I know none that lay the force of the Argument upon any thing parallel to those Places But it depends upon laying the Circumstances together Here was a new Religion to be taught mankind and they were to be entred into it not by a bare verbal Profession but by a solemn Rite of Baptism and this Baptism is declar'd to be in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which cannot be understood of their Ministery and therefore must relate to that Faith which they were baptized into which was concerning the Father Son and Holy Ghost And so the Christian Church understood it from the beginning as I have proved in the foregoing Discourse And from hence came the Instruction of Catechumens who were to be baptized about the Trinity and the first Creeds which related only to them as I have already observed And so much our Vnitarians grant in one of their latest Pamphlets that a Creed was an Institution or Instruction what we are to believe in the main and fundamental Articles especially concerning the Persons of Father Son and Holy Ghost But they contend That the Creed which bears the Name of the Apostles was the Original Creed framed by the Apostles themselves because they suppose this Creed doth not assert the Son and Holy Ghost to be Eternal and Divine Persons and therefore they conclude that the Makers of this Creed either did not know that any other Person but the Father is God or Almighty or Maker of Heaven and Earth or they have negligently or wickedly concealed it This is a matter so necessary to be clear'd that I shall examine these two things before I put an end to this Discourse 1. What Proofs they bring that this Creed was framed by the Apostles 2. What Evidence they produce that this Creed excludes the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost 1. As to the Proofs they bring that this Creed was framed by the Apostles We believe the Creed to be Apostolical in the true Sense of it but that it was so in that Frame of Words and Enumeration of Articles as it is now receiv'd hath been called in question by some Criticks of great Judgment and Learning whom I have already mentioned Erasmus saith He doth not question the Articles being Apostolical but whether the Apostles put it thus into Writing And his chief Argument is from the Variety of the Ancient Creeds of which no Account can be given so probable as that they were added Occasionally in opposition to a growing Heresie As for Instance the Word Impassible was inserted with Respect to the Father in the ancient Eastern Creed against the Doctrine of Sabellius but it was not in the old Western Creed And he argues That the Apostolical Creed ended with the Holy Ghost because the Nicene Creed did so And Vossius thinks the other Articles which are in Cyril were added after the Nicene Council which would not have omitted them if they had been in the former Creed And when there were so many Creeds made afterwards it is observable that they do all end with the Article of the Holy Ghost which they would never have done in so jealous a time about Creeds if they had left out any Articles of what was then receiv'd for the Apostolical Creed The first Creed after the Nicene which made great noise in the World was that framed at Antioch and that Creed not only ends with the Article of the Holy Ghost but mentions the Form of Baptism and our Saviours commanding his Apostles to baptize in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as the Foundation of the Creed For it hereby appears that the Father is true Father and the Son true Son and the Holy Ghost true Holy Ghost not bare Names but such as import three distinct Subsistences For Hilary observes That this Council chiefly intended to overthrow Sabellianism and therefore asserted tres Subsistentium Personas as Hilary interprets their meaning and so doth Epiphanius which was to remove the Suspition that they asserted only triplicis vocabuli Vnionem as Hilary speaks The next Creed is of the Eastern Bishops at Sardica and that ends wiâ—h the Holy Ghost and so do both the Creeds at Sirmium and the latter calls the Article of the Trinity the close of our Faith which is always to be kept according to our Saviour's command Go teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost So that in all these Creeds about which there was so much heat in the Christian Church there was not the least Objection that any Articles of the Apostolical Creed were omitted It is no Argument That there was then no contest about these Articles for they were bound to give in an entire Creed and so the Council of Antioch declares that they would publish the Confession of the Faith of the Church and how could this be if they left out such Articles which had been always receivâ—d from the Apostles times But certainly our Vnitarians would not attack such Men as Erasmus and Vossius in a matter relating to Antiquity if they had not some good Arguments on their side Their first business is to shew that some of Vossius his Arguments are not conclusive such as they are I leave them to any one that will compare them with the Answers But there are two things they lay weight upon 1. That the whole Christian Church East and West could not have agreed in the same Creed as to Number and Order of Articles and manner of Expression if this Creed had not come from the same Persons from whom they receiv'd the Gospel and the Scriptures Namely from the Apostles and Preachers of Christianity 2. That it was receiv'd by a constant Tradition to have been the Apostles not a bare Oral Tradition but the Tradition of the ancient Commentators upon it Now these I confess to be as good Arguments as the Matters will bear and I will no longer contest this Point with them provided that we be allowed to make use of the same Arguments as to the second Point wherein they undertake to prove That the Apostles Creed doth exclude the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost What is now become of the general Consent of the Christian Church East and West and of the Commentators upon this Creed If the Argument hold good in one Case I hope it will be allowed to do so in the other also And what greater Testimony can be given of such a Consent of the Christian Church than that those who opposed it have been condemned by it and that the Church hath expressed her Sense of it in Publick and Private Acts of Devotion and Divine Worship and have defended it as a necessary part of the Christian Faith against the Assaults of Infidels and Hereticks So that although the Apostles Creed do not in express words declare The Divinity of the three Persons in the Vnity of the Divine
to him But who made them subject to him The Man Christ Iesus No God appointed him to be the Lord of every Creature Then they were not created by Christ but by God but the Apostle saith they were created by Christ. But God made him Head of the Church and as Head of the Body he rules over all This we do not at all question but how this comes to be creating Dominions and Powers visible and invisible Did God make the Earth and all the living Creatures in it when he made Man Lord over them Or rather was Man said to create them because he was made their Head If this be their interpreting Scripture like wise Men I shall be content with a less measure of Understanding and thank God for it XI Lastly Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise men to leave the form of Baptism doubtful whether it were not inserted into S. Matthew's Gospel or to understand it in another Sense than the Christian Church hath done from the Apostles times I say first Leave it doubtful because they say That Learned Criticks have given very strong Reasons why they believe these Words In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost were not spoke by our Saviour but have been added to the Gospel of S. Matthew from the common Form and Practise of the Church Why are these strong Reasons of learned Criticks mentioned but to raise Doubts in Peoples minds about them But they declare afterwards against them Not too much of that For they say only That they are not without their weight but they have observed several things that make them think that this Text is a genuine part of Scripture Very Wisely and Discreetly spoken The Reasons are strong and weighty but they think otherwise I wish they had told the World who these learned Criticks were lest it should be suspected that they were their own Inventions But I find a certain Nameless Socinian was the Author of them and his Words are produced by Sandius a Person highly commended by them for his Industry and Learning but as much condemned by others for want of Skill or Ingenuity The reason of writing these Reasons Sandius freely Confesses was because this place clearly proved a Trinity of Persons against the Socinians But what are these very strong and weighty Reasons For it is great Pity but they should be known In the first place he observes That S. Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew and the Original he saith is lost and he suspects that either S. Jerom was himself the Translator into Greek and Latin who was a Corrupter of Scripture and Origen or some unknow Person from whence it follows that our Gospel of S. Matthew is not of such Authority that an Article of such moment should depend upon it Is not this a very strong and weighty Reason Must not this be a very learned Critick who could mention S. Ierom as Translator of S. Matthews Gospel into Greek But then one would think this Interpreter might have been wise enough to have added this of himself No he dares not say that but that it was added by Transcribers But whence or how To that he saith That they seem to be taken out of the Gospel according to the Egyptians This is great News indeed But comes it from a good hand Yes from Epiphanius And what saith he to this purpose He saith That the Sabellians made use of the counterfeit Egyptian Gospel and there it was declared that Father Son and Holy Ghost were the same And what then Doth he say they borrowed the Form of Baptism from thence Nothing like it But on the contrary Epiphanius urges this very Form in that place against the Sabellians and quotes S. Matthew's Authority for it But this worthy Author produces other Reasons which Sandius himself laughs at and despises and therefore I pass them over The most material seems to be if it hold That the most ancient Writers on S. Matthew take no notice of them and he mentions Origen Hilary and S. Chrysostom but these Negative Arguments Sandius thinks of no force Origen and S. Chrysostom he saith reach not that Chapter the Opus Imperfectum which was none of his doth not but his own Commentaries do and there he not only mentions the Form but takes notice of the Compendious Doctrine delivered by it which can be nothing else but that of the Trinity In the Greek Catena on S. Matthew there is more mentioned viz. That Christ had not then first his Power given him for he was with God before and was himself by Nature God And there Gregory Nazianzen saith The Form of Baptism was in the Name of the Holy Trinity and he there speaks more fully Remember saith he the Faith into which thou wert baptized Into the Father That is well but that is no farther than the Jews go for they own one God and one Person Into the Son That is beyound them but not yet perfect Into the Holy Ghost Yes saith he this is perfect Baptism But what is the common Name of these three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plainly that of God But this learned Critick observes that Hilary in some Copies takes no notice of this Form That is truly observed for the very Conclusion is not Hilary's but taken out of S. Ierom but if he had look'd into Hilary's Works he would have found the Form of Baptism owned and asserted by him For he not only sets it down as the Form of Faith as well as our Baptism appointed by Christ but argues from it against the Sabellians and Ebionites as well as others Thus we see how very strong and weighty the Arguments of this learned Critick were CHAP. IX The General Sense of the Christian Church proved from the Form of Baptism as it was understood in the first Ages BUT our Vnitarians pretend that they are satisfied that the Form of Baptism is found in all Copies and all the ancient Translations and that it was used before the Council of Nice as appears by several places of Tertullian But how then There are two things stick with them 1. That the Ante-Nicene Fathers do not alledge it to prove the Divinity of the Son or Holy Ghost 2. That the Form of Words here used doth not prove the Doctrine of the Trinity Both which must be strictly Examined 1. As to the former It cannot but seem strange to any one conversant in the Writings of those Fathers when S. Cyprian saith expressly That the Form of Baptism is prescribed by Christ that it should be in plenâ adunaâ—â Trinitate i. e. in the full Confession of the Holy Trinity and therefore he denied the Baptism of the Marcionites because the Faith of the Trinity was not sincere among them as appears at large in that Epistle And this as far as I can find was the general Sense of the Ante-Nicene Fathers as well as others And it
is no improbable Opinion of Erasmus and Vossius two learned Criticks indeed That the most ancient Creed went no further than the Form of Baptism viz. to Believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost and the other Articles were added as Heresies gave occasion S. Ierom saith That in the Traditional Creed which they received from the Apostles the main Article was the Confession of the Trinity to which he joyns the Vnity of the Church and Resurrection of the Flesh and then adds that herein is contained Omne Christiani Dogmatis Sacramentum the whole Faith into which Christians were baptized And he saith It was the Custom among them to instruct those who were to be Baptized for forty days in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity So that there was then no Question but the Form of Baptism had a particular Respect to â—t and therefore so much weight is laid upon the use of it as well by the Ante-Nicene Fathers as others For Tertullian saith That the Form of Baptism was prescribed by our Saviour himself as a Law to his Church S. Cyprian to the same purpose That he commanded it to be used S. Augustin calls them the Words of the Gospel without which there is no Baptism The Reason given by S. Ambrose is because the Faith of the Trinity is in this Form But how if any one Person were left out He thinks that if the rest be not denied the Baptism is good but otherwise vacuum est omne Mysterium the whole Baptism is void So that the Faith of the Trinity was that which was required in order to true Baptism more than the bare Form of Words If there were no reason to question the former S. Ambrose seems of Opinion that the Baptism was good although every Person were not named and therein he was followed by Beda Hugo de Sancto Victore Peter Lombard and others And S Basil in the Greek Church asserted that Baptism in the name of the Holy Ghost was sufficient because he is hereby owned to be of equal Dignity with the Father and Son but it is still supposing that the whole and undivided Trinity be not denied And he elsewhere saith That Baptizing in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is a most solemn Profession of the Trinity in Vnity because they are all joyned together in this publick Act of Devotion But others thought that the Baptism was not good unless every Person were named which Opinion generally obtained both in the Greek and Latin Church And the late Editors of S. Ambrose observe that in other places he makes the whole Form of Words necessary as well as the Faith in the Holy Trinity The Baptism of the Eunomians was rejected because they alter'd the Form and the Faith too saying That the Father was uncreate the Son created by the Father and the Holy Ghost created by the Son The Baptism of the Samosatenians was rejected by the Council of Nice S. Augustin thinks it was because they had not the right Form but the true Reason was they rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity And so the Council of Arles I. doth in express Words refuse their Baptism who refused to own that Doctrine That Council was held A. D. 314. and therefore Bellarmin and others after him are very much mistaken when they interpret this Canon of the Arians concerning whose Baptism there could be no Dispute till many years after But this Canon is de Afris among whom the Custom of Baptizing prevailed but this Council propounds an expedient as most agreeable to the general Sense of the Christian Church viz. That if any relinquished their Heresie and came back to the Church they should ask them the Creed and if they found that they were baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost they should have only imposition of hands but if they did not confess the Trinity their Baptism was declared void Now this I look on as an impregnable Testimony of the Sense of the Ante-Nicene Fathers viz. That they did not allow that Baptism which was not in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost or which they understood to be the same in the confession of the Faith of the Trinity How then can our Vnitarians pretend That the Ante-Nicene Fathers did not alledge the Form of Baptism to prove the Trinity For the words are If they do nâ—t answer to this Trinity let them be baptized saith this plenary Couâ—cil as S. Augustin often calls it What Trinity do they mean Of mere Names or Cyphers or of one God and two Creatures joyned in the same Form of words as our Vnitarians understand it But they affirm That the Ancients of 400 years do not insist on this Text of S. Matthew to prove the Divinity or Personality of the Son or Spirit Therefore to give a clear account of this matter I shall prove that the Ante-Nicene Fathers did understand these words so as not to be taken either for mere Names or for Creatures joyned with God but that they did maintain the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost from the general Sense in which these words were taken among them And this I shall do from these Arguments 1. That those who took them in another Sense were opposed and condemned by the Christian Church 2. That the Christian Church did own this Sense in publick Acts of divine Worship as well as private 3. That it was owned and defended by those who appeared for the Christian Faith against Infidels And I do not know any better means than these to prove such a matter of Fact as this 1. The Sense of the Christian Church may be known by its behaviour towards those who took these words only for different Names or Appearances of One Person And of this we have full Evidence as to Praxeas Noëtus and Sabellius all long before the Council of Nice Praxeas was the first at least in the Western Church who made Father Son and Holy Ghost to be only several Names of the same Person and he was with great Warmth and Vigor opposed by Tertullian who charges him with introducing a new opinion into the Church as will presently appear And his testimony is the more considerable because our Vnitarians confess That he lived 120 years before the Nicene Council and that he particularly insists upon the Form of Baptism against Praxeas But to what purpose Was not his whole design in that Book to prove three distinct Persons of Father Son and Holy Ghost and yet but One God Doth he not say expresly That Christ commanded that his Disciples should baptize into the Father Son and Holy Ghost not into One of them ad singula nomina in Personas singulas tingimur In Baptism we are dipped once at every Name to shew that we are baptized into three Persons It is certain then that Tertullian could not mistake the Sense of the Church
A DISCOURSE In VINDICATION of the Doctrine of the Trinity WITH An ANSWER To the Late Socinian Objections Against it from Scripture Antiquity and Reason AND A PREFACE concerning the different Explications of the Trinity and the Tendency of the present SOCINIAN Controversie By the Right Reverend Father in God Edward Lord Bishop of Worcester LONDON Printed by I. H. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in S. Paul's Church-yard 1697. THE PREFACE WHen I was desir'd not long since to reprint the Discourse lately published concerning the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction I thought it necessary to look into the Socinian Pamphlets which have swarmed so much among us within a few years to see how far an Answer had been given in them to any of the arguments contained in it but I found the Writers of them thought it not for their purpose to take any notice at all of it but rather endeavour'd to turn the Controversie quite another way and to cover their true Sense under more plausible Expressions Of which I have given a full account in the Preface to the late Edition of it But among those Treatises which â—or the general good of the Nation are gatherâ—d into Volumes and dispers'd abroad to make either Proselytes or Infidels I found one wherein there is pâ—etended to be an Answer to my Sermon about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith reprinted with the former Discourse and therein I meet with a passage which hath given occasion to this Vindication For there are these Words That I had utterly mistaken in thinking that they deny the Articlâ—s of the new Creed or Athanasian Religion because they are Mysteries or because say they we do not comprehend them we deny them because we do comprehend them we have a clear and distinct Perception that they are not Mysteries but Contradictions Impossibilities and pure Nonsense Which words contain in them so spitefull so unjust and so unreasonable a Charge upon the Christian Church in general and our own in particular that I could not but think my self concerned especially since they are addressed to me to do what in me lay as soon as my uncertain State of Health would permit towards the clearing the fundamental Mystery of the Athanasian Religion as they call it viz. The Doctrine of the Trinity which is chiefly struck at by them without running into any new Explications or laying aside any old terms for which I could not see any just occasion For however thoughtfull Men may think to escape some particular difficulties better by going out of the common Roads yet they may meet with others which they did not foresee which may make them as well as others judge it at last a wiser and safer course to keep in the same way which the Christian Church hath used ever since it hath agreed to express her Sense in such Terms which were thought most proper for that purpose For in such cases the Original and Critical Signification of words is not so much to be attended as the use they are applied to and since no other can be found more significant or proper for that end it looks like yielding too great advantage to our Adversaries to give up the Boundaries of our Faith For although there be a difference between the necessary Article of Faith it self and the manner of expressing it so that those may truely believe the Substance of it who differ in the Explication yet since the Sense of the Article hath been generally received under those terms there seems to be no sufficient reason to substitute new ones instead of the old which can hardly be done without reflecting on the Honour of the Christian Church and giving occasion for very unreasonable Heats and Disputes among those who if we may believe their own words agree in the same fundamental Doctrine viz. a Trinity in Unity or three Persons in the same undivided divine Essence I am so little a Friend to any such Heats and Differences among our selves especially when we are so violently attacked by our common Adversaries that were there no other reason I should for the sake of that alone forbear making use of new Explications but there is another too obvious which is the mighty advantage they have taken from hence to represent our Doctrine as uncertain as well as unintelligiâ—le For as soon as our Unitarians began to appear with that Briskness and Boldness they have done now for several years some of our Divines thought themselves obliged to write in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity Thence came several Answers to them and in several Methods as the Persons thought most subservient to the same end but whatever their intentions were our Adversaries were too much pleased to conceal the Satisfaction which they took in it For soon after we had the several Explications set forth and compared with each other and all managed so as to make the Cause to suffer by the disagreement of the Advocates for it And from hence they have formed a fivefold Trinity 1. The Ciceronian Trinity because Tully had used the Word Personae for different Respects Sustineo ego tres Personas and according to this Acceptation Three Persons in the Godhead are no more than three Relations Capacities or Respects of God to his Creatures which say they is downright Sabellianism and is no manner of Mystery but the most intelligible and obvious thing in the World 2. The Cartesian Trinity which maketh three divine Persons and three infinite Minds Spirits and Beings to be but one God 3. The Platonick Trinity of three divine Co-eternal Persons whereof the second and third are subordinate or inferiour to the first in Dignity Power and all other Qualities except only Duration 4. The Aristotelian Trinity which saith the Divine Persons are one God because they have one and the same numerical Substance 5. The Trinity of the Mobile or that which is held by the common People or by such lazy Divines who only say in short that it is an unconceivable Mystery and that those are as much in fault who go about to explain it as those who oppose it But that which hath made the most noise and caused the greatest Heat and Ferment among us hath been a difference first begun between two learned Divines of our Church about the second and fourth and the account which our Unitarians give of both is this That the one is a rational and intelligible Explication but not true nor Orthodox the other is true and Orthodox but neither rational intelligible nor possible I do not mention this as though their words were to be taken as to either but only to shew what advantage they take from both to represent that which is set up for the Churches Doctrine either not to be truly so or to be neither rational nor intelligible The design of the following Discourse is to make it appear 1. That the Churches Doctrine as to the Trinity as it is expressed in the Athanasian
That there are three distinct eternal Spirits or Minds in the Trinity and Genebrard is brought into the same Heresie with them But Genebrard with great indignation rejects the Doctrine of Valentinus Gentilis because he held an Inequality in the Persons and denied the individual Vnity of the Godhead in them but he saith he follow'd Damascen in asserting three real Hypostases and he utterly denies Tritheism and he brings a multitude of reasons why the charge of Tritheism doth not lie against his opinion although he owns the Hypostases to be three distinct individuals but then he adds That there is an indivisible and insepâ—rable Union of the divine Nature in all three Persons Now to deal as impartially in this matter as may be I do not think our understandings one jot helped in the Notion of the Trinity by this Hypothesis but that it is liable to as great difficulties as any other and therefore none ought to be fond of it or to set it against the general Sense of others and the current Expressions of Divines about these Mysteries nor to call the different opinions of others Heresie or Nonsense which are provoking Words and tend very much to inflame Mens Passions because their Faith and Vnderstanding are both call'd in question which are very tender things But on the other side a difference ought to be made between the Heresie and Blasphemy of Valentinus Gentilis and the opinion of such who maintain the individual and indivisible Unity of the Godhead but withal believe that every Person hath an individual Substance as a Person and that Sabellianism cannot be avoided otherwise Wherein I think they are mistaken and that the Fathers were of another opinion and that our Church owns but one Substance in the Godhead as the Western Church always did which made such difficulty about receiving three Hypostases because they took Hypostasis for a Substance but yet I see no reason why those who assert three Hypostases and mean three individual Substances should be charged with the Heresie of Valentinus Gentilis or so much as with that of Abbaâ— Joachim or Philoponus because they all rejected the individual Unity of the divine Nature which is constantly maintained by the Defenders of the other Hypothesis But it is said and urged with vehemency that these two things are inconsistent with each other that it is going forward and backward being Orthodox in one Breath and otherwise in the next that all this looks like shuffling and concealing the true meaning and acting the old Artifices under a different Form For the Samosatenians and Arians when they were pinched seem'd very Orthodox in their Expressions but retained their Heresies still in their Minds and there is reason to suspect the same Game is playing over again and we cannot be too cautious in a matter of such Consequence I grant very great caution is needfull but the mixture of some Charity with it will do no hurt Why should we suspect those to be inwardly false and to think otherwise than they speak who have shew'd no want of Courage and Zeal at a time when some thought it Prudence to say nothing and never call'd upon their Superiours then to own the cause of God and to do their Duties as they have now done and that in no very obliging manner And if the same Men can be cool and unconcerned at some times when there was so great reason to be otherwise and of a sudden grow very warm and even to boil over with Zeal the World is so ill natur'd as to be too apt to conclude there is some other cause of such an alteration than what openly appears But there is a kind of bitter Zeal which is so fierce and violent that it rather inflames than heals any Wounds that are made and is of so malignant a Nature that it spreads and eats like a Cancer and if a stop were not given to it it might endanger the whole Body I am very sensible how little a Man consults his own ease who offers to interpose in a dispute between Men of Heat and Animosity but this moves me very little when the interest of our Church and Religion is concerned which ought to prevail more than the fear of displeasing one or other Party or it may be both I do heartily wish that all who are equally concerned in the common Cause would lay aside Heats and Prejudices and hard Words and consider this matter impartially and I do not question but they will see cause to judge as I do that the difference is not so great as our Adversaries for their own advantage make it to be And since both sides yield that the matter they dispute about is above their reach the wisest course they can take is to assert and defend what is revealed and not to be too peremptory and quarrelsom about that which is acknowledged to be above our comprehension I mean as to the manner how the three Persons partake of the divine Nature It would be of the most fatal consequence to us if those Weapons which might be so usefully imploy'd against our common Adversaries should still be turned upon one another I know no manner of advantage they have against us but from thence and this is it which makes them write with such Insolence and Scorn towards those who are far their Superiours in Learning and Wit as well as in the Goodness of their cause And is it possible that some of our most skilfull Fencers should play Prizes before them who plainly animate them against each other for their own Diversion and Interest Sometimes one hath the better sometimes the other and one is cried up in Opposition to the other but taken alone is used with the greatest Contempt One Man's work is said to be learned and accurate and the more because it follows that he concerns not himself with the Socinians The wiser Man no doubt for that Reason At another time it is called the Birth of the Mountains and the Author parallel'd with no less a Man than Don Quixot and his elaborate Writings with his Adventures and they ridicule his Notion of Modes as if they were only so many Gambols and Postures And then for his Adversary they hearten and incourage him all they can they tell him He must not allow to the other the least Title of all he contends for least their sport should be spoiled and to comfort him they tell him that his Adversary is a Socinian at bottom and doth not know it that all his Thingums Modes Properties are only an Addition of Words and Names and not of Persons properly so called and that his whole Scheme is nothing but Socinianism drest up in the absurd Cant of the Schools That his Book hath much more Scurrility than Argument that his usage of him was barbarous and a greater Soloecism in manners than any he accuses him of in Grammar or Speech and in short That
so many ages with embracing Errors and Nonsense and Contradictions for Mysteries of Faith I desire to know supposing it possible for the Christian Church to be so early so generally and so miserably deceived in a matter of such moment by what light they have discovered this great Error Have they any new Books of Scripture to judge by Truly they had need for they seem to be very weary of the old ones because they find they will not serve their turn Therefore they muster up the old Objections against them and give no answer to them they find fault with Copies and say they are corrupted and falsified to speak the Language of the Church they let fall suspicious words as to the Form of Baptism as though it were inserted from the Churches Practice they charge us with following corrupt Copies and making false Translations without any manner of ground for it And doth not all this discover no good will to the Scriptures at least as they are received among us And I despair of meeting with better Copies or seeing a more faithfull Translation than ours is So that it is plain that they have no mind to be tried by the Scriptures For these exceptions are such as a Malefactor would make to a Jury he is afraid to be condemned by But what then is the peculiar light which these happy men have found in a corner the want whereof hath made the Christian Church to fall into such monstrous Errors and Contradictions Nothing they pretend but the mere light of common sense and reason which they call after a more refined way of speaking clear Ideas and distinct Perceptions of things But least I should be thought to misrepresent them I will produce some of their own Expressions In one place they say We deny the Articles of the new Christianity or the Athanasian religion not because they are Mysteries or because we do not comprehend them we deny them because we do comprehend them we have a clear and distinct Perception that they are not Mysteries but Contradictions Impossibilities and pure Nonsense We have our reason in vain and all science and certainty would be destroy'd if we could not distinguish between Mysteries and Contradictions And soon after we are not to give the venerable name of Mystery to Doctrines that are contrary to nature's and reason's Light or which destroy or contradict our natural Ideas These things I have particular reason to take notice of here because they are published as an Answer to the foregoing Sermon about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith and this shews the general grounds they go upon and therefore more fit to be consider'd here To which I shall add one passage more wherein they insinuate that the Doctrine of the Trinity hath been supported only by interest and force Their words are after they have called the Doctrine of the Trinity a monstrous Paradox and Contradiction This is that say they which because all other arguments failed them in their disputations with the Photinians and Arians they at last effectually proved by the Imperial Edicts by Confiscations and Banishments by Seizing and Burning all Books written against it or them by capital Punishments and when the Papacy of which this is the chief Article prevailed by Fire and Faggot This is a new discovery indeed that the Doctrine of the Trinity as it is generally receiv'd in the Christian Church is the chief Article of Popery although it were embraced and defended long before Popery was known and I hope would be so if there were no such thing as Popery left in the world But if every thing which displeases some men must pass for Popery I am afraid Christianity it self will not escape at last for there are some who are building apace on such foundations as these and are endeavouring what they can to remove out of their way all revealed Religion by the help of those two powerfull Machines viz. Priest-craft and Mysteries But because I intend a clear and distinct Discourse concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity as it hath been generally received among us I shall proceed in these four Enquiries 1. Whether it was accounted a monstrous Paradox and Contradiction where Persons were not sway'd by Force and Interest 2. Whether there be any ground of common reason on which it can be justly charged with Nonsense Impossibilities and Contradiction 3. Whether their Doctrine about the Trinity or ours be more agreeable to the sense of Scripture and Antiquity 4. Whether our Doctrine being admitted it doth overthrow all certainty of reason and makes way for believing the greatest Absurdities under the pretence of being Mysteries of Faith CHAP. II. The Doctrine of the Trinity not received in the Christian Church by Force or Interest AS to the first it will lead me into an enquiry into the sense of the Christian Church as to this Doctrine long before Popery was hatched and at a time when the main force of Imperial Edicts was against Christianity it self at which time this Doctrine was owned by the Christian Church but disowned and disputed against by some particular Parties and Sects And the question then will be whether these had engrossed Sense and Reason and Knowledge among themselves and all the body of the Christian Church with their heads and governors were bereft of common Sense and given up to believe Nonsense and Contradictions for Mysteries of Faith But in order to the clearing this matter I take it for granted That Sense and Reason are no late inventions only to be found among our Vnitarians but that all Mankind have such a competent share of them as to be able to judge what is agreeable to them and what not if they apply themselves to it That no men have so little sense as to be fond of Nonsense when sense will do them equal service That if there be no Biass of Interest to sway them men will generally judge according to the evidence of reason That if they be very much concerned for a Doctrine opposed by others and against their interest they are perswaded of the truth of it by other means than by force and fear That it is possible for men of sense and reason to believe a Doctrine to be true on the account of divine Revelation although they cannot comprehend the manner of it That we have reason to believe those to be men of sense above others who have shew'd their abilities above them in other matters of Knowledge and Speculation That there can be no reason to suspect the integrity of such men in delivering their own Sense who at the same time might far better secure their interest by renouncing their Faith lastly That the more Persons are concerned to establish and defend a Doctrine which is opposed and contemned the greater evidence they give that they are perswaded of the truth of it These are Postulata so agreeable to sense and common reason that I think if an affront to human Nature
to go about to prove them But to shew what use we are to make of them we must consider that it cannot be denied that the Doctrine of the Trinity did meet with opposition very early in the Christian Church especially among the Iewish Christians I mean those who strictly adhered to the Law of Moses after the Apostles had declared the freedom of Christians from the obligation of it These as I shall shew by and by soon after the dispersion of the Church of Ierusalem gathered into a body by themselves distinct from that which consisted of Iews and Gentiles and was therefore called the Catholick Christian Church And this separate body whether called Ebionites Nazarens or Mineans did not only differ from the Catholick Christian Church as to the necessity of observing the Law of Moses but likewise as to the Divinity of our Saviour which they denied although they professed to believe him as the Christ or promised Messias Theodoret hath with very good judgment placed the Heresies of the first ages of the Châ—istian Church under two distinct heads which others reckon up confusedly and those are such as relate to the Humanity of Christ as Simon Magus and all the Sets of those who are called Gnosticks which are recited in his first Book In his second he begins with those which relate to the Divinity of Christ and these are of two kinds 1. The Iewish Christians who denied it Of these he reckons up the Ebionites Cerinthians the Nazarens and Elcesaitae whom he distinguished from the other Ebionites because of a Book of Revelation which one Elxai brought among them but Epiphanius saith he joyned with the Ebionites and Nazarens 2. Those of the Gentile Christians who were look'd on as broaching a new Doctriâ—e among them of these he reckons Artemon as the first then Theodotus whom others make the first Publisher of it as Tertullian and the old Writer in Eusebius supposed to be Caius who lived near the time and of whom a considerable Fragment is preserved in Eusebius which gives light to these matters The next is another Theodotus who framed a new Sect of such as set up Melâ—hisedeck above Christ. Then follow Paulus Samosatenus and Sabellius who made but one Person as well as one God and so overthrew the Trinity with whom Marcellus agreed in substance and last of all Photinus But Theodoret concludes that Book with this passage viz. That all these Heresies against our Saviour's Divinity were then wholly extinct so that there were not so much as any small Remainders of them What would he have said if he had lived in our age wherein they are not only revived but are pretended to have been the true Doctrine of the Apostolical Churches Had all men lost their Senses in Theodoret's time And yet there were as many learned and able Men in the Christian Church then as ever were in any time CHAP. III. The Socinian Plea for the Antiquity of their Doctrine examined BUT this is not the age our Vnitarians will stand or fall by They are for going backward and they speak with great comfort about the old Ebionites and Nazarens as entirely theirs And that they had considerable men among them as Theodotion and Symmachus two Translators of the Hebrew Bible And among the Gentile Christians they value themselves upon three Men Paulus Samosatenus Lucianus the most learned Person they say of his age and Photinus Bishop of Sirmium As to the Vnitarians at Rome whom they improperly call Nazarens they pretended that their Doctrine was Apostolical and the general Doctrine of the Church till the times of Victor and Zepherin This is the substance of their Plea which must now be examin'd I begin with those Primitive Vnitarians the Ebionites concerning whom I observe these things 1. That they were a distinct separate body of men from the Christian Church For all the ancient Writers who speak of them do mention them as Hereticks and wholly divided from it as appears by Irenaeus Tertullian Epiphanius Theodoret S. Augustin and others Eusebius saith of them That although the Devil could not make them renounce Christianity yet finding their weakness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he made them his own He would never have said this of any whom he look'd on as Members of the Christian Church But wherein is it that Eusebius blames them He tells it in the very next words that it was for the mean opinion they entertained of Christ for they look'd on him as a meer Man but very just And although there were two sorts of them some owning the miraculous Conception and others not yet saith he They at last agreed in the same Impiety which was That they would not own Christ to have had any Pre-existence before his Birth nor that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God the Word It 's true he finds fault with them afterwards for keeping to the Law of Moses but the first Impiety he charges them with is the other That which I inferr from hence is that Eusebius himself to whom they profess to shew greater respect than to most of the ancient Writers for his exactness and diligence in Church-History doth affirm the Doctrine which overthrows the Pre-existence and Divinity of Christ to be an Impiety And therefore when he affirms the first fifteen Bishops of the Church of Ierusalem who were of the Circumcision viz. to the Siege of it by Hadrian did hold the genuine Doctrine of Christ it must be understood of his Pre-existence and Divinity for the other we see he accounted an Impiety And he tells us the Church of Ierusalem then consisted of believing Iews and so it had done from the Apostles times to that of Hadrian 's Banishment of the Iews Which is a considerable Testimony to two purposes 1. To shew that the Primitive Church of Ierusalem did hold the Doctrine of Christ's Pre-existence and Divinity But say our Vnitarians this doth not follow For what reason When it is plain that Eusebius accounted that the only genuine Doctrine No say they he meant only the miraculous Conception and that they held that in opposition to those Ebionites who said that he was born as other men are This is very strange when Eusebius had distinguished the two sorts of Ebionites about this matter and had blamed both of them even those that held him born of a Virgin for falling into the same Impiety What can satisfie such men who are content with such an answer But say they Eusebius only spake his own sense Not so neither For he saith in that place that he had searched the most ancient Records of the Church of Ierusalem Yes say they for the Succession of the first Bishops but as to their Doctrine he had it from Hegesippus and he was an Ebionite himself Then Eusebius must not be the man they take him for For if Hegesippus were himself an Ebionite and told Eusebius in his Commentaries that the Primitive
Church of Ierusalem consisted of all such then Eusebius must suppose that Church guilty of the same Impiety with which he charges the Ebionites and would he then have said That they had the true knowledge of Christ among them No say they Eusebius spake his own opinion but Hegesippus being an Ebionite himself meant otherwise But Eusebius doth not use Hegesippus his words but his own in that place and withal how doth it appear that Hegesippus himself was an Ebionite This one of their latest Writers hath undertaken but in such a manner as is not like to convince me It is thus Hegesippus was himself a Iewish Christian and made use of the Hebrew Gospel and among the Hereticks which crept into the Church of Jerusalem he never numbers the Ebionites or Cerinthians but only the Gnosticks I will not dispute whether Hegesippus was a Jewish Christian or not Grant he was so yet how doth it appear that all the Iewish Christians were at that time Ebionites or Cerinthians It seems they were neither of them Hereticks although they were opposite to each other the one held the World created by inferiour Powers the other by God himself the one we see made Christ a mere Man but the Cerinthians held an illapse of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon him and so made him a kind of a God by his Presence as Nestorius did afterwards But honest Hegesippus took neither one nor the other for Hereticks if our Vnitarians say true But yet it doth not appear that Hegesippus was either one or the other For he speaks of the Church of Ierusalem as is plain by Eusebius and the Cerinthians and Ebionites were in other parts the former in Egypt and the lesser or Proconsular Asia and the latter about Decapolis and Coelesyria from whence they spread into Arabia and Armenia as appears by Epiphanius But Origen saith That all the Iewish Christians were Ebionites What! no Cerinthians among them Were not those Iewish Christians Or were they all turned Ebionites then No such thing appears by Origen's saying But we are not enquiring now what they were in his time but in the Church of Ierusalem Doth Origen say all the Iewish Christians there were such And as to his own time it is not improbable that those who then made up the separate Body of Jewish Christians were Ebionites But what is this to the first Christians of the Church of Ierusalem Very much say they because the first Christians were called Nazarens and the Nazarens held the same Doctrine with the Ebionites But the title of Nazarens did not always signifie the same thing It was at first used for all Christians as appears by the Sect of the Nazarens in Tertullus his Accusation of S. Paul then it was taken for the Christians who stay'd at Pella and setled at Decapolis and thereabouts as Epiphanius affirms for although all the Christians withdrew thither before the Destruction of Ierusalem as Eusebius saith yet they did not all continue there but a great number returned to Ierusalem and were there setled under their Bishops but those who remained about Pella kept the name of Nazarens and never were united with the Gentile Christians but kept up their old Jewish customs as to their Synagogues even in S. Ierom and S. Augustine's time Now these Nazarens might be all Ebionites and yet those of the Church of Ierusalem not so at all 2. The next thing observable from this place of Eusebius is that while the Nazarens and Ebionites were setled in Coelesyria and the parts thereabouts there was a regular Christian Church at Ierusalem under the Bishops of the Circumcision to the Siege of Hadrian Eusebius observes that before the destruction of Ierusalem all the Christians forsook not only Ierusalem but the Coasts of Iudea But that they did not all continue there is most evident from what Eusebius here saith of the Church and Bishops of Ierusalem between the two Sieges of Titus Vespasian and Hadrian which was in the 18 year of his Empire saith Eusebius Who produces another Testimony out of Iustin Martyr which shews that the Christians were returned to Ierusalem For therein he saith That Barchochebas in that War used the Christians with very great severity to make them renounce Christianity How could this be if all the Christians were out of his reach then being setled about Pella And although Eusebius saith That when the Iews were banished their Country by Hadrian 's Edict that then the Church of Ierusalem was made up of Gentiles yet we are not so strictly to understand him as though the Christians who suffer'd under Barchochebas were wholly excluded Orosius saith That they were permitted by the Emperor's Edict It is sufficient for me if they were connived at which is very probable although they did not think fit to have any such publick Persons as their Bishops to be any other than Gentiles And Hegesippus is allow'd after this time to have been a Iewish Christian of the Church of Ierusalem so that the Church there must consist both of Iews and Gentiles but they can never shew that any of the Ebionites did admit any Gentile Christians among them which shews that they were then distinct Bodies 2. They were not only distinct in Communion but had a different rule of Faith This is a point of great consequence and ought to be well consider'd For since our Vnitarians own the Ebionites as their Predecessors we ought to have a particular eye to the rule of Faith received by them which must be very different from ours if they follow the Ebionites as I doubt not to make it appear They say The Ebionites used only S. Matthew 's Gospel But the Christian Church then and ever since have receiv'd the four Gospels as of divine authority Eusebius one of the most approved Authors in Antiquity by our Vnitarians reckons up the four Evangelists and S. Paul 's Epistles as writings universally received by the Christian Church then he mentions some generally rejected as spurious and after those which were doubted among which he mentions the Gospel according to the Hebrews which the Iewish Christians follow'd Now here is an apparent difference put between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and S. Matthew 's Gospel as much as between a Book receiv'd without controversie and one that was not But if the Gospel according to the Hebrews were then acknowledged to be the true Gospel of S. Matthew it was impossible a man of so much sense as Eusebius should make this difference between them But it is worth our observing what our Vnitarians say about this matter And by that we may judge very much of their opinion about the Gospels I shall set down their words for fear I should be thought to do them wrong Symmachus and the Ebionites say they as they held our Saviour to be the Son of Ioseph and Mary so they contended that the first Chapter of S. Matthew's
there were two Persons in Christ one Divine and the other Humane and two Sons the one by Nature the Son of God who had a Pre existence and the other the Son of David who had no subsistence before This is the opinion which Dionysius sets himself against in that Epistle and which therefore â—ome may imagine was written after Nestorius his Heresie But that was no new Heresie as appears by the Cerinthians and it was that which Paulus Samosatenus fled to as more plausible which not only appears by this Epistle but by what Athanasius and Epiphanius have delivered concerning it Athanasius wrote a Book of the Incarnation against the followers of Paulus Samosatenus who held as he saith Two Persons in Christ viz. One born of the Virgin and a divine Person which descended upon him and dwelt in him Against which opinion he disputes from two places of Scripture viz. God was manifest in the Flesh and the Word was made Flesh and from the ancient Doctrine of the Christian Church and the Synod of Antioch against Paulus Samosatenus And in another place he saith that he held That the divine Word dwelt in Christ. And the words of Epiphanius are express to the same purpose That the Logos came and dwelt in the Man Iesus And the Clergy of Constantinople charged Nestorius with following the Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus And Photius in his Epistles saith That Nestorius tasted too much of the intoxicated Cups of Paulus Samosatenus and in the foregoing Epistle he saith That Paulus his followers asserted two Hypostases in Christ. But some think that Paulus Samosatenus did not hold any subsistence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before but that the Word was in God before without any subsistence of its own and that God gave it a distinct subsistence when it inhabited in the Person of Christ and so Marius Mercator and Leontius understand him who say that he differ'd from Nestorius therein who asserted a Divine Word with its proper subsistence But according to them Paulus by the Word undersâ—ood that Divine Energy whereby Christ acted and which dwelt in him but Dionysius saith he made two Christs and two Sons of God But the Doctrine of the Christian Church he saith was that there was but one Christ and one Son who wâ—s the Eternal Word and was made Flesh. And it is observable that he brings the very same places we do now to prove this Doctrine as In the beginning was the Word c. and Before Abraham was I am It seems that some of the Bishops who had been upon the examination of his Opinions before the second Synod which deposed him sent him an account of their Faith and required his answer wherein they declare the Son not to be God according to God's Decree which he did not stick at but that he was so really and substantially and whosoever denied this they said was out of the Communion of the Church and all the Catholick Churches agreed with them in it And they declare that they received this Doctrine from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and bring the same places we do now as Thy Throne O God was for ever c. Who is over all God blessed for ever All things were made by him c. And we do not find that Paulus Samosatenus as subtle as he was ever imagin'd that these places belong'd to any other than Christ or that the making of all things was to be understood of the making of nothing but putting it into mens power to make themselves new Creatures These were discoveries only reserved for the Men of Sense and clear Ideas in these brighter Ages of the World But at last after all the arts and subterfuges which Paulus Samosatenus used there was a Man of Sense as it happen'd among the Clergy of Antioch called Malchion who was so well acquainted with his Sophistry that he drove him out of all and laid his Sense so open before the second Synod that he was solemnly deposed for denying the Divinity of the Son of God and his Descent from Heaven as appears by their Synodical Epistle It is pity we have it not entire but by the Fragments of it which are preserved by some ancient Writers we find that his Doctrine of the Divinity in him by Inhabitation was then condemned and the substantial Union of both Natures asserted I have only one thing more to observe concerning him which is that the Arian Party in their Decree at Sardica or rather Philippopolis do confess that Paulus Samosatenus his Doctrine was condemned by the whole Christian World For they say That which passed in the Eastern Synod was signed and approved by all And Alexander Bishop of Alexandria in his Epistle to Alexander of Constantinople affirms the same And now I hope I may desire our Men of Sense to reflect upon these Matters Here was no Fire nor Faggot threatned no Imperial Edicts to inforce this Doctrine nay the Queen of those parts under whose Jurisdiction they lived at that time openly espoused the cause of Paulus Samosatenus so that here could be nothing of interest to sway them to act in opposition to her And they found his interest so strong that he retained the Possession of his See till Aurelian had conquer'd Zenobia and by his authority he was ejected This Synod which deposed him did not sit in the time of Aurelian as is commonly thought but before his time while Zenobia had all the power in her hands in those Eastern parts which she enjoy'd five years till she was dispossess'd by Aurelian from whence Ant. Pagi concludes that Paulus kept his See three years after the Sentence against him but upon application to Aurelian he who afterwards began a Persecution against all Christians gave this rule That he with whom the Italian Bishops and those of Rome communicated should enjoy the See upon which Paulus was at last turned out By this we see a concurrence of all the Christian Bishops of that time against him that denied the Divinity of our Saviour and this without any force and against their interest and with a general consent of the Christian World For there were no mighty Awes and Draconic Sanctions to compell of which they sometimes speak as if they were the only powerfull methods to make this Doctrine go down And what greater argument can there be that it was then the general sense of the Christian Church And it would be very hard to condemn all his Opposers for men that wanted Sense and Reason because they so unanimously opposed him Not so unanimously neither say our Vnitarians because Lucian a Presbyter of the Church of Antioch and a very learned man joyned with him It would have been strange indeed if so great a Man as Paulus Samosatenus could prevail with none of his own Church to joyn with him especially one that came from the same place of Samosata as
among Men if several go about the same Work yet every particular Person works by himself and therefore they may well be called many because every one is circumscribed but in the divine Persons he proves that it is quite otherwise for they all concurr in the Action towards us as he there shews at large Petavius was aware of this and therefore he saith he quitted it and returned to the other whereas he only saith If his Adversaries be displeased with it he thinks the other sufficient Which in short is that Essence in it self is one and indivisible but among Men it is divided according to the Subjects that the divine Nature is capable of no Division at all and therefore the difference of Hypostases must be from the different Relations and Manner of Subsistence 3. He expresses his meaning fully in another place For in his Catechetical Oration he saith he looks on the Doctrine of the Trinity as a profound Mystery which three individual Persons in one specifick Nature is far from But wherein lies it Chiefly in this That there should be Number and no Number different View and yet but One a distinction of Hypostases and yet no Division in the Subjects For so his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is contrary to what he said of human Hypostases Now what is the Subject in this case According to Curcellaeus his Notion it must be an Individual But since he asserts there can be no Division in the Subjects then he must overthrow any such Individuals as are among Men. These are the chief Testimonies out of the Greek Fathers whose authority Curcellaeus and others rely most upon as to this matter which I have therefore more particularly examin'd But S. Ierom saith Curcellaeus in his Epistle to Damasus thought three Hypostases implied three distinct Substances and therefore when the Campenses would have him own them he refused it and asked his Advice Then it is plain S. Ierom would not own three distinct Substances and so could not be of Curcellaeus his mind But saith he S. Ierom meant by three Substances three Gods different in kind as the Arians did But how doth that appear Doth he not say the Arian Bishop and the Campenses put him upon it But who was this Arian Bishop and these Campenses No other than the Meletian Party for Meletius was brought in by the Arians but he joyned against them with S. Basil and others who asserted three Hypostases and the Campenses were his People who met without the Gates as the Historians tell us But it is evident by S. Ierom that the Latin Church understood Hypostasis to be the same then with Substance and the reason why they would not allow three Hypostases was because they would not assert three Substances So that Curcellaeus his Hypothesis hath very little colour for it among the Latin Fathers since S. Ierom there saith it would be Sacrilege to hold three Substances and he freely bestows an Anathema upon any one that asserted more than one But Hilary saith Curcellaeus owns a specifick Vnity for in his Book de Synodis he shews That by one Substance they did not mean one individual Substance but such as was in Adam and Seth that is of the same kind No man asserts the Vnity and Indiscrimination of the divine Substance more fully and frequently than he doth and that without any Difference or Variation as to the Father and the Son And although against the Arians he may use that for an Illustration of Adam and Seth yet when he comes to explain himself he declares it must be understood in a way agreeable to the divine Nature And he denies any Division of the Substance between Father and Son but he asserts one and the same Substance to be in both and although the Person of the Son remains distinct from the Person of the Father yet he subsists in that Substance of which he was begotten and nothing is taken off from the substance of the Father by his being begotten of it But doth he not say That he hath a Legitimate and proper Substance of his own begotten Nature from God the Father And what is this but to own two distinct Substances How can the Substance be distinct if it be the very same and the Son subsist in that Substance of which he was begotten And that Hilary besides a multitude of passages to the same purpose in him cannot be understood of two distinct Substances will appear by this Evidence The Arians in their Confession of Faith before the Council of Nice set down among the several Heresies which they condemned that of Hieracas who said the Father and Son were like two Lamps shining out of one common Vessel of Oil. Hilary was sensible that under this that Expression was struck at God of God Light of Light which the Church owned His Answer is Luminis Naturae Vnitas est non ex connexione porrectio i e. they are not two divided Lights from one common Stock but the same Light remaining after it was kindled that it was before As appears by his Words Light of Light saith he implies That it gives to another that which it continues to have it self And Petavius saith that the Opinion of Hieracas was That the substance of the Father and Son differ'd Numerically as one Lamp from another And Hilary calls it an Error of humane Understanding which would judge of God by what they find in one another Doth not S. Ambrose say as Curcellaeus quotes him That the Father and Son are not two Gods because all men are said to be of one Substance But S Ambrose is directly against him For he saith The Arians objected that if they made the Son true God and Con-substantial with the Father they must make two Gods as there are two men or two Sheep of the same Essence but a Man and a Sheep are not said to be Men or two sheep Which they said to excuse themselves because they made the Son of a different kind and substance from the Father And what Answer doth S. Ambrose give to this 1. He saith Plurality according to the Scriptures rather falls on those of different kinds and therefore when they make them of several kinds they must make several Gods 2. That we who hold but One Substance cannot make more Gods than One. 3. To his instance of Men he answers That although they are of the same Nature by Birth yet the◠differ in Age and Thought and Work and Place from one another and where there is such Diversity there cannot be Vnity but in God there is no difference of Nature Will or Operation and therefore there can be but one God The last I shall mention is S. Augustin whom Curcellaeus produces to as little purpose for although he doth mention the same instance of several Men being of the same kind yet he speaks so expresly against a Specifick Vnity in
and therefore comprehends the whole three Persons so that there is neither a Grammatical nor Arithmetical Contradiction And what say our Vnitarians to this Truly no less Than that the Remedy is worse if possible than the Disease Nay then we are in a very ill Case But how I pray doth this appear 1. Say they Three personal Gods and one Essential God make four Gods if the Essential God be not the same with the personal Gods and tho' he is the same yet since they are not the same with one another but distinct it follows that there are three Gods i. e. three personal Gods 2. It introduces two sorts of Gods three Personal and one Essential But the Christian Religion knows and owns but One true and most high God of any sort So far then we are agreed That there is but One true and most high God and that because of the perfect Vnity of the Divine Essence which can be no more than One and where there is but One Divine Essence there can be but One true God unless we can suppose a God without an Essence and that would be a strange sort of God He would be a personal God indeed in their critical Sense of a Person for a shape or appearance But may not the fame Essence be divided That I have already shew'd to be impossible Therefore we cannot make so many personal Gods because we assert one and the same Essence in the three Persons of Father Son and Holy Ghost But they are distinct and therefore must be distinct Gods since every one is distinct from the other They are distinct as to personal Properties but not as to Essential Attributes which are and must be the same in all So that here is but one Essential God and three Persons But after all why do we assert three Persons in the Godhead Not because we find them in the Athanasian Creed but because the Scripture hath revealed that there are Three Father Son and Holy Ghost to whom the Divine Nature and Attributes are given This we verily believe that the Scripture hath revealed and that there are a great many places of which we think no tolerable Sense can be given without it and therefore we assert this Doctrine on the same Grounds on which we believe the Scriptures And if there are three Persons which have the Divine Nature attributed to them what must we do in this Case Must we cast off the Vnity of the Divine Essence No that is too frequently and plainly asserted for us to call it into Question Must we reject those Scriptures which attribute Divinity to the Son and Holy Ghost as well as to the Father That we cannot do unless we cast off those Books of Scripture wherein those things are contained But why do we call them Persons when that Term is not found in Scripture and is of a doubtful Sense The true Account whereof I take to be this It is observed by Facundus Hermianensis that the Christian Church received the Doctrine of the Trinity before the Terms of three Persons were used But Sabellianism was the occasion of making use of the name of Persons It 's true That the Sabellians did not dislike our Sense of the Word Person which they knew was not the Churches Sense as it was taken for an Appearance or an external Quality which was consistent enough with their Hypothesis who allow'd but One real Person with different Manifestations That this was their true Opinion appears from the best account we have of their Doctrine from the first Rise of Sabellianism The Foundations of it were laid in the earliest and most dangerous Heresies in the Christian Church viz. that which is commonly called by the name of the Gnosticks and that of the Cerinthians and Ebionites For how much soever they differ'd from each other in other things yet they both agreed in this that there was no such thing as a Trinity consisting of Father Son and Holy Ghost but that all was but different Appearances and Manifestations of God to Mankâ—nd In consequence whereof the Gnosticks denied the very Humanity of Christ and the Cerinthians and Ebionites his Divinity But both these sorts were utterly rejected the Communion of the Christian Church and no such thing as Sabellianism was found within it Afterwards there arose some Persons who started the same Opinion within the Church the first we meet with of this sort are those mention'd by Theodoret Epigonus Cleomenes and Noëtus from whom they were called Noeâ—ians not long after Sabellius broached the same Doctrine in Pentapolis and the Parts thereabouts which made Dionysius of Alexandria appear so early and so warmly against it But he happening to let fall some Expressions as though he asserted an Inequality of Hypostases in the Godhead Complaint was made of it to Dionysius then Bishop of Rome who thereupon explained that which he took to be the true Sense of the Christian Church in this matter Which is still preserved in Athanasius Therein he disowns the Sabellian Doctrine which confounded the Father Son and Holy Ghost and made them to be the same and withal he rejected those who held three distinct and separate Hypostases as the Platonists and after them the Marcionists did Dionysius of Alexandria when he came to explain himself agreed with the others and asserted the Son to be of the same Substance with the Father as Athanasius hath proved at large but yet he said That if a distinction of Hypostases were not kept up the Doctrine of the Trinity would be lost as appears by an Epistle of his in S. Basil. Athanasius saith That the Heresie of Sabellius lay in making the Father and Son to be only different Names of the same Person so that in one Respect he is the Father and in another the Son Gregory Nazianzen in opposition to Sabellianism saith We must believe one God and three Hypostases and commends Athanasius for preserving the true Mean in asserting the Vnity of Nature and the Distinction of Properties S. Basil saith That the Sabellians made but one Person of the Father and Son that in Name they confessed the Son but in Reality they denied him In another place that the Sabellians asserted but one Hypostasis in the Divine Nature but that God took several Persons upon him as occasion required sometimes that of a Father at other times of a Son and so of the Holy Ghost And to the same purpose in other places he saith That there are distinct Hypostases with their peculiar Properties which being joyned with the Vnity of Nature make up the true Confession of Faith There were some who would have but One Hypostasis whom he opposes with great vehemency and the Reason he gives is That then they must make the Persons to be meer Names which is Sabellianisn And he saith That if our Notions of distinct Persons have no certain Foundation they are meer Names such as
Sabellius called Persons But by this Foundation he doth not mean any distinct Essences but the incommunicable Properties belonging to them as Father Son and Holy Ghost It is plain from hence that the necessity of asserting three Hypostases came from thence that otherwise they could not so well distinguish themselves from the Sabellians whose Doctrine they utterly disowned as well as Arianism and Iudaism and it appears by the Testimonies of Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen and S. Basil that they look'd on one as bad as the other and they commonly joyn Iudaism and Sabellianism together But yet there arose Difficulties whether they were to hold one Hypostasis or three The former insisted on the generally received Sense of Hypostasis for Substance or Essence and therefore they could not hold three Hypostases without three distinct Essences as the Platonists and Marcionists held Upon this a Synod was called at Alexandria to adjust this matter where both Parties were desired to explain themselves Those who held three Hypostases were asked Whether they maintained three Hypostases as the Arians did of different Substances and separate Subsistences as Mankind and other Creatures are Or as other Hereticks three Principles or three Gods All which they stedfastly denied Then they were asked Why they used those terms They answered Because they believed the Holy Trinity to be more than mere Names and that the Father and Son and Holy Ghost had a real Subsistence belonging to them but still they held but one Godhead one Principle and the Son of the same Substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost not to be a Creature but to bear the same proper and inseparable Essence with the Father and the Son Then the other side were asked When they asserted but one Hypostasis whether they held with Sabellius or not and that the Son and Holy Ghost had no Essence or Subsistence which they utterly denied but said that their meaning was That Hypostasis was the same with Substance and by one Hypostasis they intended no more but that the Father Son and Holy Ghost were of the same individual Substance for the Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so they held but one Godhead and one divine Nature and upon these terms they agreed From whence it follows that the Notion of three Hypostases as it was received in the Christian Church was to be underâ—â—ood so as to be consistent with the Individual Vnity of the divine Essence And the great rule of the Christian Church was to keep in the middle between the Doctrines of Sabellius and Arius and so by degrees the Notion of three Hypostases and one Essence was look'd on in the Eastern Church as the most proper Discrimination of the Orthodox from the Sabellians and Arians But the Latin Church was not so easily brought to the use of three Hypostases because they knew no other Sense of it but for Substance or Essence and they all denied that there was any more than one divine Substance and therefore they rather embraced the Word Persona and did agree in the Name of Persons as most proper to signifie their meaning which was That there were three which had distinct Subsistences and incommunicable Properties and one and the same divine Essence And since the Notion of it is so well understood to signifie such a peculiar Sense I see no reason why any should scruple the use of it As to it s not being used in Scripture Socinus himself despises it and allows it to be no good reason For when Franciscus Davides objected That the terms of Essence and Person were not in Scripture Socinus tells him That they exposed their cause who went upon such grounds and that if the sense of them were in Scripture it was no matter whether the terms were or not Hâ—ving thus clear'd the Notion of three Persons I return to the Sense of Scripture about these matters And our Vnitarians tell us that we ought to interpret Scripture otherwise How doth that appear They give us very little encouragement to follow their Interpretations which are so new so forced so different from the general Sense of the Christian World and which I may say reflect so highly on the Honour of Christ and his Apostles i. e. by making use of such Expressions which if they do not mean what to honest and sincere Minds they appear to do must be intended according to them to set up Christ a meer Man to be a God And if such a thought as this could enter into the Mind of a thinking Man it would tempt him to suspect much more as to those Writings than there is the least colour or reason for Therefore these bold inconsiderate Writers ought to reflect on the consequence of such sort of Arguments and if they have any regard to Christianity not to trifle with Scripture as they do But say they The question only is Whether we ought to interpret Scripture when it speaks of God according to reason or not that is like Fools or like wise Men Like wise Men no doubt if they can hit upon it but they go about it as untowardly as ever Men did For is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men to take up some novel Interpretations against the general Sense of the Christian Church from the Apostles times Is this to act like wise Men to raise Objections against the Authority of the Books they cannot answer and to cry out of false Copies and Translations without reason and to render all places suspicious which make against them Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men to make our Saviour affect to be thought a God when he knew himself to be a mere Man and by their own Confession had not his divine Authority and Power conferr'd upon him And to make his Apostles set up the Worship of a Creature when their design was to take away the Worship of all such who by Nature are not Gods Is this like wise Men to tell the World that these were only such Gods whom they had set up and God had not appointed as though there were no Real Idolatry but in giving Divine Worship without God's Command CHAP. VIII The Socinian Sense of Scripture examined BUT they must not think to escape so easily for such a groundless and presumptuous saying that they interpret the Scripture not like Fools but like Wise Men because the true sense of Scripture is really the main point between us and therefore I shall more carefully examine the Wise Sense they give of the chief places which relate to the matter in hand 1. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise Men to make the Author to the Hebrews in one Chapter and that but a short one to bring no less than four places out of the Old Testament and according to their Sense not one of them proves that which he aimed at viz. that Christ was superiour to Angels Heb. 1.5 as will appear by the Sense they give of
them For unto which of the Angels said he at any time Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee These words say they in their original and primary Sense are spoken of David but in their mystical Sense are a Prophecy concerning Christ. Was this mystical Sense primarily intended or not If not they are only an accommodation and no proof But they say even in that mystical Sense they were intended not of the Lord Christ's supposed eternal Generation from the Essence of the Father but of his Resurrection from the dead But if that be not taken as an Evidence of his being the eternal Son of God how doth this prove him above Angels Heb. 1.6 And again when he bringeth his first begotten into the World he saith And let all the Angels of God Worship him This one would think home to the business But our wise Interpreters tell us plainly that the words were used by the Psalmist on another occasion i. e. they are nothing to the purpose But being told of this instead of mending the matter they have made it far worse for upon second thoughts but not wiser they say The words are not taken out of the Psalm but out of Deut. 32.43 where the words are not spoken of God but of God's People and if this be said of God's People they hope it may be said of Christ too without concluding from thence that Christ is the supreme God But we must conclude from hence that these are far from being wise Interpreters for what consequence is this the Angels worship God's People therefore Christ is superiour to Angels Heb. 1.8 Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever i. e. say they God is thy Throne for ever And so they relate not to Christ but to God And to what purpose then are they brought Heb. 1.10 Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the Earth and the Heavens are the work of thy Hands These words say they are to be understood not of Christ but of God Which is to charge the Apostle with arguing out of the old Testament very impertinently Is this interpreting the Scriptures like wise Men Is it not rather exposing and ridiculing them Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men to give such a forced Sense of the beginning of S. John's Gospel as was never thought of from the writing of it till some in the last Age thought it necessary to avoid the proof of Christ's Divinity from it For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was never taken in the Sense they put upon it for him that was to preach the Word in S. Iohn's time but the signification of it was then well understood from the Alexandrian School as appears by Philo whence it was brought by Cerinthus into those parts of Asia where S. Iohn lived when he wrote his Gospel and one of themselves confesses that Cerinthus did by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mean something divine which rested upon and inhabited the Person of Iesus and was that power by which God created original Matter and made the World but as the Christ or the Word descended on Iesus at his Baptism so it left him at his Crucifixion That which I observe from hence is that there was a known and current Sense of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the time of S. Iohn's writing his Gospel very different from that of a Preacher of the Word of God and therefore I cannot but think it the wisest way of interpreting S. John to understand him in a Sense then commonly known and so he affirms the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have been in the beginning i. e. before the Creation for he saith afterwards All things were made by him and that he was with God and was God and this Word did not inhabit Iesus as Cerinthus held but was made Flesh and dwelt among us And so S. Iohn clearly asserted the Divinity and Incarnation of the Son of God And in all the Disputes afterwards with Paulus Samosatenus and Photinus it appears that they understood the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not for any meer Man but for some Divine Power which rested upon the Person of Iesus So that this was a very late and I think no very Wise Interpretation of S. Iohn And even Sandius Confesses That Socinus his Sense was wholly new and unheard of in the ancient Church not only among the Fathers but the Hereticks as I have before observed For they agreed except their good Friends the Alogi who went the surest way to work that by the Word no meer Man was understood Let them produce one if they can saith Sandius even the learned and judicious Sandius Did they all interpret the Scriptures like Fools and not like Wise Men But if the Christian Interpreters were such Fools what think they of the Deists whom they seem to have a better opinion of as to their Wisdom What if Men without Biass of Interest or Education think ours the more proper and agreeable Sense The late Archbishop to this purpose had mentioned Amelius the Platonist as an indifferent Iudge But what say our Wise Interpreters to this Truly they say That the Credit of the Trinitarian Cause runs very low when an uncertain Tale of an obscure Platonist of no Reputation for Learning or Wit is made to be a good part of the Proof which is alledged for these Doctrines If a Man happen to stand in their way he must be content with such a Character as they will be pleased to give him If he had despised S. Iohn's Gospel and manner of expression he had been as Wise as the Alogi but notwithstanding the extraordinary Character given of Friend Amelius as they call him by Eusebius by Porphyrius by Proclus and by Damascenus this very Saying of his sinks his Reputation for ever with them What would Iulian have given for such a Wise Interpretation of S. Iohn when he cannot deny but that he did set up the Divinity of Christ by these Expressions and upbraids the Christians of Alexandria for giving Worship to Iesus as the Word and God With what satisfaction would he have received such a Sense of his Words when he Complemented Photinus for denying the Divinity of Christ while other Chrians asserted it But they do not by any means deal fairly with the late Archbishop as to the Story of Amelius for they bring it in as if he had laid the weight of the Cause upon it whereas he only mentions it as a Confirmation of a probable Conjecture That Plato had the Notion of the Word of God from the Jews because that was a Title which the Jews did commonly give to the Messias as he proves from Philo and the Chaldee Paraphrast To which they give no manner of Answer But they affirm in answer to my Sermon p. 9. That Socinus his Sense was That Christ was called the Word because he was the Bringer or Messenger
But if we suppose a personal Union of the Word with the human Nature in Christ then we have a very reasonable Sense of the Words for then no more is imply'd but that Christ as consisting of both Natures should ascend thither where the Word was before when it is said that the Word was with God and so Grotius understands it 2. Grotius doth not make the Word in the beginning of S. John 's Gospel to be a mere Attribute of Wisdom and Power but the eternal Son of God This I shall prove from his own Words 1. He asserts in his Preface to S. Iohn's Gospel that the chief cause of his writing was universally agreed to have been to prevent the spreading of that Venom which had been then dispersed in the Church which he understands of the Heresies about Christ and the Word Now among these the Heresie of Cerinthus was this very opinion which they fasten upon Grotius viz. that the Word was the divine Wisdom and Power inhabiting in the Person of Iesus as I have shew'd before from themselves And besides Grotius saith That the other Evangelists had only intimated the divine Nature of Christ from his miraculous Conception Miracles knowing Mens Hearts perpetual Presence promise of the Spirit remission of Sins c. But S. John as the time required attributed the Name and Power of God to him from the beginning So that by the Name and Power of God he means the same which he called the divine Nature before 2. He saith that when it is said The Word was with God it ought to be understood as Ignatius explains it with the Father what can this mean unless he understood the Word to be the eternal Son of God And he quotes Tertullian saying that he is the Son of God and God ex unitate Substantiae and that there was a Prolation of the Word without Separation Now what Prolation can there be of a meer Attribute How can that be said to be the Son of God begotten of the Father without Division before all Worlds as he quotes it from Iustin Martyr And that he is the Word and God of God from Theophilus Antiochenus And in the next Verse when it is said The same was in the beginning with God it is repeated on purpose saith he That we might consider that God is so to be understood that a Distinction is to be made between God with whom he was and the Word who was with God so that the Word doth not comprehend all that is God But our Wise Interpreters put a ridiculous Sense upon it as though all that Grotius meant was That Gods Attributes are the same with himself which although true in it self is very impertinent to Grotius his purpose and that the Reason why he saith That the Word is not all that God is was because there were other Attributes of God besides But where doth Grotius say any thing like this Is this Wise interpreting or honest and fair dealing For Grotius immediately takes notice from thence of the Difference of Hypostases which he saith was taken from the Platonists but with a change of the Sense 3. When it is said v. 3. That all things were made by him Grotius understands it of the old Creation and of the Son of God For he quotes a passage of Barnabas where he saith The Sun is the Work of his hands and several passages of the Fathers to prove That the World and all things in it were created by him and he adds That nothing but God himself is excepted What say our Wise Interpreters to all this Nothing at all to the purpose but they cite the English Geneva Translation when they pretend to give Grotius his Sense and add That the Word now begins to be spoken of as a Person by the same Figure of Speech that Solomon saith Wisdom hath builded her house c. Doth Grotius say any thing like this And yet they say Let us hear Grotius interpreting this sublime Proeme of S. John 's Gospel But they leave out what he saith and put in what he doth not say is not this interpreting like Wise men 4. The VVord was made flesh v. 14. i. e. say the Vnitarians as from Grotius It did abode on and inhabit a humane Person the Person of Iesus Christ and so was in appearance made flesh or man But what saith Grotius himself The Word that he might bring us to God shew'd himself in the Weakness of humane Nature and he quotes the words of S. Paul for it 1 Tim. 3.16 God was manifest in the flesh and then produces several Passages of the Fathers to the same purpose Is not this a rare Specimen of Wise interpreting and Fair dealing with so considerable a Person and so well known as Grotius Who after all in a Letter to his intimate Friend Ger. I. Vossius declares that he owned the Doctrine of the Trinity both in his Poems and his Catechism after his reviewing them which Epistle is Printed before the last Edition of his Book about Christ's Satisfaction as an account to the World of his Faith as to the Trinity And in the last Edition of his Poems but little before his Death he gives a very different Account of the Son of God from what these Vnitarians fasten upon him And now let the World judge how wisely they have interpreted both S. Iohn and his Commentator Grotius IV. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise men to make our Saviour's meaning to be expressly contrary to his Words For when he said Before Abraham was I am they make the Sense to be that really he was not but only in Gods Decree as any other man may be said to be This place the late Archbishop who was very far from being a Socinian however his Memory hath been very unworthily reproached in that as well as other Respects since his Death urged against the Socinians saying That the obvious Sense of the Words is that he had a real Existence before Abraham was actually in Being and that their Interpretation about the Decree is so very flat that he can hardly abstain from saying it is ridiculous And the wise Answer they give is That the words cannot be true in any other Sense being spoken of one who was a Son and Descendant of Abraham Which is as ridiculous as the Interpretation for it is to take it for granted he was no more than a Son of Abraham V. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise men to say that when our Saviour said in his Conference with the Iews I am the Son of God his chief meaning was That he was the Son of God in such a Sense as all the faithful are called Gods Children Is not this doing great Honour to our Saviour Especially when they say That he never said of himself any higher thing than this which is true of every good man I am the Son of God And yet the Iews accused him of
so grosly as to take three Persons to be only three several Names He grants to Praxeas that Father Son and Holy Ghost are one but how Per unitatem substantiae because there is but one divine Essence but yet he saith there are three not with respect to essential Attributes for so they are unius Substantiae unius Status unius Potestatis quia unus Deus And therefore the difference can be only as to personal Properties and distinct Capacities which he calls Gradus Forma Species not merely as to internal Relations but as to external Dispensations which he calls their Oeconomy For his great business is to prove against Praxeas that the Son and Holy Ghost had those things attributed to them in Scripture which could not be attributed to the Father For Praxeas asserted That the Father suffer'd and thence his followers were called Patripassians and Monarchici i. e. Vnitarians The main ground which Praxeas went upon was the Vnity of the Godhead so often mention'd in Scripture from hence Tertullian saith That he took advantage of the weakness of the common sort of Christians and represented to them that whereas the Doctrine of Christ made but one God those who held the Trinity according to the Form of Baptism must make more Gods than one Tertullian answers that they held a Monarchy i. e. unicum imperium one supreme Godhead and a supreme power may be lodged in distinct Persons and administred in several manners that nothing overthrew the divine Monarchy but a different Power and Authority which they did by no means assert They held a Son but of the Substance of the Father and a Holy Ghost from the Father by the Son he still keeps to the distinction of Persons and the Vnity of Substance And he utterly denies any Division of Essences or separate Substances for therein he saith lay the Heresie of Valentinus in making a Prolation of a separate Being But although he saith the Gospel hath declared to us that the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God yet we are taught that there is still but one God redactum est jam nomen Dei Domini in unione c. 13. whereby the Christians are distinguished from the Heathens who had many Gods This is the force of what Tertullian saith upon this matter And what say our Vnitarians to it They cannot deny that he was an Ante-Nicene Father and it is plain that he did understand the Form of Baptism so as to imply a Trinity of Persons in an Vnity of Essence To which they give no Answer But I find three things objected against Tertullian by their Friends 1. That Tertullian brought this Doctrine into the Church from Montanus whose Disciple he then was So Schlichtingius in his Preface against Meisner grants That he was very near the Apostolical Times and by his Wit and Learning promoted this new Doctrine about the Trinity especially in his Book against Praxeas But how doth it appear that he brought in any new Doctrine Yes saith Schlichtingius he confesses That he was more instructed by the Paraclete But if he had dealt ingenuously he would have owned that in that very place he confesses He was always of that opinion although more fully instructed by the Paraclete This only shews that Montanus himself innovated nothing in this matter but endeavoured to improve it And it is possible that Tertullian might borrow his Similitudes and Illustrations from him which have added no â—â—rength to it But as to the main of the Doctrine he saith It came from the rule of Faith delivered by the Apostles before Praxeas or any Hereticks his Predecessors Which shews that those who rejected this Doctrine were always esteemed Hereticks in the Christian Church And this is a very early Testimony of the Antiquity and general Reception of it because as one was received the other was rejected so that the Assertors of it were accounted Hereticks And the Sense of the Church is much better known by such publick Acts than by mere particular Testimonies of the learned Men of those times For when they deliver the Sense of the Church in such publick Acts all persons are Judges of the truth and falshood of them at the time when they are deliverâ—d and the nearer they came to the Apostolical Times the greater is the strength of their evidence this I ground on Tertullian's appealing to the ancient rule of Faith which was universally known and received in the Christian Church and that such Persons were look'd on as Hereticks who differ'd from it Which being so very near the Apostles Times it 's hardly possible to suppose that the whole Christian Church should be mistaken as to what they received as the rule of Faith which was deliver'd and explained at Baptism and therefore the general Sense of the Form of Baptism must be understood by all who were admitted to it So that the Members of the Christian Church cannot be supposed better acquainted with any thing than the Doctrine they were baptized into Here then we have a concurrence of several publick Acts of the Church 1. The Form of Baptism 2. The Rule of Faith relating to that Form and explained at Baptism 3. The Churches rejecting those as Hereticks who differ'd from it which Tertullian applies to those who rejected the Trinity And Praxeas his Doctrine was then condemned not by a particular Sentence but by the general Sense of the Church at that time For Optatus Milevitanus reckons him among the condemned Hereticks and joyns him with Marcian and Valentinus as well as Sabellius who follow'd him in the same Heresie How was this possible if Praxeas deliver'd the true Doctrine and Tertullian brought in a new Opinion as Schlichtingius fansies Tertullian was at that time a declared Montanist and if he had introduc'd a new Doctrine about the Trinity can we imagine those would have been silent about it who were sharp enough upon Tertullian for the sake of his Paraclete Some of the followers of Montanus afterwards fell into the same opinions with Praxeas as Theodoret tells us and Tertullian saith as much of those Cataphrygians who follow'd Aeschines But these Montanists are distinguished from the rest And Rigaltius observes that Tertullian follow'd Montanus chiefly in what related to Discipline and that himself was not so corrupted in point of Doctrine as some of his Followers were 2. It 's objected That Tertullian's Doctrine is inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Trinity for he denies the eternal Generation of the Son and only asserts an Emission of him before the Creation But my business is not to justifie all Tertullian's Expressions or Similitudes for Men of Wit and Fancy love to go out of the Road and sometimes involve things more by Attempts to explain them but I keep only to that which he saith was the Faith of the Church from the beginning and I see no reason to call in
account of it That there was a Concurrence of others with him in it and that this Doctrine was look'd on as an Innovation in the Faith For his Opinion was that our Saviour had no proper Subsistence of his own before the Incarnation and that the Deity of the Father alone was in him He did not mean that the Son had no separate Divinity from the Father but that the Deity of the Father only appeared in the Son so that he was not really God but only one in whom the Deity of the Father was made manifest Which was one of the oldest Heresies in the Church and the most early condemned and opposed by it But those Heresies which before had differenced Persons from the Church were now spread by some at first within the Communion of it as it was not only in the Case of Noetus and Beryllus but of Sabellius himself who made the greatest noise about this Doctrine and his Disciples Epiphanius tells us spread very much both in the Eastern and Western parts in Mesopotamia and at Rome Their Doctrine he saith was that Father Son and Holy Ghost were but one Hypostasis with three different Denominations They compared God to the Sun the Father to the Substance the Son to the Light and the Holy Ghost to the Heat which comes from it and these two latter were only distinct Operations of the same Substance Epiphanius thinks that Sabellius therein differ'd from Noetus because he denied that the Father suffer'd but S. Augustin can find no difference between them All that can be conceived is that a different Denomination did arise from the different appearance and Operation which our Vnitarians call three Relative Persons and one Subsisting Person Sabellius did spread his Heresie most in his own Country which was in Pentapolis of the Cyrenaick Province being born in Ptolemais one of the five Cities there Of this Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria gives an account in his Epistle to Xystus then Bishop of Rome wherein he takes notice of the wicked and blasphemous Heresie lately broached there against the Persons of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Letters on both sides were brought to him on which occasion he wrote several Epistles among which there was one to Ammonius Bishop of Bernice another of the Cities of Pentapolis In this he disputed with great warmth against this Doctrine of Sabellius insomuch that he was afterwards accused to Dionysius of Rome that he had gone too far the other way and lessen'd the Divinity of the Son by his Similitudes of which he clear'd himself as appears by what remains of his Defence in Athanasius But as to his Zeal against Sabellianism it was never question'd Dionysius of Rome declares his Sense at large in this matter against both Extremes viz. of those who asserted three separate and independent Principles and of those who confounded the Divine Persons and he charges the Doctrine of Sabellius too with Blasphemy as well as those who set up three different Principles and so made three Gods But he declares the Christian Doctrine to be that there were Father Son and Holy Ghost but that there is an indivisible Vnion in One and the same Godhead It seems Dionysius of Alexandria was accused for dividing and separating the Persons to which he answers that it was impossible he should do it because they are indivisible from each other and the name of each Person did imply the inseparable Relation to the other as the Father to the Son and the Son to the Father and the Holy Ghost to both And this Judgment of these two great Men in the Church concerning Sabellianism was universally receiv'd in the Christian Church And this happen'd long before the Nicene Council 2. Another argument of the general Sense of the Christian Church is from the Hymns and Doxologies publickly received which were in the most solemn Acts of religious Worship made to Father Son and Holy Ghost The force of this argument appears hereby that divine Worship cannot be given to mere Names and an Equality of Worship doth imply an Equality of Dignity in the object of Worship and therefore if the same Acts of Adoration be performed to Father Son and Holy Ghost it is plain that the Christian Church did esteem them to have the same divine Nature although they were distinct Persons And if they were not so there could not be distinct Acts of divine Worship performed to them S. Basil mentions this Doxology of Africanus that ancient Writer of the Christian Church in the fifth Book of his Chronicon We render thanks to him who gave our Lord Iesus Christ to be a Saviour to whom with the Holy Ghost be Glory and Majesty for ever And another of Dionysius Alexandrinus in his 2d Epistle to Dionysius of Rome To God the Father and his Son our Lord Iesus Christ with the Holy Ghost be Glory and Power for ever and ever Amen And this is the more considerable because he saith he did herein follow the ancient Custom and Rule of the Church and he joyned with it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praising God in the same voice with those who have gone before us which shews how early these Doxologies to Father Son and Holy Ghost had been used in the Christian Church But to let us the better understand the true Sense of them S. Basil hath preserved some passages of Dionysius Alexandrinus which do explain it viz. That either the Sabellians must allow three distinct Hypostases or they must wholly take away the Trinity By which it is evident that by Father Son and Holy Ghost he did understand three distinct Hypostases but not divided for that appears to have been the Sabellians Argument That if there were three they must be divided No saith Dionysius they are three whether the Sabellians will or not or else there is no Trinity which he look'd on as a great absurdity to take away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine Trinity Of what Of mere Names or Energies That is no Trinity for there is but one subsisting Person of separate and divided Substances That the Sabellians thought must follow but both the Dionysius's denied it And in another Passage there mention'd Dionysius of Alexandria asserts the Trinity in Vnity But before Dionysius he quotes a passage of Clemens Romanus concerning Father Son and Holy Ghost which attributes Life distinctly to them Now Life cannot belong to a Name or Energy and therefore must imply a Person But that which is most material to our purpose is the Publick Doxology in the Church of Neo-Caesarea brought in by Gregory Thaumaturgus S. Basil gives a very high Character of him as of a Person of extraordinary Piety and Exactness of Life and a great promoter of Christianity in those Parts and by him the Form of Doxology was introduced into that Church being chiefly formed by him there being but Seventeen Christians when he was first made Bishop there which was
That they do not speak of distinct Persons but they confess that Philo speaks home and therefore they make him a Christian But Philo had the same Notion with the Paraphrasts and their best way will be to declare that they look upon them all as Christians and they might as well affirm it of Onkelos as they do of Philo but I doubt the World will not take their Word for either But to proceed with the Christian Doxologies Nâ—â—hing saith S. Basil shall make me forsake the Doctrine I received in my Baptism when I was first entred into the Christian Church and I advise all others to keep firm to that Profession of the Holy Trinity which they made in their Baptism that is of the indivisible Vnion of Father Son and Holy Ghost And as he saith afterwards by the Order of the Words in Baptism it appears that as the Son is to the Father so the Holy Ghost is to the Son For they are all put without any Distinction or Number whâ—ch he observes agrees only to a multitude For by their Properties they are one and one yet by the Community of Essence the two are but one and he makes it his business to prove the Holy Ghost to be a proper Object of Adoration as well as the Father and Son and therefore there was no reason to find fault with the Doxology used in that Church and that Firmilian Meletius and the Eastern Christians agreed with them in the use of it and so did all the Western Churches from Illyricum to the Worlds end and this he saith was by an immemorial Custom of all Churches and of the greatest men in them Nay more he saith It had been continued in the Churches from the time the Gospel had been receive'd among them And nothing can be fuller than the Authority of his Testimony if S. Basil may be believed To these I shall add the Doxology of Polycarp at this Martyrdom mentioned by Eusebius which is very full to our Purpose I Glorifie thee by our Eternal High-Priest Iesus Christ thy beloved Son by whom be Glory to thee with him in the Holy Ghost What can we imagine Polycarp meant by this but to render the same Glory to Father Son and Holy Ghost but with such a difference as to the Particles which S. Basil at large proves come to the same thing And to the same purpose not only the Church of Smyrna but Pionius the Martyr who transcribed the Acts speaking of Iesus Christ with whom be Glory to God the Father and the Holy Ghost These suffer'd Martyrdom for Christianity and owned the same Divine Honour to the Father Son and Holy Ghost What could they mean if they did not believe them to have the same Divine Nature Can we suppose them Guilty of such stupidity to lose their Lives for not giving Divine Honour to Creatures and at the same time to do it themselves So that if the Father Son and Holy Ghost were not then believed to be three Persons and one God the Christian Church was mightily deceived and the Martyrs acted inconsistently with their own Principles Which no good Christian will dare to affirm But some have adventured to say that Polycarp did not mean the same Divine Honour to Father Son and Holy Ghost But if he had so meant it how could he have expressed it otherwise It was certainly a Worship distinct from what he gave to Creatures as appears by the Church of Smyrna's disowning any Worship but of Love and Repect to their fellow Creatures and own the giving Adoration to the Son of God with whom they joyn both Father and Holy Ghost Which it is impossible to conceive that in their Circumstances they should have done unless they had believed the same Divine Honour to belong to them S. Basil's Testimony makes it out of Dispute that the Doxology to Father Son and Holy Ghost was universally receiv'd in the publick Offices of the Church and that from the time of greatest Antiquity So that we have no need of the Teâ—timonies from the Apostolical Constitutions as they are called to prove it But I avoid all disputable Authorities And I shall only add that it appears from S. Basil that this Doxology had been long used not only in publick Offices but in Occasional Ejaculations as at the bringing in of Light in the Evening the People he saith were wont to say Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost c. This he saith had been an ancient Custom among the People and none can tell who brought it in But Prudentius shews that it was continued to his Time as appeaâ—s by his Hymn on that occasion which concludes with this Doxology and S. Hilary ends his Hymn written to his Daughter in the same manner 3. I come therefore to the last Proof which I shall produce of the Sense of the Christian Church which is from the Testimony of those who wrote in Defence of our Religion against Infidels In which I shall be the shorter since the particular Testimonies of the Fathers have been so fully produced and defended by others especially by Dr. Bull. Iustin Martyr in his Apology for the Christians gives an Account of the Form of Baptism as it was administred among Christians which he saith was in the Name of God the Father of all and of our Saviour Iesus Christ and of the Holy Ghost And that he spake of them as of distinct Persons as appears by his words afterwards They who take the Son to be the Father neither know the Father nor the Son who being the Word and first begotten is God And when he speaks of the Eucharist he saith That it is offer'd to the Father of all by the Name of the Son and the Holy Ghost and of other solemn Acts of Devotion he saith That in all of them they praise God the Father of all by his Son Iesus Christ and the Holy Ghost And in other places he mentions the Worship they give to Father Son and Holy Ghost Indeed he mentions a difference of Order between them but makes no Difference as to the Worship given to them And all this in no long Apology for the Christian Faith What can be the meaning of this if he did not take it for granted that the Christian Church embraced the Doctrine of the Trinity in Baptism Iustin Martyr was no such weak Man to go about to expose the Christian Religion instead of defending it and he must have done so if he did not believe this not only to be a true but a necessary part of the Christian Faith For why did he at all mention such a Mysterious and dark Point Why did he not conceal it as some would have done and only represent to the Emperours the fair and plausible part of Christianity No he was a Man of great Sincerity and a through Christian himself and therefore
words 1. They say That there is a Note of distinction and Superiority For Christ owns that his Power was given to him by the Father There is no question but that the Person who suffer'd on the Cross had Power given to him after his Resurrection but the true Question is whether his Sonship were then given to him He was then declared to be the Son of God with Power and had a Name or Authority given him above every Name being exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to give Repentance and Remission of Sins in order to which he now appointed his Apostles to teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost He doth not say in the name of Iesus who suffer'd on the Cross nor in the name of Iesus the Christ now exalted but in the name of Father Son and Holy Ghost and although there were a double Gift with respect to the Son and Holy Ghost the one as to his Royal Authority over the Church the other as to his extraordinary Effusion on the Apostles yet neither of these are so much as intimated but the Office of Baptism is required to be performed in the Name of these three as distinct and yet equal without any Relation to any Gift either as to the Son or Holy Ghost But if the ancient Iews were in the Right as we think they were then we have a plain account how these came to be thus mention'd in the Form of Baptism viz. that these three distinct Subsistences in the Divine Essence were not now to be kept up as a secret Mystery from the World but that the Christian Church was to be formed upon the Belief of it 2. They bring several places of Scripture where God and his Creatures are joyned without any Note of distinction or Superiority as The people feared the Lord and Samuel 1 Sam. 12.18 They worshipped the Lord and the King 1 Chron. 29.20 I charge thee before God the Lord Iesus Christ and his elect Angels 1 Tim. 5.21 The Spirit and the Bride say come Revel 22.17 But can any Man of Sense imagine these places contain a Parallel with a Form of Words wherein men are entred into the Profession of a new Religion and by which they were to be distinguished from all other Religions in the former places the Circumstances were so notorious as to God and the Civil Magistrate that it shews no more than that the same external Acts may be used to both but with such a different Intention as all men understood it What if S. Paul name the elect Angels in a solemn Obtestation to Timothy together with God and the Lord Iesus Christ What can this prove but that we may call God and his Creatures to be Witnesses together of the same thing And so Heaven and Earth are called to bear Witness against obstinate Sinners May men therefore be baptized in the name of God and his Creatures The Spirit and Bride may say come without any Incongruity but it would have been strange indeed if they had said Come be baptized in the Name of the Spirit and the Bride So that these Instances are very remote from the purpose But they say farther That the ancients of the first Four hundred years do not insist on this place to prove the Divinity or Personality of the Son or Spirit As to the first Three hundred years I have given an account already and as to the Fourth Century I could not have thought that they would have mention'd it since there is scarce a Father of the Church in that time who had occasion to do it but makes use of the Argument from this place to prove the Divinity and Personality of the Son and Spirit Athanasius saith That Christ founded his Church on the Doctrine of the Trinity contained in these Words and if the Holy Ghost had been of a different Nature from the Father and Son he would never have been joyned with them in a Form of Baptism no more than an Angel or any other Creature For the Trinity must be Eternal and Indivisible which it could not be if any created Being were in it and therefore he disputes against the Arian Baptism although performed with the same Words because they joyned God and a Creature together in Baptism To the same purpose argue Didymus Gregory Nazianzen S. Basil and others within the Compass of four hundred years whose Testimonies are produced by Petavius to whom I refer the Reader if he hath a mind to be satisfied in so clear a Point that I cannot but think our Vnitarians never intended to take in the Fathers after the Council of Nice who are so expressly against them and therefore I pass it over as a slip 4. They object That the Form of Baptism implies no more than being admitted into that Religion which proceeds from God the Father and deliver'd by his Son and confirmed by the Testimony of the Holy Ghost So much we grant is implied but the Question still remains whether the Son and Holy Ghost are here to be consider'd only in order to their Operations or whether the Persons of the Son and Holy Ghost from whom those Effects came are not here chiefly intended For if no more had been meant but these Effects then the right Form of Admission had not been into the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost but in the Name of the Father alone as Revealing himself by his Son and Confirming it by the miraculous Works of the Holy Ghost For these are only subservient Acts to the design of God the Father as the only subsisting Person 5. They tell us That it is in vain not to say ridiculously pretended that a Person or Thing is God because we are baptized into it for some were baptized into Moses and others into John's Baptism and so Moses and John Baptist would be Gods and to be baptized into a Person or Persons and in the name of such a Person is the same thing Grant this yet there is a great difference between being baptized in the name of a Minister of Baptism and of the Author of a Religion into which they are baptized The Israelites were baptized unto Moses but how The Syriac and Arabic Versions render it per Mosen and so S. Augustin reads it And this seems to be the most natural sense of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is Act. 7.53 compared with Gal. 3.19 And the force of the Apostle's Argument doth not lie in the Parallel between being baptized into Moses and into Christ but in the Privileges they had under the Ministery of Moses with those which Christians enjoyed The other place implies no more than being enter'd into that Profession which John baptized his Disciples into But doth any one imagine that because Iohn Baptist did enter his Disciples by Baptism therefore they must believe him to be God
Essence yet taking the Sense of those Articles as the Christian Church understood them from the Apostles times then we have as full and clear Evidence of this Doctrine as we have that we receiv'd the Scriptures from them CHAP. X. The Objections against the Trinity in Point of Reason answer'd HAving in the foregoing Chapters endeavour'd to clear the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Charge of Contradictions and to prove it agreeable to the Sense of Scripture and the Primitive Church I now come in the last place to Examine the remaining Objections in Point of Reason and those are 1. That this Doctrine is said to be a Mystery and therefore above Reason and we cannot in reason be obliged to believe any such thing 2. That if we allow any such Mysteries of Faith as are above Reason there can be no stop put to any absurd Doctrines but they may be receiv'd on the same Grounds 1. As to this Doctrine being said to be above Reason and therefore not to be believ'd we must consider two things 1. What we understand by Reason 2. What ground in Reason there is to reject any Doctrine above it when it is proposed as a Matter of Faith 1. What we understand by Reason I do not find that our Vnitarians have explained the Nature and Bounds of Reason in such manner as those ought to have done who make it the Rule and Standard of what they are to believe But sometimes they speak of clear and distinct Perceptions sometimes of natural Ideas sometimes of congenit Notions c. But a late Author hath endeavour'd to make amends for this and takes upon him to make this matter clear and to be sure to do so he begins with telling us That Reason is not the Soul abstractedly consider'd no doubt of it but the Soul acting in a peculiar manner is Reason And this is a verâ— peculiar way of explaining it But farther we are told It is not the Order or Report respect I suppose which is naturally between all things But that implies a Reason in things But the thoughts which the Soul forms of things according to it may properly claim that Title i. e. such thoughts which are agreeable to the Reason of things are reasonable thoughts This is clear and distinct And I perfectly agree with him That our own Inclinations or the bare Authority of others is not Reason But what is it Every one experiences in himself a Power or Faculty of formâ—ng various Ideas or Perceptions of things of affirming or denying according as he sees them to agree or disagree and this is Reason in General It is not the bare receiving Ideas into the Mind that is strictly Reason who ever thought it was but the Perception of the Agreement or Disagreement of our Ideas in a greater of lesser Number wherein soever this Agreement or Disagreement may consist If the Perception be immediate without the Assistance of any other Idea this is not call'd Reason but Self-Evidence but when the mind makes use of intermediate Ideas to discover that Agreement or Disagreement this method of Knowledge is properly call'd Reason or Demonstration And so Reason is defined to be that Faculty of the Soul which discovers the certainty of any thing dubious or obscure by comparing it with something evidently known This is offer'd to the World as an Account of Reason but to shew how very loose and unsatisfactory it is I desire it may be consider'd that this Doctrine supposes that we must have clear and distinct Ideas of whatever we pretend to any certainty of in our Minds and that the only Way to attain this certainty is by comparing these Ideas together Which excludes all certainty of Faith or Reason where we cannot have such clear and distinct Ideas But if there are many things of which we may be certain and yet can have no clear and distinct Ideas of them if those Ideas we have are too imperfect and obscure to form our Judgments by if we cannot find out sufficient intermediate Ideas then this cannot be the Means of Certainty or the Foundation of Reason But I shall keep to our present Subject and our certainty of it in Point of Reason depends upon our Knowledge of the the Nature of Substance and Person and the Distinction between them but if we can have no such clear Ideas in our Minds concerning these things as are required from Sensation or Reflection then either we have no use of Reason about them or it is in sufficient to pass any Judgment concerning them 1. I begin with the Notion of Substance And I have great Reason to begin with it for according to this Man's Principles there can be no certainty of Reason at all about it And so our new Way of Reason is advanced to very good Purpose For we may talk and dispute about Substance as long as we please but if his Principles of Reason be true we can come to no certainty since we can have no clear Idea in our Minds concerning it as will appear from his own Words and the method he proceeds in 1. He saith That the Mind receives in Ideas two ways 1. By Intermission of the Senses as Colours Figures Sounds Smells c. 2. By the Souls considering its own Operations about what it thus gets from without as knowing doubting affirming denying c. 2. That these simple and distinct Ideas thus laid up in the great Repository of the Vnderstanding are the sole matter and Foundation of all our Reasoning Then it follows That we can have no Foundation of Reasoning where there can can be no such Ideas from Sensation or Reflection Now this is the Case of Substance it is not intromitted by the Senses nor depends upon the Operations of the Mind and so it cannot be within the compass of our Reason And therefore I do not wonder that the Gentlemen of this new way of reasoning have almost discarded Substance out of the reasonable part of the World For they not only tell us That we can have no Idea of it by Sensation or Reflection but that nothing is signified by it only an uncertain Supposition of we know not what And therefore it is parallel'd more than once with the Indian Philosophers He knew not what which supported the Tortoâ—se that supported the Elephant that supported the Earth so Substance was found out only to support Accidents And that when we talk of Substances we talk like Children who being ask'd a Question about somewhat which they know not readily give this satisfactory Answer that it is Something If this be the truth of the Case we must still talk like Children and I know not how it can be remedied For if we cannot come at a rational Idea of Substance we can have no Principle of certainty to go upon in this Debate I do not say that we can have a clear Idea of Substance either by Sensation or Reflection but from hence I argue that
thought he could not honestly conceal so fundamental a Point of the Christian Faith and which related to their being entred into the Christian Church For if the Profession of this Faith had not been look'd on as a necessary condition of being a Member of the Church of Christ it is hard to imagine that Iustin Martyr should so much insist upon it not only here but in his other Treatises Of which an Account hath been given by others Athenagoras had been a Philosopher as well as Iustin Martyr before he professed himself a Christian and therefore must be supposed to understand his Religion before he embraced it And in his Defence he asserts That the Christians do believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost in God the Father God the Son and the Holy Ghost And he mentions both the Vnity and Order which is among them Which can signifie nothing unless they be owned to be distinct Persons in the same Divine Nature And in the next Page he looks on it as thing which all Christians aspire after in another Life That they shall then know the Vnion of the Father and the Communication of the Father to the Son what the Holy Ghost is and what the Vnion and Distinction there is between the Holy Ghost the Son and the Father No man who had ever had the name of a Philosopher would have said such things unless he had believed the Doctrine of the Trinity aâ— we do i. e. that there are three distinct Persons in the same Divine Nature but that the manner of the Union and Distinction between them is above our reach and comprehension But our Vnitarians have an Answer ready for these men viz. That they came out of Plato 's School with the Tincture of his three Principles and they sadly complain that Platonism had very early corrupted the Christian Faith as to these matters In answer to which Exception I have only one Postulatum to make which is that these were honest Men and knew their own Minds beâ—t and I shall make it appear that none can more positively declare than they do that they did not take up these Notions from Plato but from the Holy Scriptures Iustin Martyr saith he took the Foundation of his Faith from thence and that he could find no certainty as to God and Religion any where else that he thinks Plato took his three Principles from Moses and in his Dialogue with Trypho he at large proves the Eternity of the Son of God from the Scriptures and said He would use no other Arguments for he pretended to no Skill but in the Scriptures which God had enabled him to understand Athenagoras declares That where the Philosophers agreed with them their Faith did not depend on them but on the Testimony of the Prophets who were inspired by the Holy Ghost To the same purpose speaks Theophilus Bishop of Antioch who asserts the Coeternity of the Son with the Father from the beginning of S. John's Gospel and saith their Faith is built on the Scriptures Clemens Alexandrinus owns not only the Essential Attributes of God to belong to the Son but that there is one Father of all and one Word over all and one Holy Ghost who is every where And he thinks Plato borrowed his three Principles from Moses that his second was the Son and his third the Holy Spirit Even Origen himsâ—lâ— highly commends Moses above Plato in his most undoubted Writings and saith That Numenâ—us went beyond Plato and that he borrowed out of the Scriptures and so he saith Plato did in other places but he adds That the Doctrines were better deliver'd in Scripture than in his Artificial Dialogues Can any one that hath the least reverence for Writers of such Authority and Zâ—al for the Christian Doctrine imagine that they wilfully corrupted it in one of the chief Articles of it and brought in new Speculations against the Sense of those Books which at the same time they professed to be the only Rule of their Faith Even where they speak most favourably of the Platonick Trinity they suppose it to be borrowed from Moses And therefore Numenius said That Moses and Plato did not differ about the first Principles and Theodoret mentions Numenius as one of those who said Plato understood the Hebrew Doctrine in Egypt and during his Thirteen years â—ay there it is hardly possible to suppose he should be ignorant of the Hebrew Doctrine about the first Principles which he was so inquisitive after especially among Nations who pretended to Antiquity And the Platonick Notion of the Divine Essence inlarging it self to three Hypostases is considerable on these Accounts 1. That it is deliver'd with so much assurance by the Opposers of Christianity such as Plotinus Porphyrius Proclus and others were known to be and they speak with no manner of doubt concerning it as may be seen in the passage of Porphyrie preserved by S. Cyril and others 2. That they took it up from no Revelation but as a Notion in it self agreeable enough as appears by the passages in Plato and others concerning it They never suspected it to be liable to the Charge of Non-Sense and Contradictions as our modern Vnitarians charge the Trinity with although their Notion as represented by Porphyrie be as liable to it How came these Men of Wit and Sense to hit upon and be so fond of such absurd Principles which lead to the Belief of Mysterious Non-Sense and Impossibilities if these Men may be trusted 3. That the Nations most renowned for Antiquity and deep Speculations did light upon the same Doctrine about a Trinity of Hypostases in the Divine Essence To prove this I shall not refer to the Trismegistick Books or the Chaldee Oracles or any doubtful Authorities but Plutarch asserts the three Hypostases to have been receivâ—d among the Persians and Porphyry and Iamblicus say the same of the Egyptians 4. That this Hypostasis did maintain its Reputation so long in the World For we find it continued to the time of Macrobius who mentâ—ons it as a reasonable Notion viz. of one supreme Being Father of all and a Mind proceeding from it and soul from Mind Some have thought that the Platonists made two created Beings to be two of the Divine Hypostases but this is contrary to what Plotinus and Porphyry affirm concerning it and it is hard to give an Account how they should then be Essentially different from Creatures and be Hypostases in the Divine Essence But this is no part of my business being concerned no farther than to clear the Sense of the Christian Church as to the Form of Baptism in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which according to the Sense of the Ante-Nicene Fathers I have proved doth manifest the Doctrine of the Trinity to have been generally receiv'd in the Christian Church 2. Let us now see what our Vnitarians object againâ—t the Proof of the Trinity from these