favourable for Novelty than these Alterations are soon made in Religion witness the speedy Corruption of the Children of Israel who after a few days that Moses had been absent from them and they being still under the conduct of his Brother Aaron fell to Idolatry Thus as Hegesippus testifies the Apostles were no sooner departed but manifold Errors mightily spread See Euseb Hist Eccl. L. 3. C. 26. What a weak thing then is it for the Trinitarians to stop their ears to the Dictates of Right Reason and to several Texts of Scripture which are express against them and to pretend that we ought to be determined by the fanciful Writings of a few fallible Men most of whom came some considerable while after the Decease of the Apostles The Church of England since the Reformation has had several Learned Writers and in these late times especially If any of their Works remain a thousand Years hence we may humanly suppose in case the Doctrines therein contain'd continue to be liked it will be the Writings of Pearson Stillingfleet Cudworth Tillotson Burnet Scot Cave Towerson and some few others of the like kind But what should we think of our Posterity if they then pretended that the way to find out the Original Meaning of our Articles concerning Predestination and Free Will would be to interpret them by the Sentiments laid down and established or intimated in most of these Great Men's Books Thus we have observed that in the first three Centuries not only few Christians wrote in comparison of what they have done since but it was not impossible even for them considerably to alter the Primitive Sentiments or the Doctrin of the Gospel 4. Many excellent Works of the Primitive Writers have been suppressed and destroyed which were most express for the Vnitarian Sentiment The Trinitarians themselves regret many of those Writings of the Primitive Christians of the first three Centuries which appear to have been suppressed and destroyed Dalaeus in the first Chapter of his first Book De usu Patrum acknowledges that tho' there were but few that then wrote yet the greatest part of those few Writings have been lost thro' the injury of Time or the Fraud of Men presuming that those Books were not to be preserved that were not altogether or near enough agreable to their Sentiments Such were says he the five Books of Papias Bishop of Hierapolis the Apology of Quadratus the Apology of Aristides the Works of Castor Agrippa the five Books of Hegesippus the Works of Melito Bishop of Sardis the Works of Dyonisius of Corinth of Appollinaris of Hierapolis of Pinytus the Cretian of Philippus Musanus Modestus Bardesanes Pantaenus Rhodo Miltiades Apolloninus Serapion Bacchylus Polyerates Heraclius Maximus Hammonius Trypho Hippolites Julius Africanus Dyonisue Alexandrinus and others If we had had left us such Writings as those of Hegesippus or any Ecclesiastical History of some professed Vnitarian either senior or but contemporary to Eusebius no doubt we should hear of several other Writers who expresly taught Vnitarianism besides those mention'd by Dalaeus like Theodotion Aquila Symmachus Paulus Patriarch of Antioch Theodorus of Byzantium Artemas Apollonides Hermophilus Lucianus and others seeing the Jewish Converts as shall be shewn appear for several Centuries to have been Vnitarians and it is credible not only that the Gentile Christians likewise were so originally but also that the generality or greatest part of them continued such for some time even when the Alterations began to be made till the rigid Platonists made use of all manner of violence to extirpate the Truth Howbeit the Criticks who have writen impartially concerning the Ante-nicenâ— Fathers are of opinion that the Writings of about 200 of them are lost for about 20 others some of whose Works have been preserved we may say such as they are tho' probably not such altogether as we shall observe as they originally were And they impute this Loss to the Errors which they suppose were contain'd in those Books and which the Trinitarian Party when they were become the strongest and were thorowly settled thought sit to Suppress as much as they could H. Valesius in his first Note on Euseb L. 5. C. 11. speaking of the Hypotyposes of St. Clemens concerning which Photius had observed that they are full of Arianism as that the Son is but a Creature and such like notes hereupon that not only the Hypotyposes of Clemens but the Works of Hegesippus Papias and other Primitive Ante-nicene Fathers were for the Errors abounding therein slighted and lost Which is in effect to say that the too visible and express Agreement of the generality or greatest part of the most ancient Fathers and Doctors with the Vnitarians was the Cause that their Writings have been destroyed The Trinitarians cannot but know that the Arians offer'd to be tried by the Tradition and Fathers of the first three Centuries and that Athanasius declined it as Bishop Taylor in particular confesses in his Book intituled The Liberty of Prophesying Sect. 5. Numb 3. p. 85. 4 to His Authorities may there be seen And in Chap. 7th we shall see from a Quotation out of Eusebius that the other Vnitarians appeal'd also to the Tradition of the first two Centuries Now doth n't it become Trinitarians well to make a bustle about Antiquity as if the Catholick Church in all Ages had unanimously been against the Vnitarians The Vnitarians indeed were at length overpower'd by the riotous and violent Platonick Christians who at last did in a great measure Philosophize away Christianity Yet there is not the least grounds to imagin that the Writings of the Vnitarians deserved to be slighted For the Trinitarians themselves that had seen their Books own that the Vnitarians were Men of great and extraordinary Learning See Euseb Hist Eccl. L. 5. C. 28. The World no doubt might now be expermentally convinced of it as we before said had we all the Writings of the ancient Fathers of the first and second Centuries such as the Writings of Papias the Book of Melito Bishop of Sardis intituled Of the Creation and Birth of Christ the History of Hegesippus and the Works of those other Doctors some of whom we have seen named in the List which Dalaeus collected out of Eusebius and Tertullian and Jerom and who in all probability were for the most part of the same Sentiment that Arius maintained afterward by reason whereof 't is likely as was shewn their Books were finally suppressed by the Nicene Platonick Trinitarians and their followers as no doubt it was begun by the other violent and rigid Platonists that were before the Council of Nice That Hegesippus was incontestably Vnitarian and what the Consequence of it is see an English Pamphlet intituled The Judgment of the Fathers concerning the Doctrin of the the Trinity Opposed to Dr. Bull 's Defence of the Nicene Faith p. 41. c. The only Objection is that Eusebius doth not reprove Hegesippus for being an Vnitarian But it may be observed that
5. Cap. 18. The Author of the Humble Inquiry at P. 15th 16th of that Book observes this Doctrin concerning Christ's Human Nature being capable to know what passes upon Earth and so to see and hear and assist Men is so far from being with any justice or reason to be by the Trinitarians objected to the Vnitarian System that the greatest part and the most Learned of the Trinitarians agree with Socinus in this Point For the School-Men both Thomists and Scotists and the Lutherans generally ascribe this Universal Knowledge to the Man Jesus Christ And of the Modern Reformed Divines that Author quotes Mr. Baxter Dr. Goodwin together with a worthy Divine of the Church of England who wrote a Book called The Good Samaritan asserting that an Angel might be capable of Ruling the Universal Church on Earth now a Human Soul in a gross and fleshy Body is an Angel shackled and straitned in a dark and close Dungeon where he cannot exert his Powers and Faculties no more than an Infant can reason like a Philosopher but the Impediments being remov'd a Human Spirit is wise free powerful like an Angel knows as he is known perhaps can direct the Course of the Sun or move the Globe of the Earth as easily as a Child can a Tennis-Ball that the Man Jesus Christ as easily inspects the whole Earth as we can view a Globe of an Inch Diameter that he Intercedes particularly as Man and cannot be thought to Intercede in a Case if he do not know it that the Human Understanding of Christ takes in all Occurrences which concern his Church that like the Sun-Beams He pierces into every corner and that as a Looking-Glass wrought in the form of a Globe represents the Images of all that is in the Room so the enlarged Human Understanding of Christ takes in all things in Earth at once The Vnitarians would only add that Christ doth this by the Affistance of the Divine Nature dwelling in him and both enlarging and inlightning his Understanding And indeed if Christ acting in God's stead at the Head of the Universe represented not God to the Glory and Service of God and by God's Appointment and if the Divine Nature the Divine Knowledge Power and Authority dwelled not in the Man Jesus Christ as the Vnitarians hold their Worship of him would be a kind of Idolatry That is to say if the Father by his own Appointment was not worshipped in Christ in whom incontestably He most eminently dwells or which is the same if Christ was not appointed by God to be worshipped to the Glory of the Father to which end it is necessary that the Father should make him partaker of his Nature and Power as has been said for tho' the Foreknowledge of Christ be not Universal and tho' at sometimes he feels greater Influences of the God-head dwelling in him than at some other times yet he must always receive sufficient Influences thereof to enable him to discharge the Parts of his Mediatory Kingdom and the God-head by a Divine Power which is an Influence of the Father's must constantly refide in and be as intimately as possible United with Christ to make him the most eminent Divine Schechina and to capacitate him to represent as he doth and act for the Father at the Helm of Government over all things so that being such a Representative of God as neither is nor ever was the like besides Him He truly exhibits God and the Divine Majesty dwelling in him in a most extraordinary manner In a word We hold that no other is of himself God or properly and eminently God Eternal and Almighty but the Father And we own no other for Inferior Gods but such as are truly so according to the Divine Order and Appointment And we honour them accordingly But God only We worship with properly Divine Worship Howbeit We worship God mediately or relatively in the Person of his Representative and Chief Officer Jesus Christ who under God is the Soveraign Prince and Great Lord or God or Vniversal King who acts most eminently for God that God may be honoured in him and who is appointed thereto to be honoured and bowed to or worshipped to the Glory of God And so we may truly and allowably worship God immediately in his own Person and mediately in the Person of his Lieutenant and most eminent Representative appointed thereunto that God may be worshipped in him in the extraordinary Honour that is paid him 3. The Vnitarians unanimously hold that indeed we constantly are to bow the knee to and worship the Lord Jesus Christ in offering our Petitions to the Father in his Name and thro' his Mediation but that it is not necessary to address our selves otherwise than thus to him and that this is sufficiently to call upon his Name in Prayer And in the most ancient Lyturgies extant there are but very few words addressed to Christ Which shews that originally Christians addressed the current of their Prayers to the Father excepting when in a Vision they saw the Lord Jesus Christ and heard him speak to them which St. Paul acquaints us happened to him once in the Temple 2 Cor. 12.8.9 4. It cannot indeed reasonably be denied but that when God in general is Pray'd to and these Prayers are put up in the Name of Christ then both the Mediatory Honour due to our Saviour is thereby paid him and all is Supremely Worshipped that is to be Adored with Supreme or Direct and Ultimate Worship Our Lord assures his Disciples that whatsoever they shall ask the Father in his Name the Father will give it them John 16.23 No more then can be absolutely needful In a word the Vnitarians honour the God-head above all things and the Man Jesus Christ above all other Creatures What can the Trinitarians do more Or what can they in this Worship justly reprehend Both Christ and the Holy Ghost will nothing but what the Father willeth and they will all that the Father wills Manifestly therefore it is sufficient to address to the Father the Government of the Universe is but one Government tho' God be the Supreme and tho' Christ have a Soveraignty over all Creatures yet considering the Subordination and Good Order and considering the perfect Agreement of their Wills and Affections there is as it were but One Soveraign but the Father is alone in himself the One only true Soveraign the Soveraign properly and eminently all own He sustains the Chiefest Part in the Supreme Majesty Authority and Government CHAP. X. A Third General Objection consisting of Four Branches THE last General Objection which the Trinitarians commonly reckon to be decisive against the Vnitarian Interpretations and System may be conceived as comprising these Particulars and may be Summarily expressed in these Terms The Vnitarians their too much leaning to Human Reason is the Cause of their Error wherefore they should consider that Reason tho' an excellent Light and Guide so far as its Province
Eusebius tho' he professed the Nicone Trinitarianism was a Semi-Arian and favoured the Arians and perhaps he thought good to excuse Hegesippus notwithstanding what he himself professed as several learned Men in the Church of Rome defend Jansenius at the same time that they openly abjure Jansenism 5. Of the few remaining Writings that are ascribed to the Fathers of the first three Centuries 't is very credible that some are Corrupted and some Suppositious For instance the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas in Easecius's time were reckoned to be Supposititious Euseb Hist. Eccl. L. 3. C. 25. And Dalaeus has particularly concended that the Epistles of Ignatius deserve no credit Indeed those Sentiments have been thought by some and in particular by the Socinians to have been foisted therein which the Semi-Arian Fathers did afterwards openly maintainâ— Yet some contend that those Writings expresly contain the same Doctrin that was originally Apostolical and afterwards defended by Arius when it had been disguis'd by the Platonists Howbeit it is certain those that had either particular Opinions of their own or particular interests to serve made often no scruple to forge some Writings favouring them which in order to gain them the more credit they ascribed to some Great Men. Several Apocryphal Books were put out under the Apostles's Names How much more then says Dalaeus would they make bold with others Nay he observes that the Fathers themselves have been guilty of such Frauds See the third Chap. of his first Book De usu Patrum And you need but read his following Chapter to see that the genuine Writings of the Fathers have been corrupted St. Jerom complains of the Impudence of Copists in corrupting of Books Ep. 28. ad Lucin. T. 1. p. 247. And yet he owns that himself in translating Origen omitted what was noxious or dangerous that is what suited not to his own Sentiments and says that St. Hilary and others did the like You may see the Quotations and many more Allegations to the same purpose in that Chapter of Dalaeus where he quotes Epiphanius his Saying that the Catholicks scrupled not to correct or put out some things in the Scripture it self fearing the use that the Hereticks might make of those Passages Dalaeus determines not whether Epiphanius spake true or not herein but he infers from thence that those ancient Catholicks would have made no difficulty to correct in like manner as much as they could the Writings of the Primitive Fathers where they widely differ'd from the Sentiments that had prevailed and where those that were reckoned Hereticks might have found too undeniable Authorities for their Opinions After this can those be blamed who will be determined by nothing but the Current of Scripture and the most incontestable Axioms of Reason Such Catholicks as Dalaeus represents to us we may think made no great scrupse to invent Stories that might favour them or to give easily credit to such tho' upon the weakest Grounds and to use such like shifts to defend what they took for Truth Witness the Book of Hermas and what Jerom owns of himself and of the freedom he thought in such cases lawful to take A Man says he argues as he pleases He may make a shew of presenting you with Bread as says the Proverb and all the while he may hold nothing but a Stone He may say one thing and think another Consider the Arguments made use of by Origenes Methodius Eusebius Appollinaris They are often forced to alledge many things which they did not believe but which were necessary to support their Sentiments I say nothing of the Latin Authors Tertullian Cyprian Minucius Victorinus Lactantius Hilary lest I should seem to accuse others rather than defend my self Ep. 50. ad Pamm T. 2. p. 136. When I write my Books says he I call for my Copist or Amanuensis and I often dictate the thoughts of others that I have read tho' I don't believe 'em my self and sometime don't very well remember their Sense Ep. 89 ad Aug. T. 2. p. 304. and 525. After this found your Faith not on Scripture and Reason but on a History concerning Simon Magus related in Epiphanius or another concerning Cerinthus which Irenaeus had heard Those Stories or Traditions after all might be true and not prejudice the Vnitarians as it might easily be shewn For the Vnitarians do not believe as Cerinthus is reported to have done that a Divin Person and that distinct from the Father dwelled in Jesus Besides he is said to have had many other grievous errors If it were true therefore that St. John would not be in the same Bath with him what is that to the Vnitarians And if Simon Magus believed three Divin Manifestations or Powers why should it be thought that he believed nothing that is true But if he asserted three distinct Divin Persons as Dr. Sherlock thought must be inferred from Epiphanius his monstrous Story that he pretended he was both the Father and the Son and affirmed his lewd Woman Helena to be the Holy Ghost why may we not think he might be among corrupted Christians the first Founder of the Dr's Notion or that which now passes for Orthodox that is that of the Platonists and Realists It may be indeed Simon Magus pretended that the Father and Son were manifested in and by him c. But if it be as Dr. Sherlock would have it the Matter is of no importance to Us but rather concerns the Platonick Trinitarians For those ancient Fathers Ireneus and Eusebius who evidently incline more to the Vnitarians then to the Scholastick Trinitarians assert that Simon Magus was the Father and Author of all the Heresies and particularly the Homousian See Sandi Nuâ—l L. 1. Secul 2. De Gnostic Iren. L. 1. C. 20. 30. L. 4. C. 58. Euseb H. E. L. 11. C. 13. Howbeit pin who will his Faith on Simon Magus or Cerinthus his Sleeve who if not misrepresented were thorow-pac'd Platonists or even Improvers of Platonism Yet the Stories themselves reported concerning their Heresies may perhaps want a little Confirmation considering the Humor of some of those times as we have seen and what Eusebius H. E. L. 1. C. 1. testifies that he had a World to do to compile his History finding so little Light in any Writing before him the continual Persecutions having caused that Confusion as to the Ecclesiastical History the generality of Christians contenting then themselves with the Writings of the New Testament Dalaeus towards the beginning of the fourth Chap. of his said Book seems to intimate that we have nothing much to be relied on but the Holy Scripture which says he has always been preserved with much greater care than other Writings which all Nations have learned which all Languages have translated and which all Sects have retained the Hereticks as well as the Orthodox the Schismaticks as well as the Catholicks the Greeks and Latins Muscovites and Aethiopians c. We may then conclude this
God as well as Solomon Ps 45. and with much greater reason We cannot better conclude this Article than with two Observations in Dr. Bull 's Book Judicium Ecclesiae In the first Ages of Christianity it was a great Controversy between some Christians and the Jews whether the Messias according to the descriptions given of him in the Old Testament is to be God or a Man only Those Christians believed He is represented in the Old Testament as God or a God the Jews as a mere Man Judic Eccl. p. 15 16. And at p. 21. the Dr. adds Our Saviour puts this Question to the Pharisees Whose Son is Christ They answered says the Text the Son of David But if Christ says our Saviour again is the Son of David why then doth David call him Lord The Evangelist remarks hereupon they were not able to answer him a word But had they known any thing of the Divinity of the Messias the Solution of the proposed Difficulty had been most easy and obvious to ' em We may then conclude the Jews believed only that the Christ was to be a Great King in this World but not a Great King in the next and much less did they imagin He should be God in a Superior Sense than this whether in the Arian or Tritheistick Sense So that the Generality of the Jews were as certainly Vnitarians as the Generality of the Heathens were Polytheists And as for the Conceits of the objected Philosophers we have seen that their Speculations are of as little Importance and Authority as they are mysterious and uncertain obscure and unintelligible 2. The Passages in Pliny's Letter and in the Dialogue intituled Philopatris are incontestably invalid Arguments The Passage in Pliny's Letter so much objected to the Vnitarians is that he says Christians in their Meetings Sang Hymns to Christ ut Deo as being a God To this the Vnitarians give the following answers First it is probable that Passage is corrupted and instead of ut Deo we should read et Deo for so it was in the Copies in Tertullian's time Tertul. Apol. adv Gentes C. 3. And then the Meaning being that Christians Sang Hymns to Christ AND to God that is so far from implying that they held Christ to be God Almighty himself that it shews the contrary Christ being there distinguished from God And his being joyned with God in Hymns Sang to both their Praise argues no more his being God himself than it would argue that Jael is God because she is blessed as well as God in the same Psalm of Praise Judg. 5.2 Praise ye the Lord for the avenging of Israel And at the 24th Verse Blessed above Women shall Jael be Deborah also her self the Composer of this Hymn and Barack the Governors of Israel and the Princes of Issachar are praised at the 7th 9th 12th and 15th Verses Thus in the 5th Chapter of the Revelations Men and Angels are represented Singing Hymns both to God and Christ saying Blessing Honor Glory and Power be unto Him that siteth upon the Throne and unto the Lamb for ever and ever Worthy is the Lamb that was Slain to receive Power and Riches and Wisdom and Strength and Honor and Glory and Blessing And the four and twenty Elders said Worthy is the Lamb for he was Slain and has redeemed us to God by his Blood c. Which by the way it may be observed shews what incontestably Christians ought to do viz. tho' not to address direct and ultimate Prayers yet to Sing Hymns in Honor to Christ which may be lookt upon as the true Interpretation of Ps 72.15 spiritually accommodated to Christ besides that there is no doubt but that the Angels and the Holy Spirits in Heaven may daily present Requests and Petitions to Christ concerning particular Men and Churches and when Christ is seen he is to be addressed unto by Men as their Saviour and their Sovereign under God Moreover the generality of the Vnitarians ever held that Christ is to be Worshipped and Prayed to as the Mediator of the New-Covenant and the Vicegerent of the Universe constantly assisted with the Divin Wisdom and Power to the Glory of the Father according to God's appointment Secondly reading Vt Deo that may signify either as being God or as being a God and as if he were God that is were held God or a God If the former that might be Pliny's own mistaken Conjecture that because he understood Christians Sang Christ's Praises he therefore imagin'd they took him for the Supreme God But indeed 't is most unlikely that this was Pliny's Meaning for being used himself according to the Heathen Rites to Sing Hymns to others besides the Supreme God or suppos'd Supreme Gods it seems he could not upon this account conclude that Christians believed Christ to be God Almighty himself It seems therefore he could only mean that Christians Sang Hymns in Praise of Christ as believing him to be A GOD. By which Phrase the Heathens themselves knew 't was not necessary to understand the Supreme God For as the Scripture calls some Creatures Gods so the Heathens tho' groundlesly yet often gave that Title to several whom they knew and owned to be Created Beings And in Chap. 2d we have seen that Christians in those times made no difficulty to do the like where whether now right or wrong is another Question they thought they had warrant from Scripture to give that Appellation to some glorified Creatures and therefore there is no doubt but that since many of them gave it to Angels in an inferior Sense they much more gave it to Christ the Sovereign of all Angels as well as Men tho' they believed him to be but such a dignified Creature If Pliny's Meaning was as 't is not impossible but that the Expression may import that Christians Sang to Christ as if he were held God or a God that is quite contrary to what Trinitarians would have him to attest For then 't is as if he had said that Christians Sang to Christ as if they had believed him to be God or a God which yet according to this it should seem they believed not But most probably not this but the foregoing was Pliny's Sense if we must read VT Deo namely as to a God or as to one whom they held for a God As for the Dialogue intituled Philopatris wherein mention is made of the God who is Three and One One and Three the best Criticks own it not to be a Dialogue of Lucian's as the Translators themselves observe We have many instances of several Treatises joyned either by chance or out of design to some Authors Works that yet belong not to that Author It may then very well be that that Dialogue is much later than Lucian But if it were Lucian's what could the Trinitarians infer from thence but that there were then some Christians that believed a Platonick Trinity and that Lucian was acquainted with some of them or had confusedly
heard of that strange Doctrin and took occasion to mention it Yet the original Meaning of that Mystery might be that Christians looked on the Son and Spirit as Divine or most Sublime Persons next to God and one or as one with God being of the like Nature or of the like Affections with Him and being together with Him above all Angels as well as above all Men whereby however was constituted but one Divine Government the Holy Scripture owning properly but one God and the Primitive Christians so understanding it Howbeit t is reckoned that Lucian flourished about the middle of the Second Century And the Vnitarians own that the Evangelical Doctrin concerning the Divin Vnity was then begun to be corrupted On the other hand Trinitarians will not cannot deny but that Vnitarianism was professed at least by many Christians from the beginning of Christianity Wherefore the Trinitarian Plea of Antiquity appears vain unless it could be shewn that the Vnitarian Doctrin was not allowed of in the earliest times of the Church and was not the Sentiment of the Apostles themselves CHAP. VI. A Continuation of the Answer to the First Objection 3. NO very considerable Argument can be drawn out of the Antenicens Authors because they were but few that wrote and it was not impossible for them to deviate from the Simplicity of the Gospel Therefore certainly it is a preposterous Way to seek to be tried by the Writings of the Fathers Good Christians as Origen observes Pref. Operis contra Cels. reckoned in those Primitive times that Christianity was better taught and defended by an innocent and exemplary Life than by a multitude of Writings Which shews that they esteemed the essence of Christian Religion to consist not in abstruse Notions or strange Mysteries and many Points of Speculation but in plain Doctrines few in number easy to be remembred if Men would have been content with them and worthy of all acceptation and in natural Precepts agreable to right Reason approved to every Mans Conscience and but a new Transcript and Confirmation of the Light of Nature They were persuaded that Sincere Repentance according to the tenor of the Gospel and Holy Living and the Habitual Practice of Vertue proceeding from a Principle of Faith that God is and that thro' Christ He will reward them that diligently seek him and will render to all Men according to their Deeds was the Way to Heaven and the Sum of Christianity They thought it not necessary therefore to write many Books looking upon Christianity but as Natural Religion revived and confirmed by Christ or by God in and by the Ministry of Christ with the addition only of the two Sacraments and Praying to God in the Name of Christ as our Mediator and Intercessor the Procurer and Chief Minister of the Covenant of Reconciliation the Head of the Church the Saviour of Men and the Governor of the World to whom all Power was given for the Administration of the Universe under God and who is constantly assisted by the Spirit of God which he has the priviledge to communicate to his Disciples as it is sufficiently declared in the Writings of the New Testament Christian Religion thus conceived and understood is soon taught and learnt and therefore needs not many Glosses and Comments according to the Oracle in Jeremiah 31.34 And it seems the generality of the Primitive Christians had this Idea of Christianity as may be shewn by the Relicks we have of them or even by the Writings of their Successors tho' those went farther * The same God who gave the two Covenants is He who gave Philosophy to the Greeks Clem. Alex. Strom. L. 6. Our Faith is agreable to the Common Innate Notions of all Mankind Origen Contr. Cels. L. 3. The Law of Nature is the Chief of all Laws Id. Ib. L. 5. The Dispensation of the Gospel is the Restoration of the Primitive Religion which was in force before the Law of Moses Euseb Dem. Ev. L. 1. C. 6. The Religion which we now call Christian is the same with that since the beginning Aug. Retract L. 1. The Sacrifices that God requires of us are an upright Heart a pure Mind and a clear Conscience These are our Sacrifices these are our Mysteries Min. Fel. Octav. See Dr. Cave's Primit Christianity There were therefore after the inspir'd Writers but very few and most of those either too great Admirers of Human Learning or Fanciful Men that then wrote as appears from them that remain and as cannot with any reason be denied And it was not impossible for such as these to deviate from the Simplicity of the Gospel The generality of the Primitive Christians were plain and illiterate Men who contented themselves with the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles and stuck to them as their only Rule These were not like to become Innovators They studied only how to acquit themselves of their Duty and prepare for Martyrdom to which they were daily exposed But when Learned and Fanciful Men embraced Christianity especially those who had been Disciples to the Heathen Philosophers they soon looked for new Mysteries in the Gospel and supposed they made great Discoveries therein by the means of their Philosophy which they always had in great esteem They accomodated therefore as much they could the Expressions of the New Testament to their Philosophical Systems And thus the Mysteries of the Platonick Trinity were by degrees introduced among Philosophizing Christians These are not bare Conjectures Dalaeus in the 1st Chapter of his 1st Book De usu Patrum gives a List of the few Primitive Writers that we have whose Works are Genuine and Incontestable But even making the Catalogue as it is commonly made yet the generality of them that were Heathenish Converts prove to be Philosophers that always retained a high veneration for their Philosophy 'T is well known they were professed Platonists to the end and therefore it is no wonder if in some measure they accommodated Christianity to the Philosophy of Plato Justin Martyr said that the Opinions of Plato are not remote from those of Jesus Christ And the same was affirmed by Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Tertullian and the rest of the Platonick Fathers who expounded the beginning of St. John's Gospel by Plato's most obscure Notions of his Logos or Second God See Le Clere's Lives of Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea c. p. 28.29.84.85 c. Men that were such admirers of the Heathenish Philosophy were easily disposed to think that St. John's Meaning was much the same with their Philosopher's Sentiment when they perceived some Likeness between their Terms It is not at all strange therefore if they introduced some change in the Christian Doctrin especially considering that their Interpretations seemed to make for the Glory of Christ and the Honor of Christianity which without doubt in its native Simplicity appeared to Pagans to be too mean and too much destitute of Sublime Mysteries In Circumstances less
Article with this Reflection It is altogether incredible that the Scripture has been materially corrupted but it is highly probable that the Writings of the Doctors may have been considerably changed and altered CHAP. VII A Farther Continuation of the Answer to the First Objection 6. HOwbeit it still in a great measure appears that the generality of the Primitive Christians were Vnitarians and even that the generality of the remaining Authors of the first three Centuries were far enough from being of that Opinion which is now called Orthodox it being evident that they incline more to the Vnitarian than to the present Trinitarian Sentiment When the rigid Platonists were become for the most part the Masters and the Strongest somtime before the Council of Nice as well as after it they expressed a blind and furious Zeal for their new Notions concerning the Son or Word and shew'd as much as they could their ill will to the Ancient Christians the Vnitarians and to those Churches and Parties that retained the Primitive Doctrin of the Gospel They therefore and that was the least harm they did them called them by several Nick-names as Nazarens Ebionites Mineans Alogi and the like The Jews had begun in the Apostles's time to call the Christians that were among them Nazarens and Mineans which last signifies Hereticks or Sectaries and the other is a Denomination from Our Saviour whom the Unbelievers in derision called the Nazarene as it appears Act. 24.5 and 14. The Jewish and most ancient Christians were also as some think called afterwards by the Platonists Ebionites which signifies the Poor either as some pretend from a Man named Ebion who they say was a great Denfender of them or because they were the ordinary and poorer sort of People who preserved the longest the Primitive Doctrin and could the most hardly be brought to relish the Notions of Platonism or as Eusebius asserts because the Platonists accused them to have but poor and low Opinions of Christ In fine among the Gentile Converts the Maintainers of the Primitive Doctrine were by some called Alogi or Alogians as if they believed not Christ to be the Logos or the Word because they believed not an eternal Word like Plato and it is said that some of these Gentile Christians received not at first the Gospel of St. John as the generality of Christians admited not presently some other Books of the New Testament particularly St. John's Revelation and the Epistle to the Hebrews which generally for 400 Years was not received as Canonical It is too usual to go from one extream to another and it may be therefore that some of those Gentile Converts who saw the absurdity of Plato's Polytheism and were told that Plato's and St. John's Expressions were the same and exactly agreed imagined that this was a counterfeit Piece of the Platonists and Cerinthians to uphold their Divin Hypostasis distinct from the Father and so at first gave not themselves leave to consider and examin what might be the true Sense of St. John's terms and the Intention of his Gospel Howbeit the Platonists in process of time hated and defamed the Vnitarians not merely for what might have been amiss among some of them but in general for their being Vnitarian Christians And in that they followed the Jews who from the beginning persecuted the Christians and gave them what reproachful Names they could some of which always remained to the Jewish Converts that is to say to those Christians who originally came from among the Jews who were not generally vitiated by the Philosophy of Plato and whom therefore as we have said the Platonists called by the same Names that the obdurate and unbelieving Jews had given them namly Nazarens and Mineans Now it appears that these Nazarens Mineans Ebionites and the Jewish Christiâ—â—s were taken to be much the same and that they and the Alogi were Vnitarians were from the beginning were most numerous and continued a considerable Party for several Centuries till they were in a great measure destroyed and extirpated by the most violent Persecutions of the Platonists Crigen says that all Jews who own Jesus to be Christ are called Ebionites Contr. Cels. L. 2. p. 56. Theodoret attests that the Nazarens honour the Lord Christ only as a Holy Man Haeret. Fab. L. 2. C. 3. Epiphanius writes that the Nazarens and Ebionites held the same Heresy Haeres 30. C. 2. It is not impossble but that Epiphanius as well as Origen and other Platonists confounded with the Ebionites the other Jewish Christians who generally did not platonize but followed the true Vnitarian System whether we suppose it to be that which was maintain'd by Arius or that which is now known under the Name of Socinianism St. Jerom acknowledges that the Jewish Mineans vulgarly called Nazarens were to that Day over all Orient Ep. ad August There indeed was the Seat of the Jewish Christians And from the 24th Chapter of the 3d. Book and the 25th of the fifth Book of Eus-bius his Ecclesiastical History it may further be gathered that these as well as the Gentile Vnitarians were the Successors of the Primitive and First Christians and were defamed only by the Malice of the Platonists Yet all this Evidence is from the Testimony of professed Enemies there remaining now no other Authors that expresly treat of these things As for the Alogi their very Nick-name bespeaks them to be Vnitarians Epiphanius is the first who gave to them the Name of Alogi Before him they were simply called Christians Epiphanius speaks of them as the ancient Vnitarians of the Gentile Converts But we have above all other Evidences an express Testimony of the Faith of the Primitive Christians in their Symbol justly called the Apostles Creed which manifestly is altogether Vnitarian For it is a Profession of Faith in one God that is the Father Almighty And every thing that is there said of the Lord Jesus Christ is the Description not of an eternal God but of a Creature or Human Person highly exalted by God And of the Holy Ghost no more is said but that it is a Holy Spirit or a Holy Breath or Holy Inspiration The Compilers of the Creed pretended to know no more of it And it is a Generality which the Vnitarians highly approve of but which hitherto the Trinitarians seem not to be pleased to stick to If they were to make a Confession of their Faith they would not express it as it is here or if they did we would readily agree with them To believe in is a Phrase that signifies no more than to believe for the Creed teaches us to believe in the Holy Catholick Church as well as in the Holy Spirit and in one God the Father Almighty As for the Antiquity and Authority of this Creed we have the unanimous Opinion of the Fathers as it appears in their Writings and as is observed by Ruffinus in particular who flourished in the Year 360 that it was compiled by the
it were a Property or a Faculty of God Christ a Man and a Creature should have the Preheminence over it and be named before it and be honour'd above it If these things are unaccountable what do the Vnitarians get by their differing from the Trinitarians Then the remoteness of the Vnitarian Interpretations may in particular be argued by these Instances When the generality of Christians read these Texts that the Word is God and that by him all things whether in Heaven or Earth were made and created is it likely that it will come into their minds that thereby is meant that all things were New-modelled by Christ or that supposing that all things were created by him yet he is but a Creature that bears the Name of God If these Senses are so far from being obvious that we may imagine they can scarce so much as enter into the thoughts of any ordinary Christians is it credible that they are the true Meaning of those Texts For can We think the Holy Writers have so expressed themselves as that it should not be possible for the greatest part of Men to understand them We may then be confident 3. That several Texts of Scripture whether put together or taken asunder amount to a firm Evidence of the Trinitarian Sentiment Besides those aforementioned these seem express which call Christ by way of eminency the Son of God and which not only shew that Christ may and is to be Pray'd to but declare that God will have Men Honour the Son even as they Honour the Father Which it seems after all that the Vnitarians have said concerning the Worship of the Man Jesus Christ is an invincible Demonstration that the Son is God like the Father In fine the Trinitarians esteem all these Arguments may also be strength'ned by the following and last proposed Consideration 4. That it seems there is no express Text for the Vnitarian Doctrin or against the Trinitarians If the Vnitarians will confute the Trinitarian System let them produce any decisive Text for their Sentiment thereby they will incontestably shew that all the Texts which the Trinitarians alledge must be understood in the Vnitarian Sense but this the Trinitarians do defy the Vnitarians to do This is so weighty a Consideration that Dr. Sherlock thinks sit to inculcate and repeat it a great many times in his last Book intituled The Scripture-Proofs of our Saviour's Divinity explain'd c. To this purpose for instance Page 47. How harsh and unusual soever the Expositions of the Vnitarians might appear I should allow them to be very Reasonable had they first well prov'd that Christ is but a Creature that is in the Vnitarian Sense and not the eternal and almighty God himself for that alone would be reason enough to attribute nothing to him which cannot belong to a Creature Page 50. We must understand Words in a proper and natural Sense where there is no apparent reason for a Figure and here is none to take figuratively as the Vnitarians do these words God and Son of God when applied to Christ unless they think fit to assign his being a mere Creature Which indeed would be a very good reason could they prove that Christ is but a Creature Page 55. Could any Text be produced that proves Christ to be but a Creature that is the Dr. must mean as was before remark'd but such a Creature as the Vnitarians hold as most eminently acts for God represents God and is assisted of and united to God according to the Vnitarian System it would put an end to this Controversy and either excuse or justify all their other Interpretations of Scripture how harsh soever they might otherwise appear Page 58. The whole Controversy may be put upon this Issue if they can confute ours or establish their own Interpretations of Scripture so as to prove ours to be necessarily false and theirs consequently necessarily true c. CHAP. XI An Answer to the First Branch of the Objection TO the Four Branches of the foregoing Argument the Vnitarians answer in these Four Particulars 1. The Vnitarians do not lay the whole stress of their Cause upon Arguments drawn from Reason yet very justly on the other hand they think like all Protestants that Reason ought not wholly to be Slighted 2. They maintain that none of their Assertions are uncredible and that their Interpretations are rational and agreeable to the stile and current of Scripture and therefore natural and obvious enough 3. It is possible and easy and warrantable to understand in an Vnitarian Sense all the Texts which the Trinitarians alledge for their Sentiment 4. The Vnitarians produce several Texts of Scripture which seem express and most evident for the Vnitarian System it manifestly appearing that they are not susceptible of any other tolerable Sense or that they cannot tolerably be reconciled to the Trinitarian Sentiment so that if Men do not own and discern the force of them it seems it must be either because they make no attention to them or because they are moved and acted by Passion blinded by Prejudice and Partiality and resolved not to acknowledge the Truth 1. The Vnitarians do not lay the whole stress of their Cause upon Arguments drawn from Reason yet very justly on the other hand they think like all Protestants that Reason ought not wholly to be Slighted If this Subject be duly consider'd it will be found that Protestants and Vnitarians do not differ in Principles concerning this Question What Vse of Reason ought to be allowed in Matters of Religion Now if it be so there can be nothing less pertinent than to make a Dispute about it or to pretend a Difference where there is none It is as if a Papist should make long Harangues to Protestants to prove that Scripture is the Word of God that God cannot be suppos'd willing to deceive Men and that therefore we must heartily assent to and firmly believe whatsoever is contain'd in the Bible Why Man What Protestant is there that knows not this or that denies it Protestants profess to believe the Holy Scripture as much to the full as any Member of the Church of Rome doth Pretty then make no Controversy about that Matter But if thou wilt do any thing to the purpose shew that Protestants reject some Doctrines certainly taught in God's Word In like manner Vnitarians maintain that a Protestant is out of the way who Quarrels with them about the Vse of Reason and they challenge him to shew that they make any other Use of it than Protestants themselves make in Matters of Religion So that whenever Protestants Quarrel with the Vnitarian Principles with relation to this Point they deviate from their own Rule and accuse their own Measures than which nothing can be more unreasonable and unwarrantable Either make not Use of the Principle or Quarrel not at a like Use of it If after all you think that Vnitarians make a different Use of Reason I say a different Use in
fine pretended that it seems marvellous that a Creature should be named before and should be said to have the preheminence over the Power of God by the Holy Ghost understanding the Influence of the Divine Power and Divine Inspiration it must be remembred both that by the Divine Inspiration or Influence of the Divine Power the Vnitarians do not understand a Person but a Property or an Act and that agreeably to the express Doctrine of Scripture they hold that Christ is made partaker of the Fulness of the Godhead in the manner we have spoken of before and just now have further specified so that for Desiring the Father he may at any time Dispose of the Divine Power and Inspiration and doth actually dispose thereof as is said according to what he pleases to ask it of God and therefore the Holy Spirit is represented as proceeding from the Father by the Son and the Holy Spirit is said to be Christ's Now it is not strange that the Disposer should be mentioned before the thing disposed of as it is in the Form of Baptism There is then no need to insist any longer upon this And so we have don with the second Particular importing that the Assertions of the Vnitarians are not uncredible and that their Interpretations are rational and agreeable to the stile and current of Scripture and therefore natural and obvious enough And this together with the following Particular being considered the Trinitarian Sentiment will appear to be wholly groundless and incontestably therefore altogether incredible For indeed is it likely that Christianity for many Ages having been altered in many weighty Points the present Trinitarian at least seemingly impossible and contradictory System has all this while remained the same that it was from the beginning and by the hands of the Platonists and Scholasticks has passed pure and undefiled In Summ. When some Texts seem susceptible of two Senses the one more literal but expresly irrational or contradictory impossible manifestly inconsistent with other Passages and the Current of Scripture and the other more strained or figurative but agreeable to the Scripture-Stile and reconcileable with Reason which of the two Senses do the generality of Christians and in particular Protestants commonly prefer in their Interpretations They unanimously hold as a standing Rule by which the Scripture is to be interpreted that it may be rightly understood as was shewn in the last Chapter That We are to reject that Sense which is manifestly absurd and inconsistent with express Texts and are then to hold by that which is reconcileable to Reason and Scripture tho' somwhat more remote from the Sound of the Words And indeed it would evidently be most unreasonable to follow other Measures We ought then most incontestably constantly to prefer that Interpretation which is consistent with Scripture and Reason before that which is inconsistent with both And this Consideration leads Us to the next Particular CHAP. XIII An Answer to the third Branch of the Objection 3. IT is possible and easy and warrantable to understand in an Vnitarian Sense all the Texts which the Trinitarians alledge for their Sentiment To evince the truth of which Proposition we shall consider those Texts which are mentioned in the Objection and instanced in as the strongest for the Anti-Vnitarian Cause and as for the others we shall refer the Reader to the Brief History of the Vnitarians or even to Grotius his Annotations but especially to the Works of the Fratres Poloni The Texts instanced in for the purpose aforesaid are those which either call Christ the Son of God by way of eminency or shew that Christ may and is to be Pray'd to and declare that God will have Men honour the Son even as they honour the Father As to the Texts which call Christ the Son of God by way of eminency an Observation of Dr. Sherlocks will go a great way to give a light into that Matter These are his words at Pages 71st and 72d of his Book against the Bishop of Gloucester That which entitles Creatures to the natural relation of Sonship to God is to receive their being from God in the likeness and resemblance of his own Nature Thus Angels are called the Sons of God and so is Adam who was immediately formed by God in his own Image and Likeness And thus som think that Christ who was as immediately formed by a Divine Power in the Womb of the Virgin as Adam was of the Dust of the Earth is for this reason called the Son of God See Luk. 1.35 where that reason is expresly given of Christ's being call'd the Son of God The Vnitarians to this Observation will in particular add that no Creature was ever made in so great a Likeness and Resemblance of the Divine Nature nor designed to so high a Dignity as Christ was and that this particularly is the reason why Christ is called the Son of God by way of eminency besides that He is actually God's Only-Begotten Son as we did observe from Luk. 1.35 This is a plain and a rational and after all an unexceptionable account of the Matter and therefore what Dr. Sherlock adds thereupon serves only to shew that the Scholastick or Platonick Trinitarian Sentiment of Christ's Sonship is impossible For this is certain and undeniable and yet if the Platonick or Scholastick Sentiment were true this could not be allowed of according to that System for he says that System implies that there being but one Son in Christ it is Heresy to hold that Christ is the Son of God in any other sense than by an Eternal Generation Christ as we have seen is called the Only-Begotten Son of God because he is the only Person whom God caused to be born of a Woman without the help of Man And in that sense he is God's Only Son as well as in this respect that he is the only Lord whom God has placed at the head of the Vniverse and to whom he has subjected all Creatures For Soveraigns and Kings are called the Sons of God Luk. 1.32 John 1.49 c. as is shewn in the Introduction of Dr. Patrick's Witnesses of Christianity and this is the Only Soveraign and King who is constituted the Lord of all other created Lords and Kings in which respect he is like to God which we have not well translated equal to God as also in respect of the exercise of the Divine Power in working the greatest Miracles whenever be pleased and whenever he will Som People are apt to imagin that even God being called the Father is a valid Proof of more Persons than One in the Divine Nature But seriously do they think that the Samaritan Women and common Soldiers were acquainted with the Scholastick or Platonick Trinity Yet these speak of a Son of God Mat. 27.54 and to the other our Saviour speaks of the Father as of Somwhat intelligible to them John 4.21 Conclude we then that by the Father we must understand God the
to the Arians such as we have described who from the beginning was a God in the highest signification of the inserior senses in which that title is used in Scripture and who is assisted of God in the manner we have declared it is very rational and true to say of him that he cannot do the Divine Works of himself but that he doth them only as he is taught and assisted by the Father to do them To which agrees what he says at the 10th Verse of the 14th Chapter of the same Gospel the Father not a Second Divine Person that dwels in me he properly doth the Works inasmuch as it is he that assists me to do them And accordingly Christ declared that tho' he had a vast Power even then granted him and was enabled to do mighty Miracles yet God the free Donor and Disposer thereof had reserv'd infinitely more Prerogative to himself and the Disciples were not to doubt but that God from whom Christ had all that he had was still greater than he John 14 28. V. In like manner a Person that were literally the Almighty God himself could not say to the Father as Christ doth John 17.5 Glorify thou me with thine own self with the Glory which I had with thee before the World was For whatever the Trinitatarians may say or think of it a Person that were literally the Almighty God could no more be at any time without his Glory than he could ever be without his Nature and Essence or could cease to exist For the Highest Glory is inseparable from the Supreme God for as he exists necessarily from all Eternity so he is necessarily All-Perfect and consequently All-Glorious But the Word being such as we have described having received all his Perfection from the mere free Bounty of the Father and holding the Height of his Glory precariously from the Hand of the Supreme God and as but during the Pleasure of the Almighty this Sublime Creature then I say that is called the Word might be divested of the greatest part of his Glory for a time and be reduced to and contracted into the Narrowness and Lowliness of an Innocent Human Soul for the Undertaking and Performance of a peculiar Office during which considering the Anguish and Difficulties attending it this Person may well be supposed to groan and long for that excellent and inestimable Glory and Happiness which he enjoyed with God before the World was being then glorified and dignified with an extraordinary and an eminent and intimate partaking even of the Divine Nature Soveraignty and Power which in becoming Man he in a great measure actually deposited into the hands of God to receive again indeed afterward with Interest whereas as was said it is impossible for the Almighty God at all to deposite at any time his Perfection Power and Glory See the afore-quoted Treatise of Crellius Book 1st Section 2d Chapter 18th on the Argument That all things are given to Christ from the Father VI. The last Argument of the Vnitarians which I shall now take notice of and that also briefly considering all that has been said here and elsewhere is That it is expresly declared in several Places of Scripture that the Father Only is the Supreme God John 17.3 This is Life eternal to know thee only Father to be the true God and Jesus Christ to be thy Messenger It is evident that that must necessarily be the Construction of the words For the Adjective Only when it is employed to exclude other Subjects from the partaking of the Predicate belongs to the Subject and not to the Predicate Now it is incontestable seeing the Reason of the Thing and the Scope of the Argument that is the Resolution of these grand Articles Namely Who is the true God And Which is the Way to eternal Life and indeed it is agreed by all that in this place the word Only is employed to exclude other Subjects from the partaking of the Predicate Wherefore all others besides the Father are hereby necessarily excluded from being the true God For if all others were not so then none could be suppos'd to be hereby excluded and so the reasoning would be insignificant See Crell in the beginning of his afore-quoted Treatise Ephes 4.4 5 6. There is one Spirit one Hope one Lord one Baptism one God and Father of all who is above all The Father only is that God who is above all or who is properly the True and Supreme God 1 Tim. 2.5 There is one God and one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus That it is the Father only who is that one God is then evident in that Christ is opposed to that one God And the Mediator between God and Men is said to be a Man and not a God-Man See Crell on that Text. 1 Cor. 8.6 To us there is but one God the Father To which Place we may joyn the 9th Verse of the 3d. of St. James's That one then who is properly the God is the Father of whom are all things And under him there is but one Universal Lord by and for whom the Father prepared all things that this most God-like Lord might be at the Head of them to the greatest Glory of the Father the eternal and Supreme the only Wise perfectly and in himself and the only one the true God See 1 Tim. 1.17 compared with Rom. 15.6 and 16.27 1 Tim. 1.17 Vnto the King eternal immortal invisible the only wise God be Honour and Glory for ever Rom. 16.27 To God only Wise be Glory thro' Jesus Christ Rom. 15.6 With one Mind and with one Mouth glorify God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ So Jam. 3.9 Thus we see the Vnitarians not only shew some most express or expresly seeming Contradictions in the Platonick or Scholastick Trinity which Contradictions cannot be denied to be most express unless it can be shewn expresly and invincibly that they are not such but they also produce several Texts which appear most express and evident for the Vnitarian System Upon which account they think they are the more authorized and incontestably warranted to consult also as they do in this Matter the Light of Reason which as was said furnishes them with several unanswerable Arguments of the Impossibility of the Scholastick or Platonick Trinity of real Divine Persons in one God as may be seen in the Apologia pro Irenico Magno and consequently of the Reasonableness of the Vnitarian System and the Vnitarian Interpretations They reckon that the Arguments taken from Reason and those taken from Scripture do very much strengthen one another Howbeit they chiefly insist on those taken from Scripture as appears from that Treatise of Crellius which has been so often quoted Here then it is very fit to remember Dr. Sherlock's Words which we quoted before and which are to this purpose That if any Text be produced which proves Christ properly or in his own Person to be but a Creature this ought
to put an end to the Controversy and either excuse or justify all the Vnitarian Interpretations of Scripture how harsh soever they may otherwise appear c. The Scripture-Proofs of our Saviour's Divinity explained P. 55. I leave it to the Reader to summ up the Evidence it being so obvious and easily done and shall only shew what follows most incontestably from the whole including the Arguments for the Gespel-Terms of Communion handled in the Ireniâ—um Magnum and particularly in the Apologia pro Irenico Magno where as was said there are also Arguments as here and in Crell's Book against the Trinitarian System which I find no where satisfactorily answered and which appear indeed most express and unanswerable Howbeit it is my most earnest desire to be rightly informed and to see the Truth set into the greatest light CHAP. XV. The Inferences most incontestably following from the whole foregoing Discourse and the Gospel-Terms of Communion FROM the whole these four things do most incontestably follow as the least that can be granted to the Vnitarians by Protestants that impartially consider the Arguments treated of in the foregoing Discourse and in the Apologia pro Irenico Magno I. That the State of this Controversy is such that Men may be Vnitarians and be very sincere pious and inquisitive and that if Vnitarianism be an Error it is not a damnable and an intolerable one or an Heresy II. That in the Case of this most abstruse Controversy we ought in our Terms of Communion with relation thereunto to keep to the Generality of the Terms of Scripture and not Magisterially determine this Matter any farther than that Generality nor force or fright away the Vnitarians out of the Church-Society but ought to regulate our Publick Service and our Terms of Church-Union according to the utmost Generality of the Expressions of Scripture so as that Vnitarians may without Scruple joyn with Us therein seeing the Gospel-Terms of Communion and the Principles of Protestants require this Moderation and enjoyn that Method in reference to such Points as are so very difficult and intricate that sincere and inquisitive Persons may be at a loss and may mistake about them III. That therefore First in the Publick Service we ought to address the Current of our Prayers directly as well as ultimately to God in general in the Name thro' the Mediation of Christ in the Conclusion of them beseeching God to hear us grant us our Requests for the Sake of his Dear Son our Blessed Lord Saviour and Redeemer and so when we address some Ejaculations to Christ we ought as has been shewn in general to address to him as to our Mediator or Mediatory Governor Soveraign in whom the Fulness of the God-head so dwells as abundantly and constantly to assist him in the Discharge of his Mediatory Office whereby he both acts for God and represents God is in some sense God Secondly in our Publick Service likewise the Terms of Church-Union we ought to be content with the Apostles Creed which is worded in a Generality agreable to that of Scripture and ought not to think other Creeds necessary or expedient which are artificially fram'd on purpose to depart from that Generality and are incumbred with Human Decisions and Magisterial Impositions Thirdly no Subscription or Assent ought to be required of Clergy-men but to the Bible it self to Doctrines expressed in the Words of Scripture or in Terms that agree to the Scripture-Generality the Clergy-men's Declaration being admitted that they Subscribe and Assent to the things proposed to them but so far as they are agreable to the Generality of Scripture These Three Points not only follow necessarily from the 2d Inference but are implied in it and we rank them on a distinct Head only that the Principles in general which are the Grounds on which these Particulars are built may first be more distinctly observed to be necessarily deducible from the First Inference and from the Gospel-Terms of Communion and that then it may distinctly be considered what Particulars necessarily follow from those Principles that the said Particulars may upon those demonstrated Grounds be firmly established IV. That among all the other incontestable Reasons for this Generality in the Terms of Church-Union this is one which follows from the First and Second Inferences deserves a distinct rank Namely that this Method is the safest in a Controversy at least to be own'd by all considering Trinitarians to be most intricate and that incontestably it suffices to Pray to God in general to satisfy to the Duty of Praying to the God-head God in general including the whole God-head so that when God in general is directly ultimately Pray'd to all is certainly worshipped that is to be adored with Supreme Worship and when our Petitions are put up in the Name of Christ the Mediatory Honour due to our Saviour is thereby paid him being thus addressed to as the Mediator of the New Covenant in whom the Fulness of the Godhead dwells as was said I. That the State of this Controversy is such that Men may be Vnitarians and be very sincere pious and inquisitive and that if Vnitarianism be an Error it is not a damnable and an intolerable one or a Heresy This follows from the high Probability at least of the Arguments for Vnitarianism to say no more of them for after all upon mature consideration these Arguments seem to be express and unanswerable and on the other hand it seems that a Solution is given to the Chiefest Objections of the Scholastick or Platonick Trinitarians Howbeit this at least cannot be denied to be a most difficult intricate Point And admitting that the Vnitarian System has no higher evidence than the other and is encumbred with as great Difficulties to which Sentiment I have often for a great while been most inclined even since I began to write on this Subject esteeming it to be God's will and intention that we should for the most part suspend our judgment about it and indeed it may with great appearance of reason be judged the fittest not to be too decisive in so mysterious and abstruse a Matter yet no advantage can thence be taken against the Vnitarians and every Trinitarian that carefully and sincerely considers the Vnitarian Arguments seeing they are so weighty and considerable must at least grant that they are such that Men may take them to be good Arguments and yet be very Honest hearty Lovers of God and to the best of their power Inquisitive and that consequently if Vnitarianism be an Error it is not a damnable and an intolerable one or a Heresy For is it credible that God will assign the dreadful Torments of Hell for an Error which good Men who sincerely and diligently seek to know his Will and to practice it cannot avoid taking for a Truth God punishes nothing but what has some Wickedness in it or some Pravity and Malice Now what Malice or Wickedness
wanderers strayed aside from the Simplicity of Religion and preferred the arbitrary Notions of a vain Philosophy before it doth it follow that the generality of the Jews were Platonists As for Philo Eusebius conjectures and Photius expresly affirms that he was a Christian if so it must be a Platonick Christian or kind of Semi-Arian Some then have thought it not impossible but that this Philo whose Works we have is not he who went on the Embassage to Caligula but is another Philo of the Second Century Neither do they think it impossible but that the Monks may have very much corrupted his Writings Indeed it seems improbable that a Jew should have written all that is attributed to Philo. Howbeit it suffices that he was a Platonist and had a great many extravagant Notions See Mr. Nye's Second Letter to a Peer p. 66. c. After all the Platonists as was observed are very obscure And some contend that all that Philo says of a Trinity amounts not above Arianism See Sandi Hist. Eccl. enucl Lib. 1. Secul 1. But what do we say of the Cabbala or Traditionary Knowledg delivered from Father to Son since the time of Moses Why in good earnest what can we say of it but that it is a Chimera a rabinnical Legend a pharisaïcal Device to deceive the People and make every thing pass as Sacred that the Doctors please All Protestants look upon Tradition as a most unsafe and uncertain Means of transmitting from Age to Age Divine Truths and as no fixed Rule of Religion And we see Our Saviour never mentions the Jewish Tradition but to oppose it After all it can never be shewn that the Cabbala asserts a Trinity of Persons in God Ever since that Doctrin has been broached the generality of the Jews have expressed the Offense they have taken at it and have made it an Objection against Christians Origen says that tho' he had often disputed with the Jewish Rabbins that were of most esteem he never saw any of them approve this Doctrin that the Word is God or a God in the Platonick or Trinitarian Sense And he asserts that it is not the Opinion of the Jews that the Messias whom they expect is to be a God or a Divin Person but they believe he is to be a meer Man and an Earthly King Con. Cels. L. 2. p. 79. and L. 4. p. 162. See Bull. Judic Eccl. p. 170. And in Mr. Nye's 2d Letter to a Peer p. 50 51 52. you may see some more Quotations to the same purpose out of Justin Martyr St. Athanasius and others Indeed some Jewish Books treat very mysteriously and sometimes almost unintelligibly of the Names and Attributes of God Howbeit the Authors never meant thereby so many Divine Persons or any more than one such Person the Jews all along strongly opposing the Doctrin of more Persons than one in God As for the manifestly forged Writings of some Christians they are not to be attributed to the Jews See Mr. Nye's 2d Letter p. 53. You may see his Account of the Cabbala in his 3d. Letter p. 100. c. Maimonides determines this Matter in these words There are some things says he in which Jews Mahometans and Christians do agree But the Mahometans and Christians have divers Doctrines that are peculiar to themselves the Doctrin for instance of the Trinity is proper to Christians and to defend it they have been obliged to invent some very singular Principles More Nevochim Part. 1. Chap. 71. Mr. Nye has several other Quotations to the same import as also Vorstius in his Bilibra veritatis But what do we say to the Chaldee Paraphrase which often mentions the Word of God and represents him as a Person We say perhaps it is not exactly known what Philosophical Notions Onkelos and Jonathan might have who were the Authors of that Paraphrase it may be they were Platonists and accommodated some of Plato's expressions to the Jewish Sentiments howbeit we do not doubt but that all which they say of the Word is consistent with the Vnitarian Sense and we are certain that as we have shewn the Body of the Jews were Vnitarians The same Expression then in an Author may somtimes be taken in divers Significations The Word of God may sometimes signify the Message and somtimes the Messenger of God somtimes the Command it self and somtimes the Person that carries the Divine Command to Men somtimes a Divine Influence or a Divine Virtue the Wisdom and Energy of God or his Inspiration figuratively represented as a Person or his Will and Decree and somtimes a Creature in Office and Dignity an Archangel a Minister of God or one who acts for God and by God's Commission and who in some measure represents him By these Observations 't is easy to explain in an Vnitarian Sense all the Places where the Chaldee Paraphrasts mention the Word of God Probably they thereby commonly understand in speaking of God the Wisdom of God attended and set forth with Command and Authority in acting which Word or Authority God somtimes communicates in different manners or measures to some Creatures And therefore somtimes by the Word of God they understand a Creature for instance at the 1st Verse of the 110th Psalm they give that Name to Solomon because the Kings of Israel were God's Deputies and perhaps they interpreted that Verse like some other Places of the Messiah to whom it is applicable and who as they expected was to be a Temporal King of the House of David No reason can be assigned why they could not give that Title in that sense to the Messiah holding him only as a Creature tho' sometimes they gave it to some of God's Attributes Dr. Allix fancies that Philo actually personalized one of the Divin Attributes namely the Divin Wisdom whom he called the Word of God Yet as we have before remark'd the Dr. himself observ'd that Philo calls also Angels in the Plural the Words of God Philo. De Migrat Abrah p. 415. The same Title then may be given both to God or some Divin Influence or Divin Virtue and to some Creatures who act for God and who peculiarly represent him and in and by whom he extraordinarily manifests his Wisdom and Authority What belongs to God may be accomodated or figurativly attributed to such Crearures And it is incontestable that by the Word in speaking of God and by the Divin Spirit or the Breath of his Mouth may be meant the Actings or most eminent Manifestations of his Wisdom and Power As for such expressions as these in the Old Testament O God I have waited for thy Salvation when they are accommodated to the Messiah or the times of the Messiah they may import no more than this O God I have waited for thy Succor or the Deliverance of thy People from the Power of their Enemies by the means of thy Victorious Messenger the Great King of Israel Howbeit the Messiah acting for God and being a King might be called