Reason we must notwithstanding prefer an Interpretation of it that is Absurd and contrary to it self to Reason and to the rest of Scripture such as the Trinitarian Interpretation exprest in this Creed appears to be In a word the Question only is whether we ought to interpret Holy Scripture when it speaks of God according to Reason or not that is like Fools or like Wise Men The Son is of the Father alone not Made nor Created but Begotten Here and in the next period Athanasius is got into his Altitudes or Profundities which you will Here 't is that the Ignorant think they are taught the Inmost Secrets of Theological Knowledge but High and Low are not more contrary than the things which are here affirmed as equal Truths If the Creed-maker had spoke here of the Generation of the Son by the Divine Power on the Virgin Mary it would have been true that the Son is neither Made nor Created but Begotten but then the first part of the Article would be false that the Son is of the Father alone for He that has a Father and a Mother is of Both. But since he speaks of the pretended Eternal Generation the latter part of the Article is false and inconsistent with the first part of it Every Novice in Grammar and proper speaking knows that Begotten when 't is distinguished from Made and Created always supposes two Parents a Mother as well as Father 't is therefore a Contradiction to say the Son is of the Father alone not Made nor Created but Begotten for if He is Begotten He cannot be of the Father alone and if He is of the Father alone He is not begotten but either Made or Created The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son neither Made nor Created nor Begotten but Proceeding The first Fault here is that the Holy spirit is said to proceed from the Father and from the Son To which Heresie the Greek Church have ever opposed those clear words John 15.26 When the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from the Father even the Spirit of Truth which Proceeded from the Father He shall testify of me Secondly He saith here that the Holy Ghost is not Begotten but Proceeding He adds shortly after that He who will be saved must thus think of the Trinity Therefore surely Begotten and Proceeding differ very much and very clearly else t is an Harsh Sentence that we shall be damned if we do not Conceive besides all other unconceivable Mysteries of this Creed that the Holy Ghost is not Begotten but Proceeds Yet after all 't is now confessed by the most Learned Trinitarians that Begotten and Proceeding differ nothing at all and that it is rightly said The Son proceeds from the Father and that the Holy Ghost is generated of Both directly contrary to this Creed It follows that Athanasius has damned the whole World for not distinguishing where no Distinction can be made at least with any certainty And perhaps this Damning Humour of his has justly provoked some to write him not S. Athanasius but drawing the S. a little nearer Sathanasius So there is one Father not Three Fathers one Son not three Sons one Holy Ghost not three Holy Ghosts In consistence with what goes before He should have said Two Fathers Two Sons and Three Holy Ghosts or Spirits For the Second Person is the Son of the First and the Third proceeds which is nothing else but is Generated from the First and Second which makes Two Fathers and Two Sons and all Three of them are Holy Spirits for the Father is an Holy Spirit and so is the Son no less than the Third Person But this is not the first time in this Creed that Athanasius has discovered He could not count In this Trinity none is Afore or After other none is Greater or Less than another Yet the Son himself saith John 14.28 My Father is Greater than I. And for the other clause None is Afore or After other 't is just as true as that there is no difference at all between Afore and After I ask Whether the Son doth not as He is a Son derive both Life and Godhead from the Father All Trinitarians grant He do's grounding themselves on the Nicene Creed which expresly calls the Son God of God Light of Light very God of very God Begotten not Made But if the Father gave to the Son Life and Godhead He must have both before he could communicate or give either of them to the Son and consequently was afore the Son was No Effect is so early as its Cause for if it were it should not have needed or had that for its Cause No Proposition in Euclid is more certain or evident than this The right Faith is That we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God is both God and Man Then the Lord Christ is two Persons For as He is God He is the second Person of the pretended Trinity and as He is Man a perfect Man as this Creed afterwards speaks He is also a Person for a Rational Soul vitally united to an Human Body is a Person if there be any such thing as Person upon Earth nay 't is the only thing upon Earth that is a Person Let the Athanasians therefore either say that the Lord Christ is Two Persons which is the Heresie of Nestorius condemned in a General Council Or that He is not a Man contrary to 1 Tim. 2.5 There is one God and one Mediator between God and Men the Man Jesus Christ Or that He is not God which is the Truth Who altho' He be God and Man yet He is not two but one Christ One not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh but by taking of the Manhood into God One not by Confusion of Substance but by Unity of Person But because these words One by taking of the Manhood into God not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh And again One not by Confusion of Substance but Vnity of Person cannot readily be understood by themselves the Creed-Maker explains them in this following Article For as the reasonable Soul and Flesh is one Man so God and Man is one Christ That is as a Soul united vitally to a Body maketh one Person called Man without confounding the two Substances of the Soul and body for the Soul remains what it was and so also does the Body So God the Son being united to a reasonable Soul and Body doth together with them make one Person called Christ without confounding the Substances of the Divinity or Humanity for the Divinity remains without the least Change what it was and so doth the Humanity or reasonable Soul and Body This is the only Offer at Sense that is to be found in this whole Creed but so far from explicating that it farther perplexes the Difficulty of the pretended Incarnations as will appear by those two Considerations 1. In the Personal Vnion of a Soul with a Body
AN Antidote against Poyson OR AN ANSWER TO THE Brief Notes upon the CREED OF St. Athanasius By an ANONIMOUS AUTHOR By J. SAVAGE Gent. Written for the Information of the Illiterate and Vulgar WHosoever will be saved before all things 't is Necessary that He hold the Catholick Faith A Good Life is of Absolute Necessity to Salvation but a Right Belief in these Points that have been always controverted in the Churches of God is in no degree Necessary much less Necessary before all things He that leads a Profane or Vicious Life sins against a plain acknowledg'd Rule and the express unquestion'd Words and Letter of the Divine Law and the Dictates of Natural Conscience He wilfully refuses to advert to these Monitors and therefore can no way palliate or excuse his Wickedness But he that errs in a Question of Faith after having used reasonable diligence to be rightly inform'd is in no fault at all his Error is pure Ignorance Not a culpable Ignorance for how can it be culpable not to know that of which a Man is Ignorant after a Diligent and Impartial Inquiry Which Faith except a Man keep Whole and Undefiled without doubt He shall perish Everlastingly By keeping this Faith Whole and Vndefiled must be meant if any thing be meant that a Man should believe and profess it without Adding to it or Taking from it If we take from it we do not keep it Whole if we add ought to it we do not keep it Vndefiled and either way we shall perish everlastingly First for Adding What if an Honest plain Man because He is a Christian and a Protestant shall think it Necessary to add this Article to the Athanasian Creed I believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be a Divine Infallible and Compleat Rule both for Faith and Manners I hope no Protestant would think a Man shall be damned for such Addition And if so then this Creed of Athanasius is at least an Vnnecessary Rule of Faith Then for â—aking ought from this Creed the whole Greek Church diffused through so many Provinces rejects as Heretical that Period of it The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Sonâ— contending that the Holy Spirit is from the Father only Which also they clearly and demonstratively prove as we shall see in its proper place And for the Menace here of Athanasius that they shall perish Everlastingly they laugh at it and say He was drunk when he made this Creed Gennad Schol. A. Bp. of Constantinople And the Catholick Faith is this Catholick Faith is as much as to say in plain English the Faith of the whole Church Now in what Age was this which here follows the Faith of the whole Church Not in the Age of Athanasius himself who for this Faith and for Seditious Practices was banish'd from Alexandria in Egypt where he was Bishop no less than Four times whereof the first was by Constantiâ—e the Great He was also condemned in his own Life-time by Six Councils as an Heretick and Seditious Person Of these Councils that at Milan consisted of 300 Bishops and that at Ariminum of 550 the greatest Convention of Bishops that ever was This Consent of the Churches of God against him and his Doctrin occasioned that Famous Proverb Athanasius against all the World and all the 〈…〉 Athanasius For the times Before and After the curious Reader may see Chr. Sandius his Ecclesiastical History in which the Learned Author gives a large Account by what and whose means the Athanasian and Trinitarian Faith did at length prevail against the Ancient belief of but One God or but One who is God Therefore quaâ—e With what Forehead the Author of this Creed calls this the Catholick Faith or Faith of the whole Church when 't is certain it has been so in no Age and least of all in the Author 's The Catholick Faith is this That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity He means here that we must so worship the one true God as to remember He is Three Persons and so worship the Three Persons as to bear in mind that they are but one Substance or Godhead or God So the Author explains himself in the three next Articles which are these Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance for there is one Person of the Father another of the Son another of the Holy Ghost but the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all one Therefore all these Articles make indeed but one Article which is this The one true God is Three distinct Persons and three distinct Persons Father Son and Holy Spirit are the one true God Plainly as if a Man should say Peter James and John being Three Persons are one Man and one Man is these Three distinct Persons Peter James and John Is it not now a Ridiculous Attempt as well as a Barbarous Indignity to go about thus to make Asses of all Mankind under pretence of teaching them a Creed and things Divine to despoil them of their Reason the Image of God and the Character of our Nature But let us in two words examine the parts of this Monstrous Proposition as 't is laid down in the Creed it self Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance But how can we not confound the Persons that have they say but one numerical Substance And how can we but divide the Substance which we find in three distinct divided Persons There is one Person of the Father another of the Son another of the H. Ghost Then the Son is not the Father nor is the Father the Son nor the Holy Ghost either of them I shall not need to prove this Consequence not only because 't is evident but because 't is acknowledged by the Trinitarians But if the Father is not the Son and yet is by confession of all the One true God then the Son is not the One true God because He is not the Father the reason is self-evident for How can the Son be the one true God if he is not He who is the One true God After the same manner it may be proved that on the Athanasian Princiciples neither the Father nor Holy Spirit are or can be God or the One true God for neither of them is the Son who is the One true God according to Athanasius and all Trinitarians for thy all say the Father is the One true God the Son is the One true God and the Holy Ghost is the One true God Which is a three-fold Contradiction because there is but One true God and One of these Persons is not the other But if it be a Contradiction 't is certainly false for every Contradiction being made up of Inconsistences destroys it self and is its own Confutation The Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One the Glory equal the Majesty coeternal The meaning of the last Clause is That the Glory and Majesty of the Son and Holy Spirit is
one true God if he is not be who is the one true God I answer sub distinctione if the Son be not he who has the compleat and adequate essential constitution of the one true God then he cannot be God I grant it if the Son be not another Person namely the Father and yet hath the compleat and adequate essential constitution of the one true God he cannot be God I deny it The fallacy of the Author consists in this that he grosly confounds the notional and relative Predicates with the absolute and essential Predicates for consider the sublime Mystery that we are upon and what hath been said above in the third Observation upon it and you will find the Errour for this Deist insists upon two Persons the Father and the Son and supposing the Father to be the one true God he infers that therefore the Son which is a distinct Person is not the one true God and yet the same though a different Person yet hath all the absolute and essential perfections with the Father he hath the same numerical Essence Nature and Divinity with the Father Now I demand whether it be possible that he should have the compleat and adequate essential Constitution of the God-head and yet not be the one true God For the God-head is singular wherein a number is Chimerical you had as good tell me that one may have the adequate Constitution of a Man which is animal rationale and yet not be a man which is impossible for where there is the compleat essence of a thing there is the thing it self which is nothing elfe but its compleat essence Then he proceeds In the Creed the God-head of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all one the Glory equal the Majesty co-eternal Therefore I ask says this Author whether the Glory and Majesty with which the Son and Spirit are Glorious and Majestical be the same in number with which the Father is Glorious and Majestical I answer Affirmatively Then it follows says this Author that the Glory and Majesty of these Persons is neither equal nor co-eternal which he attempts to prove because equality and co-eternity import a distinction between the things equal and co-eternal therefore I distinguish the sense of this Illation the Glory and Majesty of these Persons if taken absolutely and essentially is neither equal nor co-eternal I grant it if taken notionally and personally I deny it The meaning of this distinction is cleared by the former Observations for if you take them personally they constitute number and ground relations and cor-relations to each other but if understood essentially and absolutely they do neither in plain terms the Father Son and Holy Ghost which are three distinct Persons are equally Glorious by the same numerical and individual Glory which is singular and essential to the Divinity But he replies That in case the Glory of the three Persons be numerically the same then so are also all the other Attributes whence it ensues that there is no real distinction between the Father Son and Holy Ghost but are only three Names of the same thing without any distinction as the Sebellians hold I am sorry that I have to deal with a Person so meanly vers'd in Divinity as not to distinguish the Attributes of the Divinity from the notional and relative Predicates the Attributes are singular and are all communicated to every one of the Persons because they are absolute Predicates but the Relations are peculiar to each Person so the Father hath communicated to the Son all the Divine Attributes and what else is peculiar to the Divine Essence but hath not given him his Paternity as is noted above for Paternity is a relative Predicate peculiar to one Person alone and not communicable the same with proportion is to be said of the Filiation and passive Spiration In the next place says this Prophane Libeller This Creed teaches that the Father is Incomprehensible Vncreated Eternal Almighty the Son is Vncreated Eternal Almighty c. Also that each of these Persons by himself is God and Lord yet there are not three Gods nor Lords nor three Incomprehensibles c. Now if in imitation of this a Man should have a mind to say the Father is a Person the Son is a Person the Holy Ghost is a Person yet not three Persons but one Person I would know why this were not as good Grammar and Arithmetick as when Athanasius says the Father is God the Son is God the Holy Ghost is God yet not three Gods but one God I answer that whatever Grammar or Arithmetick there is in it I am sure there is no true Divinity in it for this Deistical Author insists here still upon the same errour for the word Person is a relative and notional expression whereof there are three in God but the word God is an absolute and essential term which is singular and cannot be multiplied as hath been often reiterated in this Discourse but he demands Doth not a man contradict himself when the terms of his negation are the same with thâ—se in his affirmation Now for Logick I answer That two contradictory Propositions ought to be ejusdem de eodem that is ejusdem praedicati de eodem subjecto as Angelus est Spiritus Angelus non est Spiritus There are three Gods there are not three Gods there are three Persons there are not three Persons c. But where is the least appearance of any Contradiction in all this Yet to make this the more conspicuous I must take each Proposition in pieces and scan the several parts thereof according to the rates of Logick For in these three Propositions the Father is God the Son is God the Holy Ghost is God the Subject of the first is the Father the Subject of the second is the Son the Subject of the third is the Holy Ghost these three Subjects are three distinct Person Really different from each other The Predicate of the first is God this is an absolute and essential Term not capable of being multiplied for it is the Deity it self which is singular and therefore the Predicate of the second Proposition which is also God must be the same Deity with the first not another distinct Deity for a second God would be a meer Chimera so likewise the Predicate of the third Proposition is also God which still imports the same Deity this term God not being capable of any multiplicity so that the Subject of these three Propositions are three different Persons Really distinct from each other the Predicate of the same three Propositions which is God hath for its Object the singular Essence of the Divine Natur and the Propositions being all affirmative do intentionally identifie the Deity with the subject of the same Propositions which are the Father Son and Holy Ghost as they are identifi'd a parte rei wherein consists the verity of the same Propositions As concerning the three last Propositions
the case is very different for in the first of them which is this the Father is a Person though the Subject be the same as in the three former Propositions yet the Predicate is very different for in the first of these last Propositions the Predicate is a Person a generical term common to all Persons the Predicate of the second is also a Person but distinct from the former in application as the Mystery teaches so likewise the Predicate of the third is a Person but these Propositions being all affirmative cannot be verifi'd but by applying that generical Term a Person to different and distinct individuums for an affirmative Proposition cannot be true except there be an Identity between the Subject and the Predicate ex parte objecti now the Filiation is a singular individuation which cannot be identifi'd with any other Personality therefore the Propositions import a multiplicity of Persons as the three former do import a singularity of the Deity Hence it is apparent that we cannot say yet not three Persons but one Person as we say yet not three Gods but one God What follows in the Author is meer stuff and deserves no further answer for he goes upon a false supposition which no Orthodox Christian will admit namely that there are two sorts of true Gods three personal Gods and besides one Essential God whereas the Christian Faith never admitted but one true God who by his Omnipotence Created this Inferiour and Superiour Wold and by his infinite Prudence and Providence preserveth and governeth all things wherefore we deny the supposition as false and Heretical as will be obvious to any who considers what hath been already said in this Treatise especially in the first and third Observation But this great Oracle of the Deists goes on upon the subsequent passages of this Creed and particularly upon these words The Son is of the Father alone not Made nor Created but Begotten to which he answers That if the Creed-maker had spoke here of the Creation of the Son by Divine Power on the Virgin Mary it would have been true that the Son is neither Made nor Created but Begotten but then the first part of the Article would be false that the Son is of the Father alone for he that has a Father and a Mother is of Both. But since he speaks of the pretended Eternal Generation the latter part of the Article is false and inconsistent with the first part of it The meer explanation of the terms Made Created and Begotten will evacuate this difficulty That which is Made or Created proceeds from the Maker or Creator as an Effect from its Cause by the mediation of a real action or causalty between the cause and the effect that which is begotten is produced by Generation but how shall we distinguish Generation from the production of the Effect from its Cause I answer that according to the known definition admitted and approved of in the Schools of Philosophers and Divines Generation is Origo viventis à vivente à principio conjuncto in Similitudinem naturae Now to admit a real Action or Causality between the Father and the Son in the Eternal Generation of the Divine Word were to make a change in the Divine Essence ad intra of that immutable God that can admit of no change Whence it unavoidaably follows that the Eternal Son of God is neither Made nor Created but how how then can we make it appear that he is Begotten I answer because he is produced by Generation according to the definition given for he is produced by the Divine Understanding as related to all Creatures possible by a clear and conspicuous representation but especially a lively Image of all the Perfections of the Divinity which makes him to be in similitudinem naturae as I shall more largely explicate and prove in the Treatise of the Trinity which I intend shortly to bring to light But to talk of a Mother as this Author doth is an impertinent indignity offer'd to the Divine Word and savours too much of the mean thoughts of the ignorant Vulgar Next in the Athanasian Creed follows that the Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son neither Made nor Created nor Begotten but Proceeding Here this Deist Cavils first with the Holy Ghost's proceeding from the Son contrary to the Tenet of the Greek Church for which he cites that Text of Scripture John 15.26 When the Comforter is come which I will send unto you from the Father even the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the Father he shall testifie of me Doth this Text prove that the Holy Ghost doth not proceed from the Son it only asserts that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father which we all grant but whether or no it proceedeth also from the Son it doth not determine but I shall prove this at large in my Treatise of the Trinity Secondly he says subjoyns this Author that the Holy Ghost is not begotten but proceeding yet he alledgeth that it is confessed by the most Learned Trinitarians that Begotten and Proceeding differ nothing at all But I would fain know who those Learned Trinitarians are for it is well known that the second Person of the Trinity therefore is Begotten because he is produced by the Understanding which represents the Deity and the Creatures possible so that by the internal vertue of his production he is intended to be in similitudinem whence he is called the Divine Word naturae whereas the Holy Ghost proceeds by the Will which is no representative Power but be proceeds by an act of Love of the same Divinity who doth not see that these two are far different from each other and this clearly solves that frivolous Discourse which follows that in counting right we should say two Father two Sons and three Holy Ghosts or Spirits for which saying there is no ground at all as appears by the difference given between Begotten and Proceeding Next in the Creed follows None is afore or after other none greater or less than another Yet the Son himself saith John 14.28 the Father is greater than 1. I answer That the Son says not this of his Divinity but being Hypostatically united to flesh he spoke it when he was in flesh of his Humanity none is afore or after other I ask says this Deist whether the Son doth not as he is a Son derive both Life and God-head from the Father I answer affirmatively But says he if the Father gave to the Son Life and Godhead he must have both before he could communicate or give either of them to the Son I answer All this argues only prioritatem originis for as much as the Father was the Origine of all that is in the Son but all was done from Eternity so there could be no prioritas temporis for before Eternity there was no time neither could there be any prioritas naturae such as there is in a Cause in respect of its Effect since
equal to the Glory and Majesty of the Father or the Son and Holy Spirit are equally Glorious and Majestical with God the Father Therefore I ask Whether the Glory and Majesty with which the Son and Spirit are Glorious and Majestical be the same in Number that is the very same with which the Father is Glorious and Majestical or only the same for Kind and Degree If it be not the same in Number then the Godhead of the Father and of the Son is not as this Creed teaches all One and they are not one and the same God for two Infinite and Distinct Glories and Majesties make two Gods and three make three Gods as every one sees and to say true the Trinitarians themselves confess It remains therefore that they say the Glory and Majesty of the Son and Spirit is the same in Number and not for Kind and Degree only with that of the Father but then it follows that the Glory and Majesty of these Persons is neither Equal nor Coeternal Not Equal for 't is the same which Equals never are nor Coeternal for this also plainly intimates that they are Distinct for how Coeternal if not Distinct Do we say a thing is Coeternal or Contemporary with it self Therefore this Article also doth impugn and destroy it self Besides if the Glory and Majesty of the Three Persons be numerically the same then so are all their other Attributes from whence it follows that there is not any real Difference between the Three Persons and they are only three several Names of God which is the Heresie of the Sabellians In the next place this Creed teaches that The Father is Incomprehensible Uncreate Eternal Almighty the Son is Incomprehensible Uncreate Eternal Almighty the Holy Spirit is Incomprehensible Uncreate Eternal Almighty Also that each of these Persons by himself is God and Lord so that the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God yet there are not Three Gods or Lords nor Three Incomprehensibles nor Three All mighties nor Three Eternals or Uncreated Now if in imitation of this a Man should have a mind to say The Father is a Person the Son is a Person and the Holy Ghost is a Person yet not three Persons but one Person I would know why this were not as good Grammar and Arithmetick as when Athanasius says the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God yet not three Gods but one God or when He says the Father Uncreated the Son Uncreated and the Holy Ghost Uncreated yet not three vncreated but one Uncreated and so of the reft Doth not a Man contradict himself when the Term or Terms in his Negation are the same with those in his Affirmation If not then it may be true that the Father is a Person the Son is a Person the Holy Ghost is a Person yet there are not Three Persons but One Person For all the fault here is only this that in the last Clause the term Person is denied to belong to more than One when in the first it had been Affirmed of no fewer than Three For the same Reason it must be a Contradiction to say The Father is God the Son is God and the H. Ghost is God yet there are not three Gods but one God For the Term God is at last denied to belong to more than One though in the first Clause it was affirmed of Three Will they say that in these words there are not three Gods but one God the Term God is not Denied to belong to more than One or is not appropriated to One If so then there are not three Persons but one Person and again There are not three Men but one Man Then I say these Propositions do not Deny the Terms Person and Men to belong to more than One or appropriate them to One only which yet every Body confesses they do But here is a Numerical or Arithmetical as well as Grammatical Contradiction For in saying God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost yet not Three Gods but One God A Man first distinctly numbers Three Gods and then in summing them up bruitishly says not Three Gods but One God To these things it will perhaps be answered that when we say God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost or thus The Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God the Term God is used Essentially and therefore comprehends the whole Three Persons so that there is neither a Grammatical nor Arithmetical Contradiction But this Remedy is worse if possible than the Disease for it owns that there are Three Personal Gods though there is but one Essential God and that otherways the Propositions of which we are speaking would imply all the aforesaid Contradictions This Remedy I say is worse than the Disease for 1. Three Personal Gods and one Essential God make Four Gods if the Essential God be not the same with the Personal Gods and though He is the same with them yet since they are not the same with one another but distinct it follows that there are Three Gods that is Three Personal Gods 2. It introduces two sorts of True Gods Three Personal and one Essential But the Christian Religion knows and owns but one True and most High God of any sort And I would know of the Trinitarians whether they dare say in express words There are two sorts of True Gods For like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be Lord and God c. By the Christian Verity I suppose is meant the Sacred Books which contain the Christian Religion that is the Books of the Old and New Testament But do these Books and do's this Verity compel us to the acknowledgment of three Persons each of which is by Himself Supream God and Lord and yet all of them together but one God Doth I say the Holy Scripture compel us to this contradictory Acknowledgment Is there any Text alledged from Scripture which all the Unitarians and some or other of the most Learned Trinitarians do not easily interpret in such sense that the Unity of God is preserved and no more than one Person even the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ acknowledged to be God See the History of the Vnitarians But if there is no Text of Scripture but what is in the Opinion of some or other of their own Learned Men fairly capable of a sense contrary to the Faith deliver'd in this Creed then we are not compelled to acknowledg this Faith And the truth is the Contest between the Unitarians and Trinitarians is not as is commonly thought a Clash of Reason with Scripture but it layeth here Whether when the Holy Scriptures may be understood as teaching only one God or but One who is God which agrees with the rest of Scripture and with Natural