World So that there is no way of dealing with them but by shewing the falsness weakness of the grounds they go upon and that they have no advantage of us as to Scripture Antiquity or Reason which is the Design of this Vndertaking Worcester Sept. 30. 1696. E. W. THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. THE Occasion and Design of the Discourse Pag. 1. CHAP. II. The Doctrine of the Trinity not receiv'd in the Christian Church by Force or Interest p. 10. CHAP. III. The Socinian Plea for the Antiquity of their Doctrine Examined p. 15. CHAP. IV. Of the Considerable Men they pretend to have been of their Opinion in the Primitive Church p. 29. CHAP. V. Of their Charge of Contradiction in the Doctrine of the Trinity p. 54. CHAP. VI. No Contradiction for Three Persons to be in One common Nature p. 68. CHAP. VII The Athanasian Creed clear'd from Contradictions p. 101. CHAP. VIII The Socinian Sense of Scripture Examined p. 121. CHAP. IX The General Sense of the Christian Church proved from the Form of Baptism as it was understood in the first Ages p. 177. CHAP. X. The Objections against the Trinity in point of Reason Answer'd p. 230. ERRATA PAg. 113. l. 12. for our r. one p. 122. l. 12. r. Heb. 1.5 for unto which p. 124. l. 7. add N. 11. p. 126. l. 29. for Damascenus r. Damascius p. 129. l. 21. for appointed r. appropriated p. 181. l. 22. after them put in not p. 192. l. 19 for we r. were p. 211. l. 1. dele that p. 217. l. 6. for Hypostasis r. Hypothesis p. 234. l. 6. for Intermission r. Intromission p. 283. l. 21. r. as well as A DISCOURSE In VINDICATION of the Doctrine of the Trinity WITH An ANSWER TO THE Late SOCINIAN Objections CHAP. I. The Occasion and Design of this Discourse IT is now above twenty years since I first published a Discourse about the reasons of the Sufferings of Christ lately reprinted in answer to some Socinian Objections at that time But I know not how it came to pass that the Socinian controversy seemed to be laid asleep among us for many years after and so it had continued to this day if some mens busie and indiscreet zeal for their own particular Opinions or rather Heresies had not been more prevalent over them than their care and concernment for the common interest of Christianity among us For it is that which really suffers by these unhappy and very unseasonable Disputes about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith which could never have been started and carried on with more fatal consequence to all revealed Religion than in an age too much inclined to Scepticism and Infidelity For all who are but well-wishers to that do greedily catch at any thing which tends to unsettle mens minds as to matters of Faith and to expose them to the scorn and contempt of Infidels And this is all the advantage which they have above others in their writings For upon my carefull Perusal of them which was occasion'd by reâ—rinting that Discourse I found nothing extraordinary as to depth of Judgment or closeness of Reasoning or strength of Argument or skill in Scripture or Antiquity but the old stuff set out with a new dress and too much suited to the Genius of the age we live in viz. brisk and airy but withal too light and superficial But although such a sort of Raillery be very much unbecoming the weight and dignity of the subject yet that is not the worst part of the character of them for they seem to be written not with a design to convince others or to justifie themselves but to ridicule the great Mysteries of our Faith calling them Iargon Cant Nonsense Impossibilities Contradictions Samaritanism and what not any thing but Mahometism and Deism And at the same time they know that we have not framed these Doctrines our selves but have received them by as universal a Tradition and Consent of the Christian Church as that whereby we receive the Books of the new Testament and as founded upon their authority So that as far as I can see the truth of these Doctrines and authority of those Books must stand and fall together For from the time of the writing and publishing of them all persons who were admitted into the Christian Church by the Form of Baptism prescribed by our Saviour were understood to â—e received Members upon profession of â—â—e Faith of the Holy Trinity the Hymns and Doxologies of the Primitive Church were to Father Son and Holy Ghost and those who openly opposed that Doctrine were cast out of the Communion of it which to me seem plain and demonstrative argâ—ments that this was the Doctrine of the Christian Church from the beginning as will appear in the progress of this Discourse The chief design whereof is to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity as it hath been generally received in the Christian Church and is expressed in the Athanasian Creed from those horrible Imputations of Nonsense Contradiction and Impossibility with which it is charged by our Vnitarians as they call themselves and that in the answer to the Sermon lately reprinted about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith which I first preached and published some years since upon the breaking out of this controversie among us by the Notes on Athanasius his Creed and other mischievous Pamphlets one upon another I was in hopes to have given some check to their insolent way of writing about matters so much above our reach by shewing how reasonable it was for us to submit to divine Revelation in such things since we must acknowledge our selves so much to seek as to the nature of Substances which are continually before our Eyes and therefore if there were such difficulties about a Mystery which depended upon Revelation we had no cause to wonder at it but our business was chiefly to be satisfied whether this Doctrine were any part of that Revelation As to which I proposed several things which I thought very reasonable to the finding out the true sense of the Scripture about these matters After a considerable time they thought fit to publish something which was to pass for an answer to it but in it they wholly pass over that part which relates to the sense of Scripture and run into their common place about Mysteries of Faith in which they were sure to have as many Friends as our Faith had Enemies and yet they managed it in so trifling a manner that I did not then think it deserved an Answer But a worthy and judicious Friend was willing to take that task upon himself which he hath very well discharged so that I am not concerned to meddle with all those particulars which are fully answer'd already but the general charge as to the Christian Church about the Doctrine of the Trinity I think my self oblig'd to give an answer to upon this occasion But before I come to that since they so confidently charge the Christian Church for
Question his Fidelity in reporting however he might be unhappy in his Explications 3. Tertullian himself saith Schlichtingius in other Places where he speaks of the rule of Faith doth not mention the Holy Ghost and therefore this seems added by him for the sake of the Paraclete But this can be of no force to any one that considers that Tertullian grounds his Doctrine not on any New Revelation by the Paraclete but on the Rule of Faith received in the Church long before and upon the Form of Baptism prescribed by our Saviour Will they say the Holy Ghost was there added for the sake of Montanus his Paraclete And in another of his Books he owns the Father Son and Holy Ghost to make up the Trinity in Vnity Wherein Petavius himself confesses That he asserted the Doctrine of the Church in a Catholick manner although he otherwise speaks hardly enough of him The next I shall mention is Novatian whom Schlichtingius allows to have been before the Nicene-Council and our modern Vnitarians call him a great Man whoever he was and very ancient And there are two things I observe in him 1. That he opposes Sabellianism for before his time Praxeas and Noetus were little talked of especially in the Western Church but Sabellius his Name and Doctrine were very well known by the opposition to him by the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome He sticks not at the calling it Heresie several times and Disputes against it and answers the Objection about the Vnity of the Godhead 2. That he owns that the Rule of Faith requires our believing in Father Son and Holy Ghost and asserts the Divine Eternity of it and therefore must hold the Doctrine of the Trinity to be the Faith of the Church contained in the Form of Baptism For he saith The Authority of Faith and the Holy Scriptures admonish us to believe not only in the Father and Son but in the Holy Ghost Therefore the Holy Ghost must be considered as an object of Faith joyned in the Scripture with the other two which is no where more express than in the Form of Baptism which as S. Cyprian saith was to be administred in the full Confession of the Trinity in the place already mentionâ—d And it is observable that S. Cyprian rejects the Baptism of those who denied the Trinity at that time among whom he instances in the Patripassians who it seems were then spread into Africa The Dispute about the Marcionites Baptism was upon another ground for they held a real Trinity as appears by Dionysius Romanus in Athanasius and Epiphanius c. but the Question was whether they held the same Trinity or not S. Cyprian saith That our Saviour appointed his Apostles to baptize in the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost and in the Sacrament of this Trinity they were to baptize Doth Marcion hold this Trinity So that S. Cyprian supposed the validity of Baptism to depend on the Faith of the Trinity And if he had gone no farther I do not see how he had transgressed the Rules of the Church but his Error was that he made void Baptism upon difference of Communion and therein he was justly opposed But the Marcionites Baptism was rejected in the Eastern Church because of their Doctrine about the Trinity In the Parts of Asia about Ephesus Noetus had broached the same Doctrine which Praxeas had done elsewhere For which he was called to an account and himself with his Followers we cast out of the Churches Communion as Epiphanius reports which is another considerable Testimony of the Sense of the Church at that time Epiphanius saith he was the first who broached that Blasphemy but Theodoret mentions Epigonus and Cleomenes before him it seems that he was the first who was publickly taken notice of for it and therefore underwent the Censure of the Church with his Disciples When he was first summon'd to answer he denied that he asserted any such Doctrine because no man before him saith Epiphanius had vented such Poison And in the beginning he saith that Noetus out of a Spirit of Contradiction had utter'd such things as neither the Prophets nor the Apostles nor the Church of God ever thought or declared Now what was this unheard of Doctrine of Noetus That appears best by Noetus his answer upon his second appearance which was That he worshipped One God and knew of no other who was born and suffer'd and died for us and for this he produced the several places which assert the Vnity of the Godhead and among the rest one very observable Rom. 9.5 Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever From whence he inferr'd that the Son and the Father were the same and the same he affirmed of the Holy Ghost But from hence we have an evident Proof that the most ancient Greek Copies in Noetus his time which was long before the Council of Nice had God in the Text. Epiphanius brings many places of Scripture to prove the Distinction of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead but that is not my present business but to shew the general Sense of the Church at that time I do not say that Noetus was condemned by a general Council but it is sufficient to shew that he was cast out of the Church where he broached his Doctrine and no other Church received him or condemned that Church which cast him out which shews an after Consent to it Now what was this Doctrine of Noetus The very same with that of Praxeas at Rome Theodoret saith this his Opinon was That there was but One God the Father who was himself impassible but as he took our Nature so he was passible and called the Son Epiphanius more fully that the same Person was Father Son and Holy Ghost wherein he saith he plainly contradicts the Scriptures which attribute distinct Personalities to them and yet assert but one Godhead The Father hath an Hypostasis of his own and so have the Son and Holy Ghost but yet there is but one Divinity one Power and one Dominion for these distinct Persons are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same individual Essence and Power But Epiphanius was no Ante-Nicene Father however in matters of Antiquity where there is no incongruity in the thing we may make use of his Authority and I think no one will question that Noetus was condemned which was the thing I produced him to prove But although Noetus was condemned yet this Doctrine did spread in the Eastern parts for Origen mentions those who confounded the Notion of Father and Son and made them but one Hypostasis and distinguished only by thought and Denomination This Doctrine was opposed not only by Origen but he had the Sense of the Church concurring with him as appears in the Case of Beryllus Bishop of Bostra who fell into this Opinion and was reclaimed by Origen and Eusebius gives this
Essence yet taking the Sense of those Articles as the Christian Church understood them from the Apostles times then we have as full and clear Evidence of this Doctrine as we have that we receiv'd the Scriptures from them CHAP. X. The Objections against the Trinity in Point of Reason answer'd HAving in the foregoing Chapters endeavour'd to clear the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Charge of Contradictions and to prove it agreeable to the Sense of Scripture and the Primitive Church I now come in the last place to Examine the remaining Objections in Point of Reason and those are 1. That this Doctrine is said to be a Mystery and therefore above Reason and we cannot in reason be obliged to believe any such thing 2. That if we allow any such Mysteries of Faith as are above Reason there can be no stop put to any absurd Doctrines but they may be receiv'd on the same Grounds 1. As to this Doctrine being said to be above Reason and therefore not to be believ'd we must consider two things 1. What we understand by Reason 2. What ground in Reason there is to reject any Doctrine above it when it is proposed as a Matter of Faith 1. What we understand by Reason I do not find that our Vnitarians have explained the Nature and Bounds of Reason in such manner as those ought to have done who make it the Rule and Standard of what they are to believe But sometimes they speak of clear and distinct Perceptions sometimes of natural Ideas sometimes of congenit Notions c. But a late Author hath endeavour'd to make amends for this and takes upon him to make this matter clear and to be sure to do so he begins with telling us That Reason is not the Soul abstractedly consider'd no doubt of it but the Soul acting in a peculiar manner is Reason And this is a verâ— peculiar way of explaining it But farther we are told It is not the Order or Report respect I suppose which is naturally between all things But that implies a Reason in things But the thoughts which the Soul forms of things according to it may properly claim that Title i. e. such thoughts which are agreeable to the Reason of things are reasonable thoughts This is clear and distinct And I perfectly agree with him That our own Inclinations or the bare Authority of others is not Reason But what is it Every one experiences in himself a Power or Faculty of formâ—ng various Ideas or Perceptions of things of affirming or denying according as he sees them to agree or disagree and this is Reason in General It is not the bare receiving Ideas into the Mind that is strictly Reason who ever thought it was but the Perception of the Agreement or Disagreement of our Ideas in a greater of lesser Number wherein soever this Agreement or Disagreement may consist If the Perception be immediate without the Assistance of any other Idea this is not call'd Reason but Self-Evidence but when the mind makes use of intermediate Ideas to discover that Agreement or Disagreement this method of Knowledge is properly call'd Reason or Demonstration And so Reason is defined to be that Faculty of the Soul which discovers the certainty of any thing dubious or obscure by comparing it with something evidently known This is offer'd to the World as an Account of Reason but to shew how very loose and unsatisfactory it is I desire it may be consider'd that this Doctrine supposes that we must have clear and distinct Ideas of whatever we pretend to any certainty of in our Minds and that the only Way to attain this certainty is by comparing these Ideas together Which excludes all certainty of Faith or Reason where we cannot have such clear and distinct Ideas But if there are many things of which we may be certain and yet can have no clear and distinct Ideas of them if those Ideas we have are too imperfect and obscure to form our Judgments by if we cannot find out sufficient intermediate Ideas then this cannot be the Means of Certainty or the Foundation of Reason But I shall keep to our present Subject and our certainty of it in Point of Reason depends upon our Knowledge of the the Nature of Substance and Person and the Distinction between them but if we can have no such clear Ideas in our Minds concerning these things as are required from Sensation or Reflection then either we have no use of Reason about them or it is in sufficient to pass any Judgment concerning them 1. I begin with the Notion of Substance And I have great Reason to begin with it for according to this Man's Principles there can be no certainty of Reason at all about it And so our new Way of Reason is advanced to very good Purpose For we may talk and dispute about Substance as long as we please but if his Principles of Reason be true we can come to no certainty since we can have no clear Idea in our Minds concerning it as will appear from his own Words and the method he proceeds in 1. He saith That the Mind receives in Ideas two ways 1. By Intermission of the Senses as Colours Figures Sounds Smells c. 2. By the Souls considering its own Operations about what it thus gets from without as knowing doubting affirming denying c. 2. That these simple and distinct Ideas thus laid up in the great Repository of the Vnderstanding are the sole matter and Foundation of all our Reasoning Then it follows That we can have no Foundation of Reasoning where there can can be no such Ideas from Sensation or Reflection Now this is the Case of Substance it is not intromitted by the Senses nor depends upon the Operations of the Mind and so it cannot be within the compass of our Reason And therefore I do not wonder that the Gentlemen of this new way of reasoning have almost discarded Substance out of the reasonable part of the World For they not only tell us That we can have no Idea of it by Sensation or Reflection but that nothing is signified by it only an uncertain Supposition of we know not what And therefore it is parallel'd more than once with the Indian Philosophers He knew not what which supported the Tortoâ—se that supported the Elephant that supported the Earth so Substance was found out only to support Accidents And that when we talk of Substances we talk like Children who being ask'd a Question about somewhat which they know not readily give this satisfactory Answer that it is Something If this be the truth of the Case we must still talk like Children and I know not how it can be remedied For if we cannot come at a rational Idea of Substance we can have no Principle of certainty to go upon in this Debate I do not say that we can have a clear Idea of Substance either by Sensation or Reflection but from hence I argue that
A DISCOURSE In VINDICATION of the Doctrine of the Trinity WITH An ANSWER To the Late Socinian Objections Against it from Scripture Antiquity and Reason AND A PREFACE concerning the different Explications of the Trinity and the Tendency of the present SOCINIAN Controversie By the Right Reverend Father in God Edward Lord Bishop of Worcester LONDON Printed by I. H. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in S. Paul's Church-yard 1697. THE PREFACE WHen I was desir'd not long since to reprint the Discourse lately published concerning the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction I thought it necessary to look into the Socinian Pamphlets which have swarmed so much among us within a few years to see how far an Answer had been given in them to any of the arguments contained in it but I found the Writers of them thought it not for their purpose to take any notice at all of it but rather endeavour'd to turn the Controversie quite another way and to cover their true Sense under more plausible Expressions Of which I have given a full account in the Preface to the late Edition of it But among those Treatises which â—or the general good of the Nation are gatherâ—d into Volumes and dispers'd abroad to make either Proselytes or Infidels I found one wherein there is pâ—etended to be an Answer to my Sermon about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith reprinted with the former Discourse and therein I meet with a passage which hath given occasion to this Vindication For there are these Words That I had utterly mistaken in thinking that they deny the Articlâ—s of the new Creed or Athanasian Religion because they are Mysteries or because say they 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 Which words contain in them so spitefull so unjust and so unreasonable a Charge upon the Christian Church in general and our own in particular that I could not but think my self concerned especially since they are addressed to me to do what in me lay as soon as my uncertain State of Health would permit towards the clearing the fundamental Mystery of the Athanasian Religion as they call it viz. The Doctrine of the Trinity which is chiefly struck at by them without running into any new Explications or laying aside any old terms for which I could not see any just occasion For however thoughtfull Men may think to escape some particular difficulties better by going out of the common Roads yet they may meet with others which they did not foresee which may make them as well as others judge it at last a wiser and safer course to keep in the same way which the Christian Church hath used ever since it hath agreed to express her Sense in such Terms which were thought most proper for that purpose For in such cases the Original and Critical Signification of words is not so much to be attended as the use they are applied to and since no other can be found more significant or proper for that end it looks like yielding too great advantage to our Adversaries to give up the Boundaries of our Faith For although there be a difference between the necessary Article of Faith it self and the manner of expressing it so that those may truely believe the Substance of it who differ in the Explication yet since the Sense of the Article hath been generally received under those terms there seems to be no sufficient reason to substitute new ones instead of the old which can hardly be done without reflecting on the Honour of the Christian Church and giving occasion for very unreasonable Heats and Disputes among those who if we may believe their own words agree in the same fundamental Doctrine viz. a Trinity in Unity or three Persons in the same undivided divine Essence I am so little a Friend to any such Heats and Differences among our selves especially when we are so violently attacked by our common Adversaries that were there no other reason I should for the sake of that alone forbear making use of new Explications but there is another too obvious which is the mighty advantage they have taken from hence to represent our Doctrine as uncertain as well as unintelligiâ—le For as soon as our Unitarians began to appear with that Briskness and Boldness they have done now for several years some of our Divines thought themselves obliged to write in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity Thence came several Answers to them and in several Methods as the Persons thought most subservient to the same end but whatever their intentions were our Adversaries were too much pleased to conceal the Satisfaction which they took in it For soon after we had the several Explications set forth and compared with each other and all managed so as to make the Cause to suffer by the disagreement of the Advocates for it And from hence they have formed a fivefold Trinity 1. The Ciceronian Trinity because Tully had used the Word Personae for different Respects Sustineo ego tres Personas and according to this Acceptation Three Persons in the Godhead are no more than three Relations Capacities or Respects of God to his Creatures which say they is downright Sabellianism and is no manner of Mystery but the most intelligible and obvious thing in the World 2. The Cartesian Trinity which maketh three divine Persons and three infinite Minds Spirits and Beings to be but one God 3. The Platonick Trinity of three divine Co-eternal Persons whereof the second and third are subordinate or inferiour to the first in Dignity Power and all other Qualities except only Duration 4. The Aristotelian Trinity which saith the Divine Persons are one God because they have one and the same numerical Substance 5. The Trinity of the Mobile or that which is held by the common People or by such lazy Divines who only say in short that it is an unconceivable Mystery and that those are as much in fault who go about to explain it as those who oppose it But that which hath made the most noise and caused the greatest Heat and Ferment among us hath been a difference first begun between two learned Divines of our Church about the second and fourth and the account which our Unitarians give of both is this That the one is a rational and intelligible Explication but not true nor Orthodox the other is true and Orthodox but neither rational intelligible nor possible I do not mention this as though their words were to be taken as to either but only to shew what advantage they take from both to represent that which is set up for the Churches Doctrine either not to be truly so or to be neither rational nor intelligible The design of the following Discourse is to make it appear 1. That the Churches Doctrine as to the Trinity as it is expressed in the Athanasian
Creed is not liable to their charges of Contradiction Impossibilities and pure Nonsense 2. That we own no other Doctrine than what hath been received by the Christian Church in the several Ages from the Apostles Times 3. And that there are no Objections in point of reason which ought to hinder our Assent to this great point of the Christian Faith But the chief Design of this Preface is to remove this Prejudice which lies in our way from the different manners of Explication and the warm Disputes which have been occasion'd by them It cannot be denied that our Adversaries have taken all possible advantage against us from these unhappy differences and in one of their latest Discourses they glory in it and think they have therein out-done the foreign Unitarians For say they We have shewed that their Faiths concerning this pretended Mystery are so many and so contrary that they are less one Party among themselves than the far more learned and greater number of them are one Party with us this is spoken of those they call Nominal Trinitarians and for the other whom they call Real they prove them guilty of manifest Heresie the one they call Sabellians which they say is the same with Unitarians and the other Polytheists or disguised Pagans and they borrow arguments from one side to prove the charge upon the other and they confidently affirm that all that speak out in this matter must be driven either to Sabellianism or Tritheism If they are Nominal Trinitarians they fall into the former if Real into the latter This is the whole Design of this late Discourse which I shall here examine that I may remove this stumbling Block before I enter upon the main business 1. As to those who are called Nominal Trinitarians Who are they And from whence comes such a Denomination They tell us That they are such who believe three Persons who are Persons in Name only indeed and in truth they are but one subsisting Person But where are these to be found Among all such say they as agree that there is but one only and self-same divine Essence and Substance But do these assert that there is but one subsisting Person and three only in Name Let any one be produced who hath written in defence of the Trinity for those who have been most charged have utterly deny'd it That learned Person who is more particularly reflected upon in this Charge is by them said to affirm That God is one divine intellectual Substance or really subsisting Person and distinguished and diversified by three relative Modes or relative Subsistences And Mr. Hooker is produc'd to the same purpose That there is but one Substance in God and three distinct relaâ—ive Properties which Substance being taken with its peculiar Property makes the distinction of Persons in the Godhead But say they These Modes and Properties do not make any real subsisting Persons but only in a Grammatical and Critical Sense and at most this is no more than one Man may be said to be three Persons on the account of different Relations as Solomon was Son of David Father of Rehoboam and proceeding from David and Bathsheba and yet was but one subsisting Pâ—rson This is the force of what they say But then in a triumphing manner they add That the Realists have so manifest an advantage against them that they have no way to deâ—end themselves but by Recrimination i. e. by shewing the like Absurdity in their Doctrine And thus they hope either side will baffle the other and in the mean time the Cause be lost between them But in so nice a matter as this we must not rely too much on an Adversaries Representation for the leaving out some expressions may make an opinion look with another Appearance than if all were taken together it would have We must therefore take notice of other passages which may help to give the true Sense of the learned Author who is chiefly aimed at 1. In the very same Page he asserts That each of the divine Persons has an absolute Nature distinctly belonging to him though not a distinct absolute Nature and to the same purpose in another place 2. That the eternal Father is and subsists as a Father by having a Son and communicating his Essence to another And elsewhere that the Relation between Father and Son is founded on that eternal Act by which the Father communicates his divine Nature to the Son 3. That the foundation of the Doctrine of the Trinity is this 1. That there can be but one God 2. That there is nothing in God but what is God 3. That there can be no Composition in the Deity with any such positive real Being distinct from the Deity it self But the Church finding in Scripture mention of three to whom distinctly the Godhead does belong expressed these three by the Name of Persons and stated their Personalities upon three distinct Modes of Subsistence allotted to one and the same Godhead and these also distinguished from one another by three distinct Relations What do these men mean to charge one who goes upon these grounds with Sabellianism Doth he make the three Persons to be mere Names as S. Basil in few words expresses the true nature of Sabellianism that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One thing with different Denominations Can the communicating the divine Essence by the Father to the Son be called a Name or a Mode or a Respect only And these Men of wonderfull Subtilty have not learnt to distinguish between Persons and Personalities Where is the least Intimation given that he look'd on the divine Persons as Modes and Respects only That is impossible since he owns a Communication of the divine Essence and that each of the divine Persons hath the divine Nature belonging to him could it ever enter into any Man's head to think that he that owns this should own the other also But the Personality is a thing of another consideration For it is the reason of the distinction of Persons in the same undivided Nature That there is a distinction the Scripture assures us and withall that there is but one divine Essence How can this distinction be Not by essential Attributes for those must be in the divine Essence and in every Person alike otherwise he hath not the entire divine Nature not by accidents as Men are distinguished from each other for the divine Nature is not capable of these not by separate or divided Substances for that would be inconsistent with the perfect Vnity of the Godhead since therefore there can be no other way of distinction we must consider how the Scripture directs us iâ— this case and that acquaints us with the Father Son and Holy Ghost as having mutual Relation to each other and there is no Repugnancy therein to the divine Nature and therefore the distinction of the Persons hath been fixed on that as the most proper foundation for it
The instance of Solomon is not at all to the purpose unless we asserted three Persons founded upon those different Relations in his individual Nature Who denies that one Person may have different Respects and yet be but one Person subsisting Where doth the Scripture say That the Son of David the Father of Rehoboam and he that proceeded from David and Bathsheba were three Persons distinguished by those relative Properties But here lies the foundation of what we believe as to the Trinity we are assured from Scripture that there are three to whom the divine Nature and Attributes are given and we are assured both from Scripture and Reason that there can be but one divine Essence and therefore every one of these must have the divine Nature and yet that can be but One But it is a most unreasonable thing to charge those with Sabellianism who assert That every Person hath the divine Nature distinctly belonging to him and that the divine Essence is communicated from the Father to the Son Did ever Nâ—etus or Sabellius or any of their Followers speak after this manner Is the divine Essence but a mere Name or a different respect only to Mankind For the asserting such relative Persons as have no Essence at all was the true Sabellian Doctrine as will be made appear in the following Discourse And so much is confess'd by our Unitarians themselves for they say That the Sabellians held that Father Son and Spirit are but only three Names oâ— God given to him in Scripture by occasion of so many several Dispensations towards the Creature and so he is but one subsisting Person and three relative Persons as he sustains the three Names of Father Son and Spirit which being the Relations of God towards things without him he is so many relative Persons or Persons in a Classical Critical Sense i. e. Persons without any Essence belonging to them as such But those who assert a Communication of the divine Essence to each Person can never be guilty of Sabellianism if this be it which themselves affirm And so those called Nominal Trinitarians are very unjustly so called because they do really hold a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead 2. Let us now see what charge they lay upon those whom they call Real Trinitarians and they tell us That the Nominals will seem to be profound Philosophers deep Sages in comparison with them These are very obliging expressions to them in the beginning But how do they make out this gross Stupidity of theirs In short it is That they stand condemned and anathematized as Hereticks by a general Council and by all the Moderns and are every day challenged and impeached of Tritheism and cannot agree among themselves but charge one another with great Absurdities and in plain terms they charge them with Nonsense in the thing whereas the other lay only in words Because these assert three divine subsisting Persons three infinite Spirits Minds or Substances as distinct as so many Angels or Men each of them perfectly God and yet all of them are but one God To understand this matter rightly we must consider that when the Socinian Pamphlets first came abroad some years since a learned and worthy Person of our Church who had appear'd with great vigour and reason against our Adversaries of the Church of Rome in the late Reign which ought not to be forgotten undertook to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity against the History of the Unitarians and the Notes on the Athanasian Creed but in the warmth of disputing and out of a desire to make this matter more intelligible he suffer'd himself to be carried beyond the ancient Methods which the Church hath used to express her Sense by still retaining the same fundamental Article of three Persons in one undivided Essence but explaining it in such a manner as to make each Person to have a peculiar and proper Substance of his own This gave so great an advantage to the Author of those Treatises that in a little time he set forth his Notes with an Appendix in answer to this new Explication Wherein he charges him with Heresie Tritheism and Contradiction The very same charges which have been since improved and carried on by others I wish I could say without any unbecoming Heat or Reflections But I shall now examine how far these charges have any ground so as to affect the Doctrine of the Trinity which is the chief end our Adversaries aimed at in heaping these Reproaches upon one who appear'd so early and with so much zeal to defend it We are therefore to consider these things 1. That a Man may be very right in the Belief of the Article it self and yet may be mistaken in his Explication of it And this one of his keenest Adversaries freely acknowledges For he plainly distinguishes between the fundamental Article and the manner of explaining it and affirms That a Man may quit his Explication without parting with the Article it self And so he may retain the Article with his Explication But suppose a Man to assent to the fundamental Article it self and be mistaken in his Explication of it can he be charged with Heresie about this Article For Heresie must relate to the fundamental Article to which he declares his hearty and unfeigned Assent but here we suppose the mistake to lie only in the Explication As for instance Sabellianism is a condemned and exploded Heresie for it is contrary to the very Doctrine of the Trinity but suppose one who asserts the Doctrine of three Persons should make them to be three Modes must such a one presently be charged with Heresie before we see whether his Explication be consistent with the fundamental Article or not For this is liable to very obvious Objections that the Father begets a Mode instead of a Son that we pray to three Modes instead of three real Persons that Modes are mutable things in their own Nature c. but must we from hence conclude such a one guilty of Heresie when he declares that he withall supposed them not to be mere Modes but that the divine Essence is to be taken together with the Mode to make a Person Yea suppose some spitefull Adversary should say That it is a Contradiction to say That the same common Nature can make a Person with a Mode superadded to it unless that be individuated for a â—erson doth imply an individual Nature and not a mere relative Mode Is this sufficient to charge such a Person with the Sabellian Heresy which he utterly disowns Is not the like Equity to be shewâ—d in another though different Explication Suppose then a Person solemnly professes to own the fundamental Doctrine of the Trinity as much as any others but he thinks that three Persons must have distinct Substances to make them Persons but so as to make no Division or Separation in the Godhead and that he cannot conceive a Communication of the divine Essence
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
to go about to prove them But to shew what use we are to make of them we must consider that it cannot be denied that the Doctrine of the Trinity did meet with opposition very early in the Christian Church especially among the Iewish Christians I mean those who strictly adhered to the Law of Moses after the Apostles had declared the freedom of Christians from the obligation of it These as I shall shew by and by soon after the dispersion of the Church of Ierusalem gathered into a body by themselves distinct from that which consisted of Iews and Gentiles and was therefore called the Catholick Christian Church And this separate body whether called Ebionites Nazarens or Mineans did not only differ from the Catholick Christian Church as to the necessity of observing the Law of Moses but likewise as to the Divinity of our Saviour which they denied although they professed to believe him as the Christ or promised Messias Theodoret hath with very good judgment placed the Heresies of the first ages of the Châ—istian Church under two distinct heads which others reckon up confusedly and those are such as relate to the Humanity of Christ as Simon Magus and all the Sets of those who are called Gnosticks which are recited in his first Book In his second he begins with those which relate to the Divinity of Christ and these are of two kinds 1. The Iewish Christians who denied it Of these he reckons up the Ebionites Cerinthians the Nazarens and Elcesaitae whom he distinguished from the other Ebionites because of a Book of Revelation which one Elxai brought among them but Epiphanius saith he joyned with the Ebionites and Nazarens 2. Those of the Gentile Christians who were look'd on as broaching a new Doctriâ—e among them of these he reckons Artemon as the first then Theodotus whom others make the first Publisher of it as Tertullian and the old Writer in Eusebius supposed to be Caius who lived near the time and of whom a considerable Fragment is preserved in Eusebius which gives light to these matters The next is another Theodotus who framed a new Sect of such as set up Melâ—hisedeck above Christ. Then follow Paulus Samosatenus and Sabellius who made but one Person as well as one God and so overthrew the Trinity with whom Marcellus agreed in substance and last of all Photinus But Theodoret concludes that Book with this passage viz. That all these Heresies against our Saviour's Divinity were then wholly extinct so that there were not so much as any small Remainders of them What would he have said if he had lived in our age wherein they are not only revived but are pretended to have been the true Doctrine of the Apostolical Churches Had all men lost their Senses in Theodoret's time And yet there were as many learned and able Men in the Christian Church then as ever were in any time CHAP. III. The Socinian Plea for the Antiquity of their Doctrine examined BUT this is not the age our Vnitarians will stand or fall by They are for going backward and they speak with great comfort about the old Ebionites and Nazarens as entirely theirs And that they had considerable men among them as Theodotion and Symmachus two Translators of the Hebrew Bible And among the Gentile Christians they value themselves upon three Men Paulus Samosatenus Lucianus the most learned Person they say of his age and Photinus Bishop of Sirmium As to the Vnitarians at Rome whom they improperly call Nazarens they pretended that their Doctrine was Apostolical and the general Doctrine of the Church till the times of Victor and Zepherin This is the substance of their Plea which must now be examin'd I begin with those Primitive Vnitarians the Ebionites concerning whom I observe these things 1. That they were a distinct separate body of men from the Christian Church For all the ancient Writers who speak of them do mention them as Hereticks and wholly divided from it as appears by Irenaeus Tertullian Epiphanius Theodoret S. Augustin and others Eusebius saith of them That although the Devil could not make them renounce Christianity yet finding their weakness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he made them his own He would never have said this of any whom he look'd on as Members of the Christian Church But wherein is it that Eusebius blames them He tells it in the very next words that it was for the mean opinion they entertained of Christ for they look'd on him as a meer Man but very just And although there were two sorts of them some owning the miraculous Conception and others not yet saith he They at last agreed in the same Impiety which was That they would not own Christ to have had any Pre-existence before his Birth nor that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God the Word It 's true he finds fault with them afterwards for keeping to the Law of Moses but the first Impiety he charges them with is the other That which I inferr from hence is that Eusebius himself to whom they profess to shew greater respect than to most of the ancient Writers for his exactness and diligence in Church-History doth affirm the Doctrine which overthrows the Pre-existence and Divinity of Christ to be an Impiety And therefore when he affirms the first fifteen Bishops of the Church of Ierusalem who were of the Circumcision viz. to the Siege of it by Hadrian did hold the genuine Doctrine of Christ it must be understood of his Pre-existence and Divinity for the other we see he accounted an Impiety And he tells us the Church of Ierusalem then consisted of believing Iews and so it had done from the Apostles times to that of Hadrian 's Banishment of the Iews Which is a considerable Testimony to two purposes 1. To shew that the Primitive Church of Ierusalem did hold the Doctrine of Christ's Pre-existence and Divinity But say our Vnitarians this doth not follow For what reason When it is plain that Eusebius accounted that the only genuine Doctrine No say they he meant only the miraculous Conception and that they held that in opposition to those Ebionites who said that he was born as other men are This is very strange when Eusebius had distinguished the two sorts of Ebionites about this matter and had blamed both of them even those that held him born of a Virgin for falling into the same Impiety What can satisfie such men who are content with such an answer But say they Eusebius only spake his own sense Not so neither For he saith in that place that he had searched the most ancient Records of the Church of Ierusalem Yes say they for the Succession of the first Bishops but as to their Doctrine he had it from Hegesippus and he was an Ebionite himself Then Eusebius must not be the man they take him for For if Hegesippus were himself an Ebionite and told Eusebius in his Commentaries that the Primitive
Church of Ierusalem consisted of all such then Eusebius must suppose that Church guilty of the same Impiety with which he charges the Ebionites and would he then have said That they had the true knowledge of Christ among them No say they Eusebius spake his own opinion but Hegesippus being an Ebionite himself meant otherwise But Eusebius doth not use Hegesippus his words but his own in that place and withal how doth it appear that Hegesippus himself was an Ebionite This one of their latest Writers hath undertaken but in such a manner as is not like to convince me It is thus Hegesippus was himself a Iewish Christian and made use of the Hebrew Gospel and among the Hereticks which crept into the Church of Jerusalem he never numbers the Ebionites or Cerinthians but only the Gnosticks I will not dispute whether Hegesippus was a Jewish Christian or not Grant he was so yet how doth it appear that all the Iewish Christians were at that time Ebionites or Cerinthians It seems they were neither of them Hereticks although they were opposite to each other the one held the World created by inferiour Powers the other by God himself the one we see made Christ a mere Man but the Cerinthians held an illapse of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon him and so made him a kind of a God by his Presence as Nestorius did afterwards But honest Hegesippus took neither one nor the other for Hereticks if our Vnitarians say true But yet it doth not appear that Hegesippus was either one or the other For he speaks of the Church of Ierusalem as is plain by Eusebius and the Cerinthians and Ebionites were in other parts the former in Egypt and the lesser or Proconsular Asia and the latter about Decapolis and Coelesyria from whence they spread into Arabia and Armenia as appears by Epiphanius But Origen saith That all the Iewish Christians were Ebionites What! no Cerinthians among them Were not those Iewish Christians Or were they all turned Ebionites then No such thing appears by Origen's saying But we are not enquiring now what they were in his time but in the Church of Ierusalem Doth Origen say all the Iewish Christians there were such And as to his own time it is not improbable that those who then made up the separate Body of Jewish Christians were Ebionites But what is this to the first Christians of the Church of Ierusalem Very much say they because the first Christians were called Nazarens and the Nazarens held the same Doctrine with the Ebionites But the title of Nazarens did not always signifie the same thing It was at first used for all Christians as appears by the Sect of the Nazarens in Tertullus his Accusation of S. Paul then it was taken for the Christians who stay'd at Pella and setled at Decapolis and thereabouts as Epiphanius affirms for although all the Christians withdrew thither before the Destruction of Ierusalem as Eusebius saith yet they did not all continue there but a great number returned to Ierusalem and were there setled under their Bishops but those who remained about Pella kept the name of Nazarens and never were united with the Gentile Christians but kept up their old Jewish customs as to their Synagogues even in S. Ierom and S. Augustine's time Now these Nazarens might be all Ebionites and yet those of the Church of Ierusalem not so at all 2. The next thing observable from this place of Eusebius is that while the Nazarens and Ebionites were setled in Coelesyria and the parts thereabouts there was a regular Christian Church at Ierusalem under the Bishops of the Circumcision to the Siege of Hadrian Eusebius observes that before the destruction of Ierusalem all the Christians forsook not only Ierusalem but the Coasts of Iudea But that they did not all continue there is most evident from what Eusebius here saith of the Church and Bishops of Ierusalem between the two Sieges of Titus Vespasian and Hadrian which was in the 18 year of his Empire saith Eusebius Who produces another Testimony out of Iustin Martyr which shews that the Christians were returned to Ierusalem For therein he saith That Barchochebas in that War used the Christians with very great severity to make them renounce Christianity How could this be if all the Christians were out of his reach then being setled about Pella And although Eusebius saith That when the Iews were banished their Country by Hadrian 's Edict that then the Church of Ierusalem was made up of Gentiles yet we are not so strictly to understand him as though the Christians who suffer'd under Barchochebas were wholly excluded Orosius saith That they were permitted by the Emperor's Edict It is sufficient for me if they were connived at which is very probable although they did not think fit to have any such publick Persons as their Bishops to be any other than Gentiles And Hegesippus is allow'd after this time to have been a Iewish Christian of the Church of Ierusalem so that the Church there must consist both of Iews and Gentiles but they can never shew that any of the Ebionites did admit any Gentile Christians among them which shews that they were then distinct Bodies 2. They were not only distinct in Communion but had a different rule of Faith This is a point of great consequence and ought to be well consider'd For since our Vnitarians own the Ebionites as their Predecessors we ought to have a particular eye to the rule of Faith received by them which must be very different from ours if they follow the Ebionites as I doubt not to make it appear They say The Ebionites used only S. Matthew 's Gospel But the Christian Church then and ever since have receiv'd the four Gospels as of divine authority Eusebius one of the most approved Authors in Antiquity by our Vnitarians reckons up the four Evangelists and S. Paul 's Epistles as writings universally received by the Christian Church then he mentions some generally rejected as spurious and after those which were doubted among which he mentions the Gospel according to the Hebrews which the Iewish Christians follow'd Now here is an apparent difference put between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and S. Matthew 's Gospel as much as between a Book receiv'd without controversie and one that was not But if the Gospel according to the Hebrews were then acknowledged to be the true Gospel of S. Matthew it was impossible a man of so much sense as Eusebius should make this difference between them But it is worth our observing what our Vnitarians say about this matter And by that we may judge very much of their opinion about the Gospels I shall set down their words for fear I should be thought to do them wrong Symmachus and the Ebionites say they as they held our Saviour to be the Son of Ioseph and Mary so they contended that the first Chapter of S. Matthew's
and Baptism S. Ierom observes that Theodotion and Symmachus both Ebionites translated the Old Testament in what concerned our Saviour like Iews and Aquila who was a Iew like a Christian but in another place he blames all three for the same fault Eusebius goes somewhat farther for he saith Symmachus wrote against S. Matthew 's Gospel to establish his own Heresie which shew'd he was a true Ebionite The next they mention as one of their great Lights was Paulus Samosatenus Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch But in another place they have a spiteful Insinuation that men in such places are the great Pensioners of the World as though they were sway'd only by interest and that it keeps them from embracing of the truth Now Paulus Samosatenus gave greater occasion for such a Suspicion than any of the persons so unworthily reflected upon For he was a man noted for his Affectation of excessive Vanity and Pomp and very unjust methods of growing rich It is well we have Eusebius his Testimony for this for they sleight Epiphanius for his malicious Tales and S. Ierom for his Legends but they commend Eusebius for his Exactness and Diligence And I hope Theodoret may escape their censure who affirms that Paulus Samofatenus suited his Doctrine to his interest with Zenobia who then governed in those parts of Syria and Phoenicia who professed her self to be of the Iewish Perswasion Athanasius saith She was a Iew and a Favourer of Paulus Samosatenus What his opinions were our Vnitarians do not take the pains to inform us taking it for granted that he was of their Mind Eusebius saith He had a very mean and low opinion of Christ as having nothing in him above the common nature of Mankind Theodoret saith he fell into the Doctrine of Artemon to oblige Zenobia and Artemon he saith held that Christ was a mere Man born of a Virgin but exceeding the Prophets in Excellency Where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used to express the opinion of Artemon which ought to be taken notice of because our modern Vnitarians say That those words among the ancient Writers were taken in opposition to the miraculous Conception of our Saviour But Paulus Samosatenus was universally disowned by the Christian Church of that time although as long as Zenobia held her Power he kept his See which was for some time after he was first called in question for his Heresie But at first he made use of many Arts and Devices to deceive the Christian Bishops of the best Reputation who assembled at Antioch in order to the suppressing this dangerous Doctrine as they all accounted it For hearing of his opinions about our Saviour they ran together saith Eusebius as against a Wolf which designed to destroy the Flock Now from hence it is very reasonable to argue that the Samosatenian Doctrine was then look'd on as a very dangerous Novelty in the Christian Church For although the Ebionites had asserted the same thing as to the Divinity of our Saviour yet they were not look'd on as true Members of the Christian Church but as S. Ierom saith While they affected to be both Iews and Christians they were neither Iews nor Christians Artemon whoever he was was but an obscure person and Theodotus had Learning they say but was of no place in the Church but for such a considerable person as the Bishop of Antioch to own such a Doctrine must unavoidably discover the general sence of the Christian Church concerning it Paulus Samosatenus wanted neither parts nor interest nor experience and he was supported by a Princess of great Spirit and Courage enough to have daunted all the Bishops at least in those parts from appearing against him But such was the zeal and concernment of the Bishops of the Christian Church in this great affair that they not only assembled themselves but they communicated it to Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria and to another of the same name Bishop of Rome and others and desired their advice and concurrence who did all agree in the condemnation of his Doctrine The former said He would have gone himself to Antioch but for his extreme old Age and he died soon after the first Council which met at Antioch on this occasion but he sent his judgment and reasons thither which we find in an Epistle of his still extant whereof mention is made in the Epistle of the second Synod of Antioch to Dionysius Bishop of Rome and Maximus Bishop of Alexandria and all other Bishops Priests and Deacons of the Catholick Church wherein they give an account of their proceedings against Paulus Samosatenus and they say They had invited the Bishops of the remoter parts to come to Antioch for the suppression of this damnable Doctrine and among the rest Dionysius of Alexandria and Firmilian of Cappadocia as persons of greatest reputation then in the Church Firmilian was there at the former Synod of whom Theodoret saith that he was famous both for divine and humane Learning and so were Gregorius Thaumaturgus and Athenodorus Bishops of Pontus and Helenus Bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia and Nicomas of Iconium and Hymenaeus of Ierusalem and Theotecnus of Caesarea who all condemned his Doctrine but they spared his person upon his solemn Promises to retract it but he persisting in it when they were gone home and fresh complaints being made of him Firmilian was coming a third time to Antioch but died by the way but those Bishops who wrote the Synodical Epistle do all affirm That they were Witnesses and many others when he condemned his Doctrine but was willing to forbear his person upon his promise of amendment which they found afterwards was merely delusory Dionysius Alexandrinus they say would not write to him but sent his mind about him to the Church of Antioch Which Epistle is mention'd by S. Ierom as written by him a little before his death as well as by Eusebius and Theodoret and I do not see sufficient reason to question the authority of that which Fronto Ducaeus published from Turrian's Copy although it be denied by H. Valesius and others It 's said indeed That he did not write to him i. e. he did not direct it to him but he might send it to the Council in answer to his Letters which he mentions How far it differs from his style in other Epistles I will not take upon me to judge but the design is very agreeable to an Epistle from him on that occasion It 's true that it seems to represent the opinion of Paulus Samosatenus after a different manner from what it is commonly thought to have been But we are to consider that â—e made use of all the Arts to dâ—sguise himself that he could and when he found the making Christ to be a mere Man would not be born he went from the Ebionite to the Cerinthian Hypothesis viz. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did dwell in him and that
there were two Persons in Christ one Divine and the other Humane and two Sons the one by Nature the Son of God who had a Pre existence and the other the Son of David who had no subsistence before This is the opinion which Dionysius sets himself against in that Epistle and which therefore â—ome may imagine was written after Nestorius his Heresie But that was no new Heresie as appears by the Cerinthians and it was that which Paulus Samosatenus fled to as more plausible which not only appears by this Epistle but by what Athanasius and Epiphanius have delivered concerning it Athanasius wrote a Book of the Incarnation against the followers of Paulus Samosatenus who held as he saith Two Persons in Christ viz. One born of the Virgin and a divine Person which descended upon him and dwelt in him Against which opinion he disputes from two places of Scripture viz. God was manifest in the Flesh and the Word was made Flesh and from the ancient Doctrine of the Christian Church and the Synod of Antioch against Paulus Samosatenus And in another place he saith that he held That the divine Word dwelt in Christ. And the words of Epiphanius are express to the same purpose That the Logos came and dwelt in the Man Iesus And the Clergy of Constantinople charged Nestorius with following the Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus And Photius in his Epistles saith That Nestorius tasted too much of the intoxicated Cups of Paulus Samosatenus and in the foregoing Epistle he saith That Paulus his followers asserted two Hypostases in Christ. But some think that Paulus Samosatenus did not hold any subsistence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before but that the Word was in God before without any subsistence of its own and that God gave it a distinct subsistence when it inhabited in the Person of Christ and so Marius Mercator and Leontius understand him who say that he differ'd from Nestorius therein who asserted a Divine Word with its proper subsistence But according to them Paulus by the Word undersâ—ood that Divine Energy whereby Christ acted and which dwelt in him but Dionysius saith he made two Christs and two Sons of God But the Doctrine of the Christian Church he saith was that there was but one Christ and one Son who wâ—s the Eternal Word and was made Flesh. And it is observable that he brings the very same places we do now to prove this Doctrine as In the beginning was the Word c. and Before Abraham was I am It seems that some of the Bishops who had been upon the examination of his Opinions before the second Synod which deposed him sent him an account of their Faith and required his answer wherein they declare the Son not to be God according to God's Decree which he did not stick at but that he was so really and substantially and whosoever denied this they said was out of the Communion of the Church and all the Catholick Churches agreed with them in it And they declare that they received this Doctrine from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and bring the same places we do now as Thy Throne O God was for ever c. Who is over all God blessed for ever All things were made by him c. And we do not find that Paulus Samosatenus as subtle as he was ever imagin'd that these places belong'd to any other than Christ or that the making of all things was to be understood of the making of nothing but putting it into mens power to make themselves new Creatures These were discoveries only reserved for the Men of Sense and clear Ideas in these brighter Ages of the World But at last after all the arts and subterfuges which Paulus Samosatenus used there was a Man of Sense as it happen'd among the Clergy of Antioch called Malchion who was so well acquainted with his Sophistry that he drove him out of all and laid his Sense so open before the second Synod that he was solemnly deposed for denying the Divinity of the Son of God and his Descent from Heaven as appears by their Synodical Epistle It is pity we have it not entire but by the Fragments of it which are preserved by some ancient Writers we find that his Doctrine of the Divinity in him by Inhabitation was then condemned and the substantial Union of both Natures asserted I have only one thing more to observe concerning him which is that the Arian Party in their Decree at Sardica or rather Philippopolis do confess that Paulus Samosatenus his Doctrine was condemned by the whole Christian World For they say That which passed in the Eastern Synod was signed and approved by all And Alexander Bishop of Alexandria in his Epistle to Alexander of Constantinople affirms the same And now I hope I may desire our Men of Sense to reflect upon these Matters Here was no Fire nor Faggot threatned no Imperial Edicts to inforce this Doctrine nay the Queen of those parts under whose Jurisdiction they lived at that time openly espoused the cause of Paulus Samosatenus so that here could be nothing of interest to sway them to act in opposition to her And they found his interest so strong that he retained the Possession of his See till Aurelian had conquer'd Zenobia and by his authority he was ejected This Synod which deposed him did not sit in the time of Aurelian as is commonly thought but before his time while Zenobia had all the power in her hands in those Eastern parts which she enjoy'd five years till she was dispossess'd by Aurelian from whence Ant. Pagi concludes that Paulus kept his See three years after the Sentence against him but upon application to Aurelian he who afterwards began a Persecution against all Christians gave this rule That he with whom the Italian Bishops and those of Rome communicated should enjoy the See upon which Paulus was at last turned out By this we see a concurrence of all the Christian Bishops of that time against him that denied the Divinity of our Saviour and this without any force and against their interest and with a general consent of the Christian World For there were no mighty Awes and Draconic Sanctions to compell of which they sometimes speak as if they were the only powerfull methods to make this Doctrine go down And what greater argument can there be that it was then the general sense of the Christian Church And it would be very hard to condemn all his Opposers for men that wanted Sense and Reason because they so unanimously opposed him Not so unanimously neither say our Vnitarians because Lucian a Presbyter of the Church of Antioch and a very learned man joyned with him It would have been strange indeed if so great a Man as Paulus Samosatenus could prevail with none of his own Church to joyn with him especially one that came from the same place of Samosata as
God that he saith The Consequence must be that the three Persons must be three Gods as three humane Persons are three Men. And in another place That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are One in the same individual Nature And what saith Curcellaeus to these places for he was aware of them To the latter he saith That by individual he means Specifick This is an extraordinary Answer indeed But what Reason doth he give for it Because they are not divided in Place or Time but they may have their proper Essences however But where doth S. Augustin give any such Account of it He often speaks upon this Subject but always gives another Reason viz. because they are but One and the same Substance The Three Persons are but One God because they are of One Substance and they have a perfect Vnity because there is no Diversity of Nature or of Will But it may be said That here he speaks of a Diversity of Nature In the next Words he explains himself that the three Persons are One God propter ineffabilem conjunctionem Deitatis but the Union of three Persons in one Specifick Nature is no ineffable Conjunction it being one of the commonest things in the World and in the same Chapter propter Individuam Deitatem unus Deus est propter uniuscujusque Proprietatem tres Personae sunt Here we find one Individual Nature and no difference but in the peculiar Properties of the Persons In the other place he is so express against a Specifick Vnity that Curcellaeus his best Answer is That in that Chapter he is too intricate and obscure i. e. He doth not to speak his Mind Thus much I thought fit to say in Answer to those undeniable Proofs of Curcellaeus which our Vnitarians boast so much of and whether they be so or not let the Reader examine and judge CHAP. VII The Athanasian Creed clear'd from Contradictions III. I Now come to the last thing I proposed viz. to shew That it is no contradiction to assert three Persons in the Trinity and but one God and for that purpose I shall examine the charge of Contradictions on the Athanasian Creed The summ of the first Articles say they is this The one true God is three distinct Persons and three distinct Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are the one true God Which is plainly as if a Man should say Peter James and John being three Persons are one Man and one Man is these three distinct Persons Peter James and John Is it not now a ridiculous attempt as well as a barbarous Indignity to go about thus to make Asses of all Mankind under pretence of teaching them a Creed This is very freely spoken with respect not merely to our Church but the Christian World which owns this Creed to be a just and true Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity But there are some Creatures as remarkable for their untoward kicking as for their Stupidity And is not this great skill in these Matters to make such a Parallel between three Persons in the Godhead and Peter Iames and Iohn Do they think there is no difference between an infinitely perfect Being and such finite limited Creatures as Individuals among Men are Do they suppose the divine Nature capable of such Division and Separation by Individuals as human Nature is No they may say but ye who hold three Persons must think so For what reason We do assert three Persons but it is on the account of divine Revelation and in such a manner as the divine Nature is capable of it For it is a good rule of Boethius Talia sunt praedicata qualia subjecta permiserint We must not say that there are Persons in the Trinity but in such a manner as is agreeable to the divine Nature and if that be not capable of Division and Separation then the Persons must be in the same undivided Essence The next Article is Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance But how can we say they not confound the Persons that have as ye say but one numerical Substance And how can we but divide the Substance which we find in three distinct divided Persons I think the terms numerical Substance not very proper in this case and I had rather use the Language of the Fathers than of the Schools and some of the most judicious and learned Fathers would not allow the terms of one numerical Substance to be applied to the divine Essence For their Notion was That Number was only proper for compound Bâ—ings but God being a pure and simple Being was one by Nature and not by Number as S. Basil speaks as is before observed because he is not compounded nor hath any besides himself to be reckon'd with him But because there are different Hypostases therefore they allow'd the use of Number about them and so we may say the Hypostases or Persons are numerically different but we cannot say that the Essence is one Numerically But why must they confound the Persons if there be but one Essence The relative Properties cannot be confounded for the Father cannot be the Son nor the Son the Father and on these the difference of Persons is founded For there can be no difference as to essential Properties and therefore all the difference or rather distinction must be from those that are Relative A Person of it self imports no Relation but the Person of the Father or of the Son must and these Relations cannot be confounded with one another And if the Father cannot be the Son nor the Son the Father then they must be distinct from each other But how By dividing the Substance That is impossible in a Substance that is indivisible It may be said That the Essence of created Beings is indivisible and yet there are divided Persons I grant it but then a created Essence is capable of different accidents and qualities to divide one Person from another which cannot be supposed in the divine Nature and withall the same power which gives a Being to a created Essence gives it a separate and divided Existence from all others As when Peter Iames and Iohn received their several distinct Personalities from God at the same time he gave them their separate Beings from each other although the same Essence be in them all But how can we but divide the Substance which we see in three distinct divided Persons The question is whether the distinct Properties of the Persons do imply a Division of the Substance We deny that the Persons are divided as to the Substance because that is impossible to be divided but we say they are and must be distinguished as to those incommunicable Properties which make the Persons distinct The essential Properties are uncapable of being divided and the Relations cannot be confounded so that there must be one undivided Substance and yet three distinct Persons But every Person must have his own proper Substance and so the
and therefore comprehends the whole three Persons so that there is neither a Grammatical nor Arithmetical Contradiction And what say our Vnitarians to this Truly no less Than that the Remedy is worse if possible than the Disease Nay then we are in a very ill Case But how I pray doth this appear 1. Say they Three personal Gods and one Essential God make four Gods if the Essential God be not the same with the personal Gods and tho' he is the same yet since they are not the same with one another but distinct it follows that there are three Gods i. e. three personal Gods 2. It introduces two sorts of Gods three Personal and one Essential But the Christian Religion knows and owns but One true and most high God of any sort So far then we are agreed That there is but One true and most high God and that because of the perfect Vnity of the Divine Essence which can be no more than One and where there is but One Divine Essence there can be but One true God unless we can suppose a God without an Essence and that would be a strange sort of God He would be a personal God indeed in their critical Sense of a Person for a shape or appearance But may not the fame Essence be divided That I have already shew'd to be impossible Therefore we cannot make so many personal Gods because we assert one and the same Essence in the three Persons of Father Son and Holy Ghost But they are distinct and therefore must be distinct Gods since every one is distinct from the other They are distinct as to personal Properties but not as to Essential Attributes which are and must be the same in all So that here is but one Essential God and three Persons But after all why do we assert three Persons in the Godhead Not because we find them in the Athanasian Creed but because the Scripture hath revealed that there are Three Father Son and Holy Ghost to whom the Divine Nature and Attributes are given This we verily believe that the Scripture hath revealed and that there are a great many places of which we think no tolerable Sense can be given without it and therefore we assert this Doctrine on the same Grounds on which we believe the Scriptures And if there are three Persons which have the Divine Nature attributed to them what must we do in this Case Must we cast off the Vnity of the Divine Essence No that is too frequently and plainly asserted for us to call it into Question Must we reject those Scriptures which attribute Divinity to the Son and Holy Ghost as well as to the Father That we cannot do unless we cast off those Books of Scripture wherein those things are contained But why do we call them Persons when that Term is not found in Scripture and is of a doubtful Sense The true Account whereof I take to be this It is observed by Facundus Hermianensis that the Christian Church received the Doctrine of the Trinity before the Terms of three Persons were used But Sabellianism was the occasion of making use of the name of Persons It 's true That the Sabellians did not dislike our Sense of the Word Person which they knew was not the Churches Sense as it was taken for an Appearance or an external Quality which was consistent enough with their Hypothesis who allow'd but One real Person with different Manifestations That this was their true Opinion appears from the best account we have of their Doctrine from the first Rise of Sabellianism The Foundations of it were laid in the earliest and most dangerous Heresies in the Christian Church viz. that which is commonly called by the name of the Gnosticks and that of the Cerinthians and Ebionites For how much soever they differ'd from each other in other things yet they both agreed in this that there was no such thing as a Trinity consisting of Father Son and Holy Ghost but that all was but different Appearances and Manifestations of God to Mankâ—nd In consequence whereof the Gnosticks denied the very Humanity of Christ and the Cerinthians and Ebionites his Divinity But both these sorts were utterly rejected the Communion of the Christian Church and no such thing as Sabellianism was found within it Afterwards there arose some Persons who started the same Opinion within the Church the first we meet with of this sort are those mention'd by Theodoret Epigonus Cleomenes and Noëtus from whom they were called Noeâ—ians not long after Sabellius broached the same Doctrine in Pentapolis and the Parts thereabouts which made Dionysius of Alexandria appear so early and so warmly against it But he happening to let fall some Expressions as though he asserted an Inequality of Hypostases in the Godhead Complaint was made of it to Dionysius then Bishop of Rome who thereupon explained that which he took to be the true Sense of the Christian Church in this matter Which is still preserved in Athanasius Therein he disowns the Sabellian Doctrine which confounded the Father Son and Holy Ghost and made them to be the same and withal he rejected those who held three distinct and separate Hypostases as the Platonists and after them the Marcionists did Dionysius of Alexandria when he came to explain himself agreed with the others and asserted the Son to be of the same Substance with the Father as Athanasius hath proved at large but yet he said That if a distinction of Hypostases were not kept up the Doctrine of the Trinity would be lost as appears by an Epistle of his in S. Basil. Athanasius saith That the Heresie of Sabellius lay in making the Father and Son to be only different Names of the same Person so that in one Respect he is the Father and in another the Son Gregory Nazianzen in opposition to Sabellianism saith We must believe one God and three Hypostases and commends Athanasius for preserving the true Mean in asserting the Vnity of Nature and the Distinction of Properties S. Basil saith That the Sabellians made but one Person of the Father and Son that in Name they confessed the Son but in Reality they denied him In another place that the Sabellians asserted but one Hypostasis in the Divine Nature but that God took several Persons upon him as occasion required sometimes that of a Father at other times of a Son and so of the Holy Ghost And to the same purpose in other places he saith That there are distinct Hypostases with their peculiar Properties which being joyned with the Vnity of Nature make up the true Confession of Faith There were some who would have but One Hypostasis whom he opposes with great vehemency and the Reason he gives is That then they must make the Persons to be meer Names which is Sabellianisn And he saith That if our Notions of distinct Persons have no certain Foundation they are meer Names such as
Sabellius called Persons But by this Foundation he doth not mean any distinct Essences but the incommunicable Properties belonging to them as Father Son and Holy Ghost It is plain from hence that the necessity of asserting three Hypostases came from thence that otherwise they could not so well distinguish themselves from the Sabellians whose Doctrine they utterly disowned as well as Arianism and Iudaism and it appears by the Testimonies of Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen and S. Basil that they look'd on one as bad as the other and they commonly joyn Iudaism and Sabellianism together But yet there arose Difficulties whether they were to hold one Hypostasis or three The former insisted on the generally received Sense of Hypostasis for Substance or Essence and therefore they could not hold three Hypostases without three distinct Essences as the Platonists and Marcionists held Upon this a Synod was called at Alexandria to adjust this matter where both Parties were desired to explain themselves Those who held three Hypostases were asked Whether they maintained three Hypostases as the Arians did of different Substances and separate Subsistences as Mankind and other Creatures are Or as other Hereticks three Principles or three Gods All which they stedfastly denied Then they were asked Why they used those terms They answered Because they believed the Holy Trinity to be more than mere Names and that the Father and Son and Holy Ghost had a real Subsistence belonging to them but still they held but one Godhead one Principle and the Son of the same Substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost not to be a Creature but to bear the same proper and inseparable Essence with the Father and the Son Then the other side were asked When they asserted but one Hypostasis whether they held with Sabellius or not and that the Son and Holy Ghost had no Essence or Subsistence which they utterly denied but said that their meaning was That Hypostasis was the same with Substance and by one Hypostasis they intended no more but that the Father Son and Holy Ghost were of the same individual Substance for the Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so they held but one Godhead and one divine Nature and upon these terms they agreed From whence it follows that the Notion of three Hypostases as it was received in the Christian Church was to be underâ—â—ood so as to be consistent with the Individual Vnity of the divine Essence And the great rule of the Christian Church was to keep in the middle between the Doctrines of Sabellius and Arius and so by degrees the Notion of three Hypostases and one Essence was look'd on in the Eastern Church as the most proper Discrimination of the Orthodox from the Sabellians and Arians But the Latin Church was not so easily brought to the use of three Hypostases because they knew no other Sense of it but for Substance or Essence and they all denied that there was any more than one divine Substance and therefore they rather embraced the Word Persona and did agree in the Name of Persons as most proper to signifie their meaning which was That there were three which had distinct Subsistences and incommunicable Properties and one and the same divine Essence And since the Notion of it is so well understood to signifie such a peculiar Sense I see no reason why any should scruple the use of it As to it s not being used in Scripture Socinus himself despises it and allows it to be no good reason For when Franciscus Davides objected That the terms of Essence and Person were not in Scripture Socinus tells him That they exposed their cause who went upon such grounds and that if the sense of them were in Scripture it was no matter whether the terms were or not Hâ—ving thus clear'd the Notion of three Persons I return to the Sense of Scripture about these matters And our Vnitarians tell us that we ought to interpret Scripture otherwise How doth that appear They give us very little encouragement to follow their Interpretations which are so new so forced so different from the general Sense of the Christian World and which I may say reflect so highly on the Honour of Christ and his Apostles i. e. by making use of such Expressions which if they do not mean what to honest and sincere Minds they appear to do must be intended according to them to set up Christ a meer Man to be a God And if such a thought as this could enter into the Mind of a thinking Man it would tempt him to suspect much more as to those Writings than there is the least colour or reason for Therefore these bold inconsiderate Writers ought to reflect on the consequence of such sort of Arguments and if they have any regard to Christianity not to trifle with Scripture as they do But say they The question only is Whether we ought to interpret Scripture when it speaks of God according to reason or not that is like Fools or like wise Men Like wise Men no doubt if they can hit upon it but they go about it as untowardly as ever Men did For is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men to take up some novel Interpretations against the general Sense of the Christian Church from the Apostles times Is this to act like wise Men to raise Objections against the Authority of the Books they cannot answer and to cry out of false Copies and Translations without reason and to render all places suspicious which make against them Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men to make our Saviour affect to be thought a God when he knew himself to be a mere Man and by their own Confession had not his divine Authority and Power conferr'd upon him And to make his Apostles set up the Worship of a Creature when their design was to take away the Worship of all such who by Nature are not Gods Is this like wise Men to tell the World that these were only such Gods whom they had set up and God had not appointed as though there were no Real Idolatry but in giving Divine Worship without God's Command CHAP. VIII The Socinian Sense of Scripture examined BUT they must not think to escape so easily for such a groundless and presumptuous saying that they interpret the Scripture not like Fools but like Wise Men because the true sense of Scripture is really the main point between us and therefore I shall more carefully examine the Wise Sense they give of the chief places which relate to the matter in hand 1. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise Men to make the Author to the Hebrews in one Chapter and that but a short one to bring no less than four places out of the Old Testament and according to their Sense not one of them proves that which he aimed at viz. that Christ was superiour to Angels Heb. 1.5 as will appear by the Sense they give of
making mention of his descent from Heaven The Sense which these wise Interpreters put upon them is that Christ was rapt up into Heaven before he entred upon his Preaching But where is this said What Proof what Evidence what credible Witnesses of it as there were of his Transfiguration Resurrection and Ascension Nothing like any Proof is offer'd for it but it is a wise Way they think of avoiding a pressing difficulty But they have a farther reach in it viz. to shew how Christ being a mere Man should be qualified for so great an undertaking as the founding the Christian Church and therefore they say That before our Lord entred upon his Office of the Messias he was taken up to Heaven to be instructed in the Mind and Will of God as Moses was into the Mount Exod. 24.1 2 12. and from thence descended to execute his Office and declare the said Will of God In another place That when it is said the Word was with God that is the Lord Christ was taken up into Heaven to be instructed in all points relating to his Ambassage or Ministry In a third they say That our Saviour before he entred upon his Ministry ascended into Heaven as Moses did into the Mount to be instructed in all things belonging to the Gospel Doctrine and Polity which he was to establish and administer Now considering what sort of Person they make Christ to have been viz. a mere Man this was not ill thought of by them to suppose him taken up into Heaven and there instructed in what he was to teach and to do as Moses was into the Mount before he gave the Law But here lies a mighty difference when Moses was called up into the Mount the People had publick notice given of it and he took Aaron and his Sons and Seventy Elders of Israel with him who saw the Glory of God v. 10. And all Israel beheld the Glory of the Lord as a devouring Fire on the Top of the Mount v. 17. and after the 40 days were over it is said That Moses came down from the Mount and the Children of Israel saw him with his Face shining Exod. 34.40 Now if Christ were taken up into Heaven as Moses was into the Mount why was it not made publick at that time why no Witnesses why no Appearance of the Glory to satisfie Mankind of the truth of it And yet we find that when he was transfigured on the holy Mount he took Peter and James and John with him which circumstance is carefully mention'd by the Evangelists And Peter who was one of the Witnesses then present lays great weight upon this being done in the presence of Witnesses For we have not follow'd cunningly devised Fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Iesus Christ but were Eye-witnesses of his Majesty For he received from God the Father Honour and Glory when there came such a voice to him from the excellent Glory And this voice which came from Heaven we heard when we were with him in the holy Mount Now let any one compare this with the account which they give of Christ's Ascension into Heaven The Transfiguration was intended only for a particular Testimony of God's Favour before his suffering but even in that he took care there should be very credible Witnesses of it And is it then possible to believe there should be such an Ascension of Christ into Heaven for no less a purpose than to be instructed in his Ambassage and to understand the Mind and Will of God as to his Office and yet not one of the Evangelists give any account of the circumstances of it They are very particular as to his Birth Fasting Baptism Preaching Miracles Sufferings Resurrection and Ascension but not one Word among them all as to the circumstances of this being taken up into Heaven for so great a purpose If it were necessary to be believed why is it not more plainly revealed Why not the time and place mention'd in Scripture as well as of his Fasting and Temptation Who can imagine it consistent with that Sincerity and Faithfulness of the Writers of the New Testament to conceal so material a part of Christ's Instructions and Qualifications and to wrap it up in such doubtfull Expressions that none ever found out this meaning till the days of Socinus Enjedinus mentions it only as a possible Sense bâ—t he confesses That the New Testament saith nothing at all of it but saith he neither doth it mention other things before he entred upon his Office But this is a very weak Evasion for this was of greatest importance with respect to his Office more than his Baptism Fasting and Temptation yet these are very fully set down And after all our Vnitarians themselves seem to mistrust their own Interpretations for in their answer to my Sermon they say it is not the Doctrine of all the Unitarians and refer me to another account given of these Texts in the History of the Unitarians There indeed I find Grotius his Interpretation as they call it preferâ—d before that of Socinus But they say Grotius was Socinian all over and that his Annotations are a compleat System of Socinianism and his Notes on the first of S. John are written artificially but the Sense at the bottom is theirs In short That the Word according to Grotius is not an eternal Son of God but the Power aâ—d Wisdom of God which abiding without measure on the Lord Christ is therefore spoken of as a Person and as one with Christ and he with that And this Notion of the Word leads a man through all the difficulties of this Chapter with far more ease than any hitherto offer'd But these wise Interpreters have as much misinterpreted Grotius as they have done the Scriptures as I shall make it appear 1. Grotius on Iohn 6.62 interprets Christ's Ascension into Heaven of his corporal Ascent thither after his Resurrection where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word was before of whom it is said That the Word was with God But how comes Christ to assume that to himself which belong'd to the Word He answers Why not since we call Body and Soul by the Name of the Man But if no more were meant by the Word but a divine Attribute of Wisdom and Power what colour could there be for the Son of Man taking that to himself which belonged to an Attribute of God What strange way of arguing would this have been What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascending where he was before For according to this Sense how comes a divine Attribute to be called the Son of Man How could the Son of Man be said to ascend thither where a divine Attribute was before The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must relate to him spoken of before and how could the Power and Wisdom of God be ever said to be the Son of Man
is no improbable Opinion of Erasmus and Vossius two learned Criticks indeed That the most ancient Creed went no further than the Form of Baptism viz. to Believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost and the other Articles were added as Heresies gave occasion S. Ierom saith That in the Traditional Creed which they received from the Apostles the main Article was the Confession of the Trinity to which he joyns the Vnity of the Church and Resurrection of the Flesh and then adds that herein is contained Omne Christiani Dogmatis Sacramentum the whole Faith into which Christians were baptized And he saith It was the Custom among them to instruct those who were to be Baptized for forty days in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity So that there was then no Question but the Form of Baptism had a particular Respect to â—t and therefore so much weight is laid upon the use of it as well by the Ante-Nicene Fathers as others For Tertullian saith That the Form of Baptism was prescribed by our Saviour himself as a Law to his Church S. Cyprian to the same purpose That he commanded it to be used S. Augustin calls them the Words of the Gospel without which there is no Baptism The Reason given by S. Ambrose is because the Faith of the Trinity is in this Form But how if any one Person were left out He thinks that if the rest be not denied the Baptism is good but otherwise vacuum est omne Mysterium the whole Baptism is void So that the Faith of the Trinity was that which was required in order to true Baptism more than the bare Form of Words If there were no reason to question the former S. Ambrose seems of Opinion that the Baptism was good although every Person were not named and therein he was followed by Beda Hugo de Sancto Victore Peter Lombard and others And S Basil in the Greek Church asserted that Baptism in the name of the Holy Ghost was sufficient because he is hereby owned to be of equal Dignity with the Father and Son but it is still supposing that the whole and undivided Trinity be not denied And he elsewhere saith That Baptizing in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is a most solemn Profession of the Trinity in Vnity because they are all joyned together in this publick Act of Devotion But others thought that the Baptism was not good unless every Person were named which Opinion generally obtained both in the Greek and Latin Church And the late Editors of S. Ambrose observe that in other places he makes the whole Form of Words necessary as well as the Faith in the Holy Trinity The Baptism of the Eunomians was rejected because they alter'd the Form and the Faith too saying That the Father was uncreate the Son created by the Father and the Holy Ghost created by the Son The Baptism of the Samosatenians was rejected by the Council of Nice S. Augustin thinks it was because they had not the right Form but the true Reason was they rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity And so the Council of Arles I. doth in express Words refuse their Baptism who refused to own that Doctrine That Council was held A. D. 314. and therefore Bellarmin and others after him are very much mistaken when they interpret this Canon of the Arians concerning whose Baptism there could be no Dispute till many years after But this Canon is de Afris among whom the Custom of Baptizing prevailed but this Council propounds an expedient as most agreeable to the general Sense of the Christian Church viz. That if any relinquished their Heresie and came back to the Church they should ask them the Creed and if they found that they were baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost they should have only imposition of hands but if they did not confess the Trinity their Baptism was declared void Now this I look on as an impregnable Testimony of the Sense of the Ante-Nicene Fathers viz. That they did not allow that Baptism which was not in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost or which they understood to be the same in the confession of the Faith of the Trinity How then can our Vnitarians pretend That the Ante-Nicene Fathers did not alledge the Form of Baptism to prove the Trinity For the words are If they do nâ—t answer to this Trinity let them be baptized saith this plenary Couâ—cil as S. Augustin often calls it What Trinity do they mean Of mere Names or Cyphers or of one God and two Creatures joyned in the same Form of words as our Vnitarians understand it But they affirm That the Ancients of 400 years do not insist on this Text of S. Matthew to prove the Divinity or Personality of the Son or Spirit Therefore to give a clear account of this matter I shall prove that the Ante-Nicene Fathers did understand these words so as not to be taken either for mere Names or for Creatures joyned with God but that they did maintain the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost from the general Sense in which these words were taken among them And this I shall do from these Arguments 1. That those who took them in another Sense were opposed and condemned by the Christian Church 2. That the Christian Church did own this Sense in publick Acts of divine Worship as well as private 3. That it was owned and defended by those who appeared for the Christian Faith against Infidels And I do not know any better means than these to prove such a matter of Fact as this 1. The Sense of the Christian Church may be known by its behaviour towards those who took these words only for different Names or Appearances of One Person And of this we have full Evidence as to Praxeas Noëtus and Sabellius all long before the Council of Nice Praxeas was the first at least in the Western Church who made Father Son and Holy Ghost to be only several Names of the same Person and he was with great Warmth and Vigor opposed by Tertullian who charges him with introducing a new opinion into the Church as will presently appear And his testimony is the more considerable because our Vnitarians confess That he lived 120 years before the Nicene Council and that he particularly insists upon the Form of Baptism against Praxeas But to what purpose Was not his whole design in that Book to prove three distinct Persons of Father Son and Holy Ghost and yet but One God Doth he not say expresly That Christ commanded that his Disciples should baptize into the Father Son and Holy Ghost not into One of them ad singula nomina in Personas singulas tingimur In Baptism we are dipped once at every Name to shew that we are baptized into three Persons It is certain then that Tertullian could not mistake the Sense of the Church
so grosly as to take three Persons to be only three several Names He grants to Praxeas that Father Son and Holy Ghost are one but how Per unitatem substantiae because there is but one divine Essence but yet he saith there are three not with respect to essential Attributes for so they are unius Substantiae unius Status unius Potestatis quia unus Deus And therefore the difference can be only as to personal Properties and distinct Capacities which he calls Gradus Forma Species not merely as to internal Relations but as to external Dispensations which he calls their Oeconomy For his great business is to prove against Praxeas that the Son and Holy Ghost had those things attributed to them in Scripture which could not be attributed to the Father For Praxeas asserted That the Father suffer'd and thence his followers were called Patripassians and Monarchici i. e. Vnitarians The main ground which Praxeas went upon was the Vnity of the Godhead so often mention'd in Scripture from hence Tertullian saith That he took advantage of the weakness of the common sort of Christians and represented to them that whereas the Doctrine of Christ made but one God those who held the Trinity according to the Form of Baptism must make more Gods than one Tertullian answers that they held a Monarchy i. e. unicum imperium one supreme Godhead and a supreme power may be lodged in distinct Persons and administred in several manners that nothing overthrew the divine Monarchy but a different Power and Authority which they did by no means assert They held a Son but of the Substance of the Father and a Holy Ghost from the Father by the Son he still keeps to the distinction of Persons and the Vnity of Substance And he utterly denies any Division of Essences or separate Substances for therein he saith lay the Heresie of Valentinus in making a Prolation of a separate Being But although he saith the Gospel hath declared to us that the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God yet we are taught that there is still but one God redactum est jam nomen Dei Domini in unione c. 13. whereby the Christians are distinguished from the Heathens who had many Gods This is the force of what Tertullian saith upon this matter And what say our Vnitarians to it They cannot deny that he was an Ante-Nicene Father and it is plain that he did understand the Form of Baptism so as to imply a Trinity of Persons in an Vnity of Essence To which they give no Answer But I find three things objected against Tertullian by their Friends 1. That Tertullian brought this Doctrine into the Church from Montanus whose Disciple he then was So Schlichtingius in his Preface against Meisner grants That he was very near the Apostolical Times and by his Wit and Learning promoted this new Doctrine about the Trinity especially in his Book against Praxeas But how doth it appear that he brought in any new Doctrine Yes saith Schlichtingius he confesses That he was more instructed by the Paraclete But if he had dealt ingenuously he would have owned that in that very place he confesses He was always of that opinion although more fully instructed by the Paraclete This only shews that Montanus himself innovated nothing in this matter but endeavoured to improve it And it is possible that Tertullian might borrow his Similitudes and Illustrations from him which have added no â—â—rength to it But as to the main of the Doctrine he saith It came from the rule of Faith delivered by the Apostles before Praxeas or any Hereticks his Predecessors Which shews that those who rejected this Doctrine were always esteemed Hereticks in the Christian Church And this is a very early Testimony of the Antiquity and general Reception of it because as one was received the other was rejected so that the Assertors of it were accounted Hereticks And the Sense of the Church is much better known by such publick Acts than by mere particular Testimonies of the learned Men of those times For when they deliver the Sense of the Church in such publick Acts all persons are Judges of the truth and falshood of them at the time when they are deliverâ—d and the nearer they came to the Apostolical Times the greater is the strength of their evidence this I ground on Tertullian's appealing to the ancient rule of Faith which was universally known and received in the Christian Church and that such Persons were look'd on as Hereticks who differ'd from it Which being so very near the Apostles Times it 's hardly possible to suppose that the whole Christian Church should be mistaken as to what they received as the rule of Faith which was deliver'd and explained at Baptism and therefore the general Sense of the Form of Baptism must be understood by all who were admitted to it So that the Members of the Christian Church cannot be supposed better acquainted with any thing than the Doctrine they were baptized into Here then we have a concurrence of several publick Acts of the Church 1. The Form of Baptism 2. The Rule of Faith relating to that Form and explained at Baptism 3. The Churches rejecting those as Hereticks who differ'd from it which Tertullian applies to those who rejected the Trinity And Praxeas his Doctrine was then condemned not by a particular Sentence but by the general Sense of the Church at that time For Optatus Milevitanus reckons him among the condemned Hereticks and joyns him with Marcian and Valentinus as well as Sabellius who follow'd him in the same Heresie How was this possible if Praxeas deliver'd the true Doctrine and Tertullian brought in a new Opinion as Schlichtingius fansies Tertullian was at that time a declared Montanist and if he had introduc'd a new Doctrine about the Trinity can we imagine those would have been silent about it who were sharp enough upon Tertullian for the sake of his Paraclete Some of the followers of Montanus afterwards fell into the same opinions with Praxeas as Theodoret tells us and Tertullian saith as much of those Cataphrygians who follow'd Aeschines But these Montanists are distinguished from the rest And Rigaltius observes that Tertullian follow'd Montanus chiefly in what related to Discipline and that himself was not so corrupted in point of Doctrine as some of his Followers were 2. It 's objected That Tertullian's Doctrine is inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Trinity for he denies the eternal Generation of the Son and only asserts an Emission of him before the Creation But my business is not to justifie all Tertullian's Expressions or Similitudes for Men of Wit and Fancy love to go out of the Road and sometimes involve things more by Attempts to explain them but I keep only to that which he saith was the Faith of the Church from the beginning and I see no reason to call in
account of it That there was a Concurrence of others with him in it and that this Doctrine was look'd on as an Innovation in the Faith For his Opinion was that our Saviour had no proper Subsistence of his own before the Incarnation and that the Deity of the Father alone was in him He did not mean that the Son had no separate Divinity from the Father but that the Deity of the Father only appeared in the Son so that he was not really God but only one in whom the Deity of the Father was made manifest Which was one of the oldest Heresies in the Church and the most early condemned and opposed by it But those Heresies which before had differenced Persons from the Church were now spread by some at first within the Communion of it as it was not only in the Case of Noetus and Beryllus but of Sabellius himself who made the greatest noise about this Doctrine and his Disciples Epiphanius tells us spread very much both in the Eastern and Western parts in Mesopotamia and at Rome Their Doctrine he saith was that Father Son and Holy Ghost were but one Hypostasis with three different Denominations They compared God to the Sun the Father to the Substance the Son to the Light and the Holy Ghost to the Heat which comes from it and these two latter were only distinct Operations of the same Substance Epiphanius thinks that Sabellius therein differ'd from Noetus because he denied that the Father suffer'd but S. Augustin can find no difference between them All that can be conceived is that a different Denomination did arise from the different appearance and Operation which our Vnitarians call three Relative Persons and one Subsisting Person Sabellius did spread his Heresie most in his own Country which was in Pentapolis of the Cyrenaick Province being born in Ptolemais one of the five Cities there Of this Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria gives an account in his Epistle to Xystus then Bishop of Rome wherein he takes notice of the wicked and blasphemous Heresie lately broached there against the Persons of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Letters on both sides were brought to him on which occasion he wrote several Epistles among which there was one to Ammonius Bishop of Bernice another of the Cities of Pentapolis In this he disputed with great warmth against this Doctrine of Sabellius insomuch that he was afterwards accused to Dionysius of Rome that he had gone too far the other way and lessen'd the Divinity of the Son by his Similitudes of which he clear'd himself as appears by what remains of his Defence in Athanasius But as to his Zeal against Sabellianism it was never question'd Dionysius of Rome declares his Sense at large in this matter against both Extremes viz. of those who asserted three separate and independent Principles and of those who confounded the Divine Persons and he charges the Doctrine of Sabellius too with Blasphemy as well as those who set up three different Principles and so made three Gods But he declares the Christian Doctrine to be that there were Father Son and Holy Ghost but that there is an indivisible Vnion in One and the same Godhead It seems Dionysius of Alexandria was accused for dividing and separating the Persons to which he answers that it was impossible he should do it because they are indivisible from each other and the name of each Person did imply the inseparable Relation to the other as the Father to the Son and the Son to the Father and the Holy Ghost to both And this Judgment of these two great Men in the Church concerning Sabellianism was universally receiv'd in the Christian Church And this happen'd long before the Nicene Council 2. Another argument of the general Sense of the Christian Church is from the Hymns and Doxologies publickly received which were in the most solemn Acts of religious Worship made to Father Son and Holy Ghost The force of this argument appears hereby that divine Worship cannot be given to mere Names and an Equality of Worship doth imply an Equality of Dignity in the object of Worship and therefore if the same Acts of Adoration be performed to Father Son and Holy Ghost it is plain that the Christian Church did esteem them to have the same divine Nature although they were distinct Persons And if they were not so there could not be distinct Acts of divine Worship performed to them S. Basil mentions this Doxology of Africanus that ancient Writer of the Christian Church in the fifth Book of his Chronicon We render thanks to him who gave our Lord Iesus Christ to be a Saviour to whom with the Holy Ghost be Glory and Majesty for ever And another of Dionysius Alexandrinus in his 2d Epistle to Dionysius of Rome To God the Father and his Son our Lord Iesus Christ with the Holy Ghost be Glory and Power for ever and ever Amen And this is the more considerable because he saith he did herein follow the ancient Custom and Rule of the Church and he joyned with it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praising God in the same voice with those who have gone before us which shews how early these Doxologies to Father Son and Holy Ghost had been used in the Christian Church But to let us the better understand the true Sense of them S. Basil hath preserved some passages of Dionysius Alexandrinus which do explain it viz. That either the Sabellians must allow three distinct Hypostases or they must wholly take away the Trinity By which it is evident that by Father Son and Holy Ghost he did understand three distinct Hypostases but not divided for that appears to have been the Sabellians Argument That if there were three they must be divided No saith Dionysius they are three whether the Sabellians will or not or else there is no Trinity which he look'd on as a great absurdity to take away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine Trinity Of what Of mere Names or Energies That is no Trinity for there is but one subsisting Person of separate and divided Substances That the Sabellians thought must follow but both the Dionysius's denied it And in another Passage there mention'd Dionysius of Alexandria asserts the Trinity in Vnity But before Dionysius he quotes a passage of Clemens Romanus concerning Father Son and Holy Ghost which attributes Life distinctly to them Now Life cannot belong to a Name or Energy and therefore must imply a Person But that which is most material to our purpose is the Publick Doxology in the Church of Neo-Caesarea brought in by Gregory Thaumaturgus S. Basil gives a very high Character of him as of a Person of extraordinary Piety and Exactness of Life and a great promoter of Christianity in those Parts and by him the Form of Doxology was introduced into that Church being chiefly formed by him there being but Seventeen Christians when he was first made Bishop there which was
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
That they do not speak of distinct Persons but they confess that Philo speaks home and therefore they make him a Christian But Philo had the same Notion with the Paraphrasts and their best way will be to declare that they look upon them all as Christians and they might as well affirm it of Onkelos as they do of Philo but I doubt the World will not take their Word for either But to proceed with the Christian Doxologies Nâ—â—hing saith S. Basil shall make me forsake the Doctrine I received in my Baptism when I was first entred into the Christian Church and I advise all others to keep firm to that Profession of the Holy Trinity which they made in their Baptism that is of the indivisible Vnion of Father Son and Holy Ghost And as he saith afterwards by the Order of the Words in Baptism it appears that as the Son is to the Father so the Holy Ghost is to the Son For they are all put without any Distinction or Number whâ—ch he observes agrees only to a multitude For by their Properties they are one and one yet by the Community of Essence the two are but one and he makes it his business to prove the Holy Ghost to be a proper Object of Adoration as well as the Father and Son and therefore there was no reason to find fault with the Doxology used in that Church and that Firmilian Meletius and the Eastern Christians agreed with them in the use of it and so did all the Western Churches from Illyricum to the Worlds end and this he saith was by an immemorial Custom of all Churches and of the greatest men in them Nay more he saith It had been continued in the Churches from the time the Gospel had been receive'd among them And nothing can be fuller than the Authority of his Testimony if S. Basil may be believed To these I shall add the Doxology of Polycarp at this Martyrdom mentioned by Eusebius which is very full to our Purpose I Glorifie thee by our Eternal High-Priest Iesus Christ thy beloved Son by whom be Glory to thee with him in the Holy Ghost What can we imagine Polycarp meant by this but to render the same Glory to Father Son and Holy Ghost but with such a difference as to the Particles which S. Basil at large proves come to the same thing And to the same purpose not only the Church of Smyrna but Pionius the Martyr who transcribed the Acts speaking of Iesus Christ with whom be Glory to God the Father and the Holy Ghost These suffer'd Martyrdom for Christianity and owned the same Divine Honour to the Father Son and Holy Ghost What could they mean if they did not believe them to have the same Divine Nature Can we suppose them Guilty of such stupidity to lose their Lives for not giving Divine Honour to Creatures and at the same time to do it themselves So that if the Father Son and Holy Ghost were not then believed to be three Persons and one God the Christian Church was mightily deceived and the Martyrs acted inconsistently with their own Principles Which no good Christian will dare to affirm But some have adventured to say that Polycarp did not mean the same Divine Honour to Father Son and Holy Ghost But if he had so meant it how could he have expressed it otherwise It was certainly a Worship distinct from what he gave to Creatures as appears by the Church of Smyrna's disowning any Worship but of Love and Repect to their fellow Creatures and own the giving Adoration to the Son of God with whom they joyn both Father and Holy Ghost Which it is impossible to conceive that in their Circumstances they should have done unless they had believed the same Divine Honour to belong to them S. Basil's Testimony makes it out of Dispute that the Doxology to Father Son and Holy Ghost was universally receiv'd in the publick Offices of the Church and that from the time of greatest Antiquity So that we have no need of the Teâ—timonies from the Apostolical Constitutions as they are called to prove it But I avoid all disputable Authorities And I shall only add that it appears from S. Basil that this Doxology had been long used not only in publick Offices but in Occasional Ejaculations as at the bringing in of Light in the Evening the People he saith were wont to say Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost c. This he saith had been an ancient Custom among the People and none can tell who brought it in But Prudentius shews that it was continued to his Time as appeaâ—s by his Hymn on that occasion which concludes with this Doxology and S. Hilary ends his Hymn written to his Daughter in the same manner 3. I come therefore to the last Proof which I shall produce of the Sense of the Christian Church which is from the Testimony of those who wrote in Defence of our Religion against Infidels In which I shall be the shorter since the particular Testimonies of the Fathers have been so fully produced and defended by others especially by Dr. Bull. Iustin Martyr in his Apology for the Christians gives an Account of the Form of Baptism as it was administred among Christians which he saith was in the Name of God the Father of all and of our Saviour Iesus Christ and of the Holy Ghost And that he spake of them as of distinct Persons as appears by his words afterwards They who take the Son to be the Father neither know the Father nor the Son who being the Word and first begotten is God And when he speaks of the Eucharist he saith That it is offer'd to the Father of all by the Name of the Son and the Holy Ghost and of other solemn Acts of Devotion he saith That in all of them they praise God the Father of all by his Son Iesus Christ and the Holy Ghost And in other places he mentions the Worship they give to Father Son and Holy Ghost Indeed he mentions a difference of Order between them but makes no Difference as to the Worship given to them And all this in no long Apology for the Christian Faith What can be the meaning of this if he did not take it for granted that the Christian Church embraced the Doctrine of the Trinity in Baptism Iustin Martyr was no such weak Man to go about to expose the Christian Religion instead of defending it and he must have done so if he did not believe this not only to be a true but a necessary part of the Christian Faith For why did he at all mention such a Mysterious and dark Point Why did he not conceal it as some would have done and only represent to the Emperours the fair and plausible part of Christianity No he was a Man of great Sincerity and a through Christian himself and therefore
thought he could not honestly conceal so fundamental a Point of the Christian Faith and which related to their being entred into the Christian Church For if the Profession of this Faith had not been look'd on as a necessary condition of being a Member of the Church of Christ it is hard to imagine that Iustin Martyr should so much insist upon it not only here but in his other Treatises Of which an Account hath been given by others Athenagoras had been a Philosopher as well as Iustin Martyr before he professed himself a Christian and therefore must be supposed to understand his Religion before he embraced it And in his Defence he asserts That the Christians do believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost in God the Father God the Son and the Holy Ghost And he mentions both the Vnity and Order which is among them Which can signifie nothing unless they be owned to be distinct Persons in the same Divine Nature And in the next Page he looks on it as thing which all Christians aspire after in another Life That they shall then know the Vnion of the Father and the Communication of the Father to the Son what the Holy Ghost is and what the Vnion and Distinction there is between the Holy Ghost the Son and the Father No man who had ever had the name of a Philosopher would have said such things unless he had believed the Doctrine of the Trinity aâ— we do i. e. that there are three distinct Persons in the same Divine Nature but that the manner of the Union and Distinction between them is above our reach and comprehension But our Vnitarians have an Answer ready for these men viz. That they came out of Plato 's School with the Tincture of his three Principles and they sadly complain that Platonism had very early corrupted the Christian Faith as to these matters In answer to which Exception I have only one Postulatum to make which is that these were honest Men and knew their own Minds beâ—t and I shall make it appear that none can more positively declare than they do that they did not take up these Notions from Plato but from the Holy Scriptures Iustin Martyr saith he took the Foundation of his Faith from thence and that he could find no certainty as to God and Religion any where else that he thinks Plato took his three Principles from Moses and in his Dialogue with Trypho he at large proves the Eternity of the Son of God from the Scriptures and said He would use no other Arguments for he pretended to no Skill but in the Scriptures which God had enabled him to understand Athenagoras declares That where the Philosophers agreed with them their Faith did not depend on them but on the Testimony of the Prophets who were inspired by the Holy Ghost To the same purpose speaks Theophilus Bishop of Antioch who asserts the Coeternity of the Son with the Father from the beginning of S. John's Gospel and saith their Faith is built on the Scriptures Clemens Alexandrinus owns not only the Essential Attributes of God to belong to the Son but that there is one Father of all and one Word over all and one Holy Ghost who is every where And he thinks Plato borrowed his three Principles from Moses that his second was the Son and his third the Holy Spirit Even Origen himsâ—lâ— highly commends Moses above Plato in his most undoubted Writings and saith That Numenâ—us went beyond Plato and that he borrowed out of the Scriptures and so he saith Plato did in other places but he adds That the Doctrines were better deliver'd in Scripture than in his Artificial Dialogues Can any one that hath the least reverence for Writers of such Authority and Zâ—al for the Christian Doctrine imagine that they wilfully corrupted it in one of the chief Articles of it and brought in new Speculations against the Sense of those Books which at the same time they professed to be the only Rule of their Faith Even where they speak most favourably of the Platonick Trinity they suppose it to be borrowed from Moses And therefore Numenius said That Moses and Plato did not differ about the first Principles and Theodoret mentions Numenius as one of those who said Plato understood the Hebrew Doctrine in Egypt and during his Thirteen years â—ay there it is hardly possible to suppose he should be ignorant of the Hebrew Doctrine about the first Principles which he was so inquisitive after especially among Nations who pretended to Antiquity And the Platonick Notion of the Divine Essence inlarging it self to three Hypostases is considerable on these Accounts 1. That it is deliver'd with so much assurance by the Opposers of Christianity such as Plotinus Porphyrius Proclus and others were known to be and they speak with no manner of doubt concerning it as may be seen in the passage of Porphyrie preserved by S. Cyril and others 2. That they took it up from no Revelation but as a Notion in it self agreeable enough as appears by the passages in Plato and others concerning it They never suspected it to be liable to the Charge of Non-Sense and Contradictions as our modern Vnitarians charge the Trinity with although their Notion as represented by Porphyrie be as liable to it How came these Men of Wit and Sense to hit upon and be so fond of such absurd Principles which lead to the Belief of Mysterious Non-Sense and Impossibilities if these Men may be trusted 3. That the Nations most renowned for Antiquity and deep Speculations did light upon the same Doctrine about a Trinity of Hypostases in the Divine Essence To prove this I shall not refer to the Trismegistick Books or the Chaldee Oracles or any doubtful Authorities but Plutarch asserts the three Hypostases to have been receivâ—d among the Persians and Porphyry and Iamblicus say the same of the Egyptians 4. That this Hypostasis did maintain its Reputation so long in the World For we find it continued to the time of Macrobius who mentâ—ons it as a reasonable Notion viz. of one supreme Being Father of all and a Mind proceeding from it and soul from Mind Some have thought that the Platonists made two created Beings to be two of the Divine Hypostases but this is contrary to what Plotinus and Porphyry affirm concerning it and it is hard to give an Account how they should then be Essentially different from Creatures and be Hypostases in the Divine Essence But this is no part of my business being concerned no farther than to clear the Sense of the Christian Church as to the Form of Baptism in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which according to the Sense of the Ante-Nicene Fathers I have proved doth manifest the Doctrine of the Trinity to have been generally receiv'd in the Christian Church 2. Let us now see what our Vnitarians object againâ—t the Proof of the Trinity from these
words 1. They say That there is a Note of distinction and Superiority For Christ owns that his Power was given to him by the Father There is no question but that the Person who suffer'd on the Cross had Power given to him after his Resurrection but the true Question is whether his Sonship were then given to him He was then declared to be the Son of God with Power and had a Name or Authority given him above every Name being exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to give Repentance and Remission of Sins in order to which he now appointed his Apostles to teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost He doth not say in the name of Iesus who suffer'd on the Cross nor in the name of Iesus the Christ now exalted but in the name of Father Son and Holy Ghost and although there were a double Gift with respect to the Son and Holy Ghost the one as to his Royal Authority over the Church the other as to his extraordinary Effusion on the Apostles yet neither of these are so much as intimated but the Office of Baptism is required to be performed in the Name of these three as distinct and yet equal without any Relation to any Gift either as to the Son or Holy Ghost But if the ancient Iews were in the Right as we think they were then we have a plain account how these came to be thus mention'd in the Form of Baptism viz. that these three distinct Subsistences in the Divine Essence were not now to be kept up as a secret Mystery from the World but that the Christian Church was to be formed upon the Belief of it 2. They bring several places of Scripture where God and his Creatures are joyned without any Note of distinction or Superiority as The people feared the Lord and Samuel 1 Sam. 12.18 They worshipped the Lord and the King 1 Chron. 29.20 I charge thee before God the Lord Iesus Christ and his elect Angels 1 Tim. 5.21 The Spirit and the Bride say come Revel 22.17 But can any Man of Sense imagine these places contain a Parallel with a Form of Words wherein men are entred into the Profession of a new Religion and by which they were to be distinguished from all other Religions in the former places the Circumstances were so notorious as to God and the Civil Magistrate that it shews no more than that the same external Acts may be used to both but with such a different Intention as all men understood it What if S. Paul name the elect Angels in a solemn Obtestation to Timothy together with God and the Lord Iesus Christ What can this prove but that we may call God and his Creatures to be Witnesses together of the same thing And so Heaven and Earth are called to bear Witness against obstinate Sinners May men therefore be baptized in the name of God and his Creatures The Spirit and Bride may say come without any Incongruity but it would have been strange indeed if they had said Come be baptized in the Name of the Spirit and the Bride So that these Instances are very remote from the purpose But they say farther That the ancients of the first Four hundred years do not insist on this place to prove the Divinity or Personality of the Son or Spirit As to the first Three hundred years I have given an account already and as to the Fourth Century I could not have thought that they would have mention'd it since there is scarce a Father of the Church in that time who had occasion to do it but makes use of the Argument from this place to prove the Divinity and Personality of the Son and Spirit Athanasius saith That Christ founded his Church on the Doctrine of the Trinity contained in these Words and if the Holy Ghost had been of a different Nature from the Father and Son he would never have been joyned with them in a Form of Baptism no more than an Angel or any other Creature For the Trinity must be Eternal and Indivisible which it could not be if any created Being were in it and therefore he disputes against the Arian Baptism although performed with the same Words because they joyned God and a Creature together in Baptism To the same purpose argue Didymus Gregory Nazianzen S. Basil and others within the Compass of four hundred years whose Testimonies are produced by Petavius to whom I refer the Reader if he hath a mind to be satisfied in so clear a Point that I cannot but think our Vnitarians never intended to take in the Fathers after the Council of Nice who are so expressly against them and therefore I pass it over as a slip 4. They object That the Form of Baptism implies no more than being admitted into that Religion which proceeds from God the Father and deliver'd by his Son and confirmed by the Testimony of the Holy Ghost So much we grant is implied but the Question still remains whether the Son and Holy Ghost are here to be consider'd only in order to their Operations or whether the Persons of the Son and Holy Ghost from whom those Effects came are not here chiefly intended For if no more had been meant but these Effects then the right Form of Admission had not been into the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost but in the Name of the Father alone as Revealing himself by his Son and Confirming it by the miraculous Works of the Holy Ghost For these are only subservient Acts to the design of God the Father as the only subsisting Person 5. They tell us That it is in vain not to say ridiculously pretended that a Person or Thing is God because we are baptized into it for some were baptized into Moses and others into John's Baptism and so Moses and John Baptist would be Gods and to be baptized into a Person or Persons and in the name of such a Person is the same thing Grant this yet there is a great difference between being baptized in the name of a Minister of Baptism and of the Author of a Religion into which they are baptized The Israelites were baptized unto Moses but how The Syriac and Arabic Versions render it per Mosen and so S. Augustin reads it And this seems to be the most natural sense of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is Act. 7.53 compared with Gal. 3.19 And the force of the Apostle's Argument doth not lie in the Parallel between being baptized into Moses and into Christ but in the Privileges they had under the Ministery of Moses with those which Christians enjoyed The other place implies no more than being enter'd into that Profession which John baptized his Disciples into But doth any one imagine that because Iohn Baptist did enter his Disciples by Baptism therefore they must believe him to be God