World So that there is no way of dealing with them but by shewing the falsness weakness of the grounds they go upon and that they have no advantage of us as to Scripture Antiquity or Reason which is the Design of this Vndertaking Worcester Sept. 30. 1696. E. W. THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. THE Occasion and Design of the Discourse Pag. 1. CHAP. II. The Doctrine of the Trinity not receiv'd in the Christian Church by Force or Interest p. 10. CHAP. III. The Socinian Plea for the Antiquity of their Doctrine Examined p. 15. CHAP. IV. Of the Considerable Men they pretend to have been of their Opinion in the Primitive Church p. 29. CHAP. V. Of their Charge of Contradiction in the Doctrine of the Trinity p. 54. CHAP. VI. No Contradiction for Three Persons to be in One common Nature p. 68. CHAP. VII The Athanasian Creed clear'd from Contradictions p. 101. CHAP. VIII The Socinian Sense of Scripture Examined p. 121. CHAP. IX The General Sense of the Christian Church proved from the Form of Baptism as it was understood in the first Ages p. 177. CHAP. X. The Objections against the Trinity in point of Reason Answer'd p. 230. ERRATA PAg. 113. l. 12. for our r. one p. 122. l. 12. r. Heb. 1.5 for unto which p. 124. l. 7. add N. 11. p. 126. l. 29. for Damascenus r. Damascius p. 129. l. 21. for appointed r. appropriated p. 181. l. 22. after them put in not p. 192. l. 19 for we r. were p. 211. l. 1. dele that p. 217. l. 6. for Hypostasis r. Hypothesis p. 234. l. 6. for Intermission r. Intromission p. 283. l. 21. r. as well as A DISCOURSE In VINDICATION of the Doctrine of the Trinity WITH An ANSWER TO THE Late SOCINIAN Objections CHAP. I. The Occasion and Design of this Discourse IT is now above twenty years since I first published a Discourse about the reasons of the Sufferings of Christ lately reprinted in answer to some Socinian Objections at that time But I know not how it came to pass that the Socinian controversy seemed to be laid asleep among us for many years after and so it had continued to this day if some mens busie and indiscreet zeal for their own particular Opinions or rather Heresies had not been more prevalent over them than their care and concernment for the common interest of Christianity among us For it is that which really suffers by these unhappy and very unseasonable Disputes about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith which could never have been started and carried on with more fatal consequence to all revealed Religion than in an age too much inclined to Scepticism and Infidelity For all who are but well-wishers to that do greedily catch at any thing which tends to unsettle mens minds as to matters of Faith and to expose them to the scorn and contempt of Infidels And this is all the advantage which they have above others in their writings For upon my carefull Perusal of them which was occasion'd by reâ—rinting that Discourse I found nothing extraordinary as to depth of Judgment or closeness of Reasoning or strength of Argument or skill in Scripture or Antiquity but the old stuff set out with a new dress and too much suited to the Genius of the age we live in viz. brisk and airy but withal too light and superficial But although such a sort of Raillery be very much unbecoming the weight and dignity of the subject yet that is not the worst part of the character of them for they seem to be written not with a design to convince others or to justifie themselves but to ridicule the great Mysteries of our Faith calling them Iargon Cant Nonsense Impossibilities Contradictions Samaritanism and what not any thing but Mahometism and Deism And at the same time they know that we have not framed these Doctrines our selves but have received them by as universal a Tradition and Consent of the Christian Church as that whereby we receive the Books of the new Testament and as founded upon their authority So that as far as I can see the truth of these Doctrines and authority of those Books must stand and fall together For from the time of the writing and publishing of them all persons who were admitted into the Christian Church by the Form of Baptism prescribed by our Saviour were understood to â—e received Members upon profession of â—â—e Faith of the Holy Trinity the Hymns and Doxologies of the Primitive Church were to Father Son and Holy Ghost and those who openly opposed that Doctrine were cast out of the Communion of it which to me seem plain and demonstrative argâ—ments that this was the Doctrine of the Christian Church from the beginning as will appear in the progress of this Discourse The chief design whereof is to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity as it hath been generally received in the Christian Church and is expressed in the Athanasian Creed from those horrible Imputations of Nonsense Contradiction and Impossibility with which it is charged by our Vnitarians as they call themselves and that in the answer to the Sermon lately reprinted about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith which I first preached and published some years since upon the breaking out of this controversie among us by the Notes on Athanasius his Creed and other mischievous Pamphlets one upon another I was in hopes to have given some check to their insolent way of writing about matters so much above our reach by shewing how reasonable it was for us to submit to divine Revelation in such things since we must acknowledge our selves so much to seek as to the nature of Substances which are continually before our Eyes and therefore if there were such difficulties about a Mystery which depended upon Revelation we had no cause to wonder at it but our business was chiefly to be satisfied whether this Doctrine were any part of that Revelation As to which I proposed several things which I thought very reasonable to the finding out the true sense of the Scripture about these matters After a considerable time they thought fit to publish something which was to pass for an answer to it but in it they wholly pass over that part which relates to the sense of Scripture and run into their common place about Mysteries of Faith in which they were sure to have as many Friends as our Faith had Enemies and yet they managed it in so trifling a manner that I did not then think it deserved an Answer But a worthy and judicious Friend was willing to take that task upon himself which he hath very well discharged so that I am not concerned to meddle with all those particulars which are fully answer'd already but the general charge as to the Christian Church about the Doctrine of the Trinity I think my self oblig'd to give an answer to upon this occasion But before I come to that since they so confidently charge the Christian Church for
Church of Ierusalem consisted of all such then Eusebius must suppose that Church guilty of the same Impiety with which he charges the Ebionites and would he then have said That they had the true knowledge of Christ among them No say they Eusebius spake his own opinion but Hegesippus being an Ebionite himself meant otherwise But Eusebius doth not use Hegesippus his words but his own in that place and withal how doth it appear that Hegesippus himself was an Ebionite This one of their latest Writers hath undertaken but in such a manner as is not like to convince me It is thus Hegesippus was himself a Iewish Christian and made use of the Hebrew Gospel and among the Hereticks which crept into the Church of Jerusalem he never numbers the Ebionites or Cerinthians but only the Gnosticks I will not dispute whether Hegesippus was a Jewish Christian or not Grant he was so yet how doth it appear that all the Iewish Christians were at that time Ebionites or Cerinthians It seems they were neither of them Hereticks although they were opposite to each other the one held the World created by inferiour Powers the other by God himself the one we see made Christ a mere Man but the Cerinthians held an illapse of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon him and so made him a kind of a God by his Presence as Nestorius did afterwards But honest Hegesippus took neither one nor the other for Hereticks if our Vnitarians say true But yet it doth not appear that Hegesippus was either one or the other For he speaks of the Church of Ierusalem as is plain by Eusebius and the Cerinthians and Ebionites were in other parts the former in Egypt and the lesser or Proconsular Asia and the latter about Decapolis and Coelesyria from whence they spread into Arabia and Armenia as appears by Epiphanius But Origen saith That all the Iewish Christians were Ebionites What! no Cerinthians among them Were not those Iewish Christians Or were they all turned Ebionites then No such thing appears by Origen's saying But we are not enquiring now what they were in his time but in the Church of Ierusalem Doth Origen say all the Iewish Christians there were such And as to his own time it is not improbable that those who then made up the separate Body of Jewish Christians were Ebionites But what is this to the first Christians of the Church of Ierusalem Very much say they because the first Christians were called Nazarens and the Nazarens held the same Doctrine with the Ebionites But the title of Nazarens did not always signifie the same thing It was at first used for all Christians as appears by the Sect of the Nazarens in Tertullus his Accusation of S. Paul then it was taken for the Christians who stay'd at Pella and setled at Decapolis and thereabouts as Epiphanius affirms for although all the Christians withdrew thither before the Destruction of Ierusalem as Eusebius saith yet they did not all continue there but a great number returned to Ierusalem and were there setled under their Bishops but those who remained about Pella kept the name of Nazarens and never were united with the Gentile Christians but kept up their old Jewish customs as to their Synagogues even in S. Ierom and S. Augustine's time Now these Nazarens might be all Ebionites and yet those of the Church of Ierusalem not so at all 2. The next thing observable from this place of Eusebius is that while the Nazarens and Ebionites were setled in Coelesyria and the parts thereabouts there was a regular Christian Church at Ierusalem under the Bishops of the Circumcision to the Siege of Hadrian Eusebius observes that before the destruction of Ierusalem all the Christians forsook not only Ierusalem but the Coasts of Iudea But that they did not all continue there is most evident from what Eusebius here saith of the Church and Bishops of Ierusalem between the two Sieges of Titus Vespasian and Hadrian which was in the 18 year of his Empire saith Eusebius Who produces another Testimony out of Iustin Martyr which shews that the Christians were returned to Ierusalem For therein he saith That Barchochebas in that War used the Christians with very great severity to make them renounce Christianity How could this be if all the Christians were out of his reach then being setled about Pella And although Eusebius saith That when the Iews were banished their Country by Hadrian 's Edict that then the Church of Ierusalem was made up of Gentiles yet we are not so strictly to understand him as though the Christians who suffer'd under Barchochebas were wholly excluded Orosius saith That they were permitted by the Emperor's Edict It is sufficient for me if they were connived at which is very probable although they did not think fit to have any such publick Persons as their Bishops to be any other than Gentiles And Hegesippus is allow'd after this time to have been a Iewish Christian of the Church of Ierusalem so that the Church there must consist both of Iews and Gentiles but they can never shew that any of the Ebionites did admit any Gentile Christians among them which shews that they were then distinct Bodies 2. They were not only distinct in Communion but had a different rule of Faith This is a point of great consequence and ought to be well consider'd For since our Vnitarians own the Ebionites as their Predecessors we ought to have a particular eye to the rule of Faith received by them which must be very different from ours if they follow the Ebionites as I doubt not to make it appear They say The Ebionites used only S. Matthew 's Gospel But the Christian Church then and ever since have receiv'd the four Gospels as of divine authority Eusebius one of the most approved Authors in Antiquity by our Vnitarians reckons up the four Evangelists and S. Paul 's Epistles as writings universally received by the Christian Church then he mentions some generally rejected as spurious and after those which were doubted among which he mentions the Gospel according to the Hebrews which the Iewish Christians follow'd Now here is an apparent difference put between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and S. Matthew 's Gospel as much as between a Book receiv'd without controversie and one that was not But if the Gospel according to the Hebrews were then acknowledged to be the true Gospel of S. Matthew it was impossible a man of so much sense as Eusebius should make this difference between them But it is worth our observing what our Vnitarians say about this matter And by that we may judge very much of their opinion about the Gospels I shall set down their words for fear I should be thought to do them wrong Symmachus and the Ebionites say they as they held our Saviour to be the Son of Ioseph and Mary so they contended that the first Chapter of S. Matthew's
That they do not speak of distinct Persons but they confess that Philo speaks home and therefore they make him a Christian But Philo had the same Notion with the Paraphrasts and their best way will be to declare that they look upon them all as Christians and they might as well affirm it of Onkelos as they do of Philo but I doubt the World will not take their Word for either But to proceed with the Christian Doxologies Nâ—â—hing saith S. Basil shall make me forsake the Doctrine I received in my Baptism when I was first entred into the Christian Church and I advise all others to keep firm to that Profession of the Holy Trinity which they made in their Baptism that is of the indivisible Vnion of Father Son and Holy Ghost And as he saith afterwards by the Order of the Words in Baptism it appears that as the Son is to the Father so the Holy Ghost is to the Son For they are all put without any Distinction or Number whâ—ch he observes agrees only to a multitude For by their Properties they are one and one yet by the Community of Essence the two are but one and he makes it his business to prove the Holy Ghost to be a proper Object of Adoration as well as the Father and Son and therefore there was no reason to find fault with the Doxology used in that Church and that Firmilian Meletius and the Eastern Christians agreed with them in the use of it and so did all the Western Churches from Illyricum to the Worlds end and this he saith was by an immemorial Custom of all Churches and of the greatest men in them Nay more he saith It had been continued in the Churches from the time the Gospel had been receive'd among them And nothing can be fuller than the Authority of his Testimony if S. Basil may be believed To these I shall add the Doxology of Polycarp at this Martyrdom mentioned by Eusebius which is very full to our Purpose I Glorifie thee by our Eternal High-Priest Iesus Christ thy beloved Son by whom be Glory to thee with him in the Holy Ghost What can we imagine Polycarp meant by this but to render the same Glory to Father Son and Holy Ghost but with such a difference as to the Particles which S. Basil at large proves come to the same thing And to the same purpose not only the Church of Smyrna but Pionius the Martyr who transcribed the Acts speaking of Iesus Christ with whom be Glory to God the Father and the Holy Ghost These suffer'd Martyrdom for Christianity and owned the same Divine Honour to the Father Son and Holy Ghost What could they mean if they did not believe them to have the same Divine Nature Can we suppose them Guilty of such stupidity to lose their Lives for not giving Divine Honour to Creatures and at the same time to do it themselves So that if the Father Son and Holy Ghost were not then believed to be three Persons and one God the Christian Church was mightily deceived and the Martyrs acted inconsistently with their own Principles Which no good Christian will dare to affirm But some have adventured to say that Polycarp did not mean the same Divine Honour to Father Son and Holy Ghost But if he had so meant it how could he have expressed it otherwise It was certainly a Worship distinct from what he gave to Creatures as appears by the Church of Smyrna's disowning any Worship but of Love and Repect to their fellow Creatures and own the giving Adoration to the Son of God with whom they joyn both Father and Holy Ghost Which it is impossible to conceive that in their Circumstances they should have done unless they had believed the same Divine Honour to belong to them S. Basil's Testimony makes it out of Dispute that the Doxology to Father Son and Holy Ghost was universally receiv'd in the publick Offices of the Church and that from the time of greatest Antiquity So that we have no need of the Teâ—timonies from the Apostolical Constitutions as they are called to prove it But I avoid all disputable Authorities And I shall only add that it appears from S. Basil that this Doxology had been long used not only in publick Offices but in Occasional Ejaculations as at the bringing in of Light in the Evening the People he saith were wont to say Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost c. This he saith had been an ancient Custom among the People and none can tell who brought it in But Prudentius shews that it was continued to his Time as appeaâ—s by his Hymn on that occasion which concludes with this Doxology and S. Hilary ends his Hymn written to his Daughter in the same manner 3. I come therefore to the last Proof which I shall produce of the Sense of the Christian Church which is from the Testimony of those who wrote in Defence of our Religion against Infidels In which I shall be the shorter since the particular Testimonies of the Fathers have been so fully produced and defended by others especially by Dr. Bull. Iustin Martyr in his Apology for the Christians gives an Account of the Form of Baptism as it was administred among Christians which he saith was in the Name of God the Father of all and of our Saviour Iesus Christ and of the Holy Ghost And that he spake of them as of distinct Persons as appears by his words afterwards They who take the Son to be the Father neither know the Father nor the Son who being the Word and first begotten is God And when he speaks of the Eucharist he saith That it is offer'd to the Father of all by the Name of the Son and the Holy Ghost and of other solemn Acts of Devotion he saith That in all of them they praise God the Father of all by his Son Iesus Christ and the Holy Ghost And in other places he mentions the Worship they give to Father Son and Holy Ghost Indeed he mentions a difference of Order between them but makes no Difference as to the Worship given to them And all this in no long Apology for the Christian Faith What can be the meaning of this if he did not take it for granted that the Christian Church embraced the Doctrine of the Trinity in Baptism Iustin Martyr was no such weak Man to go about to expose the Christian Religion instead of defending it and he must have done so if he did not believe this not only to be a true but a necessary part of the Christian Faith For why did he at all mention such a Mysterious and dark Point Why did he not conceal it as some would have done and only represent to the Emperours the fair and plausible part of Christianity No he was a Man of great Sincerity and a through Christian himself and therefore
and Baptism S. Ierom observes that Theodotion and Symmachus both Ebionites translated the Old Testament in what concerned our Saviour like Iews and Aquila who was a Iew like a Christian but in another place he blames all three for the same fault Eusebius goes somewhat farther for he saith Symmachus wrote against S. Matthew 's Gospel to establish his own Heresie which shew'd he was a true Ebionite The next they mention as one of their great Lights was Paulus Samosatenus Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch But in another place they have a spiteful Insinuation that men in such places are the great Pensioners of the World as though they were sway'd only by interest and that it keeps them from embracing of the truth Now Paulus Samosatenus gave greater occasion for such a Suspicion than any of the persons so unworthily reflected upon For he was a man noted for his Affectation of excessive Vanity and Pomp and very unjust methods of growing rich It is well we have Eusebius his Testimony for this for they sleight Epiphanius for his malicious Tales and S. Ierom for his Legends but they commend Eusebius for his Exactness and Diligence And I hope Theodoret may escape their censure who affirms that Paulus Samofatenus suited his Doctrine to his interest with Zenobia who then governed in those parts of Syria and Phoenicia who professed her self to be of the Iewish Perswasion Athanasius saith She was a Iew and a Favourer of Paulus Samosatenus What his opinions were our Vnitarians do not take the pains to inform us taking it for granted that he was of their Mind Eusebius saith He had a very mean and low opinion of Christ as having nothing in him above the common nature of Mankind Theodoret saith he fell into the Doctrine of Artemon to oblige Zenobia and Artemon he saith held that Christ was a mere Man born of a Virgin but exceeding the Prophets in Excellency Where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used to express the opinion of Artemon which ought to be taken notice of because our modern Vnitarians say That those words among the ancient Writers were taken in opposition to the miraculous Conception of our Saviour But Paulus Samosatenus was universally disowned by the Christian Church of that time although as long as Zenobia held her Power he kept his See which was for some time after he was first called in question for his Heresie But at first he made use of many Arts and Devices to deceive the Christian Bishops of the best Reputation who assembled at Antioch in order to the suppressing this dangerous Doctrine as they all accounted it For hearing of his opinions about our Saviour they ran together saith Eusebius as against a Wolf which designed to destroy the Flock Now from hence it is very reasonable to argue that the Samosatenian Doctrine was then look'd on as a very dangerous Novelty in the Christian Church For although the Ebionites had asserted the same thing as to the Divinity of our Saviour yet they were not look'd on as true Members of the Christian Church but as S. Ierom saith While they affected to be both Iews and Christians they were neither Iews nor Christians Artemon whoever he was was but an obscure person and Theodotus had Learning they say but was of no place in the Church but for such a considerable person as the Bishop of Antioch to own such a Doctrine must unavoidably discover the general sence of the Christian Church concerning it Paulus Samosatenus wanted neither parts nor interest nor experience and he was supported by a Princess of great Spirit and Courage enough to have daunted all the Bishops at least in those parts from appearing against him But such was the zeal and concernment of the Bishops of the Christian Church in this great affair that they not only assembled themselves but they communicated it to Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria and to another of the same name Bishop of Rome and others and desired their advice and concurrence who did all agree in the condemnation of his Doctrine The former said He would have gone himself to Antioch but for his extreme old Age and he died soon after the first Council which met at Antioch on this occasion but he sent his judgment and reasons thither which we find in an Epistle of his still extant whereof mention is made in the Epistle of the second Synod of Antioch to Dionysius Bishop of Rome and Maximus Bishop of Alexandria and all other Bishops Priests and Deacons of the Catholick Church wherein they give an account of their proceedings against Paulus Samosatenus and they say They had invited the Bishops of the remoter parts to come to Antioch for the suppression of this damnable Doctrine and among the rest Dionysius of Alexandria and Firmilian of Cappadocia as persons of greatest reputation then in the Church Firmilian was there at the former Synod of whom Theodoret saith that he was famous both for divine and humane Learning and so were Gregorius Thaumaturgus and Athenodorus Bishops of Pontus and Helenus Bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia and Nicomas of Iconium and Hymenaeus of Ierusalem and Theotecnus of Caesarea who all condemned his Doctrine but they spared his person upon his solemn Promises to retract it but he persisting in it when they were gone home and fresh complaints being made of him Firmilian was coming a third time to Antioch but died by the way but those Bishops who wrote the Synodical Epistle do all affirm That they were Witnesses and many others when he condemned his Doctrine but was willing to forbear his person upon his promise of amendment which they found afterwards was merely delusory Dionysius Alexandrinus they say would not write to him but sent his mind about him to the Church of Antioch Which Epistle is mention'd by S. Ierom as written by him a little before his death as well as by Eusebius and Theodoret and I do not see sufficient reason to question the authority of that which Fronto Ducaeus published from Turrian's Copy although it be denied by H. Valesius and others It 's said indeed That he did not write to him i. e. he did not direct it to him but he might send it to the Council in answer to his Letters which he mentions How far it differs from his style in other Epistles I will not take upon me to judge but the design is very agreeable to an Epistle from him on that occasion It 's true that it seems to represent the opinion of Paulus Samosatenus after a different manner from what it is commonly thought to have been But we are to consider that â—e made use of all the Arts to dâ—sguise himself that he could and when he found the making Christ to be a mere Man would not be born he went from the Ebionite to the Cerinthian Hypothesis viz. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did dwell in him and that
Sabellius called Persons But by this Foundation he doth not mean any distinct Essences but the incommunicable Properties belonging to them as Father Son and Holy Ghost It is plain from hence that the necessity of asserting three Hypostases came from thence that otherwise they could not so well distinguish themselves from the Sabellians whose Doctrine they utterly disowned as well as Arianism and Iudaism and it appears by the Testimonies of Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen and S. Basil that they look'd on one as bad as the other and they commonly joyn Iudaism and Sabellianism together But yet there arose Difficulties whether they were to hold one Hypostasis or three The former insisted on the generally received Sense of Hypostasis for Substance or Essence and therefore they could not hold three Hypostases without three distinct Essences as the Platonists and Marcionists held Upon this a Synod was called at Alexandria to adjust this matter where both Parties were desired to explain themselves Those who held three Hypostases were asked Whether they maintained three Hypostases as the Arians did of different Substances and separate Subsistences as Mankind and other Creatures are Or as other Hereticks three Principles or three Gods All which they stedfastly denied Then they were asked Why they used those terms They answered Because they believed the Holy Trinity to be more than mere Names and that the Father and Son and Holy Ghost had a real Subsistence belonging to them but still they held but one Godhead one Principle and the Son of the same Substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost not to be a Creature but to bear the same proper and inseparable Essence with the Father and the Son Then the other side were asked When they asserted but one Hypostasis whether they held with Sabellius or not and that the Son and Holy Ghost had no Essence or Subsistence which they utterly denied but said that their meaning was That Hypostasis was the same with Substance and by one Hypostasis they intended no more but that the Father Son and Holy Ghost were of the same individual Substance for the Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so they held but one Godhead and one divine Nature and upon these terms they agreed From whence it follows that the Notion of three Hypostases as it was received in the Christian Church was to be underâ—â—ood so as to be consistent with the Individual Vnity of the divine Essence And the great rule of the Christian Church was to keep in the middle between the Doctrines of Sabellius and Arius and so by degrees the Notion of three Hypostases and one Essence was look'd on in the Eastern Church as the most proper Discrimination of the Orthodox from the Sabellians and Arians But the Latin Church was not so easily brought to the use of three Hypostases because they knew no other Sense of it but for Substance or Essence and they all denied that there was any more than one divine Substance and therefore they rather embraced the Word Persona and did agree in the Name of Persons as most proper to signifie their meaning which was That there were three which had distinct Subsistences and incommunicable Properties and one and the same divine Essence And since the Notion of it is so well understood to signifie such a peculiar Sense I see no reason why any should scruple the use of it As to it s not being used in Scripture Socinus himself despises it and allows it to be no good reason For when Franciscus Davides objected That the terms of Essence and Person were not in Scripture Socinus tells him That they exposed their cause who went upon such grounds and that if the sense of them were in Scripture it was no matter whether the terms were or not Hâ—ving thus clear'd the Notion of three Persons I return to the Sense of Scripture about these matters And our Vnitarians tell us that we ought to interpret Scripture otherwise How doth that appear They give us very little encouragement to follow their Interpretations which are so new so forced so different from the general Sense of the Christian World and which I may say reflect so highly on the Honour of Christ and his Apostles i. e. by making use of such Expressions which if they do not mean what to honest and sincere Minds they appear to do must be intended according to them to set up Christ a meer Man to be a God And if such a thought as this could enter into the Mind of a thinking Man it would tempt him to suspect much more as to those Writings than there is the least colour or reason for Therefore these bold inconsiderate Writers ought to reflect on the consequence of such sort of Arguments and if they have any regard to Christianity not to trifle with Scripture as they do But say they The question only is Whether we ought to interpret Scripture when it speaks of God according to reason or not that is like Fools or like wise Men Like wise Men no doubt if they can hit upon it but they go about it as untowardly as ever Men did For is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men to take up some novel Interpretations against the general Sense of the Christian Church from the Apostles times Is this to act like wise Men to raise Objections against the Authority of the Books they cannot answer and to cry out of false Copies and Translations without reason and to render all places suspicious which make against them Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men to make our Saviour affect to be thought a God when he knew himself to be a mere Man and by their own Confession had not his divine Authority and Power conferr'd upon him And to make his Apostles set up the Worship of a Creature when their design was to take away the Worship of all such who by Nature are not Gods Is this like wise Men to tell the World that these were only such Gods whom they had set up and God had not appointed as though there were no Real Idolatry but in giving Divine Worship without God's Command CHAP. VIII The Socinian Sense of Scripture examined BUT they must not think to escape so easily for such a groundless and presumptuous saying that they interpret the Scripture not like Fools but like Wise Men because the true sense of Scripture is really the main point between us and therefore I shall more carefully examine the Wise Sense they give of the chief places which relate to the matter in hand 1. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise Men to make the Author to the Hebrews in one Chapter and that but a short one to bring no less than four places out of the Old Testament and according to their Sense not one of them proves that which he aimed at viz. that Christ was superiour to Angels Heb. 1.5 as will appear by the Sense they give of
they differ from others and having the old Latin Version opposite to the Greek Monsieur Arnauld had so bad an Opinion of both parts of this Clermont Copy as it is called that he charges it with manifest Forgery and Imposture inserting things into the Text without ground F. Simon who defends them cannot deny several things to be inserted but he saith it was through Carelessness and not Design But he Confesses That those who transcribed both those ancient Copies of S. Paul 's Epistles did not understand Greek and hardly Latin And now let us consider of what just Authority this different reading of the Clermont Copy ought to be against the Consent of all other ancient Copies We find some good Rules laid down by the Roman Criticks when they had a Design under Vrban 8th to compare the Greek Text of the New Testament with their ancient Manuscripts in the Vatican and elewhere and to publish an exact Edition of it which Collation was preserved in the Barberin Library and from thence published by Pet. Possinus And the main Rules as to the various Lections of Manuscripts were these 1. That the Text was not to be alter'd but a Concurrence of all or the greatest part of the Manuscripts 2. That if one Manuscript agreed with the vulgar Latin the Text was not to be alter'd but the Difference to be set down at the end of the Chapter But it is observable in that Collation of Twenty two Manuscripts there is no one Copy produced wherein there is any Variety as to this place I know they had not Twenty two Manuscripts of S. Paul's Epistles they mention but Eight ancient Manuscripts but they found no difference in those they had And now I leave any reasonable man to judge whether this Clermont Copy ought to be relied upon in this matter But I have something more to say about the Greek Copies 1. That God is in the Complutensian Polyglott which was the first of the Kind and carried on by the wonderful Care and Expence of that truly greaâ— Man Cardinal Ximenes who spared for no Cost or Pains in procuring the best ancient Copies both Hebrew and Greek and the fittest men to judge of both Languages And in pursuit of this noble Design he had the best Vatican Manuscripts sent to him as is expressed in the Epistle before his Greek Testament and what others he could get out of other places among which he had the Codex Britannicus mention'd by Erasmus But after all these Copies made use of by the Editors there is no Intimation of any variety as to this Place although the vulgar Latin be there as it was But Erasmus mentions the great Consent of the old Copies as to the vulgar Latin and whence should that come but from a Variety in the old Greek Copies To that I Answer 2. That the Greek Copies where they were best understood had no Variety in them i. e. among the Greeks themselves As appears by Gregory Nyssen S. Chrysostom Theodoret Oecumenius and Theophylact. But doth not Monsieur Amelote say That the Marquiss of Velez had Sixteen old Manuscripts out of which he gathered various Readings and he reads it O! I cannot but observe how he commends Fabricius and Walton for rendring the Syriac Version according to the vulgar Latin but that will appear to be false to any one that looks into them the former is mentioned already and the latter translates it Quod manifestatus sit in carne But as to the Marquiss of Velez his Copies there is a Secret in it which ought to be understood and is discover'd by Mariana He Confesses He had so may Manuscripts eight of them out of the Escurial but that he never set down whence he had his Readings And in another place he ingenuously confesses That his Design was to justifie the vulgar Latin and therefore collected Readings on purpose and he suspects some out of such Greek Copies as after the Council of Florence were made comfortable to the Latin Which Readings were published by la Cerda whose Authority Amelote follows And now what Reason can there be that any such late Copies should be prefer'd before those which were used by the Greek Fathers 3. That the Latin Fathers did not concern themselves about changing their Version because they understood it still to relate to the Person of Christ. So do S. Ierom Leo Hilary Fulgentius and others As to the Objections about Liberatus Macedonius and Hincmarus I refer them to the Learned Oxford Annotations IX It is not wisely done of these Interpreters to charge our Church so much for retaining a Verse in S. Iohn's first Epistle when they had so good authority to do it The Verse is There are three that bear Record in Heaven the Father Son and Holy Ghost c. From hence they charge us with corrupted Copies and false Translations as an instance of the former they produce this Text which they say was not originally in the Bible but is added to it and is not found in the most ancient Copies of the Greek nor in the Syriac Arabick Ethiopick or Armenian Bibles nor in the most ancient Latin Bibles Notwithstanding all which I hope to be able to shew that our Church had reason to retain it For which end we are to consider these things 1. That Erasmus first began to raise any scruple about it For however it might not be in some MSS. which were not look'd into this Verse was constantly and solemnly read as a part of Scripture both in the Greek and Latin Churches as Mr. Selden confesses and that it was in Wickliff's Bible So that here was a general consent of the Eastern and Western Churches for the receiving it and although there might be a variety in the Copies yet there was none in the publick Service and no Objections against it that we find But Erasmus his authority sway'd so much here that in the Bibles in the time of H. 8. and E. 6. it was retained in a different Letter As in Tyndell's Bible printed by the King's Printer A. D. 1540. and in the Church Bible of King E. 6. in both which they are read but not in the same Character Yet Erasmus his authority was not great enough to cast it out if he had a mind to have done it Which doth not appear for he saith himself that finding it in the codex Britannicus as he calls it he restored it in his Translation as well as the Greek Testament out of which he had expunged it befoâ—e in two Editions And the Complutensian Bible coming out with it added greater authority to the keeping of it in and so it was preserved in the Greek Testaments of Hervagius Plautin and R. Stephens and others after the MSS. had been more diligently searched Morinus saith it was in seven of Rob. Stephens his MSS. but F. Simon will not allow that it was in any but the Complutensian which is
Question his Fidelity in reporting however he might be unhappy in his Explications 3. Tertullian himself saith Schlichtingius in other Places where he speaks of the rule of Faith doth not mention the Holy Ghost and therefore this seems added by him for the sake of the Paraclete But this can be of no force to any one that considers that Tertullian grounds his Doctrine not on any New Revelation by the Paraclete but on the Rule of Faith received in the Church long before and upon the Form of Baptism prescribed by our Saviour Will they say the Holy Ghost was there added for the sake of Montanus his Paraclete And in another of his Books he owns the Father Son and Holy Ghost to make up the Trinity in Vnity Wherein Petavius himself confesses That he asserted the Doctrine of the Church in a Catholick manner although he otherwise speaks hardly enough of him The next I shall mention is Novatian whom Schlichtingius allows to have been before the Nicene-Council and our modern Vnitarians call him a great Man whoever he was and very ancient And there are two things I observe in him 1. That he opposes Sabellianism for before his time Praxeas and Noetus were little talked of especially in the Western Church but Sabellius his Name and Doctrine were very well known by the opposition to him by the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome He sticks not at the calling it Heresie several times and Disputes against it and answers the Objection about the Vnity of the Godhead 2. That he owns that the Rule of Faith requires our believing in Father Son and Holy Ghost and asserts the Divine Eternity of it and therefore must hold the Doctrine of the Trinity to be the Faith of the Church contained in the Form of Baptism For he saith The Authority of Faith and the Holy Scriptures admonish us to believe not only in the Father and Son but in the Holy Ghost Therefore the Holy Ghost must be considered as an object of Faith joyned in the Scripture with the other two which is no where more express than in the Form of Baptism which as S. Cyprian saith was to be administred in the full Confession of the Trinity in the place already mentionâ—d And it is observable that S. Cyprian rejects the Baptism of those who denied the Trinity at that time among whom he instances in the Patripassians who it seems were then spread into Africa The Dispute about the Marcionites Baptism was upon another ground for they held a real Trinity as appears by Dionysius Romanus in Athanasius and Epiphanius c. but the Question was whether they held the same Trinity or not S. Cyprian saith That our Saviour appointed his Apostles to baptize in the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost and in the Sacrament of this Trinity they were to baptize Doth Marcion hold this Trinity So that S. Cyprian supposed the validity of Baptism to depend on the Faith of the Trinity And if he had gone no farther I do not see how he had transgressed the Rules of the Church but his Error was that he made void Baptism upon difference of Communion and therein he was justly opposed But the Marcionites Baptism was rejected in the Eastern Church because of their Doctrine about the Trinity In the Parts of Asia about Ephesus Noetus had broached the same Doctrine which Praxeas had done elsewhere For which he was called to an account and himself with his Followers we cast out of the Churches Communion as Epiphanius reports which is another considerable Testimony of the Sense of the Church at that time Epiphanius saith he was the first who broached that Blasphemy but Theodoret mentions Epigonus and Cleomenes before him it seems that he was the first who was publickly taken notice of for it and therefore underwent the Censure of the Church with his Disciples When he was first summon'd to answer he denied that he asserted any such Doctrine because no man before him saith Epiphanius had vented such Poison And in the beginning he saith that Noetus out of a Spirit of Contradiction had utter'd such things as neither the Prophets nor the Apostles nor the Church of God ever thought or declared Now what was this unheard of Doctrine of Noetus That appears best by Noetus his answer upon his second appearance which was That he worshipped One God and knew of no other who was born and suffer'd and died for us and for this he produced the several places which assert the Vnity of the Godhead and among the rest one very observable Rom. 9.5 Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever From whence he inferr'd that the Son and the Father were the same and the same he affirmed of the Holy Ghost But from hence we have an evident Proof that the most ancient Greek Copies in Noetus his time which was long before the Council of Nice had God in the Text. Epiphanius brings many places of Scripture to prove the Distinction of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead but that is not my present business but to shew the general Sense of the Church at that time I do not say that Noetus was condemned by a general Council but it is sufficient to shew that he was cast out of the Church where he broached his Doctrine and no other Church received him or condemned that Church which cast him out which shews an after Consent to it Now what was this Doctrine of Noetus The very same with that of Praxeas at Rome Theodoret saith this his Opinon was That there was but One God the Father who was himself impassible but as he took our Nature so he was passible and called the Son Epiphanius more fully that the same Person was Father Son and Holy Ghost wherein he saith he plainly contradicts the Scriptures which attribute distinct Personalities to them and yet assert but one Godhead The Father hath an Hypostasis of his own and so have the Son and Holy Ghost but yet there is but one Divinity one Power and one Dominion for these distinct Persons are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same individual Essence and Power But Epiphanius was no Ante-Nicene Father however in matters of Antiquity where there is no incongruity in the thing we may make use of his Authority and I think no one will question that Noetus was condemned which was the thing I produced him to prove But although Noetus was condemned yet this Doctrine did spread in the Eastern parts for Origen mentions those who confounded the Notion of Father and Son and made them but one Hypostasis and distinguished only by thought and Denomination This Doctrine was opposed not only by Origen but he had the Sense of the Church concurring with him as appears in the Case of Beryllus Bishop of Bostra who fell into this Opinion and was reclaimed by Origen and Eusebius gives this