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
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
Qualities and Dispositions which we perceive by observation and arise either from Constitution or Education or Company or acquired Habits 2. As to the true ground of the real Difference between the Existence of one Individual from the rest it depends upon the separate Existence which it hath from all others For that which gives it a Being distinct from all others and divided by Individual Properties is the true ground of the difference between them and that can be no other but the Will of God And no consequent Faculties or Acts of the Mind by Self-Reflection c. can be the reason of this difference because the difference must be supposed antecedent to them And nothing can be said to make that which must be supposed to be before it self for there must be a distinct Mind in Being from all other Minds before it can reflect upon it self But we are not yet come to the bottom of this matter For as to Individual Persons there are these things still to be consider'd 1. Actual Existence in it self which hath a Mode belonging to it or else the humane Nature of Christ could not have been united with the divine but it must have had the personal Subsistence and consequently there must have been two Persons in Christ. 2. A separate and divided Existence from all others which arises from the actual Existence but may be distinguished from it and so the humane Nature of Christ although it had the Subsistence proper to Being yet had not a separate Existence after the Hypostatical Vnion 3. The peculiar manner of Subsistence which lies in such properties as are incommunicable to any other and herein lies the proper reason of Personality Which doth not consist in a meer Intelligent Being but in that peculiar manner of Subsistence in that Being which can be in no other For when the common Nature doth subsist in Individuals there is not only a separate Existence but something so peculiar to it self that it can be communicated to no other And this is that which makes the distinction of Persons 4. There is a common Nature which must be joyned with this manner of Subsistence to make a Person otherwise it would be a meer Mode but we never conceive a Person without the Essence in Conjunction with it But here appears no manner of contradiction in asserting several Persons in one and the same common Nature 5. The Individuals of the same kind are said to differ in number from each other because of their different Accidents and separate Existence For so they are capable of being numbred Whatever is compounded is capable of number as to its parts and may be said to be one by the Union of them whatever is separated from another is capable of number by distinction But where there can be no Accidents nor Division there must be perfect Unity 6. There must be a Separation in Nature where-ever there is a difference of Individuals under the same kind I do not say there must be an actual Separation and Division as to place but that there is and must be so in Nature where one common Nature subsists in several Individuals For all Individuals must divide the Species and the common Nature uâ—ites them And this Philoponus understood very well and therefore he never denied such a Division and Separation in the divine Persons as is implied in distinct Individuals which is the last thing to be consider'd here 3. We are now to enquire how far these things will hold as to the Persons in the Trinity and whether it be a Contradiction to assert three Persons in the Godhead and but one God We are very far from disputing the Vnity of the divine Essence which we assert to be so perfect and indivisible as not to be capable of such a difference of Persons as is among Men. Because there can be no difference of Accidents or Place or Qualities in the divine Nature and there can be no separate Existence because the Essence and Existence are the same in God and if necessary Existence be an inseparable Attribute of the divine Essence it is impossible there should be any separate Existence for what always was and must be can have no other Existence than what is implied in the very Essence But will not this overthrow the distinction of Persons and run us into Sabellianism By no means For our Vnitarians grant That the Noetians and Sabellians held that there is but one divine Substance Essence or Nature and but one Person And how can those who hold three Persons be Sabellians Yes say they the Sabellians held three relative Persons But did they mean three distinct Subsistences or only one Subsistence sustaining the Names or Appearances or Manifestations of three Persons The latter they cannot deny to have been the true sense of the Sabellians But say they these are three Persons in a classical critical Sense We meddle not at present with the Dispute which Valla hath against Boethius about the proper Latin Sense of a Person and Petavius saith Valla's Objections are mere Iests and Trifles but our Sense of a Person is plain that it signifies the Essence with a particular manner of Subsistence which the Greek Fathers called an Hypostasis taking it for that incommunicable Property which makes a Person But say our Vnitarians a Person is an intelligent Being and therefore three Persons must be three intelligent Beings I answer that this may be taken two ways 1. That there is no Person where there is no intelligent Nature to make it a Person and so we grant it 2. That a Person implies an intelligent Being separate and divided from other Individuals of the same kind as it is among men and so we deny it as to the Persons of the Trinity because the Divine Essence is not capable of such Division and Separation as the humane Nature is But say they again The Fathers did hold a specifical Divine Nature and the Persons to be as so many individuals This they repeat very often in their late Books and after all refer us to Curcellaeus for undeniable Proofs of it Let us for the present suppose it then I hope the Fathers are freed from holding Contradictions in the Doctrine of the Trinity for what Contradiction can it be to hold three individual Persons in the Godhead and One common Nature more than it is to hold that there are three humane Persons in One and the same common Nature of Man Will they make this a Contradiction too But some have so used themselves to the Language of Iargon Nonsense Contradiction Impossibility that it comes from them as some men swear when they do not know it But I am not willing to go off with this Answer for I do take the Fathers to have been men of too great Sense and Capacity to have maintained such an absurd Opinion as that of a Specifick Nature in God For either it is a mere Logical Notion and Act
of the Mind without any real Existence belonging to it as such which is contrary to the very Notion of God which implies a necessary Existence or it must imply a Divine Nature which is neither Father Son nor Holy Ghost Which is so repugnant to the Doctrine of the Fathers that no one that is any ways conversant in their Writings on this Argument can imagine they should hold such an Opinion And I am so far from being convinced by Curcellaeus his undeniable Proofs that I think it no hard matter to bring undeniable Proofs that he hath mistaken their meaning Of which I shall give an Account in this Place because I fear his Authority hath had too much sway with some as to this matter I shall not insist upon his gross mistake in the very entrance of that Discourse where he saith That the Bishops of Gaul and Germany disliked the Homoousion and gave three Reasons against it whereas Hilary speaks of the Eastern Bishops whom he goes about to vindicate to the Western Bishops who were offended with them for that reason as any one that reads Hilary de Synodis may see But I come to the main Point His great Argument is from the use of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may extend to Individuals of the same kind Who denies it But the Question is whether the Fathers used it in that sense so as to imply a difference of Individuals in the same common Essence There were two things aimed at by them in their Dispute with the Arians 1. To shew That the Son was of the same Substance with the Father which they denied and made him of an inferior created Substance of another kind Now the Fathers thought this term very proper to express their Sense against them But then this Word being capable of a larger Sense than they intended they took care 2. To assert a perfect Unity and Indivisibility of the Divine Essence For the Arians were very ready to charge them with one of these two things 1. That they must fall into Sabellianism if they held a perfect Unity of Essence or 2. When they clear'd themselves of this that they must hold Three Gods and both these they constantly denied To make this clear I shall produce the Testimonies of some of the chief both of the Greek and Latin Fathers and answer Curcellaeus his Objections Athanasius takes notice of both these Charges upon their Doctrine of the Trinity As to Sabellianism he declared That he abhorred it equally with Arianism and he saith it lay in making Father and Son to be only different Names of the same Person and so they asserted but one Person in the Godhead As to the other Charge of Polytheism he observes That in the Scripture Language all mankind was reckon'd as one because they have the same Essence and if it be so as to Men who have such a difference of Features of Strength of Vnderstanding of Language how much more may God be said to be One in whom is an undivided Dignity Power Counsel and Operation Doth this prove such a difference as is among Individuals of the same kind among men No man doth more frequently assert the indivisible Vnity of the Divine Nature than he He expresly denies such divided Hypostases as are among men and saith That in the Trinity there is a Conjunction without confusion and a distinction without Division that in the Trinity there is so perfect an Vnion and that it is so undivided and united in it self that where-ever the Father is there is the Son and the Holy Ghost and so the rest because there is but one Godhead and one God who is over all and through all and in all But saith Curcellaeus The contrary rather follows from this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or mutual Inexistence for that could not be without distinct Substance as in Water and Wine But this is a very gross mistake of the Fathers Notion who did not understand by it a Local In-existence as of Bodies but such an indivisible Vnity that one cannot be without the other as even Petavius hath made it appear from Athanasius and others Athanasius upon all Occasions asserts the Unity of the Divine Nature to be perfect and indivisible God saith he is the Father of his Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any Division of the Substance And in other places that the Substance of the Father and Son admit of no Division and he affirms this to have been the sense of the Council of Nice so that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood of the same indivisible Substance Curcellaeus answers That Athanasius by this indivisible Vnity meant only a close and indissoluble Vnion But he excluded any kind of Division and that of a Specifick Nature into several individuals as a real Division in Nature for no man whoever treated of those matters denied that a Specifick Nature was divided when there were several individuals under it But what is it which makes the Vnion indissoluble Is it the Vnity of the Essence or not If it be is it the same individual Essence or not If the same individual Essence makes the inseparable Union what is it which makes the difference of individuals If it be said The incommunicable Properties of the Persons I must still ask how such Properties in the same individual Essence can make different individuals If it be said to be the same Specifick Nature then how comes that which is in it self capable of Division to make an indissoluble Vnion But saith Curcellaeus Athanasius makes Christ to be of the same Substance as Adam and Seth and Abraham and Isaac are said to be Con-substantial with each other And what follows That the Father and Son are divided from each other as they were This is not possible to be his Sense considering what he saith of the Indivisibility of the Divine Nature And Athanasius himself hath given sufficient warning against such a Mis-construction of his Words and still urges that our Conceptions ought to be suitable to the Divine Nature not taken from what we see among men And it is observable that when Paulus Samosatenus had urged this as the best Argument against the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it made such a difference of Substances as is among men for that Reason saith Athanasius his Iudges were content to let it alone for the Son of God is not in such a sense Con-substantial but afterwards the Nicene Fathers finding out the Art of Paulus and the significancy of the Word to discriminate the Arians made use of it and only thought it necessary to declare that when it is applied to God it is not to be understood as among individual Men. As to the Dialogues under Athanasius his Name on which Curcellaeus insists so much it is now very well known that they belong not to him but to Maximus and by comparing them with
of Gods Word But were not the Iews to understand it in the Sense it was known among them And if the Chaldee Paraphrast had used it in that Sense he would never have applied it to a Divine Subsistance as upon Examination it will appear that he doth Of which Rittangel gives a very good Account who had been a Iew and was very well skilled in their ancient Learning He tells us That he had a Discourse with a learned Vnitarian upon this Subject who was particularly acquainted with the Eastern Languages and he endeavoured to prove That there was nothing in the Chaldee Paraphrasts use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was promiscuously used by him for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it was applied to God This Rittangel denied and offer'd to prove that the Chaldee Paraphrast did never use that Word in a common manner but as it was appropriated to a Divine Subsistance He produces several places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put and nothing answering to Word in the Hebrew as Gen. 20.21 The Chaldee hath it The Word of Iehovah shall be my God Exod. 2.25 And Iehovah said He would redeem them by his Word Exod. 6.8 Your murmurings are not against us but against the Word of Iehovah Exod. 19.17 And Moses brought the People out to meet the Word of Iehovah Levit. 26.46 These are the Statutes and Iudgments and Laws which Iehovah gave between his Word and the Children of Israel by the hand of Moses Numb 11.20 Ye have despised the Word of Iehovah whose Divinity dwelt among you Numb 23.21 The Word of Iehovah is with him and the Divinity of their King is among them Deut 1.30 The Word of Iehovah shall fight for you Deut. 2.7 These forty years the Word of Iehovah hath been with thee Deut. 1.32 Ye did not believe in the Word of Iehovah your God Deut 4.24 Iehovah thy God his Word is a consuming fire Deut. 5.5 I stood between the Word of Iehovah and you to shew you the Word of the Lord Deut. 32.6.8 Iehovah thy God his Word shall go with thee with many other places which he brings out of Moses his Writings and there are multitudes to the same purpose in the other Books of Scripture which shews saith he that this Term the Word of God was so appointed for many Ages as appears by all the Chaldee Paraphrasts and the ancient Doctors of the Iews And he shews by several places that the Chaldee Paraphrast did not once render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when there was occasion for it no not when the Word of God is spoken of with respect to a Prophet as he proves by many Testimonies which are particularly enumerated by him The result of the Conference was that the Vnitarian had so much Ingenuity to confess That unless those Words had another Sense their Cause was lost and our Faith had a sure Foundation But it may be objected that Morinus hath since taken a great deal of pains to prove the Chaldee Paraphrasts not to have been of that Antiquity which they have been supposed by the Iews to be of In answer to this we may say in general that Morinus his great Proofs are against another Chaldee Paraphrast of very small Reputation viz. of Ionathan upon the Law and not that of Onkelos which Rittangel relied upon in this Matter And none can deny this to have been very ancient but the Iews have so little knowledge of their own History but what is in Scripture that very little certainty can be had from them But we must compare the Circumstances of things if we would come to any resolution in this Matter Now it is certain that Philo the Alexandrian Iew who lived so very near our Saviours time had the same Notion of the Word of God which is in the Chaldee Paraphrast whose Testimonies have been produced by so many already that I need not to repeat them And Eusebius saith The Jews and Christians had the same Opinion as to Christ till the former fell off from it in opposition to the Christians and he particulaâ—ly instances in his Divinity But if Morinus his Opinion be embraced as to the lateness of these Chaldee Paraphrases this inconvenience will necessarily follow viz. That the Iews when they had changed so much their Opinions should insert those Passages themselves which assert the Divinity of the Word And it can hardly enter into any mans head that considers the Humour of the Jewish Nation to think that after they knew what S. Iohn had written concerning the Word and what use the Christians made of it to prove the Divinity of Christ they should purposely insert such passages in that Paraphrase of the Law which was in such esteem among them that Elias Levita saith They were under Obligation to read two Paraschaâ—s out of it every Week together with the Hebrew Text. Now who can imagine that the Iews would do this upon any other account than that it was deliver'd down to them by so ancient a Tradition that they durst not discontinue it And it is observed in the place of Scripture which our Saviour read in the Synagogue that he follow'd neither the Hebrew nor the Greek but in probability the Chaldee Paraphrase and the Words he used upon the Cross were in the Chaldee Dialect The later Iews have argued against the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ like any Vnitarians as appears by the Collection out of Ioseph Albo David Kimchi c. published by Genebrard with his Answers to them And is it any ways likely that those who were so much set against these Doctrines should themselves put in such Expressions which justifie what the Evangelist saith about the VVord being in the Beginning being with God and being God The Substance of what I have said as to S. Iohn's Notion of the Word is this That there is no colour for the Sense which Socinus hath put upon it either from the use of it among other Authors or any Interpretation among the Jews But that there was in his time a current sense of it which from the Jews of Alexandria was dispersed by Cerinthus in those parts where he lived That for such a Notion there was a very ancient Tradition among the Jews which appears in the most ancient Paraphrase of the Law which is read in their Synagogues And therefore according to all reasonable ways of interpreting Scripture the Word cannot be understood in S. Iohn for one whose Office it was to preach the Word but for that Word which was with God before any thing was made and by whom all things were made 3. Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men to give a new Sense of several Places of Scripture from a matter of Fact of which there is no proof the better to avoid the proof of the Divinity of the Son of God This relates to the same beginning of S. Iohn's Gospel the Word was with God and several other places
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
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
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
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