Colledge of the Apostles with the Concurence and Consent of the 120 Disciples mentioned in Acts 1.15 who assisted them in their Councils And it seems to be referred to in Rom. 6.17 Rom. 12.6 1 Tim. 6.20 2 Tim. 1.13 Jude 3. In truth the Divine Providence might well think it self not concerned to preserve any other Evidence of the Authority and Antiquity of the Christian System but this besides the Holy Scripture Yet we have moreover the Epistle of St. Clemens or Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians That is that Clemens whom St. Paul not only calls his Fellow-laborer but of whom he says that his Name is written in the Book of Life Phil. 4.3 This Clemens being Bishop of Rome wrote that Epistle to the Christians of Corinth in the Name and by the Order of his Church And this Epistle is so avowed a Piece of Antiquity that the Trinitarians dare not disown it Howbeit the most learned Trinitarian Criticks such as Bishop Vsher Petavius and Huetius of late and Photius of old see Sandi Hist Secul 1. acknowledge that Clemens appears therein an undoubted Unitarian speaking of our Lord Jesus Christ just as the Unitarians do and no otherwise as we see for instance even in these words of the 58th Chapter God the Inspector of all things the Father of Spirits the Lord of all Flesh who has chosen our Lord Jesus Christ and us by him grant to you Peace Long Suffering Patience through our High Priest and Protector Jesus Christ by whom be Glory and Honour and Majesty unto God now and for evermore Now let the Trinitarians seriously consider whether they would thus express themselves to teach what is to be believed concerning God the Father of all and concerning our Lord Jesus Christ See Sandius's Hist Eccl. for more express Evidences of St. Clemens his Vnitarianism There are also the Recognitions which tho' perhaps by Mistake attributed to St. Clemens yet are very antient there being a Passage taken out of them in a Fragment of Bardesanes preserved in Eusebius his Praep. Evang. L. 6. C. 10. They are so evidently agreable to the Unitarian Sentiment that they are confessed so to be by the Trinitarian Criticks For a further illustration of all these particulars see the aforequoted Pamphlet The Judgment of the Fathers c. As for the other remaining Ante-nicene Writings tho they appear to begin to platonize and proceed to do so more and more by steps and some of them doing it in a pretty high degree those that asserted the rigid Unitarian Doctrine or even that Sentiment that Arius afterwards was condemned for thus being in time in some measure suppressed yet generally they are far from the Opinion that is now called Orthodox and they incline more to the Unitarian System then to the Trinitarian Sentiment of the latter Ages For first they generally believe not the Holy Ghost to be God or a God in an eminent sense like Him whom they call the God Word or the Word whom God produced before all things whom God was pleased to make a God or Soveraign next unto Him and whom they suppose God employed as his Minister in Creating the Holy Spirit and Angels and as his Chief Officer in the Creation of all other things Secondly then they by no means represent the Divine Word or Son as actually equal to God but as an inferiour God distinct from and subject to the Principal God who has no God above him and they represent him not as a Necessary Being that was generated from all eternity but as being created of the Divine Substance by the mere good Will and arbitrary Pleasure of God immediately before the Creation of the World Indeed they generally seem to make the Duration of Time to commence at the Creation of the World and so suppose that what was done before the Creation of the Material World belongs not to the Duration of Time but to the Duration of Eternity Nevertheless as was said they hold not the Son to have been from all Eternity for they assert that once he was not and they hold that he had a beginning Yet according to them he may be termed eternal in that he existed in God from Eternity and was produced in that Duration which was before the Creation of the World In like manner they reckon him to be equal to God or rather like to God no otherwise than as he is a most excellent Being that most eminently acts for and represents God and was created out of the Substance of God whereas it seems they most generally hold that other Creatures were made out of Nothing They represent the Son to be created out of the Substance of God as the Expression of our thoughts by Speech is created out of our Thoughts But they offer their Philosophical Speculations for the most part as Conjectures and not as Articles of Faith Especially at first they were pretty sparing and moderate therein Howbeit the unfathomable Depths of Platonism as it was taught in those Days and which was then by too many philosophizing Christians imagined to be in a great measure reconcileable with Christianity and near the same thing with it made that these poor Fathers often knew not well themselves or seemed not to know what they said nor whereof they affirmed Yet from the whole it seems it may be collected that generally these Platonists inclined to that Opinion which afterwards was called Semi-Arianism As was said they generally own that the Son was not from all Eternity and that he is not Equal to the Father Yet the Platonick Metaphysicks which the Heathenish World at that time highly admired as the sublimest Philosophy and the most rational Theology and which these Doctors not only followed before they were Christians but also when converted accomodated as much as they could to Christianity it seems at least implying that the Second Person of the Trinity was created out of the Substance of the First or Chief God and the Third out of the Substance of the Second yet so as that tho the Third Person of this Most High Trinity was not so Excellent as the Second nor the Second but of an Inserior Divinity neither howbeit bearing the Name of God and therein particularly surpassing the Third Divine Person these two Persons nevertheless which tho' Inserior to the Chief God were Superior to all the other Gods or Angels remained most intimately United not only with one another but also with the First Person of this transcendent Trinity insomuch that these three being thus United and being of a like Substance might be said to be one Thing or as one Being Platonism I say seeming at least to import somewhat like this these Platonizing Fathers therefore by degrees philosophized among Christians much after that way as much as can be conceived by their expressions Indeed all Creatures may be said in some sense to be united to God and to be in God for in him we live and move and have our
Article with this Reflection It is altogether incredible that the Scripture has been materially corrupted but it is highly probable that the Writings of the Doctors may have been considerably changed and altered CHAP. VII A Farther Continuation of the Answer to the First Objection 6. HOwbeit it still in a great measure appears that the generality of the Primitive Christians were Vnitarians and even that the generality of the remaining Authors of the first three Centuries were far enough from being of that Opinion which is now called Orthodox it being evident that they incline more to the Vnitarian than to the present Trinitarian Sentiment When the rigid Platonists were become for the most part the Masters and the Strongest somtime before the Council of Nice as well as after it they expressed a blind and furious Zeal for their new Notions concerning the Son or Word and shew'd as much as they could their ill will to the Ancient Christians the Vnitarians and to those Churches and Parties that retained the Primitive Doctrin of the Gospel They therefore and that was the least harm they did them called them by several Nick-names as Nazarens Ebionites Mineans Alogi and the like The Jews had begun in the Apostles's time to call the Christians that were among them Nazarens and Mineans which last signifies Hereticks or Sectaries and the other is a Denomination from Our Saviour whom the Unbelievers in derision called the Nazarene as it appears Act. 24.5 and 14. The Jewish and most ancient Christians were also as some think called afterwards by the Platonists Ebionites which signifies the Poor either as some pretend from a Man named Ebion who they say was a great Denfender of them or because they were the ordinary and poorer sort of People who preserved the longest the Primitive Doctrin and could the most hardly be brought to relish the Notions of Platonism or as Eusebius asserts because the Platonists accused them to have but poor and low Opinions of Christ In fine among the Gentile Converts the Maintainers of the Primitive Doctrine were by some called Alogi or Alogians as if they believed not Christ to be the Logos or the Word because they believed not an eternal Word like Plato and it is said that some of these Gentile Christians received not at first the Gospel of St. John as the generality of Christians admited not presently some other Books of the New Testament particularly St. John's Revelation and the Epistle to the Hebrews which generally for 400 Years was not received as Canonical It is too usual to go from one extream to another and it may be therefore that some of those Gentile Converts who saw the absurdity of Plato's Polytheism and were told that Plato's and St. John's Expressions were the same and exactly agreed imagined that this was a counterfeit Piece of the Platonists and Cerinthians to uphold their Divin Hypostasis distinct from the Father and so at first gave not themselves leave to consider and examin what might be the true Sense of St. John's terms and the Intention of his Gospel Howbeit the Platonists in process of time hated and defamed the Vnitarians not merely for what might have been amiss among some of them but in general for their being Vnitarian Christians And in that they followed the Jews who from the beginning persecuted the Christians and gave them what reproachful Names they could some of which always remained to the Jewish Converts that is to say to those Christians who originally came from among the Jews who were not generally vitiated by the Philosophy of Plato and whom therefore as we have said the Platonists called by the same Names that the obdurate and unbelieving Jews had given them namly Nazarens and Mineans Now it appears that these Nazarens Mineans Ebionites and the Jewish Christiâ—â—s were taken to be much the same and that they and the Alogi were Vnitarians were from the beginning were most numerous and continued a considerable Party for several Centuries till they were in a great measure destroyed and extirpated by the most violent Persecutions of the Platonists Crigen says that all Jews who own Jesus to be Christ are called Ebionites Contr. Cels. L. 2. p. 56. Theodoret attests that the Nazarens honour the Lord Christ only as a Holy Man Haeret. Fab. L. 2. C. 3. Epiphanius writes that the Nazarens and Ebionites held the same Heresy Haeres 30. C. 2. It is not impossble but that Epiphanius as well as Origen and other Platonists confounded with the Ebionites the other Jewish Christians who generally did not platonize but followed the true Vnitarian System whether we suppose it to be that which was maintain'd by Arius or that which is now known under the Name of Socinianism St. Jerom acknowledges that the Jewish Mineans vulgarly called Nazarens were to that Day over all Orient Ep. ad August There indeed was the Seat of the Jewish Christians And from the 24th Chapter of the 3d. Book and the 25th of the fifth Book of Eus-bius his Ecclesiastical History it may further be gathered that these as well as the Gentile Vnitarians were the Successors of the Primitive and First Christians and were defamed only by the Malice of the Platonists Yet all this Evidence is from the Testimony of professed Enemies there remaining now no other Authors that expresly treat of these things As for the Alogi their very Nick-name bespeaks them to be Vnitarians Epiphanius is the first who gave to them the Name of Alogi Before him they were simply called Christians Epiphanius speaks of them as the ancient Vnitarians of the Gentile Converts But we have above all other Evidences an express Testimony of the Faith of the Primitive Christians in their Symbol justly called the Apostles Creed which manifestly is altogether Vnitarian For it is a Profession of Faith in one God that is the Father Almighty And every thing that is there said of the Lord Jesus Christ is the Description not of an eternal God but of a Creature or Human Person highly exalted by God And of the Holy Ghost no more is said but that it is a Holy Spirit or a Holy Breath or Holy Inspiration The Compilers of the Creed pretended to know no more of it And it is a Generality which the Vnitarians highly approve of but which hitherto the Trinitarians seem not to be pleased to stick to If they were to make a Confession of their Faith they would not express it as it is here or if they did we would readily agree with them To believe in is a Phrase that signifies no more than to believe for the Creed teaches us to believe in the Holy Catholick Church as well as in the Holy Spirit and in one God the Father Almighty As for the Antiquity and Authority of this Creed we have the unanimous Opinion of the Fathers as it appears in their Writings and as is observed by Ruffinus in particular who flourished in the Year 360 that it was compiled by the
favourable for Novelty than these Alterations are soon made in Religion witness the speedy Corruption of the Children of Israel who after a few days that Moses had been absent from them and they being still under the conduct of his Brother Aaron fell to Idolatry Thus as Hegesippus testifies the Apostles were no sooner departed but manifold Errors mightily spread See Euseb Hist Eccl. L. 3. C. 26. What a weak thing then is it for the Trinitarians to stop their ears to the Dictates of Right Reason and to several Texts of Scripture which are express against them and to pretend that we ought to be determined by the fanciful Writings of a few fallible Men most of whom came some considerable while after the Decease of the Apostles The Church of England since the Reformation has had several Learned Writers and in these late times especially If any of their Works remain a thousand Years hence we may humanly suppose in case the Doctrines therein contain'd continue to be liked it will be the Writings of Pearson Stillingfleet Cudworth Tillotson Burnet Scot Cave Towerson and some few others of the like kind But what should we think of our Posterity if they then pretended that the way to find out the Original Meaning of our Articles concerning Predestination and Free Will would be to interpret them by the Sentiments laid down and established or intimated in most of these Great Men's Books Thus we have observed that in the first three Centuries not only few Christians wrote in comparison of what they have done since but it was not impossible even for them considerably to alter the Primitive Sentiments or the Doctrin of the Gospel 4. Many excellent Works of the Primitive Writers have been suppressed and destroyed which were most express for the Vnitarian Sentiment The Trinitarians themselves regret many of those Writings of the Primitive Christians of the first three Centuries which appear to have been suppressed and destroyed Dalaeus in the first Chapter of his first Book De usu Patrum acknowledges that tho' there were but few that then wrote yet the greatest part of those few Writings have been lost thro' the injury of Time or the Fraud of Men presuming that those Books were not to be preserved that were not altogether or near enough agreable to their Sentiments Such were says he the five Books of Papias Bishop of Hierapolis the Apology of Quadratus the Apology of Aristides the Works of Castor Agrippa the five Books of Hegesippus the Works of Melito Bishop of Sardis the Works of Dyonisius of Corinth of Appollinaris of Hierapolis of Pinytus the Cretian of Philippus Musanus Modestus Bardesanes Pantaenus Rhodo Miltiades Apolloninus Serapion Bacchylus Polyerates Heraclius Maximus Hammonius Trypho Hippolites Julius Africanus Dyonisue Alexandrinus and others If we had had left us such Writings as those of Hegesippus or any Ecclesiastical History of some professed Vnitarian either senior or but contemporary to Eusebius no doubt we should hear of several other Writers who expresly taught Vnitarianism besides those mention'd by Dalaeus like Theodotion Aquila Symmachus Paulus Patriarch of Antioch Theodorus of Byzantium Artemas Apollonides Hermophilus Lucianus and others seeing the Jewish Converts as shall be shewn appear for several Centuries to have been Vnitarians and it is credible not only that the Gentile Christians likewise were so originally but also that the generality or greatest part of them continued such for some time even when the Alterations began to be made till the rigid Platonists made use of all manner of violence to extirpate the Truth Howbeit the Criticks who have writen impartially concerning the Ante-nicenâ— Fathers are of opinion that the Writings of about 200 of them are lost for about 20 others some of whose Works have been preserved we may say such as they are tho' probably not such altogether as we shall observe as they originally were And they impute this Loss to the Errors which they suppose were contain'd in those Books and which the Trinitarian Party when they were become the strongest and were thorowly settled thought sit to Suppress as much as they could H. Valesius in his first Note on Euseb L. 5. C. 11. speaking of the Hypotyposes of St. Clemens concerning which Photius had observed that they are full of Arianism as that the Son is but a Creature and such like notes hereupon that not only the Hypotyposes of Clemens but the Works of Hegesippus Papias and other Primitive Ante-nicene Fathers were for the Errors abounding therein slighted and lost Which is in effect to say that the too visible and express Agreement of the generality or greatest part of the most ancient Fathers and Doctors with the Vnitarians was the Cause that their Writings have been destroyed The Trinitarians cannot but know that the Arians offer'd to be tried by the Tradition and Fathers of the first three Centuries and that Athanasius declined it as Bishop Taylor in particular confesses in his Book intituled The Liberty of Prophesying Sect. 5. Numb 3. p. 85. 4 to His Authorities may there be seen And in Chap. 7th we shall see from a Quotation out of Eusebius that the other Vnitarians appeal'd also to the Tradition of the first two Centuries Now doth n't it become Trinitarians well to make a bustle about Antiquity as if the Catholick Church in all Ages had unanimously been against the Vnitarians The Vnitarians indeed were at length overpower'd by the riotous and violent Platonick Christians who at last did in a great measure Philosophize away Christianity Yet there is not the least grounds to imagin that the Writings of the Vnitarians deserved to be slighted For the Trinitarians themselves that had seen their Books own that the Vnitarians were Men of great and extraordinary Learning See Euseb Hist Eccl. L. 5. C. 28. The World no doubt might now be expermentally convinced of it as we before said had we all the Writings of the ancient Fathers of the first and second Centuries such as the Writings of Papias the Book of Melito Bishop of Sardis intituled Of the Creation and Birth of Christ the History of Hegesippus and the Works of those other Doctors some of whom we have seen named in the List which Dalaeus collected out of Eusebius and Tertullian and Jerom and who in all probability were for the most part of the same Sentiment that Arius maintained afterward by reason whereof 't is likely as was shewn their Books were finally suppressed by the Nicene Platonick Trinitarians and their followers as no doubt it was begun by the other violent and rigid Platonists that were before the Council of Nice That Hegesippus was incontestably Vnitarian and what the Consequence of it is see an English Pamphlet intituled The Judgment of the Fathers concerning the Doctrin of the the Trinity Opposed to Dr. Bull 's Defence of the Nicene Faith p. 41. c. The only Objection is that Eusebius doth not reprove Hegesippus for being an Vnitarian But it may be observed that
purpose The Church says he dispersed thro' the whole World has both from the Apostles and their Disciples received that Faith which is in one God the Father Almighty and in one Jesus Christ the Son of God incarnated for our Salvation and in one Holy Spirit who by the Prophets published the Dispensations of God Jesus Christ is our Lord and God and Saviour and King according to the good Pleasure of the Invisible Father advers haeres L. 1. C. 2. He who has no other God above him is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Ib. C. 19. And in speaking of that Saying of Christ that he knew not the Day and Hour of Judgment he says The Father is above all things for the Father says Christ is greater than I Wherefore in knowledge also the Father is declared to have the Preeminence Ib. L. 2. C. 49. The Apostles would not call any one of his own Persor Lord but him that exerciseth Lordship over all even God the Father and his Son who has received from the Father the Lordship of all the Creation Ib. L. 3. C. 6. The Apostles confessed the Father and Son to be God and Lord but neither named any other God nor confessed any other to be Lord. Ib. C. 9. I invocate thee O Lord the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who art the only true God above whom there is no other God who rulest over all and dost in domination besides our Lord Jesus Christ rule also over the Holy Spirit Ib. C. 6. By these Passages it appears that Irenaeus held the Father alone to be God in the most eminent sense of that word and the Son to be Lord and God under the Father but the Holy Spirit to be neither Lord nor God Yet he might hold the Holy Spirit to be above the Angels and 't is probable he understood thereby what the Vnitarians do These Matters being left in a great Generality in Scripture the Fathers explained them as they thought best That liberty of inquiry and examination must be allowed of so those explications and interpretations be but offer'd as Opinions and Conjectures but be not Magisterially imposed by any Man on other Men. For to follow the Design and Intention of Scripture Christians must Unite in the Generality of the Terms of Scripture as we see it in the Apostles Creed If these Measures had always been observed Platonism had done but little harm It seems that Platonism made the Platonizing Fathers differ from the strict Vnitarians and Arians I mean the Ancient and Primitive Christians that held the Sentiment that Arius revived or improved For it seems he believed after them that the Word like other Creatures was made out of Nothing But it seems Plato as after him his Christian Disciples of the Number of whom Irenaeus seems to be taught that the Word was created out of the Substance of God Dalaeus observes in the last quoted Place of his aforesaid Book that Tertullian tho' the most thorow-stitcht Platonist of his time had much the same Thoughts and held that God the Father produced the Word out of himself and made him his Son but that the Father is the whole Substance and the Son a Portion and Derivation of that whole In another Place the same Tertullian says expresly that there was a time when the Son was not Adv. Hermogen C. 3. and it seems that by the Holy Spirit-he means only the Vertue and Power of God De Praescript C. 13. Novatian says that the Holy Spirit is less than Christ De Trin. C. 24. moreover that once the Son was not and that before him was nothing besides the Father C. 11. Whereby he positively asserts that the Father alone is from all Eternity and consequently that the Father alone is God in the eminent Sense of that word Which is very different from the Sentiment of the rigid Platonists and the present Trinitarians who hold the Son and Holy Spirit to be from all Eternity as well as the Father and to be equal among themselves and co-equal with him as it is in the Creed of Athanasius Now those that do not assert the Son and Spirit to be eternal and consequently not to have a necessary Existence nor unlimited Perfections nor unborrowed Powers or Powers that they have not received freely from another may very well pass for Vnitarians seeing they make not the Son and Spirit to be God like the Father but the Father's Creatures Dalaeus in the Place we last quoted remarks that those expressions which afterwards were so much found sault with in Arius were used by these Antenicene be mentions Dionysius Arexandrinus who expresly calls the Son the Father's Workmanship which is the same as to say the Father's Creature They expresly say that the Father Made the Son and they even use the very term that the Father Created him Nay Dalaeus in the same Place forgets not to take notice that the 80 Platonick Bishops who at the latter end of the 3d. Century so violently condemned the famous Patriarch of Antioch yet at the same time did expresly declare that the Son is not of the same Essence with the Father Now therefore by the Acknowledgement of the Trinitarians themselves the Post-Nicene Trinitarians cannot with any Modesty pretend that the Ancients were of the same Opinion with them and consequently there can be nothing more vain than for them to plead Antiquity Origen like the foregoing Authors not only called the Son a Second God Contr. Cel. L. 5. p. 258. but a Creature and the oldest of the Creatures Ib. p. 257. And in his First and Second Books concerning Prayer he has so many Arguments against Praying to any but the Father and so blames those that would also direct their Prayers to the Son plainly calling them Fools for so doing that it clearly appears that according to him the Supreme or true Divinity belong'd to the Father only This is so notorious that many have believed that Origen was of the same Opinion that Arius afterwards was of and Epiphanius did well observe that in many Places Origen makes the Son and Holy Spirit to be of another kind of God-head or of another Nature and Essence than that of the Father Epiphan adv Haer. L. 2. T. 1. p. 531. Now since so antient so renowned and learned a Doctor as Origen was of this Sentiment that alone is a sufficient Argument that the Notion of the present Trinitarians was not then known to be the Apostolick Doctrin that at least the Tradition about that Point is uncertain and consequently that the Determination thereof ought not to be sought for by this Means Indeed in reason so Abstruse and Intricate a Matter ought to be Magisterially determined by no Means if they are not attended with greater evidence but every one must be allowed to judge the best he can for himself and Men must Unite in the use of the terms and expressions themselves of Scripture if they appear to be susceptible of a
have been permitted to come to our hands so express themselves that they may be taken for Arians Howbeit it suffices us if they generally appear to be but Semi-Arians For then it is evident the present Trinitarians cannot justly plead Antiquity The celebrated Writings of Lactantius are a further Testimony to what I have said concerning the State of the Platonick Trinitarianism in the Church before the Council of Nice He asserts that God before he set upon this ourious Work of the World begat an incorruptible and irreproveable Spirit that he might call him his Son Altho' God produced also for his Service infinite others whom we call Angels yet he has vouchsafed to give the Name of Son but to his First-born Instit L. 4. C. 6. And because the Son was faithful to God and taught Mankind that there is one God and that he alone is to be worshipped neither did ever call himself a God because he had not discharged his Trust therefore he received the Dignity of a Perpetual Priest and the Honor of a Soveraign King and the Power of a Judg and the Name of God Ib. C. 13. Now when any one has a Son whom he entirely loves who notwithstanding dwells in the House and under the Governing Power of his Father altho' the Father grants him the Name and Authority of a Master yet in the terms of Civilians here is but one House and one Master So this World is but one House belonging to God and the Son and the Father who inhabit the World and who are of one Mind or of like Affections and perfectly agree are as One Government or One only God the One being as the Two and the Two as the One. And no marvel since the Son is in the Father because the Father loveth the Son and the Father is in the Son by reason of his faithful Resignation to his Fathers Will and that he does nothing but what the Father Commands him This evidently declares in what sense the Father and Son are to be understood to be One God or One Mind and One Spirit Namely inasmuch as they are of one Mind they are therefore as if they were but one Spirit or but one Person and one God Yet according to this they really are Two distinct Beings and Two very unequal Spirits For the Son has freely received all from the Father and is ever Inferior and Subject to the Father and was produced then when God was going to set himself upon the Creating of the World and consequently is not from all Eternity The Father then is the First and Principal God and the Son is a God of a lower kind If this be not pure Arianism as it may be taken and seems to be all that it can amount to is at most Semi-Arianism which indeed very little differs from Arianism for both Systems hold the Son to be God but in an Inferior sense and assert the Father alone to be the one only true God tho' the Semi-Arians esteem that the Son was Created out of the Fathers Nature or Substance whereas Arius and those that are exactly of his Opinion as was said conceive that the Son tho' immediately produced by the Father was Created out of Nothing and only differs from other Creatures in that he is more Excellent than they all put together was Created by the Father alone and is set by the Father over all created Beings As concerning the Person and Nature of the Holy Spirit Dalaeus in the Fourth Chap. of his Second Book De usu Patrum remarks after St. Jerom that Lactantius expresly asserts the Holy Ghost to be but a Creature and not to partake of the Deity Sandius brings many Instances to prove that both Lactantius and all the other foremention'd Authors were even of Arius his Sentiment and not they only but also generally the remaining Ante-nicene Writers All these Authors which we have quoted were undoubtedly most learned and deservedly esteem'd in their Generations and are now generally esteem'd still by all Christians and indeed they may be accounted the Chief of the Ante-nicene whose Writings have been preserved We may also rank among them Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea as well as Lactantius since he Flourished somtime before as well as since the Council of Nice and appears to follow wholly the Sentiments of Justin Martyr when not aw'd by the Nicene Tyranny so that the then current Ante-nicene Doctrin may be known in these Writings Concerning these Matters therefore we may remark Eusebius expresses himself to this purpose He that is beyond all things the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the Governor of all things how many and of what quality soever they be even of the Holy Spirit himself yea further of the Only Begotten Son also is deservedly stiled by the Apostle the God that is over all and he only may be called the one God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ But the Son is the Only Begotten God who is in the Bosom of the Father And the Advocate the Holy Spirit is neither God nor Son for he has not received his Production from the Father like the Son but is one of those things which were made by the Son De Ecclesiast Theol. L. 3. C. 6. If John had conceived the Father and the Son to be one and the same thing he would have said that the Word was the God with the Addition of the Article which not doing he evidently teaches us that he is the Prime God who is the Father of the Word and that the Word was not that very God but yet that he also was a God Ib. L. 2. C. 17. This is the Current Doctrin of the Old Ante-nicene Platonists concerning the Son and Holy Ghost Eusebius like the other before him expresly asserts that the Holy Ghost is not God and it is visible he says no more of the Son than at most what is agreable to Semi-Arianism That was it seems what the generality of the Primitive or Ancient Aâ—teâ—nicene Platonists meant by the Divinity of the Word and for the not coming up to which they opposed the Ebionite and the Nazarene Vnitarians Eusebius in the 25th and last Chap. of the 5th Book of his History quotes a remarkable Passage of an Author a Platonizing Christian who had written upon that account against the most rigid Vnitarians The Passage is to this effect The Vnitarians pretend that the Apostles and all the Ancients held the very Doctrine concerning the Person of our Saviour that is now maintained by the Vnitarians and that it is but only since the Times of the Popes Victor and Zepherin that the Truth has been adulterated and discountenanced This would be credible if first the Vnitarian Doctrin were not contrary to Holy Scripture and if divers before Victor and Zepherin had not contended for the Divinity of the Lord Christ Namely Justin Martyr Miltiades Tatianus Clemens of Alexandria Irenaeus Melito To whom we may add the ancient Hymns or
fine pretended that it seems marvellous that a Creature should be named before and should be said to have the preheminence over the Power of God by the Holy Ghost understanding the Influence of the Divine Power and Divine Inspiration it must be remembred both that by the Divine Inspiration or Influence of the Divine Power the Vnitarians do not understand a Person but a Property or an Act and that agreeably to the express Doctrine of Scripture they hold that Christ is made partaker of the Fulness of the Godhead in the manner we have spoken of before and just now have further specified so that for Desiring the Father he may at any time Dispose of the Divine Power and Inspiration and doth actually dispose thereof as is said according to what he pleases to ask it of God and therefore the Holy Spirit is represented as proceeding from the Father by the Son and the Holy Spirit is said to be Christ's Now it is not strange that the Disposer should be mentioned before the thing disposed of as it is in the Form of Baptism There is then no need to insist any longer upon this And so we have don with the second Particular importing that the Assertions of the Vnitarians are not uncredible and that their Interpretations are rational and agreeable to the stile and current of Scripture and therefore natural and obvious enough And this together with the following Particular being considered the Trinitarian Sentiment will appear to be wholly groundless and incontestably therefore altogether incredible For indeed is it likely that Christianity for many Ages having been altered in many weighty Points the present Trinitarian at least seemingly impossible and contradictory System has all this while remained the same that it was from the beginning and by the hands of the Platonists and Scholasticks has passed pure and undefiled In Summ. When some Texts seem susceptible of two Senses the one more literal but expresly irrational or contradictory impossible manifestly inconsistent with other Passages and the Current of Scripture and the other more strained or figurative but agreeable to the Scripture-Stile and reconcileable with Reason which of the two Senses do the generality of Christians and in particular Protestants commonly prefer in their Interpretations They unanimously hold as a standing Rule by which the Scripture is to be interpreted that it may be rightly understood as was shewn in the last Chapter That We are to reject that Sense which is manifestly absurd and inconsistent with express Texts and are then to hold by that which is reconcileable to Reason and Scripture tho' somwhat more remote from the Sound of the Words And indeed it would evidently be most unreasonable to follow other Measures We ought then most incontestably constantly to prefer that Interpretation which is consistent with Scripture and Reason before that which is inconsistent with both And this Consideration leads Us to the next Particular CHAP. XIII An Answer to the third Branch of the Objection 3. IT is possible and easy and warrantable to understand in an Vnitarian Sense all the Texts which the Trinitarians alledge for their Sentiment To evince the truth of which Proposition we shall consider those Texts which are mentioned in the Objection and instanced in as the strongest for the Anti-Vnitarian Cause and as for the others we shall refer the Reader to the Brief History of the Vnitarians or even to Grotius his Annotations but especially to the Works of the Fratres Poloni The Texts instanced in for the purpose aforesaid are those which either call Christ the Son of God by way of eminency or shew that Christ may and is to be Pray'd to and declare that God will have Men honour the Son even as they honour the Father As to the Texts which call Christ the Son of God by way of eminency an Observation of Dr. Sherlocks will go a great way to give a light into that Matter These are his words at Pages 71st and 72d of his Book against the Bishop of Gloucester That which entitles Creatures to the natural relation of Sonship to God is to receive their being from God in the likeness and resemblance of his own Nature Thus Angels are called the Sons of God and so is Adam who was immediately formed by God in his own Image and Likeness And thus som think that Christ who was as immediately formed by a Divine Power in the Womb of the Virgin as Adam was of the Dust of the Earth is for this reason called the Son of God See Luk. 1.35 where that reason is expresly given of Christ's being call'd the Son of God The Vnitarians to this Observation will in particular add that no Creature was ever made in so great a Likeness and Resemblance of the Divine Nature nor designed to so high a Dignity as Christ was and that this particularly is the reason why Christ is called the Son of God by way of eminency besides that He is actually God's Only-Begotten Son as we did observe from Luk. 1.35 This is a plain and a rational and after all an unexceptionable account of the Matter and therefore what Dr. Sherlock adds thereupon serves only to shew that the Scholastick or Platonick Trinitarian Sentiment of Christ's Sonship is impossible For this is certain and undeniable and yet if the Platonick or Scholastick Sentiment were true this could not be allowed of according to that System for he says that System implies that there being but one Son in Christ it is Heresy to hold that Christ is the Son of God in any other sense than by an Eternal Generation Christ as we have seen is called the Only-Begotten Son of God because he is the only Person whom God caused to be born of a Woman without the help of Man And in that sense he is God's Only Son as well as in this respect that he is the only Lord whom God has placed at the head of the Vniverse and to whom he has subjected all Creatures For Soveraigns and Kings are called the Sons of God Luk. 1.32 John 1.49 c. as is shewn in the Introduction of Dr. Patrick's Witnesses of Christianity and this is the Only Soveraign and King who is constituted the Lord of all other created Lords and Kings in which respect he is like to God which we have not well translated equal to God as also in respect of the exercise of the Divine Power in working the greatest Miracles whenever be pleased and whenever he will Som People are apt to imagin that even God being called the Father is a valid Proof of more Persons than One in the Divine Nature But seriously do they think that the Samaritan Women and common Soldiers were acquainted with the Scholastick or Platonick Trinity Yet these speak of a Son of God Mat. 27.54 and to the other our Saviour speaks of the Father as of Somwhat intelligible to them John 4.21 Conclude we then that by the Father we must understand God the
wanderers strayed aside from the Simplicity of Religion and preferred the arbitrary Notions of a vain Philosophy before it doth it follow that the generality of the Jews were Platonists As for Philo Eusebius conjectures and Photius expresly affirms that he was a Christian if so it must be a Platonick Christian or kind of Semi-Arian Some then have thought it not impossible but that this Philo whose Works we have is not he who went on the Embassage to Caligula but is another Philo of the Second Century Neither do they think it impossible but that the Monks may have very much corrupted his Writings Indeed it seems improbable that a Jew should have written all that is attributed to Philo. Howbeit it suffices that he was a Platonist and had a great many extravagant Notions See Mr. Nye's Second Letter to a Peer p. 66. c. After all the Platonists as was observed are very obscure And some contend that all that Philo says of a Trinity amounts not above Arianism See Sandi Hist. Eccl. enucl Lib. 1. Secul 1. But what do we say of the Cabbala or Traditionary Knowledg delivered from Father to Son since the time of Moses Why in good earnest what can we say of it but that it is a Chimera a rabinnical Legend a pharisaïcal Device to deceive the People and make every thing pass as Sacred that the Doctors please All Protestants look upon Tradition as a most unsafe and uncertain Means of transmitting from Age to Age Divine Truths and as no fixed Rule of Religion And we see Our Saviour never mentions the Jewish Tradition but to oppose it After all it can never be shewn that the Cabbala asserts a Trinity of Persons in God Ever since that Doctrin has been broached the generality of the Jews have expressed the Offense they have taken at it and have made it an Objection against Christians Origen says that tho' he had often disputed with the Jewish Rabbins that were of most esteem he never saw any of them approve this Doctrin that the Word is God or a God in the Platonick or Trinitarian Sense And he asserts that it is not the Opinion of the Jews that the Messias whom they expect is to be a God or a Divin Person but they believe he is to be a meer Man and an Earthly King Con. Cels. L. 2. p. 79. and L. 4. p. 162. See Bull. Judic Eccl. p. 170. And in Mr. Nye's 2d Letter to a Peer p. 50 51 52. you may see some more Quotations to the same purpose out of Justin Martyr St. Athanasius and others Indeed some Jewish Books treat very mysteriously and sometimes almost unintelligibly of the Names and Attributes of God Howbeit the Authors never meant thereby so many Divine Persons or any more than one such Person the Jews all along strongly opposing the Doctrin of more Persons than one in God As for the manifestly forged Writings of some Christians they are not to be attributed to the Jews See Mr. Nye's 2d Letter p. 53. You may see his Account of the Cabbala in his 3d. Letter p. 100. c. Maimonides determines this Matter in these words There are some things says he in which Jews Mahometans and Christians do agree But the Mahometans and Christians have divers Doctrines that are peculiar to themselves the Doctrin for instance of the Trinity is proper to Christians and to defend it they have been obliged to invent some very singular Principles More Nevochim Part. 1. Chap. 71. Mr. Nye has several other Quotations to the same import as also Vorstius in his Bilibra veritatis But what do we say to the Chaldee Paraphrase which often mentions the Word of God and represents him as a Person We say perhaps it is not exactly known what Philosophical Notions Onkelos and Jonathan might have who were the Authors of that Paraphrase it may be they were Platonists and accommodated some of Plato's expressions to the Jewish Sentiments howbeit we do not doubt but that all which they say of the Word is consistent with the Vnitarian Sense and we are certain that as we have shewn the Body of the Jews were Vnitarians The same Expression then in an Author may somtimes be taken in divers Significations The Word of God may sometimes signify the Message and somtimes the Messenger of God somtimes the Command it self and somtimes the Person that carries the Divine Command to Men somtimes a Divine Influence or a Divine Virtue the Wisdom and Energy of God or his Inspiration figuratively represented as a Person or his Will and Decree and somtimes a Creature in Office and Dignity an Archangel a Minister of God or one who acts for God and by God's Commission and who in some measure represents him By these Observations 't is easy to explain in an Vnitarian Sense all the Places where the Chaldee Paraphrasts mention the Word of God Probably they thereby commonly understand in speaking of God the Wisdom of God attended and set forth with Command and Authority in acting which Word or Authority God somtimes communicates in different manners or measures to some Creatures And therefore somtimes by the Word of God they understand a Creature for instance at the 1st Verse of the 110th Psalm they give that Name to Solomon because the Kings of Israel were God's Deputies and perhaps they interpreted that Verse like some other Places of the Messiah to whom it is applicable and who as they expected was to be a Temporal King of the House of David No reason can be assigned why they could not give that Title in that sense to the Messiah holding him only as a Creature tho' sometimes they gave it to some of God's Attributes Dr. Allix fancies that Philo actually personalized one of the Divin Attributes namely the Divin Wisdom whom he called the Word of God Yet as we have before remark'd the Dr. himself observ'd that Philo calls also Angels in the Plural the Words of God Philo. De Migrat Abrah p. 415. The same Title then may be given both to God or some Divin Influence or Divin Virtue and to some Creatures who act for God and who peculiarly represent him and in and by whom he extraordinarily manifests his Wisdom and Authority What belongs to God may be accomodated or figurativly attributed to such Crearures And it is incontestable that by the Word in speaking of God and by the Divin Spirit or the Breath of his Mouth may be meant the Actings or most eminent Manifestations of his Wisdom and Power As for such expressions as these in the Old Testament O God I have waited for thy Salvation when they are accommodated to the Messiah or the times of the Messiah they may import no more than this O God I have waited for thy Succor or the Deliverance of thy People from the Power of their Enemies by the means of thy Victorious Messenger the Great King of Israel Howbeit the Messiah acting for God and being a King might be called
God as well as Solomon Ps 45. and with much greater reason We cannot better conclude this Article than with two Observations in Dr. Bull 's Book Judicium Ecclesiae In the first Ages of Christianity it was a great Controversy between some Christians and the Jews whether the Messias according to the descriptions given of him in the Old Testament is to be God or a Man only Those Christians believed He is represented in the Old Testament as God or a God the Jews as a mere Man Judic Eccl. p. 15 16. And at p. 21. the Dr. adds Our Saviour puts this Question to the Pharisees Whose Son is Christ They answered says the Text the Son of David But if Christ says our Saviour again is the Son of David why then doth David call him Lord The Evangelist remarks hereupon they were not able to answer him a word But had they known any thing of the Divinity of the Messias the Solution of the proposed Difficulty had been most easy and obvious to ' em We may then conclude the Jews believed only that the Christ was to be a Great King in this World but not a Great King in the next and much less did they imagin He should be God in a Superior Sense than this whether in the Arian or Tritheistick Sense So that the Generality of the Jews were as certainly Vnitarians as the Generality of the Heathens were Polytheists And as for the Conceits of the objected Philosophers we have seen that their Speculations are of as little Importance and Authority as they are mysterious and uncertain obscure and unintelligible 2. The Passages in Pliny's Letter and in the Dialogue intituled Philopatris are incontestably invalid Arguments The Passage in Pliny's Letter so much objected to the Vnitarians is that he says Christians in their Meetings Sang Hymns to Christ ut Deo as being a God To this the Vnitarians give the following answers First it is probable that Passage is corrupted and instead of ut Deo we should read et Deo for so it was in the Copies in Tertullian's time Tertul. Apol. adv Gentes C. 3. And then the Meaning being that Christians Sang Hymns to Christ AND to God that is so far from implying that they held Christ to be God Almighty himself that it shews the contrary Christ being there distinguished from God And his being joyned with God in Hymns Sang to both their Praise argues no more his being God himself than it would argue that Jael is God because she is blessed as well as God in the same Psalm of Praise Judg. 5.2 Praise ye the Lord for the avenging of Israel And at the 24th Verse Blessed above Women shall Jael be Deborah also her self the Composer of this Hymn and Barack the Governors of Israel and the Princes of Issachar are praised at the 7th 9th 12th and 15th Verses Thus in the 5th Chapter of the Revelations Men and Angels are represented Singing Hymns both to God and Christ saying Blessing Honor Glory and Power be unto Him that siteth upon the Throne and unto the Lamb for ever and ever Worthy is the Lamb that was Slain to receive Power and Riches and Wisdom and Strength and Honor and Glory and Blessing And the four and twenty Elders said Worthy is the Lamb for he was Slain and has redeemed us to God by his Blood c. Which by the way it may be observed shews what incontestably Christians ought to do viz. tho' not to address direct and ultimate Prayers yet to Sing Hymns in Honor to Christ which may be lookt upon as the true Interpretation of Ps 72.15 spiritually accommodated to Christ besides that there is no doubt but that the Angels and the Holy Spirits in Heaven may daily present Requests and Petitions to Christ concerning particular Men and Churches and when Christ is seen he is to be addressed unto by Men as their Saviour and their Sovereign under God Moreover the generality of the Vnitarians ever held that Christ is to be Worshipped and Prayed to as the Mediator of the New-Covenant and the Vicegerent of the Universe constantly assisted with the Divin Wisdom and Power to the Glory of the Father according to God's appointment Secondly reading Vt Deo that may signify either as being God or as being a God and as if he were God that is were held God or a God If the former that might be Pliny's own mistaken Conjecture that because he understood Christians Sang Christ's Praises he therefore imagin'd they took him for the Supreme God But indeed 't is most unlikely that this was Pliny's Meaning for being used himself according to the Heathen Rites to Sing Hymns to others besides the Supreme God or suppos'd Supreme Gods it seems he could not upon this account conclude that Christians believed Christ to be God Almighty himself It seems therefore he could only mean that Christians Sang Hymns in Praise of Christ as believing him to be A GOD. By which Phrase the Heathens themselves knew 't was not necessary to understand the Supreme God For as the Scripture calls some Creatures Gods so the Heathens tho' groundlesly yet often gave that Title to several whom they knew and owned to be Created Beings And in Chap. 2d we have seen that Christians in those times made no difficulty to do the like where whether now right or wrong is another Question they thought they had warrant from Scripture to give that Appellation to some glorified Creatures and therefore there is no doubt but that since many of them gave it to Angels in an inferior Sense they much more gave it to Christ the Sovereign of all Angels as well as Men tho' they believed him to be but such a dignified Creature If Pliny's Meaning was as 't is not impossible but that the Expression may import that Christians Sang to Christ as if he were held God or a God that is quite contrary to what Trinitarians would have him to attest For then 't is as if he had said that Christians Sang to Christ as if they had believed him to be God or a God which yet according to this it should seem they believed not But most probably not this but the foregoing was Pliny's Sense if we must read VT Deo namely as to a God or as to one whom they held for a God As for the Dialogue intituled Philopatris wherein mention is made of the God who is Three and One One and Three the best Criticks own it not to be a Dialogue of Lucian's as the Translators themselves observe We have many instances of several Treatises joyned either by chance or out of design to some Authors Works that yet belong not to that Author It may then very well be that that Dialogue is much later than Lucian But if it were Lucian's what could the Trinitarians infer from thence but that there were then some Christians that believed a Platonick Trinity and that Lucian was acquainted with some of them or had confusedly