not a greater respect than Polybius or Livy not only upon the account of their Antiquity but for those excellent remarks they contain and the Theists of our Age may as well doubt whether there were such a man as Cyrus and Alexander as Moses and Joshua and question whether Cicero wrote those Orations and the other excellent Books that go under his name or Virgil those admired Poems as whether St. Mathew or St. John who were the known Disciples of Christ and conversed daily with him for above three years together wrote those Gospels which contain the History and Acts of his Life and Death Upon these evidences our assent is raised which make it rational and just our Faith is resolv'd into the testimony of God which is only the rule of it we believe nothing but what our Saviour and his Apostles taught for which we have the authority of their words and what the whole number of Christian People embraced and received as the just and true meaning of them Now because we cannot reconcile these express and clear Revelations of the Gospel laid down in plain expressions as that Christ is the son of God was in the beginning with God before the world was made God manifested in the flesh God blessed for ever and that he and the father are one not to descend to the other Articles which are laid down as clearly with our narrow conceptions of things is most irrationally to conclude against God in favour of our selves meerly for this only reason because we cannot tell or understand how it can or should be when he hath told us expresly it is so Hereupon they heap up strange and absurd interpretations of Scripture and which are impossible to be true they deny to words their proper and natural and genuine significations they fancy nothing but improprieties and ambiguities of expression and admit of absurd notions for all their high vaunts and pretences to reason which destroy the very design and institution of Christianity Thus our most blessed Saviour the only begotten son of God must be only so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God only by grace and favour and for the holiness and excellence of his life as Ebion and Arius and Paulus Samosatenus used to blaspheme of old or Deus Factus a Created God only such by Designation and Office as our modern Socinians impiously distinguish when not only the name but the essential Attributes of the Godhead are ascribed to him Thus the Doctrine of the Ever blessed Trinity which is clearly contain'd in the form of Baptism as might fully be made good against the exceptions and cavils of Wolsogenius and in St. Joh. v. 7. a Verse written by the same hand that wrote all the rest of the Epistle as it is most evident from the verses in conjunction with it which would be altogether defective and imperfect without it however it be omitted in the Alexandrine Manuscript rather by chance for that is not the only omission in that Copy than design as if it had favoured the Heresie of the Antitrinitarians this Doctrine of the Trinity I say must be exploded because they cannot satisfie their bold curiosity as why the emanation of the Deity stops at three Hypostases that is why the Divine Essence is not communicated to more than Three Persons and how it can be Communicated and yet altogether remain Vndivided and the like That this Article was explicitly believed in the very beginnings of Christianity may to omit at present other wayes of proofs be evinced hence that the Heathens of those times used to upbraid the Christians with the belief of so unlikely a Doctrine Thus Critias in the Dialogue Philopatris which if not Lucians was written however in Trajan's time whose victories and successes in the East and particularly in the taking of Ctesiphon and Babylon and other places from the Persians and in repressing the incursions of the Scythians as hapning just at that time are there mentioned when Triephon had expressed the belief and sense of the Christians about this Article by adjuring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes a mock at it and replies with a great deal of impudent raillery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So far is that from having the least truth in it which the Enemies and Opposers of this Doctrine affirm without the least shew of Reason and Authority that it derives wholly from Pythagoras and Plato and was learned in their Schools and afterwards drest up by the Fathers who were admirers of that Philosophy and not heard of till the Third or Fourth Century So that upon the whole it will appear that the Christian Religion has just and sure evidences and therefore to fancy which is the only thing they can alledge in behalf of their Unbelief that nothing is or can be believed but what ought to be fully comprehended by the Understanding is so foolish so unjust so unreasonable a thing that nothing but intolerable Pride and Obstinacy can possibly suggest such a Thought and consequently that before any one can become an Arrian or a Socinian he must forego his Reason and forget that God is of infinite Perfection and forget too that he himself is a Man To draw towards a Period Christianity being a Great Mystery and necessarily such It is but a natural inference that all our enquiries into the Articles of it be sober and modest that we expect not a comprehensive knowledg of them that we be not too busie and curious in our Searches into the Secrets of God that being conscious to our selves of the defects and shallowness and weakness of our Reason in lesser matters how imperfect and untrue oftentimes our collections are of sensible beings to which our faculties may seem proportionate and to what errors and delusions we are subject by taking up false notions by fancy and prejudice we learn to be wise unto sobriety and not to think of our selves above what we ought to think It was nothing at first but an overbold curiosity not content with Revelation and with just proofs of it that raised in the mind thoughts of Disbelief but it stopt not here it soon improved into a proud conceit of mastering all the difficulties of Religion by the strength of Reason and to this we may justly impute the original and growth of all those Heresies and Blasphemies that have been vented from the very first Preaching of the Gospel to this day It is a vain thing to think to do this 't is a passing beyond the bounds which God and our own Nature hath set us a piece of Sacrilegious rashness as Salvian justly words it in his third Book De Gubernatione Dei speaking of the various dispensations of Providence Hoc ipsum genus quasi Sacrilegae temeritatis est si plus scire cupias quà m sinaris The Articles of Faith as they are not to be tried so neither to be proved by the Principles of Mathematicks or
Upon this the Enemies of this Doctrine triumph and boldly pretend that it was inserted by the Catholicks Thus to mention only one for all Socinus himself in his Commentary on these words Satis constat illa esse Adulterina ab hominibus qui suum dogma de trino uno Deo quâcunque ratione defendere propagare volebant in hunc locum infarcta But let the appeal lye to any indifferent Person which is most likely that those who professed their belief of this Doctrine which was grounded too upon several other Texts of Scripture and was derived down to them from the first Ages of the Church and which they contended for with so much earnestness should without any necessity dare commit such a Forgerie which could not but be taken notice of by their watchful Enemies or that this should be done by the Opposers of this Doctrine who were arraigned in general by all the Catholick Writers who had to do with them as falsifiers of the sacred Records and were so much concern'd to do it in defence of their private tenets and fancies and especially to raze this Text with which they were so oppressed out of several Copies from which by Transcripts it might easily be propagated into others And consequently it is not to be admired that several of the Fathers no not Athanasius himself nor Cyril of Alexandria not St. Hilary who defended with so much learning the truth of this great Mystery did not make use of this Testimony they lighting upon some of these Transcripts which is to be said also for St. Austin in his Book 3. Chap. 22. against Maximinus an Arian Bishop for St. Leo in his Epistle to Flavian Bishop of Constantinople against the Heresie of Eutyches Ep. 10. Cap. 5. for Eucherius de questionibus N. Testamenti and for Oecumenius in his Commentary on this Epistle and several others The same reason holds for the omission of it in the Syriack Arabick and Aethiopick Translations the two former of which as they are now extant as is most probable were made long since the times of Arius notwithstanding the pretensions of some to a far greater Antiquity the last is confessedly of a later Date The scarcity of Copies in those days and the malitious industry and cunning of the Hereticks render the conjecture sufficiently probable if no Copy were to be found with this Verse entire and that we had only the authority of some of the Antients who cite it as authentick as having met with it in their Books The Divines of Lovain in collating the N. T. with a great number of Latin Copies found it only wanting in five R. Stephanus in his Edition of the N. T. had the use of fifteen or sixteen old Greek MSS. above half of which retain'd it So the Edition of the N. T. at Complutum compared with antient MSS. printed in the beginning of the Restauration of Polite Literature in Christendome at the expences of the great Cardinal Ximenes only with this variation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus Erasmus confesses he met with a Manuscript in England which he calls by the name of Codex Britanicus which had the whole seventh Verse as we now read it and the eight Verse the latter part thus altered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall lay no stress upon two Writings which pass under the name of Athanasius where this Verse is cited because it is not to be met with in those larger works of his which are acknowledged genuine the one is an account of a disputation according to the title had with Arius in the Council of Nice but the title is faulty as appears from the Discourse it self nor was Arius the Person disputed with there but one of his followers and the reason of the mistake of the title may be ascrib'd to an ignorant Librarius putting down Arius for Arianus and the Dialogue not real but supposed as was usual amongst the Fathers introducing the Hereticks pleading their Cause and the Orthodox refuting their Cavils and defending the Truth And if this may pass for likely there can be no great reason to suspect the Authenticalness of it the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The other is in a Book extant only in Latine lib. 1. de unitâ Deitate Trinitatis ad Theophilum dicente Joanne Evangelistâ in Epistolà sua tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in Coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus But this piece I confess is very justly rejected as none of his though perchance wrote not many years after his time St. Cyprian who suffered Martyrdome about the year of Ch. 258. Galienus and his Son Valerianus being then Emperours about sixty years before the calling of the Council of Nice in his book de unitate Ecclesiae Catholicae cites this Text expresly as found in the Copies of his time Dicit Dominus Ego Pater unum sumus iterum de Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto hi Tres unum sunt It is not any way material to the design and purpose of this Scholion to inquire in what sense St. Cyprian understood these words but only to vindicate the antiquity of the Copies that retained this reading though it might easily be proved that it was a thing usual with the Fathers as no one can be ignorant who has turn'd over their Writings to interpret places of Scriptures sometimes not according to their primary intent but by way of accomodation Which testimony is so clear and convincing that Sandius in his Appendix quaestionum Paradoxarum uses all his art and skill to avoid the force of it by pretending that several things have been changed added taken away and some other way varied in the Epistle as appears by the observation of Possevinus who took the pains to compare the printed Copies with four MSS. and the acknowledgment of others Perkins James and Rivet from which premises he concludes very boldly upon a meer possibility that this place was never cited by that blessed Martyr but put in by some body else Quam facile itaque etiam hic locus interseri potuit ab his qui non exhorruerunt sacras literas corrumpere propter metum Hereticorum But first this is barely said without the least proof and without the authority of any MS. Secondly neither Pamelius nor Rigaltius nor any other as I know of who put forth St. Cyprian make mention of any various reading in this place all agreeing in it Now that this Epistle is St. Cyprians is undoubted St Cyprian himself referring to it and that the reading is the same now as it was in the old Copies written above eleven hundred and forty years ago appears from Fulgentius who not only cites this seventh verse in his book de fide Catholicâ adversus Pintam Episcopum Arianum in his testimonies del rinitate and in his book de Trinitate ad Felicem Notarium c. 4. which thus begins En habes in brevi
alium esse Patrem alium Filium alium Spiritum sanctum alium alium in personâ non aliud aliud in natura idcirco ego inquit pater unum sumus unum ad naturam referre nos docens sumus ad personas smiliter illud Tressunt inquit qui testimonium dicunt in Coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus hi tres unum sunt Audiat Sabellius sumus audiat tres credat esse tres personas non sacrilego corde blasphemet dicendo ipsum sibi esse Patrem ipsum sibi Filium ipsum sibi Spiritum sanctum tanquam modo quodam seipsum gignat aut modo quodam a seipso ipse procedat cum hoc etiam in naturis creatis minime inveniri possit ut aliquid seipsum gignere valeat Audiat scilicet Arius unum non differentis filium dicat esse naturae cum natura diversa unum dici nequeat but cites this very place of St. Cyprian in his book contra objectiones Arianorum in his answer to the tenth or last objection His words are these In Patre Filio Spiritu sancto unitatem substantiae accipimus personas confundere non audemus beatus enim Johannes Apostolus testatur dicens tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in Coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus hi tres unum sunt Quod etiam beatissimus Martyr Cyprianus in Epistolâ de unitate Ecclesiae confitetur dicens qui pacem Christi concordiam rumpit adversus Christum facit qui alibi praeter Ecclesiam colligit Christi Ecclesiam spargit Atque ut unam Ecclesiam unius Dei esse monstraret haec confestim testimonia de Scriptur â inseruit dicit Dominus Ego Pater unum sumus iterum de Patre Filio Spiritu sancto scriptum est hi tres unum sunt If it be said that St. Cyprian cited only the latter part of the 8. v. where the vulgar Latine has those very words hi tres unum sunt and that thus Facundus Episcopus Hermianensis in the time of Justinian to whom he dedicates his book which he wrote pro desensione trium capitulorum Concilii Chalcedonensis seems to understand it without taking any notice of the 7. v. citing this place of St. Cyprian though by a lapse of his memory he saies it is to be found in Epistolâ sive libro quem de Trinitate scripsit I reply first in general that in might easily be left out by the oscitancy of the Librarii not to say razed out by the Hereticks the Syriack Interpreter reading in his Greek Copy what we find in ours as to the latter part 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accordingly translating it so tres sunt testes Spiritus Aqua Sanguis hi tres in uno sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bechad and so the Arabick Interpreter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in uno only the Aethiopick conforming to the present reading of the vulgar Latine But what will they say to the Alexandrine MS. which they so much adore which has the same reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are the words also of our MS. so in the Copies which Oecumenius followed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Hierom's translation leaves out in the 8. v. hitres unum or in unum sunt and so the Greek of Arias Montanus and the Complutensian Edition in the Margin of which later it is noted that Aquinas in the exposition of the second decretal de summâ Trinitate against Abbot Joachim who perversely interpreting the end of the 7. v. of the unity of will and consent alledges the end of the 8. v. for his authority and justification had made this observation sed hoc in veris exemplaribus non habetur sed dicitur esse appositum ab Hereticis Arianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis praemissae de unitate essentiae trium personarum I suppose the great respect Aquinas had for the vulgar Latin made him rather suspect the whole to be added than that it was ill translated which he would easily have acknowledged had he consulted any Gr. MS. But this kind of learning they were not acquainted with in that Age of Scholastical ignorance and barbarousness Secondly as they take it for granted that this was the reading of the vulgar Latine at that time so they more vainly and weakly suppose that St. Cyprian made use of the same vulgar Latine edition the contrary of which appears in several of his citations and it is more likely that he might translate so literally the latter part of the 7. v. and not at all regard the 8. v. or the vulgar translation and so it appears from the testimony of Fulgentius cited above that he understood it Afterward when several out of an evil design to overthrow the Mystery of the most blessed and adorable Trinity omitted in their translations of the Scriptures into the Latin Tongue this Verse a liberty which it seems every Pretender almost made use of and it may well be suspected that an Arian then as a Socinian now in his translation would be over-favourable to his own opinions by leaving out and putting in what might make for them and accordingly interpreting what was retained to their best advantage St. Hierome in his preface to the Canonical Epistles vindicates the antient reading and laies open the baseness and perfidiousness of these men I shall here put down the whole Preface Non ita ordo est apud Graecos qui integrè sapiunt fidem rectam sectantur Epistolarum septem quae Canonicae nuncupantur sicut in Latinis codicibus invenitur Quod quia Petrus primus est in numero Apostolorum primae sunt etiam ejus Epistolae in or dine caeterarum sed sicut Evangelistas dudum ad veritatis lineam correximus ita has proprio ordini Deo juvante reddidimus Estenim prima earum una Jacobi duae Petri tres Johannis Judae una Quae si sicut ab eis digestae sunt ita quoque ab Interpretibus fidelitèr in Latinum verterentur eloquium nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec sermonum sese varietas impugnaret illo precipuè loco ubi de unitate Trinitatis in primâ Johannis Epistolâ positum legimus in quâ etiam ab infidelibus translatoribus multum err atum esse à fidei veritate comperimus tria tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae sanguinis spiritus in ipsâ suâ editione ponentibus Patris verbique ac spiritûs testimonium omittentibus in quo maximè fides Catholica roboratur patris ac filii ac spiritûs sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur In caeteris vero Epistolis quantum à nostra aliorum differt editio Lectoris prudentiae derelinquo Sed tu Virgo Christi Eustochium dum à me impensius Scripturae veritatem inquiris meam quodammodo senectutem invidorum dentibus corradendam