of Gods Word But were not the Iews to understand it in the Sense it was known among them And if the Chaldee Paraphrast had used it in that Sense he would never have applied it to a Divine Subsistance as upon Examination it will appear that he doth Of which Rittangel gives a very good Account who had been a Iew and was very well skilled in their ancient Learning He tells us That he had a Discourse with a learned Vnitarian upon this Subject who was particularly acquainted with the Eastern Languages and he endeavoured to prove That there was nothing in the Chaldee Paraphrasts use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was promiscuously used by him for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it was applied to God This Rittangel denied and offer'd to prove that the Chaldee Paraphrast did never use that Word in a common manner but as it was appropriated to a Divine Subsistance He produces several places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put and nothing answering to Word in the Hebrew as Gen. 20.21 The Chaldee hath it The Word of Iehovah shall be my God Exod. 2.25 And Iehovah said He would redeem them by his Word Exod. 6.8 Your murmurings are not against us but against the Word of Iehovah Exod. 19.17 And Moses brought the People out to meet the Word of Iehovah Levit. 26.46 These are the Statutes and Iudgments and Laws which Iehovah gave between his Word and the Children of Israel by the hand of Moses Numb 11.20 Ye have despised the Word of Iehovah whose Divinity dwelt among you Numb 23.21 The Word of Iehovah is with him and the Divinity of their King is among them Deut 1.30 The Word of Iehovah shall fight for you Deut. 2.7 These forty years the Word of Iehovah hath been with thee Deut. 1.32 Ye did not believe in the Word of Iehovah your God Deut 4.24 Iehovah thy God his Word is a consuming fire Deut. 5.5 I stood between the Word of Iehovah and you to shew you the Word of the Lord Deut. 32.6.8 Iehovah thy God his Word shall go with thee with many other places which he brings out of Moses his Writings and there are multitudes to the same purpose in the other Books of Scripture which shews saith he that this Term the Word of God was so appointed for many Ages as appears by all the Chaldee Paraphrasts and the ancient Doctors of the Iews And he shews by several places that the Chaldee Paraphrast did not once render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when there was occasion for it no not when the Word of God is spoken of with respect to a Prophet as he proves by many Testimonies which are particularly enumerated by him The result of the Conference was that the Vnitarian had so much Ingenuity to confess That unless those Words had another Sense their Cause was lost and our Faith had a sure Foundation But it may be objected that Morinus hath since taken a great deal of pains to prove the Chaldee Paraphrasts not to have been of that Antiquity which they have been supposed by the Iews to be of In answer to this we may say in general that Morinus his great Proofs are against another Chaldee Paraphrast of very small Reputation viz. of Ionathan upon the Law and not that of Onkelos which Rittangel relied upon in this Matter And none can deny this to have been very ancient but the Iews have so little knowledge of their own History but what is in Scripture that very little certainty can be had from them But we must compare the Circumstances of things if we would come to any resolution in this Matter Now it is certain that Philo the Alexandrian Iew who lived so very near our Saviours time had the same Notion of the Word of God which is in the Chaldee Paraphrast whose Testimonies have been produced by so many already that I need not to repeat them And Eusebius saith The Jews and Christians had the same Opinion as to Christ till the former fell off from it in opposition to the Christians and he particulaâ—ly instances in his Divinity But if Morinus his Opinion be embraced as to the lateness of these Chaldee Paraphrases this inconvenience will necessarily follow viz. That the Iews when they had changed so much their Opinions should insert those Passages themselves which assert the Divinity of the Word And it can hardly enter into any mans head that considers the Humour of the Jewish Nation to think that after they knew what S. Iohn had written concerning the Word and what use the Christians made of it to prove the Divinity of Christ they should purposely insert such passages in that Paraphrase of the Law which was in such esteem among them that Elias Levita saith They were under Obligation to read two Paraschaâ—s out of it every Week together with the Hebrew Text. Now who can imagine that the Iews would do this upon any other account than that it was deliver'd down to them by so ancient a Tradition that they durst not discontinue it And it is observed in the place of Scripture which our Saviour read in the Synagogue that he follow'd neither the Hebrew nor the Greek but in probability the Chaldee Paraphrase and the Words he used upon the Cross were in the Chaldee Dialect The later Iews have argued against the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ like any Vnitarians as appears by the Collection out of Ioseph Albo David Kimchi c. published by Genebrard with his Answers to them And is it any ways likely that those who were so much set against these Doctrines should themselves put in such Expressions which justifie what the Evangelist saith about the VVord being in the Beginning being with God and being God The Substance of what I have said as to S. Iohn's Notion of the Word is this That there is no colour for the Sense which Socinus hath put upon it either from the use of it among other Authors or any Interpretation among the Jews But that there was in his time a current sense of it which from the Jews of Alexandria was dispersed by Cerinthus in those parts where he lived That for such a Notion there was a very ancient Tradition among the Jews which appears in the most ancient Paraphrase of the Law which is read in their Synagogues And therefore according to all reasonable ways of interpreting Scripture the Word cannot be understood in S. Iohn for one whose Office it was to preach the Word but for that Word which was with God before any thing was made and by whom all things were made 3. Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men to give a new Sense of several Places of Scripture from a matter of Fact of which there is no proof the better to avoid the proof of the Divinity of the Son of God This relates to the same beginning of S. Iohn's Gospel the Word was with God and several other places
inconsistent with the divine Perfections but of this at large in the following Discourse I do not lay any force upon this argument that there can be no ground of the Distinction between the three Substances if there be but one Substance in the Godhead as some have done because the same Substance cannot both unite and distinguish them for the ground of the distinction is not the Substance but the Communication of it and where that is so freely asserted there is a reason distinct from the Substance it self which makes the Distinction of Persons But the difficulty still remains how each Person should have a Substance of his own and yet there be but one entire and indivisible Substance for every Person must have a proper Substance of his own or else according to this Hypothesis he can be no Person and this peculiar Substance must be really distinct from that Substance which is in the other two so that here must be three distinct Substances in the three Persons But how then can there be but one individual Essence in all three We may conceive one common Essence to be individuated in three Persons as it is in Men but it is impossible to conceive the same individual Essence to be in three Persons which have peculiar Substances of their own For the Substances belonging to the Persons are the same Essence individuated in those Persons and so there is no avoiding making three individual Essences and one specifick or common divine Nature And Maimonides his argument is considerable against more Gods than one If saith he there be two Gods there muâ—t be something wherein they agree and something wherein they differ that wherein they agree must be that which makes each of them God and that wherein they differ must make them two Gods Now wherein doth this differ from the present Hypothesis There is something wherein they differ and that is their proper Substance but Maimonides thought that wherein they differ'd sufficient to make them two Gods So that I fear it will be impossible to clear this Hypothesis as to the reconciling three individual Essences with one individual divine Essence which looks too like asserting that there are three Gods and yet but one And the Author of this Explicaâ—ion doth at last confess that three distinct whole inseparable Same 's are hard to conceive as to the manner of it Now to what purpose are new Explications started and Disputes raised and carried on so warmly about them if after all the main difficulty be confess'd to be above our Comprehension We had much better satisfie our selves with that Language which the Church hath receivâ—d and is express'd in the Creeds than go about by new Terms to raise new Ferments especially at a time when our united Forces are most necessary against our common Adversaries No wise and good Men can be fond of any new Inventions when the Peace of the Church is hazarded by them And on the other side it is as dangerous to make new Heresies as new Explications If any one denies the Doctrine contained in the Nicene Creed that is no new Heresie but how can such deny the Son to be consubstantial to the Father who assert one and the same indivisible Substance in the Father and the Son But they may contradict themselves That is not impossible on either side But doth it follow that they are guilty of Heresie Are not three Substances and but one a Contradiction No more say they than that a communicated Substance is not distinct from that which did communicate But this whole dispute we find is at last resolved into the infinite and unconceivable Perfections of the Godhead where it is most safely lodged and that there is no real Contradiction in the Doctrine it self is part of the design of the Discourse afterwards But here it will be necessary to take notice of what the Unitarians have objected against this new Explication viz. That it was condemned by the ancients in the Person of Philoponus in the middle Ages in the Person and Writings of Abhor Ioachim but more severely since the Reformation in the Person of Valentinus Gentilis who was condemned at Geneva and beheaded at Bern for this very Doctrine To these I shall give a distinct answer 1. As to Joh Philoponus I do freely own that in the Greek Church when in the sixth Century he broached his opinion That every Hypostasis must have the common Nature individuated in it this was look'd upon as a Doctrine of dangerous consequence both with respect to the Trinity and Incarnation The latter was the first occasion of it for as Leontius observes the dispute did not begin about the Trinity but about the Incarnation and Philoponus took part with those who asserted but one Nature in Christ after the Vnion and he went upon this ground That if there were two Natures there must be two Hypostases because Nature and Hypostasis were the same Then those on the Churches side saith Leontius objected That if they were the same there must be three distinct Natures in the Trinity as there were three Hypostases which Philoponus yielded and grounded himself on Aristotle's Doctrine that there was but one common Substance and several individual Substances and so held it was in the Trinity whence he was called the leader of the Heresie of the Tritheius This is the account given by Leontius who lived very â—ear his time A. D. 620. The same is affirmed of him by Nicephorus and that he wrote a Book on purpose about the Vnion of two Natures in Christ out of which he produces his own words concerning a common and individual Nature which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which can agree to none else And the main argument he went upon was this that unless we assert a singular Nature in the Hypostases we must say that the whole Trinity was incarnate as unless there be a singular humane Nature distinct from the common Christ must assume the whole Nature of Mankind And this argument from the Incarnation was that which made Roscelin in the beginning of the disputing Age A. D. 1093 to assert That the three Persons were three things distinct from each other as three Angels or three Men because otherwise the Incarnation of the second Person could not be understood as appears by Anselm's Epistles and his Book of the Incarnation written upon that occasion But as Aâ—selm shews at large if this argument hold it must prove the three Persons not only to be distinct but separate and divided Subâ—â—ances which is directly contrary to this new Explication and then there is no avoiding Tritheism But to return to Joh. Philoponus who saith Nicephorus divided the indivisible Nature of God into three Individuals as among Men Which saith he is repugnant to the Sense of the Christian Church and he produces the Testimony of Gregory Nazianzen against it and adds that Leontius and Georgius Pisides confuted
so many ages with embracing Errors and Nonsense and Contradictions for Mysteries of Faith I desire to know supposing it possible for the Christian Church to be so early so generally and so miserably deceived in a matter of such moment by what light they have discovered this great Error Have they any new Books of Scripture to judge by Truly they had need for they seem to be very weary of the old ones because they find they will not serve their turn Therefore they muster up the old Objections against them and give no answer to them they find fault with Copies and say they are corrupted and falsified to speak the Language of the Church they let fall suspicious words as to the Form of Baptism as though it were inserted from the Churches Practice they charge us with following corrupt Copies and making false Translations without any manner of ground for it And doth not all this discover no good will to the Scriptures at least as they are received among us And I despair of meeting with better Copies or seeing a more faithfull Translation than ours is So that it is plain that they have no mind to be tried by the Scriptures For these exceptions are such as a Malefactor would make to a Jury he is afraid to be condemned by But what then is the peculiar light which these happy men have found in a corner the want whereof hath made the Christian Church to fall into such monstrous Errors and Contradictions Nothing they pretend but the mere light of common sense and reason which they call after a more refined way of speaking clear Ideas and distinct Perceptions of things But least I should be thought to misrepresent them I will produce some of their own Expressions In one place they say We deny the Articles of the new Christianity or the Athanasian religion not because they are Mysteries or because we do not comprehend them we deny them because we do comprehend them we have a clear and distinct Perception that they are not Mysteries but Contradictions Impossibilities and pure Nonsense We have our reason in vain and all science and certainty would be destroy'd if we could not distinguish between Mysteries and Contradictions And soon after we are not to give the venerable name of Mystery to Doctrines that are contrary to nature's and reason's Light or which destroy or contradict our natural Ideas These things I have particular reason to take notice of here because they are published as an Answer to the foregoing Sermon about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith and this shews the general grounds they go upon and therefore more fit to be consider'd here To which I shall add one passage more wherein they insinuate that the Doctrine of the Trinity hath been supported only by interest and force Their words are after they have called the Doctrine of the Trinity a monstrous Paradox and Contradiction This is that say they which because all other arguments failed them in their disputations with the Photinians and Arians they at last effectually proved by the Imperial Edicts by Confiscations and Banishments by Seizing and Burning all Books written against it or them by capital Punishments and when the Papacy of which this is the chief Article prevailed by Fire and Faggot This is a new discovery indeed that the Doctrine of the Trinity as it is generally receiv'd in the Christian Church is the chief Article of Popery although it were embraced and defended long before Popery was known and I hope would be so if there were no such thing as Popery left in the world But if every thing which displeases some men must pass for Popery I am afraid Christianity it self will not escape at last for there are some who are building apace on such foundations as these and are endeavouring what they can to remove out of their way all revealed Religion by the help of those two powerfull Machines viz. Priest-craft and Mysteries But because I intend a clear and distinct Discourse concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity as it hath been generally received among us I shall proceed in these four Enquiries 1. Whether it was accounted a monstrous Paradox and Contradiction where Persons were not sway'd by Force and Interest 2. Whether there be any ground of common reason on which it can be justly charged with Nonsense Impossibilities and Contradiction 3. Whether their Doctrine about the Trinity or ours be more agreeable to the sense of Scripture and Antiquity 4. Whether our Doctrine being admitted it doth overthrow all certainty of reason and makes way for believing the greatest Absurdities under the pretence of being Mysteries of Faith CHAP. II. The Doctrine of the Trinity not received in the Christian Church by Force or Interest AS to the first it will lead me into an enquiry into the sense of the Christian Church as to this Doctrine long before Popery was hatched and at a time when the main force of Imperial Edicts was against Christianity it self at which time this Doctrine was owned by the Christian Church but disowned and disputed against by some particular Parties and Sects And the question then will be whether these had engrossed Sense and Reason and Knowledge among themselves and all the body of the Christian Church with their heads and governors were bereft of common Sense and given up to believe Nonsense and Contradictions for Mysteries of Faith But in order to the clearing this matter I take it for granted That Sense and Reason are no late inventions only to be found among our Vnitarians but that all Mankind have such a competent share of them as to be able to judge what is agreeable to them and what not if they apply themselves to it That no men have so little sense as to be fond of Nonsense when sense will do them equal service That if there be no Biass of Interest to sway them men will generally judge according to the evidence of reason That if they be very much concerned for a Doctrine opposed by others and against their interest they are perswaded of the truth of it by other means than by force and fear That it is possible for men of sense and reason to believe a Doctrine to be true on the account of divine Revelation although they cannot comprehend the manner of it That we have reason to believe those to be men of sense above others who have shew'd their abilities above them in other matters of Knowledge and Speculation That there can be no reason to suspect the integrity of such men in delivering their own Sense who at the same time might far better secure their interest by renouncing their Faith lastly That the more Persons are concerned to establish and defend a Doctrine which is opposed and contemned the greater evidence they give that they are perswaded of the truth of it These are Postulata so agreeable to sense and common reason that I think if an affront to human Nature
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
Glory to God the Father and Son with the Holy Ghost which ought to be understood according to the sense of the Maker of it And Gregory hath deliver'd his sense plainly enough in this matter for in that Confession of Faith which was preserved in the Church of Neo-Caesarea he owns a perfect Trinity in Glory Eternity and Power without Separation or Diversity of Nature On which Doctrine his Form of Doxology was grounded Which S. Basil following Exceptions were taken against it by some as varying from the Form used in some other places For the Followers of Aetius took advantage from the Expression used in those Doxologies Glory be to the Father by the Son and in the Holy Ghost to infer a Dissimilitude in the Son and Holy Ghost to the Father and to make the Son the Instrument of the Father and the Holy Ghost only to relate to time and place But S. Basil takes a great deal of Pains to shew the impertinency of these Exceptions They would fain have charged this Doxology as an Innovation on S. Basil because it attributed equal Honour to Father Son and Holy Ghost which the Aetians would not endure but they said That the Son was to be honoured only in Subordination to the Father and the Holy Ghost as inferiour to both But S. Basil proves from Scripture an Equality of Honour to be due to them and particularly from the Form of Baptism c. 10. wherein the Son and Holy Ghost are joyned with the Father without any note of Distinction And what more proper token of a Conjunction in the same Dignity than being put together in such a manner Especially considering these two things 1. The extream Jealousie of the Jewish Nation as to joyning the Creatures with God in any thing that related to Divine Honour But as S. Basil argues If the Son were a Creature then we must believe in the Creator and the Creature together and by the same reason that one Creature is joyned the whole Creation may be joyned with him but saith he we are not to imagine the least Disunion or Separation between Father Son and Holy Ghost nor that they are three distinct parts of one inseparable Being but that there is an indivisible Conjunction of three in the same Essence so that where one is there is the other also For where the Holy Ghost is there is the Son and where the Son is there is the Father And so Athanasius urges the Argument from these Words That a Creature could not be joyned with the Creator in such a manner as in the Form of Baptism and it might have been as well said Baptize in the Name of the Father and any other Creature And for all that I see our Vnitarians would have liked such a Form very well for they parallel it with those in Scripture and they worshipped the Lord and the King and they feared the Lord and Samuel But the Iews understood the different occasion of such Expressions too well to have born such a Conjunction of Creatures with the Creator in the most solemn Act of Initiation into a Profession of Religion 2. The Iews had a Notion among them of three distinct Subsistences in the Deity sutable to these of Father Son and Holy Ghost This hath been shew'd by many as to the Son or the Divine Word and Rittangel makes out the same as to the Holy Ghost Among the three Subsistences in the Mercavah which Rittangel had proved from their most ancient Writings those which are added to the first are Wisdom and Intelligence and this last is by the old Chaldee Paraphrast rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he proves it to be applied to God in many places of the Pentateuch where such things are attributed to him as belong to the Holy Ghost And he particularly shews by many places that the Schecinah is not taken for the Divine Glory but that is rendred by other Words however the Interpreters of the Chaldee Paraphrast have rendred it so but he produces ten places where the Chaldee Paraphrast uses it in another Sense and he leaves he saith many more to the Readers observation If the Iews did of old own three Subsistences in the same Divine Essence there was then great Reason to joyn Father Son and Holy Ghost in the solemn Act of Initiation But if it be denied that they did own any such thing they must deny their most ancient Books and the Chaldee Paraphrast which they esteem next to the Text and Rittangel saith They believe it written by Inspiration That which I chiefly urge is this that if these things be not very ancient they must be put in by the later Iews to gratifie the Christians in the Doctrine of the Trinity which I do not believe any Iew will assent to And no one else can imagine this when our Vnitarians say That the Doctrine of the Trinity is the chief Offence which the Iews take at the Christian Religion How then can we suppose the Iews should forge these Books on purpose to put in such Notions as were most grateful to their Enemies and hateful to themselves Morinus hath endeavoured to run down the Credit of the most ancient Books of the Iews and among the rest the Book Iezirah the most ancient Cabbalistical Book among the Iews which he learnedly proves was not written by Abraham as the Iews think I will not stand with Morinus about this however the Book Cosri saith it was made by Abraham before God spake to him and magnifies it to the King of Cosar as containing an admirable Account of the first Principles above the Philosophers Buxtorf saith that the Book Cosri hath been extant Nine hundred years and in the beginning of it it is said that the Conference was Four hundred years before and therein the Book Iezirah is alledged as a Book of Antiquity and there the three Subsistences of the Deity are represented by Mind Word and Hand So that this can be no late Invention of Cabbalistical Iews But our Vnitarians utterly deny that the Jews had any Cabbala concerning the Trinity And they prove it because the Jews in Origen and Justin Martyr deny the Messias to be God They might as well have brought their Testimony to prove Jesus not to be the Messias for the Iews of those times being hard pressed by the Christians found they could not otherwise avoid several places of the Old Testament But this doth not hinder but that they might have Notions of three Subsistences in their ancient Books which contained neither late Invention nor Divine Revelations but a Traditional notion about the Divine Being and the Subsistences in it and I can find no Arguments against it that deserve mentioning For when they say the Iewish Cabbala was a Pharisaical Figment c. it needs no answer But what do they say to the Old Paraphrases whereon the main Weight as to this matter lies All that I can find is