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
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
his Explication of the Trinity is a great Piece of Nonsense though it comes so near to Socinianism But how doth the other Antagonist escape What nothing but good Words to him In this place they had a mind to keep him in heart and only charge him with a Heresie which they laugh at but in another place they set him out with such colours as shew they intended only to play one upon the other They charge him not only with Heresie but Polytheism Which they say is next to Atheism that his Vindication is a supercilious disdainfull and peevish Answer that he had neither Humanity nor good Manners left that there is nothing considerable in his Books but what he borrow'd from Them These are some of the Flowers which they bestow on these Persons of Reputation in Polemick Squabble as they call it which plainly shew that their aim is as much as may be to divide and then to expose us And shall we still go on to gratifie this insulting Humour of theirs by contending with one another and afford them still new matter for Books against both As we may see in their late Discourse about Nominal and Real Trinitarians which was intended for a rare shew wherein the two Parties are represented as combating with one another and they stand by and triumph over these Cadmean Brethren as they call them Neither are they the Socinians only but those who despise all Religion who I doubt are the far greater number are very much entertained with such encounters between Men of Wit and Parts because they think and they do not think amiss that Religion it self will be the greatest sufferer by them at last And this is the most dangerous but I hope not the most prevailing Party of Men among us The Socinians profess themselves Christians and I hope are so especially if but One Article of Faith be required to make men so but I cannot but observe that in the late Socinian Pamphlets there is too strong a biass towards Deism which consideration alone should make us unite and look more narrowly to their steps I do not charge their Writers with a professed design to advance Deism among us but their way of managing their Disputes is as if they had a mind to serve them And such men who are Enemies to all revealed Religion could not find out better Tools for their purpose than they are For they know very well that in such a Nation as ours which is really concerned for the Profession of Religion one way or other there is no opening professed Schools of Atheism but the design must be carried on under some shew of Religion And nothing serves their turn so well as setting up natural Religion in opposition to Revealed For this is the way by degrees to loosen and unhinge the Faith of most Men which with great reason is built on the Scripture as the surest foundation But here it is fit to observe the several steps they take in order to this advancing Deism and how our Unitarians have complied with all of them I. The first point they are to gain is The lessening the Authority of Scripture and if this be once done they know Mens Minds will be left so roving and uncertain that they will soon fall into Scepticism and Infidelity II. The next is to represent Church-men as Persons of Interest and Design who maintain Religion only because it supports them and this they call Priest-Craâ—t and if they can by this means take away their Authority too the way lies still more open for them for it is more easie to make a Prey of the Flock when the Shepherds are suspected only to look after their Fleeces Since such a suspicion takes away all Trust and Confidence in their Guides and they know very well how little others will be able to defend themselves III. Another step is to magnifie the Deists as Men of Probity and good Sense that assert the just Liberties of Mankind against that terrible thing called Priest-Craft and that would rescue Religion from false Glosses and absurd Notions taken up from the Schools and taught in the Universities on purpose to keep under those Principles of universal Liberty as to Opinions which those of freer Minds endeavour to promote But especially they are great Enemies to all Mysteries of Faith as unreasonable Impositions on those of more refined Vnderstandings and of clear and distinct Perceptions as they have learnt to express themselves These they account intolerable Vsurpations on Men of such Elevations as themselves for Mysteries are only for the Mob and not for Persons of such noble Capacities IV. The last thing is to represent all Religions as indifferent since they agree in the common Principles of natural Religion especially the Vnity of God and all the rest is but according to the different Inventions of Men the skill of the Contrivers and the several Humors and Inclinations of Mankind These are the chief Mysteries of Deism in our Age for even Deism hath its Mysteries and it is it self a Mystery of Iniquity which I am afraid is too much working already among us and will be more if no effectual stop be put to it I call it Deism because that Name obtains now as more plausible and modish for Atheism is a rude unmannerly Word and exposes Men to the Rabble and makes Persons shun the company and avoid the Conversation and Dealing with such who are noted for it And this would be a mighty Prejudice to them as to their Interests in this World which they have reason to value But to be a Deist seems to be only a setting up for having more Wit than to be cheated by the Priests and imposed upon by the common Forms of Religion which serve well enough for ordinary People that want Sense and are not skillâ—d in Demonstrations but the Deists are so wise as to see through all these things And therefore this name gains a Reputation among all such as hate Religion but know not how otherwise to distinguish themselves from prosessed Atheists which they would by no means be taken for although if they be pressed home very few among them will sincerely own any more than a Series of Causes without any intellectual Perfections which they call God A strange God without Wisdom Goodness Iustice or Providence But I am now to shew how in all these points the present Unitarians have been very serviceable to them in the Books which they have lately published and dispersed both in City and Country 1. As to the Authority of Scripture They have been already justly exposed for undermining the Authority of S. John's Gospel by mustering up all the Arguments of the old Hereticks against it and giving no answers to them And what defence have they since made for themselves No other but this very trifling one that they repeat their Reasons but do not affirm them What is the meaning of this If they are true why do
they not affirm them If they are false why do they not answer them Is this done like those who believe the Gospel of S. John to be divine to produce all the arguments they could meet with against it and never offer to shew the Weakness and Vnreasonableness of them Doth not this look like a design to furnish the Deists with such arguments as they could meet with against it Especially when they say That S. Iohn doth not oppose them Why then are these Arguments produced against his Gospel Men do not use to dispute against their Friends nor to tell the World what all People have said against them and give not a word of answer in vindication of them But they say The modern Vnitarians allow of the Gospel and other Pieces of S. Iohn A very great favour indeed to allow of them But how far As of divine Authority Not a word of that But as ancient Books which they think it not fit for them to dispute against But if the ancient Ebionites were their Predecessors as they affirm they can allow none but the Gospel according to the Hebrews and must reject the rest and all S. Paul's Epistles and in truth they make him argue so little to the purpose that they must have a very mean opinion of his Writings But of these things in the Discourse it self As to Church-men no professed Deists could express themselves more spitefully than they have done and that against those to whom they profess the greatest respect What then would they say of the rest They say in general That it is natural to Worldlings to mercenary Spirits to the timorous and ambitious in a word to all such as preferr not God before all other whether Persons or Considerations to believe as they would have it But although the words be general yet any one that looks into them may sâ—eâ— find that they were intended for such Church-men who had written against their opinions And the Insinuation is that if it were not for worldly Interests they would own them to be in the right Whereas I am fully perswaded that they have no way to defend their Opinions but to reject the Scriptures and declare themselves Deists and as long as we retain a just Veneration for the Scripture we can be of no other Opinion because we look on their Interpretations as unreasonable new forced and inconsistent with the circumstances of Places and the main Scope and Tenor of the New Testament But their Introduction to the Answer to the late Archbishop's Sermons about the Trinity and Incarnation shew their Temper sufficiently as to all Church-men He was the Person they professed to esteem and reverence above all others and confess that he instructs them in the Air and Language of a Father which at least deserved a little more dutifull Language from them But some Mens fondness for their Opinions breaks all bounds of Civility and Decency for presently after mentioning the Archbishop and other Bishops who had written against them they say it signifies nothing to the case That they are great Pensioners of the World For it is certain we have a mighty Propensity to believe as is for our Turn and Interest And soon after that their Opposers are under the power of such fatal Biasses that their Doctrine is the more to be suspected because it is theirs For the reason why they maintain the Doctrine of the Trinity is because they must The plain meaning of all this is that the late Archbishop as well as the rest was a mere self-interested Man which none who knew either the outside or inside of Lambeth could ever imagine that if he were really against them as none could think otherwise who knew him so well and so long as I did it only shew'd what a strange Power Interest hath in the Minds of all Church-men But what Bias was it which made him write with that Strength and Iudgment against their Opinions Let us set aside all Titles of Respect and Honour as they desire let Reason be compared with Reason and his Arguments with their Answers and it will be soon found that the advantage which he had was not from any other Dignity than that of a clearer Iudgment and a much stronger way of Reasoning Whereas their Answers are such as may well be supposed to come from those who had some such Bias that they must at least seem to answer what in truth they could not As hath been fully made appear in the Vindication of him to which no reply hath been given although other Treatises of theirs have come out since In the Conclusion of that Answer they say That they did not expect that their Answer should satisfie us and in truth they had a great deal of reason to think so But what reason do they give for it A very kind one no doubt because Prepossession and Interest have taken hold of us As though we were Men of such mean and mercenary Spirits as to believe according to Prepossession without Reason and to act only as serves our present Interest But we never made mean Addresses to Infidels to shew how near our Principles came to theirs nor made Parallels between the Trinity and Transubstantiation as some did and defended them as well as they could when Popery was uppermost But enough of this 3. We have seen how much they have gratified the Deists by representing Church-men in such a manner let us now see in what manner they treat the Deists It is with another sort of Language and which argues a more than ordinary kindness to them In one place they say That the Deists are mostly well-natured Men and Men of Probity and Understanding in effect that they are sincere honest-hearted Men who do good by the impulse of their natural Religion Honesty and good Conscience which have great Influence upon them What another sort of character is this from that of the greatest and in their opinion the best of our Clergy This must proceed from some Intimacy and Familiarity with them and it is easie to imagine from hence that they are upon very good Terms with one another because they must be Unitarians if they believe a God at all But where else are these honest conscientious Deists to be found It is rare indeed for others to find any one that rejects Christianity out of pure Conscience and that acts by principles of sincere Virtue I never yet could meet with such nor hear of those that have And I would fain know the reasons on which such conscientious Men proceeded for truly the Principles of natural Religion are those which recommend Christianity to me for without them the Mysteries of Faith would be far more unaccountable than now they are and supposing them I see no Incongruity in them i. e. That there is a just and holy God and a wise Providence and a future State of Rewards and Punishments and that God designs to bring Mankind