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
and Baptism S. Ierom observes that Theodotion and Symmachus both Ebionites translated the Old Testament in what concerned our Saviour like Iews and Aquila who was a Iew like a Christian but in another place he blames all three for the same fault Eusebius goes somewhat farther for he saith Symmachus wrote against S. Matthew 's Gospel to establish his own Heresie which shew'd he was a true Ebionite The next they mention as one of their great Lights was Paulus Samosatenus Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch But in another place they have a spiteful Insinuation that men in such places are the great Pensioners of the World as though they were sway'd only by interest and that it keeps them from embracing of the truth Now Paulus Samosatenus gave greater occasion for such a Suspicion than any of the persons so unworthily reflected upon For he was a man noted for his Affectation of excessive Vanity and Pomp and very unjust methods of growing rich It is well we have Eusebius his Testimony for this for they sleight Epiphanius for his malicious Tales and S. Ierom for his Legends but they commend Eusebius for his Exactness and Diligence And I hope Theodoret may escape their censure who affirms that Paulus Samofatenus suited his Doctrine to his interest with Zenobia who then governed in those parts of Syria and Phoenicia who professed her self to be of the Iewish Perswasion Athanasius saith She was a Iew and a Favourer of Paulus Samosatenus What his opinions were our Vnitarians do not take the pains to inform us taking it for granted that he was of their Mind Eusebius saith He had a very mean and low opinion of Christ as having nothing in him above the common nature of Mankind Theodoret saith he fell into the Doctrine of Artemon to oblige Zenobia and Artemon he saith held that Christ was a mere Man born of a Virgin but exceeding the Prophets in Excellency Where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used to express the opinion of Artemon which ought to be taken notice of because our modern Vnitarians say That those words among the ancient Writers were taken in opposition to the miraculous Conception of our Saviour But Paulus Samosatenus was universally disowned by the Christian Church of that time although as long as Zenobia held her Power he kept his See which was for some time after he was first called in question for his Heresie But at first he made use of many Arts and Devices to deceive the Christian Bishops of the best Reputation who assembled at Antioch in order to the suppressing this dangerous Doctrine as they all accounted it For hearing of his opinions about our Saviour they ran together saith Eusebius as against a Wolf which designed to destroy the Flock Now from hence it is very reasonable to argue that the Samosatenian Doctrine was then look'd on as a very dangerous Novelty in the Christian Church For although the Ebionites had asserted the same thing as to the Divinity of our Saviour yet they were not look'd on as true Members of the Christian Church but as S. Ierom saith While they affected to be both Iews and Christians they were neither Iews nor Christians Artemon whoever he was was but an obscure person and Theodotus had Learning they say but was of no place in the Church but for such a considerable person as the Bishop of Antioch to own such a Doctrine must unavoidably discover the general sence of the Christian Church concerning it Paulus Samosatenus wanted neither parts nor interest nor experience and he was supported by a Princess of great Spirit and Courage enough to have daunted all the Bishops at least in those parts from appearing against him But such was the zeal and concernment of the Bishops of the Christian Church in this great affair that they not only assembled themselves but they communicated it to Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria and to another of the same name Bishop of Rome and others and desired their advice and concurrence who did all agree in the condemnation of his Doctrine The former said He would have gone himself to Antioch but for his extreme old Age and he died soon after the first Council which met at Antioch on this occasion but he sent his judgment and reasons thither which we find in an Epistle of his still extant whereof mention is made in the Epistle of the second Synod of Antioch to Dionysius Bishop of Rome and Maximus Bishop of Alexandria and all other Bishops Priests and Deacons of the Catholick Church wherein they give an account of their proceedings against Paulus Samosatenus and they say They had invited the Bishops of the remoter parts to come to Antioch for the suppression of this damnable Doctrine and among the rest Dionysius of Alexandria and Firmilian of Cappadocia as persons of greatest reputation then in the Church Firmilian was there at the former Synod of whom Theodoret saith that he was famous both for divine and humane Learning and so were Gregorius Thaumaturgus and Athenodorus Bishops of Pontus and Helenus Bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia and Nicomas of Iconium and Hymenaeus of Ierusalem and Theotecnus of Caesarea who all condemned his Doctrine but they spared his person upon his solemn Promises to retract it but he persisting in it when they were gone home and fresh complaints being made of him Firmilian was coming a third time to Antioch but died by the way but those Bishops who wrote the Synodical Epistle do all affirm That they were Witnesses and many others when he condemned his Doctrine but was willing to forbear his person upon his promise of amendment which they found afterwards was merely delusory Dionysius Alexandrinus they say would not write to him but sent his mind about him to the Church of Antioch Which Epistle is mention'd by S. Ierom as written by him a little before his death as well as by Eusebius and Theodoret and I do not see sufficient reason to question the authority of that which Fronto Ducaeus published from Turrian's Copy although it be denied by H. Valesius and others It 's said indeed That he did not write to him i. e. he did not direct it to him but he might send it to the Council in answer to his Letters which he mentions How far it differs from his style in other Epistles I will not take upon me to judge but the design is very agreeable to an Epistle from him on that occasion It 's true that it seems to represent the opinion of Paulus Samosatenus after a different manner from what it is commonly thought to have been But we are to consider that â—e made use of all the Arts to dâ—sguise himself that he could and when he found the making Christ to be a mere Man would not be born he went from the Ebionite to the Cerinthian Hypothesis viz. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did dwell in him and that
Question his Fidelity in reporting however he might be unhappy in his Explications 3. Tertullian himself saith Schlichtingius in other Places where he speaks of the rule of Faith doth not mention the Holy Ghost and therefore this seems added by him for the sake of the Paraclete But this can be of no force to any one that considers that Tertullian grounds his Doctrine not on any New Revelation by the Paraclete but on the Rule of Faith received in the Church long before and upon the Form of Baptism prescribed by our Saviour Will they say the Holy Ghost was there added for the sake of Montanus his Paraclete And in another of his Books he owns the Father Son and Holy Ghost to make up the Trinity in Vnity Wherein Petavius himself confesses That he asserted the Doctrine of the Church in a Catholick manner although he otherwise speaks hardly enough of him The next I shall mention is Novatian whom Schlichtingius allows to have been before the Nicene-Council and our modern Vnitarians call him a great Man whoever he was and very ancient And there are two things I observe in him 1. That he opposes Sabellianism for before his time Praxeas and Noetus were little talked of especially in the Western Church but Sabellius his Name and Doctrine were very well known by the opposition to him by the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome He sticks not at the calling it Heresie several times and Disputes against it and answers the Objection about the Vnity of the Godhead 2. That he owns that the Rule of Faith requires our believing in Father Son and Holy Ghost and asserts the Divine Eternity of it and therefore must hold the Doctrine of the Trinity to be the Faith of the Church contained in the Form of Baptism For he saith The Authority of Faith and the Holy Scriptures admonish us to believe not only in the Father and Son but in the Holy Ghost Therefore the Holy Ghost must be considered as an object of Faith joyned in the Scripture with the other two which is no where more express than in the Form of Baptism which as S. Cyprian saith was to be administred in the full Confession of the Trinity in the place already mentionâ—d And it is observable that S. Cyprian rejects the Baptism of those who denied the Trinity at that time among whom he instances in the Patripassians who it seems were then spread into Africa The Dispute about the Marcionites Baptism was upon another ground for they held a real Trinity as appears by Dionysius Romanus in Athanasius and Epiphanius c. but the Question was whether they held the same Trinity or not S. Cyprian saith That our Saviour appointed his Apostles to baptize in the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost and in the Sacrament of this Trinity they were to baptize Doth Marcion hold this Trinity So that S. Cyprian supposed the validity of Baptism to depend on the Faith of the Trinity And if he had gone no farther I do not see how he had transgressed the Rules of the Church but his Error was that he made void Baptism upon difference of Communion and therein he was justly opposed But the Marcionites Baptism was rejected in the Eastern Church because of their Doctrine about the Trinity In the Parts of Asia about Ephesus Noetus had broached the same Doctrine which Praxeas had done elsewhere For which he was called to an account and himself with his Followers we cast out of the Churches Communion as Epiphanius reports which is another considerable Testimony of the Sense of the Church at that time Epiphanius saith he was the first who broached that Blasphemy but Theodoret mentions Epigonus and Cleomenes before him it seems that he was the first who was publickly taken notice of for it and therefore underwent the Censure of the Church with his Disciples When he was first summon'd to answer he denied that he asserted any such Doctrine because no man before him saith Epiphanius had vented such Poison And in the beginning he saith that Noetus out of a Spirit of Contradiction had utter'd such things as neither the Prophets nor the Apostles nor the Church of God ever thought or declared Now what was this unheard of Doctrine of Noetus That appears best by Noetus his answer upon his second appearance which was That he worshipped One God and knew of no other who was born and suffer'd and died for us and for this he produced the several places which assert the Vnity of the Godhead and among the rest one very observable Rom. 9.5 Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever From whence he inferr'd that the Son and the Father were the same and the same he affirmed of the Holy Ghost But from hence we have an evident Proof that the most ancient Greek Copies in Noetus his time which was long before the Council of Nice had God in the Text. Epiphanius brings many places of Scripture to prove the Distinction of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead but that is not my present business but to shew the general Sense of the Church at that time I do not say that Noetus was condemned by a general Council but it is sufficient to shew that he was cast out of the Church where he broached his Doctrine and no other Church received him or condemned that Church which cast him out which shews an after Consent to it Now what was this Doctrine of Noetus The very same with that of Praxeas at Rome Theodoret saith this his Opinon was That there was but One God the Father who was himself impassible but as he took our Nature so he was passible and called the Son Epiphanius more fully that the same Person was Father Son and Holy Ghost wherein he saith he plainly contradicts the Scriptures which attribute distinct Personalities to them and yet assert but one Godhead The Father hath an Hypostasis of his own and so have the Son and Holy Ghost but yet there is but one Divinity one Power and one Dominion for these distinct Persons are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same individual Essence and Power But Epiphanius was no Ante-Nicene Father however in matters of Antiquity where there is no incongruity in the thing we may make use of his Authority and I think no one will question that Noetus was condemned which was the thing I produced him to prove But although Noetus was condemned yet this Doctrine did spread in the Eastern parts for Origen mentions those who confounded the Notion of Father and Son and made them but one Hypostasis and distinguished only by thought and Denomination This Doctrine was opposed not only by Origen but he had the Sense of the Church concurring with him as appears in the Case of Beryllus Bishop of Bostra who fell into this Opinion and was reclaimed by Origen and Eusebius gives this
The instance of Solomon is not at all to the purpose unless we asserted three Persons founded upon those different Relations in his individual Nature Who denies that one Person may have different Respects and yet be but one Person subsisting Where doth the Scripture say That the Son of David the Father of Rehoboam and he that proceeded from David and Bathsheba were three Persons distinguished by those relative Properties But here lies the foundation of what we believe as to the Trinity we are assured from Scripture that there are three to whom the divine Nature and Attributes are given and we are assured both from Scripture and Reason that there can be but one divine Essence and therefore every one of these must have the divine Nature and yet that can be but One But it is a most unreasonable thing to charge those with Sabellianism who assert That every Person hath the divine Nature distinctly belonging to him and that the divine Essence is communicated from the Father to the Son Did ever Nâ—etus or Sabellius or any of their Followers speak after this manner Is the divine Essence but a mere Name or a different respect only to Mankind For the asserting such relative Persons as have no Essence at all was the true Sabellian Doctrine as will be made appear in the following Discourse And so much is confess'd by our Unitarians themselves for they say That the Sabellians held that Father Son and Spirit are but only three Names oâ— God given to him in Scripture by occasion of so many several Dispensations towards the Creature and so he is but one subsisting Person and three relative Persons as he sustains the three Names of Father Son and Spirit which being the Relations of God towards things without him he is so many relative Persons or Persons in a Classical Critical Sense i. e. Persons without any Essence belonging to them as such But those who assert a Communication of the divine Essence to each Person can never be guilty of Sabellianism if this be it which themselves affirm And so those called Nominal Trinitarians are very unjustly so called because they do really hold a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead 2. Let us now see what charge they lay upon those whom they call Real Trinitarians and they tell us That the Nominals will seem to be profound Philosophers deep Sages in comparison with them These are very obliging expressions to them in the beginning But how do they make out this gross Stupidity of theirs In short it is That they stand condemned and anathematized as Hereticks by a general Council and by all the Moderns and are every day challenged and impeached of Tritheism and cannot agree among themselves but charge one another with great Absurdities and in plain terms they charge them with Nonsense in the thing whereas the other lay only in words Because these assert three divine subsisting Persons three infinite Spirits Minds or Substances as distinct as so many Angels or Men each of them perfectly God and yet all of them are but one God To understand this matter rightly we must consider that when the Socinian Pamphlets first came abroad some years since a learned and worthy Person of our Church who had appear'd with great vigour and reason against our Adversaries of the Church of Rome in the late Reign which ought not to be forgotten undertook to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity against the History of the Unitarians and the Notes on the Athanasian Creed but in the warmth of disputing and out of a desire to make this matter more intelligible he suffer'd himself to be carried beyond the ancient Methods which the Church hath used to express her Sense by still retaining the same fundamental Article of three Persons in one undivided Essence but explaining it in such a manner as to make each Person to have a peculiar and proper Substance of his own This gave so great an advantage to the Author of those Treatises that in a little time he set forth his Notes with an Appendix in answer to this new Explication Wherein he charges him with Heresie Tritheism and Contradiction The very same charges which have been since improved and carried on by others I wish I could say without any unbecoming Heat or Reflections But I shall now examine how far these charges have any ground so as to affect the Doctrine of the Trinity which is the chief end our Adversaries aimed at in heaping these Reproaches upon one who appear'd so early and with so much zeal to defend it We are therefore to consider these things 1. That a Man may be very right in the Belief of the Article it self and yet may be mistaken in his Explication of it And this one of his keenest Adversaries freely acknowledges For he plainly distinguishes between the fundamental Article and the manner of explaining it and affirms That a Man may quit his Explication without parting with the Article it self And so he may retain the Article with his Explication But suppose a Man to assent to the fundamental Article it self and be mistaken in his Explication of it can he be charged with Heresie about this Article For Heresie must relate to the fundamental Article to which he declares his hearty and unfeigned Assent but here we suppose the mistake to lie only in the Explication As for instance Sabellianism is a condemned and exploded Heresie for it is contrary to the very Doctrine of the Trinity but suppose one who asserts the Doctrine of three Persons should make them to be three Modes must such a one presently be charged with Heresie before we see whether his Explication be consistent with the fundamental Article or not For this is liable to very obvious Objections that the Father begets a Mode instead of a Son that we pray to three Modes instead of three real Persons that Modes are mutable things in their own Nature c. but must we from hence conclude such a one guilty of Heresie when he declares that he withall supposed them not to be mere Modes but that the divine Essence is to be taken together with the Mode to make a Person Yea suppose some spitefull Adversary should say That it is a Contradiction to say That the same common Nature can make a Person with a Mode superadded to it unless that be individuated for a â—erson doth imply an individual Nature and not a mere relative Mode Is this sufficient to charge such a Person with the Sabellian Heresy which he utterly disowns Is not the like Equity to be shewâ—d in another though different Explication Suppose then a Person solemnly professes to own the fundamental Doctrine of the Trinity as much as any others but he thinks that three Persons must have distinct Substances to make them Persons but so as to make no Division or Separation in the Godhead and that he cannot conceive a Communication of the divine Essence
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
Nestorius were agreed and that he did not deny the Word to be Conâ—substantial with God but that he was not the Son of God till Christ was born in whom he dwelt By which we see how little reason our Vnitarians have to boast of Photinus as their Predecessor As to the boast of the first Unitarians at Rome that theirs was the general Doctrine before the time of Victor it is so fully confuted by the ancient Writer in Eusebius who mentions it from the Scriptures and the first Christian Writers named by him that it doth not deserve to be taken notice of especially since he makes it appear that it was not heard of among them at Rome till it was first broached there by Theodotus as not only he but Tertullian affirms as I have already observed Thus I have clearly proved that the Doctrine of the Trinity was so far from being embraced only on the account of force and fear that I have shewed there was in the first Ages of the Christian Church a free and general Consent in it even when they were under Persecution and after the Arian Controversie broke out yet those who denied the Pre-existence and Co-eternity of the Son of God were universally condemned even the Arian Party concurring in the Synods mention'd by Hilary But our Vnitarians are such great Pretenders to Reason that this Argument from the Authority of the whole Christian Church signifies little or nothing to them Therefore they would conclude still that they have the better of us in point of Reason because they tell us that they have clear and distinct Perceptions that what we call Mysteries of Faith are Contradictions Impossibilities and pure Nonsense and that they do not reject them because they do not comprehend them but because they do comprehend them to be so This is a very bold Charge and not very becoming the Modesty and Decency of such who know at the same time that they oppose the Religion publickly established and in such things which we look on as some of the principal Articles of the Christian Faith CHAP. V. Of their Charge of Contradiction in the Doctrine of the Trinity BUT I shall not take any Advantages from thence but immediately proceed to the next thing I undertook in this Discourse viz. To consider what Grounds they have for such a Charge as this of Contradiction and Impossibility In my Sermon which gave occasion to these Expressions as is before intimated I had undertaken to prove that considering the infinite Perfections of the Divine Nature which are so far above our reach God may justly oblige us to believe those things concerning himself which we are not able to comprehend and I instanced in some Essential Attributes of God as his Eternity Omniscience Spirituality c. And therefore if there be such Divine Perfections which we have all the Reason to believe but no Faculties sufficient to comprehend there can be no ground from Reason to reject such a Doctrine which God hath revealed because the manner of it may be incomprehensible by us And what Answer do they give to this They do not deny it in general that God may oblige us to believe things above our Comprehension but he never obliges us to believe Contradictions and that they Charge the Doctrine of the Trinity with and for this they only referr me to their Books where they say it is made out But I must say that I have read and consider'd those Tracts and am very far from being convinced that there is any such Contradiction in this Doctrine as it is generally received in the Christian Church or as it is explained in the Athanasian Creed And I shall shew the unreasonableness of this Charge from these things 1. That there is a Difference between a Contradiction in Numbers and in the Nature of things 2. That it is no Contradiction to assert three Persons in One Common Nature 3. That it is no Contradiction to say that there are three distinct Persons in the Trinity and not three Gods If I can make out these things I hope I may abate something of that strange and unreasonable confidence wherewith these men charge the Doctrine of the Trinity with Contradictions 1. I begin with the first of them And I shall draw up the Charge in their own words In one of their late Books they have these Words Theirs they say is an Accountable and Reasonable Faith but that of the Trinitarians is absurd and contrary both to Reason and to it self and therefore not only false but impossible But wherein lies this Impossibility That they soon tell us Because we affirm that there are Three Persons who are severally and each of them true God and yet there is but one true God Now say they this is an Error in counting or numbring which when stood in is of all others the most brutal and inexcusable and not to discern it is not to be a Man What must these men think the Christian Church hath been made up of all this while What were there no Men among them but the Vnitarians none that had common sense and could tell the difference between One and Three But this is too choice a Notion to be deliver'd but once we have it over and over from them In another place they say We cannot be mistaken in the Notion of One and Three we are most certain that One is not Three and Three are not One. This it is to be Men But the whole Christian World besides are in Brutal and Inexcusable Errors about One and Three This is not enough for they love to charge home for one of their terrible Objections against the Athanasian Creed is That here is an Arithmetical as well as Grammatical Contradiction For in saying God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost yet not three Gods but one God a Man first distinctly numbers three Gods and then in summing them up brutishly says not three Gods but one God Brutishly still Have the Brutes and Trinitarians learnt Arithmetick together Methinks such Expressions do not become such whom the Christian Church hath so long since condemned for Heresies But it may be with the same Civility they will say It was brutishly done of them But can these Men of Sense and Reason think that the Point in Controversie ever was whether in Numbers One could be Three or Three One If they think so I wonder they do not think of another thing which is the begging all Trinitarians for Fools because they cannot count One Two and Three and an Vnitarian Jury would certainly cast them One would think such Writers had never gone beyond Shop-books for they take it for granted that all depends upon Counting But these terrible Charges were some of the most common and trite Objections of Infidels St. Augustin mentions it as such when he saith the Infidels sometimes ask us what do you call the Father We answer God What the Son
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