Vnitarians that there have been Vnitarians all along and that many of them were the most learned of their time Who for instance more learned than Theodotian Symmachus Paulus Samosatenus Lucianus and Origen Arius and Eusebius for these last as Arians or Semi-Arians may as well as the former be reck'ned Vnitarians Even from the 28th Chapter of the 5th Book of Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History it appears that at least a great Number of the Primitive Bishops and Churches were Vnitarians Justin Martyr owns Vnitarians for his Christian Brethren Colloq cum Tryphon Jud. P. 207. But by a Quotation in the aforesaid Chapter of Eusebius it appears the Vnitarians pretended they were all along in the first Century the greatest Number and had the Succession of Bishops in their Sentiment in the most considerable Places even till Popes Victor and Zepherin at the end of the second Century which doth not seem to be there disproved as it might then have been if it had not been true Origen owns the Jewish Christians were generally Vnitarians Contr. Cels. L. 2. P. 56. It appears that Theodoret doth the same Haeret. Fab. L. 2. C. 3. For the Jewish Christians especially were call'd Nazarens as well as Ebionites as appears Acts 24 5. Epiphan Haeres Naz. C. 1 Augustin de Haeres C. 9 10. St. Jerom. Epist ad August Thus it is own'd the Ebionites and Nazarens were no contemptible Vnitarians and they were thus nick-nam'd first by the unbelieving Jews and in like manner probably by the Heathens and afterwards by the platonizing Christians A few years after the Council of Nice the greatest part of Christians were Vnitarians In fine there have always been some Unitarian Christians in Asia and there are many Churches of them to this day in the Dominions of the Pagan and Mahometan Princes and even in Muscovy as well as in Transilvania in Hungary Solavonia and Illyricum IV. It is certain that all the Doctors that in the greatest part of the second Century were proselyted from Heathenism and that became the great ring-leaders were wholly devoted to not to say infatuated with Plato's Philosophy Even the Popish Criticks complain of it Huet Origenian L. 2. C. 2. And even some of them do insinuate what indeed cannot be doubted of that upon that account the Writings of the Primitive Vnitarians were destroy'd by the Trinitarians Vales. in Euseb L. 5. C. 11. Now all the unscriptural Terms which are us'd concerning the Trinity and which have caus'd all the Division being found in the Platonick Philosophers and so many of the Primitive Christians being avowedly Platonists it cannot be question'd or wonder'd from whence those Terms were brought in or which way came the alteration of Doctrine V. It cannot be denied but that about and since the Council of Nice the greatest Violences have been constantly used to suppress the Vnitarians It is not strange therefore if they have been driven out of many Places where the Governours persisted to persecute them Thus Protestants have been extirpated out of Spain Bohemia and in a great measure out of France VI. It seems incontestable that the Primitive Trinitarians or those commonly held such differed from those of the Council of Nice and their Followers and that these as well as the former differ from the present Scholasticks For the present Scholasticks assert that there is but one Divine Spirit and that the Son and Holy Ghost are eternal and necessary Persons equal to the Father The Nicene in their Creed say that the Son is God of God which implies distinct God of distinct God or a distinct God which title they give not to the Spirit Gregory Nazianzen says that many good Catholicks in his time would have been scandalized if in the religious Assemblies the Holy Spirit had openly been said to be God Orat. 20. The Great St. Basil says that God is not one in Number but only in Nature horrid Polytheism perfect Heathenism and too palpable a Demonstration of the Mischief of Platonism and of the then prodigious Alteration of the true Doctrine and with the current of the Doctors of those times he represents the three Persons as being as distinct Beings as three Men 141 Epist ad Caesariens Irenaeus teaches that the Father is greater than the Son Advers Haeres L. 2. C 49 and that besides the Father and the Son no other is of his own Person Lord or God L. 3. C. 9. Justin Martyr who owns that he and at least many Christians in the second Century ador'd and worshipped the Prophetick Spirit and the Host of the other good Angels together with God and his Son Apol. 2. P. 43 affirms that the Son had not a necessary Being but was voluntarily begotten of the Father that he is inferiour to him ministring to the Will of the Father Ibid. P. 221. that the unbegotten God or the Father doth not descend or ascend from any place neither is moved seeing he cannot be contain'd in any place but that this might be said from the beginning of the World of the Son who sais he by the Father's Will is a God and in the beginning before the Creation of the World was generated of the Father Ibid. P. 221 and 280. Accordingly Tertullian holds that there was a time when the Son was not Advers Hermogen C. 3. The Council which magisterially condemned the Doctrine professed by Paulus Samosatenus and his Party at Antioch at the same time decred that the Son is not of the same Essence with the Father as is even noted by Dalaeus in his Treatise De usu Patrum Lib. 1. Cap. 5. Thus by these very instances it appears that the Trinitarians have so much varied that a constant Tradition cannot be pleaded For these several reasons it seems that too great a stress should not be laid on the pretended Ecclesiastical Antiquity of this Sentiment but on the contrary that the chiefest Inquiry should be What appears most decisive in Scripture and Reason concerning the Points themselves that are controverted and concerning which it seems that the least that can be granted is that with relation to them we should keep in Terms of Vnion to the Generality of the Terms of Scripture If that should prove a Mistake yet it is very fit that so important a Matter should be most carefully consider'd and debated that the Errour may be evinc'd and confuted by those that may have the opportunity to do it But if this be no Errour the not considering of it cannot but be most pernicious wherefore I cannot but wish this were communicated to several learned Men in order to their giving their Opinion and Reasons concerning these things It seems that for any thing that appears to the contrary by the Father the Word and the Spirit in understanding them of God we may understand what the Vnitarians then understand thereby Namely God and the Divine Wisdom and the Divine Power or Divine Inspiration and that our Prayers are to be addressed to
Persons implies three Gods for every All-Perfect Person subsisting of its self must have in it self whatsoever is necessary to the constituting of a true intire and distinct God The asserting therefore three distinct Divine Persons is to assert so many Gods And so it is very important for the Honour of Christianity and all the Concerns of Religion to be freed from that Scholastick term which sets up Polytheism disguises the most excellent Revelation destroys the Purity and Simplicity of the Gospel and appears contradictory and impossible If the Son were a Divine Person as the Father this Contradiction would follow that the Divine Essence were both Begotten and Vnbegotten for each Person is said to be the same Essence together with a peculiar Relation A Relation alone is not said to be a Person but a Relation with the Essence Therefore the Essence with a peculiar Relation must be Vnbegotten and the same Essence with another Relation must be Begotten The Scripture says Mark 13 32 the Son knew not something that God knew the Fulness of the Godhead imparting its influences to him at one time more than at another as the Soul doth to the Body insomuch that Christ grew in Knowledge and not communicating it's Nature to the Human Spirit in which it dwells so as to make it cease to be a Creature or a Finite Being Now not only there are not two Sons in Christ but it is not rational nor the Stile of any Language to deny simply or in general terms of a Being what is true of any Part of him Therefore denying that the Son knew what God knew it appears that by the Son the Scripture doth not understand the Divine Nature but the Human tho' by a Figure possibly by the Son we may mean that Influence of the Divine Wisdom and Power which is communicated to and dwells in the Son the Man Christ This Argument is illustrated in the 1st Book of Crell's Treatise Touching one God the Father Sect. 2 Chap. 9. It is said that the Father only knew of that Day Matth. 24 36. Therefore the Father only is the God who thus dwells by his Wisdom in the Soul of Jesus so as to be intimately united therewith as was said This is confirm'd by Crell's observations in the first Chapter of his aforesaid Book on John 17 3. And in many other Places the Scripture is express that the Father is the only Person who is God in the true or proper Sense of that word 1 Cor. 8 6. Ephes 4 6. c. Thus and it seems thus only the Divine Unity is preserved and establish'd And if so the Scholastick Terms should not be imposed There is a small Octavo on that Subject intituled Apologia pro Irenico Magno which I wish were considered and answered if answerable the said Octavo and its Arguments being proposed as intended to know the Reasons of others on this Subject By the Holy Spirit it seems the Scripture understands the Divine Inspiration or Miraculous Power as was intimated in the First Letter commonly joined with or annexed to and communicated by the Elect Angels 1 Tim. 5 21 particularly the Seven Archangels Revel 1 4 the First whereof undoubtedly is the Chief of the Angels not personally united with the Divine Power or God for he doth not represent God at the Head of the Universe but as an inferiour Officer acting in concurrence with the Divine Power This as was shewn seems to be deducible from several Texts of Scripture And so the Holy Spirit is both the Divine Power and the Angels whom God employs God is pleased to work with them and to have them work with him Therefore God employing them in his Works and particularly in the Service of the Church they are subject to it's Head the Governour of the World for whom all the Parts of the Universe and all Things whether in Heaven or Earth were created to the Glory of God being disposed of by our Lord Jesus Christ in the best Order which is most agreeable to God God speaks by his Word or Word-bearer the First-born who is as it were the Mouth of God or his Speaker and the Angels obey and the Divine Power co-operates and concurs with them God in the beginning shewed the Son what was to be done And the Son shewed it to the Chief of the Angels when they were created and with the concurrence of the Word appointed to their several Stations God did work before the Son And the Son did work like him being enabled by the Father taught by the Divine Wisdom and seconded by the Angels when created but assisted by infinite Power But the Work is ascribed to the Soveraign and the First Actor under him as the taking of a Town is ascribed to the General and to the Prince by whose Authority he acts This System seems to account for those Places of Scripture which import that Christ created or disposed all things together with God that the Son can do nothing of himself but that what he sees the Father do he doth the like the Son seeing thereby what he is to desire of the Divine Power as Grotius notes on John 5 19 20 21. and that Christ is the Word of God and that he is a God that the Angels are Ministring Spirits c. Till his Incarnation the Word or aforesaid Word-bearer was as a Son in his Minority in his Father's House Then a Son little differs from the Servants tho' he is the Heir he is then under probation for the Inheritance In his Pilgrimage on Earth he was in a State of greater Humiliation At his Ascension and Exaltation he was then properly and most eminently associated to the Empire of the Universe This is properly God the Son or the Man Christ Jesus exalted and in his Human Nature made the King of Kings under God in which sense in the Scripture-stile he may be said to have created or disposed and modelled all things in Heaven and Earth as Grotius shews in his Annotations on Col. 1 16 and he may as such a Man much more be said to be God than the Bread of the Eucharist is said to be his Body These things not only appear in a great measure conceivable and intelligible rational and free from intolerable difficulties and in short accountable and maintainable but they seem perfectly agreeable to the Holy Scripture The Primitive Antiquity as I said seems very much divided and uncertain about this most obscure Subject concerning which it was not impossible to mistake considering the great Generality and the mysterious and obscure Manner in which it pleas'd the Holy Inspiration of God to dictate it to the Sacred Writers and considering the Philosophy that than prevailed Howbeit even by the Notions of Irenaeus Justin Martyr Origen and all the Doctors that began so early in some measure to platonize it seems that they were then properly Semi-Arians and therefore rather Vnitarians than otherwise And so the Error of either side
could not then be great But there is no Antiquity and Authority like that of the Scripture And it seems that this kind of Arian or Semi-Arian System which I have described in these two Letters is the most agreeable to it If I err in my Sentiment I said I hope I am but of those Weak in the Faith who may be received and whom God will receive for I am heartily desirous to know his Will and the Truth to follow it and have fervently prayed him to shew it me so far at least as it is necessary to to be known And this Unitarian System little differs from the Trinitarian It seems indeed strange to address distinct Prayers to the Divine Power The Scripture doth it not It seems in a manner as harsh as to represent it as a distinct Deity and it seems to do it in making of it a Divine Person And tho' the Man Christ Jesus may be invocated by Wishes when absent we find he is invocated in Scripture as Mediator between God and Man and as united to the Godhead yet as a distinct supremely Divine Person is I think no where expresly taught in Scripture nor necessarily deducible from any Argument It seems Christ now is sufficiently invocated here by us when both we are denominated by him and he is so call'd and relied upon in our Prayers that our Petitions are put up to God in his Name and that we therein offer up his Sacrifice to God and plead his Merits and Intercession This is actually to call upon his Name in Prayer as is observed in the Brief History of the Vnitarians on Acts 9 14 and 21. As St. Jerom rejected and protested against the term Persons and St. Austin owned it to be improper and Mr. Calvin opined it sufficed to say Properties Dr. Sherlock Page 7th of his Book which is intituled The present State of the Socinian Controversy observes that the Truth doth not depend upon the use of this and other the like Scholastick terms for he owns the true Faith was before them Why should they then be imposed By the second and third Persons may those partial Considerations of the Divine Mind be understood the Divine Wisdom and Power or Inspiration There would then be no Difference in the Doctrine for all do acknowledge these things to be in God But for the Term it cannot be warrantable to impose the calling Wisdom and Power Persons for the reasons aforesaid And on the other hand when God is worshipped can we then be wanting in our Worship of what is supremely adorable That cannot be imagined In summ The term Persons is not in Scripture in speaking of the Divine Nature The Texts alledged for it or for the sense and import of that term are very rationally susceptible of another signification Nevertheless the Divine Mind Wisdom and Power are owned to be in God and to be God or eternal infinite all-perfect 'T is granted all that is in God is reducible to these three Divine Intellect or Mind Wisdom and Power the Divine Will being implied in the Divine Power or the Power in the Will and the Divine Wisdom comprehending the Divine Goodness and Justice But then the Divine Mind is most properly the Divine Essence and the Divine Wisdom and Power are incontestably Divine Properties 'T is from Plato's School that Christians learned to make Persons of them And it seems manifestly that the Doctrine of three Persons in one God is encumbred with unavoidable Contradictions What must I do I cannot think otherwise of that term nor of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds which use it or imply it I most humbly beseech You for God's sake to compassionate me if I seem to mistake in my thoughts concerning the scholastick terms May these things be so considered and illustrated that the Truth may be made to appear most conspicuous to all that are sincere I humbly beg your Prayers and am c. P. S. If by the Word and the Spirit should seem to be understood some things in the Divine Nature somewhat analogous to Persons yet first of all it seems at least they must be not only inferiour to the Father but as it were some Portion as Grotius notes on John 1 2 or but some Beams of his Person in some measure as are to a Man his right Hand and left Hand insomuch that the Father communicates of his Perfections to them but so far as he pleases For the Scripture as we have seen John 17 3. 1 Cor. 8 6 c represents the Father not only as the Superiour but as the whole Godhead all that Christ and the Holy Spirit do is ascribed to the Father as the Chief and Primary Cause working in and by them Christ says that the Father who dwells in him doth the Works that the Son can do nothing of himself that the Son knew not when was to be the Day of Judgement that the Spirit not only is sent but is taught and commissionated what to do and say and if the Practice of Scripture and the Texts to that purpose be exactly weighed it seems that Christians are not directed to address their Prayers to the Son or the Spirit but to the Father or God in general terms For when in a Vision Christ is both seen and heard speak since his Exaltation that is a particular case there being no doubt but that not only he is then to be personally honoured but may then certainly be applied to tho' not as a distinct and second Divine Person yet as the Mediator between God and Men and as the Viceroy of the Universe assisted by the Godhead dwelling in him as was said It should then be observed Reason and Scripture plainly shew us that the Divine Mind is endued with infinite Wisdom and Power as being the natural and necessary Perfections and Properties of the Divine Mind it self But that the Divine Wisdom and Power are real and distinct Persons that particular Prayers should be address'd distinctly to the Divine Mind distinctly to the Divine Wisdom and distinctly to the Divine Power and that the Deity consists of several real Things or real Portions whereof the one has excellencies above the other seems unaccountable to the most sedate Reason and appears not expresly specified in the Word of God Now it seems that from this consideration all along enforced or made way for in these Two Letters these two Inferences do necessarily follow First We should then ordinarily and in common Assemblies content our selves to direct our Prayers to the Father or God in general terms as the greatest number of the reformed Churches do these incontestably would be the safest Measures in so intricate a Matter it being certain that when God is worshipped all is adored that is supremely adorable and we should content our selves with the Apostles Creed the Expressions whereof are as general as those of Scripture whereas Human Terms more decisive may be erroneous and may cause just scruples in so abstruse a subject
the Father or God in general terms Most learned Men among Protestants have been of that opinion I have mentioned Calvin's observation that the acknowledgement of the Divine Properties is sufficient without insisting on the term Persons Luther says it were better to call Almighty God God than Trinity Postil Major Domini◠Forbesius asserts that the Persons as Persons are not the Object of Worship that the adoring of them dictinctly is extremely pernicious that then divers Objects of Worship are represented and that this Practice is founded on no Precept or Example of Holy Scripture c. Instruction Historico-Theologic Part. 1. Qu. 31 a. 1. Casaubon opines that in such accumulate repeated Invocations the Church imitated the Heathens who not knowing which of the Gods or Godesses they had best apply themselves to therefore called upon them all Exercit. P. 327. But we know that the Spirit doth nothing but what he is commissionated John 16 13. that the Father dwells in the Son John 14 10 and that the Son doth nothing but what the Father shews him John 5 30. Therefore incontestably it is sufficient to address to the Father And we should content our selves to do so for this reason that it is sufficient and safe on the one hand and on the other that the Unitarian Arguments appear very considerable or rather unanswerable The Vnitarians shew That all that Christ doth he doth it by the Assistance of the Father John 14 10 That tho there is but one God properly or in the most eminent sense yet that title in Scripture is sometimes communicated to some Creatures and is of the same import with that of Soveraign John 10 34 c. That Christ is not only the Word or Great Messenger of God but most eminently represents God and is made under God the Soveraign of Men and Angels and that God continually assists him in the discharge of his Office and continually doth for him at his request all that is necessary to that end Hebr. 2 8 John 11 42 That it being usual among the Jews it is the stile of the New Testament to apply by way of accommodation some Sayings and Texts of the Old Testament to some Events and Cases or Circumstances to which they may be applicable in a sense not exactly the same with that implied in the Ancient Prophets Matth. 2 15. Matth. 2 18. Matth. 2 23. Gal. 3 11 Rom. 10 13 That the New Creation or New Modelling of all Things by the Gospel is by a Figure in the New Testament constantly compared to the first Creation John 1.1 c Mark 〈…〉 Hebr. 1 10. Hebr. 2 5 That the Godhead most intimately dwelling and most extraordinarily operating in the Messiah so that the Man Jesus Christ is the most glorious Schechina figured by the Cloud in the Wilderness and by the Ark of the Jewish Covenant wherein God shewed himself present and before which the People of God worshipped and prostrated themselves and Christ most eminently representing God being exalted to the Soveraignty of the Universe and being assisted with the Divine Wisdom and Power the New Testament by way of accommodation ascribes to the Messiah invested with that Power and Dignity the most glorious Actions attributed to God in the Old Testament and the Divine Attributes and Properties which may be suppos'd to be in some sense or in some manner communicated to him by the Divine Indwelling John 1 1 c Hebr. 1 10. Matth. 18 20. Matth. 28 20. Revel 1 11. Revel 2 23. That after all in fine the Scripture expresly shews that the Father is the only true God or that the Father alone is God in the proper and eminent sense of that word John 17 3. 1 Cor. 8 6. Ephes 4 6. Matth. 24 36. Mark 13 32. c. About two hundred Texts distinguish God from Christ Now as Dr. Sherlock himself observes in his Answer to the Bishop of Gloucester or The Scripture-Proofs of our Saviour's Divinity explain'd c. P. 55 If but one Text of Scripture proves that no other Person but the Father alone is God as the five last quoted are in particular taken by the Vnitarians most expresly to do that must put an end to this Controversy and excuse or justify all the Interpretations of Scripture given by the Vnitarians how harsh soever they may otherwise now appear The Dr. has that observation in several other places of that Book Pages 47 50 58. It seems the Unitarian Interpretations do not appear so harsh and unnatural if the stile of Scripture be carefully attended unto as may be seen in the Brief History of the Vnitarians or in Grotius his Annotations For these reasons I conclude for the Generality of the Terms of Scripture Scripture and Reason being the Light of God Ps 119 105 Prov. 20 27 to which every one is to attend Rom. 10 8 1 Cor. 10 15 no one being to judge for others in intricate Matters but all being to unite in that which is Clear and Express or in the Latitude and Expressions of the Rule it self 2 Cor. 1 24 Rom. 14 13 and 19 Phil. 3 16 c. And if these reasons are invalid to the concluding of the Fitness of such a Method of Church-Communion as I have mentioned I earnestly wish that their invalidity may be shewn in the Spirit of the Gospel But if that Method be fit and necessary then may it be followed that God may be propitious to us and that we may serve him as we ought to do in Righteousness Charity and true Piety Amen! FINIS ERRATA PAge 2. Line 13. for Desiring or Willing read Willing or Desiring p. 2. l. 18. f. the r. this p. 6. l. 1. after Scripture add which like that of all the Eastern Tongues is extraordinarily figurative p. 8. l. 29. f. Is r. If. p. 8 l. 33. after Trinitarian add as the Modalists who are the greatest Number do now represent it