so many ages with embracing Errors and Nonsense and Contradictions for Mysteries of Faith I desire to know supposing it possible for the Christian Church to be so early so generally and so miserably deceived in a matter of such moment by what light they have discovered this great Error Have they any new Books of Scripture to judge by Truly they had need for they seem to be very weary of the old ones because they find they will not serve their turn Therefore they muster up the old Objections against them and give no answer to them they find fault with Copies and say they are corrupted and falsified to speak the Language of the Church they let fall suspicious words as to the Form of Baptism as though it were inserted from the Churches Practice they charge us with following corrupt Copies and making false Translations without any manner of ground for it And doth not all this discover no good will to the Scriptures at least as they are received among us And I despair of meeting with better Copies or seeing a more faithfull Translation than ours is So that it is plain that they have no mind to be tried by the Scriptures For these exceptions are such as a Malefactor would make to a Jury he is afraid to be condemned by But what then is the peculiar light which these happy men have found in a corner the want whereof hath made the Christian Church to fall into such monstrous Errors and Contradictions Nothing they pretend but the mere light of common sense and reason which they call after a more refined way of speaking clear Ideas and distinct Perceptions of things But least I should be thought to misrepresent them I will produce some of their own Expressions In one place they say We deny the Articles of the new Christianity or the Athanasian religion not because they are Mysteries or because we do not comprehend them we deny them because we do comprehend them we have a clear and distinct Perception that they are not Mysteries but Contradictions Impossibilities and pure Nonsense We have our reason in vain and all science and certainty would be destroy'd if we could not distinguish between Mysteries and Contradictions And soon after we are not to give the venerable name of Mystery to Doctrines that are contrary to nature's and reason's Light or which destroy or contradict our natural Ideas These things I have particular reason to take notice of here because they are published as an Answer to the foregoing Sermon about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith and this shews the general grounds they go upon and therefore more fit to be consider'd here To which I shall add one passage more wherein they insinuate that the Doctrine of the Trinity hath been supported only by interest and force Their words are after they have called the Doctrine of the Trinity a monstrous Paradox and Contradiction This is that say they which because all other arguments failed them in their disputations with the Photinians and Arians they at last effectually proved by the Imperial Edicts by Confiscations and Banishments by Seizing and Burning all Books written against it or them by capital Punishments and when the Papacy of which this is the chief Article prevailed by Fire and Faggot This is a new discovery indeed that the Doctrine of the Trinity as it is generally receiv'd in the Christian Church is the chief Article of Popery although it were embraced and defended long before Popery was known and I hope would be so if there were no such thing as Popery left in the world But if every thing which displeases some men must pass for Popery I am afraid Christianity it self will not escape at last for there are some who are building apace on such foundations as these and are endeavouring what they can to remove out of their way all revealed Religion by the help of those two powerfull Machines viz. Priest-craft and Mysteries But because I intend a clear and distinct Discourse concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity as it hath been generally received among us I shall proceed in these four Enquiries 1. Whether it was accounted a monstrous Paradox and Contradiction where Persons were not sway'd by Force and Interest 2. Whether there be any ground of common reason on which it can be justly charged with Nonsense Impossibilities and Contradiction 3. Whether their Doctrine about the Trinity or ours be more agreeable to the sense of Scripture and Antiquity 4. Whether our Doctrine being admitted it doth overthrow all certainty of reason and makes way for believing the greatest Absurdities under the pretence of being Mysteries of Faith CHAP. II. The Doctrine of the Trinity not received in the Christian Church by Force or Interest AS to the first it will lead me into an enquiry into the sense of the Christian Church as to this Doctrine long before Popery was hatched and at a time when the main force of Imperial Edicts was against Christianity it self at which time this Doctrine was owned by the Christian Church but disowned and disputed against by some particular Parties and Sects And the question then will be whether these had engrossed Sense and Reason and Knowledge among themselves and all the body of the Christian Church with their heads and governors were bereft of common Sense and given up to believe Nonsense and Contradictions for Mysteries of Faith But in order to the clearing this matter I take it for granted That Sense and Reason are no late inventions only to be found among our Vnitarians but that all Mankind have such a competent share of them as to be able to judge what is agreeable to them and what not if they apply themselves to it That no men have so little sense as to be fond of Nonsense when sense will do them equal service That if there be no Biass of Interest to sway them men will generally judge according to the evidence of reason That if they be very much concerned for a Doctrine opposed by others and against their interest they are perswaded of the truth of it by other means than by force and fear That it is possible for men of sense and reason to believe a Doctrine to be true on the account of divine Revelation although they cannot comprehend the manner of it That we have reason to believe those to be men of sense above others who have shew'd their abilities above them in other matters of Knowledge and Speculation That there can be no reason to suspect the integrity of such men in delivering their own Sense who at the same time might far better secure their interest by renouncing their Faith lastly That the more Persons are concerned to establish and defend a Doctrine which is opposed and contemned the greater evidence they give that they are perswaded of the truth of it These are Postulata so agreeable to sense and common reason that I think if an affront to human Nature
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
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
his Explication of the Trinity is a great Piece of Nonsense though it comes so near to Socinianism But how doth the other Antagonist escape What nothing but good Words to him In this place they had a mind to keep him in heart and only charge him with a Heresie which they laugh at but in another place they set him out with such colours as shew they intended only to play one upon the other They charge him not only with Heresie but Polytheism Which they say is next to Atheism that his Vindication is a supercilious disdainfull and peevish Answer that he had neither Humanity nor good Manners left that there is nothing considerable in his Books but what he borrow'd from Them These are some of the Flowers which they bestow on these Persons of Reputation in Polemick Squabble as they call it which plainly shew that their aim is as much as may be to divide and then to expose us And shall we still go on to gratifie this insulting Humour of theirs by contending with one another and afford them still new matter for Books against both As we may see in their late Discourse about Nominal and Real Trinitarians which was intended for a rare shew wherein the two Parties are represented as combating with one another and they stand by and triumph over these Cadmean Brethren as they call them Neither are they the Socinians only but those who despise all Religion who I doubt are the far greater number are very much entertained with such encounters between Men of Wit and Parts because they think and they do not think amiss that Religion it self will be the greatest sufferer by them at last And this is the most dangerous but I hope not the most prevailing Party of Men among us The Socinians profess themselves Christians and I hope are so especially if but One Article of Faith be required to make men so but I cannot but observe that in the late Socinian Pamphlets there is too strong a biass towards Deism which consideration alone should make us unite and look more narrowly to their steps I do not charge their Writers with a professed design to advance Deism among us but their way of managing their Disputes is as if they had a mind to serve them And such men who are Enemies to all revealed Religion could not find out better Tools for their purpose than they are For they know very well that in such a Nation as ours which is really concerned for the Profession of Religion one way or other there is no opening professed Schools of Atheism but the design must be carried on under some shew of Religion And nothing serves their turn so well as setting up natural Religion in opposition to Revealed For this is the way by degrees to loosen and unhinge the Faith of most Men which with great reason is built on the Scripture as the surest foundation But here it is fit to observe the several steps they take in order to this advancing Deism and how our Unitarians have complied with all of them I. The first point they are to gain is The lessening the Authority of Scripture and if this be once done they know Mens Minds will be left so roving and uncertain that they will soon fall into Scepticism and Infidelity II. The next is to represent Church-men as Persons of Interest and Design who maintain Religion only because it supports them and this they call Priest-Craâ—t and if they can by this means take away their Authority too the way lies still more open for them for it is more easie to make a Prey of the Flock when the Shepherds are suspected only to look after their Fleeces Since such a suspicion takes away all Trust and Confidence in their Guides and they know very well how little others will be able to defend themselves III. Another step is to magnifie the Deists as Men of Probity and good Sense that assert the just Liberties of Mankind against that terrible thing called Priest-Craft and that would rescue Religion from false Glosses and absurd Notions taken up from the Schools and taught in the Universities on purpose to keep under those Principles of universal Liberty as to Opinions which those of freer Minds endeavour to promote But especially they are great Enemies to all Mysteries of Faith as unreasonable Impositions on those of more refined Vnderstandings and of clear and distinct Perceptions as they have learnt to express themselves These they account intolerable Vsurpations on Men of such Elevations as themselves for Mysteries are only for the Mob and not for Persons of such noble Capacities IV. The last thing is to represent all Religions as indifferent since they agree in the common Principles of natural Religion especially the Vnity of God and all the rest is but according to the different Inventions of Men the skill of the Contrivers and the several Humors and Inclinations of Mankind These are the chief Mysteries of Deism in our Age for even Deism hath its Mysteries and it is it self a Mystery of Iniquity which I am afraid is too much working already among us and will be more if no effectual stop be put to it I call it Deism because that Name obtains now as more plausible and modish for Atheism is a rude unmannerly Word and exposes Men to the Rabble and makes Persons shun the company and avoid the Conversation and Dealing with such who are noted for it And this would be a mighty Prejudice to them as to their Interests in this World which they have reason to value But to be a Deist seems to be only a setting up for having more Wit than to be cheated by the Priests and imposed upon by the common Forms of Religion which serve well enough for ordinary People that want Sense and are not skillâ—d in Demonstrations but the Deists are so wise as to see through all these things And therefore this name gains a Reputation among all such as hate Religion but know not how otherwise to distinguish themselves from prosessed Atheists which they would by no means be taken for although if they be pressed home very few among them will sincerely own any more than a Series of Causes without any intellectual Perfections which they call God A strange God without Wisdom Goodness Iustice or Providence But I am now to shew how in all these points the present Unitarians have been very serviceable to them in the Books which they have lately published and dispersed both in City and Country 1. As to the Authority of Scripture They have been already justly exposed for undermining the Authority of S. John's Gospel by mustering up all the Arguments of the old Hereticks against it and giving no answers to them And what defence have they since made for themselves No other but this very trifling one that they repeat their Reasons but do not affirm them What is the meaning of this If they are true why do
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
making mention of his descent from Heaven The Sense which these wise Interpreters put upon them is that Christ was rapt up into Heaven before he entred upon his Preaching But where is this said What Proof what Evidence what credible Witnesses of it as there were of his Transfiguration Resurrection and Ascension Nothing like any Proof is offer'd for it but it is a wise Way they think of avoiding a pressing difficulty But they have a farther reach in it viz. to shew how Christ being a mere Man should be qualified for so great an undertaking as the founding the Christian Church and therefore they say That before our Lord entred upon his Office of the Messias he was taken up to Heaven to be instructed in the Mind and Will of God as Moses was into the Mount Exod. 24.1 2 12. and from thence descended to execute his Office and declare the said Will of God In another place That when it is said the Word was with God that is the Lord Christ was taken up into Heaven to be instructed in all points relating to his Ambassage or Ministry In a third they say That our Saviour before he entred upon his Ministry ascended into Heaven as Moses did into the Mount to be instructed in all things belonging to the Gospel Doctrine and Polity which he was to establish and administer Now considering what sort of Person they make Christ to have been viz. a mere Man this was not ill thought of by them to suppose him taken up into Heaven and there instructed in what he was to teach and to do as Moses was into the Mount before he gave the Law But here lies a mighty difference when Moses was called up into the Mount the People had publick notice given of it and he took Aaron and his Sons and Seventy Elders of Israel with him who saw the Glory of God v. 10. And all Israel beheld the Glory of the Lord as a devouring Fire on the Top of the Mount v. 17. and after the 40 days were over it is said That Moses came down from the Mount and the Children of Israel saw him with his Face shining Exod. 34.40 Now if Christ were taken up into Heaven as Moses was into the Mount why was it not made publick at that time why no Witnesses why no Appearance of the Glory to satisfie Mankind of the truth of it And yet we find that when he was transfigured on the holy Mount he took Peter and James and John with him which circumstance is carefully mention'd by the Evangelists And Peter who was one of the Witnesses then present lays great weight upon this being done in the presence of Witnesses For we have not follow'd cunningly devised Fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Iesus Christ but were Eye-witnesses of his Majesty For he received from God the Father Honour and Glory when there came such a voice to him from the excellent Glory And this voice which came from Heaven we heard when we were with him in the holy Mount Now let any one compare this with the account which they give of Christ's Ascension into Heaven The Transfiguration was intended only for a particular Testimony of God's Favour before his suffering but even in that he took care there should be very credible Witnesses of it And is it then possible to believe there should be such an Ascension of Christ into Heaven for no less a purpose than to be instructed in his Ambassage and to understand the Mind and Will of God as to his Office and yet not one of the Evangelists give any account of the circumstances of it They are very particular as to his Birth Fasting Baptism Preaching Miracles Sufferings Resurrection and Ascension but not one Word among them all as to the circumstances of this being taken up into Heaven for so great a purpose If it were necessary to be believed why is it not more plainly revealed Why not the time and place mention'd in Scripture as well as of his Fasting and Temptation Who can imagine it consistent with that Sincerity and Faithfulness of the Writers of the New Testament to conceal so material a part of Christ's Instructions and Qualifications and to wrap it up in such doubtfull Expressions that none ever found out this meaning till the days of Socinus Enjedinus mentions it only as a possible Sense bâ—t he confesses That the New Testament saith nothing at all of it but saith he neither doth it mention other things before he entred upon his Office But this is a very weak Evasion for this was of greatest importance with respect to his Office more than his Baptism Fasting and Temptation yet these are very fully set down And after all our Vnitarians themselves seem to mistrust their own Interpretations for in their answer to my Sermon they say it is not the Doctrine of all the Unitarians and refer me to another account given of these Texts in the History of the Unitarians There indeed I find Grotius his Interpretation as they call it preferâ—d before that of Socinus But they say Grotius was Socinian all over and that his Annotations are a compleat System of Socinianism and his Notes on the first of S. John are written artificially but the Sense at the bottom is theirs In short That the Word according to Grotius is not an eternal Son of God but the Power aâ—d Wisdom of God which abiding without measure on the Lord Christ is therefore spoken of as a Person and as one with Christ and he with that And this Notion of the Word leads a man through all the difficulties of this Chapter with far more ease than any hitherto offer'd But these wise Interpreters have as much misinterpreted Grotius as they have done the Scriptures as I shall make it appear 1. Grotius on Iohn 6.62 interprets Christ's Ascension into Heaven of his corporal Ascent thither after his Resurrection where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word was before of whom it is said That the Word was with God But how comes Christ to assume that to himself which belong'd to the Word He answers Why not since we call Body and Soul by the Name of the Man But if no more were meant by the Word but a divine Attribute of Wisdom and Power what colour could there be for the Son of Man taking that to himself which belonged to an Attribute of God What strange way of arguing would this have been What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascending where he was before For according to this Sense how comes a divine Attribute to be called the Son of Man How could the Son of Man be said to ascend thither where a divine Attribute was before The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must relate to him spoken of before and how could the Power and Wisdom of God be ever said to be the Son of Man
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
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