are not all alike and therefore neither can our Opinions in such mysterious Articles c. P. 45. This Letter was by Socrates called a wonderful Exhortation full of grace and sober councels and such as Hosius himself who was the Messenger pressed with all earnestness P. 46. The Apostles who best understood these Mysteries thought it not fit to use any words in their Creed but the words of Scripture to shew us that those Creeds are best which keep the very words of Scripture and that that Faith is best which has the greatest Simplicity If the Nicene Fathers had done so too possibly the Church would never have repented it P. 47. Concerning the Symbol of Athanasius Nothing there but Damnation and Perishing everlastingly unless the Article of the Trinity be believed as it is there with curiosity and minute particularities explained Yet I dare not say all that are not persuaded of them are irrevocably damn'd because citra hoc Symbolum the Faith of the Apostles Creed is intire c. P. 53 54. Indeed as was observed Who gave Authority to fallible Men to make and impose New Creeds or Magisterial Determinations in these abstruse Matters See what this learned Prelate says on the account of the Miracles wrought by the Aâ—ians in the 1st Part of his Sermon on John 9.31 If it were considered concerning Athanasius Creed how many People understand it not how contrary to Natural Reason it seems how little the Scripture says of those Curiosities of Explication and how Tradition was not clear on his side for the Article it self much less for those forms and minutes it had not been amiss if the Final Judgment had been left to Jesus Christ who is appointed Judge of all the World and who will judge righteously knowing every truth c. P. 54. After this Passage no more need be added I shall only point to Page 59 Line 28 c. P. 60 L. 10 c. P. 61 L. 11 c. P. 63 L. 16 c. P. 66 L. 9 c. P. 67 L. 35 c. P. 68 L. 8 c. P. 78 L. 35 c. P. 82 L. 33 c. P. 84 L. 1 c. P. 85 L. 18 c. P. 86 L. 2 c. P. 87 L. 13 c. P. 99 L. 30 c. P. 103 L. 36 c. P. 121 L. 35 c. P. 123 L. 9. c. P. 124 L. 25 c. P. 157 L. 6 c. P. 160 L. 36 c. P. 161. L. 32 c. P. 165 L. 4 c. P. 192 L. 4 c. P. 195 L. 24 c. P. 262 L. 8 c. P. 263 L. 34 c. P. 265 L. 5 c. P. 266 L. 2 c. but for the rest I refer the Reader to the Book it self which I earnestly recommend to his serious perusal May it please the Lord Jesus to have Mercy upon Us and to assist and save Us by his efficacious Intercession and by his Grace for the Sake of his most precious Death and Passion that We may not lose the Blessed Fruits of it but may all become his true Disciples and be of the number of his Redeemed ones being filled with his Holy Spirit and abounding in all Christian Virtues And may Almighty God in his infinite Compassions for his beloved Son Jesus Christ's Sake our Blessed Lord and Saviour grant every sincere and inquisitive Christian to discern and follow so far as is necessary the Ways of Truth as well as of Righteousness that walking in the Paths of Peace and true Piety and Holiness We may serve God acceptably all the Days of our Life and in the end obtain the Salvation of our Souls Amen! FINIS
Egypt and he swore to him that he should be the Disposer of War and Peace and that all things should be managed according to his Desire and by his Laws and his Orders Genes 41.40 c. This first Inference then is incontestable That Men may be Vnitarians and be very pious and sincerely inquisitive If any body will deny it let him shew that the Vnitarian Arguments are frivolous contemptible and insignificant Till then We shall be obliged to hold that Vnitarians are accopted of God This is one of those four things which seem to be the least that can be granted and concluded from the Vnitarian Arguments The Second Inference which with the two other is of the like nature with this is now to be considered and is to this effect II. That in our Terms of Church-Communion with relation to this most abstruse and intricate Subject We ought to keep exactly to the Generality of the Expressions of Scripture and not to make beyond it any Publick Determinations and Impositions which would drive away the Vnitarians out of our Communion This necessarily follows from the first Inference particularly considering the Nature of the Gospel Terms of Communion If the Vnitarian Sentiment has so very considerable and weighty Arguments that pious and inquisitive Men may sincerely and without any crime on their part take it to be the true Meaning of Scripture We cannot Magisterially determine that Controversy to the Scholastick and Anti-Vnitarian Sense by any Human and Unscriptural Impositions without rejecting out of our Communion those whom God receives In doing which we manifestly transgress the express Injunction of the Apostle's Rom. 14 1 not to reject those who may be accounted to be weak in the Faith in such a case that notwithstanding their suppos'd weakness and error it appears they may still be acceptable to God Indeed the Apostle wills not that such be admitted expresly to dispute in the Church about doubtful Matters howbeit 't is evident on the other hand what he enjoyns can imply no less than this that the Terms of Church-Communion be regulated in that Generality that no Publick Determinations and Impositions be made as would drive away those who may be accounted to be weak in the Faith in such a case as this Otherwise how can We be said to receive them The Apostle therefore thus argues at the 4th Verse of this Chapter Who art thou that judgest another Man's Servant To his own Master he standeth or falleth yea he shall be holden up And at the 13th Verse he concludes the Argument in these words Let us not then judge one another any more but judge this rather that no Man put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way See Bishop Wilkin's two Sermons on Rom. 17.17 18. These are manifestly and incontestably the Gospel-Terms of Church-Vnion and this is all that I plead for and no Protestant can with any colour of reason refuse these Terms consistently to the Principles of the Reformation According to these Principles what Right had Athanasius or the Nicene to make and impose New Creeds to judge Magisterially for all the Members of the Church to determine Magisterially the Generality of Scripture to straiten the Terms of Communion in Matters at least most abstruse and intricate and thus to break the Church's Union in pieces We hold that the Scripture is a perfect and sufficient Rule that there is no living publick magisterial Judge of Controversies that the Church-Governors are not to exercise dominion over the Faith of their People that they are not infallible that every one is bound to examine and is to be allowed the Judgment of discerning See Bishop Wilkins's aforequoted Sermons Now what follows from these and the like Principles but that in most abstruse and intricate Matters We must not make publick Determinations and Impositions but must then strictly keep to the Generality of the Terms of Scripture as is shewn in the First and Second Chapters of the Apologia pro Irenico Magno Otherwise it is most palpably evident We expresly contradict our own Principles We allow not to the Church-Members the liberty to judge for themselves We reckon not the Expressions and Generality of Scripture to be a sufficient Rule of Union but imagin We can devise one better and fitter We act as if We were infallible and were the Magisterial Judges of Controversies and not contenting our selves with the Terms of Scripture for Terms of Union nor being content to set the Truth on its own Bottom We run the hazard since We may err of fighting effectually and criminally against God in crushing the Truth in eternizing Error in taking away the Key of Knowledge and at least in oppressing the Consciences of those whom God accepts and in being the Cause of endless Schisms and Divisions It follows then according to the 2 Tim. 3.15 16 17. 2 Cor. 1.24 1 Thess 5.21 1 Cor. 10.15 Rom. 14.1 and 13. Phil. 3.15 16. c. and consistently to the 6th Article of the Church of England and to all the abovesaid Principles of Protestants That in our Terms of Church-Communion with relation to the Vnitarian Controversy We ought to keep exactly to the Generality of the Expressions of Scripture and not to make beyond it any Publick Determinations and Impositions which would drive away the Vnitarians out of our Communion Hence therefore We must necessarily infer III. That First in the Publick Service We ought to address the Current of our Prayers directly as well as ultimately to God in general in the Name and thro' the Mediation of Christ in the conclusion of them besecching God to hear us and grant us our Requests for the Sake of his Dear Son our Blessed Lord Saviour and Redeemer and so when We address some Ejaculations to Christ We ought in general to address to him as to our Mediator or Mediatory Governor Soveraign in whom the Fulness of the Godhead so dwells as abundantly constantly to assist him in the Discharge of his Mediatory Office whereby he both acts for God and represents God and is in some sense God Secondly in our Publick Service likewise and the Terms of Church-Vnion We ought to be content with the Apostles Creed which is worded in a Generality agreable to that of Scripture Thirdly no Subscription or Assent ought to be required of Clergy-men in this Matter and its Dependents but to the Expressions of the Scripture it self or to Terms that agree to the Scripture-Generality For if We do not take these Measures or do not follow this Method if we do not stick to this Generality in all Terms and Acts of Church-Union and do not content our selves with a general Profession that Christ is God and with the Scriptural-Terms and Expressions we both act rashly and unjustly in a most intricate Matter and We drive away the Vnitarians out of our Communion not receiving them without they think in these difficult Points exactly as we do and submit
15. 16. The Arian Notion of the Creation of the Material World by the Word and the Spirit or according to some the Holy Spirits under God p. 16. 17. That Christ in his Agony was strength'ned by an Angel is no Argument against the Arian System p. 18. In CHAP. V. That the Authority of some Heathens who spake somewhat like the Anti-Unitarians doth not credit the Trinitarian Cause and can be made no Argument against Unitarianism p. 19. 20. That the Jews never held the Doctrin of three Persons in God p. 20. c. The objected Passages in Pliny's Letter and in a Dialogue ascribed to lucian consider'd p. 23. 24. In CHAP. VI. That few of the Ante-nicene wrote and it was not impossible for them to deviate from the truth and therefore it is certainly 〈◊〉 preposterous Way to seek to be tried by the Writings of the Fathers p. 25. 26. That several Books of the Primitive Writers most credibly were suppressed which favoured the Unitarian Sentiment p. 27. That of the few remaining Ante-nicene Writers 't is credible that some are corrupted and that some are suppositious p. 28. c. In CHAP. VII That nevertheless it still appears that the generality of the Primitive Christians were really Unitarians Nazerenes Arians or Semi-Arians p. 31. c. Some Chronological Remarks or the Times in which some of the Chief of the Ante-nicene Fathers lived p. 36. In CHAP. VIII That the prevailing Sentiment of the Nicene and Post-nicene Doctors is of no weight against the Unitarians p. 46 c. In CHAP. IX An Answer to this Objection That the Work of Redemption and what the Scripture ascribes to our Saviour seems inconsistent with the Unitarian System it being impossible even for the most innocent and the most excellent Creature to reconcile God with those that have forfeited his Favour to know the Hearts to forgive Sins to govern the Universe to raise the Dead to judge the World and to do whatsoever the Father doth p. 50. c. An Appendix to the IXth Chapter being a Consideration of the Controversy concerning the Invocation of Christ p. 56. In CHAP. X. The stating of the third and last general Objection which consists of four Branches to this effect That the Unitarians their too much leaning to Human Reason is the Cause of their Error wherefore they should consider that Reason tho' an excellent Light and Guide so far as its Province and Capacity extends is in some most sublime Points short-sighted and blind and consequently an incompetent Judge then they might discern that the Unitarian Interpretations besides that they imply most unlikely Assertions are forced and unnatural and so remote from the obvious Import of the Words that 't is not to be conceived the generality of Christians when they read the Scripture can find out such Interpretations and imagin that it is to be understood in that Sense and therefore it is incredible that that is the true Meaning thereof moreover in opposition to all Reasonings it is to be observed that there are many Texts of Scripture which make up a strong Evidence of the truth of the Trinitarian Sentiment whereas in fine the Texts that the Unitarians alledge seem not express and positive for their System p. 60 In CHAP. XI That the Unitarians do not lay the whole or chief stress of their Cause upon Arguments drawn from Reason yet very justly on the other hand they think like all Protestants that Reason ought not wholly to be slighted p. 66. c. In CHAP. XII That none of the Unitarian Assertions are incredible and that their Interpretations are rational and agreable to the stile and current of Scripture and therefore natural and obvious enough p. 69. c. Some further Considerations concerning the Creation attributed to Christ in Scripture p. 71. c. What is to be understood by the Holy Spirit more largely shewn something also very particular specified concerning what may be the Nature of what the Scripture calls the Word and the Creation p. 73. c. In CHAP. XIII That it is possible and easy and warrantable to understand in an Unitarian sense all the Texts which the Trinitarians alledge for their Sentiment p. 79. Some further Considerations concerning the Worship and Invocation of Christ p. 80. c. In CHAP. XIV That several Texts of Scripture are most express and evident for the Unitarian System p. 88. c. In CHAP. XV. That from the whole Dissertation and the Gospel-Terms of Communion these four things are the least that can be inferrâ—d in favour of the Unitarians p. 96. 1. That the State of this Controversy is such that Men may be Unitarians and be very sincere pious and inquisitive and that if Unitarianism be an Error it is not a damnable and intolerable one or a Heresy p. 97. 2. That in our Terms of Church-Communion with relation to this most abstruse and intricate Subject We ought to keep to the Generality of the Expressions of Scripture and not to make any Publick Determinations and Impositions which would drive away the Unitarians out of our Communion p. 100. 3. That therefore First in the Publick Service We ought to address the Current of our Prayers to God in general in the Name and thro' the Mediation of Christ in the conclusion of them beseeching God to hear us and grant us our Requests for the sake of his Dear Son our Blessed Lord Saviour and Redeemer and so when We address some Ejaculations to Christ We ought in general to address to him as to our Mediator most highly exalted and assisted by the Divine Nature dwelling in him as aforesaid Secondly in our Publick Service likewise the Terms of Church-Union We ought to be content with the Apostles Creed which is worded in a Generality agreable to that of Scripture Thirdly no Subscription or Assent ought to be required of Clergy-Men in this Matter and its dependents but to the Expressions of the Scripture it self or to Terms that agree to the Scripture-Generality the Clergy-Mens Declaration being admitted of and accepted that they solemnly subscribe and assent to any of those things proposed to them but so far as they are agreeable to the Generality of Scripture p. 101. 4. That this Generality in Terms of Church-Union is a Safe Method in so intricate a Matter and is incontestably Sufficient all being certainly worshipped when in general God is pray'd to that is to be ador'd with Supreme Worship and the Mediatory Honour due to our Saviour being paid him when our Petitions are put up in the Name of Christ as our Intercessor and Redeemer most beloved of God exalted at God's Right Hand and in whom the Fulness of the God-head dwells p. 102. In the Post-Script I. That the strongest Arguments for the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost are not inconsistent with Unitarianism p. 104. II. An Inquiry Whether the Unitarians may joyn in Communion with a Trinitarian Church Of the Reasons of both
favourable for Novelty than these Alterations are soon made in Religion witness the speedy Corruption of the Children of Israel who after a few days that Moses had been absent from them and they being still under the conduct of his Brother Aaron fell to Idolatry Thus as Hegesippus testifies the Apostles were no sooner departed but manifold Errors mightily spread See Euseb Hist Eccl. L. 3. C. 26. What a weak thing then is it for the Trinitarians to stop their ears to the Dictates of Right Reason and to several Texts of Scripture which are express against them and to pretend that we ought to be determined by the fanciful Writings of a few fallible Men most of whom came some considerable while after the Decease of the Apostles The Church of England since the Reformation has had several Learned Writers and in these late times especially If any of their Works remain a thousand Years hence we may humanly suppose in case the Doctrines therein contain'd continue to be liked it will be the Writings of Pearson Stillingfleet Cudworth Tillotson Burnet Scot Cave Towerson and some few others of the like kind But what should we think of our Posterity if they then pretended that the way to find out the Original Meaning of our Articles concerning Predestination and Free Will would be to interpret them by the Sentiments laid down and established or intimated in most of these Great Men's Books Thus we have observed that in the first three Centuries not only few Christians wrote in comparison of what they have done since but it was not impossible even for them considerably to alter the Primitive Sentiments or the Doctrin of the Gospel 4. Many excellent Works of the Primitive Writers have been suppressed and destroyed which were most express for the Vnitarian Sentiment The Trinitarians themselves regret many of those Writings of the Primitive Christians of the first three Centuries which appear to have been suppressed and destroyed Dalaeus in the first Chapter of his first Book De usu Patrum acknowledges that tho' there were but few that then wrote yet the greatest part of those few Writings have been lost thro' the injury of Time or the Fraud of Men presuming that those Books were not to be preserved that were not altogether or near enough agreable to their Sentiments Such were says he the five Books of Papias Bishop of Hierapolis the Apology of Quadratus the Apology of Aristides the Works of Castor Agrippa the five Books of Hegesippus the Works of Melito Bishop of Sardis the Works of Dyonisius of Corinth of Appollinaris of Hierapolis of Pinytus the Cretian of Philippus Musanus Modestus Bardesanes Pantaenus Rhodo Miltiades Apolloninus Serapion Bacchylus Polyerates Heraclius Maximus Hammonius Trypho Hippolites Julius Africanus Dyonisue Alexandrinus and others If we had had left us such Writings as those of Hegesippus or any Ecclesiastical History of some professed Vnitarian either senior or but contemporary to Eusebius no doubt we should hear of several other Writers who expresly taught Vnitarianism besides those mention'd by Dalaeus like Theodotion Aquila Symmachus Paulus Patriarch of Antioch Theodorus of Byzantium Artemas Apollonides Hermophilus Lucianus and others seeing the Jewish Converts as shall be shewn appear for several Centuries to have been Vnitarians and it is credible not only that the Gentile Christians likewise were so originally but also that the generality or greatest part of them continued such for some time even when the Alterations began to be made till the rigid Platonists made use of all manner of violence to extirpate the Truth Howbeit the Criticks who have writen impartially concerning the Ante-nicenâ— Fathers are of opinion that the Writings of about 200 of them are lost for about 20 others some of whose Works have been preserved we may say such as they are tho' probably not such altogether as we shall observe as they originally were And they impute this Loss to the Errors which they suppose were contain'd in those Books and which the Trinitarian Party when they were become the strongest and were thorowly settled thought sit to Suppress as much as they could H. Valesius in his first Note on Euseb L. 5. C. 11. speaking of the Hypotyposes of St. Clemens concerning which Photius had observed that they are full of Arianism as that the Son is but a Creature and such like notes hereupon that not only the Hypotyposes of Clemens but the Works of Hegesippus Papias and other Primitive Ante-nicene Fathers were for the Errors abounding therein slighted and lost Which is in effect to say that the too visible and express Agreement of the generality or greatest part of the most ancient Fathers and Doctors with the Vnitarians was the Cause that their Writings have been destroyed The Trinitarians cannot but know that the Arians offer'd to be tried by the Tradition and Fathers of the first three Centuries and that Athanasius declined it as Bishop Taylor in particular confesses in his Book intituled The Liberty of Prophesying Sect. 5. Numb 3. p. 85. 4 to His Authorities may there be seen And in Chap. 7th we shall see from a Quotation out of Eusebius that the other Vnitarians appeal'd also to the Tradition of the first two Centuries Now doth n't it become Trinitarians well to make a bustle about Antiquity as if the Catholick Church in all Ages had unanimously been against the Vnitarians The Vnitarians indeed were at length overpower'd by the riotous and violent Platonick Christians who at last did in a great measure Philosophize away Christianity Yet there is not the least grounds to imagin that the Writings of the Vnitarians deserved to be slighted For the Trinitarians themselves that had seen their Books own that the Vnitarians were Men of great and extraordinary Learning See Euseb Hist Eccl. L. 5. C. 28. The World no doubt might now be expermentally convinced of it as we before said had we all the Writings of the ancient Fathers of the first and second Centuries such as the Writings of Papias the Book of Melito Bishop of Sardis intituled Of the Creation and Birth of Christ the History of Hegesippus and the Works of those other Doctors some of whom we have seen named in the List which Dalaeus collected out of Eusebius and Tertullian and Jerom and who in all probability were for the most part of the same Sentiment that Arius maintained afterward by reason whereof 't is likely as was shewn their Books were finally suppressed by the Nicene Platonick Trinitarians and their followers as no doubt it was begun by the other violent and rigid Platonists that were before the Council of Nice That Hegesippus was incontestably Vnitarian and what the Consequence of it is see an English Pamphlet intituled The Judgment of the Fathers concerning the Doctrin of the the Trinity Opposed to Dr. Bull 's Defence of the Nicene Faith p. 41. c. The only Objection is that Eusebius doth not reprove Hegesippus for being an Vnitarian But it may be observed that
Psalms wrote from the beginning by the Brethren which speak of Christ as the Word of God and attribute to him Divinity Upon this Famous Passage these Remarks may be made 1. Whereas these Ancient rigid Vnitarians said that the Primitive Doctrin was adulterated in the Times of Victor their Meaning without doubt was not that before him there was never a Platonick Christian but only that the Platonick Christians then prevailed and grew violent and began to discountenance the Truth 2. All those Writers whom this Author or Answerer and Antagonist of the rigid Vnitarians mentions as the Ancientest Assertors of the Divinity of the Word after the Platonick System were except Justin but Contemporaries to Victor and Zepherin or after them As for those Hymns which he speaks of we shall see that no stress can be laid on them or that they conclude nothing against the Vnitarians Hereby then the Novelty of the Platonick Christianity appears seeing no vouchers for it can be produced before Justin Martyr and it is therefore evident that what the Vnitarians said could not be disproved that the Times of Victor and Zepherin were the Fatal Epoche of the violent Opposition and Oppression of Vnitarianism seeing that the Crowd of fierce Antagonists then began and it cannot be shewn that the Vnitarian Doctrin was before then persecuted and discountenanced or that it was not during all the first Century the current Doctrin of the generality of Christians 3. It is probable that some of the Writers whom that Author opposes to the Vnitarians were but of that Sentiment which was afterwards so unjustly condemned in Arius Why else had their Writings been suppressed by the Platonists Perhaps also by the Word and the Spirit they understood two Divine Powers or Influences which God communicates in divers manners and degrees It was easy for the philosophizing Doctors following Plato's Notions and accommodating them to the Expressions of Scripture by those two Powers or Influences to understand so many Persons or Hypostases and so to alter insensibly the Primitive Doctrin which if they had not done they would not have suppressed the Writings of their Predecessors but they judg'd that to be the only way effectually to compass their design 4. As to those Hymns or Psalms in question which he says spake of Christ as the Word of God and which attributed to him Divinity nothing can from thence be concluded against the Vnitarians for the following reasons First taking those terms in a right sense the Vnitarians will by no means deny that Christ is the Word of God and that Divinity may be attributed to him We have seen that very eminent Doctors among the Primitive Christians called the Angels Gods much more then might they give that Name to Christ It would indeed have been somthing to the purpose if that Author could have pleaded that those Psalms of which he speaks ascribed to Christ the same or an equal Divinity with that of the Father or expressed that he was absolutely Eternal and of himself Omniscient like the Father But merely in general their attributing Divinity to Christ decides nothing not only considering the improper way of speaking of those tho' so early Times after the Apostles but also considering that the Scripture gives the Name of God to some Creatures And in Ch. 5th we observed the Vnitarians ever thought it their Duty to Sing Hymns in Honour to Christ Howbeit Secondly that Author produces no grounds for the Authority of those Psalms which he mentions He only affirms that they were wrote from the beginning by the Brethren but that is precariously said without any Proofs If he had had any evidence for his assertion no doubt he would have offered it and would thereby if that could have done it have convinced or confounded the Vnitarians But surely it was not fit for them to take things upon trust Satan then chiefly made it his particular business by his Emissaries to bring in what confusion he could by forg'd Writings If those Psalms had not been spurious and counterfeit the Authors or Primitive Abettors of them had been named It is probable that these were the Psalms that were censured by the Church of Antioch as new and dangerous See Eusebius's Eccles Hist. L. 7. C. 29. 5. The Assertion of the Unitarians that Victor and Zepherin were the first Oppressors of Vnitarianism is undeniably confirm'd by this consideration that the Platonists before those Popes looked even on the most rigid sorts of Vnitarians as their Brethren suffered those among them and owned them as Christians who not only believed Christ not to have pre-existed before his Conception in his Mothers Womb but who also held that he was a mere Man begotten like other Men and that Joseph was truly his Father God as they thought having only removed for that once some Obstacles which hindred the Virgin from being a Mother Notwithstanding the reputed grosness of this Error we see that Justin Martyr the Patriarch of the Platonists acknowledges that it is not destructive of Christianity For he thus argues with Trypho the Jew If I do not demonstrate that Jesus did pre-exist and according to the Counsel of the Father endured to be Born a Man of like Affections with us being endued with Flesh it is just and fit to say that I am mistaken in this only and not to deny that he is the Christ if he appear to be a Man born of Men and to have become the Christ by Election For there are some of our kind who confess him to be the Christ yet hold him to be a Man born of Men. To whom I assent not no not tho' very many of the same Opinion with me should speak it c. Col. cum Tryphon Jud. P. 207. One may perceive how wary or artificial Justin here is in his Expressions as if most Christians in his time were already Platonists It is credible that they were not the greatest number who held that Jesus was Josephs Son 't is certain many of the Ebionites were of another Opinion Euseb L. 3. C. 24. most probably the generality of Christians believed like our Socinians and the rest of the present Christians that Christ had no other Father but God and if that was the Apostles Sentiment which Arius afterwards defended at least we may imagin that it did then still prevail with many But Justin as we have seen seems to have held somthing more than this tho' very different from the Nicene or Post-Nicene Platonists and it is not impossible not only that his Sentiment was confounded or generally taken for much the same with that which afterwards Arius was of the which it is credible was then in Justin's time the most current Standard of Orthodoxy but also that several others Platonized then like him a little above Arianism Nevertheless Justin dares not be too positive for his Opinion he proposes it only as probable and he insinuates that very many were not of his Sentiment which one would be
apt to think implies that most Christians differed from him or that he somewhat differed from them for it seems he speaks like one whose Party is not most prevailing We may refer it to the present Trinitarians whether they do talk at that rate He owns not merely the Arians but the very Mineans for his Fellow Christians And indeed he doth like those who complain that their Sentiment is not generally followed he appeals to the Rule To whom says he I assent not tho' very many should speak it for we are commanded by Christ himself not to hearken to the Doctrines of Men but to such things as are taught by the Sacred Writers Yet as I have said probably there were still many Arians and I do also believe several others besides Justin probably began then with him to Platonize but it is not doubted but that he was the highest Christian Platonist of that time if he went beyond Arianism which even some take to be Platonism and the top of it but that is commonly rejected as undervaluing the Platonick Mysteries Howbeit there is not the least appearance that any Platonick Christians went then any further than what we call Semi-Arianism It cannot be but that the Vnitarians knew and own'd that Justin and some others then were of that Opinion if it was indeed so And truly it matters not how many then sided therein with Justin For howsoever that be it suffices us that the strictest Vnitarianism was not then condemned as intolerable in the Church or as inconsistent with Christianity And that appears incontestably from Justin's Words Therefore the Vnitarians might well say that the Truth was not yet publickly adulterated in that it was not yet magisterially condemned which we do not see it was before the prevailing and violent Semi-Arian Popes Victor and Zepherin according to the Plea of the Vnitarians And indeed they might have added that the Semi-Arians themselves were but a kind of Vnitarians All the Authority then in fine that remains for our Author to have recourse to is that of the Holy Scripture And there the Vnitarians are ready to join issue with him as shall be shewn It were now needless to add any thing more to what has here been said to shew that the generality of the Ante-nicene Writers as much as may be gathered by the Writings of them that have been thought fit to be preserved or that have been permitted to come to our hands were at most but Semi-Arians if not Arians or stricter Vnitarians as incontestably many of them were Eusebius himself will generally pass for a kind of Vnitarian whatever be said or pretended to the contrary If the Reader desires to see further Proofs of these Points I refer him to Gilbert Clerk's Ante-Nicenismus and the two other Tracts annexed to it But this truth is so notorious that it even forces an acknowledgement from the generality of the learnedest Trinitarian Criticks such as Erasmus Dalaeus Petavius Huetius c. These Learned Men manifestly shew that Arius was not the Author of the Sentiment which he defended against Alexander and his Party at the Council of Nice but that it was much the same or exactly the same with what the generality of the Ante-nicene Doctors had taught See for instance what Sandius in his Nucleus or Hist Eccl. enucleata quotes on that Subject out of Petavius the Place may be found in looking Petavius in the Index So that it is certainly a true remark that when Alexander and some of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Doctors call Arianism an unheard of or new Doctrin they speak it oratorio more et per exaggerationem as Petavius expresses it that is by way of exaggeration and after the manner of Orators whose Figures by being too lofty somtimes decline from the Truth We have seen in our 6th Chapter by a Quotation of Dalaeus out of St. Jerom that the good Fathers who are so much admir'd and whom some would take for their Rule were not wholly exempt from such Figures And therefore that they might call Arianism a new and strange Doctrin it was enough that themselves and some of their Party had been taught Semi-Arianism or one Step farther by their Platonick Tutors It appears then that if we will follow in this Matter Vincentius Lirinensis his Rule we must be content to stick to the Generality of the Apostles Creed For besides the Generality of the Scripture it self the Apostles Creed which incontestably was given for the Rule of Vnion as well as for the Summary of Religion which every one is oblig'd to endeavour to understand aright to the best of his Power as he shall answer it to God is as to these Matters the only Standard which all Christians have always agreed in As Bishop Taylor observes in his 2d Sermon on Tit. 2.7 The Catholick Church has been too much and too soon divided Yet in things simply Necessary God has preserved us still unbroken For all Nations and all Ages have received the Apostles Creed All Christian People then in all Ages having only agreed as I said in the Generality or the Expressions themselves of the Apostles Creed that must needs therefore be sufficient if God has preserv'd us unbroken in things simply Necessary or if nothing is to be judg'd absolutely Necessary but what all have always agreed in Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus Is it not indeed sufficient to the great Purposes of Christian Religion to know concerning God that He is All-Wise All-Just All Good Almighty to know that Christ is his Son and the H. Ghost his Spirit by way of eminency and to know that Christ died to Redeem us and turn us away from our Sins that it is the H. Spirit of God that Suggests good Motions to us that all those Societies where the Institutions of Christ are observ'd and celebrated and where the pure Word of God is Preach'd are true Parts of the Vniversal Church that we shall all Rise from the Dead and that God will reward all Men according to their Works Is not this to know God and Christ And have all Christians always agreed in the Super-induced Platonism Even Monsieur Jurien owns and indeed who can deny it that will deal sincerely and has inquir'd into the Matter that the Ante-nicene Fathers held not the Son 's Eternal Personality nor his Equality to the Father Lettr. Pastor Vol. 3. Let. 6. After-Ages then which broached these Tenets can no more plead Tradition than they can reasonably be suppos'd to have infallibly mended the Primitive Faith And this leads us to the next thing to be spoken to CHAP. VIII The Conclusion of the Answer to the First Objection 1. THE prevailing Sentiment of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Doctors is of no weight against the Vnitarians And that particularly for these Reasons 1. The Men that followed the Sentiment then prevailing differed from the Doctrin even of the foregoing Platonists as well as the rigid Vnitarians as appears
And therefore Christ being but one Person and being known to be a Human Person or a Man cannot in reason be imagined to be the Most High God And there cannot be more than one Person in God for God is always spoken of and to in the Singular Number by Pronouns that imply a Person c. Now the Scripture speaks to us as to Men who are bound to make use of their Sense and Reason and for a trial thereof Figurative Expressions are sometimes employed But besides all the Considerations flowing from the Tâ—pick of Reason the Vnitarians as is to be observed in the Fourth Particular shew by divers unanswerable and express Arguments taken out of Scripture that Christ is a Creature and is not literally the God Almighty himself but only his Chief Minister and Representative and the most excellent and most dignified Creature in whom God most extraordinarily and most intimately dwells and in and by whom God most wonderfully works And therefore if by the Word in the beginning of St. John's Gospel should literally be understood God himself or some Influence of the Divine Nature as it were incarnated with or constantly dwelling in and assisting the Man Christ Jesus it would not follow that Christ is literally the Supreme God himself or that there are more Persons than one in the God head As to the Creation attributed to Christ it is sufficiently evident it must be understood of such a Creation as a Creature is capable of if Christ appear to be a Creature Prophets God's Creatures and Ministers are said to do Super-natural Works and raise the Dead tho' it be not they properly that do such things but God by them at their presence at their streching out of their hand at their word or request and the like They do not the Miraculous Work by their mere Strength or by their own Power but by a Divine Power thus inherent in them or annexed to them accompanying and assisting them and working at their desire and yet they themselves are said to do the Work For instance in Mat. 10.8 Our Saviour bids his Disciples Heal the Sick Cleanse the Lepers Raise the Dead and in John 14.12 he tells them that they should do most wonderful Works now incontestably that signifies that God would do those Works by them or that they should do 'em by God's Assistance or with the concurrence of the Divine Power working at their desire In like manner the First-born might Create the World or might be said to Create the World and God might be said to Create the World by him as it is said that by the Hands of the Apostles were many Signs and Wonders wrought Acts 5.12 God was pleas'd to work by those Hands which of themselves were not able to do these Miracles but were enabled to do them by the concurring Assistance of the Power of God annexed to them or accompanying them To Raise the Dead or Cure the Blind is as well above Natural Power as to Create the World tho' to Create the World be more than to Cure the Blind and tho' a Creature which Creates the World or which may be said to Create the World has a greater Concurrence of the Divine Power annexed or united to him than one that only Cures the Blind Howbeit certainly a Creature which so represents God as to be Worshipped with God tho' but as the most highly dignified Creature possible must undoubtedly be infinitely more united to the God-head than one which only doth some Miracles or than any Prophet or Apostle before whom 't is not lawful to bow the Knee or on whose Name 't is not lawful to call Moreover we must consider it is undoubted and most obvious that often in Scripture by Creating is only meant disposing or modelling fashioning and setting in order Ephes 2.10 and 4.24 c. There is then not only no reason why the Creation attributed to Christ even if it were the First Creation should not be taken in that Sense but there may be an absolute necessity it should be so understood if Christ appear to be a Creature tho' never so intimately united to the God head And so that is then obvious enough to those who will diligently attend to the Stile of the Scripture and it is not God's intendment that any others should come to the true knowledge of it See Bishop Taylor 's 2d Sermon on Tit. 2.7 He that will understand God's Meaning must look above and below and round about c. The Secret of the Lord is with them who fear him and who consequently do what they can to know exactly his Law and reveal'd Will. Will any say that there are not some Expressions in Scripture to be understood in as seemingly a far-fetch'd Sense as any given by the Vnitarians If Men mistake when they have done what they well can in their circumstances to be informed aright it is credible that God will judge that a pitiable Case so they be humble and moderate and be not violent magisterial and imperious and do not pretend to impose their Sentiment on others but be willing in abstruse Matters to unite in the Generality of the Terms of Scripture In that manner the most ignorant not being so thro' their fault may be safe But God has not left the Scripture into tho hands only of unlearned and unthinking Men immersed in and mostly taken up with the concerns and businesses of this Life Tho' all Christians are bound in some measure to search and meditate upon the Scriptures God has set up an Order of Men whose particular Vocation is to assist other Men as much as possible in the right understanding of the Divine Revelation And surely no possible Means ought to be neglected which are Subservient to that great end And if these Means were freely calmly and impartially us'd which would be if Ministers were fairly to represent the Reasons Pro and Con in Difficult Matters without deciding condemning and imposing then all necessary Truths would soon be discern'd and it would therefore easily be made to appear to all Christians what may be meant by the Creation attributed to Christ in Scripture or how far the understanding of that Point is necessary and in what Generality this and the like ought to be lest The Chief Instances then which the Trinitarians give of the pretended incredible Assertions implied in the Vnitarian Expositions are these That a Creature could perform the Office of a Creator And then That one in whom the Fulness of the God-head dwells should need the Assistance of Angels and on the other hand That a Creature should be more honourable than and should have the preheminence over and be named before the Power of God by the Holy Ghost understanding an Influence of the Divine Power or the Divine Inspiration That a Creature could perform the Office of a Creatour Even at most upon as good grounds the Trinitarians might make the same Difficulty against Men producing other Men or the
to put an end to the Controversy and either excuse or justify all the Vnitarian Interpretations of Scripture how harsh soever they may otherwise appear c. The Scripture-Proofs of our Saviour's Divinity explained P. 55. I leave it to the Reader to summ up the Evidence it being so obvious and easily done and shall only shew what follows most incontestably from the whole including the Arguments for the Gespel-Terms of Communion handled in the Ireniâ—um Magnum and particularly in the Apologia pro Irenico Magno where as was said there are also Arguments as here and in Crell's Book against the Trinitarian System which I find no where satisfactorily answered and which appear indeed most express and unanswerable Howbeit it is my most earnest desire to be rightly informed and to see the Truth set into the greatest light CHAP. XV. The Inferences most incontestably following from the whole foregoing Discourse and the Gospel-Terms of Communion FROM the whole these four things do most incontestably follow as the least that can be granted to the Vnitarians by Protestants that impartially consider the Arguments treated of in the foregoing Discourse and in the Apologia pro Irenico Magno I. That the State of this Controversy is such that Men may be Vnitarians and be very sincere pious and inquisitive and that if Vnitarianism be an Error it is not a damnable and an intolerable one or an Heresy II. That in the Case of this most abstruse Controversy we ought in our Terms of Communion with relation thereunto to keep to the Generality of the Terms of Scripture and not Magisterially determine this Matter any farther than that Generality nor force or fright away the Vnitarians out of the Church-Society but ought to regulate our Publick Service and our Terms of Church-Union according to the utmost Generality of the Expressions of Scripture so as that Vnitarians may without Scruple joyn with Us therein seeing the Gospel-Terms of Communion and the Principles of Protestants require this Moderation and enjoyn that Method in reference to such Points as are so very difficult and intricate that sincere and inquisitive Persons may be at a loss and may mistake about them III. That therefore First in the Publick Service we ought to address the Current of our Prayers directly as well as ultimately to God in general in the Name thro' the Mediation of Christ in the Conclusion of them beseeching God to hear us grant us our Requests for the Sake of his Dear Son our Blessed Lord Saviour and Redeemer and so when we address some Ejaculations to Christ we ought as has been shewn in general to address to him as to our Mediator or Mediatory Governor Soveraign in whom the Fulness of the God-head so dwells as abundantly and constantly to assist him in the Discharge of his Mediatory Office whereby he both acts for God and represents God is in some sense God Secondly in our Publick Service likewise the Terms of Church-Union we ought to be content with the Apostles Creed which is worded in a Generality agreable to that of Scripture and ought not to think other Creeds necessary or expedient which are artificially fram'd on purpose to depart from that Generality and are incumbred with Human Decisions and Magisterial Impositions Thirdly no Subscription or Assent ought to be required of Clergy-men but to the Bible it self to Doctrines expressed in the Words of Scripture or in Terms that agree to the Scripture-Generality the Clergy-men's Declaration being admitted that they Subscribe and Assent to the things proposed to them but so far as they are agreable to the Generality of Scripture These Three Points not only follow necessarily from the 2d Inference but are implied in it and we rank them on a distinct Head only that the Principles in general which are the Grounds on which these Particulars are built may first be more distinctly observed to be necessarily deducible from the First Inference and from the Gospel-Terms of Communion and that then it may distinctly be considered what Particulars necessarily follow from those Principles that the said Particulars may upon those demonstrated Grounds be firmly established IV. That among all the other incontestable Reasons for this Generality in the Terms of Church-Union this is one which follows from the First and Second Inferences deserves a distinct rank Namely that this Method is the safest in a Controversy at least to be own'd by all considering Trinitarians to be most intricate and that incontestably it suffices to Pray to God in general to satisfy to the Duty of Praying to the God-head God in general including the whole God-head so that when God in general is directly ultimately Pray'd to all is certainly worshipped that is to be adored with Supreme Worship and when our Petitions are put up in the Name of Christ the Mediatory Honour due to our Saviour is thereby paid him being thus addressed to as the Mediator of the New Covenant in whom the Fulness of the Godhead dwells as was said I. That the State of this Controversy is such that Men may be Vnitarians and be very sincere pious and inquisitive and that if Vnitarianism be an Error it is not a damnable and an intolerable one or a Heresy This follows from the high Probability at least of the Arguments for Vnitarianism to say no more of them for after all upon mature consideration these Arguments seem to be express and unanswerable and on the other hand it seems that a Solution is given to the Chiefest Objections of the Scholastick or Platonick Trinitarians Howbeit this at least cannot be denied to be a most difficult intricate Point And admitting that the Vnitarian System has no higher evidence than the other and is encumbred with as great Difficulties to which Sentiment I have often for a great while been most inclined even since I began to write on this Subject esteeming it to be God's will and intention that we should for the most part suspend our judgment about it and indeed it may with great appearance of reason be judged the fittest not to be too decisive in so mysterious and abstruse a Matter yet no advantage can thence be taken against the Vnitarians and every Trinitarian that carefully and sincerely considers the Vnitarian Arguments seeing they are so weighty and considerable must at least grant that they are such that Men may take them to be good Arguments and yet be very Honest hearty Lovers of God and to the best of their power Inquisitive and that consequently if Vnitarianism be an Error it is not a damnable and an intolerable one or a Heresy For is it credible that God will assign the dreadful Torments of Hell for an Error which good Men who sincerely and diligently seek to know his Will and to practice it cannot avoid taking for a Truth God punishes nothing but what has some Wickedness in it or some Pravity and Malice Now what Malice or Wickedness