Philoponus But in that divided time there were some called Theodosiani who made but one Nature and one Hypostasis and so fell in with the Sabellians but others held That there was one immutable divine Essence but each Person had a distinct individual Nature which the rest charged with Tritheism Which consequence they utterly rejected because although they held three distinct Natures yet they said They were but one God because there was but one invariable Divinity in them Nicephorus saith that Conon's Followers rejected Philoponus but Photius mentions a conference between Conon and others aâ—out Philoponus wherein he defends him against other Severians Photius grants that Conon and his Followers held a consubstantial Trinity and the Unity of the Godhead and so far they were Orthodox but saith They were far from it when they asserted proper and peculiar Substances to each Person The difference between Conon and Philoponus about this point for Conon wrote against Philoponus about the Resurrection seems to have been partly in the Doctrine but chiefly in the consequence of it for these rejected all kind of Tritheism which Philoponus saw well enough must follow from his Doctrine but he denied any real Division or Separation in those Substances as to the Deity Isidore saith That the Tritheists owned three Gods as well as three Persons and that if God be said to be Triple there must follow a Plurality of Gods But there were others called Triformiani of whom S. Augustin speaks Who held the three Persons to be three distinct parts which being united made one God which saith he is repugnant to the divine Perfection But among these Severians there were three several opinions 1. Of Philoponus who held one common Nature and three Individual 2. Of those who said there was but one Nature and one Hypostasis 3. Of those who affirm'd there were three distinct Natures but withal that there was but one indivisible Godhead and these differ'd from Philoponus in the main ground of Tritheism which was that he held the common Nature in the Trinity to be only a specifick Nature and such as it is among Men. For Philoponus himself in the words which Nicephorus produces doth assert plainly that the common Nature is separated from the Individuals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a mere act of the Mind so that he allow'd no individual Vnity in the divine Nature but what was in the several Persons as the common Nature of Man is a Notion of the Mind as it is abstracted from the several Individuals wherein alone it really subsists so that here is an apparent difference between the Doctrine of Joh. Philoponus and the new Explication for herein the most real essential and indivisible Unity of the divine Nature is asserted and it is said to be no Species because it is but one and so it could not be condemned in Joh. Philoponus 2. We now come to Abbat Joachim whose Doctrine seems to be as much mistaken as it is represented in the Decretal where the Condemnation of it by the Lateran Council is extant But here I cannot but observe what great Authority these Unitarians give to this Lateran Council as if they had a Mind to set up Transubstantiation by it which they so often parallel with the Trinity Thence in their late Discourse they speak of it as the most general Council that was ever called and that what was there defined it was made Heresie to oppose it But by their favour we neither own this to have been a general Council nor that it had Authority to make that Heresie which was not so before But that Council might assert the Doctrine of the Trinity truly as it had been receiv'd and condemn the opinion of Joachim justly But what it was they do not or would not seem to understand Joachim was a great Enthusiast but no deep Divine as Men of that Heat seldom are and he had many Disputes with Peter Lombard in his Life as the Vindicator of Joachim confesses After his Death a Book of his was found taxing Peter Lombard with some strange Doctrine about the Trinity wherein he called him Heretick and Madman this Book was complained of in the Lateran Council and upon Examination it was sound that instead of charging Peter Lombard justly he was fallen into Heresie himself which was denying the essential Vnity of the three Persons and making it to be Vnity of Consent He granted that they were one Essence one Nature one Substance but how Not by any true proper Unity but Similitudinary and Collective as they called it as many Men are one People and many Believers make one Church Whence Thomas Aquinas saith that Joachim fell into the Arian Heresie It is sufficient to my purpose that he denied the individual Vnity of the divine Essence which cannot be charged on the Author of the new Explication and so this comes not home to the purpose 3. But the last charge is the most terrible for it not only sets down the Heresie but the capital punishment which follow'd it Yet I shall make it appear notwithstanding the very warm Prosecution of it by another hand that there is a great difference between the Doctrine of Valentinus Gentilis and that which is asserted in this Explication 1. In the Sentence of his Condemnation it is expressed That he had been guilty of the vilest Scurrility and most horrid Blasphemies against the Son of God and the glorious Mystery of the Trinity But can any thing of this Nature be charged upon one who hath not only written in Defence of it but speaks of it with the highest Veneration 2. In the same Sentence it is said That he acknowledged the Father only to be that infinite God which we ought to worship which is plain Blasphemy against the Son But can any Men ever think to make this the same case with one who makes use of that as one of his chief arguments That the three Persons are to be worshipped with a distinct divine Worship 3. It is charged upon him That he called the Trinity a mere human Invention not so much as known to any Catholick Creed and directly contrary to the Word of God But the Author here charged hath made it his business to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity to be grounded on Scripture and to vindicate it from the Objections drawn from thence against it 4. One of the main Articles of his charge was That he made three Spirits of different Order and Degree that the Father is the one only God by which the Son and Holy Ghost are excluded manifestly from the Unity of the Godhead But the Person charged with his Heresie saith The Reason why we must not say three Gods is because there is but one and the same Divinity in them all and that entirely indivisibly inseparably But it is said that although there may be some differences yet they agree in asserting
there were two Persons in Christ one Divine and the other Humane and two Sons the one by Nature the Son of God who had a Pre existence and the other the Son of David who had no subsistence before This is the opinion which Dionysius sets himself against in that Epistle and which therefore â—ome may imagine was written after Nestorius his Heresie But that was no new Heresie as appears by the Cerinthians and it was that which Paulus Samosatenus fled to as more plausible which not only appears by this Epistle but by what Athanasius and Epiphanius have delivered concerning it Athanasius wrote a Book of the Incarnation against the followers of Paulus Samosatenus who held as he saith Two Persons in Christ viz. One born of the Virgin and a divine Person which descended upon him and dwelt in him Against which opinion he disputes from two places of Scripture viz. God was manifest in the Flesh and the Word was made Flesh and from the ancient Doctrine of the Christian Church and the Synod of Antioch against Paulus Samosatenus And in another place he saith that he held That the divine Word dwelt in Christ. And the words of Epiphanius are express to the same purpose That the Logos came and dwelt in the Man Iesus And the Clergy of Constantinople charged Nestorius with following the Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus And Photius in his Epistles saith That Nestorius tasted too much of the intoxicated Cups of Paulus Samosatenus and in the foregoing Epistle he saith That Paulus his followers asserted two Hypostases in Christ. But some think that Paulus Samosatenus did not hold any subsistence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before but that the Word was in God before without any subsistence of its own and that God gave it a distinct subsistence when it inhabited in the Person of Christ and so Marius Mercator and Leontius understand him who say that he differ'd from Nestorius therein who asserted a Divine Word with its proper subsistence But according to them Paulus by the Word undersâ—ood that Divine Energy whereby Christ acted and which dwelt in him but Dionysius saith he made two Christs and two Sons of God But the Doctrine of the Christian Church he saith was that there was but one Christ and one Son who wâ—s the Eternal Word and was made Flesh. And it is observable that he brings the very same places we do now to prove this Doctrine as In the beginning was the Word c. and Before Abraham was I am It seems that some of the Bishops who had been upon the examination of his Opinions before the second Synod which deposed him sent him an account of their Faith and required his answer wherein they declare the Son not to be God according to God's Decree which he did not stick at but that he was so really and substantially and whosoever denied this they said was out of the Communion of the Church and all the Catholick Churches agreed with them in it And they declare that they received this Doctrine from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and bring the same places we do now as Thy Throne O God was for ever c. Who is over all God blessed for ever All things were made by him c. And we do not find that Paulus Samosatenus as subtle as he was ever imagin'd that these places belong'd to any other than Christ or that the making of all things was to be understood of the making of nothing but putting it into mens power to make themselves new Creatures These were discoveries only reserved for the Men of Sense and clear Ideas in these brighter Ages of the World But at last after all the arts and subterfuges which Paulus Samosatenus used there was a Man of Sense as it happen'd among the Clergy of Antioch called Malchion who was so well acquainted with his Sophistry that he drove him out of all and laid his Sense so open before the second Synod that he was solemnly deposed for denying the Divinity of the Son of God and his Descent from Heaven as appears by their Synodical Epistle It is pity we have it not entire but by the Fragments of it which are preserved by some ancient Writers we find that his Doctrine of the Divinity in him by Inhabitation was then condemned and the substantial Union of both Natures asserted I have only one thing more to observe concerning him which is that the Arian Party in their Decree at Sardica or rather Philippopolis do confess that Paulus Samosatenus his Doctrine was condemned by the whole Christian World For they say That which passed in the Eastern Synod was signed and approved by all And Alexander Bishop of Alexandria in his Epistle to Alexander of Constantinople affirms the same And now I hope I may desire our Men of Sense to reflect upon these Matters Here was no Fire nor Faggot threatned no Imperial Edicts to inforce this Doctrine nay the Queen of those parts under whose Jurisdiction they lived at that time openly espoused the cause of Paulus Samosatenus so that here could be nothing of interest to sway them to act in opposition to her And they found his interest so strong that he retained the Possession of his See till Aurelian had conquer'd Zenobia and by his authority he was ejected This Synod which deposed him did not sit in the time of Aurelian as is commonly thought but before his time while Zenobia had all the power in her hands in those Eastern parts which she enjoy'd five years till she was dispossess'd by Aurelian from whence Ant. Pagi concludes that Paulus kept his See three years after the Sentence against him but upon application to Aurelian he who afterwards began a Persecution against all Christians gave this rule That he with whom the Italian Bishops and those of Rome communicated should enjoy the See upon which Paulus was at last turned out By this we see a concurrence of all the Christian Bishops of that time against him that denied the Divinity of our Saviour and this without any force and against their interest and with a general consent of the Christian World For there were no mighty Awes and Draconic Sanctions to compell of which they sometimes speak as if they were the only powerfull methods to make this Doctrine go down And what greater argument can there be that it was then the general sense of the Christian Church And it would be very hard to condemn all his Opposers for men that wanted Sense and Reason because they so unanimously opposed him Not so unanimously neither say our Vnitarians because Lucian a Presbyter of the Church of Antioch and a very learned man joyned with him It would have been strange indeed if so great a Man as Paulus Samosatenus could prevail with none of his own Church to joyn with him especially one that came from the same place of Samosata as
enough to prove the necessity of the Invocation of Christ which he said he could do from his Priesthood and his Power from the Examples of the Apostles and the very Nature of Adoration And Blandrata was a Man of great authority among the Vnitarians and he thought Socinus ought to assert the necessity of it or else he would do injury both to Christ and to his Cause In the dispute with Francken Socinus went upon this ground that divine Authority was a sufficient ground for divine Worship although there were not those essential Attributes of Omnisciency and Omnipotency But I observe that Socinus did not look on this as a matter of Liberty as our Vnitarians now seem to do for in the Preface to the former Dispute he calls the Error of denying the Invocation of Christ not as they now do a simple Error or a mere mistake but a most filthy and pernicious Error an Error that leads to Iudaism and is in effect the denying of Christ and in the latter Dispute he saith That it tends to Epicurism and Atheism And Smalcius saith That they are no Christians who refuse giving divine Worship to Christ. 2. Is it like wise Men to go upon such grounds as will justifie both Pagan and Popish Idolatry This they have been charged with and we shall see what wise Men they are by the Defences they make for themselves 1. As to Pagan Idolatry they say 1. They had no divine command for such a Worship This was well thought of when they confess that some among themselves deny that there is any command for invocating Christ and therefore they must charge all those who do it with Idolatry But this is no very wise Notion of Idolatry which depends upon the Nature of the Worship and not the meer positive Will of God 2. They set up the Creatures more than the Creator as S. Paul saith S. Paul doth not think them such Fools that they took the Creatures to be above the Creator which was impossible while they owned one to be the Creator and the other the Creatures but that they gâ—ve such acts of Worship to them as belonged only to the Creator and exceeded in the Worship of them those bounds which ought to be between them 3. They set up an infinite Number of Gods who had been mere Men. This is as if the question were only whether one or a great many were to have such Worship given them as if it were a dispute about a Monarchy or a Common-wealth of Gods But if it be lawfull to give divine Worship to one Creature it is to a hundred 4. Their Worship was terminated on them and so they made true Gods of Men. Suppose they asserted one supreme God and made the rest subordinate to him and appointed by him to be the immediate Directors of humane Affairs I desire to know Whether the Adoration of such were Idolatry or not If it were they cannot be excused who give Adoration to Christ while they esteem him a mere Creature if not all the wiser Pagans must be excused 2. As to the Papists the difference they make is not like wise Interpreters of Scripture for they say 1. They have no Text of Scripture which commands them to worship S. Peter S. Paul and S. Francis So some among them say there is none for the Invocation of Christ and with them the case is Parallel But if Socinus his Principle be true that communicated Excellency is a sufficient Foundation for Worship because it is relative to the Giver then the Papists must be justified in all their relative Acts of Worship without any Text to command it 2. They exceed the Bounds of Honour and Respect due to glorified Saints But who is to set these Bounds but themselves in all Acts of relative Worship because they depend upon the intention of the Persons And they hold the very same things concerning communicated Knowledge and Power from God which our Vnitarians make use of to justifie their Notion of the Invocation of Christ. VII Is this interpreting Scripture like wise Men to turn S. Paul's words Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever into a Thanksgiving to God for the Exaltation of Christ i. e. God who is over all be blessed for ever But what reason do they give for such a forced and unusual Sense besides the avoiding the difficulty of having the Name of God given here to Christ A very substantial one If the words had been intended of Christ it would have been in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they have taken up from Erasmus and Curcellaeus But Beza who understood Greek as well as either and Curcellaeus owned him for his Master in that Tongue saith He could not sufficiently wonder at this Criticism of Erasmus and thinks it a violent and far-fetched Interpretation and not agreeable to the Greek Idiom and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same there with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And which may signifie more to our Vnitarians one of the learnedst Men they have had among them utterly disowns this Interpretation and saith That the whole Verse belongs to Christ. But if that will not do they have another fetch in the case viz. That it is very probable that the word God was not originally in the Text. How doth this appear to be very probable Of that we have this account Grotius observes that the Greek Copies used by the Author of the Syriac had not the word God and that Erasmus had noted that the Copies of S. Cyprian S. Hilary and S. Chrysostom had only blessed over all or above all without the word God upon which he charges his Adversary with no less than Impiety in concealing this and calls it cheating his Reader But how if all this prove a gross Mistake in him unless it be only that Grotius and Erasmus come in for their shares It 's true that Grotius saith That the word God was left out in the Syriac Version But F. Simon whose authority they sometimes magnifie as to critical Learning saith plainly That Grotius was mistaken and that the word God is in all the old Copies and in all the old Versions And upon his bringing Erasmus to prove that it was not in S. Cyprian S. Hilary and S. Chrysostome he cries out Where is Sincerity Erasmus had met with one faulty Edition which had it not but he saith all the rest of the MSS. have it And the learned Oxford Annotators both on S. Cyprian and the Greek Testament compar'd with MSS. which excellent Work we hope will shortly appear more publickly declare that they found it in all the MSS. they could meet with and even Erasmus himself saith That the Omission in S. Hilary might be only by the negligence of the Transcribers and so it appears by the late Edition out of the best MSS. where
is no improbable Opinion of Erasmus and Vossius two learned Criticks indeed That the most ancient Creed went no further than the Form of Baptism viz. to Believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost and the other Articles were added as Heresies gave occasion S. Ierom saith That in the Traditional Creed which they received from the Apostles the main Article was the Confession of the Trinity to which he joyns the Vnity of the Church and Resurrection of the Flesh and then adds that herein is contained Omne Christiani Dogmatis Sacramentum the whole Faith into which Christians were baptized And he saith It was the Custom among them to instruct those who were to be Baptized for forty days in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity So that there was then no Question but the Form of Baptism had a particular Respect to â—t and therefore so much weight is laid upon the use of it as well by the Ante-Nicene Fathers as others For Tertullian saith That the Form of Baptism was prescribed by our Saviour himself as a Law to his Church S. Cyprian to the same purpose That he commanded it to be used S. Augustin calls them the Words of the Gospel without which there is no Baptism The Reason given by S. Ambrose is because the Faith of the Trinity is in this Form But how if any one Person were left out He thinks that if the rest be not denied the Baptism is good but otherwise vacuum est omne Mysterium the whole Baptism is void So that the Faith of the Trinity was that which was required in order to true Baptism more than the bare Form of Words If there were no reason to question the former S. Ambrose seems of Opinion that the Baptism was good although every Person were not named and therein he was followed by Beda Hugo de Sancto Victore Peter Lombard and others And S Basil in the Greek Church asserted that Baptism in the name of the Holy Ghost was sufficient because he is hereby owned to be of equal Dignity with the Father and Son but it is still supposing that the whole and undivided Trinity be not denied And he elsewhere saith That Baptizing in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is a most solemn Profession of the Trinity in Vnity because they are all joyned together in this publick Act of Devotion But others thought that the Baptism was not good unless every Person were named which Opinion generally obtained both in the Greek and Latin Church And the late Editors of S. Ambrose observe that in other places he makes the whole Form of Words necessary as well as the Faith in the Holy Trinity The Baptism of the Eunomians was rejected because they alter'd the Form and the Faith too saying That the Father was uncreate the Son created by the Father and the Holy Ghost created by the Son The Baptism of the Samosatenians was rejected by the Council of Nice S. Augustin thinks it was because they had not the right Form but the true Reason was they rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity And so the Council of Arles I. doth in express Words refuse their Baptism who refused to own that Doctrine That Council was held A. D. 314. and therefore Bellarmin and others after him are very much mistaken when they interpret this Canon of the Arians concerning whose Baptism there could be no Dispute till many years after But this Canon is de Afris among whom the Custom of Baptizing prevailed but this Council propounds an expedient as most agreeable to the general Sense of the Christian Church viz. That if any relinquished their Heresie and came back to the Church they should ask them the Creed and if they found that they were baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost they should have only imposition of hands but if they did not confess the Trinity their Baptism was declared void Now this I look on as an impregnable Testimony of the Sense of the Ante-Nicene Fathers viz. That they did not allow that Baptism which was not in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost or which they understood to be the same in the confession of the Faith of the Trinity How then can our Vnitarians pretend That the Ante-Nicene Fathers did not alledge the Form of Baptism to prove the Trinity For the words are If they do nâ—t answer to this Trinity let them be baptized saith this plenary Couâ—cil as S. Augustin often calls it What Trinity do they mean Of mere Names or Cyphers or of one God and two Creatures joyned in the same Form of words as our Vnitarians understand it But they affirm That the Ancients of 400 years do not insist on this Text of S. Matthew to prove the Divinity or Personality of the Son or Spirit Therefore to give a clear account of this matter I shall prove that the Ante-Nicene Fathers did understand these words so as not to be taken either for mere Names or for Creatures joyned with God but that they did maintain the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost from the general Sense in which these words were taken among them And this I shall do from these Arguments 1. That those who took them in another Sense were opposed and condemned by the Christian Church 2. That the Christian Church did own this Sense in publick Acts of divine Worship as well as private 3. That it was owned and defended by those who appeared for the Christian Faith against Infidels And I do not know any better means than these to prove such a matter of Fact as this 1. The Sense of the Christian Church may be known by its behaviour towards those who took these words only for different Names or Appearances of One Person And of this we have full Evidence as to Praxeas Noëtus and Sabellius all long before the Council of Nice Praxeas was the first at least in the Western Church who made Father Son and Holy Ghost to be only several Names of the same Person and he was with great Warmth and Vigor opposed by Tertullian who charges him with introducing a new opinion into the Church as will presently appear And his testimony is the more considerable because our Vnitarians confess That he lived 120 years before the Nicene Council and that he particularly insists upon the Form of Baptism against Praxeas But to what purpose Was not his whole design in that Book to prove three distinct Persons of Father Son and Holy Ghost and yet but One God Doth he not say expresly That Christ commanded that his Disciples should baptize into the Father Son and Holy Ghost not into One of them ad singula nomina in Personas singulas tingimur In Baptism we are dipped once at every Name to shew that we are baptized into three Persons It is certain then that Tertullian could not mistake the Sense of the Church
That they do not speak of distinct Persons but they confess that Philo speaks home and therefore they make him a Christian But Philo had the same Notion with the Paraphrasts and their best way will be to declare that they look upon them all as Christians and they might as well affirm it of Onkelos as they do of Philo but I doubt the World will not take their Word for either But to proceed with the Christian Doxologies Nâ—â—hing saith S. Basil shall make me forsake the Doctrine I received in my Baptism when I was first entred into the Christian Church and I advise all others to keep firm to that Profession of the Holy Trinity which they made in their Baptism that is of the indivisible Vnion of Father Son and Holy Ghost And as he saith afterwards by the Order of the Words in Baptism it appears that as the Son is to the Father so the Holy Ghost is to the Son For they are all put without any Distinction or Number whâ—ch he observes agrees only to a multitude For by their Properties they are one and one yet by the Community of Essence the two are but one and he makes it his business to prove the Holy Ghost to be a proper Object of Adoration as well as the Father and Son and therefore there was no reason to find fault with the Doxology used in that Church and that Firmilian Meletius and the Eastern Christians agreed with them in the use of it and so did all the Western Churches from Illyricum to the Worlds end and this he saith was by an immemorial Custom of all Churches and of the greatest men in them Nay more he saith It had been continued in the Churches from the time the Gospel had been receive'd among them And nothing can be fuller than the Authority of his Testimony if S. Basil may be believed To these I shall add the Doxology of Polycarp at this Martyrdom mentioned by Eusebius which is very full to our Purpose I Glorifie thee by our Eternal High-Priest Iesus Christ thy beloved Son by whom be Glory to thee with him in the Holy Ghost What can we imagine Polycarp meant by this but to render the same Glory to Father Son and Holy Ghost but with such a difference as to the Particles which S. Basil at large proves come to the same thing And to the same purpose not only the Church of Smyrna but Pionius the Martyr who transcribed the Acts speaking of Iesus Christ with whom be Glory to God the Father and the Holy Ghost These suffer'd Martyrdom for Christianity and owned the same Divine Honour to the Father Son and Holy Ghost What could they mean if they did not believe them to have the same Divine Nature Can we suppose them Guilty of such stupidity to lose their Lives for not giving Divine Honour to Creatures and at the same time to do it themselves So that if the Father Son and Holy Ghost were not then believed to be three Persons and one God the Christian Church was mightily deceived and the Martyrs acted inconsistently with their own Principles Which no good Christian will dare to affirm But some have adventured to say that Polycarp did not mean the same Divine Honour to Father Son and Holy Ghost But if he had so meant it how could he have expressed it otherwise It was certainly a Worship distinct from what he gave to Creatures as appears by the Church of Smyrna's disowning any Worship but of Love and Repect to their fellow Creatures and own the giving Adoration to the Son of God with whom they joyn both Father and Holy Ghost Which it is impossible to conceive that in their Circumstances they should have done unless they had believed the same Divine Honour to belong to them S. Basil's Testimony makes it out of Dispute that the Doxology to Father Son and Holy Ghost was universally receiv'd in the publick Offices of the Church and that from the time of greatest Antiquity So that we have no need of the Teâ—timonies from the Apostolical Constitutions as they are called to prove it But I avoid all disputable Authorities And I shall only add that it appears from S. Basil that this Doxology had been long used not only in publick Offices but in Occasional Ejaculations as at the bringing in of Light in the Evening the People he saith were wont to say Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost c. This he saith had been an ancient Custom among the People and none can tell who brought it in But Prudentius shews that it was continued to his Time as appeaâ—s by his Hymn on that occasion which concludes with this Doxology and S. Hilary ends his Hymn written to his Daughter in the same manner 3. I come therefore to the last Proof which I shall produce of the Sense of the Christian Church which is from the Testimony of those who wrote in Defence of our Religion against Infidels In which I shall be the shorter since the particular Testimonies of the Fathers have been so fully produced and defended by others especially by Dr. Bull. Iustin Martyr in his Apology for the Christians gives an Account of the Form of Baptism as it was administred among Christians which he saith was in the Name of God the Father of all and of our Saviour Iesus Christ and of the Holy Ghost And that he spake of them as of distinct Persons as appears by his words afterwards They who take the Son to be the Father neither know the Father nor the Son who being the Word and first begotten is God And when he speaks of the Eucharist he saith That it is offer'd to the Father of all by the Name of the Son and the Holy Ghost and of other solemn Acts of Devotion he saith That in all of them they praise God the Father of all by his Son Iesus Christ and the Holy Ghost And in other places he mentions the Worship they give to Father Son and Holy Ghost Indeed he mentions a difference of Order between them but makes no Difference as to the Worship given to them And all this in no long Apology for the Christian Faith What can be the meaning of this if he did not take it for granted that the Christian Church embraced the Doctrine of the Trinity in Baptism Iustin Martyr was no such weak Man to go about to expose the Christian Religion instead of defending it and he must have done so if he did not believe this not only to be a true but a necessary part of the Christian Faith For why did he at all mention such a Mysterious and dark Point Why did he not conceal it as some would have done and only represent to the Emperours the fair and plausible part of Christianity No he was a Man of great Sincerity and a through Christian himself and therefore
A DISCOURSE In VINDICATION of the Doctrine of the Trinity WITH An ANSWER To the Late Socinian Objections Against it from Scripture Antiquity and Reason AND A PREFACE concerning the different Explications of the Trinity and the Tendency of the present SOCINIAN Controversie By the Right Reverend Father in God Edward Lord Bishop of Worcester LONDON Printed by I. H. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in S. Paul's Church-yard 1697. THE PREFACE WHen I was desir'd not long since to reprint the Discourse lately published concerning the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction I thought it necessary to look into the Socinian Pamphlets which have swarmed so much among us within a few years to see how far an Answer had been given in them to any of the arguments contained in it but I found the Writers of them thought it not for their purpose to take any notice at all of it but rather endeavour'd to turn the Controversie quite another way and to cover their true Sense under more plausible Expressions Of which I have given a full account in the Preface to the late Edition of it But among those Treatises which â—or the general good of the Nation are gatherâ—d into Volumes and dispers'd abroad to make either Proselytes or Infidels I found one wherein there is pâ—etended to be an Answer to my Sermon about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith reprinted with the former Discourse and therein I meet with a passage which hath given occasion to this Vindication For there are these Words That I had utterly mistaken in thinking that they deny the Articlâ—s of the new Creed or Athanasian Religion because they are Mysteries or because say they we do not comprehend them we deny them because we do comprehend them we have a clear and distinct Perception that they are not Mysteries but Contradictions Impossibilities and pure Nonsense Which words contain in them so spitefull so unjust and so unreasonable a Charge upon the Christian Church in general and our own in particular that I could not but think my self concerned especially since they are addressed to me to do what in me lay as soon as my uncertain State of Health would permit towards the clearing the fundamental Mystery of the Athanasian Religion as they call it viz. The Doctrine of the Trinity which is chiefly struck at by them without running into any new Explications or laying aside any old terms for which I could not see any just occasion For however thoughtfull Men may think to escape some particular difficulties better by going out of the common Roads yet they may meet with others which they did not foresee which may make them as well as others judge it at last a wiser and safer course to keep in the same way which the Christian Church hath used ever since it hath agreed to express her Sense in such Terms which were thought most proper for that purpose For in such cases the Original and Critical Signification of words is not so much to be attended as the use they are applied to and since no other can be found more significant or proper for that end it looks like yielding too great advantage to our Adversaries to give up the Boundaries of our Faith For although there be a difference between the necessary Article of Faith it self and the manner of expressing it so that those may truely believe the Substance of it who differ in the Explication yet since the Sense of the Article hath been generally received under those terms there seems to be no sufficient reason to substitute new ones instead of the old which can hardly be done without reflecting on the Honour of the Christian Church and giving occasion for very unreasonable Heats and Disputes among those who if we may believe their own words agree in the same fundamental Doctrine viz. a Trinity in Unity or three Persons in the same undivided divine Essence I am so little a Friend to any such Heats and Differences among our selves especially when we are so violently attacked by our common Adversaries that were there no other reason I should for the sake of that alone forbear making use of new Explications but there is another too obvious which is the mighty advantage they have taken from hence to represent our Doctrine as uncertain as well as unintelligiâ—le For as soon as our Unitarians began to appear with that Briskness and Boldness they have done now for several years some of our Divines thought themselves obliged to write in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity Thence came several Answers to them and in several Methods as the Persons thought most subservient to the same end but whatever their intentions were our Adversaries were too much pleased to conceal the Satisfaction which they took in it For soon after we had the several Explications set forth and compared with each other and all managed so as to make the Cause to suffer by the disagreement of the Advocates for it And from hence they have formed a fivefold Trinity 1. The Ciceronian Trinity because Tully had used the Word Personae for different Respects Sustineo ego tres Personas and according to this Acceptation Three Persons in the Godhead are no more than three Relations Capacities or Respects of God to his Creatures which say they is downright Sabellianism and is no manner of Mystery but the most intelligible and obvious thing in the World 2. The Cartesian Trinity which maketh three divine Persons and three infinite Minds Spirits and Beings to be but one God 3. The Platonick Trinity of three divine Co-eternal Persons whereof the second and third are subordinate or inferiour to the first in Dignity Power and all other Qualities except only Duration 4. The Aristotelian Trinity which saith the Divine Persons are one God because they have one and the same numerical Substance 5. The Trinity of the Mobile or that which is held by the common People or by such lazy Divines who only say in short that it is an unconceivable Mystery and that those are as much in fault who go about to explain it as those who oppose it But that which hath made the most noise and caused the greatest Heat and Ferment among us hath been a difference first begun between two learned Divines of our Church about the second and fourth and the account which our Unitarians give of both is this That the one is a rational and intelligible Explication but not true nor Orthodox the other is true and Orthodox but neither rational intelligible nor possible I do not mention this as though their words were to be taken as to either but only to shew what advantage they take from both to represent that which is set up for the Churches Doctrine either not to be truly so or to be neither rational nor intelligible The design of the following Discourse is to make it appear 1. That the Churches Doctrine as to the Trinity as it is expressed in the Athanasian
Creed is not liable to their charges of Contradiction Impossibilities and pure Nonsense 2. That we own no other Doctrine than what hath been received by the Christian Church in the several Ages from the Apostles Times 3. And that there are no Objections in point of reason which ought to hinder our Assent to this great point of the Christian Faith But the chief Design of this Preface is to remove this Prejudice which lies in our way from the different manners of Explication and the warm Disputes which have been occasion'd by them It cannot be denied that our Adversaries have taken all possible advantage against us from these unhappy differences and in one of their latest Discourses they glory in it and think they have therein out-done the foreign Unitarians For say they We have shewed that their Faiths concerning this pretended Mystery are so many and so contrary that they are less one Party among themselves than the far more learned and greater number of them are one Party with us this is spoken of those they call Nominal Trinitarians and for the other whom they call Real they prove them guilty of manifest Heresie the one they call Sabellians which they say is the same with Unitarians and the other Polytheists or disguised Pagans and they borrow arguments from one side to prove the charge upon the other and they confidently affirm that all that speak out in this matter must be driven either to Sabellianism or Tritheism If they are Nominal Trinitarians they fall into the former if Real into the latter This is the whole Design of this late Discourse which I shall here examine that I may remove this stumbling Block before I enter upon the main business 1. As to those who are called Nominal Trinitarians Who are they And from whence comes such a Denomination They tell us That they are such who believe three Persons who are Persons in Name only indeed and in truth they are but one subsisting Person But where are these to be found Among all such say they as agree that there is but one only and self-same divine Essence and Substance But do these assert that there is but one subsisting Person and three only in Name Let any one be produced who hath written in defence of the Trinity for those who have been most charged have utterly deny'd it That learned Person who is more particularly reflected upon in this Charge is by them said to affirm That God is one divine intellectual Substance or really subsisting Person and distinguished and diversified by three relative Modes or relative Subsistences And Mr. Hooker is produc'd to the same purpose That there is but one Substance in God and three distinct relaâ—ive Properties which Substance being taken with its peculiar Property makes the distinction of Persons in the Godhead But say they These Modes and Properties do not make any real subsisting Persons but only in a Grammatical and Critical Sense and at most this is no more than one Man may be said to be three Persons on the account of different Relations as Solomon was Son of David Father of Rehoboam and proceeding from David and Bathsheba and yet was but one subsisting Pâ—rson This is the force of what they say But then in a triumphing manner they add That the Realists have so manifest an advantage against them that they have no way to deâ—end themselves but by Recrimination i. e. by shewing the like Absurdity in their Doctrine And thus they hope either side will baffle the other and in the mean time the Cause be lost between them But in so nice a matter as this we must not rely too much on an Adversaries Representation for the leaving out some expressions may make an opinion look with another Appearance than if all were taken together it would have We must therefore take notice of other passages which may help to give the true Sense of the learned Author who is chiefly aimed at 1. In the very same Page he asserts That each of the divine Persons has an absolute Nature distinctly belonging to him though not a distinct absolute Nature and to the same purpose in another place 2. That the eternal Father is and subsists as a Father by having a Son and communicating his Essence to another And elsewhere that the Relation between Father and Son is founded on that eternal Act by which the Father communicates his divine Nature to the Son 3. That the foundation of the Doctrine of the Trinity is this 1. That there can be but one God 2. That there is nothing in God but what is God 3. That there can be no Composition in the Deity with any such positive real Being distinct from the Deity it self But the Church finding in Scripture mention of three to whom distinctly the Godhead does belong expressed these three by the Name of Persons and stated their Personalities upon three distinct Modes of Subsistence allotted to one and the same Godhead and these also distinguished from one another by three distinct Relations What do these men mean to charge one who goes upon these grounds with Sabellianism Doth he make the three Persons to be mere Names as S. Basil in few words expresses the true nature of Sabellianism that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One thing with different Denominations Can the communicating the divine Essence by the Father to the Son be called a Name or a Mode or a Respect only And these Men of wonderfull Subtilty have not learnt to distinguish between Persons and Personalities Where is the least Intimation given that he look'd on the divine Persons as Modes and Respects only That is impossible since he owns a Communication of the divine Essence and that each of the divine Persons hath the divine Nature belonging to him could it ever enter into any Man's head to think that he that owns this should own the other also But the Personality is a thing of another consideration For it is the reason of the distinction of Persons in the same undivided Nature That there is a distinction the Scripture assures us and withall that there is but one divine Essence How can this distinction be Not by essential Attributes for those must be in the divine Essence and in every Person alike otherwise he hath not the entire divine Nature not by accidents as Men are distinguished from each other for the divine Nature is not capable of these not by separate or divided Substances for that would be inconsistent with the perfect Vnity of the Godhead since therefore there can be no other way of distinction we must consider how the Scripture directs us iâ— this case and that acquaints us with the Father Son and Holy Ghost as having mutual Relation to each other and there is no Repugnancy therein to the divine Nature and therefore the distinction of the Persons hath been fixed on that as the most proper foundation for it
inconsistent with the divine Perfections but of this at large in the following Discourse I do not lay any force upon this argument that there can be no ground of the Distinction between the three Substances if there be but one Substance in the Godhead as some have done because the same Substance cannot both unite and distinguish them for the ground of the distinction is not the Substance but the Communication of it and where that is so freely asserted there is a reason distinct from the Substance it self which makes the Distinction of Persons But the difficulty still remains how each Person should have a Substance of his own and yet there be but one entire and indivisible Substance for every Person must have a proper Substance of his own or else according to this Hypothesis he can be no Person and this peculiar Substance must be really distinct from that Substance which is in the other two so that here must be three distinct Substances in the three Persons But how then can there be but one individual Essence in all three We may conceive one common Essence to be individuated in three Persons as it is in Men but it is impossible to conceive the same individual Essence to be in three Persons which have peculiar Substances of their own For the Substances belonging to the Persons are the same Essence individuated in those Persons and so there is no avoiding making three individual Essences and one specifick or common divine Nature And Maimonides his argument is considerable against more Gods than one If saith he there be two Gods there muâ—t be something wherein they agree and something wherein they differ that wherein they agree must be that which makes each of them God and that wherein they differ must make them two Gods Now wherein doth this differ from the present Hypothesis There is something wherein they differ and that is their proper Substance but Maimonides thought that wherein they differ'd sufficient to make them two Gods So that I fear it will be impossible to clear this Hypothesis as to the reconciling three individual Essences with one individual divine Essence which looks too like asserting that there are three Gods and yet but one And the Author of this Explicaâ—ion doth at last confess that three distinct whole inseparable Same 's are hard to conceive as to the manner of it Now to what purpose are new Explications started and Disputes raised and carried on so warmly about them if after all the main difficulty be confess'd to be above our Comprehension We had much better satisfie our selves with that Language which the Church hath receivâ—d and is express'd in the Creeds than go about by new Terms to raise new Ferments especially at a time when our united Forces are most necessary against our common Adversaries No wise and good Men can be fond of any new Inventions when the Peace of the Church is hazarded by them And on the other side it is as dangerous to make new Heresies as new Explications If any one denies the Doctrine contained in the Nicene Creed that is no new Heresie but how can such deny the Son to be consubstantial to the Father who assert one and the same indivisible Substance in the Father and the Son But they may contradict themselves That is not impossible on either side But doth it follow that they are guilty of Heresie Are not three Substances and but one a Contradiction No more say they than that a communicated Substance is not distinct from that which did communicate But this whole dispute we find is at last resolved into the infinite and unconceivable Perfections of the Godhead where it is most safely lodged and that there is no real Contradiction in the Doctrine it self is part of the design of the Discourse afterwards But here it will be necessary to take notice of what the Unitarians have objected against this new Explication viz. That it was condemned by the ancients in the Person of Philoponus in the middle Ages in the Person and Writings of Abhor Ioachim but more severely since the Reformation in the Person of Valentinus Gentilis who was condemned at Geneva and beheaded at Bern for this very Doctrine To these I shall give a distinct answer 1. As to Joh Philoponus I do freely own that in the Greek Church when in the sixth Century he broached his opinion That every Hypostasis must have the common Nature individuated in it this was look'd upon as a Doctrine of dangerous consequence both with respect to the Trinity and Incarnation The latter was the first occasion of it for as Leontius observes the dispute did not begin about the Trinity but about the Incarnation and Philoponus took part with those who asserted but one Nature in Christ after the Vnion and he went upon this ground That if there were two Natures there must be two Hypostases because Nature and Hypostasis were the same Then those on the Churches side saith Leontius objected That if they were the same there must be three distinct Natures in the Trinity as there were three Hypostases which Philoponus yielded and grounded himself on Aristotle's Doctrine that there was but one common Substance and several individual Substances and so held it was in the Trinity whence he was called the leader of the Heresie of the Tritheius This is the account given by Leontius who lived very â—ear his time A. D. 620. The same is affirmed of him by Nicephorus and that he wrote a Book on purpose about the Vnion of two Natures in Christ out of which he produces his own words concerning a common and individual Nature which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which can agree to none else And the main argument he went upon was this that unless we assert a singular Nature in the Hypostases we must say that the whole Trinity was incarnate as unless there be a singular humane Nature distinct from the common Christ must assume the whole Nature of Mankind And this argument from the Incarnation was that which made Roscelin in the beginning of the disputing Age A. D. 1093 to assert That the three Persons were three things distinct from each other as three Angels or three Men because otherwise the Incarnation of the second Person could not be understood as appears by Anselm's Epistles and his Book of the Incarnation written upon that occasion But as Aâ—selm shews at large if this argument hold it must prove the three Persons not only to be distinct but separate and divided Subâ—â—ances which is directly contrary to this new Explication and then there is no avoiding Tritheism But to return to Joh. Philoponus who saith Nicephorus divided the indivisible Nature of God into three Individuals as among Men Which saith he is repugnant to the Sense of the Christian Church and he produces the Testimony of Gregory Nazianzen against it and adds that Leontius and Georgius Pisides confuted
they not affirm them If they are false why do they not answer them Is this done like those who believe the Gospel of S. John to be divine to produce all the arguments they could meet with against it and never offer to shew the Weakness and Vnreasonableness of them Doth not this look like a design to furnish the Deists with such arguments as they could meet with against it Especially when they say That S. Iohn doth not oppose them Why then are these Arguments produced against his Gospel Men do not use to dispute against their Friends nor to tell the World what all People have said against them and give not a word of answer in vindication of them But they say The modern Vnitarians allow of the Gospel and other Pieces of S. Iohn A very great favour indeed to allow of them But how far As of divine Authority Not a word of that But as ancient Books which they think it not fit for them to dispute against But if the ancient Ebionites were their Predecessors as they affirm they can allow none but the Gospel according to the Hebrews and must reject the rest and all S. Paul's Epistles and in truth they make him argue so little to the purpose that they must have a very mean opinion of his Writings But of these things in the Discourse it self As to Church-men no professed Deists could express themselves more spitefully than they have done and that against those to whom they profess the greatest respect What then would they say of the rest They say in general That it is natural to Worldlings to mercenary Spirits to the timorous and ambitious in a word to all such as preferr not God before all other whether Persons or Considerations to believe as they would have it But although the words be general yet any one that looks into them may sâ—eâ— find that they were intended for such Church-men who had written against their opinions And the Insinuation is that if it were not for worldly Interests they would own them to be in the right Whereas I am fully perswaded that they have no way to defend their Opinions but to reject the Scriptures and declare themselves Deists and as long as we retain a just Veneration for the Scripture we can be of no other Opinion because we look on their Interpretations as unreasonable new forced and inconsistent with the circumstances of Places and the main Scope and Tenor of the New Testament But their Introduction to the Answer to the late Archbishop's Sermons about the Trinity and Incarnation shew their Temper sufficiently as to all Church-men He was the Person they professed to esteem and reverence above all others and confess that he instructs them in the Air and Language of a Father which at least deserved a little more dutifull Language from them But some Mens fondness for their Opinions breaks all bounds of Civility and Decency for presently after mentioning the Archbishop and other Bishops who had written against them they say it signifies nothing to the case That they are great Pensioners of the World For it is certain we have a mighty Propensity to believe as is for our Turn and Interest And soon after that their Opposers are under the power of such fatal Biasses that their Doctrine is the more to be suspected because it is theirs For the reason why they maintain the Doctrine of the Trinity is because they must The plain meaning of all this is that the late Archbishop as well as the rest was a mere self-interested Man which none who knew either the outside or inside of Lambeth could ever imagine that if he were really against them as none could think otherwise who knew him so well and so long as I did it only shew'd what a strange Power Interest hath in the Minds of all Church-men But what Bias was it which made him write with that Strength and Iudgment against their Opinions Let us set aside all Titles of Respect and Honour as they desire let Reason be compared with Reason and his Arguments with their Answers and it will be soon found that the advantage which he had was not from any other Dignity than that of a clearer Iudgment and a much stronger way of Reasoning Whereas their Answers are such as may well be supposed to come from those who had some such Bias that they must at least seem to answer what in truth they could not As hath been fully made appear in the Vindication of him to which no reply hath been given although other Treatises of theirs have come out since In the Conclusion of that Answer they say That they did not expect that their Answer should satisfie us and in truth they had a great deal of reason to think so But what reason do they give for it A very kind one no doubt because Prepossession and Interest have taken hold of us As though we were Men of such mean and mercenary Spirits as to believe according to Prepossession without Reason and to act only as serves our present Interest But we never made mean Addresses to Infidels to shew how near our Principles came to theirs nor made Parallels between the Trinity and Transubstantiation as some did and defended them as well as they could when Popery was uppermost But enough of this 3. We have seen how much they have gratified the Deists by representing Church-men in such a manner let us now see in what manner they treat the Deists It is with another sort of Language and which argues a more than ordinary kindness to them In one place they say That the Deists are mostly well-natured Men and Men of Probity and Understanding in effect that they are sincere honest-hearted Men who do good by the impulse of their natural Religion Honesty and good Conscience which have great Influence upon them What another sort of character is this from that of the greatest and in their opinion the best of our Clergy This must proceed from some Intimacy and Familiarity with them and it is easie to imagine from hence that they are upon very good Terms with one another because they must be Unitarians if they believe a God at all But where else are these honest conscientious Deists to be found It is rare indeed for others to find any one that rejects Christianity out of pure Conscience and that acts by principles of sincere Virtue I never yet could meet with such nor hear of those that have And I would fain know the reasons on which such conscientious Men proceeded for truly the Principles of natural Religion are those which recommend Christianity to me for without them the Mysteries of Faith would be far more unaccountable than now they are and supposing them I see no Incongruity in them i. e. That there is a just and holy God and a wise Providence and a future State of Rewards and Punishments and that God designs to bring Mankind
to Happiness out of a State of Misery let these be supposed and the Scheme of Christianity will appear very reasonable and fitted to the Condition and Capacity of Mankind And the sublimest Mysteries of it are not intended to puzzle or amuse Mankind as weak Men imagine but they are discover'd for the greatest and best purposes in the World to bring Men to the hatred of Sin and Love of God and a patient continuance in well-doing in order to a blessed Immortality So that this is truly a Mystery of Godliness being intended for the advancement of real Piety and Goodness among Mankind in order to make them happy But as to these Unitarians who have such happy Acquaintance with these conscientious Deists I would fain learn from them if they think them mistaken why they take no more pains to satisfie and convince them for I find they decline saying a word against them In one place they compare the Atheist and Deist together and very honestly and like any conscientious Deists they impute all the Deism and most part of the Atheism of our Age to the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation Is it possible for Men that live in our Age to give such an account as this of the Growth of Deism and Atheism among us What number of Atheists is there upon any other account than from a looseness of Thinking and Living Where are those who believe God to be an incomprehensible Being and yet reject the Mysteries which relate to his Being because they are incomprehensible Suppose any reject spiritual Substance as Nonsense and a Contradiction as they do the Trinity on the same Pretences Is this a sufficient reason or not They may tell them as they do us that they can have no Ideas no clear and distinct Perceptions of immaterial Substances What answer do they give in this case Not a Syllable although they take notice of it But I hope they give some better satisfaction to the Deist No for they say This is not a place to argue against either Atheist or Deist By no means some would say They were not such Fools to fall out with their Friends And it cannot be denied that they have been the greatest Incouragers of such kind of Writings which serve their turn so well and in pure Gratitude they forbear to argue against them IV. To shew how near they come to an Indifferency in Religion they speak favourably of Mahometans and Jews and even Tartars because they agree with them in the Vnity of the Godhead What an honest-hearted Deist do they make that Impostor Mahomet One would hardly think such a character could have come out of the Mouth of Christians But these are their Words Mahomet is affirmed by divers Historians to have had no other design in pretending himself to be a Prophet but to restore the Belief of the Unity of God which at that time was extirpated among the Eastern Christians by the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation Who are those Historians who give this character of him Why are they not named that their authority might be examin'd Was the Morocco Ambassador one of them Or Paulus Alciatus who from a Unitarian turned Mahometan But by the best accounts we can meet with we find that he was a very cunning Impostor and took in from the Jews and Ishmaelites his Countrymen Circumcision from the Christians an honourable mention of Christ as a Prophet and as the the Word and Spirit of God and owned his Miracles from the ancient Hereticks he denied his Suffering but owned his being taken up into Heaven Yea he owned That he had his Gospel from Heaven but that his Disciples changed it after his Death and attributed more to Christ than he assumed to himself Which shews that he had so much Sence as to discern that if the Books of the New Testament were genuine more must be given to Christ than either Mahomet or the Unitarians do allow Let any indifferent Reader compare their character of Mahomet with that of Athanasius which these Men give and they will easily find that they take as much care to blacken one as they do to vindicate the other What Christian Ingenuity is here But Mahomet was a Deist and Athanasius a Trinitarian But they go on Whatsoever the design of Mahomet was its certain that Mahometism hath prevailed over greater Numbers and more Nations than at this day profess Christianity But how Was it not by force of Arms and the Prevalency of the Saracen and Turkish Empire No say these learned Historians It was not by the Force of the Sword but by that one Truth in the Alcoran the Unity of God It were endless to quote the Historians who say That it was Mahomet's Principle to subdue all by Force of Arms who opposed his Religion but the authority of Elmacinus alone is sufficient for in the beginning of his History he owns that it was his Principle To make War upon those that would not submit to his Law And others say that in remembrance of this Their Law is expounded by their Doctors with a Sword drawn by them and that it is the Law of the Alcoran to kill and slay those that oppose it What liberty the Turkish Empire allows to Christians in the conquer'd Provinces is not to this purpose but by what means Mahometism prevailed in the World But say they The Jews as well as Mahometans are alienated from us because they suppose the Trinity to be the Doctrine of all Christians And what then Must we renounce the Christian Doctrine to please the Jews and Mahometans Must we quit Christ's being the Messias because the Jews deny it Or the suffering of Christ because the Mahometans think it inconsistent with his Honour But if this be the truth of the case as to Jews and Mahometans no Persons are so well qualified to endeavour their Conversion as our Unitarians which would be a much better imployment for them than to expose the Christian Doctrine by such Writings among us I am ashamed to mention what they say of the Tartars when they call them The Shield and Sword of that way of acknowledging and worshipping God So that Mahometans Jews and Tartars are fairly represented because they agree in the grand Fundamental of the Vnity of the Godhead but the Christian Church is charged with believing Impossibilities Contradictions and pure Nonsense And thus we find our Unitarians serving the Deists in all their methods of overthrowing Revealed Religion and advancing Deism among us And if this will not awaken us to look more after them and unite us in the defence of our Common Cause against them I do not think that other Methods will do it For it is become a Restless and Active although as yet but a small Body of Men and they tell the World plainly enough that they are free from the Biasses of Hopes and Fears and sit loose from the Awes and Bribes of the
so many ages with embracing Errors and Nonsense and Contradictions for Mysteries of Faith I desire to know supposing it possible for the Christian Church to be so early so generally and so miserably deceived in a matter of such moment by what light they have discovered this great Error Have they any new Books of Scripture to judge by Truly they had need for they seem to be very weary of the old ones because they find they will not serve their turn Therefore they muster up the old Objections against them and give no answer to them they find fault with Copies and say they are corrupted and falsified to speak the Language of the Church they let fall suspicious words as to the Form of Baptism as though it were inserted from the Churches Practice they charge us with following corrupt Copies and making false Translations without any manner of ground for it And doth not all this discover no good will to the Scriptures at least as they are received among us And I despair of meeting with better Copies or seeing a more faithfull Translation than ours is So that it is plain that they have no mind to be tried by the Scriptures For these exceptions are such as a Malefactor would make to a Jury he is afraid to be condemned by But what then is the peculiar light which these happy men have found in a corner the want whereof hath made the Christian Church to fall into such monstrous Errors and Contradictions Nothing they pretend but the mere light of common sense and reason which they call after a more refined way of speaking clear Ideas and distinct Perceptions of things But least I should be thought to misrepresent them I will produce some of their own Expressions In one place they say We deny the Articles of the new Christianity or the Athanasian religion not because they are Mysteries or because we do not comprehend them we deny them because we do comprehend them we have a clear and distinct Perception that they are not Mysteries but Contradictions Impossibilities and pure Nonsense We have our reason in vain and all science and certainty would be destroy'd if we could not distinguish between Mysteries and Contradictions And soon after we are not to give the venerable name of Mystery to Doctrines that are contrary to nature's and reason's Light or which destroy or contradict our natural Ideas These things I have particular reason to take notice of here because they are published as an Answer to the foregoing Sermon about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith and this shews the general grounds they go upon and therefore more fit to be consider'd here To which I shall add one passage more wherein they insinuate that the Doctrine of the Trinity hath been supported only by interest and force Their words are after they have called the Doctrine of the Trinity a monstrous Paradox and Contradiction This is that say they which because all other arguments failed them in their disputations with the Photinians and Arians they at last effectually proved by the Imperial Edicts by Confiscations and Banishments by Seizing and Burning all Books written against it or them by capital Punishments and when the Papacy of which this is the chief Article prevailed by Fire and Faggot This is a new discovery indeed that the Doctrine of the Trinity as it is generally receiv'd in the Christian Church is the chief Article of Popery although it were embraced and defended long before Popery was known and I hope would be so if there were no such thing as Popery left in the world But if every thing which displeases some men must pass for Popery I am afraid Christianity it self will not escape at last for there are some who are building apace on such foundations as these and are endeavouring what they can to remove out of their way all revealed Religion by the help of those two powerfull Machines viz. Priest-craft and Mysteries But because I intend a clear and distinct Discourse concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity as it hath been generally received among us I shall proceed in these four Enquiries 1. Whether it was accounted a monstrous Paradox and Contradiction where Persons were not sway'd by Force and Interest 2. Whether there be any ground of common reason on which it can be justly charged with Nonsense Impossibilities and Contradiction 3. Whether their Doctrine about the Trinity or ours be more agreeable to the sense of Scripture and Antiquity 4. Whether our Doctrine being admitted it doth overthrow all certainty of reason and makes way for believing the greatest Absurdities under the pretence of being Mysteries of Faith CHAP. II. The Doctrine of the Trinity not received in the Christian Church by Force or Interest AS to the first it will lead me into an enquiry into the sense of the Christian Church as to this Doctrine long before Popery was hatched and at a time when the main force of Imperial Edicts was against Christianity it self at which time this Doctrine was owned by the Christian Church but disowned and disputed against by some particular Parties and Sects And the question then will be whether these had engrossed Sense and Reason and Knowledge among themselves and all the body of the Christian Church with their heads and governors were bereft of common Sense and given up to believe Nonsense and Contradictions for Mysteries of Faith But in order to the clearing this matter I take it for granted That Sense and Reason are no late inventions only to be found among our Vnitarians but that all Mankind have such a competent share of them as to be able to judge what is agreeable to them and what not if they apply themselves to it That no men have so little sense as to be fond of Nonsense when sense will do them equal service That if there be no Biass of Interest to sway them men will generally judge according to the evidence of reason That if they be very much concerned for a Doctrine opposed by others and against their interest they are perswaded of the truth of it by other means than by force and fear That it is possible for men of sense and reason to believe a Doctrine to be true on the account of divine Revelation although they cannot comprehend the manner of it That we have reason to believe those to be men of sense above others who have shew'd their abilities above them in other matters of Knowledge and Speculation That there can be no reason to suspect the integrity of such men in delivering their own Sense who at the same time might far better secure their interest by renouncing their Faith lastly That the more Persons are concerned to establish and defend a Doctrine which is opposed and contemned the greater evidence they give that they are perswaded of the truth of it These are Postulata so agreeable to sense and common reason that I think if an affront to human Nature
Lucian did and probably was by him brought thither He hath an extraordinary character given him by Eusebius both for his Life and Learning and so by S. Ierom without the least reflection upon him as to matter of Faith But on the other side Alexander Bishop of Alexandria in his Epistle concerning Arius to Alexander of Constantinople doth say That he follow'd Paulus Samosatenus and held separate Communion for many years under the three following Bishops He doth not say that he died so when he suffer'd Martyrdom under Maximinus at Nicomedia neither doth he say the contrary Upon which learned Men are divided whether he persisted in that opinion or not Petavius and Valesius give him up on the other side Baronius vindicates him and saith The mis-report of him came from his zeal against Sabellianism and that Alexander wrote that of him before his Books were throughly examin'd that Athanasius never joyns him with Paulus Samosatenus that the Arians never produced his authority in their debates as they would have done since the Emperor's Mother had built a City in the place where he suffer'd Martyrdom It cannot be doubted that the Arian Party would have it believed that they came out of Lucian's School as appears by Arius his Epistle to Eusebius of Nicomedia but on the other side the great argument to me is That this very party at the Council of Antioch produced a Creed which they said was there found written with Lucian's own hand which is directly contrary to the Samosatenian Doctrine Now either this was true or false if it were true then it was false that he was a Samosatenian if it were false how came the Arian Party to give it out for true Especially those who valued themselves for coming out of his School They were far enough from being such weak men to produce the authority of Lucian at Antioch where he was so much esteemed for a Doctrine utterly inconsistent with that of Paulus Samosatenus if it were there known that he was his Disciple and separated from three Bishops on that account For therein the Son is owned to be God of God begotten of the Father before all Ages perfect God of perfect God c. Suppose they had a mind to subvert the Nicene Faith by this Creed under the name of Lucian only because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was left out yet what an improbable way did they take when they supported the main points by his authority and that at Antioch where it was greatest If Philostorgius may be credited the great men of the Arian Party had been his Scholars as besides Eusebius of Nicomedia Maris of Chalcedon Theognis of Nice Leontius of Antioch and several other leading Bishops and even Arius himself pretended to it Which makes me apt to think that Alexander knowing this and at first not being able so well to judge of Lucian's opinion charged him with following Paulus Samosatenus from whence the odium would fall upon his Scholars For his design is to draw the succession down from Ebion and Artemon and Paulus Samosatenus and Lucian to Arius and his Associates and charges them with holding the same Doctrine wherein he was certainly mistaken and so he might be about Lucian's separation from the following Bishops on that account The last our Vnitarians mention among their great men is Photinus Bishop of Sirmium They take it for granted that he was of their opinion This is certain that whatever it was it was generally condemned as well by the Arians as others and after several Councils called he was deposed for his Heresie The first time we find him condemned was by the Arian Party in a second Council at Antioch as appears by the profession of Faith drawn up by them extant in Athanasius and Socrates There they anathematize expressly the Disciples of Marcellus and Photinus for denying the Pre-existence and Deity of Christ. But by Christ they understood The Person born of the Virgin who was the Son of God but they did not deny the Pre-existence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and never dream'd that any could think that Christ was to be called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from his Office of Preaching as our modern Vnitarians assert But Photinus his opinion was That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was before all Ages but not Christ or the Son of God which divine word was partly internal and so it was ever with God and partly external when it was communicated to the Person of Christ whereby he became the Son of God But the Arians there declare their Belief That Christ was the living Word and Son of God before all Worlds and by whom he made all things The next time he is said to be condemned was in that which is called the Council at Sardica but was the Council of the Eastern Bishops after their parting from the Western This is mention'd by Epiphanius and Sulpitius Severus the latter saith he differ'd from Sabellius only in the point of Vnion i. e. because Sabellius made the Persons to be merely Denominations which was then called the Heresie of the Vnionitae and therefore Photinus must assert an Hypostasis to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or else he did not at all differ from Sabellius And it appears by Epiphanius that Photinus did distinguish between Christ and the Word In the Beginning was the Word said he but not the Son which title was promised and foretold but did not belong to Christ till he was born of the Holy Ghost and Mary so he expresses it Herein saith Epiphanius he follow'd Paulus Samosatenus but exceeded him in his Inventions In answer to him he saith that S. Iohn's words are not In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was in God but the Word was with God and the Word was God Little did either side imagine that this was to be understood of the beginning of the Gospel as our modern Photinians would make us believe they think but Photinus himself was a Person of too much Sagacity to take up with such an absurd and insipid sence I pass over the fresh condemnations of Photinus in the Councils at Milan and Rome because his opinion is not to be learnt from them and come to that at Sirmium where it is more particularly set â—orth as well as condemned But here we must distinguish the two Councils at Sirmium in the former he was condemned but the people would not part with him but in the second he was not only condemned but effectually deposed the Emperor Constantius a professed Arian forcing him to withdraw But it was upon his own Appeal to the Emperor against the Judgment of the Council who appointed Judges Delegates to hear this cause and Basilius Ancyranus was the manager of the debate with him wherein he is said to have been so much too hard for Photinus that the Emperor himself order'd his Banishment And I can find
we answer God What the Holy Ghost we answer God So that here the Infidels make the same Objection and draw the very same Inference Then say they the Father Son and H. Ghost are three Gods But what saith S. Augustin to this Had he no more skill in Arithmetick than to say there are Three and yet but One He saith plainly that there are not three Gods The Infidels are troubled because they are not Inlightend their heart is shut up because they are without Faith By which it is plain he look'd on these as the proper Objections of Infidels and not of Christians But may not Christians have such doubts in their minds He doth not deny it but then he saith Where the true foundation of Faith is laid in the heart which helps the Vnderstanding we are to embrace with it all that it can reach to and where we can go no farther we must believe without doubting which is a wise resolution of this matter For there are some things revealed which we can entertain the notion of in our minds as we do of any other matters and yet there may be some things belonging to them which we cannot distinctly conceive We believe God to have been from all Eternity and that because God hath revealed it but here is something we can conceive viz. that he was so and here is something we cannot conceive viz. How he was so This Instance I had produced in my Sermon to shew that we might be obliged to believe such things concerning God of which we cannot have a clear and distinct Notion as that God was from all Eternity although we cannot conceive in our minds how he could be from himself Now what saith the Vnitarian to this who pretended to Answer me He saith If God must be from himself then an Eternal God is a Contradiction for that implies that he was before he was and so charges me with espousing the cause of Atheists I wish our Vnitarians were as free from this Charge as I am But this is malicious cavilling For my design was only to shew that we could have no distinct conception of something which we are bound to believe For upon all accounts we are bound to believe an Eternal God and yet we cannot form a distinct and clear Idea of the manner of it Whether being from himself be taken positively or negatively the matter is not cleared the one is Absurd and the other Unconceivable by us But still I say it is a thing that we are bound to believe stedfastly although it is above our comprehension But instead of Answering to this he runs out into an Examination of one notion of Eternity and as he thinks shews some Absurdities in that which are already answer'd But that was not my meaning but to shew that we could have no clear and distinct Notion of Eternity And if his Arguments were good they prove what I aimed at at least as to that Part and himself produces my own Words to shew that there were such Difficulties every way which we could not master and yet are bound to believe that necessary Existence is an inseparable Attribute of God So that here we have a clear instance of what S. Augustin saith That we may believe something upon full Conviction as that God is eternal and yet there may remain something which we cannot reach to by our understanding viz. the manner how Eternity is to be conceived by us which goes a great way towards clearing the Point of the Trinity notwithstanding the Difficulty in our conceiving the manner how Three should be one and One three But S. Augustin doth not give it over so Let us keep stedfast saith he to the Foundation of our Faith that we may arrive to the top of Perfection the Father is God the Son is God the Holy Ghost is God the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father nor the Holy Ghost either Father or Son And he goes on The Trinity is one God one Eternity one Power one Majesty Three Persons one God So it is in Erasmus his Edition but the late Editors say that the word Personae was not in their Manuscript And it is not material in this Place since elsewhere he approves the use of the word Persons as the fittest to express our meaning in this Case For since some Word must be agreed upon to declare our Sense by he saith those who understood the Propriety of the Latin tongue could not pitch upon any more proper than that to signifie that they did not mean three distinct Essences but the same Essence with a different Hypostasis founded in the Relation of one to the other as Father and Son have the same Divine Essence but the Relations being so different that one cannot be confounded with the other that which results from the Relation being joyned with the Essence was it which was called a Person But saith S. Augustin The Caviller will ask if there be Three what Three are they He answers Father Son and Holy Ghost But then he distinguishes between what they are in themselves and what they are to each other The Father as to himself is God but as to the Son he is Father the Son as to himself is God but as to the Father he is the Son But how is it possible to understand this Why saith he Take two men Father and Son the one as to himself is a Man but as to the Son a Father the Son as to himself is a Man but as to the Father he is a Son but these two have the same common Nature But saith he Will it not hence follow that as these are two Men so the Father and Son in the Divine Essence must be two Gods No there lies the difference between the humane and Divine Nature That one cannot be multiplied and divided as the other is And therein lies the true Solution of the Difficulty as will appear afterwards When you begin to count saith he you go on One two and Three But when you have reckon'd them what is it you have been Counting The Father is the Father the Son the Son and the Holy Ghost the Holy Ghost What are these Three Are they not three Gods No Are they not three Almighties No They are capable of Number as to their Relation to each other but not as to their Essence which is but One. The substance of the Answer lies here the Divine Essence is that alone which makes God that can be but One and therefore there can be no more Gods than one But because the same Scripture which assures us of the Unity of the Divine Essence doth likewise joyn the Son and Holy Ghost in the same Attributes Operations and Worship therefore as to the mutual Relations we may reckon Three but as to the Divine Essence that can be no more than One. Boëthius was a great Man in all respects for his Quality
other places in him it may appear that he intended no Specifick Nature in God But saith Curcellaeus If the Fathers intended any more than a Specifick Nature why did they not use Words which would express it more fully As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For that very Reason which he mentions from Epiphanius because they would seem to approach too near to Sabellianism S. Basil was a great Man notwithstanding the flout of our Vnitarians and apply'd his thoughts to this matter to clear the Doctrine of the Church from the Charge of Sabellianism and Tritheism As to the former he saith in many places That the Heresie lay in making but one Person as well as one God or one Substance with three several Names As to the latter no man asserts the individual Unity of the Divine Essence in more significant Words than he doth For he uses the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. Cyril of Alexandria doth likewise and yet both these are produced by Curcellaeus for a Specifick Nature But saith Curcellaeus S. Basil in his Epistle to Gregory Nyssen doth assert the difrence between Substance and Hypostasis to consist in this That the one is taken for common Nature and the other for individual and so making three Hypostases he must make three Individuals and One common or Specifick Nature I answer That it is plain by the design of that Epistle that by three Hypostases he could not mean three individual Essences For he saith The design of his writing it was to clear the difference between Substance and Hypostasis For saith he From the want of this some assert but one Hypostasis as well as one Essence and others because there are three Hypostases suppose there are three distinct Essences For both went upon the same Ground that Hypostasis and Essence were the same Therefore saith he those who held three Hypostases did make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Division of Substances From whence it follows that S. Basil did look upon the Notion of three distinct Substances as a mistake I say distinct Substances as Individuals are distinct for so the first Principles of Philosophy do own that Individuals make a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Division of the Species into several and distinct Individuals But doth not S. Basil go about to explain his Notion by the common Nature of man and the several Individuals under it and what can this signifie to his purpose unless he allows the same in the Godhead I grant he doth so but he saith the Substance is that which is common to the whole kind the Hypostasis is that which properly distinguisheth one Individual from another which he calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the peculiar incommunicable Property Which he describes by a Concourse of distinguishing Characters in every Individual But how doth he apply these things to the divine Nature For therein lies the whole difficulty Doth he own such a Community of Nature and Distinction of Individuals there He first confesses the divine Nature to be incomprehensible by us but yet we may have some distinct Notions about these things As for instance In the Father we conceive something common to him and to the Son and that is the divine Essence and the same as to the Holy Ghost But there must be some proper characters to distinguish these one from another or else there will be nothing but confusion which is Sabellianism Now the essential Attributes and divine Operations are common to them and therefore these cannot distinguish them from each other And those are the peculiar Properties of each Person as he shews at large But may not each Person have a distinct Essence belonging to him as we see it is among Men For this S. Basil answers 1. He utterly denies any possible Division in the divine Nature And he never question'd but the distinction of Individuals under the same Species was a sort of Division although there were no Separation And the followers of Ioh. Philoponus did hold an indissoluble Vnion between the three individual Essences in the divine Nature but they held a distinction of peculiar Essences besides the common Nature which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appears by Photius who was very able to judge And it appears by one of themselves in Photius that the controversie was whether an Hyposiasis could be without an individual Essence belonging to it self or whether the peculiar Properties and Characters did make the Hypostasis But as to S. Basil's Notion we are to observe 2. That he makes the divine Essence to be uncapable of number by reason of its perfect Unity Here our Vnitarians tell us that when S. Basil saith That God is not one in number but in nature he means as the Nature of Man is one but there are many particular Men as Peter James and John c. so the Nature of God or the common Divinity is one but there are as truely more Gods in number or more particular Gods as there are more particular Men. but that this is a gross mistake or abuse of S. Basil's meaning I shall make it plain from hâ—mself For they say That he held that as to this question How many Gods it must be answered Three Gods in number or three Personal Gods and one in Nature or divine Properties whereas he is so far from giving such an answer that he absolutely denies that there can be more Gods than one in that very place He mentions it as an Objection that since he said That the Father is God the Son God the Holy Ghost God he must hold three Gods to which he answers We own but one God not in Number but in Nature Then say they He held but one God in Nature and more in Number That is so far from his meaning that I hardly think any that read the passage in S. Basil could so wilfully pervert his meaning For his intention was so far from asserting more Gods in Number that it was to prove so perfect a Unity in God that he was not capable of number or of being more than one For saith he That which is said to be one in Number is not really and simply one but is made up of many which by composition become one as we say the world is one which is made up of many things But God is a simple uncompounded Being and therefore cannot be said to be one in Number But the World is not one by Nature because it is made up of so many things but it is one by Number as those several parts make but one World Is not this fair dealing with such a Man as S. Basil to represent his Sense quite otherwise than it is As though he allow'd more Gods than one in Number Number saith he again belongs to Quantity and Quantity to Bodies but what relation
among Men if several go about the same Work yet every particular Person works by himself and therefore they may well be called many because every one is circumscribed but in the divine Persons he proves that it is quite otherwise for they all concurr in the Action towards us as he there shews at large Petavius was aware of this and therefore he saith he quitted it and returned to the other whereas he only saith If his Adversaries be displeased with it he thinks the other sufficient Which in short is that Essence in it self is one and indivisible but among Men it is divided according to the Subjects that the divine Nature is capable of no Division at all and therefore the difference of Hypostases must be from the different Relations and Manner of Subsistence 3. He expresses his meaning fully in another place For in his Catechetical Oration he saith he looks on the Doctrine of the Trinity as a profound Mystery which three individual Persons in one specifick Nature is far from But wherein lies it Chiefly in this That there should be Number and no Number different View and yet but One a distinction of Hypostases and yet no Division in the Subjects For so his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is contrary to what he said of human Hypostases Now what is the Subject in this case According to Curcellaeus his Notion it must be an Individual But since he asserts there can be no Division in the Subjects then he must overthrow any such Individuals as are among Men. These are the chief Testimonies out of the Greek Fathers whose authority Curcellaeus and others rely most upon as to this matter which I have therefore more particularly examin'd But S. Ierom saith Curcellaeus in his Epistle to Damasus thought three Hypostases implied three distinct Substances and therefore when the Campenses would have him own them he refused it and asked his Advice Then it is plain S. Ierom would not own three distinct Substances and so could not be of Curcellaeus his mind But saith he S. Ierom meant by three Substances three Gods different in kind as the Arians did But how doth that appear Doth he not say the Arian Bishop and the Campenses put him upon it But who was this Arian Bishop and these Campenses No other than the Meletian Party for Meletius was brought in by the Arians but he joyned against them with S. Basil and others who asserted three Hypostases and the Campenses were his People who met without the Gates as the Historians tell us But it is evident by S. Ierom that the Latin Church understood Hypostasis to be the same then with Substance and the reason why they would not allow three Hypostases was because they would not assert three Substances So that Curcellaeus his Hypothesis hath very little colour for it among the Latin Fathers since S. Ierom there saith it would be Sacrilege to hold three Substances and he freely bestows an Anathema upon any one that asserted more than one But Hilary saith Curcellaeus owns a specifick Vnity for in his Book de Synodis he shews That by one Substance they did not mean one individual Substance but such as was in Adam and Seth that is of the same kind No man asserts the Vnity and Indiscrimination of the divine Substance more fully and frequently than he doth and that without any Difference or Variation as to the Father and the Son And although against the Arians he may use that for an Illustration of Adam and Seth yet when he comes to explain himself he declares it must be understood in a way agreeable to the divine Nature And he denies any Division of the Substance between Father and Son but he asserts one and the same Substance to be in both and although the Person of the Son remains distinct from the Person of the Father yet he subsists in that Substance of which he was begotten and nothing is taken off from the substance of the Father by his being begotten of it But doth he not say That he hath a Legitimate and proper Substance of his own begotten Nature from God the Father And what is this but to own two distinct Substances How can the Substance be distinct if it be the very same and the Son subsist in that Substance of which he was begotten And that Hilary besides a multitude of passages to the same purpose in him cannot be understood of two distinct Substances will appear by this Evidence The Arians in their Confession of Faith before the Council of Nice set down among the several Heresies which they condemned that of Hieracas who said the Father and Son were like two Lamps shining out of one common Vessel of Oil. Hilary was sensible that under this that Expression was struck at God of God Light of Light which the Church owned His Answer is Luminis Naturae Vnitas est non ex connexione porrectio i e. they are not two divided Lights from one common Stock but the same Light remaining after it was kindled that it was before As appears by his Words Light of Light saith he implies That it gives to another that which it continues to have it self And Petavius saith that the Opinion of Hieracas was That the substance of the Father and Son differ'd Numerically as one Lamp from another And Hilary calls it an Error of humane Understanding which would judge of God by what they find in one another Doth not S. Ambrose say as Curcellaeus quotes him That the Father and Son are not two Gods because all men are said to be of one Substance But S Ambrose is directly against him For he saith The Arians objected that if they made the Son true God and Con-substantial with the Father they must make two Gods as there are two men or two Sheep of the same Essence but a Man and a Sheep are not said to be Men or two sheep Which they said to excuse themselves because they made the Son of a different kind and substance from the Father And what Answer doth S. Ambrose give to this 1. He saith Plurality according to the Scriptures rather falls on those of different kinds and therefore when they make them of several kinds they must make several Gods 2. That we who hold but One Substance cannot make more Gods than One. 3. To his instance of Men he answers That although they are of the same Nature by Birth yet the◠differ in Age and Thought and Work and Place from one another and where there is such Diversity there cannot be Vnity but in God there is no difference of Nature Will or Operation and therefore there can be but one God The last I shall mention is S. Augustin whom Curcellaeus produces to as little purpose for although he doth mention the same instance of several Men being of the same kind yet he speaks so expresly against a Specifick Vnity in
God that he saith The Consequence must be that the three Persons must be three Gods as three humane Persons are three Men. And in another place That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are One in the same individual Nature And what saith Curcellaeus to these places for he was aware of them To the latter he saith That by individual he means Specifick This is an extraordinary Answer indeed But what Reason doth he give for it Because they are not divided in Place or Time but they may have their proper Essences however But where doth S. Augustin give any such Account of it He often speaks upon this Subject but always gives another Reason viz. because they are but One and the same Substance The Three Persons are but One God because they are of One Substance and they have a perfect Vnity because there is no Diversity of Nature or of Will But it may be said That here he speaks of a Diversity of Nature In the next Words he explains himself that the three Persons are One God propter ineffabilem conjunctionem Deitatis but the Union of three Persons in one Specifick Nature is no ineffable Conjunction it being one of the commonest things in the World and in the same Chapter propter Individuam Deitatem unus Deus est propter uniuscujusque Proprietatem tres Personae sunt Here we find one Individual Nature and no difference but in the peculiar Properties of the Persons In the other place he is so express against a Specifick Vnity that Curcellaeus his best Answer is That in that Chapter he is too intricate and obscure i. e. He doth not to speak his Mind Thus much I thought fit to say in Answer to those undeniable Proofs of Curcellaeus which our Vnitarians boast so much of and whether they be so or not let the Reader examine and judge CHAP. VII The Athanasian Creed clear'd from Contradictions III. I Now come to the last thing I proposed viz. to shew That it is no contradiction to assert three Persons in the Trinity and but one God and for that purpose I shall examine the charge of Contradictions on the Athanasian Creed The summ of the first Articles say they is this The one true God is three distinct Persons and three distinct Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are the one true God Which is 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 This is very freely spoken with respect not merely to our Church but the Christian World which owns this Creed to be a just and true Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity But there are some Creatures as remarkable for their untoward kicking as for their Stupidity And is not this great skill in these Matters to make such a Parallel between three Persons in the Godhead and Peter Iames and Iohn Do they think there is no difference between an infinitely perfect Being and such finite limited Creatures as Individuals among Men are Do they suppose the divine Nature capable of such Division and Separation by Individuals as human Nature is No they may say but ye who hold three Persons must think so For what reason We do assert three Persons but it is on the account of divine Revelation and in such a manner as the divine Nature is capable of it For it is a good rule of Boethius Talia sunt praedicata qualia subjecta permiserint We must not say that there are Persons in the Trinity but in such a manner as is agreeable to the divine Nature and if that be not capable of Division and Separation then the Persons must be in the same undivided Essence The next Article is Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance But how can we say they not confound the Persons that have as ye say but one numerical Substance And how can we but divide the Substance which we find in three distinct divided Persons I think the terms numerical Substance not very proper in this case and I had rather use the Language of the Fathers than of the Schools and some of the most judicious and learned Fathers would not allow the terms of one numerical Substance to be applied to the divine Essence For their Notion was That Number was only proper for compound Bâ—ings but God being a pure and simple Being was one by Nature and not by Number as S. Basil speaks as is before observed because he is not compounded nor hath any besides himself to be reckon'd with him But because there are different Hypostases therefore they allow'd the use of Number about them and so we may say the Hypostases or Persons are numerically different but we cannot say that the Essence is one Numerically But why must they confound the Persons if there be but one Essence The relative Properties cannot be confounded for the Father cannot be the Son nor the Son the Father and on these the difference of Persons is founded For there can be no difference as to essential Properties and therefore all the difference or rather distinction must be from those that are Relative A Person of it self imports no Relation but the Person of the Father or of the Son must and these Relations cannot be confounded with one another And if the Father cannot be the Son nor the Son the Father then they must be distinct from each other But how By dividing the Substance That is impossible in a Substance that is indivisible It may be said That the Essence of created Beings is indivisible and yet there are divided Persons I grant it but then a created Essence is capable of different accidents and qualities to divide one Person from another which cannot be supposed in the divine Nature and withall the same power which gives a Being to a created Essence gives it a separate and divided Existence from all others As when Peter Iames and Iohn received their several distinct Personalities from God at the same time he gave them their separate Beings from each other although the same Essence be in them all But how can we but divide the Substance which we see in three distinct divided Persons The question is whether the distinct Properties of the Persons do imply a Division of the Substance We deny that the Persons are divided as to the Substance because that is impossible to be divided but we say they are and must be distinguished as to those incommunicable Properties which make the Persons distinct The essential Properties are uncapable of being divided and the Relations cannot be confounded so that there must be one undivided Substance and yet three distinct Persons But every Person must have his own proper Substance and so the
and therefore comprehends the whole three Persons so that there is neither a Grammatical nor Arithmetical Contradiction And what say our Vnitarians to this Truly no less Than that the Remedy is worse if possible than the Disease Nay then we are in a very ill Case But how I pray doth this appear 1. Say they Three personal Gods and one Essential God make four Gods if the Essential God be not the same with the personal Gods and tho' he is the same yet since they are not the same with one another but distinct it follows that there are three Gods i. e. three personal Gods 2. It introduces two sorts of Gods three Personal and one Essential But the Christian Religion knows and owns but One true and most high God of any sort So far then we are agreed That there is but One true and most high God and that because of the perfect Vnity of the Divine Essence which can be no more than One and where there is but One Divine Essence there can be but One true God unless we can suppose a God without an Essence and that would be a strange sort of God He would be a personal God indeed in their critical Sense of a Person for a shape or appearance But may not the fame Essence be divided That I have already shew'd to be impossible Therefore we cannot make so many personal Gods because we assert one and the same Essence in the three Persons of Father Son and Holy Ghost But they are distinct and therefore must be distinct Gods since every one is distinct from the other They are distinct as to personal Properties but not as to Essential Attributes which are and must be the same in all So that here is but one Essential God and three Persons But after all why do we assert three Persons in the Godhead Not because we find them in the Athanasian Creed but because the Scripture hath revealed that there are Three Father Son and Holy Ghost to whom the Divine Nature and Attributes are given This we verily believe that the Scripture hath revealed and that there are a great many places of which we think no tolerable Sense can be given without it and therefore we assert this Doctrine on the same Grounds on which we believe the Scriptures And if there are three Persons which have the Divine Nature attributed to them what must we do in this Case Must we cast off the Vnity of the Divine Essence No that is too frequently and plainly asserted for us to call it into Question Must we reject those Scriptures which attribute Divinity to the Son and Holy Ghost as well as to the Father That we cannot do unless we cast off those Books of Scripture wherein those things are contained But why do we call them Persons when that Term is not found in Scripture and is of a doubtful Sense The true Account whereof I take to be this It is observed by Facundus Hermianensis that the Christian Church received the Doctrine of the Trinity before the Terms of three Persons were used But Sabellianism was the occasion of making use of the name of Persons It 's true That the Sabellians did not dislike our Sense of the Word Person which they knew was not the Churches Sense as it was taken for an Appearance or an external Quality which was consistent enough with their Hypothesis who allow'd but One real Person with different Manifestations That this was their true Opinion appears from the best account we have of their Doctrine from the first Rise of Sabellianism The Foundations of it were laid in the earliest and most dangerous Heresies in the Christian Church viz. that which is commonly called by the name of the Gnosticks and that of the Cerinthians and Ebionites For how much soever they differ'd from each other in other things yet they both agreed in this that there was no such thing as a Trinity consisting of Father Son and Holy Ghost but that all was but different Appearances and Manifestations of God to Mankâ—nd In consequence whereof the Gnosticks denied the very Humanity of Christ and the Cerinthians and Ebionites his Divinity But both these sorts were utterly rejected the Communion of the Christian Church and no such thing as Sabellianism was found within it Afterwards there arose some Persons who started the same Opinion within the Church the first we meet with of this sort are those mention'd by Theodoret Epigonus Cleomenes and Noëtus from whom they were called Noeâ—ians not long after Sabellius broached the same Doctrine in Pentapolis and the Parts thereabouts which made Dionysius of Alexandria appear so early and so warmly against it But he happening to let fall some Expressions as though he asserted an Inequality of Hypostases in the Godhead Complaint was made of it to Dionysius then Bishop of Rome who thereupon explained that which he took to be the true Sense of the Christian Church in this matter Which is still preserved in Athanasius Therein he disowns the Sabellian Doctrine which confounded the Father Son and Holy Ghost and made them to be the same and withal he rejected those who held three distinct and separate Hypostases as the Platonists and after them the Marcionists did Dionysius of Alexandria when he came to explain himself agreed with the others and asserted the Son to be of the same Substance with the Father as Athanasius hath proved at large but yet he said That if a distinction of Hypostases were not kept up the Doctrine of the Trinity would be lost as appears by an Epistle of his in S. Basil. Athanasius saith That the Heresie of Sabellius lay in making the Father and Son to be only different Names of the same Person so that in one Respect he is the Father and in another the Son Gregory Nazianzen in opposition to Sabellianism saith We must believe one God and three Hypostases and commends Athanasius for preserving the true Mean in asserting the Vnity of Nature and the Distinction of Properties S. Basil saith That the Sabellians made but one Person of the Father and Son that in Name they confessed the Son but in Reality they denied him In another place that the Sabellians asserted but one Hypostasis in the Divine Nature but that God took several Persons upon him as occasion required sometimes that of a Father at other times of a Son and so of the Holy Ghost And to the same purpose in other places he saith That there are distinct Hypostases with their peculiar Properties which being joyned with the Vnity of Nature make up the true Confession of Faith There were some who would have but One Hypostasis whom he opposes with great vehemency and the Reason he gives is That then they must make the Persons to be meer Names which is Sabellianisn And he saith That if our Notions of distinct Persons have no certain Foundation they are meer Names such as
them For unto which of the Angels said he at any time Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee These words say they in their original and primary Sense are spoken of David but in their mystical Sense are a Prophecy concerning Christ. Was this mystical Sense primarily intended or not If not they are only an accommodation and no proof But they say even in that mystical Sense they were intended not of the Lord Christ's supposed eternal Generation from the Essence of the Father but of his Resurrection from the dead But if that be not taken as an Evidence of his being the eternal Son of God how doth this prove him above Angels Heb. 1.6 And again when he bringeth his first begotten into the World he saith And let all the Angels of God Worship him This one would think home to the business But our wise Interpreters tell us plainly that the words were used by the Psalmist on another occasion i. e. they are nothing to the purpose But being told of this instead of mending the matter they have made it far worse for upon second thoughts but not wiser they say The words are not taken out of the Psalm but out of Deut. 32.43 where the words are not spoken of God but of God's People and if this be said of God's People they hope it may be said of Christ too without concluding from thence that Christ is the supreme God But we must conclude from hence that these are far from being wise Interpreters for what consequence is this the Angels worship God's People therefore Christ is superiour to Angels Heb. 1.8 Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever i. e. say they God is thy Throne for ever And so they relate not to Christ but to God And to what purpose then are they brought Heb. 1.10 Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the Earth and the Heavens are the work of thy Hands These words say they are to be understood not of Christ but of God Which is to charge the Apostle with arguing out of the old Testament very impertinently Is this interpreting the Scriptures like wise Men Is it not rather exposing and ridiculing them Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men to give such a forced Sense of the beginning of S. John's Gospel as was never thought of from the writing of it till some in the last Age thought it necessary to avoid the proof of Christ's Divinity from it For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was never taken in the Sense they put upon it for him that was to preach the Word in S. Iohn's time but the signification of it was then well understood from the Alexandrian School as appears by Philo whence it was brought by Cerinthus into those parts of Asia where S. Iohn lived when he wrote his Gospel and one of themselves confesses that Cerinthus did by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mean something divine which rested upon and inhabited the Person of Iesus and was that power by which God created original Matter and made the World but as the Christ or the Word descended on Iesus at his Baptism so it left him at his Crucifixion That which I observe from hence is that there was a known and current Sense of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the time of S. Iohn's writing his Gospel very different from that of a Preacher of the Word of God and therefore I cannot but think it the wisest way of interpreting S. John to understand him in a Sense then commonly known and so he affirms the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have been in the beginning i. e. before the Creation for he saith afterwards All things were made by him and that he was with God and was God and this Word did not inhabit Iesus as Cerinthus held but was made Flesh and dwelt among us And so S. Iohn clearly asserted the Divinity and Incarnation of the Son of God And in all the Disputes afterwards with Paulus Samosatenus and Photinus it appears that they understood the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not for any meer Man but for some Divine Power which rested upon the Person of Iesus So that this was a very late and I think no very Wise Interpretation of S. Iohn And even Sandius Confesses That Socinus his Sense was wholly new and unheard of in the ancient Church not only among the Fathers but the Hereticks as I have before observed For they agreed except their good Friends the Alogi who went the surest way to work that by the Word no meer Man was understood Let them produce one if they can saith Sandius even the learned and judicious Sandius Did they all interpret the Scriptures like Fools and not like Wise Men But if the Christian Interpreters were such Fools what think they of the Deists whom they seem to have a better opinion of as to their Wisdom What if Men without Biass of Interest or Education think ours the more proper and agreeable Sense The late Archbishop to this purpose had mentioned Amelius the Platonist as an indifferent Iudge But what say our Wise Interpreters to this Truly they say That the Credit of the Trinitarian Cause runs very low when an uncertain Tale of an obscure Platonist of no Reputation for Learning or Wit is made to be a good part of the Proof which is alledged for these Doctrines If a Man happen to stand in their way he must be content with such a Character as they will be pleased to give him If he had despised S. Iohn's Gospel and manner of expression he had been as Wise as the Alogi but notwithstanding the extraordinary Character given of Friend Amelius as they call him by Eusebius by Porphyrius by Proclus and by Damascenus this very Saying of his sinks his Reputation for ever with them What would Iulian have given for such a Wise Interpretation of S. Iohn when he cannot deny but that he did set up the Divinity of Christ by these Expressions and upbraids the Christians of Alexandria for giving Worship to Iesus as the Word and God With what satisfaction would he have received such a Sense of his Words when he Complemented Photinus for denying the Divinity of Christ while other Chrians asserted it But they do not by any means deal fairly with the late Archbishop as to the Story of Amelius for they bring it in as if he had laid the weight of the Cause upon it whereas he only mentions it as a Confirmation of a probable Conjecture That Plato had the Notion of the Word of God from the Jews because that was a Title which the Jews did commonly give to the Messias as he proves from Philo and the Chaldee Paraphrast To which they give no manner of Answer But they affirm in answer to my Sermon p. 9. That Socinus his Sense was That Christ was called the Word because he was the Bringer or Messenger
of Gods Word But were not the Iews to understand it in the Sense it was known among them And if the Chaldee Paraphrast had used it in that Sense he would never have applied it to a Divine Subsistance as upon Examination it will appear that he doth Of which Rittangel gives a very good Account who had been a Iew and was very well skilled in their ancient Learning He tells us That he had a Discourse with a learned Vnitarian upon this Subject who was particularly acquainted with the Eastern Languages and he endeavoured to prove That there was nothing in the Chaldee Paraphrasts use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was promiscuously used by him for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it was applied to God This Rittangel denied and offer'd to prove that the Chaldee Paraphrast did never use that Word in a common manner but as it was appropriated to a Divine Subsistance He produces several places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put and nothing answering to Word in the Hebrew as Gen. 20.21 The Chaldee hath it The Word of Iehovah shall be my God Exod. 2.25 And Iehovah said He would redeem them by his Word Exod. 6.8 Your murmurings are not against us but against the Word of Iehovah Exod. 19.17 And Moses brought the People out to meet the Word of Iehovah Levit. 26.46 These are the Statutes and Iudgments and Laws which Iehovah gave between his Word and the Children of Israel by the hand of Moses Numb 11.20 Ye have despised the Word of Iehovah whose Divinity dwelt among you Numb 23.21 The Word of Iehovah is with him and the Divinity of their King is among them Deut 1.30 The Word of Iehovah shall fight for you Deut. 2.7 These forty years the Word of Iehovah hath been with thee Deut. 1.32 Ye did not believe in the Word of Iehovah your God Deut 4.24 Iehovah thy God his Word is a consuming fire Deut. 5.5 I stood between the Word of Iehovah and you to shew you the Word of the Lord Deut. 32.6.8 Iehovah thy God his Word shall go with thee with many other places which he brings out of Moses his Writings and there are multitudes to the same purpose in the other Books of Scripture which shews saith he that this Term the Word of God was so appointed for many Ages as appears by all the Chaldee Paraphrasts and the ancient Doctors of the Iews And he shews by several places that the Chaldee Paraphrast did not once render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when there was occasion for it no not when the Word of God is spoken of with respect to a Prophet as he proves by many Testimonies which are particularly enumerated by him The result of the Conference was that the Vnitarian had so much Ingenuity to confess That unless those Words had another Sense their Cause was lost and our Faith had a sure Foundation But it may be objected that Morinus hath since taken a great deal of pains to prove the Chaldee Paraphrasts not to have been of that Antiquity which they have been supposed by the Iews to be of In answer to this we may say in general that Morinus his great Proofs are against another Chaldee Paraphrast of very small Reputation viz. of Ionathan upon the Law and not that of Onkelos which Rittangel relied upon in this Matter And none can deny this to have been very ancient but the Iews have so little knowledge of their own History but what is in Scripture that very little certainty can be had from them But we must compare the Circumstances of things if we would come to any resolution in this Matter Now it is certain that Philo the Alexandrian Iew who lived so very near our Saviours time had the same Notion of the Word of God which is in the Chaldee Paraphrast whose Testimonies have been produced by so many already that I need not to repeat them And Eusebius saith The Jews and Christians had the same Opinion as to Christ till the former fell off from it in opposition to the Christians and he particulaâ—ly instances in his Divinity But if Morinus his Opinion be embraced as to the lateness of these Chaldee Paraphrases this inconvenience will necessarily follow viz. That the Iews when they had changed so much their Opinions should insert those Passages themselves which assert the Divinity of the Word And it can hardly enter into any mans head that considers the Humour of the Jewish Nation to think that after they knew what S. Iohn had written concerning the Word and what use the Christians made of it to prove the Divinity of Christ they should purposely insert such passages in that Paraphrase of the Law which was in such esteem among them that Elias Levita saith They were under Obligation to read two Paraschaâ—s out of it every Week together with the Hebrew Text. Now who can imagine that the Iews would do this upon any other account than that it was deliver'd down to them by so ancient a Tradition that they durst not discontinue it And it is observed in the place of Scripture which our Saviour read in the Synagogue that he follow'd neither the Hebrew nor the Greek but in probability the Chaldee Paraphrase and the Words he used upon the Cross were in the Chaldee Dialect The later Iews have argued against the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ like any Vnitarians as appears by the Collection out of Ioseph Albo David Kimchi c. published by Genebrard with his Answers to them And is it any ways likely that those who were so much set against these Doctrines should themselves put in such Expressions which justifie what the Evangelist saith about the VVord being in the Beginning being with God and being God The Substance of what I have said as to S. Iohn's Notion of the Word is this That there is no colour for the Sense which Socinus hath put upon it either from the use of it among other Authors or any Interpretation among the Jews But that there was in his time a current sense of it which from the Jews of Alexandria was dispersed by Cerinthus in those parts where he lived That for such a Notion there was a very ancient Tradition among the Jews which appears in the most ancient Paraphrase of the Law which is read in their Synagogues And therefore according to all reasonable ways of interpreting Scripture the Word cannot be understood in S. Iohn for one whose Office it was to preach the Word but for that Word which was with God before any thing was made and by whom all things were made 3. Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men to give a new Sense of several Places of Scripture from a matter of Fact of which there is no proof the better to avoid the proof of the Divinity of the Son of God This relates to the same beginning of S. Iohn's Gospel the Word was with God and several other places
making mention of his descent from Heaven The Sense which these wise Interpreters put upon them is that Christ was rapt up into Heaven before he entred upon his Preaching But where is this said What Proof what Evidence what credible Witnesses of it as there were of his Transfiguration Resurrection and Ascension Nothing like any Proof is offer'd for it but it is a wise Way they think of avoiding a pressing difficulty But they have a farther reach in it viz. to shew how Christ being a mere Man should be qualified for so great an undertaking as the founding the Christian Church and therefore they say That before our Lord entred upon his Office of the Messias he was taken up to Heaven to be instructed in the Mind and Will of God as Moses was into the Mount Exod. 24.1 2 12. and from thence descended to execute his Office and declare the said Will of God In another place That when it is said the Word was with God that is the Lord Christ was taken up into Heaven to be instructed in all points relating to his Ambassage or Ministry In a third they say That our Saviour before he entred upon his Ministry ascended into Heaven as Moses did into the Mount to be instructed in all things belonging to the Gospel Doctrine and Polity which he was to establish and administer Now considering what sort of Person they make Christ to have been viz. a mere Man this was not ill thought of by them to suppose him taken up into Heaven and there instructed in what he was to teach and to do as Moses was into the Mount before he gave the Law But here lies a mighty difference when Moses was called up into the Mount the People had publick notice given of it and he took Aaron and his Sons and Seventy Elders of Israel with him who saw the Glory of God v. 10. And all Israel beheld the Glory of the Lord as a devouring Fire on the Top of the Mount v. 17. and after the 40 days were over it is said That Moses came down from the Mount and the Children of Israel saw him with his Face shining Exod. 34.40 Now if Christ were taken up into Heaven as Moses was into the Mount why was it not made publick at that time why no Witnesses why no Appearance of the Glory to satisfie Mankind of the truth of it And yet we find that when he was transfigured on the holy Mount he took Peter and James and John with him which circumstance is carefully mention'd by the Evangelists And Peter who was one of the Witnesses then present lays great weight upon this being done in the presence of Witnesses For we have not follow'd cunningly devised Fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Iesus Christ but were Eye-witnesses of his Majesty For he received from God the Father Honour and Glory when there came such a voice to him from the excellent Glory And this voice which came from Heaven we heard when we were with him in the holy Mount Now let any one compare this with the account which they give of Christ's Ascension into Heaven The Transfiguration was intended only for a particular Testimony of God's Favour before his suffering but even in that he took care there should be very credible Witnesses of it And is it then possible to believe there should be such an Ascension of Christ into Heaven for no less a purpose than to be instructed in his Ambassage and to understand the Mind and Will of God as to his Office and yet not one of the Evangelists give any account of the circumstances of it They are very particular as to his Birth Fasting Baptism Preaching Miracles Sufferings Resurrection and Ascension but not one Word among them all as to the circumstances of this being taken up into Heaven for so great a purpose If it were necessary to be believed why is it not more plainly revealed Why not the time and place mention'd in Scripture as well as of his Fasting and Temptation Who can imagine it consistent with that Sincerity and Faithfulness of the Writers of the New Testament to conceal so material a part of Christ's Instructions and Qualifications and to wrap it up in such doubtfull Expressions that none ever found out this meaning till the days of Socinus Enjedinus mentions it only as a possible Sense bâ—t he confesses That the New Testament saith nothing at all of it but saith he neither doth it mention other things before he entred upon his Office But this is a very weak Evasion for this was of greatest importance with respect to his Office more than his Baptism Fasting and Temptation yet these are very fully set down And after all our Vnitarians themselves seem to mistrust their own Interpretations for in their answer to my Sermon they say it is not the Doctrine of all the Unitarians and refer me to another account given of these Texts in the History of the Unitarians There indeed I find Grotius his Interpretation as they call it preferâ—d before that of Socinus But they say Grotius was Socinian all over and that his Annotations are a compleat System of Socinianism and his Notes on the first of S. John are written artificially but the Sense at the bottom is theirs In short That the Word according to Grotius is not an eternal Son of God but the Power aâ—d Wisdom of God which abiding without measure on the Lord Christ is therefore spoken of as a Person and as one with Christ and he with that And this Notion of the Word leads a man through all the difficulties of this Chapter with far more ease than any hitherto offer'd But these wise Interpreters have as much misinterpreted Grotius as they have done the Scriptures as I shall make it appear 1. Grotius on Iohn 6.62 interprets Christ's Ascension into Heaven of his corporal Ascent thither after his Resurrection where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word was before of whom it is said That the Word was with God But how comes Christ to assume that to himself which belong'd to the Word He answers Why not since we call Body and Soul by the Name of the Man But if no more were meant by the Word but a divine Attribute of Wisdom and Power what colour could there be for the Son of Man taking that to himself which belonged to an Attribute of God What strange way of arguing would this have been What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascending where he was before For according to this Sense how comes a divine Attribute to be called the Son of Man How could the Son of Man be said to ascend thither where a divine Attribute was before The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must relate to him spoken of before and how could the Power and Wisdom of God be ever said to be the Son of Man
But if we suppose a personal Union of the Word with the human Nature in Christ then we have a very reasonable Sense of the Words for then no more is imply'd but that Christ as consisting of both Natures should ascend thither where the Word was before when it is said that the Word was with God and so Grotius understands it 2. Grotius doth not make the Word in the beginning of S. John 's Gospel to be a mere Attribute of Wisdom and Power but the eternal Son of God This I shall prove from his own Words 1. He asserts in his Preface to S. Iohn's Gospel that the chief cause of his writing was universally agreed to have been to prevent the spreading of that Venom which had been then dispersed in the Church which he understands of the Heresies about Christ and the Word Now among these the Heresie of Cerinthus was this very opinion which they fasten upon Grotius viz. that the Word was the divine Wisdom and Power inhabiting in the Person of Iesus as I have shew'd before from themselves And besides Grotius saith That the other Evangelists had only intimated the divine Nature of Christ from his miraculous Conception Miracles knowing Mens Hearts perpetual Presence promise of the Spirit remission of Sins c. But S. John as the time required attributed the Name and Power of God to him from the beginning So that by the Name and Power of God he means the same which he called the divine Nature before 2. He saith that when it is said The Word was with God it ought to be understood as Ignatius explains it with the Father what can this mean unless he understood the Word to be the eternal Son of God And he quotes Tertullian saying that he is the Son of God and God ex unitate Substantiae and that there was a Prolation of the Word without Separation Now what Prolation can there be of a meer Attribute How can that be said to be the Son of God begotten of the Father without Division before all Worlds as he quotes it from Iustin Martyr And that he is the Word and God of God from Theophilus Antiochenus And in the next Verse when it is said The same was in the beginning with God it is repeated on purpose saith he That we might consider that God is so to be understood that a Distinction is to be made between God with whom he was and the Word who was with God so that the Word doth not comprehend all that is God But our Wise Interpreters put a ridiculous Sense upon it as though all that Grotius meant was That Gods Attributes are the same with himself which although true in it self is very impertinent to Grotius his purpose and that the Reason why he saith That the Word is not all that God is was because there were other Attributes of God besides But where doth Grotius say any thing like this Is this Wise interpreting or honest and fair dealing For Grotius immediately takes notice from thence of the Difference of Hypostases which he saith was taken from the Platonists but with a change of the Sense 3. When it is said v. 3. That all things were made by him Grotius understands it of the old Creation and of the Son of God For he quotes a passage of Barnabas where he saith The Sun is the Work of his hands and several passages of the Fathers to prove That the World and all things in it were created by him and he adds That nothing but God himself is excepted What say our Wise Interpreters to all this Nothing at all to the purpose but they cite the English Geneva Translation when they pretend to give Grotius his Sense and add That the Word now begins to be spoken of as a Person by the same Figure of Speech that Solomon saith Wisdom hath builded her house c. Doth Grotius say any thing like this And yet they say Let us hear Grotius interpreting this sublime Proeme of S. John 's Gospel But they leave out what he saith and put in what he doth not say is not this interpreting like Wise men 4. The VVord was made flesh v. 14. i. e. say the Vnitarians as from Grotius It did abode on and inhabit a humane Person the Person of Iesus Christ and so was in appearance made flesh or man But what saith Grotius himself The Word that he might bring us to God shew'd himself in the Weakness of humane Nature and he quotes the words of S. Paul for it 1 Tim. 3.16 God was manifest in the flesh and then produces several Passages of the Fathers to the same purpose Is not this a rare Specimen of Wise interpreting and Fair dealing with so considerable a Person and so well known as Grotius Who after all in a Letter to his intimate Friend Ger. I. Vossius declares that he owned the Doctrine of the Trinity both in his Poems and his Catechism after his reviewing them which Epistle is Printed before the last Edition of his Book about Christ's Satisfaction as an account to the World of his Faith as to the Trinity And in the last Edition of his Poems but little before his Death he gives a very different Account of the Son of God from what these Vnitarians fasten upon him And now let the World judge how wisely they have interpreted both S. Iohn and his Commentator Grotius IV. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise men to make our Saviour's meaning to be expressly contrary to his Words For when he said Before Abraham was I am they make the Sense to be that really he was not but only in Gods Decree as any other man may be said to be This place the late Archbishop who was very far from being a Socinian however his Memory hath been very unworthily reproached in that as well as other Respects since his Death urged against the Socinians saying That the obvious Sense of the Words is that he had a real Existence before Abraham was actually in Being and that their Interpretation about the Decree is so very flat that he can hardly abstain from saying it is ridiculous And the wise Answer they give is That the words cannot be true in any other Sense being spoken of one who was a Son and Descendant of Abraham Which is as ridiculous as the Interpretation for it is to take it for granted he was no more than a Son of Abraham V. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise men to say that when our Saviour said in his Conference with the Iews I am the Son of God his chief meaning was That he was the Son of God in such a Sense as all the faithful are called Gods Children Is not this doing great Honour to our Saviour Especially when they say That he never said of himself any higher thing than this which is true of every good man I am the Son of God And yet the Iews accused him of
to him But who made them subject to him The Man Christ Iesus No God appointed him to be the Lord of every Creature Then they were not created by Christ but by God but the Apostle saith they were created by Christ. But God made him Head of the Church and as Head of the Body he rules over all This we do not at all question but how this comes to be creating Dominions and Powers visible and invisible Did God make the Earth and all the living Creatures in it when he made Man Lord over them Or rather was Man said to create them because he was made their Head If this be their interpreting Scripture like wise Men I shall be content with a less measure of Understanding and thank God for it XI Lastly Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise men to leave the form of Baptism doubtful whether it were not inserted into S. Matthew's Gospel or to understand it in another Sense than the Christian Church hath done from the Apostles times I say first Leave it doubtful because they say That Learned Criticks have given very strong Reasons why they believe these Words In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost were not spoke by our Saviour but have been added to the Gospel of S. Matthew from the common Form and Practise of the Church Why are these strong Reasons of learned Criticks mentioned but to raise Doubts in Peoples minds about them But they declare afterwards against them Not too much of that For they say only That they are not without their weight but they have observed several things that make them think that this Text is a genuine part of Scripture Very Wisely and Discreetly spoken The Reasons are strong and weighty but they think otherwise I wish they had told the World who these learned Criticks were lest it should be suspected that they were their own Inventions But I find a certain Nameless Socinian was the Author of them and his Words are produced by Sandius a Person highly commended by them for his Industry and Learning but as much condemned by others for want of Skill or Ingenuity The reason of writing these Reasons Sandius freely Confesses was because this place clearly proved a Trinity of Persons against the Socinians But what are these very strong and weighty Reasons For it is great Pity but they should be known In the first place he observes That S. Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew and the Original he saith is lost and he suspects that either S. Jerom was himself the Translator into Greek and Latin who was a Corrupter of Scripture and Origen or some unknow Person from whence it follows that our Gospel of S. Matthew is not of such Authority that an Article of such moment should depend upon it Is not this a very strong and weighty Reason Must not this be a very learned Critick who could mention S. Ierom as Translator of S. Matthews Gospel into Greek But then one would think this Interpreter might have been wise enough to have added this of himself No he dares not say that but that it was added by Transcribers But whence or how To that he saith That they seem to be taken out of the Gospel according to the Egyptians This is great News indeed But comes it from a good hand Yes from Epiphanius And what saith he to this purpose He saith That the Sabellians made use of the counterfeit Egyptian Gospel and there it was declared that Father Son and Holy Ghost were the same And what then Doth he say they borrowed the Form of Baptism from thence Nothing like it But on the contrary Epiphanius urges this very Form in that place against the Sabellians and quotes S. Matthew's Authority for it But this worthy Author produces other Reasons which Sandius himself laughs at and despises and therefore I pass them over The most material seems to be if it hold That the most ancient Writers on S. Matthew take no notice of them and he mentions Origen Hilary and S. Chrysostom but these Negative Arguments Sandius thinks of no force Origen and S. Chrysostom he saith reach not that Chapter the Opus Imperfectum which was none of his doth not but his own Commentaries do and there he not only mentions the Form but takes notice of the Compendious Doctrine delivered by it which can be nothing else but that of the Trinity In the Greek Catena on S. Matthew there is more mentioned viz. That Christ had not then first his Power given him for he was with God before and was himself by Nature God And there Gregory Nazianzen saith The Form of Baptism was in the Name of the Holy Trinity and he there speaks more fully Remember saith he the Faith into which thou wert baptized Into the Father That is well but that is no farther than the Jews go for they own one God and one Person Into the Son That is beyound them but not yet perfect Into the Holy Ghost Yes saith he this is perfect Baptism But what is the common Name of these three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plainly that of God But this learned Critick observes that Hilary in some Copies takes no notice of this Form That is truly observed for the very Conclusion is not Hilary's but taken out of S. Ierom but if he had look'd into Hilary's Works he would have found the Form of Baptism owned and asserted by him For he not only sets it down as the Form of Faith as well as our Baptism appointed by Christ but argues from it against the Sabellians and Ebionites as well as others Thus we see how very strong and weighty the Arguments of this learned Critick were CHAP. IX The General Sense of the Christian Church proved from the Form of Baptism as it was understood in the first Ages BUT our Vnitarians pretend that they are satisfied that the Form of Baptism is found in all Copies and all the ancient Translations and that it was used before the Council of Nice as appears by several places of Tertullian But how then There are two things stick with them 1. That the Ante-Nicene Fathers do not alledge it to prove the Divinity of the Son or Holy Ghost 2. That the Form of Words here used doth not prove the Doctrine of the Trinity Both which must be strictly Examined 1. As to the former It cannot but seem strange to any one conversant in the Writings of those Fathers when S. Cyprian saith expressly That the Form of Baptism is prescribed by Christ that it should be in plenâ adunaâ—â Trinitate i. e. in the full Confession of the Holy Trinity and therefore he denied the Baptism of the Marcionites because the Faith of the Trinity was not sincere among them as appears at large in that Epistle And this as far as I can find was the general Sense of the Ante-Nicene Fathers as well as others And it
Glory to God the Father and Son with the Holy Ghost which ought to be understood according to the sense of the Maker of it And Gregory hath deliver'd his sense plainly enough in this matter for in that Confession of Faith which was preserved in the Church of Neo-Caesarea he owns a perfect Trinity in Glory Eternity and Power without Separation or Diversity of Nature On which Doctrine his Form of Doxology was grounded Which S. Basil following Exceptions were taken against it by some as varying from the Form used in some other places For the Followers of Aetius took advantage from the Expression used in those Doxologies Glory be to the Father by the Son and in the Holy Ghost to infer a Dissimilitude in the Son and Holy Ghost to the Father and to make the Son the Instrument of the Father and the Holy Ghost only to relate to time and place But S. Basil takes a great deal of Pains to shew the impertinency of these Exceptions They would fain have charged this Doxology as an Innovation on S. Basil because it attributed equal Honour to Father Son and Holy Ghost which the Aetians would not endure but they said That the Son was to be honoured only in Subordination to the Father and the Holy Ghost as inferiour to both But S. Basil proves from Scripture an Equality of Honour to be due to them and particularly from the Form of Baptism c. 10. wherein the Son and Holy Ghost are joyned with the Father without any note of Distinction And what more proper token of a Conjunction in the same Dignity than being put together in such a manner Especially considering these two things 1. The extream Jealousie of the Jewish Nation as to joyning the Creatures with God in any thing that related to Divine Honour But as S. Basil argues If the Son were a Creature then we must believe in the Creator and the Creature together and by the same reason that one Creature is joyned the whole Creation may be joyned with him but saith he we are not to imagine the least Disunion or Separation between Father Son and Holy Ghost nor that they are three distinct parts of one inseparable Being but that there is an indivisible Conjunction of three in the same Essence so that where one is there is the other also For where the Holy Ghost is there is the Son and where the Son is there is the Father And so Athanasius urges the Argument from these Words That a Creature could not be joyned with the Creator in such a manner as in the Form of Baptism and it might have been as well said Baptize in the Name of the Father and any other Creature And for all that I see our Vnitarians would have liked such a Form very well for they parallel it with those in Scripture and they worshipped the Lord and the King and they feared the Lord and Samuel But the Iews understood the different occasion of such Expressions too well to have born such a Conjunction of Creatures with the Creator in the most solemn Act of Initiation into a Profession of Religion 2. The Iews had a Notion among them of three distinct Subsistences in the Deity sutable to these of Father Son and Holy Ghost This hath been shew'd by many as to the Son or the Divine Word and Rittangel makes out the same as to the Holy Ghost Among the three Subsistences in the Mercavah which Rittangel had proved from their most ancient Writings those which are added to the first are Wisdom and Intelligence and this last is by the old Chaldee Paraphrast rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he proves it to be applied to God in many places of the Pentateuch where such things are attributed to him as belong to the Holy Ghost And he particularly shews by many places that the Schecinah is not taken for the Divine Glory but that is rendred by other Words however the Interpreters of the Chaldee Paraphrast have rendred it so but he produces ten places where the Chaldee Paraphrast uses it in another Sense and he leaves he saith many more to the Readers observation If the Iews did of old own three Subsistences in the same Divine Essence there was then great Reason to joyn Father Son and Holy Ghost in the solemn Act of Initiation But if it be denied that they did own any such thing they must deny their most ancient Books and the Chaldee Paraphrast which they esteem next to the Text and Rittangel saith They believe it written by Inspiration That which I chiefly urge is this that if these things be not very ancient they must be put in by the later Iews to gratifie the Christians in the Doctrine of the Trinity which I do not believe any Iew will assent to And no one else can imagine this when our Vnitarians say That the Doctrine of the Trinity is the chief Offence which the Iews take at the Christian Religion How then can we suppose the Iews should forge these Books on purpose to put in such Notions as were most grateful to their Enemies and hateful to themselves Morinus hath endeavoured to run down the Credit of the most ancient Books of the Iews and among the rest the Book Iezirah the most ancient Cabbalistical Book among the Iews which he learnedly proves was not written by Abraham as the Iews think I will not stand with Morinus about this however the Book Cosri saith it was made by Abraham before God spake to him and magnifies it to the King of Cosar as containing an admirable Account of the first Principles above the Philosophers Buxtorf saith that the Book Cosri hath been extant Nine hundred years and in the beginning of it it is said that the Conference was Four hundred years before and therein the Book Iezirah is alledged as a Book of Antiquity and there the three Subsistences of the Deity are represented by Mind Word and Hand So that this can be no late Invention of Cabbalistical Iews But our Vnitarians utterly deny that the Jews had any Cabbala concerning the Trinity And they prove it because the Jews in Origen and Justin Martyr deny the Messias to be God They might as well have brought their Testimony to prove Jesus not to be the Messias for the Iews of those times being hard pressed by the Christians found they could not otherwise avoid several places of the Old Testament But this doth not hinder but that they might have Notions of three Subsistences in their ancient Books which contained neither late Invention nor Divine Revelations but a Traditional notion about the Divine Being and the Subsistences in it and I can find no Arguments against it that deserve mentioning For when they say the Iewish Cabbala was a Pharisaical Figment c. it needs no answer But what do they say to the Old Paraphrases whereon the main Weight as to this matter lies All that I can find is
words 1. They say That there is a Note of distinction and Superiority For Christ owns that his Power was given to him by the Father There is no question but that the Person who suffer'd on the Cross had Power given to him after his Resurrection but the true Question is whether his Sonship were then given to him He was then declared to be the Son of God with Power and had a Name or Authority given him above every Name being exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to give Repentance and Remission of Sins in order to which he now appointed his Apostles to teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost He doth not say in the name of Iesus who suffer'd on the Cross nor in the name of Iesus the Christ now exalted but in the name of Father Son and Holy Ghost and although there were a double Gift with respect to the Son and Holy Ghost the one as to his Royal Authority over the Church the other as to his extraordinary Effusion on the Apostles yet neither of these are so much as intimated but the Office of Baptism is required to be performed in the Name of these three as distinct and yet equal without any Relation to any Gift either as to the Son or Holy Ghost But if the ancient Iews were in the Right as we think they were then we have a plain account how these came to be thus mention'd in the Form of Baptism viz. that these three distinct Subsistences in the Divine Essence were not now to be kept up as a secret Mystery from the World but that the Christian Church was to be formed upon the Belief of it 2. They bring several places of Scripture where God and his Creatures are joyned without any Note of distinction or Superiority as The people feared the Lord and Samuel 1 Sam. 12.18 They worshipped the Lord and the King 1 Chron. 29.20 I charge thee before God the Lord Iesus Christ and his elect Angels 1 Tim. 5.21 The Spirit and the Bride say come Revel 22.17 But can any Man of Sense imagine these places contain a Parallel with a Form of Words wherein men are entred into the Profession of a new Religion and by which they were to be distinguished from all other Religions in the former places the Circumstances were so notorious as to God and the Civil Magistrate that it shews no more than that the same external Acts may be used to both but with such a different Intention as all men understood it What if S. Paul name the elect Angels in a solemn Obtestation to Timothy together with God and the Lord Iesus Christ What can this prove but that we may call God and his Creatures to be Witnesses together of the same thing And so Heaven and Earth are called to bear Witness against obstinate Sinners May men therefore be baptized in the name of God and his Creatures The Spirit and Bride may say come without any Incongruity but it would have been strange indeed if they had said Come be baptized in the Name of the Spirit and the Bride So that these Instances are very remote from the purpose But they say farther That the ancients of the first Four hundred years do not insist on this place to prove the Divinity or Personality of the Son or Spirit As to the first Three hundred years I have given an account already and as to the Fourth Century I could not have thought that they would have mention'd it since there is scarce a Father of the Church in that time who had occasion to do it but makes use of the Argument from this place to prove the Divinity and Personality of the Son and Spirit Athanasius saith That Christ founded his Church on the Doctrine of the Trinity contained in these Words and if the Holy Ghost had been of a different Nature from the Father and Son he would never have been joyned with them in a Form of Baptism no more than an Angel or any other Creature For the Trinity must be Eternal and Indivisible which it could not be if any created Being were in it and therefore he disputes against the Arian Baptism although performed with the same Words because they joyned God and a Creature together in Baptism To the same purpose argue Didymus Gregory Nazianzen S. Basil and others within the Compass of four hundred years whose Testimonies are produced by Petavius to whom I refer the Reader if he hath a mind to be satisfied in so clear a Point that I cannot but think our Vnitarians never intended to take in the Fathers after the Council of Nice who are so expressly against them and therefore I pass it over as a slip 4. They object That the Form of Baptism implies no more than being admitted into that Religion which proceeds from God the Father and deliver'd by his Son and confirmed by the Testimony of the Holy Ghost So much we grant is implied but the Question still remains whether the Son and Holy Ghost are here to be consider'd only in order to their Operations or whether the Persons of the Son and Holy Ghost from whom those Effects came are not here chiefly intended For if no more had been meant but these Effects then the right Form of Admission had not been into the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost but in the Name of the Father alone as Revealing himself by his Son and Confirming it by the miraculous Works of the Holy Ghost For these are only subservient Acts to the design of God the Father as the only subsisting Person 5. They tell us That it is in vain not to say ridiculously pretended that a Person or Thing is God because we are baptized into it for some were baptized into Moses and others into John's Baptism and so Moses and John Baptist would be Gods and to be baptized into a Person or Persons and in the name of such a Person is the same thing Grant this yet there is a great difference between being baptized in the name of a Minister of Baptism and of the Author of a Religion into which they are baptized The Israelites were baptized unto Moses but how The Syriac and Arabic Versions render it per Mosen and so S. Augustin reads it And this seems to be the most natural sense of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is Act. 7.53 compared with Gal. 3.19 And the force of the Apostle's Argument doth not lie in the Parallel between being baptized into Moses and into Christ but in the Privileges they had under the Ministery of Moses with those which Christians enjoyed The other place implies no more than being enter'd into that Profession which John baptized his Disciples into But doth any one imagine that because Iohn Baptist did enter his Disciples by Baptism therefore they must believe him to be God
Mysterious But there are some he saith that being strongly inclined out of Ignorance or Passion to maintain what was first introduced by the Craft or Superstition of their Forefathers will have some Christian Doctrines to be still Mysteries in the second Sense of the Word that is unconceiveable in themselves however clearly revealed I hope there are still some who are so throughly perswaded of the Christian Doctrine that they dare own and defend it notwithstanding all the Flouts and Taunts of a sort of Men whose Learning and Reason lies most in exposing Priest-craft and Mysteries Suppose there are such still in the world who own their Assent to some Doctrines of Faith which they confess to be above their Comprehension what mighty Reason and invincible Demonstration is brought against them He pretends to Demonstrate but what I pray The Point in hand No. But he will Demonstrate something instead of it What is that Why truly That in the New Testament Mystery is always used in the first Sense of the Word And what then Doth it therefore follow that there are no Doctrines in the Gospel above the reach and comprehension of our Reason But how doth it appear that the Word Mystery is always used in that Sense When S. Paul saith in his first Epistle to Timothy Chap. 3. v. 9. That the Deacons must hold the Mystery of Faith in a pure Conscience doth he not mean thereby the same with the Form of sound Words which Timothy had heard of him 2 Tim. 1.13 And are not all the main Articles of the Christian Faith comprehended under it Especially that whereinto they were Baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and if the Doctrine of the Trinity were understood by this Form as I have already proved then this must be a part of the Mystery of Faith And in the same Chapter v. 16. He makes God manifest in the Flesh the first part of the Mystery of Godliness If it extends to all the other things doth it exclude this which is the first mention'd And that our Copies are true is already made to appear There is no Reason therefore to quarrel with our Use of the Word Mystery in this Sense but the Debate doth not depend upon the Word but upon the Sense of it And therefore I pass over all that relates to the bare use of the Word as not coming up to the main Point which is Whether any Point of Doctrine which contains in it something above our Comprehension can be made a Matter of Faith For our Author concludes from his Observations That Faith is so far from being an implicit Assent to any thing above Reason that this Notion directly contradicts the end of Religion the Nature of Man and the Goodness and Wisdom of God But we must not be frighted with this bold Conclusion till we have Examin'd his Premises and then we shall find that some who are not great Readers are no deep Reasoners The first thing he premises is That nothing can be said to be a Mystery because we have not an adequate Idea of it or a distinct View of all its Properties at once for then every thing would be a Mystery What is the meaning of this but that we cannot have an adequate Idea of any thing And yet all our Reason depends upon our Ideas according to him and our clear and distinct Ideas are by him made the sole Foundation of Reason All our simple Ideas are said to be adequate because they are said to be only the Effects of Powers in things which produce Sensations in us But this doth not prove them adequate as to the things but only as to our Perceptions But as to Substances we are told That all our Ideas of them are inadequate So that the short of this is that we have no true Knowledge or Comprehension of any thing but we may understand Matters of Faith as well as we understand any thing else for in Truth we understand nothing Is not this a method of true Reasoning to make us reject Doctrines of Faith because we do not comprehend them and at the same time to say we comprehend nothing For I appeal to the common Sense of mankind whether we can be said to Comprehend that which we can have no adequate Idea of But he appeals to the Learned for he saith That to comprehend in all correct Authors is nothing else but to know But what is to know Is it not to have adequate Ideas of the things we know How then can we know that of which we can have no adequate Idea For if our Knowledge be limited to our Ideas our Knowledge must be imperfect and inadequate where our Ideas are so But let us lay these things together Whatever we can have no adequate Idea of is above our Knowledge and consequently above our Reason and so all Substances are above our Reason and yet he saith with great Confidence That to Assent to any thing above Reason destroys Religion and the Nature of man and the Wisdom and Goodness of God How is it possible for the same man to say this and to say wâ—thal that it is very consistent with that Nature of man and the Goodness and Wisdom of God to leave us without adequate Ideas of any Substance How come the Mysteries of Faith to require more Knowledge than the Nature of Man is capable of In natural things we can have no adequate Ideas but the things are confessed to be above our Reason but in Divine and Spiritual things to Assent to things above our Reason is against the Nature of man How can these things consist But these are not Mysteries Yes whatever is of that Nature that we can have no Idea of it is certainly a Mystery to us For what is more unknown than it is known is a Mystery The true Notion of a Mystery being something that is hidden from our Knowledge Of which there may be several Kinds For a Mystery may be taken for 1. Something kept secret but fully understood as soon as it is discover'd thus Tully in his Epistles speaks of Mysteries which he had to tell his Friend but he would not let his Amanuensis know no doubt such things might be very well understood as soon as discover'd 2. Something kept from common Knowledge although there might be great Difficulties about them when discover'd Thus Tully speaks of Mysteries among the Philosophers particularly among the Academicks who kept up their Doctrine of the Criterion as a Secret which when it was known had many Difficulties about it 3. Something that Persons were not admitted to know but with great Preparation for it Such were the Athenian Mysteries which Tully mentions with Respect although they deserved it not but because they were not Communicated to any but with Difficulty they were called Mysteries And this is so obvious a piece of Learning that no great Reading or deep Reasoning is required about it Only
the very Notion of Infinite implies that we can set no bounds to our Thoughts and therefore although the Infinity of the divine Attributes be evident to our Reason yet it is likewise evident to our Reason that what is infinite must be above our Comprehension II. I come now to the last enquiry which is that if we allow things above our Reason what stop can be put to any absurd Doctrine which we may be required to believe And this is that which our Vnitarians object in all their late Pamphlets In answer to my Sermon they say That on our principles our Reason would be in vain and all Science and Certainty would be destroy'd which they repeat several times And from hence they do so frequently insist on the Parallel between the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation They say That all the defence we have made for one will serve for the other or any other absurd and impossible Doctrine That what we say will equally serve all the Nonsense and impossible Doctrines that are to be found among Men and they particularly instance in Transubstantiation I need mention no more But I did not expect to have found this Parallel so often insisted upon without an answer to two Dialogues purposely written on that Subject at a time when the Doctrine of the Trinity was used as an argument to bring in Transubstantiation as that is now alledged for casting off the other But I must do them that right to tell the World that at that time a Socinian Answer was written to those Dialogues which I saw and wish'd might be Printed that the World might be satisfied about it and them But they thought fit to forbear and in all their late Pamphlets where this Parallel is so often repeated there is but once that I can find any notice taken of those Dialogues and that in a very superficial manner For the main Design and Scope of them is past over and only one particular mention'd which shall be answer'd in its due order But in answer to the general Enquiry I shall endeavour to state the due Bounds between Faith and Reason and thereby to shew that by those grounds on which we receive the Doctrine of the Trinity we do not give way to the Entertainment of any absurd Opinion nor overthrow the Certainty of Reason 1. We have no difference with them about the Vse of our Reason as to the Certainty of a Revelation For in this case we are as much as they for searching into the grounds of our Faith for we look on it as a reasonable Act of our Minds and if we did not allow this we must declare our selves to believe without grounds And if we have grounds for our Faith we can express them in Words that are intelligible and if we can give an account of our Faith in an intelligible manner and with a design to give others satisfaction about it I think this is making use of our Reason in matters of Faith 2. We have no difference with them about the use of our Reason as to the true Sense of Revelation We never say that Men are bound to believe upon the bare sound of Words without examining the Sense of them We allow all the best and most reasonable ways of attaining to it by Copies Languages Versions comparing of Places and especially the Sense of the Christian Church in the best and purest Ages nearest the Apostolical Times and express'd in solemn and publick Acts. By these Rules of Reason we are willing to proceed and not by any late and uncertain methods of interpreting Scripture 3. We differ not with them about the right use of the Faculties which God hath given us of right Vnderstanding such matters as are offer'd to our Assent For it is to no purpose to require them to believe who cannot use the Faculties which are necessary in order to it Which would be like giving the Benefit of the Clergy to a Man with a Cataract in both his Eyes And it would be very unreasonable to put his Life upon that Issue whether he could read or not because he had the same Organs of Seeing that other Men had for in this case the whole matter depended not on the Organ but the Vse of it This needs no Application 4. We differ not with them about rejecting some Matters proposed to our Belief which are contradictory to the Principles of Sense and Reason It is no great argument of some Mens Reason whatever they pretend to talk against admitting seeming Contradictions in Religion for who can hinder seeming Contradictions Which arise from the shallowness of Mens Capacities and not from the repugnancy of Things and who can help Mens Understandings But where there is evident proof of a Contradiction to the Principles of Sense and Reason we are very far from owning any such thing to be an Article of Faith as in the case of Transubstantiation Which we reject not only as having no foundation in Scripture but as repugnant to the common Principles of Sense and Reason as is made to appear in the two Dialogues before-mention'd But our Vnitarians find fault with the Author of them for laying the force of his argument upon this That there are a great many more Texts for the Trinity than are pretended for Transubstantiation whereas many other arguments are insisted on and particularly the great Absurdity of it in point of Reason Dial. 2. from p. 33. to the end And it is not the bare number of Texts which he relies upon but upon the greater Evidence and Clearness of the Texâ—s on one side than on the other which depends upon figurative Words not capable of a literal Sense without overthrowing the Doctrine designed to be proved by it See with what Ingenuity these Men treat the Defenders of the Trinity and the Enemies to Transubstantiation which they call only a Philosophical Error or Folly but the Doctrine of the Trinity is charged with Nonsense Contradiction and Impossibilities But wherein then lies the difference in point of Reason For thus far I have shew'd that we are far from overthrowing Reason or giving way to any absurd Doctrines It comes at last to the point already treated of in this Chapter how far we may be obliged to believe a Doctrine which carries in it something above our Reason or of which we cannot have any clear and distinct Ideas And of this I hope I have given a sufficient Account in the foregoing Discourse FINIS Consideraton the Ezplications of the Doctrine of the Trinity by Dr. W. c. p. 10. P. 9. P. 13. Discourse concerning the Real and Nominal Trinitarians A. D. 1695 p. 3. Letter to the Universities p. 15. Discourse of Nominal and Real Trinit p. 7. P. 10. P. 11. P. 13. Tritheism charged c. p. 157. Animadvers p. 245. Animadv c. p. 243. Ibid p. 240. Basil Ep. 64. Considerat on the Explication p. 23. Animadv p. 291. Tritheism