternity of God as incomprehensible as his Trinity : there are parallels in nature to the latter, but none to the former 30 V. The Socinian Trinity is a flat contradiction, ours but a difficulty 32 The Socinians put to answer as well as object, in the Se- cond Letter 33 And it is shewed, I. That they are not Christians 35 II. They prefer Mahometism, and even Paganism, to Christianity 36 Mahometism succeeded Arianism 38 III. Our English Unitarians are not reckoned Christians by the Racovian Catechism 40 LESLIE, VOL. 11. a 80292 ? CONTENTS. THE FIRST DIALOGUE. Introduction 47 All belief founded upon reason 49 Yet we know not the reason of many things we believe . . 50 I. No contradiction in the terms by which we express the holy Trinity 5 2 No contradiction can be charged in any nature we do not understand ; exemplified in the different na- tures of 53 1. Sight and motion 54 2. Body and soul ibid. 3. Time and eternity ^ 55 II. The word Person as applied to God 56 III. Of the Son being as old as the Father 59 Of light and heat in the sun ibid. IV. Of the production of spirits 60 1. Of the faculties in the soul ibid. 2. Of the difference betwixt faculties and persons . . 64 3 . Why we say persons and not faculties in God .... 65 4. Of the difference betwixt faculties and passions. . 66 5 . Of extension and dimensions, wherein of the para- ble of the sower 67 6. Applied to the Persons and attributes of God .... 68 7. These conclusive to the argument 70 8. Allusions from body to soul necessary, yet many contradictions in them 71 9. Applied to our present subject ibid. 10. We must think of three in every spirit 72 V. If the Trinity were a contradiction, that would prove it not to be of human invention 73 1. The objection as to transubstantiation solved .... ibid. 2. No allusion or parallel in nature to transubstantia- tion 76 3. Compared with consubstantiation ibid. VI. Allusions and parallels necessary in our contempla- tion of the nature of God 7$ VII. Self-reflection an image of the holy Trinity 79 VIII. Of the fecundity in the Deity Si 1 . Of a third Person in the Trinity 83 2. Why but one production in the Deity 84 CONTENTS. iii 3. The second Person begotten, the third proceeding 85 4. The Holy Ghost proceedetli from the Father and the Son 86 5. Of the terms begetting and proceeding 87 IX. Of the unity of God ibid. 1. The unity of bodies 88 2. The unity of spirits ibid. 3. Applied to God ibid. X. Of the mutual communication of spirits 89 1. Stronger than that of bodies ibid. 2. Allusions to this in holy scripture 90 3. Use of parallels 91 4. Adam a type of Christ 92 5 . And Eve of the church, particularly in her forma- tion . ibid. XI. By the word God in holy scripture the whole blessed Trinity is meant 94 Particular acts attributed to each 95 The word God sometimes distinguished from the Father. And the Deity expressed by the Persons only. And the word Father given to the Son ibid. XII. That the heathen had a notion of the Trinity as well as the Jews 96 XIII. A short recapitulation 102 Parallel of two natures in Christ 103 XIV. The current sense of the church the best inter- preter of the holy scriptures 105 The sense of the Ante-Nicene Fathers shewed in the dis- quisition of the following texts 107 THE SECOND DIALOGUE. Concerning the texts of holy scripture which are brought for the proof of the blessed Trinity, and divinity of Christ . 109 XV. John i. i. particularly considered ibid. 1. The Son a distinct person from the Father ...... 1 12 2. The Holy Ghost a person 118 3. The heathens’ notion of the Logos 128 4. The Jews’ notion of it 129 5. Of the Word by nature and by creation t 4 1 a 2 IV CONTENTS. 6. Inspiration must come from a person 143 7 . What the Socinians mean by incarnation 144 XVI. The other texts in holy scripture inquired into in their order 145 1. Gen. i. 1 ibid. 2. Gen. i. 26 146 3. Gen. iii. 22 15 1 4. Gen. xi. 6, 7 15 2 5. Psalm xiv. 6 1 153 6. Psalm lxviii. 18 154 7. Psalm xcvii. 7 159 8. Psalm cii. 25 169 9. Isai. vi. 1, 8, 9 175 to. Isai. vii. 14 178 1 1. Isai. viii. 14 179 12. Isai. ix. 6, 7 ibid. 13. Isai. xliv. 6 182 14. Isai. xlviii. 16 184 15. Jer. xxiii. 5,6 186 16. Mich. v. 2 187 17. Zech. ii. 8, 9 188 18. Zech. iii. 2 189 19. Zech. xii. 20 190 Testimony of Tertullian that the Trinity is collected out of the Unity 194 Answer to the objection why the Trinity is not more clearly revealed in the Old Testament 196 THE THIRD DIALOGUE. Texts out of the New Testament 199 1. Matt. xii. 31 ibid. 2. Matt, xxviii. 19 200 3. John i. t 206 4. John ii. 19, 21 ibid. 5. John iii. 13 207 6. John viii. 58 208 7. John x. 30 212 8. John x. 33 213 9. John xiv. 1 216 10. John xiv. 9 ibid. CONTENTS. n. John xiv. 14 2 j 6 ] 2. John xvi. 14 217 Of the Holy Ghost appearing in the shape of a dove .... 218 13. John xvii. 5 223 14. John xx. 28 225 15. Acts v. 3, 4 226 16. Acts vii. 59 . 230 17. Acts ix. 14, 21 . 231 18. Acts xv. 28 232 19. Acts xx. 28 ibid. 20. Rom. ix. 5 233 21. Rom. ix. 1. 236 22. Rom. ii. 16 ibid. 23. Rom. x. 12 239 24. 1 Cor. vi. 19 240 25. 1 Cor. x. 9 241 26. 2 Cor. viii. 9 ibid. 27. 2 Cor. xii. 8, 9 243 28. 2 Cor. xiii. 14 ibid. 29. Gal. i. 1, 12 ibid. 30. Phil. ii. 5 — 8 244 31. Col. i. 15 252 32. Col. i. 16 253 33. Col. ii. 9 261 34. 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17 263 35. 1 Tim. vi. 14 — 16 ibid. 36. Tit. ii. 13 265 37. Heb. i. 2 266 38. Heb. vii. 3 267 39. Heb. xiii. 8 268 40. 1 Pet. i. 1 1 . 269 41. 1 Pet. iii. 19, 20. 270 42. John v. 7 271 43. 1 John v. 20 274 44. Rev. v. 5. 277 Christ called God 280 The Holy Spirit called God . ibid. That the Trinity was the doctrine of the church before the first council of Nice, proved from Lucian ibid. vi CONTENTS. THE FOURTH DIALOGUE. XVII. i. A general answer as to the texts urged by the Socinians against the divinity of Christ 282 2. To their argument from the Son being the image of the Father ibid. 3. To their interpretation of John xvii. 1,2,3 2 84 4. Of 1 Cor. viii. 6 285 5. To Christ’s having the assistance of the Holy Ghost. . ibid. 6. To his being called the seed of the woman, of Abra- ham, of David, and a prophet like to Moses 286 The arguments of the Socinians against the divinity of the Holy Ghost answered 287 1 . That the Holy Ghost is only the power or wisdom of God ibid. 2. That the Holy Spirit is obtained of God by our prayers 288 3. That no prayers are made to the Spirit 290 4. That God is spoke of in the singular number 291 The objection of the Socinians, that the Son or the Holy Ghost are not called God in the Creed 293 XVIII. The pretence of the Socinians to antiquity: wherein their origin is shewed to be from Simon Magus, con- tinued by after-heretics condemned by the church . 295 The Socinians no church. Dilference betwixt them and the Arians. Comparison betwixt them and the Ma- hometans 308 XIX. The credit the Socinians expect by alleging some mo- dern Christian writers as favourers of their opinion . . 314 1. Erasmus 315 2. Grotius 319 3. Petavius 325 4. Episcopius 326 5. Sandius 330 THE FIFTH DIALOGUE. XX. A general view and application of what has been said 333 1. The word God in holy scripture is taken most com- monly in a complex sense, as including all the three persons ; and sometimes it is taken personally for the Father 334 2. The Socinians hold a Trinity more unaccountable than what is held by the Christians 336 CONTENTS. vii 3. The Socinians own their interpretations of the holy scriptures to be contrary to the church 337 4. Pretended obscurity in scripture, not the cause 338 5. The rule of interpretation in the case of the antliro- pomorphites will not serve in case of the Trinity. . . . 339 6. Nor in the case of transubstantiation 341 7 . Concerning mysteries 343 THE SIXTH DIALOGUE. XXI. Of the satisfaction made by Christ for our sins .... 346 1 . The objection, that by this God made the satisfaction to himself, answered ibid. 2. How the legal sacrifices were accepted as satisfaction 349 3. The necessity of a satisfaction from the nature of justice ibid. Wherein James ii. 13. explained 351 4. Of Christ considered only as a mediator. 353 5. Reasons the Socinians give for the death of Christ 334 To confirm his doctrine ibid. To shew God’s hatred to sin ibid. 6. Christ considered in his types ibid. 7. Several texts, shewing that our redemption is by the death of Christ 356 8. God’s covenant with Christ, not arbitrary 358 9. The objection answered, that the doctrine of satis- faction is an obstruction to piety 361 10. The necessity of a satisfaction urged from the nature of love, as well as justice : and that our happiness consists therein, and without it we must be miserable, even by a natural consequence 362 The angels of heaven are reconciled by Christ 364 11. The objection, that if Christ underwent the whole punishment of sin, he must have had despair 367 1 2. That he must have suffered eternally : both answered 368 XXII. Of the eternity of hell 369 1. Of the punishment being proportionable to the of- fence 373 2. The chief end of religion 377 3 . If religion may be preached without leave of the civil government ibid. 4. All this applied to the doctrine of satisfaction .... 379 a 4 CONTENTS. viii 5. Of Christ introducing the covenant of repentance , . 380 6. The Law and the Gospel the same covenant 381 7. Christ taking our sin upon him was typified in the priests eating the sin offering ibid. 8. He made himself liable to our debt, by becoming our surety . 382 He is our hostage ibid. Heb. vii. 22. explained ibid. 9. The Socinian interpretation of Isai. liii. j 1 383 10. A notable argument of the Socinians to excuse them- selves for denying the divinity of Christ 3 85 Arguments of the Socinians to prove, 1 . That the doctrine of the Trinity is not fundamental to Christianity 386 2. That the Socinians ought not to be put under any penalties by the law 388 3. That we ought to own them as our Christian brethren 390 None saved but by the satisfaction of Christ 391 Concerning that saying in the Creed of St. Athanasius, “ without doubt shall perish” ibid. The Socinian faith 393 Compared with the Christian ibid. We must work, because God works in and with us 394 Yet we must be unclothed of them all, and clothed in the righteousness of Christ ibid. An appeal to the Socinians 396 The grace of God necessary to work true faith in us .... 398 A persuasive inference from the whole 399 The years of Christ in which those Ante-Nicene Fathers flourished, whom I have quoted in the Dialogues, and the editions, that you mistake not where I have quoted the page : and if any other edi- tion happens to be quoted, the edition is told. S. Barnabas the Apostle . . . A. D. Oxon. 1685. S. Ignatius r Usher’s edit. Oxon. 1644. Gr. Lat Is. Voss. edit. Load. 1680. Gr. Lat. S. Justinus Martyr Paris. 1636. Gr. Lat. S. Irenaeus ... 167 Paris. 1639. Clemens Alexandrians . . . 192 Paris. 1641. Gr. Lat. Tertullianus Paris. 1664. Origen . . . 230 Rothomagi, 1668. Gr. Lat. tom. ii. S. Cyprianus Oxon. 1682. CONTENTS. IX OF TIIE ANSWER TO THE REMARKS ON THE FIRST DIALOGUE. 1 . His rude treatment of me 401 2. The argument I made use of, that we ought not to infer a contradiction from a nature we understand, to an- other which we do not understand 402 3. His answer as to thought replied to ibid. 4. And as to a man born blind 403 5. Other instances I brought, of which he takes no notice 405 6. I join issue with him as to the instance of a man born blind 406 7. What little ground he had to insult me here ........ ibid. 8. He expressly owns my argument to the full ........ 407 9. His distinction of our partial knowledge of God will not do, for we know nothing of the nature or essence of God; nor indeed of our own, or any other nature : and our dispute is concerning the nature of God, and not of his attributes . 408 10. He confounds the memory and the understanding. Dif- ferent faculties in the soul shewed against him ; and the parallel justified 409 1 1 . I make this no proof, nor lay the stress of the cause upon it 410 12. How grossly he argues from human persons to the di- vine : this made Biddle turn anthropomorphite ibid. 13. He makes no difference betwixt the light and the sun ; by which the sun itself comes into our eye : on whose side lies the poor philosophy and shallow reasoning . . 4 1 1 14. His argument, that God is perpetually expressed in scripture in the singular number, shewed to be other- wise; and he gives no answer to what I have said upon it 412 I invite him to reply ibid. OF THE REPLY TO THE VINDICATION OF THE REMARKS ON THE FIRST DIALOGUE. 1 . His compliments 413 2. His concern for Mr. Biddle ibid. CONTENTS. 3. He mistakes me quite through 413 4. He makes me justify contradictions 414 5. A blind man does not think sight to be a contradiction ibid. 6. Nor do we think the holy Trinity to be so, though we understand it not 415 7. The blind man who thought sight to be like a wheel. . ibid. 8. This applied to the word persons in God 416 9. Why we use that word, and the word Trinity ibid. 10. He mistates the question 417 1 1 . Sight cannot be explained to a man born blind : yet he believes what he does not understand applied to the doctrine of the holy Trinity ibid. 12. He charges upon me what I never said 419 13. The heretics the cause of adding new terms in the Creeds ibid. 14. The same thing absurd in me, and easy in him 420 15. Things are otherwise present to God than by memory ibid. 16. We may discover contradictions as to God ; but not by way of measuring of his nature with ours, which the vindicator grants ; yet infers contradictions no other way 422 17. He runs riot as to scepticism 425 18. His argument from our not knowing the nature of things turned upon him ibid. 19. Why the Socinians owning the texts which speak of the holy Trinity is not sufficient 426 This exemplified in the Quakers ibid. 20. His argument from the pagans makes against him : and the Socinians shewed to be worse idolaters than the pagans; and guilty of polytheism 427 21. His pretty philosophy in making the understanding and the memory to be the same 428 It will come up to my argument, if it be but thought there are three faculties in the soul 429 As likewise, that the soul is all in all, and all in every part of the body 430 What is a contradiction to soul is none to body ; and e con- tra ibid. 22. He falsely charges the Christian scheme with holding three persons to be but one person 431 CONTENTS. xi 23. He supposes the persons of God to be like the persons of men in a proper sense, with all their various parts and distinctions 432 24. The texts which reveal the holy Trinity are not figura- tive, yet not to be taken in a strict and proper sense 433 The vindicator gives suspicion of his being an anthropo- morphite 434 25. The Socinians deny the Unitarians to be Christians; and the Unitarians think the Socinians to be gross idol- aters ; yet the vindicator makes both to be the same ibid. 26. Some sport with him about his making the light to be a part of the sun ; it would have exhausted the sun long ago, and makes it as big as the firmament that con- tains it 435 This he was forced to, to avoid the parallel I brought .... ibid. 27. His single instance of Elohim being taken in the sin- gular : his simile of princes taking the plural style will not do as to God 437 28. The vindicator imposes new terms as to the Trinity ; yet quarrels with the church for it 438 He scolds at my book ibid, 29. Answer as to that text, of that day knoweth my Father only ibid. 30. The Socinians more guilty of contradictions than the orthodox 439 31. The vindicator says he is not acted by passion ; yet he went out of his way to do me a prejudice ibid. 32.I have answered more fully than was needful, except to the vindicator, to make things plain to him ; who may let me hear from him again, if he be not satisfied .... 440 A method whereby he may save repetitions ibid. OF THE ANSWER TO THE EXAMINATION OF THE LAST DIALOGUE. He is still rude to me 441 I. His argument that an equivalent satisfaction is incon- sistent with free pardon ibid. This retorted upon him 442 II. How the satisfaction is complete, and yet the grace per- fectly free ibid. CONTENTS. xii III. He allows of satisfaction, so it be not complete .... 443 IV. His error in measuring the justice of God by the jus- tice of men 445 V. No reasonable account of the death of Christ upon the Socinian foot 446 VI. The absurdity of his parallel of one person making sa- tisfaction to another, as among men 447 VII. He confounds the nature of justice and mercy even among men 451 VIII. His interpretation of Isai. liii. 2 453 IX. And of the terms sacrifice, propitiation, atonement , &c. 454 X. He makes them have no relation to the death of Christ, but only to his intercession 456 He says the sufferings and death of Christ was only for a trial of his virtues ibid. That we are saved by following his laws and example . . ibid. XI. This will not solve the scriptures, which attribute our redemption to his death 457 Nor will it answer the types of him under the law .... ibid. XII. His wonderful interpretation of Acts iv. 27, 28. not to relate to the death of Christ 458 The necessity of the death of Christ shewed from the scriptures 459 God does not determine men to sin, but overrules the events 460 XIII. His interpretation of Gal. iii. 13 461 It cannot be applied to Christ as an intercessor, but only as a sacrifice’ for sin 462 XIV. He will not have the wrath of God against sin to be shewed at all in the sufferings of Christ 463 The contrary shewed by his sufferings for our sins .... 464 By his being our High Priest 465 XV. The fallacy of his argument, that we are not to forgive without full satisfaction, because God did not 466 The forgiveness of God the most full and free that is possible 468 XVI. His grand argument for lessening the merit of the death of Christ, by placing all in the intercession, fully answered 469 XVII. As likewise his argument from David’s being for- given upon his repentance, without sacrifice 474 CONTENTS. xiii Where Heb. x. 26. is explained 475 XVIII. He says God should have commanded the Jews to crucify Christ ; otherwise that it looks like an acci- dental thing 476 .XIX. He denies the legal sacrifices to be types of Christ ; only political institutions by God as their state Ruler, in the language of the Rights : yet he grants them to be allusions 47 8 The sacrifices had no allusion to the intercession, only to the death of Christ . . ibid. XX. He quotes a great prelate’s four Discourses against the satisfaction, and quibbling upon the word infinite .... 481 XXI. He accuses me for maltreating an illustrious arch- bishop (whom I neither name nor quote) as being a Socinian, for making hell precarious : yet would clear the Socinians from this ; but argues for it at the same time 482 XXII. He ridicules scripture expressions . . 484 XXIII. His banter upon the persons of God retorted : the Socinians much more absurd and contradictory in this point than what he charges upon us ..... 485 XXIV. His notion of the intercession liable to the same difficulties as the doctrine of satisfaction .......... 486 XXV. His objection against bowing at the name of Jesus answered : with the reason of it 488 XXVI. His defence of the Socinians being Christians con- sidered 490 He makes not faith of the essence of a Christian, but morality 492 The Alcoran calls Jesus the Word of God , which the So- cinians deny 493 They prefer Mahometism to Christianity, which they make equal to paganism 494 XXVII. They argued formerly that the heathens knew no- thing of the Trinity ; yet now make it an invention of the heathens 495 The doctrine of the Trinity has no relation to the plu- rality of gods among the heathens ibid. XXVIII. The advantage he would take from Dr. Sher- lock’s explanation of the Trinity does no service to his cause 496 XIV CONTENTS. XXIX. As little does his observation, that the name of the church is taken up by all sects 496 XXX. An answer to the descant with which he concludes, concerning liberty of conscience, and persecution, wherein there is a touch of his own sufferings 498 OF THE SUPPLEMENT IN ANSWER TO MR. CLENDON. Preface 505 I. Why this goes as a supplement 507 II. His Socinian treatment of me: he scorns to answer me ibid. 1. Yet answers : his proof of tritheism against me .... 508 2. He argues logically from what is but an allusion .... ibid. 3 . I argued from the holy scriptures, and the Ante-Nicene Fathers 509 4. He brings other texts which he says do not prove . . ibid. III. He throws at all the scriptures, like the ancient he- retics ibid. IV. He attacks and defies the catholic church, councils, and creeds 510 1 . He excludes all Gentile converts from Christianity . . 511 2. The genuine scriptures vindicated against his false scriptures 512 3. His contempt of St. John, and how he corrupts John v. 26 ibid. V. He makes the Trinity an invention of Plato’s 513 1. The texts out of the Old Testament spoil this 514 2. The Socinians say, it arose from the mistake of some texts of scripture, and could not be the mere inven- tion of any man ibid. 3. The heathens had it from the Old Testament ibid. 4. Forgetting Plato, he makes the Jews the first who brought it into revealed religion 515 VI. His mish-mash philosophy ibid. VII. His exquisite notion of the word person 516 1. He can make a hundred persons of one man ibid. 2. His excellent Latinity from Cicero 517 3. He will not let a man be the same person with him- self, though he may be twenty other persons 518 CONTENTS. xv 4. He blasphemes God and the queen, making her an emblem of the Trinity 519 5. He knows not the difference betwixt substance and accident 520 6. This answers all his book ibid. 7. He makes the queen drop one of her three persons by the union; and so he thinks God may ibid. 8. The horrid affront he offers to the queen and the noble lords to whom he dedicates this 521 9. He may make a thousand persons of the queen, by his argument, and as many of God ibid. 10. He makes every manifestation to be a person .... 522 if. And the action to be the actor. His modalities of accidents 523 12. His folly in applying this to God 525 13. To make his personalities analogous to those of men ibid. 14. Yet he will not suffer any such expressions in others 526 15. His personality of ubi ibid. 16. His dumfoundering 528 VIII. He grounds the doctrine of the Trinity upon an act of parliament of king William ibid. 1. Which he makes as infallible as the holy scriptures ibid. 2. Excluding the bishops 529 3. He makes ours a parliamentary religion ibid. 4. Yet he is no papist ibid. 5 . Lenity is only in lay-legislation ibid 6. The clergy are scanty guides in religion 530 7. He compliments the church of England, out of the catholic church ibid. 8. He plainly incurs the penalty of his own act of par- liament 531 9. And is damned by the church of England . ibid. 10. He makes himself an atheist 532 11. He is whig and low-church 533 12. He vindicates archbishop Tillotson, bishop Patrick, the present archbishop of Canterbury, and bishop of Sarum, for being suspected of Socinianism ibid. 13. He claws off Mr. Hill very wittily, for writing against the bishop of Sarum 535 14. And answers the animadverter upon his lordship with a ha-ha-ha 536 XVI CONTENTS. IX. Words alter their meaning by disputes 536 X. He plays fast and loose with them 537 A summary account of the design of my Dialogues, and of the answers made to them 539 THE CHARGE OF SOCINIANISM AGAINST DR.TIL- LOTSON CONSIDERED 541 REFLECTIONS UPON THE SECOND OF DR. BUR- NET’S FOUR DISCOURSES 607 A SUPPLEMENT, UPON OCCASION OF A HISTORY OF RELIGION 635 THE SOCINIAN THE S0CIN1AN CONTROVERSY DISCUSSED, IN SIX DIALOGUES: WHEREIN THE CHIEF OF THE SOCINIAN TRACTS, PUBLISHED OF LATE YEARS, ARE CONSIDERED. TO WHICH IS ADDED, A DEFENCE OP THE FIRST AND LAST DIALOGUES RELATING TO THE SATISFACTION OF JESUS CHRIST. The Word was God , John i. 1. The Word was made Flesh , ver. 14. The Lord is that Spirit , 2 Cor. iii. 17. Baptizing in the name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost , Matt, xxviii. 19. And these Three are One , 1 John v. 7. LESLIE, VOL. II. . THE PUBLISHER’S PREFACE. The learned author of these Dialogues, &c. (as the late very reverend dean of Worcester observed a of him some years ago) being “ well known among us for his excellent 46 writings against Atheists, Deists, Socinians, Quakers, “ Erastians, and Latitudinarians, for which he will never 66 be forgotten ;” since when he has also writ against the Papists ; 44 and no man since the time of archbishop Laud, 44 and bishop Moreton,” (as that venerable writer adds, 44 not for his praise,” says he, 44 for that is due to God, but 44 to set forth his felicity,”) having 44 had his labours blessed 44 with such success, or made so many converts from error 44 to truth, and from no principles to principles, and so con- 44 siderable among their several parties as he ;” the public having so much interest in this author, and he being un- happily removed from, and as it were dead to us, though yet on this side heaven ; it has been much wished that his works might be collected and published together; seeing they are of such use, and many of them now out of print. Nor has this been only desired, but designed, as a very pro- per antidote, against that general dissolution of principles which all good men lament in this age ; and for the encou- ragement of so beneficial a design we have here subjoined a catalogue of his theological works : The Snake in the Grass, in three parts. Satan disrobed from his Disguise of Light. a Preface to his first volume of Controversial Letters, first published an. 1705. B 2 4 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. A Discourse of Water-Baptism. A Discourse shewing who are qualified to administer the Sacraments. The Primitive Heresy of the Quakers. The Present State of Quakerism. Reflections on the Quakers*’ Protest. The Quakers’ Sayings, under several Heads. The divine Right of Tithes. A Short Method with the Deists and Jews. The Socinian Controversy discussed. A Sermon against Marriages in different Communions. The Case of the Regale and Pontificate. The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. The Case stated in a Dialogue between the Churches of Rome and England, &c. The History of Sin and Heresy. But because the best purposes are too often delayed in the execution, and there may be danger that this I speak of should not be executed so soon as were to be wished ; and because of all the errors and heresies this learned author has wrote against, that of the Arians and Socinians seems to be now the most predominant, I presumed that I could not do either more justice to him in his absence, or greater service to the church, than to publish anew his Socinian Controversy Discussed, wherein as the chief tracts are considered, which (at the time of his writing it) had been here lately printed by those heretics ; so there is little they have put out since, but is in great measure obviated, and their cause so baffled, that if it had not had other sup- ports than what their weak pretences to reasoning afford, we might have hoped it would have silenced them, at least, if it had not been attended with the same glorious success as his Short Method with the Deists ; which convinced one b of their most celebrated writers, and persuaded him not b C. Gildon, gent, publisher of the Oracles of Reason. THE PUBLISHER’S PREFACE. 5 only to make a public retractation of his error, but to write 0 against it in defence of the truth. Instead of this, so much does interest outweigh reason, and such power there is in the favour and countenance of a few great men, that not only some Remarks, as they called them, were soon published upon the first and last of these Dialogues, and a pretended Vindication of those on the first, which are all here answered ; but, from one degree of effron- tery to another, these irreconcileable enemies of the Chris- tian religion are at last grown so hardy, as to declare openly and barefaced against the divinity of Jesus Christ, and no longer steal into the world their scandalous libels against the Son of God, but usher in their public entry with the pomp of repeated advertisements, and all this in order to arraign the very Object of our worship, though in so doing they accuse of the grossest idolatry, not us only, whom they delight to calumniate, but even themselves, as worshipping what they contend to be a mere creature, instead of the Creator of heaven and earth. And herein it may not be improper to observe how they imitate their dear brethren the dissenters ; amongst whom, it seems, they have no inconsiderable party; for Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek, sectaries of all denominations, unite against the church, as Herod and Pontius Pilate did against our Saviour ; and now speak out, and boldly tell the world they will no longer be tied up to the doctrine of the Tri- nity; witness the Case of the Ejected Ministers (as they call themselves) at Exon, and the Account of the Pro- ceedings at Salter’s-hall, &c. And to add to the malice, the Socinians imitate the dissenters in copying from the papists, though the greatest part of their religion consists in railing against them. And they copy from them in undermining the very foundations of their own worship, c The Deist’s Manual, or a Rational Inquiry into the Christian Religion, with some Considerations on Mr. Hobs’s Spinosa, the Oracles of Reason, Second Thoughts, &c. 8vo. 6 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. the more effectually to destroy ours; for the papists in defence of their darling doctrine of tran substantiation, to account for the many palpable contradictions most justly charged upon it, make no scruple to resolve all the difficulty into this: that that doctrine is a mystery, and upon that account unintelligible to our weak understanding. And to support this argument, they are not afraid to put a sense- less invention of their own upon the level with the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity itself, and to compare what our narrow capacities are unable to comprehend in the most tremendous mystery of a trinity of Persons in the unity of the Godhead, and what is unintelligible therein, not in its own nature, but only in respect of the weakness of our understanding; to compare, I say, what is thus properly mysterious in the Trinity to that which in their doctrine of transubstantiation is not mystery, but nonsense and con- tradiction, unintelligible in itself, and our not comprehend- ing it so little chargeable on any defect in our intellectuals, that if we had the understanding of angels we should be no more able to comprehend it than to reconcile the gross- est contradictions ! For (to pursue the argument a little further, as not foreign to this controversy, and give a full answer to that plausible objection against the Trinity, contained in this defence of transubstantiation) a mystery , in the proper no- tion of the word, is something hid from us, which our short sight cannot perceive, nor our narrow capacities compre- hend ; something, though not against our reason, yet so far above it, that through the weakness of our intellects we are not able to understand it. Now to apply this to the case before us, that we cannot conceive how the body of Christ can be at the same time at the right hand of God the Fa- ther in heaven, and yet with us upon earth, even in ten thousand different places at once, and that really, truly, and substantially, as the council of Trent declares, this (to mention no more of the absurdities of transubstantiation) is THE PUBLISHER’S PREFACE. 7 so far from any defect in our understandings, any weakness in the eyes of our minds, that we very clearly see that this cannot be, and have a most distinct perception that it is ab- solutely impossible ; and it is only an impropriety in our manner of expression, to say, we are not able to conceive how that thing can be, which we evidently perceive cannot be, or to ascribe that to any defect in us, which is wholly owing to the nature of the thing itself: it is not we that are incapable to conceive, but the thing that is not capable of being conceived. When we charge the incapacity upon ourselves, we might as well say that our arms are too short to reach from any height a thing that is not there, and our eyes too weak to see it; whereas if we could reach up to the moon, and see into the third heavens, we should be never the more able, either to see or reach what actually is not there ; nor could even an infinite understanding comprehend what is in its own nature incomprehensible, and is clearly per- ceived to be so by our finite understanding, weak and im- perfect as it is ; for would not this be altering the very nature of things, and by the extent of our knowledge mak- ing that to be true which in its own nature is false? It is possible to imagine, that any degree of understanding can be sufficient to discover things to be otherwise than they really are in their own nature ; a part, for instance, to be equal to the whole, any thing to be and not to be, to be true and false at the same time ; and that there is not the least absurdity in any other contradiction. It is not the abundance, but the want of knowledge that occasions such misrepresentations; and to see things as they are not, is not owing to the clearness, but the dimness of our sight. We know it is no impeachment even to the omnipotence of God, that, almighty as he most certainly is, yet he can- not lie, or change, or do any thing else against his nature. The impossibility is not \n him, to whom all things are pos- sible, but in the things themselves ; and it is so far from b 4 8 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. any defect in his power, that the contrary, if it were possi- ble, would be only an argument of weakness : what may induce ignorant persons to think otherwise, is our improper way of expressing it ; whereas, instead of saying that God cannot lie or change, who certainly can do every thing that omnipotence can do, we ought rather to say that it is a thing impossible in the very notion of it that he should do either ; that it is absolutely repugnant to the divine nature, and implies a manifest contradiction. And as that must be impossible to omnipotence itself, which is impossible in its own nature, since no degree of power can alter the nature of things, or enable God to do that which cannot be done ; so, the nature of things being equally unalterable to any degree of knowledge, what in its own nature is unintelligible, must be so also, not only to our finite understandings, but even to the divine intellect. Such are those numerous contradictions implied in the doctrine of transubstantiation ; whereas what is objected against that of the Trinity (as our author shews in his Preface to this work) is no contradiction, but only a diffi- culty, which our weak understandings can neither conceive nor explain ; and being thus hidden from us (as no wonder many things in the divine nature should be) is on that account properly a mystery, not contrary to our reason, but above it. For instance, that God should be one and three in the same respect, were a flat contradiction, which no degree of knowledge could fathom or reconcile, and which therefore could not be said to be above our reason, because it is manifestly against it. But that the three Per- sons in the Godhead should be but one and the same nature, that is, both one and three in different respects ; one in re- spect of the divine nature common to them all, and three in respect of their personality distinguishing each; though our finite understandings cannot comprehend or explain this, (and what is there in the infinite nature of God which we can fully comprehend ?) yet, dim as the eyes of our weak THE PUBLISHER’S PREFACE. 9 intellects are, we can plainly perceive that there is no con- tradiction therein, and that it is owing only to the shortness of our sight that we cannot see clearly into it. We know it is no contradiction, that (I don’t say three, but even) a mul- titude of men should make but one society, one army, one people; that is, be both one and a multitude in different respects : nor therefore can it imply any contradiction, that God likewise in different respects should be both one and three ; the only difficulty is, so to explain this mystery of a trinity of persons in the unity of the Godhead, as neither to confound the persons nor divide the substance; but it is one thing to understand any point so fully as to be able to explain it, and another to see that there is no absurdity in it, though it be too difficult for our shallow capacities to comprehend. * The case is much the same here as it is with mariners out at sea; where they are not able to fathom the deep, because their sounding-line is too short, they are wont to say there is no bottom ; whereas, in reality, the only defect * is, not of bottom, but of line to reach it : and as in that case their not being able to find ground, is so far from proving there is none, that, at the same time they cannot sound it, they can evince by undoubted arguments that there must be some ; so here, our inability to comprehend the mystery of three persons in one Divine nature is so far from being an argument against the Trinity, or a proof that there is any absurdity in it, that, at the same time that we find our- selves unable to explain it, we can both produce manifest proofs of it from God’s word, and clearly perceive, that difficult as it is, and out of the reach of our narrow capa- cities, yet there is nothing in it repugnant to reason, or that implies a contradiction. To use the words of bishop Stillingfleet d upon this argu- d The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation com- pared as to Scripture, Reason, and Tradition, in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist. The second part, p. 24, 25. 10 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. ment, 44 We do not say, (in asserting the Trinity in Unity,) 44 that three persons are but one person, or that one nature 44 is three natures ; but that there are three persons in one 44 nature. If therefore one individual nature be communi- 64 cable to three persons, there is no appearance of absurdity 44 in this doctrine. And on the other side, it will be impos- 46 sible there should be three Gods, where there is one and 44 the same individual nature; for three Gods must have 44 three several divine natures, since it is the divine essence 44 that makes a God. 1 ’ The difficulty is to apprehend the manner of this communication of the same nature to three distinct persons ; but to argue from thence, that the thing itself is impossible, is as senseless as to maintain that there is no sun in the firmament, because our arms are not long enough to reach it. There are ten thousand things, even in created nature, out of the reach, not only of our arms, but of our understandings. Indeed our intellect is so very much bounded, that there is little even in this sublunary world of which we have an adequate comprehension. What wonder then, if in the infinite nature of God there be some- thing which we cannot conceive, I may say, if there be nothing which we can ? for his eternity, his omnipresence, and all his other essential attributes, are as much beyond our conception, even as the trinity of persons in the unity of his nature : therefore to prove this impossible, it is not enough to shew that we cannot conceive the manner of it, (for that would be as good an argument that there is no God, as that there is no Trinity,) but you must first prove (as the same learned bishop says e ) 44 that the divine infinite 44 nature can communicate itself no otherwise than a finite 44 individual nature can : for all acknowledge the same com- 44 mon nature may be communicated to three persons ; and 44 so the whole controversy rests on this single point, as to e The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared, &c. the first part, p. 7. THE PUBLISHER’S PREFACE. 11 44 reason, whether the divine nature and persons are to be 44 judged and measured as human nature and persons are.” It is agreed on all hands, that there is a difference between nature and person ; but what is the principle of individua- tion, even in created beings, which, for instance, discrimi- nates the human nature in one man from the same human nature in another, and thereby distinguishes their persons, is very hard to resolve, and therefore may well be incom- prehensible in a Being whose* nature and perfections in- finitely surpass the bounds of our narrow capacities. And the same infinity of the divine nature, which ren- ders the manner of its communicating itself unintelligible to our weak understanding, may induce us to 44 think it un- 44 reasonable” (as the same great author argues f ) 44 that it 44 should be so bounded as to the manner of that, as the 44 nature of man is. Every individual man” (as he pursues the argument) 44 has not only individual properties, that is, 44 the common nature of man, limited by some unaccount- 46 able principles, that doth make him different from all 44 other men, having the same nature with himself. The 44 difficulty then does not lie in a community of nature, and 44 a distinction of persons, for that is granted amongst men ; 44 but in the unity of nature with the difference of persons. 44 And supposing the divine nature to be infinite in its per- 44 fection, I do not see,” says he, 44 how it is capable of 44 being bounded, as the common nature of man in indi- 44 viduals is ; and if it be not capable of being bounded 44 and limited, it must diffuse itself into all the Persons 44 in the same individual manner ; and so” (as he con- cludes) 44 this doctrine of the Trinity is not repugnant to 44 reason.” And yet as much difference as there is betwixt this in- comprehensible mystery, and the manifold absurdities of transubstantiation ; though the former is the very object of f Ibid, second part, p. 29. 12 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. our common worship, the basis and foundation of the Christian religion, and that into which we are all baptized ; yet the papists are so fond of the latter, that they are not afraid, as I have observed, to put both upon the same level ; and, to excuse the gross absurdity and contradiction of their pretended mystery of tran substantiation, dare to involve the real and tremendous mystery of the Trinity in the same accusation of contradiction and absurdity ; but that, as we have seen, with so little show of reason, as only to betray the slight regard they have for the most fundamental doctrine of our common Christianity, and give occasion to suspect that their design is not so much to defend the doc- trine of transubstantiation, as to undermine that of the Trinity. I do not say they design this : I cannot but hope better of them, from what many of their authors have wrote with great strength in defence of the Trinity ; but such is their zeal for a modern ridiculous doctrine of their own, that nothing must stand in competition with it : they leave no stone unturned to establish it, though it be on the ruins of our common faith ; and in a Dialogue published in king James the Second’s reign, between a new Catholic Convert and a Protestant, they undertook