Primitive Doctrin and that 't is most credible it is agreeable to the true sense of Scripture it being the general Sentiment of the Disciples of the Apostles and their Successors in the following Ages And further to evince the Antiquity Vniversality and Credibility of the Trinitarian Doctrin some add that the ancient Jews and the Heathens have believed a Trinity in Vnity to which purpose they quote Plato Philo's Works the Cabbala or Tradition delivered from Father to Son since the time of Moses and the Chaldaïck Paraphrase wherein the Word of God seems to be represented as a Person To all this the Vnitarians answer in the following Particulars 1. The Jews have never held the Doctrin of three Persons in God And as for the Authority of the Heathens it cannot much credit the Trinitarian Cause 2. The Passages in Pliny's Letter and in the Dialogue entituled Philopatris are incontestably invalid Arguments 3. No very considerable Argument can be drawn out of the Ante-nicene Authors because they were but few that wrote and it was not impossible for them to deviate from the Simplicity of the Gospel 4. Many excellent Works of the Primitive Writers have been suppressed and destroyed which were most express for the Vnitarian Sentiment 5. Of the few remaining Writings that are ascribed to the Fathers of the first three Centuries 't is very credible that some are corrupted and some supposititious 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 now is called Orthodox it being evident that they incline more to the Vnitarian than to the Trinitarian Sentiment of the latter Ages 7. The prevailing Sentiment of the following Ages is of no weight against the Vnitarians 8. The Prevalency in general of an Opinion is no Argument that it is agreable to Truth and acceptable to God 9. The only Authority therefore that we can and ought to rely upon is that of the Bible 1. The Jews have never held the Doctrin of three Persons in God and as for the Authority of the Heathens it cannot much credit the Trinitarian Cause The Vnitarians readily grant the Trinitarian Sentiment to be Heathenish seeing it effectually sets up a Plurality of Gods or several supremely and really Divine Persons And they think it very probable that at first some Christians took this Doctrin out of Plato's School whose Philosophy was generally studied and admired tho' perhaps the original meaning of it as to this Point was little understood or considered by the generality of his Disciples For there is much reason to believe that Plato and those of the same Sentiment with him who believed but one God at first personalized the essential or chief Attributes of the Deity to accommodate themselves to the Theology of the Heathens to hide and take off the Odium of their own Notions of the Divine Vnity which otherwise would have been looked upon as next to Atheism wherefore they would seem to hold more Divine Persons or more Gods than one it being reckoned essential to Religion to own a Plurality of Gods These Philosophers therefore so reasoned about the Divine Attributes as if they really held several distinct Gods Indeed 't is very credible that many of 'em afterwards were induced to Error by those Expressions and Philosophized so high about them that they lost themselves and understood not what they said But as for Plato 't is very likely that he meant by his several Persons but the several Attributes of the same Divine Being only he was willing to vail his Sentiment for fear of exposing himself to Socrates his fate having no mind to suffer for his Opinion This appears in his Letters to Dyonisius wherein he tells him It is difficult to find out the Father of the Universe and when you have found him it is not lawful to divulge it to the People I shall then speak of this subject enigmatically that every one may not be able to understand me He sets up therefore a Trinity above all other Gods or Angels and as may be gathered from his Cautiousness from his Sentiment and that of Socrates of one God and from the Current of his Expressions by this Trinity he understood infinite Goodness infinite Wisdom and infinite Love or Power but to wrap up his Doctrin under mysterious terms he represents this Trinity as being three Divine Hypostases or Persons He says the first is the Origin of the other two the Good Being or the first Principle is the Father of the Reason or Wisdom which he has begotten and made and produced and so it might be considered by some as a Creature God and the First-born of the Good Being and the Love or Power is the third most excellent God and the second Production of the Good This Theology most obscurely expressed Plato's Followers have explained according to their own Imaginations till they made it by their Explications still more obscure and more unintelligible But of what Authority are these Philosophical Fancies and Heathenish Mysteries Tho' it seem to some that they may be accomodated to some Expressions in Scripture yet there is no reason to interpret Scripture by that fanciful and fantanstical Rule as is well observed by Beza who calls those Philosophical Conceits Platonica Deliria in his Annotations on John 1.1 Whether or no some Heathen Sages before Plato may then have had the like thoughts and design with him so that he was in some measure but an imitator of them what is that also to Christians What if Parmenides had learned of the Pythagoreans and Pythagoras of Pherecides the Notion of three Hypostases so that the accommodation of Polytheism to a dissembled Unitarianism was perhaps older than Plato by an Age or two And what if the Authors of this Theology whoever they were took these Hypostases to be real Deities Ought such an Egyptian Darkness to be of any weight with Us And can we make it a Question Which is the best either to regard these Heathenish Philosophical Whimsies or to be guided by the clear Light of Reason and the most express Texts of Scripture After all the Platonick Cant is so obscure that for ought that can be pretended to the contrary all that Platonism implies of a Trinity may amount to no more than Semi-Arianism or even Arianism As for the Opinion of the Jews Tho' it be certain that the People of God were Vnitarians yet it is not impossible but that a few of their Metaphysick Wits might Philosophize after the way of Heathen and be infatuated with Plato and conceive as well as many Christians that those strange and admired Speculations might agree with Scripture and be reconciled with the Doctrin of the Unity of God But of what consequence is the Particular Fancy of three or four Visionaries to the whole Body of the Jews Because these
to put an end to the Controversy and either excuse or justify all the Vnitarian Interpretations of Scripture how harsh soever they may otherwise appear c. The Scripture-Proofs of our Saviour's Divinity explained P. 55. I leave it to the Reader to summ up the Evidence it being so obvious and easily done and shall only shew what follows most incontestably from the whole including the Arguments for the Gespel-Terms of Communion handled in the Ireniâ—um Magnum and particularly in the Apologia pro Irenico Magno where as was said there are also Arguments as here and in Crell's Book against the Trinitarian System which I find no where satisfactorily answered and which appear indeed most express and unanswerable Howbeit it is my most earnest desire to be rightly informed and to see the Truth set into the greatest light CHAP. XV. The Inferences most incontestably following from the whole foregoing Discourse and the Gospel-Terms of Communion FROM the whole these four things do most incontestably follow as the least that can be granted to the Vnitarians by Protestants that impartially consider the Arguments treated of in the foregoing Discourse and in the Apologia pro Irenico Magno I. That the State of this Controversy is such that Men may be Vnitarians and be very sincere pious and inquisitive and that if Vnitarianism be an Error it is not a damnable and an intolerable one or an Heresy II. That in the Case of this most abstruse Controversy we ought in our Terms of Communion with relation thereunto to keep to the Generality of the Terms of Scripture and not Magisterially determine this Matter any farther than that Generality nor force or fright away the Vnitarians out of the Church-Society but ought to regulate our Publick Service and our Terms of Church-Union according to the utmost Generality of the Expressions of Scripture so as that Vnitarians may without Scruple joyn with Us therein seeing the Gospel-Terms of Communion and the Principles of Protestants require this Moderation and enjoyn that Method in reference to such Points as are so very difficult and intricate that sincere and inquisitive Persons may be at a loss and may mistake about them III. That therefore First in the Publick Service we ought to address the Current of our Prayers directly as well as ultimately to God in general in the Name thro' the Mediation of Christ in the Conclusion of them beseeching God to hear us grant us our Requests for the Sake of his Dear Son our Blessed Lord Saviour and Redeemer and so when we address some Ejaculations to Christ we ought as has been shewn in general to address to him as to our Mediator or Mediatory Governor Soveraign in whom the Fulness of the God-head so dwells as abundantly and constantly to assist him in the Discharge of his Mediatory Office whereby he both acts for God and represents God is in some sense God Secondly in our Publick Service likewise the Terms of Church-Union we ought to be content with the Apostles Creed which is worded in a Generality agreable to that of Scripture and ought not to think other Creeds necessary or expedient which are artificially fram'd on purpose to depart from that Generality and are incumbred with Human Decisions and Magisterial Impositions Thirdly no Subscription or Assent ought to be required of Clergy-men but to the Bible it self to Doctrines expressed in the Words of Scripture or in Terms that agree to the Scripture-Generality the Clergy-men's Declaration being admitted that they Subscribe and Assent to the things proposed to them but so far as they are agreable to the Generality of Scripture These Three Points not only follow necessarily from the 2d Inference but are implied in it and we rank them on a distinct Head only that the Principles in general which are the Grounds on which these Particulars are built may first be more distinctly observed to be necessarily deducible from the First Inference and from the Gospel-Terms of Communion and that then it may distinctly be considered what Particulars necessarily follow from those Principles that the said Particulars may upon those demonstrated Grounds be firmly established IV. That among all the other incontestable Reasons for this Generality in the Terms of Church-Union this is one which follows from the First and Second Inferences deserves a distinct rank Namely that this Method is the safest in a Controversy at least to be own'd by all considering Trinitarians to be most intricate and that incontestably it suffices to Pray to God in general to satisfy to the Duty of Praying to the God-head God in general including the whole God-head so that when God in general is directly ultimately Pray'd to all is certainly worshipped that is to be adored with Supreme Worship and when our Petitions are put up in the Name of Christ the Mediatory Honour due to our Saviour is thereby paid him being thus addressed to as the Mediator of the New Covenant in whom the Fulness of the Godhead dwells as was said I. That the State of this Controversy is such that Men may be Vnitarians and be very sincere pious and inquisitive and that if Vnitarianism be an Error it is not a damnable and an intolerable one or a Heresy This follows from the high Probability at least of the Arguments for Vnitarianism to say no more of them for after all upon mature consideration these Arguments seem to be express and unanswerable and on the other hand it seems that a Solution is given to the Chiefest Objections of the Scholastick or Platonick Trinitarians Howbeit this at least cannot be denied to be a most difficult intricate Point And admitting that the Vnitarian System has no higher evidence than the other and is encumbred with as great Difficulties to which Sentiment I have often for a great while been most inclined even since I began to write on this Subject esteeming it to be God's will and intention that we should for the most part suspend our judgment about it and indeed it may with great appearance of reason be judged the fittest not to be too decisive in so mysterious and abstruse a Matter yet no advantage can thence be taken against the Vnitarians and every Trinitarian that carefully and sincerely considers the Vnitarian Arguments seeing they are so weighty and considerable must at least grant that they are such that Men may take them to be good Arguments and yet be very Honest hearty Lovers of God and to the best of their power Inquisitive and that consequently if Vnitarianism be an Error it is not a damnable and an intolerable one or a Heresy For is it credible that God will assign the dreadful Torments of Hell for an Error which good Men who sincerely and diligently seek to know his Will and to practice it cannot avoid taking for a Truth God punishes nothing but what has some Wickedness in it or some Pravity and Malice Now what Malice or Wickedness
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
from what has been alledged in the last Chapter There we have seen it was the current Opinion of the ancient Platonists as well as of the strictest Vnitarians not only that the Holy Ghost is not God but also that the Son is not the God that has no other God above him has not consequently the same Essence with the Father and is not Eternal and Omniscient like him What pretence then can the Nicene and Post-Nicene Doctors or their Disciples have to plead Antiquity and Vniversality and to tell Us that upon that account We ought to submit to their Sentiment Some think that the Nicene Creed imports very little or no more than Semi-Arianism Howbeit whether or no the Nicene Platonists went further than the remaining Ante-Nicene Writers or than most or any of them it is evident that the Post-Nicene are gone beyond the Ante-Nicene or Semi-Arians and thus 't is evident the Doctrin is varied from that of the Ante-Nicene Platonists and consequently 't is in vain for the present Scholastick Trinitarians to pretend to Antiquity or Tradition 2. We plainly see what led the generality of the Nicene Doctors into farther Error Namely the too much leaning to Plato and more and more following or as they might imagin improving his Conceits if they went farther than the Ante Nicene Many of the Ante-Nicene for two Ages before had begun to Platonize as we before observed And what was so unhappily begun by the Christian Platonists or Converted Philosophers was still it seems carried to a greater excess in process of time by the Men in Authority and their Followers at least in point of rigidness and violence Howbeit all the Unscriptural Niceties and Terms of Art of the suppo'd Orthodox are found in the Philosophy of Plato or it's Followers which those Fathers professed to admire Can we then question from whence they drew ' em See Le Clerc's Life of Eusebius p. 69. c. Some think it very clear that the Semi-Arians are the true Platonick Trinitarians And some esteem that Plato's Orthodoxy goes yet farther and that Dr. Sherlock's or the Nicene or Post-Nicene Notions are true Platonism Howsoever it be when Men had overshot themselves they might easily go further 3. It is notorious that the most part of the Nicene Doctors were uncharitable and consequently unchristian revengeful violent and ambitious Prelates who sought nothing but to do spite to one another to impose imperiously upon one another and to put one another out of their Places Now are not the Decisions of such Men to be much valued And are not such Men fit to dictate to others and to exercise Dominion over the Conscience of their Fellow-Servants They did so much intimidate those that followed the ancient Doctrin and even the Emperor himself that for the most part these did wretchedly prevaricate Are those the Ways that Christianity prescribes Or is not this the Method to suppress the Truth and maintain what wants good Arguments to support itself by 4. For the same reasons the Judgment of the Post-Nicene Fathers is altogether insignificant Those whom fallible Men condemn as Hereticks may be the true Orthodox and those who pass for and stile themselves Orthodox may be erroneous and may mistake in most abstruse Matters Howbeit the Nicene Popes and their Followers domineering in the Church as if they had been infallible got their Determinations back'd with most severe Edicts insomuch that it was made no less than Death but to keep any Vnitarian Writings Thus Christians taught one another Cruelty and tho' but just escaped themselves out of the Heathenish Persecutions they inhumanely Persecuted one another No wonder then if for the most part they led one anther as Mules are driven with stripes especially considering the plausible Pretence that this Zeal was for the honour of Christianity Such Measures are rightly exposed in these Words of Dr. Whichcot All those of a Party are bound to one Opinion and to believe as their Party believes Therefore I except against those that have blindly gone on without Consideration For these have not acted by the Guidance of Human Reason Select Serm. p. 24. 5. What right had these Men or any of them to set up for Universal or Magisterial Judges of abstruse Controversies Who gave them Authority to decide for other Men and to lord it over their Faith What title had they to straiten the Terms of Union and to exclude out of the Church all that dissented from them in those at least most nice and intricate Speculations Who commissionated them to invent and impose herein new Words and Decisions or new and magisterial Creeds Who order'd them to determine Magisterially to their own Fancies the Generality of the comprehensive expressions of Scripture 6. Notwithstanding the violence of the rigid Platonists their novel and unscriptural Decisions have not been constantly and universally submitted to but there are still and there have always been many Vnitarians There were many good Bishops at and after the Council of Nice that could by no means be prevail'd upon to renounce their Faith and their Constancy encouraged multitudes of others to adhere to the ancient Doctrin Not only the generality of Christians even then were so far from holding the Holy Ghost to be God that the prevailing Platonists at Nice durst not determine it but also Gregory Nazianzen himself once owns that if they of his Party had commonly Preached that Sentiment it would have caused confusion in the Church and scandalized good Christians See Petav. De Trin. L. 2. C. 7. § 2. why could they not as well have carried the condescension one step farther and then all had been well and we see Hilary calls the Holy Ghost but the Gift which he prayes not to but asks of the Father But moreover maugre the extremest Severities procured by the Nicene Fathers against the Vnitarians the Doctrin of Christ's being a Creature remained still rooted in the Hearts of so many Christians that about some 20 Years after Constantine's Death the whole Christian World as St. Jerom expresses it appear'd to be Vnitarian Then good Gregory comforted himself and his few Auditors with these Reflections The Vnitarians have the Churches but We Trinitarians are the Temples of God they have the People but the Angels are with US my Flock indeed is little but they hear my Voice Serm. 35 against tho Arians But indeed the Vnitarians had not only the People but they had also the Priests and the Bishops Vnitarianism the ancient Doctrin or that which since the proceedings against Arius is call'd Arianism was confirmed and established by ten several Councils And that of Rimini was the most Numerous Assembly of Bishops that ever met tope her Not only several Princes and Kings and People for many Ages have been Vnitarians but some Emperors also were converted to Vnitarianism But those that succeeded them and that had been brought up in the Trinitarian Sentiment not only made use of the most violent Means to change
others that disagree from our opinions I am sure this will secure us but I know not any thing else that will Ib. P. 33. If Men must be permitted in their Opinions and Christians must not persecute Christians there is as much reason to reprove all those oblique Arts ungentle and unchristian and destructive of Learning and Ingenuity as Burning or Suppressing the Books and Writings of those of different Sentiments forcing them to recant c. It is a strange Industry us'd by our Fore-Fathers Of all those Heresies which gave them battle we have absolutely no Record or Monument but what themselves who were their Adversaries have transmitted to us c. Ib. P. 34. Of the same consideration is Mending of Authors not to their own mind but to ours Ib. P. 35. I am not sure that such an Opinion is Heresy neither would other Men be so sure as they think for if they did consider it aright and observe the infinite deceptions and causes of deceptions in wise Men and in all doubtful Questions and did nor mistake Confidence for Certainty Ib. P. 39. It is of geatest consequence to believe right in the Question of the Validity or Invalidity of a Death-Bed Repentance and the consequences of the Doctrin of Predetermination are of deepest and most material consideration and yet these greatest Concernments where a Laberty of Prophesying in these Questions has been permitted have made no distinct Communion no Sects of Christians The Liberty of Prophesying P. 3. Salvation is in special and by name annexed to the belief of those Articles only which have in them the indearments of our services or the support of our confidence or the satisfaction of our hopes Ib. P. 8. The Apostles or their Contemporaries and Disciples compos'd a Creed to be a Rule of Faith to all Christians which Creed unless it contain'd all the intire object of Faith and the foundation of Religion it cannot be imagin'd to what purpose it should serve and it was so esteemed by the whole Church of God c. Ib. P. 9. But if this was sufficient to bring Men to Heaven then why not now If the Apostles admitted all to their Communion that believed this Creed why shall we exclude any that preserve the same intire Ib. P. 11. Neither are we oblig'd to make these Articles more particular and minute than the Creed For altho' whatsoever is certainly deduced from any of these Articles made already so explicite is as certainly true and as much to be believed as the Article it self yet because it is not certain that our deductions from them are certain what one calls evident is so obscure to another that he believes it false it is the best and only safe course to rest in that explication the Apostles have made Ib. P. 12. But if we go farther besides the easiness of being deceived we relying upon our own discourses which tho' they may be true and then bind us to follow them but yet no more than when they only seem truest yet they cannot make the thing certain to another much less necessary in it self And since God would not bind us upon pain of Sin and Punishment to make deductions our selves much less would he bind us to follow another Man's Logick as an Article of our Faith Ib. P. 13. For it is a demonstration that nothing can be necessary to be believed under pain of Damnation but such Propositions of which it is certain that God has spoken and taught them to us and of which it is certain that this is their sense and purpose For if the sense be uncertain we can no more be obliged to believe it in a certain sense than we are to believe it at all if it were not certain that God delivered it c. Ibid. Here to these words I would only add that this Generality may suffice at least for Terms of Church-Vnion and that Men are answerable to God Whether or no they do what lies in their power to understand every Article as well as they can Howbeit certainly fallible Men are not Magisterially to prescribe in most intricate Matters or make then their Deductions a Rule to other Christians Perhaps the Apostles themselves knew not all Mysteries or understood not perfectly all the obscure Expressions which they had written when they were inspired as the Prophets did not always fully conceive the whole Meaning of all their Prophesies and Writings How should this Consideration then humble Us and keep Us from a decisive magisterial and imposing Spirit And this also I affirm altho' the Church of any one denomination or represented in a Council shall make the Deduction or Declaration Ib. P. 14. Particular Churches are bound to allow Communion to all those that profess the same Faith upon which the Apostles did give Communion P. 262. To refuse our Charity to those who have the same Faith because they have not all our Opinions which we over-value is Impious and Schismatical c. Ib. The Arians and Meletiant joined against the Catholicks The Catholicks and Novatians joyned against the Arians Now if Men would do that for Charity which they do for Interest it were handsomer and more ingenuous P. 263. Men would do well to consider whether or no such proceedings do not derive the guilt of Schism upon them who least think it and whether of the two is the Schismatick he that makes unnecessary and inconvenient Impositions or he that disobeys them because he cannot without doing violence to his Conscience submit to them P. 265. He that is most displeased at another Man's Error may be as much deceived in his Understanding P. 266. The word Heresy is used in Scripture indifferently c. P. 18. The further the Succession went from the Apostles the more forward Men were in numbring Heresies and that upon slighter and more uncertain grounds P. 32. I am willing to believe their sense of the word Heresy was more gentle than it is now P. 39. They whose Age and Spirits were far distant from the Apostles had also other judgments concerning Faith and Heresy than the Apostles had Ibid. In all the Animadversions against Errors by the Apostles no pious Person was condemn'd no Man that did invincibly err or bona mente but somthing that was amiss in genere morum was that which the Apostles did redargue P. 22. If a Man mingles not a Vice with his Opinion tho' he be deceiv'd in his Doctrin his Error is his Misery not his Crime it makes him an Argument of weakness and an object of pity but not a Person sealed up to ruin and reprobation P. 24. The Epistle of Constantine to Alexander and Arius tells the truth and chides them both The Emperor calls their Different a vain piece of a Question and a fruitless Contention For tho' says he the Matter be grave yet because neither necessary nor explicable the Contention is trifling Christians should not fall at variance upon such Disputes considering our Understandings