Gospel was added by the Greek Translators S. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew when it was translated into Greek the Translator prefaced it with a Genealogy and Narration that our Saviour was conceived by the Holy Spirit of God and was not the Son of Ioseph but this Genealogy and Narration said Symmachus and the Ebionites is not in the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew nay is the mere invention of the Translator As for the other Gospels the Ebionites and Symmachians did not receive the Gospel of S. Luke and for that of S. Iohn they said it was indeed written by Cerinthus to confirm his Platonick Conceits about the Logos or Word which he supposed to be the Christ or Spirit of God which rested on and inhabited the person of Jesus Let us now but join to this another passage which is this Those whom we now call Socinians were by the Fathers and the first ages of Christianity called Nazarens and afterwards they were called Ebionites Mineans Symmachians c. If this be true they must have the same opinions as to the Books of the New Testament and hereby we see what sort of men we have to deal with who under the pretence of the old Ebionites undermine the authority of the New Testament As to S. Matthew's Gospel I see no reason to question its being first written in the Language then used among the Jews which was mixt of Hebrew Syriack and Chaldee since this is affirmed not merely by Papias whose authority never went far but by Origen Irenaeus Eusebius S. Ierom and others But I must distinguish between S. Matthew's Authentick Gospel which Pantaenus saw in the Indies and that which was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Nazaren Gospel S. Ierom in one place seems to insinuate that S. Matthew's Gospel was preserved in the Library of Pamphilus at Caesarea and that the Nazarens at Berrhaea in Syria had given him leave to transcribe it But if we compare this with other places in him we shall find that he question'd whether this were the Authentick Gospel of S. Matthew or not he saith it is so called by many but he confesses it was the same which the Ebionites and Nazarens used In which were many interpolations as appears by the collections out of it in S. Ierom's Works and other ancient Writers which some learned men have put together And S. Ierom often calls it the Gospel according to the Hebrews And so do other ancient Writers From the laying several passages together Erasmus suspects that S. Ierom never saw any other than the common Nazaren Gospel and offers a good reason for it viz. That he never made use of its authority to correct the Greek of S. Matthew which he would not have failed to have done in his Commentaries and he produces the Nazaren Gospel upon sleight occasions But how came the Preface to be curtail'd in the Ebionite Gospel Of which Epiphanius gives an account and shews what was inserted instead of it No say the Ebionites the Preface was added by the Translator into Greek From what evidence and to what end To prove that Christ was born of the Holy Spirit This then must be look'd on as a mere Forgery and those Ebionites were in the right who held him to be the Son of Ioseph and Mary What do these men mean by such suggestions as these Are they resolved to set up Deism among us and in order thereto to undermine the authority of the New Testament For it is not only S. Matthew's Gospel but S. Luke's and S. Iohn's which they strike at under the pretence of representing the arguments of these wretched Ebionites If their arguments are mean and trifling and merely precarious why are they not slighted and answered by such as pretend to be Christians If they think them good we see what we have to do with these men it is not the Doctrine of the Trinity so much as the authority of the Gospels which we are to maintain against them And not those only for the Ebionites rejected all S. Paul 's Epistles and called him an Apostate and a Transgressor of the Law What say our Vnitarians to this Why truly This comes from Epiphanius and because he quotes no Author it seems to be one of his malicious Tales This is a very short way of answering if it would satisfie any men of sense But they ought to have remembred that within a few Pages they alledge Epiphanius as a very competent Witness about the Ebionites because he was born in Palestine and lived very near it But we do not rely wholly upon Epiphanius in this matter For those whom they allow to be the best Witnesses as to the Doctrine of the Nazarens say the same thing concerning them As the most learned Origen as they call him who lived a long time in Syria and Palestine it self and he affirms that both sorts of Ebionites rejected S. Paul 's Epistles and Theodoret who they say lived in Coelesyria where the Nazarens most abound affirms of them That they allowed only the Gospel according to the Hebrews and called the Apostle an Apostate by whom they meant S. Paul And the same is said by S. Ierom who conversed among them That they look on S. Paul as a Transgressor of the Law and receive none of his Writings Have we not now a very comfortable account of the Canon of the New Testament from these ancient Vnitarians And if our modern ones account them their Predecessors we may judge what a mean opinion they must have of the Writings of the New Testament For if they had any concernment for them they would never suffer such scandalous insinuations to pass without a severe censure and a sufficient answer But their Work seems to be rather to pull down than to establish the authority of revealed Religion and we know what sort of men are gratified by it CHAP. IV. Of the considerable Men they pretend to have been of their Opinion in the Primitive Church I Now come to consider the men of Sense they pretend to among these ancient Vnitarians The first is Theodotion whom they make to be an Vnitarian But he was saith Eusebius from Irenaeus a Iewish Proselyte and so they may very much increase the number of Vnitarians by taking in all the Iews as well as Proselytes But must these pass for men of Sense too because they are against the Doctrine of the Trinity and much upon the same grounds with our modern Vnitarians For they cry out of Contradictions and Impossibilities just as they do i. e. with as much confidence and as little reason Symmachus is another of their ancient Heroes he was if Epiphanius may be believed first a Samaritan and then a Iew and Eusebius saith indeed That he was an Ebionite and therefore for observing the Law of Moses S. Augustin saith that in his time the Symmachiani were both for Circumcision
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
they not affirm them If they are false why do they not answer them Is this done like those who believe the Gospel of S. John to be divine to produce all the arguments they could meet with against it and never offer to shew the Weakness and Vnreasonableness of them Doth not this look like a design to furnish the Deists with such arguments as they could meet with against it Especially when they say That S. Iohn doth not oppose them Why then are these Arguments produced against his Gospel Men do not use to dispute against their Friends nor to tell the World what all People have said against them and give not a word of answer in vindication of them But they say The modern Vnitarians allow of the Gospel and other Pieces of S. Iohn A very great favour indeed to allow of them But how far As of divine Authority Not a word of that But as ancient Books which they think it not fit for them to dispute against But if the ancient Ebionites were their Predecessors as they affirm they can allow none but the Gospel according to the Hebrews and must reject the rest and all S. Paul's Epistles and in truth they make him argue so little to the purpose that they must have a very mean opinion of his Writings But of these things in the Discourse it self As to Church-men no professed Deists could express themselves more spitefully than they have done and that against those to whom they profess the greatest respect What then would they say of the rest They say in general That it is natural to Worldlings to mercenary Spirits to the timorous and ambitious in a word to all such as preferr not God before all other whether Persons or Considerations to believe as they would have it But although the words be general yet any one that looks into them may sâ—eâ— find that they were intended for such Church-men who had written against their opinions And the Insinuation is that if it were not for worldly Interests they would own them to be in the right Whereas I am fully perswaded that they have no way to defend their Opinions but to reject the Scriptures and declare themselves Deists and as long as we retain a just Veneration for the Scripture we can be of no other Opinion because we look on their Interpretations as unreasonable new forced and inconsistent with the circumstances of Places and the main Scope and Tenor of the New Testament But their Introduction to the Answer to the late Archbishop's Sermons about the Trinity and Incarnation shew their Temper sufficiently as to all Church-men He was the Person they professed to esteem and reverence above all others and confess that he instructs them in the Air and Language of a Father which at least deserved a little more dutifull Language from them But some Mens fondness for their Opinions breaks all bounds of Civility and Decency for presently after mentioning the Archbishop and other Bishops who had written against them they say it signifies nothing to the case That they are great Pensioners of the World For it is certain we have a mighty Propensity to believe as is for our Turn and Interest And soon after that their Opposers are under the power of such fatal Biasses that their Doctrine is the more to be suspected because it is theirs For the reason why they maintain the Doctrine of the Trinity is because they must The plain meaning of all this is that the late Archbishop as well as the rest was a mere self-interested Man which none who knew either the outside or inside of Lambeth could ever imagine that if he were really against them as none could think otherwise who knew him so well and so long as I did it only shew'd what a strange Power Interest hath in the Minds of all Church-men But what Bias was it which made him write with that Strength and Iudgment against their Opinions Let us set aside all Titles of Respect and Honour as they desire let Reason be compared with Reason and his Arguments with their Answers and it will be soon found that the advantage which he had was not from any other Dignity than that of a clearer Iudgment and a much stronger way of Reasoning Whereas their Answers are such as may well be supposed to come from those who had some such Bias that they must at least seem to answer what in truth they could not As hath been fully made appear in the Vindication of him to which no reply hath been given although other Treatises of theirs have come out since In the Conclusion of that Answer they say That they did not expect that their Answer should satisfie us and in truth they had a great deal of reason to think so But what reason do they give for it A very kind one no doubt because Prepossession and Interest have taken hold of us As though we were Men of such mean and mercenary Spirits as to believe according to Prepossession without Reason and to act only as serves our present Interest But we never made mean Addresses to Infidels to shew how near our Principles came to theirs nor made Parallels between the Trinity and Transubstantiation as some did and defended them as well as they could when Popery was uppermost But enough of this 3. We have seen how much they have gratified the Deists by representing Church-men in such a manner let us now see in what manner they treat the Deists It is with another sort of Language and which argues a more than ordinary kindness to them In one place they say That the Deists are mostly well-natured Men and Men of Probity and Understanding in effect that they are sincere honest-hearted Men who do good by the impulse of their natural Religion Honesty and good Conscience which have great Influence upon them What another sort of character is this from that of the greatest and in their opinion the best of our Clergy This must proceed from some Intimacy and Familiarity with them and it is easie to imagine from hence that they are upon very good Terms with one another because they must be Unitarians if they believe a God at all But where else are these honest conscientious Deists to be found It is rare indeed for others to find any one that rejects Christianity out of pure Conscience and that acts by principles of sincere Virtue I never yet could meet with such nor hear of those that have And I would fain know the reasons on which such conscientious Men proceeded for truly the Principles of natural Religion are those which recommend Christianity to me for without them the Mysteries of Faith would be far more unaccountable than now they are and supposing them I see no Incongruity in them i. e. That there is a just and holy God and a wise Providence and a future State of Rewards and Punishments and that God designs to bring Mankind
to Happiness out of a State of Misery let these be supposed and the Scheme of Christianity will appear very reasonable and fitted to the Condition and Capacity of Mankind And the sublimest Mysteries of it are not intended to puzzle or amuse Mankind as weak Men imagine but they are discover'd for the greatest and best purposes in the World to bring Men to the hatred of Sin and Love of God and a patient continuance in well-doing in order to a blessed Immortality So that this is truly a Mystery of Godliness being intended for the advancement of real Piety and Goodness among Mankind in order to make them happy But as to these Unitarians who have such happy Acquaintance with these conscientious Deists I would fain learn from them if they think them mistaken why they take no more pains to satisfie and convince them for I find they decline saying a word against them In one place they compare the Atheist and Deist together and very honestly and like any conscientious Deists they impute all the Deism and most part of the Atheism of our Age to the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation Is it possible for Men that live in our Age to give such an account as this of the Growth of Deism and Atheism among us What number of Atheists is there upon any other account than from a looseness of Thinking and Living Where are those who believe God to be an incomprehensible Being and yet reject the Mysteries which relate to his Being because they are incomprehensible Suppose any reject spiritual Substance as Nonsense and a Contradiction as they do the Trinity on the same Pretences Is this a sufficient reason or not They may tell them as they do us that they can have no Ideas no clear and distinct Perceptions of immaterial Substances What answer do they give in this case Not a Syllable although they take notice of it But I hope they give some better satisfaction to the Deist No for they say This is not a place to argue against either Atheist or Deist By no means some would say They were not such Fools to fall out with their Friends And it cannot be denied that they have been the greatest Incouragers of such kind of Writings which serve their turn so well and in pure Gratitude they forbear to argue against them IV. To shew how near they come to an Indifferency in Religion they speak favourably of Mahometans and Jews and even Tartars because they agree with them in the Vnity of the Godhead What an honest-hearted Deist do they make that Impostor Mahomet One would hardly think such a character could have come out of the Mouth of Christians But these are their Words Mahomet is affirmed by divers Historians to have had no other design in pretending himself to be a Prophet but to restore the Belief of the Unity of God which at that time was extirpated among the Eastern Christians by the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation Who are those Historians who give this character of him Why are they not named that their authority might be examin'd Was the Morocco Ambassador one of them Or Paulus Alciatus who from a Unitarian turned Mahometan But by the best accounts we can meet with we find that he was a very cunning Impostor and took in from the Jews and Ishmaelites his Countrymen Circumcision from the Christians an honourable mention of Christ as a Prophet and as the the Word and Spirit of God and owned his Miracles from the ancient Hereticks he denied his Suffering but owned his being taken up into Heaven Yea he owned That he had his Gospel from Heaven but that his Disciples changed it after his Death and attributed more to Christ than he assumed to himself Which shews that he had so much Sence as to discern that if the Books of the New Testament were genuine more must be given to Christ than either Mahomet or the Unitarians do allow Let any indifferent Reader compare their character of Mahomet with that of Athanasius which these Men give and they will easily find that they take as much care to blacken one as they do to vindicate the other What Christian Ingenuity is here But Mahomet was a Deist and Athanasius a Trinitarian But they go on Whatsoever the design of Mahomet was its certain that Mahometism hath prevailed over greater Numbers and more Nations than at this day profess Christianity But how Was it not by force of Arms and the Prevalency of the Saracen and Turkish Empire No say these learned Historians It was not by the Force of the Sword but by that one Truth in the Alcoran the Unity of God It were endless to quote the Historians who say That it was Mahomet's Principle to subdue all by Force of Arms who opposed his Religion but the authority of Elmacinus alone is sufficient for in the beginning of his History he owns that it was his Principle To make War upon those that would not submit to his Law And others say that in remembrance of this Their Law is expounded by their Doctors with a Sword drawn by them and that it is the Law of the Alcoran to kill and slay those that oppose it What liberty the Turkish Empire allows to Christians in the conquer'd Provinces is not to this purpose but by what means Mahometism prevailed in the World But say they The Jews as well as Mahometans are alienated from us because they suppose the Trinity to be the Doctrine of all Christians And what then Must we renounce the Christian Doctrine to please the Jews and Mahometans Must we quit Christ's being the Messias because the Jews deny it Or the suffering of Christ because the Mahometans think it inconsistent with his Honour But if this be the truth of the case as to Jews and Mahometans no Persons are so well qualified to endeavour their Conversion as our Unitarians which would be a much better imployment for them than to expose the Christian Doctrine by such Writings among us I am ashamed to mention what they say of the Tartars when they call them The Shield and Sword of that way of acknowledging and worshipping God So that Mahometans Jews and Tartars are fairly represented because they agree in the grand Fundamental of the Vnity of the Godhead but the Christian Church is charged with believing Impossibilities Contradictions and pure Nonsense And thus we find our Unitarians serving the Deists in all their methods of overthrowing Revealed Religion and advancing Deism among us And if this will not awaken us to look more after them and unite us in the defence of our Common Cause against them I do not think that other Methods will do it For it is become a Restless and Active although as yet but a small Body of Men and they tell the World plainly enough that they are free from the Biasses of Hopes and Fears and sit loose from the Awes and Bribes of the
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
thought he could not honestly conceal so fundamental a Point of the Christian Faith and which related to their being entred into the Christian Church For if the Profession of this Faith had not been look'd on as a necessary condition of being a Member of the Church of Christ it is hard to imagine that Iustin Martyr should so much insist upon it not only here but in his other Treatises Of which an Account hath been given by others Athenagoras had been a Philosopher as well as Iustin Martyr before he professed himself a Christian and therefore must be supposed to understand his Religion before he embraced it And in his Defence he asserts That the Christians do believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost in God the Father God the Son and the Holy Ghost And he mentions both the Vnity and Order which is among them Which can signifie nothing unless they be owned to be distinct Persons in the same Divine Nature And in the next Page he looks on it as thing which all Christians aspire after in another Life That they shall then know the Vnion of the Father and the Communication of the Father to the Son what the Holy Ghost is and what the Vnion and Distinction there is between the Holy Ghost the Son and the Father No man who had ever had the name of a Philosopher would have said such things unless he had believed the Doctrine of the Trinity aâ— we do i. e. that there are three distinct Persons in the same Divine Nature but that the manner of the Union and Distinction between them is above our reach and comprehension But our Vnitarians have an Answer ready for these men viz. That they came out of Plato 's School with the Tincture of his three Principles and they sadly complain that Platonism had very early corrupted the Christian Faith as to these matters In answer to which Exception I have only one Postulatum to make which is that these were honest Men and knew their own Minds beâ—t and I shall make it appear that none can more positively declare than they do that they did not take up these Notions from Plato but from the Holy Scriptures Iustin Martyr saith he took the Foundation of his Faith from thence and that he could find no certainty as to God and Religion any where else that he thinks Plato took his three Principles from Moses and in his Dialogue with Trypho he at large proves the Eternity of the Son of God from the Scriptures and said He would use no other Arguments for he pretended to no Skill but in the Scriptures which God had enabled him to understand Athenagoras declares That where the Philosophers agreed with them their Faith did not depend on them but on the Testimony of the Prophets who were inspired by the Holy Ghost To the same purpose speaks Theophilus Bishop of Antioch who asserts the Coeternity of the Son with the Father from the beginning of S. John's Gospel and saith their Faith is built on the Scriptures Clemens Alexandrinus owns not only the Essential Attributes of God to belong to the Son but that there is one Father of all and one Word over all and one Holy Ghost who is every where And he thinks Plato borrowed his three Principles from Moses that his second was the Son and his third the Holy Spirit Even Origen himsâ—lâ— highly commends Moses above Plato in his most undoubted Writings and saith That Numenâ—us went beyond Plato and that he borrowed out of the Scriptures and so he saith Plato did in other places but he adds That the Doctrines were better deliver'd in Scripture than in his Artificial Dialogues Can any one that hath the least reverence for Writers of such Authority and Zâ—al for the Christian Doctrine imagine that they wilfully corrupted it in one of the chief Articles of it and brought in new Speculations against the Sense of those Books which at the same time they professed to be the only Rule of their Faith Even where they speak most favourably of the Platonick Trinity they suppose it to be borrowed from Moses And therefore Numenius said That Moses and Plato did not differ about the first Principles and Theodoret mentions Numenius as one of those who said Plato understood the Hebrew Doctrine in Egypt and during his Thirteen years â—ay there it is hardly possible to suppose he should be ignorant of the Hebrew Doctrine about the first Principles which he was so inquisitive after especially among Nations who pretended to Antiquity And the Platonick Notion of the Divine Essence inlarging it self to three Hypostases is considerable on these Accounts 1. That it is deliver'd with so much assurance by the Opposers of Christianity such as Plotinus Porphyrius Proclus and others were known to be and they speak with no manner of doubt concerning it as may be seen in the passage of Porphyrie preserved by S. Cyril and others 2. That they took it up from no Revelation but as a Notion in it self agreeable enough as appears by the passages in Plato and others concerning it They never suspected it to be liable to the Charge of Non-Sense and Contradictions as our modern Vnitarians charge the Trinity with although their Notion as represented by Porphyrie be as liable to it How came these Men of Wit and Sense to hit upon and be so fond of such absurd Principles which lead to the Belief of Mysterious Non-Sense and Impossibilities if these Men may be trusted 3. That the Nations most renowned for Antiquity and deep Speculations did light upon the same Doctrine about a Trinity of Hypostases in the Divine Essence To prove this I shall not refer to the Trismegistick Books or the Chaldee Oracles or any doubtful Authorities but Plutarch asserts the three Hypostases to have been receivâ—d among the Persians and Porphyry and Iamblicus say the same of the Egyptians 4. That this Hypostasis did maintain its Reputation so long in the World For we find it continued to the time of Macrobius who mentâ—ons it as a reasonable Notion viz. of one supreme Being Father of all and a Mind proceeding from it and soul from Mind Some have thought that the Platonists made two created Beings to be two of the Divine Hypostases but this is contrary to what Plotinus and Porphyry affirm concerning it and it is hard to give an Account how they should then be Essentially different from Creatures and be Hypostases in the Divine Essence But this is no part of my business being concerned no farther than to clear the Sense of the Christian Church as to the Form of Baptism in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which according to the Sense of the Ante-Nicene Fathers I have proved doth manifest the Doctrine of the Trinity to have been generally receiv'd in the Christian Church 2. Let us now see what our Vnitarians object againâ—t the Proof of the Trinity from these