thing against the Orthodox Believers Leonas himself was in all probability an Arian as being such a Favourite of Constantius and being sent to preside in that Council which did mostly consist of Arians and if any plaid the Fool in this Council 't was the Arians for the two quarrelling Parties here were both Arian both agreed against the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nicene Creed the Opinion of the Acacian Party we may see at large in Socrates in their Creed which they set forth when they met again at Constantinople An. 364. and the other Party subscribed the Creed set out by the Council of Antioch which was Arian too So that Leonas might well think them to play the Fools when they were both agreed upon the point and were very unanimous as to the main of their Heresy that they should wrangle and squabble and fall to Loggerheads about nothing For all their bustle was whether they should express their Arian Notions by altering an old Creed to their purpose or by framing a new one CHAP. VIII A belief with respect to the Person of Christ fruitless towards the Inquirers own satisfaction THE Authour begins this Chapter with a Testimony from the Emperour Constantine again who in his Letter to Arius and Alexander says that the Question they were disputing about was so abstruse that they could make few among the Multitude to understand it And what then the matter of Alexander's Belief might be plain enough and yet they by their disputes might render it abstruse and puzzling I have known ordinary Questions in Logick and Morality drawn into such fine Threads by Argumentation that both the Disputants have lost the sight of the Question and have hardly at last understood their own meaning And this might be the Case of Arius and Alexander for ought I know But the Reason why the Emperour thought the Question it self so puzzling was because he could see little difference between their Opinions for he could not so well understand their distinction of a Generation and a Production out of nothing he thought this was only a Metaphysical notion too transcendent for vulgar Brains but was not aware of the Consequence which Arius drew from the Son 's being produced out of Nothing that this must make him a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Creature Then he proceeds to shew That the Messias was a Person of whom the Scripture did foretel that his Generation should not be known But he does not produce any of these Prophecies and therefore I shall not be obliged to answer those which some others have brought to our Authour's purpose All that he brings is a Text out of John and another out of the Hebrews the first is we know whence this man is but when Christ cometh no man knoweth whence he is Joh. 7. 27. This place does not prove That Christ is not the eternal Son of the Father nay it rather makes for it than against it because by the Phrase no man knoweth it supposes a Generation above all humane understanding But it no ways proves That we cannot tell whether Christ be the Son of God or no and this it must prove if it will do the Authour any kindness All that this Text proves is That the Jews thought that Christ was to be of no earthly Extraction not the Son of any Man but of God But we know say they whence this Man is that he is born of Joseph and Mary this is the Carpenter's Son and therefore he cannot be the Messias who is to be of a heavenly original the Son of God in a manner we cannot tell for if it was not to be known whether the Messias were to be the Son of God or no why does our Saviour call himself so and require others to believe him such and if he was the Son of God then it was to be known whence he was in this Sense so that all that can be drawn from this Text is That Christ is not of an earthly Original and this we would have granted him without his pains of proving it The other Text is out of Heb. 7. where Melchizedeck being brought as a Type of our Saviour and being there declared to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Father and without Mother without Descent therefore Christ's original is not known Indeed Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Mother in respect of his Divinity but he is not without Father unless that we suppose him falsly to call God his Father in so many places But neither was Melchizedeck without Father and without Mother as not being of an earthly extraction he was without Father without Mother without descent in relation to the Aronical Priests whose Fathers and Mothers and all their Pedigree was exactly set down and preserved in the Jewish Records but there was no constat of Melchizedeck's Pedigree the Scripture is perfectly silent of his Original and no other Records give an account of it But our Saviour's Original according to the flesh is set down by the Evangelists an exact Catalogue given us of all his Progenitors therefore Melchizedeck is no Type of our Saviour in this respect His being like unto the Son of God as the Apostle speaks in his abiding a Priest continually v. 3. that is being of that blessing kind of Priesthood which shall always continue when the other of the Jews shall be abolished Well but the Authour says That the Evangelists derive Christ's Pedigree from a wrong Father and two different ways on purpose to amuse us This is a bold stroke to tax these inspired Writers with Errour and Deceit and to make the Holy Spirit of God the Spirit of Delusion But what though the Evangelists do shew Christ's descent two different ways they may be both true for all that the intermingled Marriages of Families in our modern manner where all nigh degrees are prohibited do often occasion one Person to descend from another two ways which must be much more so among the Jews who were often to marry their nighest Relations to keep up their Families Therefore 't is no wonder if the Evangelists relate this Pedigree divers ways where as it might have been related several other ways and all true for 't were easie to draw his present Majesties descent only from William the Conquerour in it may be seven or eight different Branches But if any one has a mind to see the difficulties of this Genealogy explained he may see it at large in those excellent Men Grotius and Bochartus for it would be too long to enter upon a Discourse of this nature here So that 't is a most impudent Falsity in the Authour to say That it is left impossible to prove our Saviour deriv'd from David when the Evangelists have written these Genealogies for that end Next the Authour quarrels with the Bishop of Alexandria for offering to explain the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity or as he speaks for boldly answering I will
perhaps taedâ luceret in illâ Quâ stant arden◠and might as deservedly it may be have followed his Friends Gentilis and Servet out of the World the same way Nor can it reasonably be thought that any Sanctions can be too severe to maintain such important Points of our Faith against the Blasphemy of Hereticks and it would shew our State to have too little regard for Religion to punish the defacing of our Coin with Death and to have no Punishment for those that shall presume to adulterate our Faith Fourthly His next charge of Innovations upon us is That we advance Faith above Reason and against it But here is not a word of the Proof of this He tells us indeed that we must not believe God's word any further than we have reason to believe it is God's word and that it is unreasonable to believe a Mystery and that is all he says to this Point 1. Now as to the Believing in God's word we never say but that our Belief is grounded upon better Reason than that of the Anti-trinitarians is for all their great pretence to it and I am sure our Arguments from Scripture are a thousand times more rationally deduced than our Adversaries are and as to Antiquity they have not the least pretence to that Indeed we do not pretend to understand all that our Reason tells us we ought to believe and I think it is more reasonable to think we should not understand God's Nature than that we should 2. As to our believing a Mystery that is not less to be believed upon that account if we are sure it is true for we do not believe it because it is a Mystery but because it is a Truth Well but he says this word Mystery has not the same sense in the Scripture and other ancient Authours as we put upon it As to the use of this word among prophane Authours they understand by it a Truth which is known only to some few Men and is not further to be divulged And so principally the Rites of Ceres and Proserpine were called Mysteries because they were esteemed to be of so great Sacredness as in no ways to be revealed And therefore Suidas derives the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from shutting the Mouth But then by Analogy all other things that were kept secret were called Mysteries So Tully speaking of his Letters says which have so much of Mysteries in them that I ought not to trust them to my Amanuenses And in the holy Scripture there are other senses of the word than what the Authour mentions for every thing that is called a Mystery there is not a spiritual Truth wrapped up in a sensible nor yet only a Truth hidden from some Ages which two senses only the Authour will allow For sometimes a thing altogether incomprehensible as the Trinity is is called a Mystery 1 Tim. 3. 16. Without controversie great is the Mystery of Godliness God manifest in the flesh c. Where the incomprehensible Truth of Christ's Incarnation is called a great Mystery And therefore says an ancient Father admirably well Great is the Mystery of Godliness not that it is unknown but because it is incomprehensible for it exceeds all power both of Expression and of Vnderstanding This perhaps the Apostle calls a great Mystery in allusion to the Ceremonies of those Deities that were called Great far inconsiderable Mysteries in respect of this Thus Diana who was worshipped with these Mysterious Rites is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 19. 27. and Proserpine and Ceres that were worshipped with the Eleusinian Mysteries were stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and their Rites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athen. Now whereas these Mysteries and Deities were great only by their not being discovered this Mystery of our Saviour in a more peculiar manner is great by its being incomprehensible Now the definition which St. Chrysostom gives of a Mystery takes in all these notions of the Word A Mystery is that which is unknown and secret and has also a great deal wonderful in it and a great deal incomprehensible But the Authour says 't is more than a hidden Mystery that is in his phrase a plain contradiction that the same thing should be hid and open to the same Persons and who denies it if he mean in the same respect But a thing may be hid in one respect and open in another 'T is open and reveal'd to us That our Saviour's Divinity is de facto united to his Humanity but the express modus how this Union is performed is hid to us That Father Son and Holy-Ghost are one God is revealed or open to us but the manner of their Hypostatical Union is altogether hid That these things are so is plain and open to us but how they are so is altogether unintelligible And this I think is no Contradiction ENQUIRY III. What Damages or Advantages have ensued upon the Changes and Additions which latter Ages have made in the Gospel THere need little be said to this Chapter because I hope I have made it in some measure appear That the Doctrine of the Trinity and particularly of the Divinity of our Saviour is no Addition made to the Gospel but is that which was first delivered by our Saviour and his Apostles and therefore this Supposition of the Authour 's being false whatever Conclusions he draws from it without any more ado will fall of themselves But because he has before reckoned the Doctrine of the Trinity among the Papal Corruptions or as he speaks the Athanasian among the Romish Doctrines and by the Tenour of his whole Book has been proving this Doctrine an Innovation though he do not particularly mention it here but only Innovations in general I shall therefore follow him in his Method and shew That this Doctrine has in no ways occasioned those Damages and Corruptions in the Church which he would seem to lay to its charge and which 't is apparent those Papal Doctrines he mentions have He tells us there have ensued upon these Changes and Additions I. Damages II. Advantages The Damages which have ensued he says are 1. To our Lord's honour 2. To private Christians 3. To the Christian Church in general The Damages which he would have to proceed from these Innovations to our Lord's honour First Because they make him Capricious and humoursome by commanding things to be believed without reason Secondly Because they hinder the progress of the Gospel Now how far the Romish Corruptions deserve this censure I shall not examine but I am afraid the Authour will have a difficult task to prove this upon the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity or the Divinity of our blessed Saviour I have before shewn how unreasonable it is to expect we should be able to give an account of the true Reason of all God's positive Laws and how impudent it is for Men to refuse their Obedience to them because they do not understand those motives
of pains to lay his matter in order though I believe it will make little to his purpose For we will grant all that he has been here saying is true if he lets the matter lie as the Apostle left it against the Gnosticks Nay but perhaps the Trinitarians will not so easily get off here And truly any one that understands the design of the Authour's Book would expect from these Propositions some wonderful confutation of the Trinitarian Doctrines But our Authour very cunningly lets that alone and by a Hocus-Pocus trick claps before our Eyes some Romish corruptions which were occasioned he tells us by people that heaped to themselves Teachers having itching Ears and those Teachers heaped to themselves Doctrines to scratch that itch and so the Monks by scratching and clawing one another scratched themselves into all the errours of the School-Divinity Therefore he concludes that there being such errours that destroy the Gospel simplicity and we being not to be saved by the greatest humane authority he means general Councils or to put our Souls in a Lottery we must therefore see what those Doctrines are which destroy the Gospel simplicity which cannot better be managed he tells us than by the three enquiries of his Book Now though for all the Authour has said to this point the Doctrine of the Trinity is very safe yet because he would slily insinuate that this Doctrine is one of those Romish Errours that destroy the simplicity of Christianity I think fit to make him this Answer First That the belief of the blessed Trinity is very consistent with the simplicity of the Christian Religion For if there be nothing in that Doctrine but what a Man of ordinary capacity may understand as much at least as is requisite for his belief and as far as his judgment tells him 't is reasonable to suppose such a thing should be understood I cannot see why this Doctrine should derogate from the simplicity of Christianity Now First in this doctrine there is nothing but what a Man of mean parts may understand as far as is requisite for his belief for 't is not requisite that such a Man or indeed any Man should fully understand all that he does believe for that would not be belief but science 't is enough for belief that a Man has undoubted Testimony that such a thing is so whether he understands the manner or perhaps the possibility of its being so or not We are wont to take many things upon Trust from the Mouths of Men learned in their respective Sciences the reasons of which we are far from understanding and Mathematicians can demonstrate many Truths and which Men unlearned in their Science take upon their words though to them they seem otherways impossible Now if it be reasonable that a plain unlearned Man should believe many things which he does not understand from the testimony of wiser and more knowing Men I think it a less imposition upon the understandings of plain Men to require them to believe a revealed Truth from the Testimony of the All-wise and All-knowing God Secondly A plain Man understands as much in this Doctrine as his judgment tells him it is reasonable he should understand in a matter of that nature and 't is highly unreasonable for any Man to expect more If any one indeed how wise soever should tell the plain Man that Bread is Flesh the plain Man would think this unreasonable to believe because he knows the difference between Bread and Flesh as well as any one can tell him and because then he is required to disbelieve his Senses in a matter of which they are the properest Judges But if this plain Man be informed by an undoubted Testimony of something which indeed he does not understand concerning God whose nature and essence his reason tells him is not to be understood or any one else though of the greatest learning or reason this he is with an humble submission ready to believe and when he has full assurance of the undoubtedness of the Testimony which confirms this his belief does not in the least boggle at what ' is so delivered For a Person of the ordinariest reason that believes a God and his Attributes must be sure that in that infinite being there are infinite mysteries that is Truths which are not to be understood by finite capacities and if it has pleased God's Wisdom to reveal the Esse of one of these mysteries to us that there are Father Son and Holy-Ghost three Persons and one God though the Modus of this Truth does surpass our understandings yet he acknowledges that this belief is reasonable because 't is irrational for him to think his finite understanding should comprehend all the mysterious Truths in an infinite Deity Secondly 'T is not requisite that every plain simple Man of whom the belief of the Trinity is required as being a divine Truth revealed in Scripture that he should understand all the Questions which are controverted by learned Men about this Doctrine All the disputes about Hypostasis's and Personalities Generations and Processions for there were thousands of good Christians went to Heaven before these Controversies were started in the World or before these terms were ever heard of So that 't is a great mistake of the Adversaries of this Doctrine to think that we impose it as necessary to every ordinary Man's Salvation to understand and to give an express assent to all the determinations of these Questions 't is enough for him to believe the Doctrine in general as he finds it revealed in Scripture and to leave the more particular disquisition of it to more learned Men. And besides 't is not the fault of the Orthodox in the Church that ever these Disputes happened or that ever these names were coined we may thank the Hereticks for all this for they began first to oppugn the received Faith by new Doctrines and strange glosses upon Scripture and then the true Christians in their own defence were forced to vindicate the Orthodox Faith and so because by reasoning upon supernatural Truths which never came into so strict disquisition before they had occasion to invent new words to express these Truths by to prevent long ambages and circumlocutions in discourse or otherwise the World had never been troubled to this day with Hypostasis's Homoousios's or Consubstantiality But after all this clamour against the Orthodox the Socinians themselves not to mention the Arians build their points of Faith upon greater niceties or else how come they to bring in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Divinity that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify the supream God but not with it which is a false as well as a foolish Criticism Or else how come they to make use of that pretty distinction of a God by Nature and a God by Office Then follow his three Queries in which he promises to act no less sincerely than courageously but I am afraid he has
at all unless we were redeemed by the blood of God Act. 10. 28. For because our sins had received an infinite aggravation by being against a God of infinite Dignity as all offences are increased proportionably as the person offended is of greater worth and therefore these sins had entailed upon them an infinite punishment it was impossible that any satisfaction could be made by any thing less than an infinite Person because none but such an one could pay the infinite price that was due and he might do it because the temporary punishment in the infinite dignity of his Person was a full equivalent to the infinity of punishment which was due to us So that this belief of our Saviour's Divinity is necessary to the believing the remission of our sins and so to be sure is necessary to Piety CHAP. VI. Of Faith in Christ as the Saviour of the World THE Authour here divides the Faith of Christ into two objects of Belief I. The Person in whom we believe II. The Word in which we believe upon the credit of the Person In treating of the first of these he declares First What kind of Person our Lord requires us to believe him to be Secondly What is meant by believing in him And when he comes to shew what kind of Person our Saviour declares himself to be he makes a fine Company of Socinian glosses upon Scripture which it will be worth our while a little to consider For whereas he is mightily afraid that the titles of the Son of God c. would be a pregnant proof of our Saviour's Divinity he is resolved to distinguish them of by a few Polish Criticisms For first he says that God in Scripture is used to express something which is indefinite and which implies more than we can readily express From whence he would inferr that the Title of Son of God is no Argument for Christ's Divinity but only that he is some extraordinary remarkable Person But let us a little examine the Instances he brings The first is God do so to me and more also Now can any mortal Man conclude from hence that the word God is used to signify something indefinite The word more does signify something indefinite indeed but the word God signifies no more than it does in other places and the Authour might as well have transcribed all the Texts in the Bible in which he found the word God as this and they would have been as much to his purpose I know not what particular Text the Authour does refer to for this expression for 't is in many and as far as can be collected 't was a form of Cursing in use among the Jews about the time of Samuel and some time after for 't is found only in the Historical Writers of those times 1 Sam. 3. 17. and 4. 44. and 25. 22. 2 Sam. 3. 9. and 35. 2 Sam. 19. 3. 1 Kings 2. 23. 2 King 6. 13. Sometimes by way of adjuration to another as of old Eli to Samuel God do so to thee and more also if thou hide any thing from me of all the things that he said unto thee 1 Sam. 3. 17. that is I charge thee to tell me all the threatnings which God tells thee or else may all and more than he threatens light on thee Other times by way of imprecation of mischief on ones self as in the case of Solomon 1 King 2. 23. God do so to me and more also if Adonijah have not spoken this against his own life i. e. I will for this Crime take away Adonijah's Life or else may God take away mine or punish me worse than I intend to punish him And so in the other places where the word God has not an indefinite Sense but there is only a wishing of some Evil or Punishment which is indefinite greater than the Evil there pointed at but not expressed of how large a Degree of Greatness His Second Instance is out of Joel 4. 12. Because I will do this unto thee prepare to meet thy God O Israel Now I don't see what more indefinite signification there is in the word God here than in other places Indeed there is the severest denunciation of God's Judgments upon an irreclaimable People after Famine Pestilence Sword and Fire so that God tells them seeing they are proof against all these scourges he will try what they can do against him when he personally becomes their Adversary and see if they are able to cope with him too Prepare then to meet thy God O Israel 'T is not the word God here that does signifie any indefinite number of Evils but that God does Sarcastically upbraid their Obstinacy after all his Judgments having been ineffectual upon them by proposing his infinite Power as a Match for them if nothing else can be Prepare c. A bitter Sarcasm says the excellent Dean of Paul's as if a man could be a match for God and a poor weak creature be in any wise able to encounter him to whom Power belongs Another Notion the Authour has got Why Christ should be called the Son of God is because he is a considerable Person one of great Note and Eminence it being the Scripture Idiom to advance things by entitling them to God as the Mountains of God and the Rivers of God were those that were most eminent in their kind It is true That this sort of Expression is usual in Scripture to denote something that is great as the Mountain of God the Cedar of God Nimrod was a mighty Hunter before the Lord or a Hunter of God With great Wrestlings have I wrestled with my Sister says Rachel or with the Wrestlings of God Baptholi Elohim Luctationibus Dei But it does not follow from hence That our Saviour was called the Son of God because he was a great Person By this way of speaking he might well enough be stiled the Man of God or the Prophet of God to denote him a great Man or a great Prophet but in no propriety of speech the Son of God for the word Son does not denote the Person but Relation so that the Son of God is one to whom God does bear the relation of a Father Therefore 't is not his Greatness that entitles him thus to God but his Filiation for if it was only his Greatness that entituled him to this Character the mighty Nimrod or the great Mountain might upon this account be called the Sons of God as well as he because they were great in their kind as well as he Well but says the Authour Daniel makes the Son of God be a Character of one of great Beauty and Majesty by calling the Fourth Person in Nebuchadnezzar's Furnace by that name There is no reason to assert That this Fourth Person here was the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity for as the Authour says we can't suppose Nebuchadnezzar to have seen the Son of God before and upon that account to have known him All that
Saviour upon so pressing an occasion as their endeavouring to stone him did not assert his right of Divinity but contented himself with this Answer Is it not written in your Law I have said ye are Gods If he called them Gods to whom the word of God came and the Scripture cannot be broken say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the World thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God Let the Authour make out of this place what he can for his Opinion I am sure this place is as pregnant a proof of our Lord's Divinity as most places in the Bible are and whatever the Authour thinks he does exactly Answer to the Jews Question and tells them plainly he is what they expected the Messias to be the Son of God and very God For First in this place he tells them I and my Father are one v. 30. We two Persons are the same God and 't is plain That the Jews understood that to be his Meaning by their great rage which followed and their Answer to his Question why they should so barbarously use him after so many of his kind and saving Miracles For a good work we stone thee not but for Blasphemy and because that thou being a Man makest thy self God And Secondly he gives them a reason why he might claim the title of God without Blasphemy whereas Rulers to whom the word of God came or who had their Power and Authority from him are called Gods in Scripture Psal 2. 1 6. Why has not he whom the Father has sanctified c. a better claim to this Title But besides he farther tells them That he was God in a more peculiar manner than they and in a proper and not metaphorical sense by a personal Union with the Father that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in him This cannot be as the Socinians pretend by the Power of God co-operating in Christ for though 't is true that then God would be in him yet he could not be in God And besides to say he is in the Father and the Father in him denotes an Equality in each and his being in the Father in the same manner that the Father is in him And thus much to shew That our Saviour did assert his Divinity and prove it too upon this occasion and so consequently did not only require them to believe in his Word but in his Person also CHAP. VII Of Belief with meer respect to the Person of Christ Inquisitiveness concerning his Incarnation censured First Because Impertinent THE First Argument which the Authour uses to prove the Belief of Christ's Divinity to be impertinent is drawn from the Testimony of the Emperour Constantine in his Letter to Alexander and Arius I shall not now dispute whether this Letter in Eusebius be exactly the same which Constantine sent by Hosius into Alexandria though 't is certain many of these things were feigned or interpolated and though the same Letter be in Socrates yet probably he might have it only out of Eusebius and so it still may rely upon his sole Authority who was too great a Friend to the Arian cause to suffer any very favourable opinion to be passed upon its Adversaries But after all the Emperour does not here condemn the Belief of the Orthodox as impertinent but writes chiefly to temper the Hearts of Bishop Alexander and Arius who might be both perhaps something too warm and therefore exhorts them so affectionately to mutual Peace and Reconciliation because of the Quarrels and Schisms and other Evils which this hot and pertinacious Disputing was like to bring into the Church Indeed the Emperour calls the Controversie Arius had raised a little part of a Question and a Question not very necessary for truly the shuffling of Arius and the ambiguous terms he used made the Emperour think 't was only a Controversie about Words But however the Emperour looked upon Arius to be in the wrong as appears by what he says in his Letter to him And you Arius have inconsiderately asserted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what you ought not so much as to have thought of at first or when you had thought of it you should have passed it over in silence But what after all though the Emperour thought 't was no matter who was in the right Arius or Alexander and though he was of our Authour's Opinion That a right Belief of our Saviour's Divinity signified nothing Yet this is but the single opinion of one who was but a Novice in Christianity and 't is most reasonable to think that Alexander and the other Learned Bishops better understood the Importance of that Question than the Emperour whose Arms and other business of the Empire drew his Thoughts another way But besides afterwards when Constantine was better informed of the mischievous Consequences of the Arian Tenets he quickly alter'd his Sentiments of their Cause and did not then treat them with such soft and favourable Expressions After the conclusion of the Nicene Council in his Epistle to the Church of Alexandria he triumphs mightily that Truth has at last prevailed and blesses himself at the Thoughts of the Arian Blasphemies ‖ How great says he and how execrable Contumelies Good God! be thou propitious and merciful to us do they irreligiously and wickedly cast upon our venerable Saviour our Hope and our Life and have not only impudently asserted things contrary to the divinely inspired Scriptures and our holy Faith but have openly professed That they believe them too In this Epistle he calls Arius impudent Minister of the Devil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in his other Letter to the Bishops and People he says it seems to him requisite that Arius and his Followers should be called Porphyrians that they may be known by their Name whose Manners they follow And there orders if any Book be found of Arius's that it be immediately burned That not only his Execrable Doctrine may be throughly rooted up but that there may be no Monument left to Posterity And now let the Authour make the best he can of Constantine's Judgment and if his other Arguments will support him no better than this his Cause I am afraid will soon come to the ground His next Argument is drawn from the similitude of the Sun That 't is not necessary the Traveller should understand the Dimensions of that Body when he goes by its Light so it is not at all necessary to know what our Saviour is to practise his Commands But this Argument I have already answered in the Fifth Chapter when I shewed what Influence the Belief of our Saviour's Divinity had upon Men's Lives But his Argument which follows is very fine and Philosophical That when he considers the great disproportion between our Earth and so many Worlds which he fansies to be from the innumerable Stars we discover with and without the Telescope each Star being the Sun or
the Center of a World from this consideration he cannot imagine that our great Creatour should be so greedy of a little of our corrupt breath as to purchase it with a fall from Heaven This would be to disgrace our Lord from the dignity of a Benefactor to the vileness of an unskilful Tradesman who buys vile ware and pays for it infinitely more than it is worth Indeed I have hardly patience to answer this abominable Blasphemy to see a foolish Philosopher thus horridly to affront his Creatour and in this witless Buffoonry to ridicule the infinite satisfaction of his blessed Redeemer because he cannot make it agree with his system of Physicks But pray let him consider that we do not think the dignity of our nature or the beauty of our World inclined God who has no respect of persons to work our Redemption this was only the effect of his infinite mercy which we can never enough admire and praise And besides what signifies the largeness and gloriousness of the Heavenly Bodies in comparison with Mens Immortal Souls The Sun is the most glorious Body we see and yet a Fly is a more noble Creature than that The sensitive Soul that this is endowed with advances its excellence far above any the most glorious inanimate being that can be imagined But the immortal Soul of one Man is of more dignity than all the Corporeal Creation and if there had been no other way to redeem Mens Souls that were lost but by the destruction of all the other Creation 't would not have been unbecoming the divine Wisdom to have destroyed all them to have redeemed these because these are of infinitely more value than they But it may be that the Authour thinks there are an infinite number of Worlds all stocked with rational Creatures of it may be much more dignity than we so that it was not worth God's while to take care of such insignificant Creatures as we are Now we know nothing of these great Bodies and for what use Providence designed them besides for the benefits we receive from them and therefore Men talk at random when they ascribe any other to them But supposing there were rational Creatures in ten Millions of Earths that were moving round their respective Suns must God less take care of our World because he has a great many more to take care of This is to attribute a foolish weakness to the Deity and to think it is with him as it is with some Parents who when they have a great number of Children do not love any particular Child so well as if they had but that alone or but fewer Certainly God bears a Fatherly Love to all his Creatures and will provide whatsoever is necessary for them 't is not his providing for innumerable other Creatures that can hinder him from providing for us his Omniscience cannot be distracted by innumerable Operations and his infinite Power and Love can and will do all things that are necessary for us So that if it be requisite to repair the forfeited Souls of Mankind that a Person of the Godhead should make an infinite satisfaction for sins against an infinite Majesty and which do deserve an infinite punishment 't is not the gloriousness of the other Worlds which should hinder him from doing it for his Fatherly compassion reaches to us as well as them and he would not stick to use these means for our Redemption if no other could effect it But the Authour says that then Christ has paid infinitely more than the ware was worth like an unskilful Tradesman as he calls him I shall not now dispute whether God could have pardoned the sins of the World any other way than by the blood of God 't is enough for us to know that God has done it only by these means and to be sufficiently thankful to him for it And when the Authour or any of his Party shall think fit to engage upon a dispute of satisfaction the Pens of those excellent Defenders of our Religion of late against Popery will not be silent in this dispute if they shall think fit to begin it though all the Tribe down from Servet to this Authour will not be able to shake any part of the Treatises on this subject by the most Excellent Grotius and the Bishop of Worcester But because the Authour here offers nothing but his bare assertion and because I have in part answered this objection already in the fifth Chapter I shall proceed to his next Argument which is That it is not supposable that our Lord should require a belief in his Divinity because it was not required of some of the first Embracers of Christianity such as Philip's Eunuch and the like who were baptized into the Christian Faith he says without any knowledge of his Divinity It is very certain we do not find in Scripture any set Form to be recited by all Persons to be baptized that declares an express belief in our Saviour's Divinity but such a Declaration has been the Custom of the Church in the most early times and therefore though the Scripture do not assert any such Declaration yet such a silence especially considering the compendious way of writing in the Authours of these Books cannot conclude that there was no such form used by them or that all that were to be baptized did not give an express assent to and belief in the Doctrine of the Trinity It is most certain they were baptized with a form of words which does imply that Doctrine viz. In the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost So that unless we will suppose that they were baptized into names which they did not understand which we cannot suppose any reasonable Men should they must understand the meaning and purport of these names and so have a belief in the person as well as in the Doctrine of our Saviour For how can we suppose but that when any new Converts to Christianity should see others baptized before them into these three names of Father Son and Holy Ghost they should never trouble themselves to know who they were If they were Jews they would by this be afraid of running into the Gentile Polytheism and would be sure to be well instructed in this matter for fear of Idolatry If they were Gentile Converts to hear this form without any farther Instruction they would be apt to think this was but to keep in their own Religion still and only to retrench the number of their Gods from 300 to 3 which would be still as much contradiction to the Principles of their Conversion as their former Tenets So that we must needs think that the Apostles did explain this form of Baptism to all that were baptized how suddenly soever and did inform them what these three Persons into whose names they were baptized were and how they were consistent with the unity of the Deity which would give them the full notion of the Doctrine of the
declare his generation We know not at this distance what this Explication of that Bishop was Socrates tells us that he acted the Divine something Philosophically and with a desire of Honour concerning the Trinity asserting an Vnity in Trinity But this had been done often before Alexander's time Tertullian had wrote a Book of it against Praxeas and we may see as curious Disquisitions probably as this was of our Saviour's Divinity in many of the Fathers before Alexander nay the Authour allows the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity to be mostly received in Justin Martyr's time Therefore we cannot suppose that it was this curious Disquisition of Alexander that so offended Arius for if so he might as well be offended with Tertullian and several others But Theodoret gives us the true state of the Case Arius was nettled at Alexander's Advance to the Bishoprick but could not vent his spleen against him by any Accusation of him though he watched him narrowly by reason of the excellent Circumspectness of his Life and therefore took this Opportunity to cavil at his Doctrine only for saying The Son is of equal honour with the Father and of the same substance This Arius had the confidence to contradict in the Face of the Congregation and to say what was never said before says Sozomen That the Son was produced out of nothing That there was a time when he was not So that let Alexander be as wary in his Expressions as he could 't is ten to one but some time or other he had been catched up by Arius who only waited for an opportunity to oppose him and probably it would have been indifferent to him to have broached any other Heresie if he could with any plausibility have contradicted Alexander But notwithstanding this Insolence of Arius in the midst of the Congregation and his endeavouring to gain Proselytes to his Opinion by disputes open and private notwithstanding all this Boldness his Bishop Alexander desires only that he would come to a fair Dispute to try the Truth of his Doctrine and there was a dispute held in which the Bishop supplied the Moderator's part very calmly as the Historian says encouraging each side as they deserved commendation but in the end of the dispute he determined it against Arius and forthwith commands him to renounce his Errour which he and his Followers pertinaciously refusing he at last excommunicates them And truly I think the Bishop had patience enough to suffer so long the Pride and Heresie of this haughty Presbyter and I cannot but admire his Clemency in allowing him a Conference before Excommunication after so impudent an Affront to his Diocesan and one would be apt to think that when the Authour blames Alexander so much for this action he had some little Foresight of his own Case Then followed the great Council of Nice which excommunicated Arius and those Bishops which would not subscribe to its Determinations in this Point and truly the Authour is so civil to let this Council pass over without reflection but runs off again to the Bishop of Alexandria whom he censures for his Disobedience to the Imperial Letters for the restoring of Arius upon account of his being excommunicated by the Council and his wanting the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Confession But 't is not the same Bishop of Alexandria now as was before which the Authour's Words do imply for Alexander whom he was so fierce against before was dead he living but five Months after the Nicene Council and Athanasius was chosen Bishop in his room to the great grief of the Arians Neither was this excellent Person whom all the Arian Party strove to load with the most heavy Accusations and which the Authour would make guilty of great disobedience any ways to be blamed in the matter of restoring Arius Before this matter happened Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis two famous Arian Bishops that had been deposed by the Council and banished by the Emperour were restored upon their exhibiting a fraudulent and dissembling Libel to the Emperour in which they pretend to be sorry for what they had done to consent to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and promise to live peaceably for the future without any further contradiction and add that they do not this to be freed from their Banishment but only because they would not be thought to be guilty of Errour but as soon as ever they were restored they made very little of all these Promises but were as violent in propagating their Arianism as ever and as Socrates says abusing the Favour that was granted them raised a greater Tumult in the World than they had before They labour earnestly to get Arius restored especially Eusebius who deals with an Arian Priest who was Chaplain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Constantia the Sister of Constantine to use his Interest for his Restoration This Priest makes the Lady believe that Arius's Opinions were not such as were reported but she does not dare to tell the Emperour so much but the Emperour visiting her oft in her Sickness she recommends this Priest to him for his Piety and Loyalty This Priest having thus gained an Interest in the Emperour he tells him what he had done to Constantia before and besides that Arius would willingly subscribe to the Decrees of the Nicene Council Upon this relation the Emperour declares That if this be true if he join with the Council and be of their Opinion that he will not only suffer him to approach his Presence but will send him back honourably to Alexandria Upon which the Emperour writes to Arius to wait on him at Constantinople which accordingly he does with his Friend Euzoius who was in the same Circumstances and upon the demand of the Emperour they jointly give him in a Summ of their Belief which is to be seen in the Historians cunningly enough worded it seems to impose upon the Emperour which Creed Sozomen says did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 look both ways might be either Orthodox or Arian as 't was interpreted Upon this the Emperour is willing they should be restored but did not think fitting to do it of himself without the Judgment and approbation of those who are the proper Declarers of this matter according to the Law of the Church And therefore he writes to the Synod of Bishops which were then congregated at Jerusalem to take the matter into their consideration and to inspect their Creed which he sent with them to the Synod But this Synod consisting mostly of Eusebius's Creatures for most of the Orthodox Party had retired after the Solemnity of the Dedication of the Temple was over they that were diligent Favourers of Arius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taking an Opportunity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 took off his Excommunication Upon this the same Faction in the Council writ a Synodical Epistle to the Church of Alexandria the Bishops and Clergy of Aegypt
Thebais and Libya to receive Arius and Euzoius with willing Minds as being restored they say by so great a Synod and they write another to the Emperour to give him an account of what was done and to desire him to see them actually restored Arius then comes to Alexandria but Athanasius who understood all the Fraudulence of the proceeding looking on him still as excommunicate avoided him as an execrable Person and would not restore him Then Arius strives by infusing his Heresie into the People of the City to raise a Tumult thereby to attain his end that way but this not succeeding Eusebius procures a Letter from the Emperour to command him to it This Athanasius civilly answers and informs him That Arius being anathematized by a general Council he cannot be restored by him again This very much inflames the Emperour not well understanding the merits of the Cause and occasions an angry Letter from him in which he threatens his deposing him from his Bishoprick upon refusal This Opportunity Eusebius gladly improves and suborns one Ischyras a rascally Fellow that had usurped the Priesthood without Ordination in the Diocess of Athanasius but being detected by him flies to Eusebius in Nicomedia who receives him as a Priest and promises him a Bishoprick if he would accuse Athanasius which having done he did afterwards procure him Then were trumpt up the Forgeries of the broken Chalice and the cutting off Arsenius's Hand and using it for Magick c. which were the subject of the Debates of the Arian Council at Tyre and have of late made such a noise in our Socinian Pamphlets Now in all this here is no real Disobedience at all of the Bishop to the Emperour as the Authour would pretend for the Emperour will not have him restored unless he be of the opinion of the Nicene Council and besides he does not think it a Point in which he ought to meddle but leaves it to the Council which he thought Orthodox when it was mostly Arian But Athanasius finds that Arius's Creed was drawn up so ambiguously that any one might see he designed nothing but shuffling the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was the Test of Arianism was left out and Arius still as fond of his Doctrines as ever and moreover that the Council which pretended to restore him was but Provincial at best and most of the Orthodox in it retired and the Eusebian Party taking off his Excommunication by a trick and therefore thinks he may very well upon these considerations refuse to restore him notwithstanding the Imperial Letters And truly he or any other Bishop that would take into his Flock such a Wolf as this upon these terms would little deserve the name of a good Pastour and he that should refuse to do so might justify himself from disobedience to any Earthly Authority whatsoever He that will see more of Athanasius's Vindication may see it in his own Apologies I have been more full in the Vindication of this good Man because the scurrillous Pens of late have made it their business after so many hundred years to calumniate him again The next thing that the Authour offers is against the word Consubstantial and this from a saying of Socrates Lib. 1. Cap. 18. not Book the 2. as he quotes it in which the Authour would have him to condemn the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a word which did trouble Mens Minds and which the Bishops themselves did not understand Now Socrates is Friend enough to the Orthodox Cause every one knows which makes the Authour brand him with the name of partial and in many places shews he had no dislike to the word Consubstantial but he has one fault which is common to many Historians that he makes too many remarks upon his Relations and oftentimes in matters the true reason of which we was far from understanding But 't is no great matter what the Historians remarks are 't is their Relations and not their reflections which we are to value and yet after all Socrates does not in the least reflect upon the Orthodox Doctrine or the test of it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shews his dislike indeed to those that made too nice explications of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that crumbled this question into many little Cavils and raised upon it some nice disputes and therefore they that did so were to blame but they might believe what was signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any of these Cavils and they might without any of these Niceties stand up for the word as being thought by the wisdom of the Council to be the best Test to discover the Arian Heresy Then the Authour applauds himself mightily in fansying that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not the same now as it was in Athanasius's time because he in his Dialogues explains this Mystery by the similitude of three Men who are one in their common nature and three in their individual Capacity this the Authour would have to infer a Tritheism and as well to justify the Heathen Polytheism as the Trinity Now these Dialogues though bound up with Athanasius's Works are not his but according to the Opinion of most learned Men are Maximus's but however there is nothing in them which would infer any thing like that which the Authour pretends to He and several other of the Fathers give many Illustrations to explain as far as possible to humane understandings this Mystery but yet they as all other similitudes must not be strained farther than the Authours designed them 't is enough if they bear that Analogy or likeness which are there singled out not that these should have in their whole nature an uniform similitude Now Peter James and John three Individual Men and yet agreeing in one common nature Man are a very good illustration of the Blessed Trinity for as Peter is Man James is Man and John is Man and yet there is but one Man that is one common nature of humanity so the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and yet there is but one God that is one common Divine Nature but yet this illustration does not bear an universal Analogy with the Trinity for Peter James and John agree only in the same common collective nature and are only collectively one but Father Son and Holy Ghost are essentially one So that I say this illustration of the Trinity may be very good though it does not hold universally 't is enough if the three Persons in each agree in a general Unity though they differ in the specification of this Unity 't is enough if both are three and yet one though one be by a collective and the other an essential Oneness So Bishop Priest and Deacon agree in one common Office of Ministry in general and this is brought by the same Father as a farther illustration of this Mystery and so may any other three Species of a Genus or any
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon necessity of his matter but otherways they decreed that these words were to be admitted because they do explode the Opinion of Sabellius that we may not through want of words call God under three Names but that every Name of the Trinity should signify God under a distinct or proper Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what other use do we desire to make of them than this Indeed we will allow the Doctor that some of his celebrated Councils in his other Book to have done as much as he would have this Council to have done or more His good Council of Sirmium published an Impious or Atheistical Exposition of Faith which forbid Nature or Essence to be predicated of God and the famous Council of Ariminum did the like Next he is much displeased that the Latin Schools have over-translated the first of these terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by rendring it Substance which bears too great a Cognation with matter But whatever Substance signifies in its primitive acceptation is no matter at all here it is enough if we understand what is meant by it in its Philosophical or Divine Sense We know as well the precise signification of a word used Metaphorically when we know 't is used so as we do when it is used properly so that 't is a silly exception against this word to say it is Metaphorical for unless some words were to be used Metaphorically ten times as many words as we have would not serve us But if the Latins mean the same by Substance as the Greeks do by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where is all the harm that is done then Now the only way of knowing the sense of words is by their Definitions and both the Latins and the Greeks define the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Substantia alike and therefore they must have the same signification Aquinas defines Substance to be a thing which has a Being by which it is by its self and is neither in a subject nor is predicated of a subject and Cyril defines a Substance or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing that subsists by its self which wanteth not any thing else to its Constitution or Subsistence and so Suidas to the same purpose So that if the Latins and the Greeks understand the same thing as 't is plain by these Definitions that they do then there is no injury done by rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Substantia So again I can see no harm in translating the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Persona if the same thing be understood by both Words as 't is plain the later Authors in both Languages do understand Indeed the Latins at first did very much except against the word Hypostasis as the Greeks used it because they generally translated that word by Substantia who by the scantiness of their Language could not distinguish Hypostasis from Essence or Substance and not by Persona or Substantia and therefore to assert three Hypostasis was the same with them as to make three Gods Now this mistake indeed about the sense of the word did occasion some contention for a while till the Council of Alexandria was celebrated in the Year 372 and then they came to a right understanding and ever after both Latins and Greeks used the word alike Indeed the Arians did always except against the word Hypostasis as Acacius and his Faction in the Council of Constantinople and the Eusebians in the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia but that I hope will be no prejudice against it for they excepted against the word and the sense of it too So that we have no reason to quarrel with these terms which serve so excellently to express these Divine Truths of this Holy Mystery we only ought to take care to understand and them aright which is easy enough to do by their so long and constant use in the Church and not to run off from these to any new whimsical Explications Next the Doctor sets to work to his exposition of the Trinity which because he will not have it be mysterious he is resolved to have it demonstrable by the Light of Nature for he says the Light of Nature doth demonstrate what St. John affirmeth There are Three Persons that bear witness c. There are a great many in the world that the Doctor would oblige with a little of this Demonstration but whatever we may expect from him hereafter since this wonderful Illumination I am sure what he has given us in this Chapter is far enough from it He tells us That the Three Persons in the Trinity are Mind Reason and Power the Reason or the Logos is begotten or conceived of the Mind the Father both which are imperfect unless perfected by Power or Action which is the Holy-Ghost Now is this the Explication that agrees to a Syllable both to the Holy Scripture and the Church of England is this the putting the old Materials into a new and better Frame which he so boasts of They are old Materials indeed as old as Sabellius and the other Hereticks of his stamp but neither older nor newer than their Heresies For I pray what difference is there between Sabellius's Explication of the Trinity and the Doctor 's The Sabellians taught That the Father Son and Holy-Ghost were the same so that there were Three Names in One Person and as in a Man there is Body Soul and Spirit or Mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the Body is as it were the Father the Soul the Son and that which is the Spirit in Man is the Holy-Ghost in the Deity All the Difference between these two Notions of the Trinity is That Sabellius's inclines a little more to the Epicurean and the Doctor 's to the Platonick Philosophy but both of them are far enough from Truth and Scripture Nay the Doctor 's Explication is the more Sabellian of the two because his Distinction of the Persons is the more nominal for Body Soul and Spirit are more distinct than Mind Reason and Operation So that by striving to avoid Sabellianism as he pretends he has out-done Sabellius himself in his own Heresie But after all what can we make of our Author's Trinity which any Vnitarian will not agree to Mind Reason and Action why are not all these in every Man and every rational Being as well as in God and I hope he will not make as many Trinities as there are intelligent Beings Besides Mind Reason and Energy or Action are but divers Modus of the same thing Mind is the rational Principle simply considered Reason is the same Soul considered Discursive or Reasoning and Action or Energy is the Soul putting the determination of such Reasoning into act but still these are but distinct Modus's of the same Soul But what are these to Three distinct Persons in one Essence There every Person is by a proper personal difference distinguished from
each other not by any particular modality but by a true and real subsistence But when the Doctor makes the Son to be only Reason he can only make him an accident or at best but a Modality of the Father For if he only be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or what answers to it the internal Conception of the Father's Mind he would be only an Accident or Attribute or Mode or what else you 'll please to call it but would be far enough from that which the Church has all along called a Person And therefore the learned Fathers in the Church have been always careful to distinguish between this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between the prolative or enunciative word and the essential and substantial one For the Son is not therefore called the word because he is the Reason of the Divine Mind or the Father but because he is generated of the Father without Passion For they explained this Generation by the production of a thought or word which was not produced by division or separation of parts which implies Passion but in a certain manner incommunicable to all Corporeal Beings So when the Doctor makes the Holy Ghost to be only the Power or Energy or Action of God what is this more than what the Socinians contend for and the Samosetanians and Followers of Simon Magus were Condemned for Nazianzen says that the Simonians thought the Holy Spirit was only an Energy and Leontius tells us that Paulus Samosetanus held the like Besides if the Holy Ghost be only an action with what propriety of speech can he be said to act or do With what tolerable sense can an action be said to speak and the Spirit said unto Peter Act. 10. 20. The Holy Ghost said uno them at Antioch Act. 13. How can an action or energy be said to search all things to make intercession for us to divide to every man severally as he will to reprove the World to guide us into all truth 'T is the nature of an Action to be acted but it can in no propriety be said it self to act But the Doctor says this Doctrine is stated by the Fathers as he has done it I hope by his Fathers he does not mean such as the Ministers of Alba Julia call so the famous Fathers Berillus Samosetanus Photinus c. and indeed some of these we have shewn to have explained the Trinity something at this rate but none of the Orthodox ones that I know of say any thing like it But he says St. Austin the Oracle of the Schoolmen states it thus whom Dr. Sherlock follows in his Book of the Trinity I know St. Austin in his Books de Trinitate if he means those has a great many strange Platonick Notions which I confess I do not understand and which perhaps St. Austin himself had no clear conceptions of when he wrote them but however there is enough in those Books to shew that St. Austin never designed such a nominal distinction in the Trinity as this Authour does What Dr. Sherlock says on this matter I have not time now to consult though when I read his Book I don't remember he gave any Countenance to this Opinion nay on the contrary some have been displeased with that Learned Doctor for making too great a distinction between the Persons of the Trinity not for making them three Names or Modus's as our Doctor does but for making them three distinct Minds or Spirits which are one by mutual Consciousness But what though these great Men should speak more nicely than ordinary of these Mysteries though they should wade deeper into them than other men The great Genius's of these admirable Persons and the strength of their natural reason will help to bear them out but I would advise our Authour to a little more cautiousness he poor Gentleman may be out of his depth before he is aware and therefore I am sure 't is his best way to keep within the ordinary Compass FINIS A Short HISTORY OF SOCINIANISM THE Heretical Persuasion of our Blessed Saviour's being only mere Man and the consequent Doctrines which ensue thereupon have of late Years been called Socinianism from the two Socinus's the most famous Inventors and Propagators of this Doctrine in the last Age for though the Heresie it self as to some parts of it was much older yet it had been altogether unknown for many Ages till by the Books of Servet the Socinus's and some other Hereticks in the last Age it was revived The first that set up this damnable Doctrine was the Heretick Cerinthus who lived in the Apostlick times and was Contemporary with St. John the Evangelist He asserted That Jesus was mere Man as others were and that he did not excell the rest in Justice or Wisdom or Prudence The Confutation of this Heresie was a special motive to St. John to write his Gospel or at least to be more express than the rest of the Evangelists in asserting our Lord's Divinity Ebion the Scholar of Cerinthus followed after his Master in this Heresie and propagated his Doctrines in Asia Cyprus Rome and elsewhere he asserted That Christ was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pure Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only common and mere Man This Heresie in the Second Age was propagated by one Theodotus Scytes or the Currier who taught likewise That Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mere Man and was excommunicated by Victor Bishop of Rome for this Blasphemy Artemon followed Theodotus who said That Christ was mere Man only more excellent in Vertue or Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than the Prophets Against this Artemon there was a famous Book wrote which Eusebius mentions in which it was proved That the Ancient Christians did not believe his Doctrine as he pretended and in which the Authorities of Justin Martyr Miltiades Tatian Clemens are brought to confute him Sixty years after his Death in the Third Age about the Year 270 Paulus Samosetanus disseminated this Doctrine and asserted That Christ had only the common Nature of Man He was condemned in the Council at Antioch 272. Much about this time or somewhat before Sabellius broached his Heresie not much unlike the rest of these he held That there was but One Person in the Deity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under Three Names which does in effect as St. Basil says upon this account deny Christ's Divinity Arius who followed after and made such a noise in the World with his Heresie whatever his thoughts might be yet he did not expressly assert Christ to be mere Man but only to be a Creature produced in time yet one that had a Being long before his conception in the Womb of the Virgin and therefore he cannot so properly come into the List of these Hereticks But soon after the Nicene Determinations against Arius Photinus one of the
old Cerinthian Race starts up who was Bishop of Sirmium and asserts again That Christ was mere man and had no Being before the Ages and That he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had his sole Beginning from the time he was conceived in the Virgin 's Womb. These were the chief Propugners of this Heresie in the Primitive times there being none of any considerable note after these for then almost all the Heresies ran into Arianism Nestorianism Eutychianism c. the prevailing Heresies of the succeeding Ages And indeed this Heresie seemed to be quite lost till Petrus Abelardus in the Twelfth Century did revive it He about the Year 1140 was a famous Philosopher and Divine and Professor at Paris he asserted That he could comprehend the Godhead with humane Reason totum id quod Deus est humanà ratione comprehendere and wrote such things of the Trinity of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Holy Ghost and innumerable things of the like nature as were unheard of by Catholick Ears he affirmed The Holy-Ghost not to be of the Essence of the Father and denied Original Sin and the Satisfaction of Christ Which are all the true Characteristicks of the Socinian Heresie These were the most remarkable of this sort of Vnitarian Hereticks till the time of the Reformation and the first then that stood up for this Heterodoxy was Michael Servetus a Spaniard by Profession a Physician who having travelled into Africa and being instructed in the Principles of Mahometanism set up for the Vnitarian Doctrine in Europe He in the year 1531 published his Book Entituled Lib. 7. de Error Trinitatis which was printed at Basil This Book was filled with innumerable Blasphemies and impious Mockeries upon the Holy Trinity upon which account most of the Copies of it were soon after publickly burnt at Frankford But notwithstanding this they were privately handed about so that many that were inclinable to a separation from the Romish Errours were poysoned by this Book into worse And therefore Philip Melanchton writes a Letter from Lipsick 1539. to have the Senate of Venice put in mind of suppressing his Heresy But Servet in the mean time uses all imaginable diligence to disseminate his Doctrines and to this end goes from place to place practising Physick under the feigned name of Michael Villonovanus when he wrote a Book of Syrops and as Munster says a Comment on Ptolemies Geography He afterwards wrote some other Heretical Pieces alike blasphemous with the other as one Entituled A Dialogue de Restitutione Christianismi quoted by Bullinger an Apology to Melanchton and the Ministers of Geneva Calvin c. in which Books Calvin in his Confutation says plus centum c. he more than a hundred times over calls the Holy Trinity the three headed Cerberus a Diabolical Phantasm the Monster Gerion the illusion of Satan c. His Book of the Restitution of Christianity which was a large Volume he published at Vienna Allobrogum where for the same he was cast into Prison but he escaped from thence to Geneva where he was discovered and afterwards condemned and burned in the year 1568. by the desire of the Evangelick Cantons The next follower of Servetus and the fore-runner of Socinus was Valentinus Gentilis born at Consenza in Italy who agreed with Servetus in his Doctrine that the Father was the only Divine Essence but asserted that the Son was essentiated by him and made another God as likewise the Holy Ghost So that there were not three Persons in one Essence but three distinct Essences in the God-head or rather one Primary God and two Secundary or Deisied Ones These Blasphemies he having for some time vented in the World particularly at Geneva he was by the Magistrates of that City thrown into Prison where not having staid long he of his own accord promises amendment recants his Errors and desires to be freed But the Magistrates resolved not to free him unless he will undergo the Pennance they prescribe him which accordingly he did to be stripped to his Shirt and barefooted and bareheaded to kneel down and beg pardon for his Crimes and with his own hands to throw his Heretical Writings into the Fire to be prepared for that purpose and in this Habit to be led through all the Streets of the City declaring his Repentance before all the People This having performed he petitions again for his enlargement which would not ye be granted unless he would swear not only to forbear the spreading of his Heresy but that he would never go out of the City without leave from the Senate And this too he readily did But no sooner was he freed but he little valuing his Oath flies from Geneva to his Friend Gribaldus living at a place called Farges in the Canton of Bern where he had conference with Alciat a famous Vnitarian in order to the spreading their Heresy From thence he went to Lyons to diffuse his Doctrine there from thence to Grenoble from thence to Cambray and so to Farges again where the Governour of Gaia to whose Jurisdiction Farges does belong imprisons him again but upon promise of living quietly releases him From thence he goes again to Lyons and was there imprisoned a third time by the Governour of that City but he perswading the Papists there that his Controversy was only against Calvin they thinking thereby to do Calvin a spight forthwith release him Afterwards he having spread his Poyson in France and Italy flies to Poland where he joyns with Blandrata and Alciat to infect the Polish Church Here not having staid more than two years these Heresiarcks fall out among themselves Blandrata turning down-right Arian and Alciat Mahometan so Gentilis passes to Moravia and strikes in for some time with the Anabaptists there from thence he goes for Austria and afterwards for Savoy and so roving from place to place and disseminating his Blasphemies he came at last again into the Province of Bern where being discovered he was tried for several blasphemous Positions there and being convicted was executed persisting in his Heresy to the very last blasphemare simul vivere desiit Georgius Blandrata who was another Zealous Vnitarian about this time was a Physician by Profession and propagated his Doctrines at Geneva where he had several Disputes with Calvin in whose Work is extant Responsum ad Quaestiones Blandratae but he flew from thence presently after Gentilis did suspecting that the Magistrates had a design against him too From thence he went and practised Physick in Poland and Transylvania thereby to have the better covert for his Heresy and the more easily to instill it into Persons of the highest Quality He wrote a Book in Answer to Georgius Major against the Trinity full of blasphemous Expressions such as Symbolorum de Patre Filio figmenta Deum confusum tripersonatum ex tribus Personis compositum and calls