we answer God What the Holy Ghost we answer God So that here the Infidels make the same Objection and draw the very same Inference Then say they the Father Son and H. Ghost are three Gods But what saith S. Augustin to this Had he no more skill in Arithmetick than to say there are Three and yet but One He saith plainly that there are not three Gods The Infidels are troubled because they are not Inlightend their heart is shut up because they are without Faith By which it is plain he look'd on these as the proper Objections of Infidels and not of Christians But may not Christians have such doubts in their minds He doth not deny it but then he saith Where the true foundation of Faith is laid in the heart which helps the Vnderstanding we are to embrace with it all that it can reach to and where we can go no farther we must believe without doubting which is a wise resolution of this matter For there are some things revealed which we can entertain the notion of in our minds as we do of any other matters and yet there may be some things belonging to them which we cannot distinctly conceive We believe God to have been from all Eternity and that because God hath revealed it but here is something we can conceive viz. that he was so and here is something we cannot conceive viz. How he was so This Instance I had produced in my Sermon to shew that we might be obliged to believe such things concerning God of which we cannot have a clear and distinct Notion as that God was from all Eternity although we cannot conceive in our minds how he could be from himself Now what saith the Vnitarian to this who pretended to Answer me He saith If God must be from himself then an Eternal God is a Contradiction for that implies that he was before he was and so charges me with espousing the cause of Atheists I wish our Vnitarians were as free from this Charge as I am But this is malicious cavilling For my design was only to shew that we could have no distinct conception of something which we are bound to believe For upon all accounts we are bound to believe an Eternal God and yet we cannot form a distinct and clear Idea of the manner of it Whether being from himself be taken positively or negatively the matter is not cleared the one is Absurd and the other Unconceivable by us But still I say it is a thing that we are bound to believe stedfastly although it is above our comprehension But instead of Answering to this he runs out into an Examination of one notion of Eternity and as he thinks shews some Absurdities in that which are already answer'd But that was not my meaning but to shew that we could have no clear and distinct Notion of Eternity And if his Arguments were good they prove what I aimed at at least as to that Part and himself produces my own Words to shew that there were such Difficulties every way which we could not master and yet are bound to believe that necessary Existence is an inseparable Attribute of God So that here we have a clear instance of what S. Augustin saith That we may believe something upon full Conviction as that God is eternal and yet there may remain something which we cannot reach to by our understanding viz. the manner how Eternity is to be conceived by us which goes a great way towards clearing the Point of the Trinity notwithstanding the Difficulty in our conceiving the manner how Three should be one and One three But S. Augustin doth not give it over so Let us keep stedfast saith he to the Foundation of our Faith that we may arrive to the top of Perfection the Father is God the Son is God the Holy Ghost is God the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father nor the Holy Ghost either Father or Son And he goes on The Trinity is one God one Eternity one Power one Majesty Three Persons one God So it is in Erasmus his Edition but the late Editors say that the word Personae was not in their Manuscript And it is not material in this Place since elsewhere he approves the use of the word Persons as the fittest to express our meaning in this Case For since some Word must be agreed upon to declare our Sense by he saith those who understood the Propriety of the Latin tongue could not pitch upon any more proper than that to signifie that they did not mean three distinct Essences but the same Essence with a different Hypostasis founded in the Relation of one to the other as Father and Son have the same Divine Essence but the Relations being so different that one cannot be confounded with the other that which results from the Relation being joyned with the Essence was it which was called a Person But saith S. Augustin The Caviller will ask if there be Three what Three are they He answers Father Son and Holy Ghost But then he distinguishes between what they are in themselves and what they are to each other The Father as to himself is God but as to the Son he is Father the Son as to himself is God but as to the Father he is the Son But how is it possible to understand this Why saith he Take two men Father and Son the one as to himself is a Man but as to the Son a Father the Son as to himself is a Man but as to the Father he is a Son but these two have the same common Nature But saith he Will it not hence follow that as these are two Men so the Father and Son in the Divine Essence must be two Gods No there lies the difference between the humane and Divine Nature That one cannot be multiplied and divided as the other is And therein lies the true Solution of the Difficulty as will appear afterwards When you begin to count saith he you go on One two and Three But when you have reckon'd them what is it you have been Counting The Father is the Father the Son the Son and the Holy Ghost the Holy Ghost What are these Three Are they not three Gods No Are they not three Almighties No They are capable of Number as to their Relation to each other but not as to their Essence which is but One. The substance of the Answer lies here the Divine Essence is that alone which makes God that can be but One and therefore there can be no more Gods than one But because the same Scripture which assures us of the Unity of the Divine Essence doth likewise joyn the Son and Holy Ghost in the same Attributes Operations and Worship therefore as to the mutual Relations we may reckon Three but as to the Divine Essence that can be no more than One. Boëthius was a great Man in all respects for his Quality
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
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
Glory to God the Father and Son with the Holy Ghost which ought to be understood according to the sense of the Maker of it And Gregory hath deliver'd his sense plainly enough in this matter for in that Confession of Faith which was preserved in the Church of Neo-Caesarea he owns a perfect Trinity in Glory Eternity and Power without Separation or Diversity of Nature On which Doctrine his Form of Doxology was grounded Which S. Basil following Exceptions were taken against it by some as varying from the Form used in some other places For the Followers of Aetius took advantage from the Expression used in those Doxologies Glory be to the Father by the Son and in the Holy Ghost to infer a Dissimilitude in the Son and Holy Ghost to the Father and to make the Son the Instrument of the Father and the Holy Ghost only to relate to time and place But S. Basil takes a great deal of Pains to shew the impertinency of these Exceptions They would fain have charged this Doxology as an Innovation on S. Basil because it attributed equal Honour to Father Son and Holy Ghost which the Aetians would not endure but they said That the Son was to be honoured only in Subordination to the Father and the Holy Ghost as inferiour to both But S. Basil proves from Scripture an Equality of Honour to be due to them and particularly from the Form of Baptism c. 10. wherein the Son and Holy Ghost are joyned with the Father without any note of Distinction And what more proper token of a Conjunction in the same Dignity than being put together in such a manner Especially considering these two things 1. The extream Jealousie of the Jewish Nation as to joyning the Creatures with God in any thing that related to Divine Honour But as S. Basil argues If the Son were a Creature then we must believe in the Creator and the Creature together and by the same reason that one Creature is joyned the whole Creation may be joyned with him but saith he we are not to imagine the least Disunion or Separation between Father Son and Holy Ghost nor that they are three distinct parts of one inseparable Being but that there is an indivisible Conjunction of three in the same Essence so that where one is there is the other also For where the Holy Ghost is there is the Son and where the Son is there is the Father And so Athanasius urges the Argument from these Words That a Creature could not be joyned with the Creator in such a manner as in the Form of Baptism and it might have been as well said Baptize in the Name of the Father and any other Creature And for all that I see our Vnitarians would have liked such a Form very well for they parallel it with those in Scripture and they worshipped the Lord and the King and they feared the Lord and Samuel But the Iews understood the different occasion of such Expressions too well to have born such a Conjunction of Creatures with the Creator in the most solemn Act of Initiation into a Profession of Religion 2. The Iews had a Notion among them of three distinct Subsistences in the Deity sutable to these of Father Son and Holy Ghost This hath been shew'd by many as to the Son or the Divine Word and Rittangel makes out the same as to the Holy Ghost Among the three Subsistences in the Mercavah which Rittangel had proved from their most ancient Writings those which are added to the first are Wisdom and Intelligence and this last is by the old Chaldee Paraphrast rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he proves it to be applied to God in many places of the Pentateuch where such things are attributed to him as belong to the Holy Ghost And he particularly shews by many places that the Schecinah is not taken for the Divine Glory but that is rendred by other Words however the Interpreters of the Chaldee Paraphrast have rendred it so but he produces ten places where the Chaldee Paraphrast uses it in another Sense and he leaves he saith many more to the Readers observation If the Iews did of old own three Subsistences in the same Divine Essence there was then great Reason to joyn Father Son and Holy Ghost in the solemn Act of Initiation But if it be denied that they did own any such thing they must deny their most ancient Books and the Chaldee Paraphrast which they esteem next to the Text and Rittangel saith They believe it written by Inspiration That which I chiefly urge is this that if these things be not very ancient they must be put in by the later Iews to gratifie the Christians in the Doctrine of the Trinity which I do not believe any Iew will assent to And no one else can imagine this when our Vnitarians say That the Doctrine of the Trinity is the chief Offence which the Iews take at the Christian Religion How then can we suppose the Iews should forge these Books on purpose to put in such Notions as were most grateful to their Enemies and hateful to themselves Morinus hath endeavoured to run down the Credit of the most ancient Books of the Iews and among the rest the Book Iezirah the most ancient Cabbalistical Book among the Iews which he learnedly proves was not written by Abraham as the Iews think I will not stand with Morinus about this however the Book Cosri saith it was made by Abraham before God spake to him and magnifies it to the King of Cosar as containing an admirable Account of the first Principles above the Philosophers Buxtorf saith that the Book Cosri hath been extant Nine hundred years and in the beginning of it it is said that the Conference was Four hundred years before and therein the Book Iezirah is alledged as a Book of Antiquity and there the three Subsistences of the Deity are represented by Mind Word and Hand So that this can be no late Invention of Cabbalistical Iews But our Vnitarians utterly deny that the Jews had any Cabbala concerning the Trinity And they prove it because the Jews in Origen and Justin Martyr deny the Messias to be God They might as well have brought their Testimony to prove Jesus not to be the Messias for the Iews of those times being hard pressed by the Christians found they could not otherwise avoid several places of the Old Testament But this doth not hinder but that they might have Notions of three Subsistences in their ancient Books which contained neither late Invention nor Divine Revelations but a Traditional notion about the Divine Being and the Subsistences in it and I can find no Arguments against it that deserve mentioning For when they say the Iewish Cabbala was a Pharisaical Figment c. it needs no answer But what do they say to the Old Paraphrases whereon the main Weight as to this matter lies All that I can find is
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
without this must this presently be run down as Heresie when he asserts at the same time three Persons in the same undivided Essence But this is said to be a Contradiction so it was in the other case and not allow'd then and why should it be otherwise in this I speak not this to justifie such Explications but to shew that there is a difference between the Heresie of denying an Article and a mistake in the Explication of it Even the greatest Heresie-makers in the world distinguish between Heresies and erroneous Explications of Articles of Faith as any one may find that looks into them And even the Inquisitors of Heresie themselves allow the distinction between Heresie and an erroneous Proposition in Faith which amounts to the same with a mistaken Explication of it and they all grant that there may be Propositions that tend to Heresie or savour of it which cannot be condemned for Heretical And even Pegna condemns Melchior Canus for being too cruel in asserting it to be Heresie to contradict the general Sense of Divines because the Schools cannot make Heresies 2. It is frequently and solemnly affirmed by him That the Unity of the Godhead is the most real essential indivisible inseparable Unity that there is but one divine Nature which is originally in the Father and is substantially communicated by the Father to the Son as a distinct subsisting Person by an eternal ineffable Generation and to the Holy Ghost by an eternal and substantial Procession from Father and Son Do the others who maintain a Trinity deny this By no means For we have already seen that they assert the same thing So that they are fully agreed as to the main fundamental Article And even the Unitarians yield that from the beginning he asserted That the three divine Persons are in one undivided Substance Wherein then lies the foundation of this mighty Quarrel and those unreasonable Heats that Men have fallen into about it to the great scandal of our Church and Religion In short it is this that the same Author asserts 1. That it is gross Sabellianism to say That there are not three personal Minds or Spirits or Substances 2. That a distinct substantial Person must have a distinct Substance of his own proper and peculiar to his own Person But he owns that although there are three distinct Persons or Minds each of whom is distinctly and by himself God yet there are not three Gods but one God or one Divinity which he saith is intirely and indivisibly and inseparably in three distinct Persons or Minds That the same one divine Nature is wholly and entirely communicated by the eternal Father to the eternal Son and by the Father and Son to the eternal Spirit without any Division or Separation and so it remains one still This is the substance of this new Explication which hath raised such Flames that Injunctions from authority were thought necessary to suppress them But those can reach no farther than the restraint of Mens Tongues and Pens about these matters and unless something be found out to satisfie their Minds and to remove Misapprehensions the present Heat may be only cover'd over and kept in which when there is a vent given may break out into a more dangerous Flame Therefore I shall endeavour to state and clear this matter so as to prevent any future Eruption thereof which will be done by considering how far they are agreed and how far the remaining difference ought to be pursued 1. They are agreed That there are three distinct Persons and but one Godhead 2. That there are no separate and divided Substances in the Trinity but the divine Nature is wholly and entirely one and undivided 3. That the divine Essence is communicated from the Father to the Son and from both to the holy Spirit So that the charge of Sabellianism on those who reject this new Explication is without ground For no Sabellian did or could assert a Communication of the divine Essence Which being agreed on both sides the Dispute turns upon this single point whether a communicated Essence doth imply a distinct Substance or not On the one side it is said That there being but one God there can be but one divine Essence and if more Essences more Gods On the other side that since they own a communicated Essence necessary to make a distinction of Persons in the Son and Holy Ghost if the Essence be not distinct the foundation of distinct Personalities is taken away But how is this clear'd by the other Party They say That it is one peculiar Prerogative of the divine Nature and Substance founded in its infinite and therefore transcendent Perfection whereby it is capable of residing in more Persons than one and is accordingly communicated from the Father to the Son and Holy Ghost So that the Communication of the divine Nature is owned to the Persons of the Son and Holy Ghost But how then comes it not to make a distinct Essence as it makes distinct Persons by being communicated The answer we see is That it is a peculiar Prerogative founded on the infinite and therefore transcendent Perfection of the divine Nature But they further add That when the Son and Holy Ghost are said to have the same divine Nature from the Father as the Origin and Fountain of the Divinity not by the Production of a new divine Nature but by a Communication of his own which is one and the same in all three without Separation Difference or Distinction that this is indeed a great Mystery which hath been always look'd upon by the greatest and wisest Men in the Church to be above all Expressions and Description So that the greatest difficulty is at last resolved into the incomprehensible Perfection of the divine Nature and that neither Man nor Angels can give a satisfactory answer to Enquiries about the manner of them And the Author of the Animadversions saith That in the divine Persons of the Trinity the divine Nature and the personal Subsistence coalesce into one by an incomprehensible ineffable kind of Union and Conjunction But do those on the other side think that the asserting three distinct Substances in one and the same individual Substance tends to clear and explain the Notion of the Trinity and make it more easie and intelligible The Divinity they say is whole intire indivisible and inseparable in all three But can one whole entire indivisible Substance be actually divided into three Substances For if every Person must have a peculiar Substance of his own and there be three Persons there must be three peculiar Substances and how can there be three peculiar Substances and yet but one entire and indivisible Substance I do not say there must be three divided Substances in place or separate Substances but they must be divided as three Individuals of the same kind which must introduce a Specifick Divine Nature which I think very
World So that there is no way of dealing with them but by shewing the falsness weakness of the grounds they go upon and that they have no advantage of us as to Scripture Antiquity or Reason which is the Design of this Vndertaking Worcester Sept. 30. 1696. E. W. THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. THE Occasion and Design of the Discourse Pag. 1. CHAP. II. The Doctrine of the Trinity not receiv'd in the Christian Church by Force or Interest p. 10. CHAP. III. The Socinian Plea for the Antiquity of their Doctrine Examined p. 15. CHAP. IV. Of the Considerable Men they pretend to have been of their Opinion in the Primitive Church p. 29. CHAP. V. Of their Charge of Contradiction in the Doctrine of the Trinity p. 54. CHAP. VI. No Contradiction for Three Persons to be in One common Nature p. 68. CHAP. VII The Athanasian Creed clear'd from Contradictions p. 101. CHAP. VIII The Socinian Sense of Scripture Examined p. 121. CHAP. IX The General Sense of the Christian Church proved from the Form of Baptism as it was understood in the first Ages p. 177. CHAP. X. The Objections against the Trinity in point of Reason Answer'd p. 230. ERRATA PAg. 113. l. 12. for our r. one p. 122. l. 12. r. Heb. 1.5 for unto which p. 124. l. 7. add N. 11. p. 126. l. 29. for Damascenus r. Damascius p. 129. l. 21. for appointed r. appropriated p. 181. l. 22. after them put in not p. 192. l. 19 for we r. were p. 211. l. 1. dele that p. 217. l. 6. for Hypostasis r. Hypothesis p. 234. l. 6. for Intermission r. Intromission p. 283. l. 21. r. as well as A DISCOURSE In VINDICATION of the Doctrine of the Trinity WITH An ANSWER TO THE Late SOCINIAN Objections CHAP. I. The Occasion and Design of this Discourse IT is now above twenty years since I first published a Discourse about the reasons of the Sufferings of Christ lately reprinted in answer to some Socinian Objections at that time But I know not how it came to pass that the Socinian controversy seemed to be laid asleep among us for many years after and so it had continued to this day if some mens busie and indiscreet zeal for their own particular Opinions or rather Heresies had not been more prevalent over them than their care and concernment for the common interest of Christianity among us For it is that which really suffers by these unhappy and very unseasonable Disputes about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith which could never have been started and carried on with more fatal consequence to all revealed Religion than in an age too much inclined to Scepticism and Infidelity For all who are but well-wishers to that do greedily catch at any thing which tends to unsettle mens minds as to matters of Faith and to expose them to the scorn and contempt of Infidels And this is all the advantage which they have above others in their writings For upon my carefull Perusal of them which was occasion'd by reâ—rinting that Discourse I found nothing extraordinary as to depth of Judgment or closeness of Reasoning or strength of Argument or skill in Scripture or Antiquity but the old stuff set out with a new dress and too much suited to the Genius of the age we live in viz. brisk and airy but withal too light and superficial But although such a sort of Raillery be very much unbecoming the weight and dignity of the subject yet that is not the worst part of the character of them for they seem to be written not with a design to convince others or to justifie themselves but to ridicule the great Mysteries of our Faith calling them Iargon Cant Nonsense Impossibilities Contradictions Samaritanism and what not any thing but Mahometism and Deism And at the same time they know that we have not framed these Doctrines our selves but have received them by as universal a Tradition and Consent of the Christian Church as that whereby we receive the Books of the new Testament and as founded upon their authority So that as far as I can see the truth of these Doctrines and authority of those Books must stand and fall together For from the time of the writing and publishing of them all persons who were admitted into the Christian Church by the Form of Baptism prescribed by our Saviour were understood to â—e received Members upon profession of â—â—e Faith of the Holy Trinity the Hymns and Doxologies of the Primitive Church were to Father Son and Holy Ghost and those who openly opposed that Doctrine were cast out of the Communion of it which to me seem plain and demonstrative argâ—ments that this was the Doctrine of the Christian Church from the beginning as will appear in the progress of this Discourse The chief design whereof is to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity as it hath been generally received in the Christian Church and is expressed in the Athanasian Creed from those horrible Imputations of Nonsense Contradiction and Impossibility with which it is charged by our Vnitarians as they call themselves and that in the answer to the Sermon lately reprinted about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith which I first preached and published some years since upon the breaking out of this controversie among us by the Notes on Athanasius his Creed and other mischievous Pamphlets one upon another I was in hopes to have given some check to their insolent way of writing about matters so much above our reach by shewing how reasonable it was for us to submit to divine Revelation in such things since we must acknowledge our selves so much to seek as to the nature of Substances which are continually before our Eyes and therefore if there were such difficulties about a Mystery which depended upon Revelation we had no cause to wonder at it but our business was chiefly to be satisfied whether this Doctrine were any part of that Revelation As to which I proposed several things which I thought very reasonable to the finding out the true sense of the Scripture about these matters After a considerable time they thought fit to publish something which was to pass for an answer to it but in it they wholly pass over that part which relates to the sense of Scripture and run into their common place about Mysteries of Faith in which they were sure to have as many Friends as our Faith had Enemies and yet they managed it in so trifling a manner that I did not then think it deserved an Answer But a worthy and judicious Friend was willing to take that task upon himself which he hath very well discharged so that I am not concerned to meddle with all those particulars which are fully answer'd already but the general charge as to the Christian Church about the Doctrine of the Trinity I think my self oblig'd to give an answer to upon this occasion But before I come to that since they so confidently charge the Christian Church for
of the Mind without any real Existence belonging to it as such which is contrary to the very Notion of God which implies a necessary Existence or it must imply a Divine Nature which is neither Father Son nor Holy Ghost Which is so repugnant to the Doctrine of the Fathers that no one that is any ways conversant in their Writings on this Argument can imagine they should hold such an Opinion And I am so far from being convinced by Curcellaeus his undeniable Proofs that I think it no hard matter to bring undeniable Proofs that he hath mistaken their meaning Of which I shall give an Account in this Place because I fear his Authority hath had too much sway with some as to this matter I shall not insist upon his gross mistake in the very entrance of that Discourse where he saith That the Bishops of Gaul and Germany disliked the Homoousion and gave three Reasons against it whereas Hilary speaks of the Eastern Bishops whom he goes about to vindicate to the Western Bishops who were offended with them for that reason as any one that reads Hilary de Synodis may see But I come to the main Point His great Argument is from the use of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may extend to Individuals of the same kind Who denies it But the Question is whether the Fathers used it in that sense so as to imply a difference of Individuals in the same common Essence There were two things aimed at by them in their Dispute with the Arians 1. To shew That the Son was of the same Substance with the Father which they denied and made him of an inferior created Substance of another kind Now the Fathers thought this term very proper to express their Sense against them But then this Word being capable of a larger Sense than they intended they took care 2. To assert a perfect Unity and Indivisibility of the Divine Essence For the Arians were very ready to charge them with one of these two things 1. That they must fall into Sabellianism if they held a perfect Unity of Essence or 2. When they clear'd themselves of this that they must hold Three Gods and both these they constantly denied To make this clear I shall produce the Testimonies of some of the chief both of the Greek and Latin Fathers and answer Curcellaeus his Objections Athanasius takes notice of both these Charges upon their Doctrine of the Trinity As to Sabellianism he declared That he abhorred it equally with Arianism and he saith it lay in making Father and Son to be only different Names of the same Person and so they asserted but one Person in the Godhead As to the other Charge of Polytheism he observes That in the Scripture Language all mankind was reckon'd as one because they have the same Essence and if it be so as to Men who have such a difference of Features of Strength of Vnderstanding of Language how much more may God be said to be One in whom is an undivided Dignity Power Counsel and Operation Doth this prove such a difference as is among Individuals of the same kind among men No man doth more frequently assert the indivisible Vnity of the Divine Nature than he He expresly denies such divided Hypostases as are among men and saith That in the Trinity there is a Conjunction without confusion and a distinction without Division that in the Trinity there is so perfect an Vnion and that it is so undivided and united in it self that where-ever the Father is there is the Son and the Holy Ghost and so the rest because there is but one Godhead and one God who is over all and through all and in all But saith Curcellaeus The contrary rather follows from this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or mutual Inexistence for that could not be without distinct Substance as in Water and Wine But this is a very gross mistake of the Fathers Notion who did not understand by it a Local In-existence as of Bodies but such an indivisible Vnity that one cannot be without the other as even Petavius hath made it appear from Athanasius and others Athanasius upon all Occasions asserts the Unity of the Divine Nature to be perfect and indivisible God saith he is the Father of his Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any Division of the Substance And in other places that the Substance of the Father and Son admit of no Division and he affirms this to have been the sense of the Council of Nice so that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood of the same indivisible Substance Curcellaeus answers That Athanasius by this indivisible Vnity meant only a close and indissoluble Vnion But he excluded any kind of Division and that of a Specifick Nature into several individuals as a real Division in Nature for no man whoever treated of those matters denied that a Specifick Nature was divided when there were several individuals under it But what is it which makes the Vnion indissoluble Is it the Vnity of the Essence or not If it be is it the same individual Essence or not If the same individual Essence makes the inseparable Union what is it which makes the difference of individuals If it be said The incommunicable Properties of the Persons I must still ask how such Properties in the same individual Essence can make different individuals If it be said to be the same Specifick Nature then how comes that which is in it self capable of Division to make an indissoluble Vnion But saith Curcellaeus Athanasius makes Christ to be of the same Substance as Adam and Seth and Abraham and Isaac are said to be Con-substantial with each other And what follows That the Father and Son are divided from each other as they were This is not possible to be his Sense considering what he saith of the Indivisibility of the Divine Nature And Athanasius himself hath given sufficient warning against such a Mis-construction of his Words and still urges that our Conceptions ought to be suitable to the Divine Nature not taken from what we see among men And it is observable that when Paulus Samosatenus had urged this as the best Argument against the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it made such a difference of Substances as is among men for that Reason saith Athanasius his Iudges were content to let it alone for the Son of God is not in such a sense Con-substantial but afterwards the Nicene Fathers finding out the Art of Paulus and the significancy of the Word to discriminate the Arians made use of it and only thought it necessary to declare that when it is applied to God it is not to be understood as among individual Men. As to the Dialogues under Athanasius his Name on which Curcellaeus insists so much it is now very well known that they belong not to him but to Maximus and by comparing them with
Substance must be divided if there be three Persons That every Person must have a Substance to support his Subsistence is not denied but the question is Whether that Substance must be divided or not We say where the Substance will bear it as in created Beings a Person hath a separate substance i. e. the same Nature diversified by Accidents Qualities and a separate Existence but where these things cannot be there the same Essence must remain undivided but with such relative Properties as cannot be confounded But may not the same undivided Substance be communicated to three divided Persons so as that each Person may have his own proper Substance and yet the divine Essence be in it self undivided This is not the case before us For the question upon the Creed is Whether the Substance can be divided And here it is allow'd to remain undivided Yes in it self but it may be divided in the Persons The Substance we say is uncapable of being divided any way and to say that a Substance wholly undivided in it self is yet divided into as many proper and peculiar Substances as there are Persons doth not at all help our understanding in this matter but if no more be meant as is expresly declared than That the same one divine Nature is wholly and entirely communicated by the eternal Father to the eternal Son and by Father and Son to the eternal Spirit without any Division or Separation it is the same which all Trinitarians assert And it is a great pity that any new Phrases or Ways of Expression should cause unreasonable Heats among those who are really of the same Mind For those who oppose the expressions of three distinct Substances as new and dangerous yet grant That it is one peculiar Prerogative of the divine Nature and Substance founded in its infinite and therefore transcendent Perfection whereby it is capable of residing in more Persons than one and is accordingly communicated from the Father to the Son and Holy Ghost but this is done without any Division or Multiplication Now if both Parties mean what they say where lies the difference It is sufficient for my purpose that they are agrred that there can be no Division as to the divine Essence by the distinction of Persons And so this passage of the Athanasian Creed holds good Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance The next Article as it is set down in the Notes on Athanasius his Creed is a contradiction to this For there it runs There is one Substance of the Father another of the Son another of the Holy Ghost They might well charge it with Contradictions at this rate But that is a plain mistake for Person for there is no other variety in the Copies but this that Baysius his Greek Copy hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but all the Latin Copies Persona But what consequence do they draw from hence Then say they the Son is not the Father nor is the Father the Son nor the Holy Ghost either of them If they had put in Person as they ought to have done it is what we do own And what follows If the Father be not the Son and yet is the one true God then the Son is not the one true God because he is not the Father The one true God may be taken two ways 1. The one true God as having the true divine Nature in him and so the Father is the one true God but not exclusive of the Son if he have the same divine Nature 2. The one true God as having the divine Nature so wholly in himself as to make it incommunicable to the Son so we do not say that the Father is the one true God because this must exclude the Son from being God which the Scripture assures us that he is and therefore though the Son be not the Father nor the Father the Son yet the Son may be the one true God as well as the Father because they both partake of the same divine Nature so that there is no contradiction in this That there is but one true God and one of the Persons is not the other For that supposes it impossible that there should be three Persons in the same Nature but if the distinction of Nature and Persons be allow'd as it must be by all that understand any thing of these matters then it must be granted that although one Person cannot be another yet they may have the same common Essence As for instance let us take their own Peter Iames and Iohn What pleasant arguing would this be Peter is not Iames nor Iohn nor Iames nor Iohn are Peter but Peter hath the true Essence of a Man in him and the true Essence is but one and indivisible and therefore Iames and Iohn cannot be true Men because Peter hath the One and indivisible Essence of a Man in him But they will say We cannot say that Peter is the One true Man as we say That the Father is the One true God Yes we say the same in other Words for he can be said to be the One true God in no other Respect but as he hath the One true Divine Essence All the difference lies that a finite Nature is capapable of Division but an infinite is not It follows The Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all one the Glory Equal the Majesty Co-eternal To this they say That this Article doth impugn and destroy it self How so For if the Glory and Majesty be the same in Number then it can be neither Equal nor Co-eternal Not Equal for it is the same which Equals never are nor Co-eternal for that intimates that they are distinct For nothing is Co eternal nor Co temporary with it self There is no appearance of Difficulty or Contradiction in this if the Distinction of Persons is allowed for the three Persons may be well said to be Co-equal and Co-eternal and if we Honour the Son as we Honour the Father we must give equal Glory to him But one great Point of Contradiction remains viz. So that the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God and yet there are not three Gods but one God First they say This is as if a Man should say the Father is a Person the Son a Person and the Holy Ghost a Person yet there are not three Persons but one Person How is this possible if a Person doth suppose some peculiar Property which must distinguish him from all others And how can three Persons be one Person unless three incommunicable Properties may become one communicated Property to three Persons But they are aware of a Distinction in this Case viz. that the term God is used Personally when it is said God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost but when it is said There are not three Gods but one God the term God is used Essentially
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
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
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
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
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
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
Creed is not liable to their charges of Contradiction Impossibilities and pure Nonsense 2. That we own no other Doctrine than what hath been received by the Christian Church in the several Ages from the Apostles Times 3. And that there are no Objections in point of reason which ought to hinder our Assent to this great point of the Christian Faith But the chief Design of this Preface is to remove this Prejudice which lies in our way from the different manners of Explication and the warm Disputes which have been occasion'd by them It cannot be denied that our Adversaries have taken all possible advantage against us from these unhappy differences and in one of their latest Discourses they glory in it and think they have therein out-done the foreign Unitarians For say they We have shewed that their Faiths concerning this pretended Mystery are so many and so contrary that they are less one Party among themselves than the far more learned and greater number of them are one Party with us this is spoken of those they call Nominal Trinitarians and for the other whom they call Real they prove them guilty of manifest Heresie the one they call Sabellians which they say is the same with Unitarians and the other Polytheists or disguised Pagans and they borrow arguments from one side to prove the charge upon the other and they confidently affirm that all that speak out in this matter must be driven either to Sabellianism or Tritheism If they are Nominal Trinitarians they fall into the former if Real into the latter This is the whole Design of this late Discourse which I shall here examine that I may remove this stumbling Block before I enter upon the main business 1. As to those who are called Nominal Trinitarians Who are they And from whence comes such a Denomination They tell us That they are such who believe three Persons who are Persons in Name only indeed and in truth they are but one subsisting Person But where are these to be found Among all such say they as agree that there is but one only and self-same divine Essence and Substance But do these assert that there is but one subsisting Person and three only in Name Let any one be produced who hath written in defence of the Trinity for those who have been most charged have utterly deny'd it That learned Person who is more particularly reflected upon in this Charge is by them said to affirm That God is one divine intellectual Substance or really subsisting Person and distinguished and diversified by three relative Modes or relative Subsistences And Mr. Hooker is produc'd to the same purpose That there is but one Substance in God and three distinct relaâ—ive Properties which Substance being taken with its peculiar Property makes the distinction of Persons in the Godhead But say they These Modes and Properties do not make any real subsisting Persons but only in a Grammatical and Critical Sense and at most this is no more than one Man may be said to be three Persons on the account of different Relations as Solomon was Son of David Father of Rehoboam and proceeding from David and Bathsheba and yet was but one subsisting Pâ—rson This is the force of what they say But then in a triumphing manner they add That the Realists have so manifest an advantage against them that they have no way to deâ—end themselves but by Recrimination i. e. by shewing the like Absurdity in their Doctrine And thus they hope either side will baffle the other and in the mean time the Cause be lost between them But in so nice a matter as this we must not rely too much on an Adversaries Representation for the leaving out some expressions may make an opinion look with another Appearance than if all were taken together it would have We must therefore take notice of other passages which may help to give the true Sense of the learned Author who is chiefly aimed at 1. In the very same Page he asserts That each of the divine Persons has an absolute Nature distinctly belonging to him though not a distinct absolute Nature and to the same purpose in another place 2. That the eternal Father is and subsists as a Father by having a Son and communicating his Essence to another And elsewhere that the Relation between Father and Son is founded on that eternal Act by which the Father communicates his divine Nature to the Son 3. That the foundation of the Doctrine of the Trinity is this 1. That there can be but one God 2. That there is nothing in God but what is God 3. That there can be no Composition in the Deity with any such positive real Being distinct from the Deity it self But the Church finding in Scripture mention of three to whom distinctly the Godhead does belong expressed these three by the Name of Persons and stated their Personalities upon three distinct Modes of Subsistence allotted to one and the same Godhead and these also distinguished from one another by three distinct Relations What do these men mean to charge one who goes upon these grounds with Sabellianism Doth he make the three Persons to be mere Names as S. Basil in few words expresses the true nature of Sabellianism that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One thing with different Denominations Can the communicating the divine Essence by the Father to the Son be called a Name or a Mode or a Respect only And these Men of wonderfull Subtilty have not learnt to distinguish between Persons and Personalities Where is the least Intimation given that he look'd on the divine Persons as Modes and Respects only That is impossible since he owns a Communication of the divine Essence and that each of the divine Persons hath the divine Nature belonging to him could it ever enter into any Man's head to think that he that owns this should own the other also But the Personality is a thing of another consideration For it is the reason of the distinction of Persons in the same undivided Nature That there is a distinction the Scripture assures us and withall that there is but one divine Essence How can this distinction be Not by essential Attributes for those must be in the divine Essence and in every Person alike otherwise he hath not the entire divine Nature not by accidents as Men are distinguished from each other for the divine Nature is not capable of these not by separate or divided Substances for that would be inconsistent with the perfect Vnity of the Godhead since therefore there can be no other way of distinction we must consider how the Scripture directs us iâ— this case and that acquaints us with the Father Son and Holy Ghost as having mutual Relation to each other and there is no Repugnancy therein to the divine Nature and therefore the distinction of the Persons hath been fixed on that as the most proper foundation for it
And these are called different Modes of Subsistence on which the distinct Personalities are founded which can be no other than relative But a Person is that which results from the divine Nature and Subsistence together and although a Person cannot be said to be a relative consider'd as such yet being joyned with the manner of Subsistence it doth imply a Relation and so a Person may be said to be a relative Being But say they If the three Persons have all the same individual Substance then they are truly and properly only three Modes and therefore aâ—though among Men Personalities are distinct from the Persons because the Persons are distinct intelligent Substances yet this cannot hold where there is but one individual Substance The question is Whether those they call Nominal Trinitarians are liable to the charge of Sabellianism the answer is That they cannot because they assert far more than three Names viz. That each Person hath the divine Nature distinctly belonging to him But say they These Persons are but mere Modes No say the other We do not say that the Person is only a Modus but that it is the divine Nature or Godhead subsisting under such a Modus so that the Godhead is still included in it joyned to it and distinguished by it Grant all this the Vnitarians reply yet where there is the same individual Substance the Person can be only a Modus To which it is answer'd That this individual Substance hath three distinct ways of subsisting according to which it subsists distinctly and differently in each of the three divine Persons So that here lies the main point whether it be Sabellianiâ—m to assert the same individual Substance under three such different Modes of Subsistence If it be the most learned and judicious of the Fathers did not know what Sabellianism meant as I have shewd at large in the following Discourse for they utterly disowned Sabellianism and yet asserted That the several Hypostases consisted of peculiar Properties in one and the same divine Substance But it is not the authority of Fathers which they regard for they serve them only as Stones in the Boys way when they quarrel viz. to throw them at our Heads Let us then examine this matter by reason without them Persons among Men say they are distinguished from Personalities because they have distinct Substances therefore where there is but one Substance the Person can be only a Mode and therefore the same with the Personality I answer that the true original Notion of Personality is no more than a different Mode of subsistence in the same common Nature For every such Nature is in it self one and indivisible and the more perfect it is the greater must its Vnity be For the first Being is the most One and all Division comes from Distance and Imperfection The first foundation of Distinction is Diversity for if there were no Diversity there would be nothing but entire and perfect Vnity All Diversity comes from two things Dissimilitudâ— and Dependence Those Philosophers called Megarici did not think much amiss who said That if all things were alike there would be but one Substance or Being in the World and what we now call different Substances would be only different Modes of Subsistence in the same individual Nature The difference of Substances in created Beings arises from those two things 1. A Dissimilitude of Accidents both internal and external 2. The Will and Power of God whereby he gives them distinct and separate Beings in the same common Nature As for instance the Nature or Essence of a Man consider'd in it self is but one and indivisible but God gives a separate Existence to every Individual whereby that common Nature subsists in so many distinct Substances as there are Individuals of that kind and every one of these Substances is distinguished from all others not only by a separate internal vital Principle and peculiar Properties but by such external Accidents as do very easily discriminate them from each other And the subject of all these Accidents is that peculiar Substance which God hath given to every Individual which in rational Beings is called a Person and so we grant that in all such created Beings the Personality doth suppose a distinct Substance not from the Nature of Personality but from the condition of the subject wherein it is The Personality in it self is but a different Mode of Subsistence in the same common Nature which is but One but this Personality being in such a subject as Man is it from thence follows that each Person hath a peculiar Substance of his own and not from the Nature of Personality But when we come to consider a divine Essence which is most perfectly one and is wholly uncapable of any separate Existence or Accidents there can be no other way of distinction conceived in it but by different Modes of Subsistence or relative Properties in the same divine Essence And herein we proceed as we do in our other Conceptions of the divine Nature i. e. we take away all Imperfection from God and attribute only that to him which is agreeable to his divine Perfections although the manner of it may be above our comprehension And if this be owning the Trinity of the Mob I am not ashamed to own my self to be one of them but it is not out of Lazyness or affected Ignorance but upon the greatest and most serious consideration They may call this a Trinity of Cyphers if they please but I think more modest and decent Language about these matters would become them as well as the things themselves much better And they must prove a little better than they have done that different Modes of Subsistence in the divine Nature or the relations of Father and Son are mere Cyphers which is so often mentioned in Scripture as a matter of very great consequence and that when we are baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost we are baptized into a Trinity of Cyphers But our Unitarians proceed and say that the same Author affirms not only the Personalities but the Persons to be merely Relative For he saith That every Person as well as every Personality in the Trinity is wholly Relative But it is plain he speaks there not of the Person in himself but with respect to the manner of Subsistence or the relative Properties belonging to them But if the Notion of a Person doth besides the relative Property necessarily suppose the divine Nature together with it how can a Person then be imagined to be wholly Relative But they urge That which makes the first Person in the Trinity to be a Person makes him to be a Father and what makes him to be a Father makes him to be a Person And what follows from hence but that the relative Property is the Foundation of the Personality But by no means that the Person of the Father is nothing but the relative Property
inconsistent with the divine Perfections but of this at large in the following Discourse I do not lay any force upon this argument that there can be no ground of the Distinction between the three Substances if there be but one Substance in the Godhead as some have done because the same Substance cannot both unite and distinguish them for the ground of the distinction is not the Substance but the Communication of it and where that is so freely asserted there is a reason distinct from the Substance it self which makes the Distinction of Persons But the difficulty still remains how each Person should have a Substance of his own and yet there be but one entire and indivisible Substance for every Person must have a proper Substance of his own or else according to this Hypothesis he can be no Person and this peculiar Substance must be really distinct from that Substance which is in the other two so that here must be three distinct Substances in the three Persons But how then can there be but one individual Essence in all three We may conceive one common Essence to be individuated in three Persons as it is in Men but it is impossible to conceive the same individual Essence to be in three Persons which have peculiar Substances of their own For the Substances belonging to the Persons are the same Essence individuated in those Persons and so there is no avoiding making three individual Essences and one specifick or common divine Nature And Maimonides his argument is considerable against more Gods than one If saith he there be two Gods there muâ—t be something wherein they agree and something wherein they differ that wherein they agree must be that which makes each of them God and that wherein they differ must make them two Gods Now wherein doth this differ from the present Hypothesis There is something wherein they differ and that is their proper Substance but Maimonides thought that wherein they differ'd sufficient to make them two Gods So that I fear it will be impossible to clear this Hypothesis as to the reconciling three individual Essences with one individual divine Essence which looks too like asserting that there are three Gods and yet but one And the Author of this Explicaâ—ion doth at last confess that three distinct whole inseparable Same 's are hard to conceive as to the manner of it Now to what purpose are new Explications started and Disputes raised and carried on so warmly about them if after all the main difficulty be confess'd to be above our Comprehension We had much better satisfie our selves with that Language which the Church hath receivâ—d and is express'd in the Creeds than go about by new Terms to raise new Ferments especially at a time when our united Forces are most necessary against our common Adversaries No wise and good Men can be fond of any new Inventions when the Peace of the Church is hazarded by them And on the other side it is as dangerous to make new Heresies as new Explications If any one denies the Doctrine contained in the Nicene Creed that is no new Heresie but how can such deny the Son to be consubstantial to the Father who assert one and the same indivisible Substance in the Father and the Son But they may contradict themselves That is not impossible on either side But doth it follow that they are guilty of Heresie Are not three Substances and but one a Contradiction No more say they than that a communicated Substance is not distinct from that which did communicate But this whole dispute we find is at last resolved into the infinite and unconceivable Perfections of the Godhead where it is most safely lodged and that there is no real Contradiction in the Doctrine it self is part of the design of the Discourse afterwards But here it will be necessary to take notice of what the Unitarians have objected against this new Explication viz. That it was condemned by the ancients in the Person of Philoponus in the middle Ages in the Person and Writings of Abhor Ioachim but more severely since the Reformation in the Person of Valentinus Gentilis who was condemned at Geneva and beheaded at Bern for this very Doctrine To these I shall give a distinct answer 1. As to Joh Philoponus I do freely own that in the Greek Church when in the sixth Century he broached his opinion That every Hypostasis must have the common Nature individuated in it this was look'd upon as a Doctrine of dangerous consequence both with respect to the Trinity and Incarnation The latter was the first occasion of it for as Leontius observes the dispute did not begin about the Trinity but about the Incarnation and Philoponus took part with those who asserted but one Nature in Christ after the Vnion and he went upon this ground That if there were two Natures there must be two Hypostases because Nature and Hypostasis were the same Then those on the Churches side saith Leontius objected That if they were the same there must be three distinct Natures in the Trinity as there were three Hypostases which Philoponus yielded and grounded himself on Aristotle's Doctrine that there was but one common Substance and several individual Substances and so held it was in the Trinity whence he was called the leader of the Heresie of the Tritheius This is the account given by Leontius who lived very â—ear his time A. D. 620. The same is affirmed of him by Nicephorus and that he wrote a Book on purpose about the Vnion of two Natures in Christ out of which he produces his own words concerning a common and individual Nature which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which can agree to none else And the main argument he went upon was this that unless we assert a singular Nature in the Hypostases we must say that the whole Trinity was incarnate as unless there be a singular humane Nature distinct from the common Christ must assume the whole Nature of Mankind And this argument from the Incarnation was that which made Roscelin in the beginning of the disputing Age A. D. 1093 to assert That the three Persons were three things distinct from each other as three Angels or three Men because otherwise the Incarnation of the second Person could not be understood as appears by Anselm's Epistles and his Book of the Incarnation written upon that occasion But as Aâ—selm shews at large if this argument hold it must prove the three Persons not only to be distinct but separate and divided Subâ—â—ances which is directly contrary to this new Explication and then there is no avoiding Tritheism But to return to Joh. Philoponus who saith Nicephorus divided the indivisible Nature of God into three Individuals as among Men Which saith he is repugnant to the Sense of the Christian Church and he produces the Testimony of Gregory Nazianzen against it and adds that Leontius and Georgius Pisides confuted
Philoponus But in that divided time there were some called Theodosiani who made but one Nature and one Hypostasis and so fell in with the Sabellians but others held That there was one immutable divine Essence but each Person had a distinct individual Nature which the rest charged with Tritheism Which consequence they utterly rejected because although they held three distinct Natures yet they said They were but one God because there was but one invariable Divinity in them Nicephorus saith that Conon's Followers rejected Philoponus but Photius mentions a conference between Conon and others aâ—out Philoponus wherein he defends him against other Severians Photius grants that Conon and his Followers held a consubstantial Trinity and the Unity of the Godhead and so far they were Orthodox but saith They were far from it when they asserted proper and peculiar Substances to each Person The difference between Conon and Philoponus about this point for Conon wrote against Philoponus about the Resurrection seems to have been partly in the Doctrine but chiefly in the consequence of it for these rejected all kind of Tritheism which Philoponus saw well enough must follow from his Doctrine but he denied any real Division or Separation in those Substances as to the Deity Isidore saith That the Tritheists owned three Gods as well as three Persons and that if God be said to be Triple there must follow a Plurality of Gods But there were others called Triformiani of whom S. Augustin speaks Who held the three Persons to be three distinct parts which being united made one God which saith he is repugnant to the divine Perfection But among these Severians there were three several opinions 1. Of Philoponus who held one common Nature and three Individual 2. Of those who said there was but one Nature and one Hypostasis 3. Of those who affirm'd there were three distinct Natures but withal that there was but one indivisible Godhead and these differ'd from Philoponus in the main ground of Tritheism which was that he held the common Nature in the Trinity to be only a specifick Nature and such as it is among Men. For Philoponus himself in the words which Nicephorus produces doth assert plainly that the common Nature is separated from the Individuals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a mere act of the Mind so that he allow'd no individual Vnity in the divine Nature but what was in the several Persons as the common Nature of Man is a Notion of the Mind as it is abstracted from the several Individuals wherein alone it really subsists so that here is an apparent difference between the Doctrine of Joh. Philoponus and the new Explication for herein the most real essential and indivisible Unity of the divine Nature is asserted and it is said to be no Species because it is but one and so it could not be condemned in Joh. Philoponus 2. We now come to Abbat Joachim whose Doctrine seems to be as much mistaken as it is represented in the Decretal where the Condemnation of it by the Lateran Council is extant But here I cannot but observe what great Authority these Unitarians give to this Lateran Council as if they had a Mind to set up Transubstantiation by it which they so often parallel with the Trinity Thence in their late Discourse they speak of it as the most general Council that was ever called and that what was there defined it was made Heresie to oppose it But by their favour we neither own this to have been a general Council nor that it had Authority to make that Heresie which was not so before But that Council might assert the Doctrine of the Trinity truly as it had been receiv'd and condemn the opinion of Joachim justly But what it was they do not or would not seem to understand Joachim was a great Enthusiast but no deep Divine as Men of that Heat seldom are and he had many Disputes with Peter Lombard in his Life as the Vindicator of Joachim confesses After his Death a Book of his was found taxing Peter Lombard with some strange Doctrine about the Trinity wherein he called him Heretick and Madman this Book was complained of in the Lateran Council and upon Examination it was sound that instead of charging Peter Lombard justly he was fallen into Heresie himself which was denying the essential Vnity of the three Persons and making it to be Vnity of Consent He granted that they were one Essence one Nature one Substance but how Not by any true proper Unity but Similitudinary and Collective as they called it as many Men are one People and many Believers make one Church Whence Thomas Aquinas saith that Joachim fell into the Arian Heresie It is sufficient to my purpose that he denied the individual Vnity of the divine Essence which cannot be charged on the Author of the new Explication and so this comes not home to the purpose 3. But the last charge is the most terrible for it not only sets down the Heresie but the capital punishment which follow'd it Yet I shall make it appear notwithstanding the very warm Prosecution of it by another hand that there is a great difference between the Doctrine of Valentinus Gentilis and that which is asserted in this Explication 1. In the Sentence of his Condemnation it is expressed That he had been guilty of the vilest Scurrility and most horrid Blasphemies against the Son of God and the glorious Mystery of the Trinity But can any thing of this Nature be charged upon one who hath not only written in Defence of it but speaks of it with the highest Veneration 2. In the same Sentence it is said That he acknowledged the Father only to be that infinite God which we ought to worship which is plain Blasphemy against the Son But can any Men ever think to make this the same case with one who makes use of that as one of his chief arguments That the three Persons are to be worshipped with a distinct divine Worship 3. It is charged upon him That he called the Trinity a mere human Invention not so much as known to any Catholick Creed and directly contrary to the Word of God But the Author here charged hath made it his business to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity to be grounded on Scripture and to vindicate it from the Objections drawn from thence against it 4. One of the main Articles of his charge was That he made three Spirits of different Order and Degree that the Father is the one only God by which the Son and Holy Ghost are excluded manifestly from the Unity of the Godhead But the Person charged with his Heresie saith The Reason why we must not say three Gods is because there is but one and the same Divinity in them all and that entirely indivisibly inseparably But it is said that although there may be some differences yet they agree in asserting
nothing of his return but our Vnitarians have found out but they do not tell us where that the people recalled him and so he planted his Doctrine among them that it overspread and was the Religion of the Illyrican Provinces till the Papacy on one hand and the Turk on the other swallow'd up those Proviâ—ces This looks too like making History to serve a turn unless some good proof were brought for it But instead of Photinus his returning and his Doctrine prevailing and continuing there we find Valentinian calling a Council in Illyricum and establishing the Nicene Faith there and a Council at Aquileia against the Arians where the Bishop of Sirmium was present and declared against Arianism and joyned with S. Ambrose who condemns Photinus for making Christ the Son of David and not the Son of God Paulinus saith in his Life that he went on purpose to Sirmium to consecrate an Orthodox Bishop there which he did notwithstanding the power of Iustina the Empress who favoured the Arians S. Ierom in his Chronicon saith that Photinus died in Galatia which was his own Country so that there is no probability in what they affirm of Photinus his settling his Doctrine in those parts till the Papacy and the Turk swallow'd those Provinces for any one that looks into the History of those parts may be soon satisfied that not the Pope nor the Turk but the Huns under Attila made the horrible Devastations not only at Sirmium but in all the considerable places of that Country So that if these mens reason be no better than their History there is very little cause for any to be fond of their Writings But as though it were not enough to mention such things once in their answer to the late Archbishop's Sermons they inlarge upon it For he having justly rebuked them for the Novelty of their Interpretations they to avoid this boast of the concurrence of the ancient Vnitarians the followers of Paulus and Photinus who they say abounded every-where and even possessed some whole Provinces This passage I was not a little surprized at Since Theodoret who I think was somewhat more to be credited than Sandius doth so expresly say That the Samosatenians and Photinians were extinct in his time in a place already mentioned But upon search I could find no other ground for it but a passage or two in Sandius who is none of the exactest Historians In one place he saith from an obscure Polish Chronicle extant in no other Language but of that Country that the Bulgarians when they first received Christianity embraced Photinianism And is not this very good Authority among us From hence he takes it for granted that they all continued Photinians to the time of Pope Nicolas who converted them But all this is grounded on a ridiculous mistake in Platina who in the Life of Nicolas saith that the Pope confirmed them in the Faith pulso Photino whereas it should be pulso Photio for Photius at that time was Patriarch of Constantinople and as appears by his first Epistle assumed their Conversion to himself and insisted upon the right of Jurisdiction over that Country Sandius referrs to Blondus who saith no such thing but only that the Bulgarians were converted before which is true and the Greek Historians as Ioh. Curopalates Zonaras and others gives a particular Account of it but not a word of Photinianism in it So that the Archbishop had very great reason to charge their Interpretation with Novelty and that not only because the Photinians had no such Provinces as they boast of but that neither Paulus Samosatenus nor Photinus nor any of their followers that we can find did ever interpret the beginning of S. John as they do i.e. Of the New Creation and not of the Old and so as the Word had no Pre-existence before he was born of the Virgin I do not confine them to the Nicenists as they call them but let them produce any one among the Samosatenians or Photinians who so understood S. Iohn And therein Sandius was in the right which ought to be allow'd him for he is not often so when he saith that no Christian Interpreter before Socinus ever held such a sense of the Word as he did and therefore his followers he saith ought to be called Socinians only and not Ebionites Samosatenians or Photinians But to return to Photinus his Opinion It is observable what Socrates saith concerning his being deposed at Sirmium viz. that what was done in that matter was universally approved not only then but afterwards So that here we have the general Consent of the Christian World in that divided time against the Photinian Doctrine And yet it was not near so unreasonable as our Vnitarians for Photinus asserted the Pre-existence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and its inhabiting in Christ from his Conception wherein he differ'd from Paulus Samosatenus who asserted it to have been upon the Merit of his Virtue In the Anathema's of the Council of Sirmium against Photinus one is against any one that asserts that there is one God but denies Christ to have been the Son of God before all Worlds and that the World was made by him in obedience to the Will of the Father Others against him that asserts that there was a Dilatation of the Divine Substance to make him the Son of God who was a Man born of the Virgin Mary this appears from Anath 6 7 9. put together Which is best explained by Hilary himself in another place where he mentions this as the Photinian Doctrine That God the Word did extend himself so far as to inhabit the person born of the Virgin This he calls a subtle and dangerous Doctrine And therein he saith Photinus differ'd from Sabellius that the latter denied any difference between Father and Son but only in Names but Photinus held a real difference but not before the Nativity of Christ then he said The Divine Word inhabiting in Christ made him to be the real Son of God The only doubt is whether Photinus held the Word to have had a distinct Hypostasis before or not Marius Mercator an Author of good credit who lived in S. Augustin's time and to whom an Epistle of his is extant in the new Edition of his Works gives a very particular account of the Opinion of Photinus with relation to the Nestorian Controversie in which he was very well versed In an Epistle written by him on purpose he shews that Nestorius agreed with Photinus in asserting That the Word had a Pre-existence and that the name of Son of God did not belong to the Word but to Christ after the inhabitation of the Word But he there seems to think that Photinus did not hold the Word to have had a real Hypostasis before the Birth of Christ but when he comes after to compare their Opinions more exactly he then affirms that Photinus and
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
as well as for his Skill in Philosophy and Christianity and he wrote a short but learned Discourse to clear this Matter The Catholick Doctrine of the Trinity saith he is this the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost but they are not three Gods but one God And yet which our Vnitarians may wonder at this very man hath written a learned Book of Arithmetick But how doth he make this out How is it possible for Three to be but One First he shews That there can be but one Divine Essence for to make more than One must suppose a Diversity Principium enim Pluralitatis Alteritas est If you make a real difference in Nature as the Arians did then there must be as many Gods as there are different Natures Among men there are different individuals of the same kind but saith he it is the Diversity of Accidents which makes it and if you can abstract from all other Accidents yet they must have a different Place for two Bodies cannot be in the same place The Divine Essence is simple and immaterial and is what it is of it self but other things are what they are made and consist of Parts and therefore may be divided Now that which is of it self can be but One and therefore cannot be numbred And one God cannot differ from another either by Accidents or substantial Differences But saith he there is a twofold Number one by which we reckon and another in the things reckoned And the repeating of Units in the former makes a Plurality but not in the latter It may be said that this holds where there are only different Names for the same thing but here is a real Distinction of Father Son and Holy Ghost But then he shews That the difference of Relation can make no Alteration in the Essence and where there is no Diversity there can be but one Essence although the different Relation may make three Persons This is the substance of what he saith concerning this Difficulty which as he suggests arises from our Imaginations which are so filled with the Division and Multiplicity of compound and material things that it is a hard matter for them so to recollect themselves as to consider the first Principles and Grounds of Vnity and Diversity But if our Vnitarians have not throughly consider'd those foundations they must as they say to one of their Adversaries argue like novices in these questions For these are some of the most necessary Speculations for understanding these matters as what that Vnity is which belongs to a perfect Being what Diversity is required to multiply an infinite Essence which hath Vnity in its own Nature whether it be therefore possible that there should be more divine Essences than one since the same essential Attributes must be where ever there is the divine Essence Whether there can be more Individuals where there is no Dissimilitude and can be no Division or Separation Whether a specifick divine Nature be not inconsistent with the absolute Perfection and necessary Existence which belongs to it Whether the divine Nature can be individually the same and yet there be several individual Essences These and a great many other Questions it will be necessary for them to resolve before they can so peremptorily pronounce that the Doctrine of the Trinity doth imply a Contradiction on the account of the Numbers of Three and One. And so I come to the second Particular CHAP. VI. No Contradiction for three Persons to be in one common Nature II. THat it is no contradiction to assert three Persons in one common Nature I shall endeavour to make these matters as clear as I can for the greatest difficulties in most mens minds have risen from the want of clear and distinct apprehensiâ—ns of those fundamental Notions which are necessary in order to the right understanding of them 1. We are to distinguish between the Being of a thing and a thing in Being or between Essence and Existence 2. Between the Vnity of Nature or Essence and of Existence or Individuals of the same Nature 3. Between the Notion of Persons in a finite and limited Nature and in a Being uncapable of Division and Separation 1. Between the Being of a thing and a thing in Being By the former we mean the Nature and Essential Properties of a thing whereby it is distinguished from all other kinds of Beings So God and his Creatures are essentially distinguished from each other by such Attributes which are incommunicable and the Creatures of several kinds are distinguished by their Natures or Essences for the Essence of a Man and of a Brute are not barely distinguished by Individuals but by their kinds And that which doth constitute a distinct kind is One and Indivisible in it self for the Essence of Man is but one and can be no more for if there were more the kind would be alter'd so that there can be but one common Nature or Essence to all the Individuals of that kind But because these Individuals may be or may not be therefore we must distinguish them as they are in actual Being from what they are in their common Nature for that continues the same under all the Variety and Succession of Individuals 2. We must now distinguish the Vnity which belongs to the common Nature from that which belongs to the Individuals in actual Being And the Vnity of Essence is twofold 1. Where the Essence and Existence are the same i. e. where necessary Existence doth belong to the Essence as it is in God and in him alone it being an essential and incommunicable Perfection 2. Where the Existence is contingent and belongs to the Will of another and so it is in all Creatures Intellectual and Material whose actual being is dependent on the Will of God The Vnity of Existence may be consider'd two ways 1. As to it self and so it is called Identity or a thing continuing the same with it self the Foundation whereof in Man is that vital Principle which results from the Union of Soul and Body For as long as that continues notwithstanding the great variety of changes in the material Parts the Man continues entirely the same 2. The Vnity of Existence as to Individuals may be consider'd as to others i. e. as every one stands divided from every other Individual of the same kind although they do all partake of the same common Essence And the clearing of this is the main point on which the right Notion of these matters depends In order to that we must consider two things 1. What that is whereby we perceive the difference of Individuals 2. What that is which really makes two Beings of the same kind to be different from each other 1. As to the reason of our Perception of the difference between Individuals of the same kind it depends on these things 1. Difference of outward Accidents as Features Age Bulk Meen Speech Habit and Place 2. Difference of inward
other places in him it may appear that he intended no Specifick Nature in God But saith Curcellaeus If the Fathers intended any more than a Specifick Nature why did they not use Words which would express it more fully As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For that very Reason which he mentions from Epiphanius because they would seem to approach too near to Sabellianism S. Basil was a great Man notwithstanding the flout of our Vnitarians and apply'd his thoughts to this matter to clear the Doctrine of the Church from the Charge of Sabellianism and Tritheism As to the former he saith in many places That the Heresie lay in making but one Person as well as one God or one Substance with three several Names As to the latter no man asserts the individual Unity of the Divine Essence in more significant Words than he doth For he uses the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. Cyril of Alexandria doth likewise and yet both these are produced by Curcellaeus for a Specifick Nature But saith Curcellaeus S. Basil in his Epistle to Gregory Nyssen doth assert the difrence between Substance and Hypostasis to consist in this That the one is taken for common Nature and the other for individual and so making three Hypostases he must make three Individuals and One common or Specifick Nature I answer That it is plain by the design of that Epistle that by three Hypostases he could not mean three individual Essences For he saith The design of his writing it was to clear the difference between Substance and Hypostasis For saith he From the want of this some assert but one Hypostasis as well as one Essence and others because there are three Hypostases suppose there are three distinct Essences For both went upon the same Ground that Hypostasis and Essence were the same Therefore saith he those who held three Hypostases did make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Division of Substances From whence it follows that S. Basil did look upon the Notion of three distinct Substances as a mistake I say distinct Substances as Individuals are distinct for so the first Principles of Philosophy do own that Individuals make a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Division of the Species into several and distinct Individuals But doth not S. Basil go about to explain his Notion by the common Nature of man and the several Individuals under it and what can this signifie to his purpose unless he allows the same in the Godhead I grant he doth so but he saith the Substance is that which is common to the whole kind the Hypostasis is that which properly distinguisheth one Individual from another which he calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the peculiar incommunicable Property Which he describes by a Concourse of distinguishing Characters in every Individual But how doth he apply these things to the divine Nature For therein lies the whole difficulty Doth he own such a Community of Nature and Distinction of Individuals there He first confesses the divine Nature to be incomprehensible by us but yet we may have some distinct Notions about these things As for instance In the Father we conceive something common to him and to the Son and that is the divine Essence and the same as to the Holy Ghost But there must be some proper characters to distinguish these one from another or else there will be nothing but confusion which is Sabellianism Now the essential Attributes and divine Operations are common to them and therefore these cannot distinguish them from each other And those are the peculiar Properties of each Person as he shews at large But may not each Person have a distinct Essence belonging to him as we see it is among Men For this S. Basil answers 1. He utterly denies any possible Division in the divine Nature And he never question'd but the distinction of Individuals under the same Species was a sort of Division although there were no Separation And the followers of Ioh. Philoponus did hold an indissoluble Vnion between the three individual Essences in the divine Nature but they held a distinction of peculiar Essences besides the common Nature which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appears by Photius who was very able to judge And it appears by one of themselves in Photius that the controversie was whether an Hyposiasis could be without an individual Essence belonging to it self or whether the peculiar Properties and Characters did make the Hypostasis But as to S. Basil's Notion we are to observe 2. That he makes the divine Essence to be uncapable of number by reason of its perfect Unity Here our Vnitarians tell us that when S. Basil saith That God is not one in number but in nature he means as the Nature of Man is one but there are many particular Men as Peter James and John c. so the Nature of God or the common Divinity is one but there are as truely more Gods in number or more particular Gods as there are more particular Men. but that this is a gross mistake or abuse of S. Basil's meaning I shall make it plain from hâ—mself For they say That he held that as to this question How many Gods it must be answered Three Gods in number or three Personal Gods and one in Nature or divine Properties whereas he is so far from giving such an answer that he absolutely denies that there can be more Gods than one in that very place He mentions it as an Objection that since he said That the Father is God the Son God the Holy Ghost God he must hold three Gods to which he answers We own but one God not in Number but in Nature Then say they He held but one God in Nature and more in Number That is so far from his meaning that I hardly think any that read the passage in S. Basil could so wilfully pervert his meaning For his intention was so far from asserting more Gods in Number that it was to prove so perfect a Unity in God that he was not capable of number or of being more than one For saith he That which is said to be one in Number is not really and simply one but is made up of many which by composition become one as we say the world is one which is made up of many things But God is a simple uncompounded Being and therefore cannot be said to be one in Number But the World is not one by Nature because it is made up of so many things but it is one by Number as those several parts make but one World Is not this fair dealing with such a Man as S. Basil to represent his Sense quite otherwise than it is As though he allow'd more Gods than one in Number Number saith he again belongs to Quantity and Quantity to Bodies but what relation
have these to God but as he is the Maker of them Number belongs to material and circumscribed Beings but saith he the most perfect Vnity is to be conceived in the most simple and incomprehensible Essence Where it is observable that he uses those Words which are allow'd to express the most perfect and singular Unity Which Petavius himself confesseth that they can never be understood of a specifick Nature and Curcellaeus cannot deny That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being added to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth restrain the Sense more to a numerical Vnity as he calls it How then is it possible to understand S. Basil of more Gods than one in number And in the very same Page he mentions the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness of the divine Nature by which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is better understood But Curcellaeus will have no more than a specifick Vnity understood Before he said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have signified more but now he finds it used the case is alter'd So that the Fathers could not mean any other than a specifick Vnity let them use what expressions they pleas'd But these I think are plain enough to any one that will not shut his Eyes In an other place S. Basil makes the same Objection and gives the same answer One God the Father and one God the Son how can this be and yet not two Gods Because saith he the Son hath the very same Essence with the Father Not two Essences divided out of one as two Brothers but as Father and Son the Son subsisting as from the Father but in the same individual Essence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Curcellaeus hath one fetch yet viz. That S. Basil denied God to be one in Number and made him to be one in Nature because he look'd on a specifick Vnity or Vnity of Nature as more exact than numerical S. Basil look'd on the divine Nature as such to have the most perfect Vnity because of its Simplicity and not in the least speaking of it as a specifick Vnity but Curcellaeus himself calls this an Vnity by a mere Fiction of the Mind and can he imagine this to have been more accurate than a real Unity These are hard shifts in a desperate cause After all our Vnitarians tell us That S. Basil doth against Eunomius allow a distinction in Number with respect to the Deity But how As to the Essence By no means For he asserts the perfect Vnity thereof in the same place even the Vnity of the Substance But as to the characteristical Properties of the Persons he allows of Number and no farther But say they This is to make one God as to essential Properties and three as to Personal How can that be when he saith so often there can be but one God because there can be but one divine Essence and therefore those properties can only make distinct Hypostases but not distinct Essences And is this indeed the great Secret which this bold Man as they call him hath discover'd I think those are much more bold I will not say impudent who upon such slight grounds charge him with asserting more Gods than one in Number But Gregory Nyssen saith Curcellaeus speaks more plainly in his Epistle to Ablabius for saith he To avoid the difficulty of making three Gods as three Individuals among Men are three Men he answers that truly they are not three Men because they have but one common Essence which is exactly one and indivisible in it self however it be dispersed in Individuals the same he saith is to be understood of God And this Petavius had charged him with before as appears by Curcellaeus his Appendix This seems the hardest passage in Antiquity for this purpose to which I hope to give a satisfactory answer from Gregory Nyssen himself 1. It cannot be denied that he asserts the Vnity of Essence to be Indivisible in it self and to be the true ground of the Denomination of Individuals as Peter hath the name of a Man not from his individual Properties whereby he is distinguished from Iames and Iohn but from that one indivisible Essence which is common to them all but yet receives no Addition or Diminution in any of them 2. He grants a Division of Hypostases among Men notwithstanding this Indivisibility of one common Essence For saith he among Men although the Essence remain one and the same in all without any Division yet the several Hypostases are divided from each other according to the individual Properties belonging to them So that here is a double consideration of the Essence as in it self so it is one and indivisible as it subsists in Individuals and so it is actually divided according to the Subjects For although the Essence of a Man be the same in it self in Peter Iames and Iohn yet taking it as in the Individuals so the particular Essence in each of them is divided from the rest And so Philoponus took Hypostasis for an Essence individuated by peculiar Properties and therefore asserted that where-ever there was an Hypostasis there must be a distinct Essence and from hence he held the three Persons to have three distinct Essences 3. We are now to consider how far Gregory Nyssen carried this whether he thought it held equally as to the divine Hypostasis and that he did not appears to me from these arguments 1. He utterly denies any kind of Division in the divine Nature for in the conclusion of that Discourse he saith it is not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Word often used by the Greek Fathers on this occasion from whence Athanasius against Macedonius inferr'd an Identity and Caesarius joyns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so S. Basil uses it but he adds another Word which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Indivisible Yes as all Essences are indivisible in themselves but they may be divided in their Subjects as Gregory Nyssen allows it to be in Men. I grant it but then he owns a Division of some kind which he here absolutely denies as to the divine Nature for his words are that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any consideration whatsoever Then he must destroy the Hypostases Not so neither for he allows that there is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to the Hypostases however For he proposes the Objection himself That by allowing no difference in the divine Nature the Hypostases would be confounded To which he answers That he did not deny their difference which was founded in the relation they had to one another which he there explains and that therein only consists the difference of the Persons Which is a very considerable testimony to shew that both Petavius and Curcellaeus mistook Gregory Nyssen's meaning But there are other arguments to prove it 2. He asserts such a difference between the divine and human Persons as is unanswerable viz. the Vnity of Operation For saith he
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
God that he saith The Consequence must be that the three Persons must be three Gods as three humane Persons are three Men. And in another place That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are One in the same individual Nature And what saith Curcellaeus to these places for he was aware of them To the latter he saith That by individual he means Specifick This is an extraordinary Answer indeed But what Reason doth he give for it Because they are not divided in Place or Time but they may have their proper Essences however But where doth S. Augustin give any such Account of it He often speaks upon this Subject but always gives another Reason viz. because they are but One and the same Substance The Three Persons are but One God because they are of One Substance and they have a perfect Vnity because there is no Diversity of Nature or of Will But it may be said That here he speaks of a Diversity of Nature In the next Words he explains himself that the three Persons are One God propter ineffabilem conjunctionem Deitatis but the Union of three Persons in one Specifick Nature is no ineffable Conjunction it being one of the commonest things in the World and in the same Chapter propter Individuam Deitatem unus Deus est propter uniuscujusque Proprietatem tres Personae sunt Here we find one Individual Nature and no difference but in the peculiar Properties of the Persons In the other place he is so express against a Specifick Vnity that Curcellaeus his best Answer is That in that Chapter he is too intricate and obscure i. e. He doth not to speak his Mind Thus much I thought fit to say in Answer to those undeniable Proofs of Curcellaeus which our Vnitarians boast so much of and whether they be so or not let the Reader examine and judge CHAP. VII The Athanasian Creed clear'd from Contradictions III. I Now come to the last thing I proposed viz. to shew That it is no contradiction to assert three Persons in the Trinity and but one God and for that purpose I shall examine the charge of Contradictions on the Athanasian Creed The summ of the first Articles say they is this The one true God is three distinct Persons and three distinct Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are the one true God Which is plainly as if a Man should say Peter James and John being three Persons are one Man and one Man is these three distinct Persons Peter James and John Is it not now a ridiculous attempt as well as a barbarous Indignity to go about thus to make Asses of all Mankind under pretence of teaching them a Creed This is very freely spoken with respect not merely to our Church but the Christian World which owns this Creed to be a just and true Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity But there are some Creatures as remarkable for their untoward kicking as for their Stupidity And is not this great skill in these Matters to make such a Parallel between three Persons in the Godhead and Peter Iames and Iohn Do they think there is no difference between an infinitely perfect Being and such finite limited Creatures as Individuals among Men are Do they suppose the divine Nature capable of such Division and Separation by Individuals as human Nature is No they may say but ye who hold three Persons must think so For what reason We do assert three Persons but it is on the account of divine Revelation and in such a manner as the divine Nature is capable of it For it is a good rule of Boethius Talia sunt praedicata qualia subjecta permiserint We must not say that there are Persons in the Trinity but in such a manner as is agreeable to the divine Nature and if that be not capable of Division and Separation then the Persons must be in the same undivided Essence The next Article is Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance But how can we say they not confound the Persons that have as ye say but one numerical Substance And how can we but divide the Substance which we find in three distinct divided Persons I think the terms numerical Substance not very proper in this case and I had rather use the Language of the Fathers than of the Schools and some of the most judicious and learned Fathers would not allow the terms of one numerical Substance to be applied to the divine Essence For their Notion was That Number was only proper for compound Bâ—ings but God being a pure and simple Being was one by Nature and not by Number as S. Basil speaks as is before observed because he is not compounded nor hath any besides himself to be reckon'd with him But because there are different Hypostases therefore they allow'd the use of Number about them and so we may say the Hypostases or Persons are numerically different but we cannot say that the Essence is one Numerically But why must they confound the Persons if there be but one Essence The relative Properties cannot be confounded for the Father cannot be the Son nor the Son the Father and on these the difference of Persons is founded For there can be no difference as to essential Properties and therefore all the difference or rather distinction must be from those that are Relative A Person of it self imports no Relation but the Person of the Father or of the Son must and these Relations cannot be confounded with one another And if the Father cannot be the Son nor the Son the Father then they must be distinct from each other But how By dividing the Substance That is impossible in a Substance that is indivisible It may be said That the Essence of created Beings is indivisible and yet there are divided Persons I grant it but then a created Essence is capable of different accidents and qualities to divide one Person from another which cannot be supposed in the divine Nature and withall the same power which gives a Being to a created Essence gives it a separate and divided Existence from all others As when Peter Iames and Iohn received their several distinct Personalities from God at the same time he gave them their separate Beings from each other although the same Essence be in them all But how can we but divide the Substance which we see in three distinct divided Persons The question is whether the distinct Properties of the Persons do imply a Division of the Substance We deny that the Persons are divided as to the Substance because that is impossible to be divided but we say they are and must be distinguished as to those incommunicable Properties which make the Persons distinct The essential Properties are uncapable of being divided and the Relations cannot be confounded so that there must be one undivided Substance and yet three distinct Persons But every Person must have his own proper Substance and so the
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
Blasphemy for making himself the Son of God and the High Priest adjured him to tell Whether he were the Christ the Son of God Did they mean no more but as any Good man is But Mr. Selden saith that by the Son of God the Jews meant the Word of God as he is called in the Chaldee Paraâ—hrast which was all one as to profess himself God And our learned Dr. Pocock saith that according to the Sense of the ancient Iews the Son of God spoken of Psal. 2. was the eternal Son of God of the same Substance with the Father And by this we may understand S. Peter's Confession Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God and Nathanael's Thou art the Son of God But it is plain the Iews in the Conference thought he made himself God by saying I and my Father are One Not one God say our Wise Interpreters but as Friends are said to be One. And what must they think of our Saviour the mean time who knew the Iews understood him quite otherwise and would not undeceive them But they say The Jews put a malicious Construction upon his Words How doth that appear Do they think the Iews had not heard what passed before in some former Conferences when they thought he had made himself equal with God and that he said That all men should honour the Son even as they honoured the Father These Sayings no doubt stuck with them and therefore from them they had Reason to think that he meant something extraordinary by his saying I and my Father are One. And if they were so Wise in interpreting Scripture as they pretend they would have considered that if these things did not imply his being really the Son of God according to the old Jewish Notion he would have severely checked any such Mis-constructions of his meaning and have plainly told them he was but the Son of Man But S. Paul's Character of him doth plainly shew that he was far from any thing like Vanity or Ostentation Although he was in the form of God and thought it no Robbery to be equal with God which must imply that he was very far from assuming any thing to himself which he must do in a very high measure if he were not really the Son of God so as to be equal with God The meaning whereof say our Wise Interpreters is he did not rob God of his Honour by arrogating to himself to be God or equal with God But what then do they think of these passages in his Conferences with the Iews Was he not bound to undeceive them when he knew they did so grossly mis-understand him if he knew himself to be a meer Man at the same time This can never go down with me for they must either Charge him with affecting Divine Honour which is the highest Degree of Pride and Vanity or they must own him to be as he was The eternal Son of God VI. Is this interpreting Scripture like Wise men to deny Divine Worship to be given to our Saviour when the Scripture so plainly requires it When I had urged them in my Sermon with the Argument from Divine Worship being given to Christ they do utterly deny it and say I may as well charge them with the blackest Crimes This I was not a little surprized at knowing how warmly Socinus had disputed for it But that I might not misunderstand them I look'd into other places in their late Books and from them I gather these things 1. They make no Question but some Worship is due to the Lord Christ but the Question is concerning the kind or sort of Worship 2. They distinguish three sorts of Worship 1. Civil Worship from Men to one another 2. Religious Worship given on the account of a Persons Holiness or Relation to God which is more or less according to their Sanctity or nearer Relation to God 3. Divine Worship which belongs only to God which consists in a Resignation of our Vnderstandings Wills and Affections and some peculiar Acts of Reverence and Love towards him The two former may be given to Christ they say but not the last From whence it follows that they cannot according to their own Principles resign their Vnderstandings Wills and Affections to Christ because this is proper Divine Worship Are not these very good Christians the mean while How can they believe sincerely and heartily what he hath revealed unless they resign their Vnderstandings to him How can they Love and Esteem him and place their Happiness in him if they cannot resign their Wills and Affections to him I think never any who pretended to be Christians durst venture to say such things before and all for fear they should be thought to give Divine Worship to Christ. But they confess That they are divided among themselves about the Invocation of Christ. Those who are for it say That he may be the object of Prayer without making him God or a Person of God and without ascribing to him the Properties of the Divine Nature Omnipresence Omniscience or Omnipotence Those who deny it they say do only refuse it because they suppose he hath forbidden it which makes it a meer Error And in the New Testament they say The Charge is frequently renewed that they are to Worship God only And as great Writers as they have been these last seven years they affirm that They have wrote no Book in that time in which they have not been careful to profess to all the World that a like Honour or VVorship much less the same is not to be given to Christ as to God And now I hope we understand their opinion right as to this matter The question is Whether this be interpreting those Scriptures which speak of the Honour and Worship due to Christ like wise Men And for that I shall consider 1. That herein they are gone off from the opinion of Socinus and his Followers as to the Sense of Scripture in those places 2. That they have done it in such a way as will justifie the Pagan and Popish Idolatry and therefore have not interpreted Scripture like wise Men. 1. That they are gone off from the opinion of Socinus and his followers who did allow divine Worship to Christ. This appears by the disputes he had with Franciscus Davidis and Christianus Francken about it The former was about the Sense of Scripture Socinus produced all those places which mention the Invocation of Christ and all those wherein S. Paul saith The Grace of our Lord Iesus Christ be with you all and the Lord Iesus Christ direct our way c. and all those wherein a divine Power and Authority is given to Christ as head of the Church for the support of the Faith and Hope of all those who believe in him in order to Salvation And this Socinus truly judged to be proper divine Worship Georg. Blandrata was unsatisfied that Socinus did not say
they differ from others and having the old Latin Version opposite to the Greek Monsieur Arnauld had so bad an Opinion of both parts of this Clermont Copy as it is called that he charges it with manifest Forgery and Imposture inserting things into the Text without ground F. Simon who defends them cannot deny several things to be inserted but he saith it was through Carelessness and not Design But he Confesses That those who transcribed both those ancient Copies of S. Paul 's Epistles did not understand Greek and hardly Latin And now let us consider of what just Authority this different reading of the Clermont Copy ought to be against the Consent of all other ancient Copies We find some good Rules laid down by the Roman Criticks when they had a Design under Vrban 8th to compare the Greek Text of the New Testament with their ancient Manuscripts in the Vatican and elewhere and to publish an exact Edition of it which Collation was preserved in the Barberin Library and from thence published by Pet. Possinus And the main Rules as to the various Lections of Manuscripts were these 1. That the Text was not to be alter'd but a Concurrence of all or the greatest part of the Manuscripts 2. That if one Manuscript agreed with the vulgar Latin the Text was not to be alter'd but the Difference to be set down at the end of the Chapter But it is observable in that Collation of Twenty two Manuscripts there is no one Copy produced wherein there is any Variety as to this place I know they had not Twenty two Manuscripts of S. Paul's Epistles they mention but Eight ancient Manuscripts but they found no difference in those they had And now I leave any reasonable man to judge whether this Clermont Copy ought to be relied upon in this matter But I have something more to say about the Greek Copies 1. That God is in the Complutensian Polyglott which was the first of the Kind and carried on by the wonderful Care and Expence of that truly greaâ— Man Cardinal Ximenes who spared for no Cost or Pains in procuring the best ancient Copies both Hebrew and Greek and the fittest men to judge of both Languages And in pursuit of this noble Design he had the best Vatican Manuscripts sent to him as is expressed in the Epistle before his Greek Testament and what others he could get out of other places among which he had the Codex Britannicus mention'd by Erasmus But after all these Copies made use of by the Editors there is no Intimation of any variety as to this Place although the vulgar Latin be there as it was But Erasmus mentions the great Consent of the old Copies as to the vulgar Latin and whence should that come but from a Variety in the old Greek Copies To that I Answer 2. That the Greek Copies where they were best understood had no Variety in them i. e. among the Greeks themselves As appears by Gregory Nyssen S. Chrysostom Theodoret Oecumenius and Theophylact. But doth not Monsieur Amelote say That the Marquiss of Velez had Sixteen old Manuscripts out of which he gathered various Readings and he reads it O! I cannot but observe how he commends Fabricius and Walton for rendring the Syriac Version according to the vulgar Latin but that will appear to be false to any one that looks into them the former is mentioned already and the latter translates it Quod manifestatus sit in carne But as to the Marquiss of Velez his Copies there is a Secret in it which ought to be understood and is discover'd by Mariana He Confesses He had so may Manuscripts eight of them out of the Escurial but that he never set down whence he had his Readings And in another place he ingenuously confesses That his Design was to justifie the vulgar Latin and therefore collected Readings on purpose and he suspects some out of such Greek Copies as after the Council of Florence were made comfortable to the Latin Which Readings were published by la Cerda whose Authority Amelote follows And now what Reason can there be that any such late Copies should be prefer'd before those which were used by the Greek Fathers 3. That the Latin Fathers did not concern themselves about changing their Version because they understood it still to relate to the Person of Christ. So do S. Ierom Leo Hilary Fulgentius and others As to the Objections about Liberatus Macedonius and Hincmarus I refer them to the Learned Oxford Annotations IX It is not wisely done of these Interpreters to charge our Church so much for retaining a Verse in S. Iohn's first Epistle when they had so good authority to do it The Verse is There are three that bear Record in Heaven the Father Son and Holy Ghost c. From hence they charge us with corrupted Copies and false Translations as an instance of the former they produce this Text which they say was not originally in the Bible but is added to it and is not found in the most ancient Copies of the Greek nor in the Syriac Arabick Ethiopick or Armenian Bibles nor in the most ancient Latin Bibles Notwithstanding all which I hope to be able to shew that our Church had reason to retain it For which end we are to consider these things 1. That Erasmus first began to raise any scruple about it For however it might not be in some MSS. which were not look'd into this Verse was constantly and solemnly read as a part of Scripture both in the Greek and Latin Churches as Mr. Selden confesses and that it was in Wickliff's Bible So that here was a general consent of the Eastern and Western Churches for the receiving it and although there might be a variety in the Copies yet there was none in the publick Service and no Objections against it that we find But Erasmus his authority sway'd so much here that in the Bibles in the time of H. 8. and E. 6. it was retained in a different Letter As in Tyndell's Bible printed by the King's Printer A. D. 1540. and in the Church Bible of King E. 6. in both which they are read but not in the same Character Yet Erasmus his authority was not great enough to cast it out if he had a mind to have done it Which doth not appear for he saith himself that finding it in the codex Britannicus as he calls it he restored it in his Translation as well as the Greek Testament out of which he had expunged it befoâ—e in two Editions And the Complutensian Bible coming out with it added greater authority to the keeping of it in and so it was preserved in the Greek Testaments of Hervagius Plautin and R. Stephens and others after the MSS. had been more diligently searched Morinus saith it was in seven of Rob. Stephens his MSS. but F. Simon will not allow that it was in any but the Complutensian which is
a strange piece of boldness in him For Beza saith He had the use of them all from him and H. Stephens let him have his Father's Copy compared with 25 MSS. and he affirms That he found it in several of R. Stephens his old MSS. besides the Codex Britannicus and the Complutensian Copy and therefore he concludes that it ought to be retained And so it was after these Copies were come abroad in the Bishop's Bible under Queen Elizabeth without any distinction of character as likewise in our last Translation And it is observable that Amelote affirms that he found it in the most ancient Greek Copy in the Vatican Library but the Roman Criticks confess it was not in their 8 MSS. yet they thought it fit to be retained from the common Greek Copies and the Testimonies of the Fathers agreeing with the Vulgar Latin 2. This Verse was in the Copies of the African Churches from S. Cyprian's time as appears by the Testimonies of S. Cyprian Fulgentius Facundus Victor Vitensis and Vigilius Tapsensis which are produced by others F. Simon hath a bold conjecture of which he is not sparing that Victor Vitensis is the first who produced it as S. John 's saying and that it was S. Cyprian 's own Assertion and not made use of by him as a Testimony of Scripture But they who can say such things as these are not much to be trusted For S. Cyprian's words are speaking of S. Iohn before Et iterum de Patre Filio scriptum est hi tres unum sunt And it was not Victor Vitensis but the African Bishops and Eugenius in the head of them who made that address to Huneric wherein they say That it is clearer than Light that Father Son and Holy Ghost are one God and prove it by the Testimony of S. John Tres sunt qui Testimonium perhibent in caelo Pater Verbum Spiritus Sanctus hi Tres unum sunt 3. In the former Testimony the authority of the Vulgar Latin was made use of and why is it rejected here When Morinus confesses there is no variety in the Copies of it Vulgata versio hunc versum constanter habet And he observes that those of the Fathers who seem to omit it as S. Augustin against Maximinus did not follow the old Latin Version Lucas Brugensis saith only That in 35 old Copies they found it wanting but in five As to S. Ierom's Prologue I am not concerned to defend it but Erasmus thought it had too much of S. Jerom in it and others think it hath too little F. Simon confesses that P. Pithaeus and Mabillon think it was S. Ierom's and that it was in the MSS. But I conclude with saying That whoever was the Author at the time when it was written the Greek Copies had this Verse or else he was a notorious Impostor X. The next thing I shall ask these wise Interpreters of Scripture is Whether when the Scripture so often affirms That the World was made by the Son and that all things were created by him in Heaven and in Earth it be reasonable to understand them of Creating nothing For after all their Shifts and Evasions it comes to nothing at last But that we may see how much they are confounded with these places we may observe 1. They sometimes say that where the Creation of all things is spoken of it is not meant of Christ but of God For in the answer they give to the place of the Epistle to the Colossians they have these words For by him all things were created are not spoken of Christ but of God the sense of the whole Context is this The Lord Christ is the most perfect Image of the invisible God the first born from the dead of every Creature for O Colossians by him even by the invisible God were all things created they were not from all eternity nor rose from the concourse of Atoms but all of them whether things in Heaven or things in Earth whether Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers are Creatures and were by God created who is before them all and by him they all consist This is a very fair Concession that of whomsoever these words are spoken he must be God 2. But in the defence of this very Book they go about to prove That the Creation of the World is not meant by these words Is not this interpreting like wise Men indeed And they tell us They cannot but wonder that Men should attribute the old or first Creation to Christ. Wise Men do not use to wonder at plain things For what is the old or first Creation but the making the World and creating all things in Heaven and Earth And these things are attribuâ—ed to the Word to the Son to Christ. But say they The Scripture does never say in express words that Christ hath created the Heaven and the Earth What would these wise Interpreters have Doth not by whom all things were created in Heaven and Earth imply that Heaven and Earth were created by him But they have a notable observation from the Language of the New Testament viz That Christ is never said to have created the Heaven the Earth and the Sea and all that therein is but we are apt to think that creating all things takes in â—he Sea too and that in the Scripture Language Heaven and Earth are the same with the World and I hope the World takes in the Sea and the World is said to be made by him and do not all things take in all No say they all things are limited to all Thrones Principalities and Powers visible and invisible Then however the making of these is attributed to Christ. And if he made all Powers Visible and invisible he must be God Not so neither What then is the meaning of the words By him were all things created that are in Heaven and in Earth visible and invisible whether they be Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers all things were created by him and for him Surely then these Dominions and Powers were created by him No say they that which we render created ought to be rendred modelled disposed or reformed into a new Order Were ever wise Men driven to such miserable Shifts One while these words are very strong and good proof of the Creation of the World against Atheists and Epicureans and by and by they prove nothing of all this but only a new modelling of some things called Dominions and Powers Do they hope ever to convince Men at this rate of wise interpreting Well but what is this creating or disposing things into a new order And who are these Dominions and Powers they answer Men and Angels How are the Angels created by him and for him Did he die to reform them as well as Mankind No but they are put under him And so they were created by him that is they were not created by him but only made subject
Mysterious But there are some he saith that being strongly inclined out of Ignorance or Passion to maintain what was first introduced by the Craft or Superstition of their Forefathers will have some Christian Doctrines to be still Mysteries in the second Sense of the Word that is unconceiveable in themselves however clearly revealed I hope there are still some who are so throughly perswaded of the Christian Doctrine that they dare own and defend it notwithstanding all the Flouts and Taunts of a sort of Men whose Learning and Reason lies most in exposing Priest-craft and Mysteries Suppose there are such still in the world who own their Assent to some Doctrines of Faith which they confess to be above their Comprehension what mighty Reason and invincible Demonstration is brought against them He pretends to Demonstrate but what I pray The Point in hand No. But he will Demonstrate something instead of it What is that Why truly That in the New Testament Mystery is always used in the first Sense of the Word And what then Doth it therefore follow that there are no Doctrines in the Gospel above the reach and comprehension of our Reason But how doth it appear that the Word Mystery is always used in that Sense When S. Paul saith in his first Epistle to Timothy Chap. 3. v. 9. That the Deacons must hold the Mystery of Faith in a pure Conscience doth he not mean thereby the same with the Form of sound Words which Timothy had heard of him 2 Tim. 1.13 And are not all the main Articles of the Christian Faith comprehended under it Especially that whereinto they were Baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and if the Doctrine of the Trinity were understood by this Form as I have already proved then this must be a part of the Mystery of Faith And in the same Chapter v. 16. He makes God manifest in the Flesh the first part of the Mystery of Godliness If it extends to all the other things doth it exclude this which is the first mention'd And that our Copies are true is already made to appear There is no Reason therefore to quarrel with our Use of the Word Mystery in this Sense but the Debate doth not depend upon the Word but upon the Sense of it And therefore I pass over all that relates to the bare use of the Word as not coming up to the main Point which is Whether any Point of Doctrine which contains in it something above our Comprehension can be made a Matter of Faith For our Author concludes from his Observations That Faith is so far from being an implicit Assent to any thing above Reason that this Notion directly contradicts the end of Religion the Nature of Man and the Goodness and Wisdom of God But we must not be frighted with this bold Conclusion till we have Examin'd his Premises and then we shall find that some who are not great Readers are no deep Reasoners The first thing he premises is That nothing can be said to be a Mystery because we have not an adequate Idea of it or a distinct View of all its Properties at once for then every thing would be a Mystery What is the meaning of this but that we cannot have an adequate Idea of any thing And yet all our Reason depends upon our Ideas according to him and our clear and distinct Ideas are by him made the sole Foundation of Reason All our simple Ideas are said to be adequate because they are said to be only the Effects of Powers in things which produce Sensations in us But this doth not prove them adequate as to the things but only as to our Perceptions But as to Substances we are told That all our Ideas of them are inadequate So that the short of this is that we have no true Knowledge or Comprehension of any thing but we may understand Matters of Faith as well as we understand any thing else for in Truth we understand nothing Is not this a method of true Reasoning to make us reject Doctrines of Faith because we do not comprehend them and at the same time to say we comprehend nothing For I appeal to the common Sense of mankind whether we can be said to Comprehend that which we can have no adequate Idea of But he appeals to the Learned for he saith That to comprehend in all correct Authors is nothing else but to know But what is to know Is it not to have adequate Ideas of the things we know How then can we know that of which we can have no adequate Idea For if our Knowledge be limited to our Ideas our Knowledge must be imperfect and inadequate where our Ideas are so But let us lay these things together Whatever we can have no adequate Idea of is above our Knowledge and consequently above our Reason and so all Substances are above our Reason and yet he saith with great Confidence That to Assent to any thing above Reason destroys Religion and the Nature of man and the Wisdom and Goodness of God How is it possible for the same man to say this and to say wâ—thal that it is very consistent with that Nature of man and the Goodness and Wisdom of God to leave us without adequate Ideas of any Substance How come the Mysteries of Faith to require more Knowledge than the Nature of Man is capable of In natural things we can have no adequate Ideas but the things are confessed to be above our Reason but in Divine and Spiritual things to Assent to things above our Reason is against the Nature of man How can these things consist But these are not Mysteries Yes whatever is of that Nature that we can have no Idea of it is certainly a Mystery to us For what is more unknown than it is known is a Mystery The true Notion of a Mystery being something that is hidden from our Knowledge Of which there may be several Kinds For a Mystery may be taken for 1. Something kept secret but fully understood as soon as it is discover'd thus Tully in his Epistles speaks of Mysteries which he had to tell his Friend but he would not let his Amanuensis know no doubt such things might be very well understood as soon as discover'd 2. Something kept from common Knowledge although there might be great Difficulties about them when discover'd Thus Tully speaks of Mysteries among the Philosophers particularly among the Academicks who kept up their Doctrine of the Criterion as a Secret which when it was known had many Difficulties about it 3. Something that Persons were not admitted to know but with great Preparation for it Such were the Athenian Mysteries which Tully mentions with Respect although they deserved it not but because they were not Communicated to any but with Difficulty they were called Mysteries And this is so obvious a piece of Learning that no great Reading or deep Reasoning is required about it Only