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.

A DISCOURSE In VINDICATION of the Doctrine of the Trinity : WITH An ANSWER TO THE Late SOCINIAN Objections .

CHAP. I. The Occasion and Design of this Discourse .

IT is now above twenty years since I first published a Discourse about the reasons of the Sufferings of Christ , ( lately reprinted ) in answer to some Socinian Objections at that time . But I know not how it came to pass , that the Socinian controversy seemed to be laid asleep among us for many years after ; and so it had continued to this day , if some mens busie and indiscreet zeal for their own particular Opinions ( or rather Heresies ) had not been more prevalent over them , than their care and concernment for the common interest of Christianity among us . For it is that which really suffers by these unhappy and very unseasonable Disputes about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith , which could never have been started and carried on with more fatal consequence to all revealed Religion , than in an age too much inclined to Scepticism and Infidelity . For all who are but well-wishers to that , do greedily catch at any thing which tends to unsettle mens minds as to matters of Faith , and to expose them to the scorn and contempt of Infidels . And this is all the advantage which they have above others in their writings . For upon my carefull Perusal of them ( which was occasion'd by re●rinting that Discourse ) I found nothing extraordinary , as to depth of Judgment , or closeness of Reasoning , or strength of Argument , or skill in Scripture or Antiquity , but the old stuff set out with a new dress , and too much suited to the Genius of the age we live in , viz. brisk and airy , but withal too light and superficial . But although such a sort of Raillery be very much unbecoming the weight and dignity of the subject ▪ yet that is not the worst part of the character of them ; for they seem to be written ,

Considerat . on the explications of the Trinity , by Dr. W. &c. p. 22 , 32.

Defence of the History of the Unit . p. 5. Answer to the Archbishop's Sermon , p. 4.

not with a design to convince others , or to justifie themselves , but to ridicule the great Mysteries of our Faith , calling them Iargon , Cant , Nonsense , Impossibilities , Contradictions , Samaritanism , and what not ? any thing but Mahometism and Deism . And at the same time they know , that we have not framed these Doctrines our selves ; but have received them by as universal a Tradition and Consent of the Christian Church , as that whereby we receive the Books of the new Testament , and as founded upon their authority . So that , as far as I can see , the truth of these Doctrines and authority of those Books must stand and fall together : For from the time of the writing and publishing of them all persons who were admitted into the Christian Church by the Form of Baptism , prescribed by our Saviour , were understood to ●e received Members upon profession of ●●e Faith of the Holy Trinity ; the Hymns and Doxologies of the Primitive Church were to Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; and those who openly opposed that Doctrine were cast out of the Communion of it : which to me seem plain and demonstrative arg●ments , that this was the Doctrine of the Christian Church from the beginning , as will appear in the progress of this Discourse . The chief design whereof is to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity , as it hath been generally received in the Christian Church , and is expressed in the Athanasian Creed , from those horrible Imputations of Nonsense , Contradiction and Impossibility ; with which it is charged by our Vnitarians ( as they call themselves ; ) and that in the answer to the Sermon lately reprinted , about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith : which I first preached and published some years since , upon the breaking out of this controversie among us , by the Notes on Athanasius his Creed , and other mischievous Pamphlets one upon another . I was in hopes to have given some check to their insolent way of writing about matters so much above our reach , by shewing how reasonable it was for us to submit to divine Revelation in such things , since we must acknowledge our selves so much to seek , as to the nature of Substances , which are continually before our Eyes ; and therefore , if there were such difficulties about a Mystery which depended upon Revelation , we had no cause to wonder at it ; but our business was chiefly to be satisfied , whether this Doctrine were any part of that Revelation . As to which I proposed several things , which I thought very reasonable , to the finding out the true sense of the Scripture about these matters . After a considerable time , they thought fit to publish something , which was to pass for an answer to it ; but in it , they wholly pass over that part which relates to the sense of Scripture , and run into their common place about Mysteries of Faith ; in which they were sure to have as many Friends , as our Faith had Enemies : and yet they managed it in so trifling a manner , that I did not then think it deserved an Answer . But a worthy and judicious Friend was willing to take that task upon himself , which he hath very well discharged : so that I am not concerned to meddle with all those particulars , which are fully answer'd already , but the general charge as to the Christian Church about the Doctrine of the Trinity , I think my self oblig'd to give an answer to upon this occasion . But before I come to that , since they so confidently charge the Christian Church for 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 .

Answer to the Archb. Serm. p 50. Explic●● of the T●●nity , p. 29. Answer to Milbourn , p. 15 , 23. History of the Unit. p. 43.

Answer to the Archb. p. 29 , 30.

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 , Answer to my Sermon p. 4. 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 , Ans. to Dr. Wallis 's four Letters , p. 4. 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 to go about to prove them . But to shew what use we are to make of them ; we must consider that it cannot be denied , that the Doctrine of the Trinity did meet with opposition very early in the Christian Church , especially among the Iewish Christians ; I mean those who strictly adhered to the Law of Moses , after the Apostles had declared the freedom of Christians from the obligation of it . These ( as I shall shew by and by ) soon after the dispersion of the Church of Ierusalem , gathered into a body by themselves , distinct from that which consisted of Iews and Gentiles , and was therefore called the Catholick Christian Church . And this separate body , whether called Ebionites , Nazarens , or Mineans , did not only differ from the Catholick Christian Church , as to the necessity of observing the Law of Moses , but likewise as to the Divinity of our Saviour , which they denied , although they professed to believe him as the Christ or promised Messias .

Theodoret hath with very good judgment placed the Heresies of the first ages of the Ch●istian Church , Theodoret haeret . l. 1. & 11. under two distinct heads , ( which others reckon up confusedly ) and those are such as relate to the Humanity of Christ , as Simon Magus , and all the Sets of those who are called Gnosticks , which are recited in his first Book . In his second he begins with those which relate to the Divinity of Christ ; and these are of two kinds :

1. The Iewish Christians who denied it . Of these , he reckons up the Ebionites , Cerinthians , the Nazarens , and Elcesaitae , whom he distinguished from the other Ebionites , because of a Book of Revelation , which one Elxai brought among them ; Epiphan. Haeres. 19. n. 5.29 . n. 17. but Epiphanius saith , he joyned with the Ebionites and Nazarens .

2. Those of the Gentile Christians , who were look'd on as broaching a new Doctri●e among them : of these he reckons Artemon as the first , then Theodotus ; whom others make the first Publisher of it , as Tertullian , Tertull de praescript . haeret c 52. Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 28. and the old Writer in Eusebius , supposed to be Caius , who lived near the time , and of whom a considerable Fragment is preserved in Eusebius , which gives light to these matters . The next is another Theodotus , who framed a new Sect of such as set up Mel●hisedeck above Christ . Then follow Paulus Samosatenus , and Sabellius , who made but one Person as well as one God , and so overthrew the Trinity ; with whom Marcellus agreed in substance , and last of all Photinus . But Theodoret concludes that Book with this passage , viz. That all these Heresies against our Saviour's Divinity were then wholly extinct ; so that there were not so much as any small Remainders of them . What would he have said , if he had lived in our age , wherein they are not only revived , but are pretended to have been the true Doctrine of the Apostolical Churches ? Had all men lost their Senses in Theodoret's time ? And yet there were as many learned and able Men in the Christian Church then , as ever were in any time .

CHAP. III. The Socinian Plea for the Antiquity of their Doctrine examined .

BUT this is not the age our Vnitarians will stand or fall by . They are for going backward ; and they speak with great comfort about the old Ebionites and Nazarens as entirely theirs ; And that they had considerable men among them , as Theodotion and Symmachus , Hist. of the Unit. p. 10. Edit. II. two Translators of the Hebrew Bible . And among the Gentile Christians , they value themselves upon three Men , Paulus Samosatenus , Lucianus , the most learned Person , they say , of his age , and Photinus Bishop of Sirmium . As to the Vnitarians at Rome , ( whom they improperly call Nazarens ) they pretended that their Doctrine was Apostolical , and the general Doctrine of the Church till the times of Victor and Zepherin .

This is the substance of their Plea , which must now be examin'd .

I begin with those Primitive Vnitarians , the Ebionites , concerning whom , I observe these things :

1. That they were a distinct , separate body of men from the Christian Church . For all the ancient Writers who speak of them , do mention them as Hereticks , and wholly divided from it , as appears by Irenaeus , Tertullian , Epiphanius , Theodoret , S. Augustin , and others . Eusebius saith of them , Euseb. l. 3. c. 27. That although the Devil could not make them renounce Christianity , yet finding their weakness , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , he made them his own . He would never have said this of any whom he look'd on as Members of the Christian Church . But wherein is it that Eusebius blames them ? He tells it in the very next words ; that it was for the mean opinion they entertained of Christ ; for they look'd on him as a meer Man , but very just . And although there were two sorts of them ; some owning the miraculous Conception , and others not ; yet saith he , They at last agreed in the same Impiety , which was , That they would not own Christ to have had any Pre-existence before his Birth ; nor that he was 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , God the Word . It 's true , he finds fault with them afterwards for keeping to the Law of Moses ; but the first Impiety he charges them with , is the other . That which I inferr from hence is , that Eusebius himself ( to whom they profess to shew greater respect than to most of the ancient Writers , Ante-Nicenism . p. 37. for his exactness and diligence in Church-History ) doth affirm the Doctrine which overthrows the Pre-existence and Divinity of Christ to be an Impiety . Answer to Milb . p. 20. And therefore when he affirms the first fifteen Bishops of the Church of Ierusalem who were of the Circumcision , viz. to the Siege of it by Hadrian , Euseb. l. 4. c. 5. did hold the genuine Doctrine of Christ , it must be understood of his Pre-existence and Divinity ; for the other we see he accounted an Impiety . And he tells us the Church of Ierusalem then consisted of believing Iews , and so it had done from the Apostles times to that of Hadrian 's Banishment of the Iews . Which is a considerable Testimony to two purposes :

1. To shew that the Primitive Church of Ierusalem did hold the Doctrine of Christ's Pre-existence and Divinity . But say our Vnitarians , this doth not follow . For what reason ? When it is plain that Eusebius accounted that the only genuine Doctrine . No , say they , Resp. ad Judic . Eccles. p. 176. he meant only the miraculous Conception , and that they held that , in opposition to those Ebionites who said that he was born as other men are . This is very strange ; when Eusebius had distinguished the two sorts of Ebionites about this matter , and had blamed both of them , even those that held him born of a Virgin , for falling into the same Impiety . What can satisfie such men , who are content with such an answer ? But say they , Eusebius only spake his own sense . Not so neither : For he saith in that place , that he had searched the most ancient Records of the Church of Ierusalem . Yes , say they , for the Succession of the first Bishops ; but as to their Doctrine he had it from Hegesippus , and he was an Ebionite himself . Then Eusebius must not be the man they take him for . For if Hegesippus were himself an Ebionite , and told Eusebius in his Commentaries , that the Primitive Church of Ierusalem consisted of all such , then Eusebius must suppose that Church guilty of the same Impiety with which he charges the Ebionites ; and would he then have said , That they had the true knowledge of Christ among them ? No , say they , Eusebius spake his own opinion , but Hegesippus being an Ebionite himself , meant otherwise . But Eusebius doth not use Hegesippus his words , but his own in that place ; and withal , how doth it appear that Hegesippus himself was an Ebionite ? This , one of their latest Writers hath undertaken , but in such a manner , as is not like to convince me . It is thus , Answer to Dr. Bull , part I. p. 41. Hegesippus was himself a Iewish Christian , and made use of the Hebrew Gospel , and among the Hereticks which crept into the Church of Jerusalem , he never numbers the Ebionites or Cerinthians , but only the Gnosticks . I will not dispute , whether Hegesippus was a Jewish Christian or not . Grant he was so , yet how doth it appear that all the Iewish Christians were at that time Ebionites or Cerinthians ? It seems they were neither of them Hereticks , although they were opposite to each other ; the one held the World created by inferiour Powers , the other , by God himself : the one , we see , made Christ a mere Man ; but the Cerinthians held an illapse of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 upon him , and so made him a kind of a God by his Presence , as Nestorius did afterwards . But honest Hegesippus took neither one nor the other for Hereticks , if our Vnitarians say true . But yet it doth not appear , that Hegesippus was either one or the other . For he speaks of the Church of Ierusalem , as is plain by Eusebius , Euseb. l. 4 , c. 22. and the Cerinthians and Ebionites , were in other parts ; the former in Egypt and the lesser or Proconsular Asia ; and the latter about Decapolis and Coelesyria , from whence they spread into Arabia and Armenia , as appears by Epiphanius . But Origen saith , That all the Iewish Christians were Ebionites . What! no Cerinthians among them ? Were not those Iewish Christians ? Or were they all turned Ebionites then ? No such thing appears by Origen's saying . But we are not enquiring now , what they were in his time , but in the Church of Ierusalem . Doth Origen say all the Iewish Christians there were such ? And as to his own time , it is not improbable that those who then made up the separate Body of Jewish Christians were Ebionites . But what is this to the first Christians of the Church of Ierusalem ? Very much , say they , because the first Christians were called Nazarens , and the Nazarens held the same Doctrine with the Ebionites . But the title of Nazarens did not always signifie the same thing . It was at first used for all Christians , Act. 24.5 . as appears by the Sect of the Nazarens in Tertullus his Accusation of S. Paul ; then it was taken for the Christians who stay'd at Pella and setled at Decapolis and thereabouts , as Epiphanius affirms ; Epiphan. haer. 29 n. 7. for although all the Christians withdrew thither before the Destruction of Ierusalem , as Eusebius saith , yet they did not all continue there , but a great number returned to Ierusalem , and were there setled under their Bishops ; but those who remained about Pella kept the name of Nazarens , and never were united with the Gentile Christians , but kept up their old Jewish customs , as to their Synagogues , even in S. Ierom and S. Augustine's time . Now these Nazarens might be all Ebionites , and yet those of the Church of Ierusalem not so at all .

2. The next thing observable from this place of Eusebius is , that while the Nazarens and Ebionites were setled in Coelesyria , and the parts thereabouts , there was a regular Christian Church at Ierusalem , under the Bishops of the Circumcision , to the Siege of Hadrian . Eusebius observes , that before the destruction of Ierusalem , all the Christians forsook not only Ierusalem , Euseb. l. 3. c. 5. but the Coasts of Iudea . But that they did not all continue there , is most evident from what Eusebius here saith of the Church and Bishops of Ierusalem ; between the two Sieges of Titus Vespasian and Hadrian , L. 4. c. 8. which was in the 18 year of his Empire , saith Eusebius . Who produces another Testimony out of Iustin Martyr , which shews that the Christians were returned to Ierusalem . For therein he saith , That Barchochebas in that War used the Christians with very great severity to make them renounce Christianity . How could this be , if all the Christians were out of his reach , then being setled about Pella ? And although Eusebius saith , L. 4 c. 6. That when the Iews were banished their Country by Hadrian 's Edict , that then the Church of Ierusalem was made up of Gentiles ; yet we are not so strictly to understand him , as though the Christians who suffer'd under Barchochebas , were wholly excluded . Orosius saith , Oros. l. 7. c. 13. That they were permitted by the Emperor's Edict . It is sufficient for me , if they were connived at , which is very probable , although they did not think fit to have any such publick Persons as their Bishops to be any other than Gentiles . And Hegesippus is allow'd after this time , to have been a Iewish Christian of the Church of Ierusalem : so that the Church there must consist both of Iews and Gentiles ; but they can never shew that any of the Ebionites did admit any Gentile Christians among them , which shews that they were then distinct Bodies .

2. They were not only distinct in Communion , but had a different rule of Faith . This is a point of great consequence , and ought to be well consider'd . For , since our Vnitarians own the Ebionites as their Predecessors , we ought to have a particular eye to the rule of Faith received by them , which must be very different from ours , if they follow the Ebionites , as I doubt not to make it appear . They say , The Ebionites used only S. Matthew 's Gospel . But the Christian Church then , Answer to Dr. Bull , p. 42. and ever since , have receiv'd the four Gospels , as of divine authority . Eusebius , one of the most approved Authors in Antiquity by our Vnitarians , reckons up the four Evangelists and S. Paul 's Epistles , as writings universally received by the Christian Church ; then he mentions some generally rejected as spurious ; and after those which were doubted , among which he mentions the Gospel according to the Hebrews , which the Iewish Christians follow'd . Now here is an apparent difference put between the Gospel according to the Hebrews , and S. Matthew 's Gospel ; as much as between a Book receiv'd without controversie , and one that was not . But if the Gospel according to the Hebrews were then acknowledged to be the true Gospel of S. Matthew ; it was impossible a man of so much sense as Eusebius , should make this difference between them . But it is worth our observing , what our Vnitarians say about this matter . And by that we may judge very much of their opinion about the Gospels . I shall set down their words , for fear I should be thought to do them wrong . Symmachus and the Ebionites , Answer to Dr. Bull , p. 39. say they , as they held our Saviour to be the Son of Ioseph and Mary ; so they contended that the first Chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel was added by the Greek Translators . S. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew , when it was translated into Greek , the Translator prefaced it with a Genealogy and Narration that our Saviour was conceived by the Holy Spirit of God , and was not the Son of Ioseph , but this Genealogy and Narration , said Symmachus and the Ebionites , is not in the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew , nay is the mere invention of the Translator . As for the other Gospels , the Ebionites and Symmachians did not receive the Gospel of S. Luke : and for that of S. Iohn , they said it was indeed written by Cerinthus , to confirm his Platonick Conceits about the Logos or Word , which he supposed to be the Christ or Spirit of God , which rested on and inhabited the person of Jesus . Let us now but join to this another passage , which is this , Those whom we now call Socinians , were by the Fathers and the first ages of Christianity called Nazarens ; and afterwards they were called Ebionites , Mineans , Symmachians , &c.

If this be true , they must have the same opinions as to the Books of the New Testament ; and hereby we see what sort of men we have to deal with , who under the pretence of the old Ebionites , undermine the authority of the New Testament . As to S. Matthew's Gospel , I see no reason to question its being first written in the Language then used among the Jews , which was mixt of Hebrew , Syriack , and Chaldee : since this is affirmed , not merely by Papias , whose authority never went far ; but by Origen , Irenaeus , Eusebius , Euseb. l. 3. c. 24 , 39. L 5. c. 8.10 . L. 6. c. 25. Hieron . c. Pelag. l. 3. S. Ierom , and others . But I must distinguish between S. Matthew's Authentick Gospel , which Pantaenus saw in the Indies , and that which was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews , and the Nazaren Gospel . S. Ierom in one place seems to insinuate , that S. Matthew's Gospel was preserved in the Library of Pamphilus at Caesarea , Hieron . de script . in Matth. and that the Nazarens at Berrhaea in Syria had given him leave to transcribe it . But if we compare this with other places in him , we shall find , that he question'd whether this were the Authentick Gospel of S. Matthew or not ; he saith , Comment. in Matth. c. 12. it is so called by many ; but he confesses it was the same which the Ebionites and Nazarens used . In which were many interpolations , as appears by the collections out of it in S. Ierom's Works and other ancient Writers ; which some learned men have put together . And S. Ierom often calls it the Gospel according to the Hebrews . In Isa. c. 11. In Ezek. c. 18. And so do other ancient Writers . From the laying several passages together , Erasmus suspects , Erasm. advers. Stunic . c. 1. that S. Ierom never saw any other than the common Nazaren Gospel , and offers a good reason for it , viz. That he never made use of its authority to correct the Greek of S. Matthew , which he would not have failed to have done in his Commentaries ; and he produces the Nazaren Gospel upon sleight occasions . But how came the Preface to be curtail'd in the Ebionite Gospel ? Of which Epiphanius gives an account , and shews what was inserted instead of it : No , say the Ebionites , the Preface was added by the Translator into Greek . From what evidence ? and to what end ? To prove that Christ was born of the Holy Spirit . This then must be look'd on as a mere Forgery ; and those Ebionites were in the right , who held him to be the Son of Ioseph and Mary . What do these men mean by such suggestions as these ? Are they resolved to set up Deism among us , and in order thereto , to undermine the authority of the New Testament ? For it is not only S. Matthew's Gospel , but S. Luke's and S. Iohn's which they strike at , under the pretence of representing the arguments of these wretched Ebionites . If their arguments are mean and trifling and merely precarious , why are they not slighted and answered by such as pretend to be Christians ? If they think them good , we see what we have to do with these men ; it is not the Doctrine of the Trinity , so much as the authority of the Gospels , which we are to maintain against them : And not those only , for the Ebionites rejected all S. Paul 's Epistles ; and called him an Apostate and a Transgressor of the Law . What say our Vnitarians to this ? Why truly , Answer to Dr. Bull , p. 35. This comes from Epiphanius , and because he quotes no Author , it seems to be one of his malicious Tales . This is a very short way of answering , if it would satisfie any men of sense . But they ought to have remembred that within a few Pages , P. 40. they alledge Epiphanius as a very competent Witness about the Ebionites , because he was born in Palestine , and lived very near it . But we do not rely wholly upon Epiphanius in this matter . For those whom they allow to be the best Witnesses as to the Doctrine of the Nazarens , say the same thing concerning them . P. 39. Origen c. Cels. l. 5. p. 274. As the most learned Origen , as they call him , who lived a long time in Syria and Palestine it self ; and he affirms , that both sorts of Ebionites rejected S. Paul 's Epistles : and Theodoret , Theodor haeret . l. 2. c. 1. who they say , lived in Coelesyria , where the Nazarens most abound , affirms of them , That they allowed only the Gospel according to the Hebrews , and called the Apostle an Apostate : by whom they meant S. Paul . And the same is said by S. Ierom who conversed among them ; Hieron in Matth. c. 12. That they look on S. Paul as a Transgressor of the Law , and receive none of his Writings . Have we not now a very comfortable account of the Canon of the New Testament from these ancient Vnitarians ? And if our modern ones account them their Predecessors , we may judge what a mean opinion they must have of the Writings of the New Testament . For if they had any concernment for them , they would never suffer such scandalous insinuations to pass without a severe censure , and a sufficient answer . But their Work seems to be rather to pull down , than to establish the authority of revealed Religion ; and we know what sort of men are gratified by it .

CHAP. IV. Of the considerable Men they pretend to have been of their Opinion in the Primitive Church .

I Now come to consider the men of Sense they pretend to among these ancient Vnitarians .

The first is Theodotion , whom they make to be an Vnitarian . But he was , saith Eusebius from Irenaeus , Euseb. l. 5. c. 8. a Iewish Proselyte , and so they may very much increase the number of Vnitarians , by taking in all the Iews as well as Proselytes . But must these pass for men of Sense too , because they are against the Doctrine of the Trinity , and much upon the same grounds with our modern Vnitarians ? For they cry out of Contradictions and Impossibilities just as they do ; i. e. with as much confidence and as little reason . Symmachus is another of their ancient Heroes ; he was , if Epiphanius may be believed , Epiph. de ponder . & mens . n. 16. first a Samaritan , and then a Iew , and Eusebius saith indeed , Euseb. l. 6. c. 17. That he was an Ebionite , and therefore for observing the Law of Moses . S. Augustin saith , August . c. Crescon . l. 1. c. 31. that in his time the Symmachiani were both for Circumcision and Baptism . Hier. in Heb. c. 3. S. Ierom observes , that Theodotion and Symmachus , both Ebionites , translated the Old Testament in what concerned our Saviour , like Iews , and Aquila who was a Iew , like a Christian ; but in another place he blames all three for the same fault . Advers. Ruffin . Eusebius goes somewhat farther : for he saith , Symmachus wrote against S. Matthew 's Gospel to establish his own Heresie , which shew'd he was a true Ebionite .

The next they mention as one of their great Lights , was Paulus Samosatenus , Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch . But in another place , they have a spiteful Insinuation , that men in such places are the great Pensioners of the World ; Answer to the Archb. Sermon p. 44 , 66. as though they were sway'd only by interest ; and that it keeps them from embracing of the truth . Now Paulus Samosatenus gave greater occasion for such a Suspicion than any of the persons so unworthily reflected upon . For he was a man noted for his Affectation of excessive Vanity and Pomp , and very unjust methods of growing rich . It is well we have Eusebius his Testimony for this ; Euseb. l. 7. c. 30. for they sleight Epiphanius for his malicious Tales , and S. Ierom for his Legends ; but they commend Eusebius for his Exactness and Diligence . Reflect . on Dr. Bull , p 35. Answer to Milbourn , p. 20. And I hope Theodoret may escape their censure , who affirms , that Paulus Samofatenus suited his Doctrine to his interest with Zenobia who then governed in those parts of Syria and Phoenicia , who professed her self to be of the Iewish Perswasion . Athanasius saith , Athan. ad solit. vit. agent p. 857. She was a Iew and a Favourer of Paulus Samosatenus . What his opinions were , our Vnitarians do not take the pains to inform us , taking it for granted that he was of their Mind . Eusebius saith , Euseb. l. 3. c. 27. He had a very mean and low opinion of Christ , as having nothing in him above the common nature of Mankind . Theodoret saith , he fell into the Doctrine of Artemon to oblige Zenobia , and Artemon , he saith , held that Christ was a mere Man born of a Virgin , but exceeding the Prophets in Excellency . Where the words 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 are used to express the opinion of Artemon , which ought to be taken notice of , Respons. ad judicium Ecclesiae p●r I● . Bull , p. 150 because our modern Vnitarians say , That those words among the ancient Writers were taken in opposition to the miraculous Conception of our Saviour .

But Paulus Samosatenus was universally disowned by the Christian Church of that time ; although as long as Zenobia held her Power , he kept his See ; which was for some time after he was first called in question for his Heresie . But at first he made use of many Arts and Devices to deceive the Christian Bishops of the best Reputation ,

Restaurans Pauli Samosatensis Artes & Dolos .

Decret. Conc. Sardin . apud Hilar. fragment . p. 1310. Ed. Par. 1693. Euseb l. 7. c. 27.

Theodor. haer. fab. l. 2. c. 8.

who assembled at Antioch in order to the suppressing this dangerous Doctrine , as they all accounted it . For hearing of his opinions about our Saviour , they ran together , saith Eusebius , as against a Wolf which designed to destroy the Flock . Now from hence it is very reasonable to argue , that the Samosatenian Doctrine was then look'd on as a very dangerous Novelty in the Christian Church . For , although the Ebionites had asserted the same thing , as to the Divinity of our Saviour , yet they were not look'd on as true Members of the Christian Church ; but as S. Ierom saith , While they affected to be both Iews and Christians , they were neither Iews nor Christians . Artemon whoever he was , was but an obscure person ; and Theodotus had Learning , they say , but was of no place in the Church ; but for such a considerable person as the Bishop of Antioch to own such a Doctrine must unavoidably discover the general sence of the Christian Church concerning it . Paulus Samosatenus wanted neither parts , nor interest , nor experience ; and he was supported by a Princess of great Spirit and Courage , enough to have daunted all the Bishops , at least in those parts , from appearing against him . But such was the zeal and concernment of the Bishops of the Christian Church in this great affair , that they not only assembled themselves , but they communicated it to Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria , Athanas. desentent . Dionysii , p. 558. and to another of the same name , Bishop of Rome , and others ; and desired their advice and concurrence , who did all agree in the condemnation of his Doctrine . The former said , He would have gone himself to Antioch , but for his extreme old Age ; and he died soon after the first Council , which met at Antioch on this occasion ; but he sent his judgment and reasons thither , which we find in an Epistle of his still extant , whereof mention is made in the Epistle of the second Synod of Antioch to Dionysius Bishop of Rome , and Maximus Bishop of Alexandria , and all other Bishops , Priests and Deacons of the Catholick Church , wherein they give an account of their proceedings against Paulus Samosatenus , and they say , Euseb. l. 7. c. 30. They had invited the Bishops of the remoter parts to come to Antioch for the suppression of this damnable Doctrine ; and among the rest Dionysius of Alexandria , and Firmilian of Cappadocia , as persons of greatest reputation then in the Church . Firmilian was there at the former Synod , ( of whom Theodoret saith , that he was famous both for divine and humane Learning ) and so were Gregorius Thaumaturgus and Athenodorus Bishops of Pontus , and Helenus Bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia , and Nicomas of Iconium , and Hymenaeus of Ierusalem , and Theotecnus of Caesarea ; who all condemned his Doctrine , but they spared his person upon his solemn Promises to retract it ; but he persisting in it when they were gone home , and fresh complaints being made of him , Firmilian was coming a third time to Antioch , but died by the way : but those Bishops who wrote the Synodical Epistle do all affirm , That they were Witnesses and many others , when he condemned his Doctrine , but was willing to forbear his person upon his promise of amendment , which they found afterwards was merely delusory .

Dionysius Alexandrinus , they say , would not write to him , but sent his mind about him to the Church of Antioch . Which Epistle is mention'd by S. Ierom , ( as written by him a little before his death ) as well as by Eusebius and Theodoret ; and I do not see sufficient reason to question the authority of that , which Fronto Ducaeus published from Turrian's Copy , although it be denied by H. Valesius and others . It 's said , indeed , That he did not write to him , i. e. he did not direct it to him , but he might send it to the Council in answer to his Letters , which he mentions . How far it differs from his style in other Epistles , I will not take upon me to judge ; but the design is very agreeable to an Epistle from him on that occasion . It 's true , that it seems to represent the opinion of Paulus Samosatenus after a different manner from what it is commonly thought to have been . But we are to consider , that ●e made use of all the Arts to d●sguise himself that he could ; and when he found the making Christ to be a mere Man would not be born , he went from the Ebionite to the Cerinthian Hypothesis , viz. That the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 did dwell in him , and that 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 ●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 ▪ Athan. de Incarn . To I. p. 591. 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 , P. 635. that he held , That the divine Word dwelt in Christ . And the words of Epiphanius are express to the same purpose ;

〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Epiph. haer. 65. n. 1.

Concil. Ephesin . part I. Supplicatio Basilii , &c.

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 , Phot. Epist. 35. 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 ;

Marius Mercat . de 12 Anath . Nestorii , n. 16.

Leontius de sectis p. 436. edit. Basil.

who asserted a Divine Word with its proper subsistence . But according to them Paulus by the Word unders●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 w●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 , Euseb. l. 7. c. 30. 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 , Leont . c. Nestor . l. 3. 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 , Hilar. fragment . p. 1321. Theod. l. 1. c. 4. 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 , Pagi Critica in Bar. A. 272. n. 2. 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 , Answer to the Archbishop , p. 54. 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 Lucian did ; and probably was by him brought thither .

He hath an extraordinary character given him by Eusebius , Euseb l. 8 , 13 , 9. c. 6. 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 , Theod. l. 1. c. 4. 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 ; Petav. de Trinit. l. 1. c. 4. n. 13. H. Valesius in Theod. l. 1. c. 4. Baron . A. 318. n. 75 , &c. 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 . Soz. l. 3 c. 5. 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 , Philost . l. 2. c. 15 , 16. 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 .

Athanas. Tom. 1. p. 898.

Socr. l. 2. c. 19.

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 , Athan. de Synodis Arim. &c. p. 897. 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 , Epiph haeret . 71. Sulpit . Sever. l. 2. p. 397. 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 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Prudent . Apoth . 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 , Epiph. n. 2. 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 , N. 1 , 2. 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 , N. 4. 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 ●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 : Epiph. haeret . 71. Socr. l. 2. ● . 30. and Basilius Ancyranus was the manager of the debate with him , Soz. l. 4 c. 6. Hist. Tripart . l. 5. c. 8. 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 nothing of his return ; but our Vnitarians have found out ( but they do not tell us where ) that the people recalled him , and so he planted his Doctrine among them , Hist. of the Unit. p. 10. that it overspread and was the Religion of the Illyrican Provinces , till the Papacy on one hand , and the Turk on the other , swallow'd up those Provi●ces . This looks too like making History to serve a turn , unless some good proof were brought for it . But instead of Photinus his returning , Concil general . To. II. p. 888. and his Doctrine prevailing and continuing there , we find Valentinian calling a Council in Illyricum , and establishing the Nicene Faith there : and a Council at Aquileia against the Arians , where the Bishop of Sirmium was present , Ib. p. 989. and declared against Arianism , and joyned with S. Ambrose , who condemns Photinus for making Christ the Son of David , Ambros. Apol. David . c. 4. and not the Son of God ▪ Paulinus saith in his Life , that he went on purpose to Sirmium to consecrate an Orthodox Bishop there ; which he did , notwithstanding the power of Iustina the Empress , who favoured the Arians . S. Ierom in his Chronicon saith , that Photinus died in Galatia which was his own Country ; so that there is no probability in what they affirm of Photinus his settling his Doctrine in those parts , till the Papacy and the Turk swallow'd those Provinces ; for any one that looks into the History of those parts may be soon satisfied , that not the Pope nor the Turk , but the Huns under Attila , made the horrible Devastations not only at Sirmium , but in all the considerable places of that Country : So that if these mens reason be no better than their History , there is very little cause for any to be fond of their Writings .

But as though it were not enough to mention such things once ; in their answer to the late Archbishop's Sermons , they inlarge upon it . For he having justly rebuked them for the Novelty of their Interpretations , they , to avoid this , boast of the concurrence of the ancient Vnitarians , the followers of Paulus and Photinus , Ans. to the Archbish. Serm p. 53. who , they say , abounded every-where , and even possessed some whole Provinces . This passage I was not a little surprized at . Since Theodoret , who , I think , was somewhat more to be credited than Sandius , doth so expresly say , Theodor. haer●t . Fab. l. 2. in Photino . That the Samosatenians and Photinians were extinct in his time , in a place already mentioned . But upon search I could find no other ground for it , but a passage or two in Sandius , who is none of the exactest Historians . In one place he saith from an obscure Polish Chronicle ( extant in no other Language but of that Country ) that the Bulgarians when they first received Christianity embraced Photinianism . Sand. Hist. Enucl . l. 3. p. 357. And is not this very good Authority among us ? From hence he takes it for granted , that they all continued Photinians to the time of Pope Nicolas , who converted them . But all this is grounded on a ridiculous mistake in Platina , who in the Life of Nicolas saith , P. 372. that the Pope confirmed them in the Faith , pulso Photino ; whereas it should be pulso Photio ; for Photius at that time was Patriarch of Constantinople , and as appears by his first Epistle , assumed their Conversion to himself ; and insisted upon the right of Jurisdiction over that Country . Sandius referrs to Blondus ; who saith no such thing , Blond . Dec. 2. l. 2. but only that the Bulgarians were converted before ; which is true ; and the Greek Historians , as Ioh. Curopalates , Zonaras , and others , gives a particular Account of it ; but not a word of Photinianism in it . So that the Archbishop had very great reason to charge their Interpretation with Novelty ; and that not only because the Photinians had no such Provinces , as they boast of ; but that neither Paulus Samosatenus , nor Photinus , nor any of their followers , that we can find , did ever interpret the beginning of S. John , as they do ; i.e. Of the New Creation , and not of the Old ; and so , as the Word had no Pre-existence before he was born of the Virgin . I do not confine them to the Nicenists , as they call them ; but let them produce any one among the Samosatenians , or Photinians , who so understood S. Iohn . Sand. Hist. Eccles. l. 1. p. 64.93 . And therein Sandius was in the right ( which ought to be allow'd him , for he is not often so ) when he saith , that no Christian Interpreter before Socinus ever held such a sense of the Word , as he did ; and therefore his followers he saith , ought to be called Socinians only , and not Ebionites , Samosatenians , or Photinians .

But to return to Photinus his Opinion . It is observable , what Socrates saith , Socr. l. 2. c. 29. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . concerning his being deposed at Sirmium , viz. that what was done in that matter was universally approved , not only then , but afterwards . So that here we have the general Consent of the Christian World , in that divided time , against the Photinian Doctrine . And yet it was not near so unreasonable as our Vnitarians ; for Photinus asserted the Pre-existence of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and its inhabiting in Christ from his Conception ; wherein he differ'd from Paulus Samosatenus who asserted it to have been upon the Merit of his Virtue . In the Anathema's of the Council of Sirmium against Photinus , one is against any one that asserts that there is one God , Hilar. de Synod . p. 1175. Ed. Paris . but denies Christ to have been the Son of God before all Worlds , and that the World was made by him in obedience to the Will of the Father . Others , against him that asserts that there was a Dilatation of the Divine Substance to make him the Son of God , who was a Man born of the Virgin Mary ; this appears from Anath. 6 , 7 , 9. put together . Which is best explained by Hilary himself in another place , Hilar. de Trinit. l. 10. n. 50. where he mentions this as the Photinian Doctrine , That God the Word did extend himself so far , as to inhabit the person born of the Virgin . This he calls a subtle and dangerous Doctrine . And therein he saith Photinus differ'd from Sabellius ; Hilar. de Trin. l. 7. n. 7. that the latter denied any difference between Father and Son , but only in Names ; but Photinus held a real difference , but not before the Nativity of Christ ; then he said , The Divine Word inhabiting in Christ made him to be the real Son of God .

The only doubt is , whether Photinus held , the Word to have had a distinct Hypostasis before or not . Marius Mercator an Author of good credit , who lived in S. Augustin's time ( and to whom an Epistle of his is extant in the new Edition of his Works ) gives a very particular account of the Opinion of Photinus with relation to the Nestorian Controversie , August . Ep. 193. in which he was very well versed . In an Epistle written by him on purpose , Ma●ii Mercat . Oper. Par. 2. p. 17. he shews that Nestorius agreed with Photinus in asserting , That the Word had a Pre-existence ; and that the name of Son of God did not belong to the Word , but to Christ after the inhabitation of the Word . But he there seems to think , that Photinus did not hold the Word to have had a real Hypostasis before the Birth of Christ : but when he comes after to compare their Opinions more exactly , he then affirms , that Photinus and Nestorius were agreed , and that he did not deny the Word to be Con●substantial with God ; but that he was not the Son of God till Christ was born in whom he dwelt . 〈◊〉 12. A●●th . N●s●orii p. 128. By which we see how little reason our Vnitarians have to boast of Photinus as their Predecessor .

As to the boast of the first Unitarians at Rome , that theirs was the general Doctrine , before the time of Victor ; it is so fully confuted by the ancient Writer in Eusebius , Euseb. l. 5. c. 28. who mentions it , from the Scriptures and the first Christian Writers , named by him , that it doth not deserve to be taken notice of ; especially since he makes it appear , that it was not heard of among them at Rome , till it was first broached there by Theodotus , as not only he , but Tertullian affirms ; as I have already observed .

Thus I have clearly proved , that the Doctrine of the Trinity , was so far from being embraced only on the account of force and fear , that I have shewed there was in the first Ages of the Christian Church , a free and general Consent in it , even when they were under Persecution ; and after the Arian Controversie broke out , yet those who denied the Pre-existence , and Co-eternity of the Son of God were universally condemned ; even the Arian Party concurring in the Synods mention'd by Hilary . But our Vnitarians are such great Pretenders to Reason , that this Argument from the Authority of the whole Christian Church , signifies little or nothing to them .

Therefore they would conclude still that they have the better of us in point of Reason , because they tell us , that they have clear and distinct Perceptions , that what we call Mysteries of Faith , are Contradictions , Impossibilities , and pure Nonsense ; and that they do not reject them , because they do not comprehend them , but because they do comprehend them to be so .

This is a very bold Charge , and not very becoming the Modesty and Decency of such , who know at the same time that they oppose the Religion publickly established , and in such things which we look on as some of the principal Articles of the Christian Faith .

CHAP. V. Of their Charge of Contradiction in the Doctrine of the Trinity .

BUT I shall not take any Advantages from thence , but immediately proceed to the next thing I undertook in this Discourse , viz. To consider what Grounds they have for such a Charge as this , of Contradiction and Impossibility . In my Sermon which gave occasion to these Expressions ( as is before intimated ) I had undertaken to prove , that considering the infinite Perfections of the Divine Nature , which are so far above our reach , God may justly oblige us to believe those things concerning himself which we are not able to comprehend ; and I instanced in some Essential Attributes of God , as his Eternity , Omniscience , Spirituality , &c. And therefore , if there be such Divine Perfections , which we have all the Reason to believe , but no Faculties sufficient to comprehend , there can be no ground from Reason to reject such a Doctrine which God hath revealed , because the manner of it may be incomprehensible by us . And what Answer do they give to this ?

They do not deny it in general , that God may oblige us to believe things above our Comprehension ; Answer to the Serm. about the Trinity , p. 4 , 5 , 8. but he never obliges us to believe Contradictions , and that they Charge the Doctrine of the Trinity with ; and for this they only referr me to their Books , where they say it is made out . But I must say , that I have read and consider'd those Tracts , and am very far from being convinced that there is any such Contradiction in this Doctrine , as it is generally received in the Christian Church ; or as it is explained in the Athanasian Creed . And , I shall shew the unreasonableness of this Charge from these things .

1. That there is a Difference between a Contradiction in Numbers , and in the Nature of things .

2. That it is no Contradiction to assert three Persons in One Common Nature .

3. That it is no Contradiction to say that there are three distinct Persons in the Trinity and not three Gods . If I can make out these things , I hope I may abate something of that strange and unreasonable confidence , wherewith these men charge the Doctrine of the Trinity with Contradictions .

1. I begin with the first of them . And I shall draw up the Charge in their own words . In one of their late Books they have these Words .

History of the Unitar . p. 9. n. 7. Theirs , they say , is an Accountable and Reasonable Faith , but that of the Trinitarians is absurd and contrary both to Reason and to it self ; and therefore not only false but impossible . But wherein lies this Impossibility ? That they soon tell us . Because we affirm that there are Three Persons , who are severally and each of them true God , and yet there is but one true God . Now , say they , this is an Error in counting or numbring , which when stood in is of all others the most brutal and inexcusable ; and not to discern it is not to be a Man . What must these men think the Christian Church hath been made up of all this while ? What ? were there no Men among them but the Vnitarians ? D●fence of the History of the Unitarians , p. 7. none that had common sense , and could tell the difference between One and Three ? But this is too choice a Notion to be deliver'd but once ; we have it over and over from them . In another place , they say , We cannot be mistaken in the Notion of One and Three ; we are most certain that One is not Three , and Three are not One. This it is to be Men ! But the whole Christian World besides are in Brutal and Inexcusable Errors about One and Three . This is not enough , for they love to charge home ; for one of their terrible Objections against the Athanasian Creed is , A●t o● Athanasiu● , p. 13. That here is an Arithmetical , as well as Grammatical Contradiction . For , in saying God the Father , God the Son , and God the Holy Ghost , yet not three Gods but one God , a Man first distinctly numbers three Gods , and then in summing them up brutishly says , not three Gods but one God . Brutishly still ! Have the Brutes and Trinitarians learnt Arithmetick together ? Methinks such Expressions do not become such whom the Christian Church hath so long since condemned for Heresies . But it may be with the same Civility they will say , It was brutishly done of them . But can these Men of Sense and Reason think , that the Point in Controversie ever was , whether in Numbers , One could be Three , or Three One ? If they think so , I wonder they do not think of another thing ; which is the begging all Trinitarians for Fools ; because they cannot count One , Two and Three ; and an Vnitarian Jury would certainly cast them . One would think such Writers had never gone beyond Shop-books ; for they take it for granted , that all depends upon Counting . But these terrible Charges were some of the most common and trite Objections of Infidels . Interrogant enim nos aliquando Infideles , & dicunt , Patrem quem dicitis , Deum dicitis ? Respondemus Deum . Filium quem dicitis , Deum dicitis ? Respondemus Deum Spiritum Sanctum quem dicitis , Deum dicitis ? Respondemus Deum . Ergo inquiunt , Pater & Filius & Spiritus Sanctus tres sunt Dei . Respondemus , Non. Turbantur , quia non illuminantur , cor clausum habent quia clavem fidei non habent Aug. in Ioh. Tr. 39. St. Augustin mentions it as such , when he saith , the Infidels sometimes ask us , what do you call the Father ? We answer , God . What the Son ? 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 ; Nos ergo Fratres , fide praecedente , quae sanat oculum cordis nostri , quod intelligimus sine obscuritate capiamus , quod non intelligimus sine dubitatione credamus . Ibid. 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 , Answ. to Serm. p. 5. 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 , A fundamento fidei non recedamus , ut ad culmen Perfectionis veniamus . Deus est Pater . Deus est Filius , Deus est Spiritus Sanctus , & ramen Pater non est qui Filius : nec Filius est qui Pater , nec Spiritu● Sanctus . Patris & Filii Spiritus , Pater est aut Filius . Ibid. 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 . Trinitas Unus Deus , Trinitas una Aeternitas , una Potestas , una Majestas , tres Personae sed non tres Dii . 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 . Non audemus dicere unam Essentiam tres Substantias , sed unam Essentiam vel Substantiam , tres autem Personas , quemadmodum multi Latini ista tractantes & digni auctoritate dixerunt , cum alium modum aptiorem non invenirent , quo enunciarent verbis , quod sine verbis intelligebant . Aug. de Trinit. l. 5. c. 8. 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 , Nunc mihi Calumniator respondeat , quid ergo tres ? Ecce inquit tres dixisti , sed quid tres exprime ? Immo tu numera . Nam ego compleo tres , cum dico , Pater & Filius & Spiritus Sanctus . Id. ubi supra . Id enim quod Pater ad se est , Deus est , quod ad Filium est , Pater est : quod Filius ad seipsum est , Deus est ; quod ad Patrem est , Filius est . 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 , Sed non quomodo illi duo homines sunt sic isti duo Dii . Quare hoc non est ita ibi ? Quia illud aliud , hoc autem aliud est , quia illa Divini●● est , haec humanitas . 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 , Ubi cogitare coeperis , incipis numerare ; ubi numeraveris , quid numeraveris , non potes respondere . Pater , Pater est ; Filius , Filius ; Spiritus Sanctus , Spiritus Sanctus est . Quid sunt isti tres ? non tres Dii ? Non. Non tres omnipotentes ? Non , sed unus Omnipotens . Hoc solo numerum insinuant , quod ad invicem sunt , non quod ad se sunt . 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 , Boëth . Oper. p. ● 121. for his Quality , as well as for his Skill in Philosophy and Christianity ; and he wrote a short but learned Discourse to clear this Matter . The Catholick Doctrine of the Trinity , saith he , is this ; the Father is God , the Son God and the Holy Ghost ; but they are not three Gods but one God . And yet ( which our Vnitarians may wonder at ) this very man hath written a learned Book of Arithmetick . But how doth he make this out ? How is it possible for Three to be but One ? First he shews , That there can be but one Divine Essence ; for to make more than One must suppose a Diversity . Principium enim Pluralitatis Alteritas est . If you make a real difference in Nature as the Arians did , then there must be as many Gods , as there are different Natures . Among men , there are different individuals of the same kind ; but , saith he , it is the Diversity of Accidents which makes it ; and if you can abstract from all other Accidents , yet they must have a different Place , for two Bodies cannot be in the same place . The Divine Essence is simple and immaterial , and is what it is of it self ; but other things are what they are made , and consist of Parts , and therefore may be divided . Now that which is of it self can be but One ; and therefore cannot be numbred . And one God cannot differ from another , either by Accidents or substantial Differences . But saith he , there is a twofold Number ; one by which we reckon ; and another in the things reckoned . And the repeating of Units in the former makes a Plurality , Numerus enim duplex est , unus quidem , quo numeramus , alter verò qui in rebus numerabilibus constat ; Ergo in Numero quo numeramus , repetitio unitatum facit Pluritatem ; in rerum vero numero non facit Pluralitatem Unitatum repetitio . but not in the latter . It may be said , that this holds where there are only different Names for the same thing ; but here is a real Distinction of Father , Son and Holy Ghost . But then he shews , " That the difference of Relation , can make no Alteration in the Essence ; and where there is no Diversity , there can be but one Essence , although the different Relation may make three Persons . This is the substance of what he saith concerning this Difficulty , Ita igitur substantia continet Unitatem , relatio verò multiplicat Trinitatem . Nam idem Pater qui Filius non est ; nec idem uterque qui Spiritus Sanctus . Idem tamen Deus est , Pater Filius & Spiritus Sanctus . which , as he suggests , arises from our Imaginations , which are so filled with the Division and Multiplicity of compound and material things , that it is a hard matter for them so to recollect themselves as to consider the first Principles and Grounds of Vnity and Diversity . But if our Vnitarians have not throughly consider'd those foundations , they must , as they say to one of their Adversaries , Answer to Milb . p. 52. argue like novices in these questions . For these are some of the most necessary Speculations for understanding these matters ; as what that Vnity is which belongs to a perfect Being ; what Diversity is required to multiply an infinite Essence , which hath Vnity in its own Nature : whether it be therefore possible , that there should be more divine Essences than one , since the same essential Attributes must be , where ever there is the divine Essence ? Whether there can be more Individuals , where there is no Dissimilitude , and can be no Division or Separation ? Whether a specifick divine Nature be not inconsistent with the absolute Perfection , and necessary Existence which belongs to it ? Whether the divine Nature can be individually the same , and yet there be several individual Essences : These and a great many other Questions it will be necessary for them to resolve , before they can so peremptorily pronounce , that the Doctrine of the Trinity doth imply a Contradiction on the account of the Numbers of Three and One. And so I come to the second Particular .

CHAP. VI. No Contradiction for three Persons to be in one common Nature .

II. THat it is no contradiction to assert three Persons in one common Nature . I shall endeavour to make these matters as clear as I can ; for the greatest difficulties in most mens minds have risen from the want of clear and distinct apprehensi●ns of those fundamental Notions , which are necessary in order to the right understanding of them .

1. We are to distinguish between the Being of a thing , and a thing in Being ; or between Essence and Existence .

2. Between the Vnity of Nature or Essence , and of Existence or Individuals of the same Nature .

3. Between the Notion of Persons in a finite and limited Nature , and in a Being uncapable of Division and Separation .

1. Between the Being of a thing , and a thing in Being . By the former we mean the Nature and Essential Properties of a thing ; whereby it is distinguished from all other kinds of Beings . So God and his Creatures are essentially distinguished from each other by such Attributes which are incommunicable ; and the Creatures of several kinds are distinguished by their Natures or Essences ; for the Essence of a Man and of a Brute are not barely distinguished by Individuals , but by their kinds . And that which doth constitute a distinct kind is One and Indivisible in it self : for the Essence of Man is but one and can be no more ; for if there were more , the kind would be alter'd ; so that there can be but one common Nature or Essence to all the Individuals of that kind . But because these Individuals may be or may not be , therefore we must distinguish them as they are in actual Being , from what they are in their common Nature ; for that continues the same , under all the Variety and Succession of Individuals .

2. We must now distinguish the Vnity which belongs to the common Nature , from that which belongs to the Individuals in actual Being . And the Vnity of Essence is twofold :

1. Where the Essence and Existence are the same , i. e. where necessary Existence doth belong to the Essence , as it is in God , and in him alone ; it being an essential and incommunicable Perfection .

2. Where the Existence is contingent , and belongs to the Will of another ; and so it is in all Creatures , Intellectual and Material , whose actual being is dependent on the Will of God .

The Vnity of Existence may be consider'd two ways .

1. As to it self , and so it is called Identity ; or a thing continuing the same with it self : the Foundation whereof in Man is that vital Principle which results from the Union of Soul and Body . For as long as that continues , notwithstanding the great variety of changes in the material Parts , the Man continues entirely the same .

2. The Vnity of Existence as to Individuals may be consider'd as to others , i. e. as every one stands divided from every other Individual of the same kind ; although they do all partake of the same common Essence . And the clearing of this , is the main point , on which the right Notion of these matters depends .

In order to that , we must consider two things .

1. What that is , whereby we perceive the difference of Individuals ?

2. What that is , which really makes two Beings of the same kind to be different from each other ?

1. As to the reason of our Perception of the difference between Individuals of the same kind , it depends on these things .

1. Difference of outward Accidents , as Features , Age , Bulk , Meen , Speech , Habit and Place .

2. Difference of inward Qualities and Dispositions ; which we perceive by observation , and arise either from Constitution , or Education , or Company , or acquired Habits .

2. As to the true ground of the real Difference between the Existence of one Individual from the rest , it depends upon the separate Existence which it hath from all others . For that which gives it a Being distinct from all others and divided by Individual Properties , is the true ground of the difference between them , and that can be no other but the Will of God . And no consequent Faculties or Acts of the Mind by Self-Reflection , &c. can be the reason of this difference ; because the difference must be supposed antecedent to them . And nothing can be said to make that , which must be supposed to be before it self ; for there must be a distinct Mind in Being from all other Minds , before it can reflect upon it self .

But we are not yet come to the bottom of this matter . For as to Individual Persons , there are these things still to be consider'd .

1. Actual Existence in it self , which hath a Mode belonging to it , or else the humane Nature of Christ could not have been united with the divine , but it must have had the personal Subsistence , and consequently there must have been two Persons in Christ .

2. A separate and divided Existence from all others , which arises from the actual Existence , but may be distinguished from it ; and so the humane Nature of Christ , although it had the Subsistence proper to Being , yet had not a separate Existence , after the Hypostatical Vnion .

3. The peculiar manner of Subsistence , which lies in such properties as are incommunicable to any other ; and herein lies the proper reason of Personality . Which doth not consist in a meer Intelligent Being , but in that peculiar manner of Subsistence in that Being which can be in no other . For when the common Nature doth subsist in Individuals , there is not only a separate Existence , but something so peculiar to it self , that it can be communicated to no other . And this is that which makes the distinction of Persons .

4. There is a common Nature which must be joyned with this manner of Subsistence to make a Person ; otherwise it would be a meer Mode ; but we never conceive a Person without the Essence in Conjunction with it . But here appears no manner of contradiction in asserting several Persons in one and the same common Nature .

5. The Individuals of the same kind are said to differ in number from each other , because of their different Accidents and separate Existence . For so they are capable of being numbred . Whatever is compounded is capable of number as to its parts , and may be said to be one by the Union of them ; whatever is separated from another is capable of number by distinction . But where there can be no Accidents nor Division , there must be perfect Unity .

6. There must be a Separation in Nature , where-ever there is a difference of Individuals under the same kind . I do not say there must be an actual Separation and Division as to place , but that there is and must be so in Nature , where one common Nature subsists in several Individuals .

〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 .

Porphyr . Isag. c. 2. ●6 .

Niceph. Callist. l. 18. c. 47.

For all Individuals must divide the Species , and the common Nature u●ites them . And this Philoponus understood very well , and therefore he never denied such a Division and Separation in the divine Persons , as is implied in distinct Individuals : which is the last thing to be consider'd here .

3. We are now to enquire how far these things will hold as to the Persons in the Trinity , and whether it be a Contradiction to assert three Persons in the Godhead and but one God . We are very far from disputing the Vnity of the divine Essence , which we assert to be so perfect and indivisible , as not to be capable of such a difference of Persons as is among Men. Because there can be no difference of Accidents , or Place , or Qualities in the divine Nature ; and there can be no separate Existence , because the Essence and Existence are the same in God ; and if necessary Existence be an inseparable Attribute of the divine Essence , it is impossible there should be any separate Existence ; for what always was and must be , can have no other Existence than what is implied in the very Essence . But will not this overthrow the distinction of Persons and run us into Sabellianism ? By no means . For our Vnitarians grant , That the Noetians and Sabellians held , Discourse concerning the nominal and real Trinitarian , p. 16. that there is but one divine Substance , Essence or Nature , and but one Person . And how can those who hold three Persons be Sabellians ? Yes , say they , the Sabellians held three relative Persons . But did they mean three distinct Subsistences , or only one Subsistence sustaining the Names , or Appearances , or Manifestations of three Persons ? The latter they cannot deny to have been the true sense of the Sabellians . But say they , these are three Persons in a classical critical Sense . We meddle not at present with the Dispute which Valla hath against Boethius about the proper Latin Sense of a Person ( and Petavius saith Valla's Objections are mere Iests and Trifles ) but our Sense of a Person is plain , Petav. de Trinit. l. 4. c. 4. that it signifies the Essence with a particular manner of Subsistence , which the Greek Fathers called an Hypostasis , taking it for that incommunicable Property which makes a Person .

But say our Vnitarians , a Person is an intelligent Being , Defence of the History of the Unit . p. 5. and therefore three Persons must be three intelligent Beings . I answer , that this may be taken two ways . 1. That there is no Person where there is no intelligent Nature to make it a Person , and so we grant it . 2. That a Person implies an intelligent Being , separate and divided from other Individuals of the same kind , as it is among men : and so we deny it as to the Persons of the Trinity , because the Divine Essence is not capable of such Division and Separation as the humane Nature is .

But say they again , The Fathers did hold a specifical Divine Nature , Ib. and the Persons to be as so many individuals . This they repeat very often in their late Books ; and after all , refer us to Curcellaeus for undeniable Proofs of it . Ib. Let us for the present suppose it ,

Answer to La Moth. p. 5.

Explic. p. 13.

Letter to the University , p. 13.

then I hope the Fathers are freed from holding Contradictions in the Doctrine of the Trinity ; for what Contradiction can it be , to hold three individual Persons in the Godhead , and One common Nature , more than it is to hold that there are three humane Persons in One and the same common Nature of Man ? Will they make this a Contradiction too ? But some have so used themselves to the Language of Iargon , Nonsense , Contradiction , Impossibility , that it comes from them , as some men swear , when they do not know it . But I am not willing to go off with this Answer ; for I do take the Fathers to have been men of too great Sense and Capacity to have maintained such an absurd Opinion , as that of a Specifick Nature in God . For either it is a mere Logical Notion , and Act of the Mind without any real Existence belonging to it as such , which is contrary to the very Notion of God , which implies a necessary Existence ; or it must imply a Divine Nature , which is neither Father , Son , nor Holy Ghost . Which is so repugnant to the Doctrine of the Fathers , that no one that is any ways conversant in their Writings on this Argument , can imagine they should hold such an Opinion . And I am so far from being convinced by Curcellaeus his undeniable Proofs , that I think it no hard matter to bring undeniable Proofs that he hath mistaken their meaning .

Of which I shall give an Account in this Place , because I fear his Authority hath had too much sway with some , as to this matter . I shall not insist upon his gross mistake in the very entrance of that Discourse , where he saith , Curcell . devocibus Trinit. Sect. 70. That the Bishops of Gaul and Germany disliked the Homoousion , and gave three Reasons against it ; whereas Hilary speaks of the Eastern Bishops whom he goes about to vindicate to the Western Bishops , who were offended with them for that reason ; as any one that reads Hilary de Synodis may see . But I come to the main Point . His great Argument is from the use of the Word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 which may extend to Individuals of the same kind . Who denies it ? But the Question is whether the Fathers used it in that sense , so as to imply a difference of Individuals in the same common Essence ? There were two things aimed at by them in their Dispute with the Arians .

( 1. ) To shew , That the Son was of the same Substance with the Father , which they denied , and made him of an inferior created Substance , of another kind . Now the Fathers thought this term very proper to express their Sense against them . But then this Word being capable of a larger Sense than they intended , they took care , ( 2. ) To assert a perfect Unity and Indivisibility of the Divine Essence . For the Arians were very ready to charge them with one of these two things . ( 1. ) That they must fall into Sabellianism , if they held a perfect Unity of Essence : or ( 2. ) When they clear'd themselves of this , that they must hold Three Gods ; and both these they constantly denied . To make this clear , I shall produce the Testimonies of some of the chief both of the Greek and Latin Fathers , and answer Curcellaeus his Objections .

Athanasius takes notice of both these Charges upon their Doctrine of the Trinity :

Athanas. de Sentent . Dionys. p. 558 , 567.

Orat. 4. de Arian . p. 456.

As to Sabellianism he declared , That he abhorred it equally with Arianism ; and he saith , it lay in making Father and Son to be only different Names of the same Person ; and so they asserted but one Person in the Godhead . As to the other Charge of Polytheism , he observes , That in the Scripture Language , all mankind was reckon'd as one , because they have the same Essence ; and if it be so , as to Men , who have such a difference of Features , of Strength , of Vnderstanding , of Language , De Communi Essent . &c. p. 214. how much more may God be said to be One , in whom is an undivided Dignity , Power , Counsel and Operation . Doth this prove such a difference , as is among Individuals of the same kind among men ? No man doth more frequently assert the indivisible Vnity of the Divine Nature than he . Expos. Fidei , p. 25● . In illud Omnia mihi trad p. 154. He expresly denies such divided Hypostases , as are among men ; and saith , That in the Trinity there is a Conjunction without confusion , and a distinction without Division ; that in the Trinity there is so perfect an Vnion , and that it is so undivided and united in it self ; that where-ever the Father is , there is the Son and the Holy Ghost , Ep. ad Serap . p. 259. and so the rest , because there is but one Godhead , and one God who is over all , and through all , and in all . But saith Curcellaeus , Orat. 4. c. Arian . p. 554 , 456 , 459. &c. The contrary rather follows from this 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 or mutual Inexistence , for that could not be without distinct Substance , as in Water and Wine . But this is a very gross mistake of the Fathers Notion , who did not understand by it a Local In-existence as of Bodies , Curcell . Sect. III. but such an indivisible Vnity that one cannot be without the other , as even Petavius hath made it appear from Athanasius and others .

Athanasius upon all Occasions asserts the Unity of the Divine Nature to be perfect and indivisible .

Petav. de Trinit. l. 4. c. 16.

De Decret. Synod . Nic. p. 259.269 , 274 , 276.

God , saith he , is the Father of his Son 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , without any Division of the Substance . And in other places , that the Substance of the Father and Son admit of no Division , and he affirms this to have been the sense of the Council of Nice ; so that the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 must be understood of the same indivisible Substance . Orat. 5. c. Arian . p. 514. Curcellaeus answers , That Athanasius by this indivisible Vnity meant only a close and indissoluble Vnion . De Decret. Synod p. 275. Curcell . Dissert. n. 106. But he excluded any kind of Division , and that of a Specifick Nature into several individuals as a real Division in Nature ; for no man whoever treated of those matters denied , that a Specifick Nature was divided , when there were several individuals under it . But what is it which makes the Vnion indissoluble ? Is it the Vnity of the Essence or not ? If it be , is it the same individual Essence , or not ? If the same individual Essence makes the inseparable Union , what is it , which makes the difference of individuals ? If it be said , The incommunicable Properties of the Persons ; I must still ask how such Properties in the same individual Essence , can make different individuals ? If it be said to be the same Specifick Nature ; then how comes that which is in it self capable of Division to make an indissoluble Vnion ?

But saith Curcellaeus , Curcell . n. 82. Athanasius makes Christ to be of the same Substance as Adam , and Seth , and Abraham , and Isaac are said to be Con-substantial with each other . And what follows ? That the Father and Son are divided from each other , as they were ? This is not possible to be his Sense ; considering what he saith of the Indivisibility of the Divine Nature . And Athanasius himself hath given sufficient warning against such a Mis-construction of his Words ; Athanas. de Synod . Arim & Seluc . p. 916 , 920 , 928. and still urges that our Conceptions ought to be suitable to the Divine Nature , not taken from what we see among men . And it is observable , that when Paulus Samosatenus had urged this as the best Argument against the term 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , That it made such a difference of Substances as is among men ; P. 919. for that Reason saith Athanasius , his Iudges were content to let it alone , for the Son of God is not in such a sense Con-substantial ; but afterwards , the Nicene Fathers finding out the Art of Paulus , and the significancy of the Word to discriminate the Arians , made use of it , and only thought it necessary to declare , that when it is applied to God , it is not to be understood , as among individual Men.

As to the Dialogues under Athanasius his Name , on which Curcellaeus insists so much ; Curcell . n. 84. it is now very well known that they belong not to him , but to Maximus ; and by comparing them with other places in him ,

Maxim . Oper.

T. II. p. 384. T. I. p 413.

it may appear , that he intended no Specifick Nature in God .

But saith Curcellaeus , Curcell . Sect. 73. 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 , ) A Discourse conc●rn●●g No●●●●l and real Unitar . p 26. 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 ,

Basil Hom. ●7 . p. 60● , 604.

Epist. 141 , 391 , 64.

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 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , T. I. p. 605. T. II. p. 9●6 . . as S. Cyril of Alexandria doth likewise , Cyril Alex . Dialog. de Trinit. 3. p. 498 , 500. and yet both these are produced by Curcellaeus for a Specifick Nature .

But saith Curcellaeus , Curcell . n. 74. 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 , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 p. 810. B. 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 , Phot. Cod. 24. 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 ; Cod. 234. 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 , Discourse conce●ning the Nominal and Real Unitar . p. 26 , 27. 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 , Basil. Ep. 141. I shall make it plain from h●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 have these to God , but as he is the Maker of them ? 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Basil. T. II. p. 926. Number belongs to material and circumscribed Beings ; but , saith he , the most perfect Vnity is to be conceived in the most simple and incomprehensible Essence . Where it is observable , that he uses those Words which are allow'd to express the most perfect and singular Unity . Which Petavius himself confesseth , Petav. de Trinit. l. 4 c. 13. n. 10. that they can never be understood of a specifick Nature : and Curcellaeus cannot deny , That 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 being added to 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , doth restrain the Sense more to a numerical Vnity , as he calls it . How then is it possible to understand S. Basil of more Gods than one in number ? And in the very same Page he mentions the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , the Sameness of the divine Nature , by which the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is better understood .

But Curcellaeus will have no more than a specifick Vnity understood . Cur. n 106. Before he said , that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 would have signified more , but now he finds it used , the case is alter'd : So that the Fathers could not mean any other than a specifick Vnity , let them use what expressions they pleas'd . But these , I think are plain enough to any one that will not shut his Eyes .

In an other place , S. Basil makes the same Objection and gives the same answer . One God the Father , and one God the Son ; how can this be , and yet not two Gods ? Because , saith he , the Son hath the very same Essence with the Father . Not two Essences divided out of one , as two Brothers ; but as Father and Son , the Son subsisting as from the Father , but in the same individual Essence : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 .

But Curcellaeus hath one fetch yet , viz. That S. Basil denied God to be one in Number , Basil. T. I. p. 604. Cur n. 113. and made him to be one in Nature , because he look'd on a specifick Vnity or Vnity of Nature as more exact than numerical . S. Basil look'd on the divine Nature as such to have the most perfect Vnity , because of its Simplicity , and not in the least speaking of it as a specifick Vnity ; but Curcellaeus himself calls this , N. 105. an Vnity by a mere Fiction of the Mind ; and can he imagine this to have been more accurate than a real Unity ? These are hard shifts in a desperate cause .

After all , our Vnitarians tell us , T. II. p. 30. That S. Basil doth against Eunomius allow a distinction in Number with respect to the Deity . But how ? As to the Essence ? By no means . For he asserts the perfect Vnity thereof in the same place , even the Vnity of the Substance . But as to the characteristical Properties of the Persons , he allows of Number , and no farther . But say they , This is to make one God as to essential Properties , and three as to Personal . How can that be ? when he saith , so often there can be but one God , because there can be but one divine Essence ; and therefore those properties can only make distinct Hypostases , but not distinct Essences . And is this indeed the great Secret which this bold Man , as they call him , hath discover'd ? I think those are much more bold , ( I will not say impudent ) who upon such slight grounds , charge him with asserting more Gods than one in Number . But Gregory Nyssen , Cur. n. 106. Greg. Nyssen . T. III. p. 17. saith Curcellaeus ▪ speaks more plainly in his Epistle to Ablabius ; for saith he , To avoid the difficulty of making three Gods , as three Individuals among Men are three Men ; he answers , that truly they are not three Men , because they have but one common Essence , which is exactly one , and indivisible in it self , however it be dispersed in Individuals ▪ the same , he saith , is to be understood of God . And this Petavius had charged him with before , Petav. de Trin. l. 4. ● 9 n. 2 , 3. as appears by Curcellaeus his Appendix .

This seems the hardest passage in Antiquity for this purpose , to which I hope to give a satisfactory answer from Gregory Nyssen himself .

1. It cannot be denied , that he asserts the Vnity of Essence to be Indivisible in it self , and to be the true ground of the Denomination of Individuals ; as Peter hath the name of a Man , not from his individual Properties , whereby he is distinguished from Iames and Iohn ; but from that one indivisible Essence , which is common to them all , but yet receives no Addition or Diminution in any of them .

2. He grants a Division of Hypostases among Men , notwithstanding this Indivisibility of one common Essence : For saith he ; among Men , although the Essence remain one and the same in all , without any Division ; 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 yet the several Hypostases are divided from each other , according to the individual Properties belonging to them . So that here is a double consideration of the Essence : as in it self , so it is one and indivisible ; as it subsists in Individuals , and so it is actually divided according to the Subjects . For although the Essence of a Man be the same in it self , in Peter , Iames and Iohn ; yet taking it as in the Individuals , so the particular Essence in each of them is divided from the rest . And so Philoponus took Hypostasis for an Essence individuated by peculiar Properties ; Niceph. Calist. hist. l. 18. c. 47. and therefore asserted , that where-ever there was an Hypostasis , there must be a distinct Essence ; and from hence he held the three Persons to have three distinct Essences .

3. We are now to consider , how far Gregory Nyssen carried this , whether he thought it held equally as to the divine Hypostasis ; and that he did not , appears to me from these arguments :

1. He utterly denies any kind of Division in the divine Nature ; for in the conclusion of that Discourse , he saith , it is not only 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ( a Word often used by the Greek Fathers on this occasion , from whence Athanasius against Macedonius inferr'd an Identity , Athan. T. II. p. 280. and Caesarius joyns 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; Caesar. Quaest. 3. p. 12. and so S. Basil uses it ) but he adds another Word , which is 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Indivisible . Yes , as all Essences are indivisible in themselves ; but they may be divided in their Subjects , as Gregory Nyssen allows it to be in Men. I grant it , but then he owns a Division of some kind , which he here absolutely denies as to the divine Nature ; for his words are , that it is 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in any consideration whatsoever . Then he must destroy the Hypostases . Not so neither , for he allows that there is a 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 as to the Hypostases however . For he proposes the Objection himself , That by allowing no difference in the divine Nature , the Hypostases would be confounded . To which he answers , That he did not deny their difference , which was founded in the relation they had to one another ; which he there explains ; and that therein only consists the difference of the Persons . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Which is a very considerable testimony , to shew that both Petavius and Curcellaeus mistook Gregory Nyssen's meaning . But there are other arguments to prove it .

2. He asserts such a difference between the divine and human Persons , as is unanswerable , viz. the Vnity of Operation . For , saith he , 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 , Greg. Nyssen , Tom. III. p. 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 , Cur. n. 48. 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 , N. 107. 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 , Cur. n. 89. 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 , Hilar. de Synod . n. 67. 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 , Hilar. de Trinit. l. 4. n. 6. 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 ? Hilar. de Synod . n. 18. 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 ; Hilar. de Trinit. l. 6. n. 12. 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 . Lumen ex lumine , quod sine detrimento suo naturam suam praestat ex sese , & quod dat habet , & quod dederit habeat , nascaturque quod sit . 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 , Petav. de Trinit. l. 5. c. 8. n. 9 , 12. by what they find in one another .

Doth not S. Ambrose say , as Curcellaeus quotes him , Curcell . n. 96. That the Father and Son are not two Gods , because all men are said to be of one Substance ?

Ambros. de Fide l. 5. c. 3. ed. Nov. 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 ; Curcell . n. 97. 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 , Aug. de Trinit. l. 7. c. 6. 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 . C Maxim l. 1. To the latter he saith , That by individual , he means Specifick . This is an extraordinary Answer indeed . Curcell . n. 114. 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 ? August . de Trinit. l. 4. c. 21. l. 5. c. 3 , 5 , 8. l. 6. c. 1. De Ago●e Christ . c. 16. C. Maxim. l 3. c. 10. 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 , Curcell . n. 114. 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 , Notes on Athanasius his Creed , p. 11. 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 B●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 , Basil. Ep. 141. 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 Substance must be divided if there be three Persons . That every Person must have a Substance to support his Subsistence is not denied , but the question is , Whether that Substance must be divided or not . We say , where the Substance will bear it , as in created Beings , a Person hath a separate substance , i. e. the same Nature diversified by Accidents , Qualities and a separate Existence , but where these things cannot be , there the same Essence must remain undivided , but with such relative Properties as cannot be confounded . But may not the same undivided Substance be communicated to three divided Persons ; so as that each Person may have his own proper Substance , and yet the divine Essence be in it self undivided ? This is not the case before us . For the question upon the Creed is , Whether the Substance can be divided ? And here it is allow'd to remain undivided . Yes in it self , but it may be divided in the Persons . The Substance , we say , is uncapable of being divided any way ; and to say , that a Substance wholly undivided in it self , is yet divided into as many proper and peculiar Substances , as there are Persons , doth not at all help our understanding in this matter ; but if no more be meant , as is expresly declared , than That the same one divine Nature is wholly and entirely communicated by the eternal Father to the eternal Son ▪ and by Father and Son to the eternal Spirit , without any Division or Separation ; it is the same which all Trinitarians assert . And it is a great pity , that any new Phrases or Ways of Expression should cause unreasonable Heats among those who are really of the same Mind . For those who oppose the expressions of three distinct Substances as new and dangerous ; yet grant , That it is one peculiar Prerogative of the divine Nature and Substance , founded in its infinite , and therefore transcendent Perfection , whereby it is capable of residing in more Persons than one ; and is accordingly communicated from the Father to the Son and Holy Ghost ; but this is done without any Division or Multiplication . Now if both Parties mean what they say , where lies the difference ? It is sufficient for my purpose that they are agrred , that there can be no Division as to the divine Essence by the distinction of Persons . And so this passage of the Athanasian Creed holds good , Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance .

The next Article , as it is set down in the Notes on Athanasius his Creed , is a contradiction to this . For there it runs , There is one Substance of the Father , another of the Son , another of the Holy Ghost . They might well charge it with Contradictions at this rate . But that is a plain mistake for Person ; for there is no other variety in the Copies but this , that Baysius his Greek Copy hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and that of Constantinople 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , but all the Latin Copies Persona . But what consequence do they draw from hence ? Then , say they , the Son is not the Father , nor is the Father the Son , nor the Holy Ghost either of them . If they had put in Person , as they ought to have done , it is what we do own . And what follows ? If the Father be not the Son , and yet is the one true God , then the Son is not the one true God , because he is not the Father . The one true God may be taken two ways : 1. The one true God , as having the true divine Nature in him , and so the Father is the one true God ; but not exclusive of the Son , if he have the same divine Nature . 2. The one true God , as having the divine Nature so wholly in himself , as to make it incommunicable to the Son ; so we do not say , that the Father is the one true God , because this must exclude the Son from being God ; which the Scripture assures us that he is ; and therefore though the Son be not the Father , nor the Father the Son , yet the Son may be the one true God as well as the Father , because they both partake of the same divine Nature , so that there is no contradiction in this , That there is but one true God , and one of the Persons is not the other . For that supposes it impossible , that there should be three Persons in the same Nature ; but if the distinction of Nature and Persons be allow'd , as it must be by all that understand any thing of these matters , then it must be granted , that although one Person cannot be another , yet they may have the same common Essence . As for instance , let us take their own , Peter , Iames and Iohn . What pleasant arguing would this be , Peter is not Iames nor Iohn , nor Iames nor Iohn are Peter , but Peter hath the true Essence of a Man in him ; and the true Essence is but one and indivisible ; and therefore Iames and Iohn cannot be true Men , because Peter hath the One and indivisible Essence of a Man in him ? But they will say , We cannot say that Peter is the One true Man , as we say , That the Father is the One true God . Yes ; we say the same in other Words , for he can be said to be the One true God in no other Respect , but as he hath the One true Divine Essence . All the difference lies , that a finite Nature is capapable of Division , but an infinite is not .

It follows , The Godhead of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost is all one , the Glory Equal , the Majesty Co-eternal .

To this they say , That this Article doth impugn and destroy it self . How so ? For , if the Glory and Majesty be the same in Number , then it can be neither Equal , nor Co-eternal . Not Equal for it is the same , which Equals never are , nor Co-eternal for that intimates that they are distinct . For , nothing is Co eternal , nor Co temporary with it self .

There is no appearance of Difficulty or Contradiction in this , if the Distinction of Persons is allowed ; for the three Persons may be well said to be Co-equal and Co-eternal ; and if we Honour the Son , as we Honour the Father , we must give equal Glory to him .

But one great Point of Contradiction remains , viz. So that the Father is God , the Son is God , and the Holy Ghost is God , and yet there are not three Gods ; but one God .

First , they say , This is as if a Man should say , the Father is a Person , the Son a Person , and the Holy Ghost a Person , yet there are not three Persons ; but one Person . How is this possible , if a Person doth suppose some peculiar Property , which must distinguish him from all others ? And how can three Persons be one Person , unless three incommunicable Properties may become one communicated Property to three Persons ? But they are aware of a Distinction in this Case , viz. that the term God is used Personally , when it is said God the Father , God the Son , and God the Holy Ghost ; but when it is said , There are not three Gods , but one God , the term God is used Essentially , and therefore comprehends the whole three Persons , so that there is neither a Grammatical , Notes on Athanas . his Creed , p. 13. 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 , Facund . l 1. p. 19. Ed. Serm. 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 Mank●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 :

Theod. haeret .

Fab. l. 2. c. 3.

the first we meet with of this sort , are those mention'd by Theodoret , Epigonus , Cleomenes , and Noëtus , from whom they were called Noe●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 . Athan. de Sent. Dionys. p. 558. 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 : Athanas. de Decret. Fidei Nicen . p. 275. 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 ; Athanas. de Sent. Dionys. 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 , Basil de Sp. Sancto c. 29. That the Heresie of Sabellius lay in making the Father and Son to be only different Names of the same Person ;

Athan. Orat . 4. c. Arian . p. 456.

Greg. Nazian. Or. I. p. 16 , 17.

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 , Or. XXI p. 380. 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 ;

Basil. Hom. 27. p. 602 , 604.

Basil. Epist 141.

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 , ●pist. 64.391 . 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 Sabellius called Persons . But by this Foundation he doth not mean any distinct Essences , but the incommunicable Properties belonging to them , as Father , Son and Holy Ghost .

It is plain from hence , that the necessity of asserting three Hypostases , came from thence , that otherwise they could not so well distinguish themselves from the Sabellians whose Doctrine they utterly disowned ; as well as Arianism and Iudaism ; and it appears by the Testimonies of Athanasius , Gregory Nazianzen and S. Basil ,

Athanas. ● . 567.

Greg. Naz. p. 16.

Basil. Hom. 27.

that they look'd on one as bad as the other ; and they commonly joyn Iudaism , and Sabellianism together .

But yet there arose Difficulties , whether they were to hold one Hypostasis or three . The former insisted on the generally received Sense of Hypostasis for Substance or Essence ; and therefore they could not hold three Hypostases without three distinct Essences , as the Platonists and Marcionists held . Upon this a Synod was called at Alexandria to adjust this matter , where both Parties were desired to explain themselves .

Ruffin . p. 211. hist. l. 1.

Athan. Ep. ad Antioch , p. 577.

Those who held three Hypostases were asked , Whether they maintained three Hypostases as the Arians did , of different Substances and separate Subsistences , as Mankind and other Creatures are ? Or as other Hereticks , three Principles or three Gods ? All which they stedfastly denied . Then they were asked , Why they used those terms ? They answered , Because they believed the Holy Trinity to be more than mere Names ; and that the Father , and Son , and Holy Ghost had a real Subsistence belonging to them ; but still they held but one Godhead , one Principle , and the Son of the same Substance with the Father ; and the Holy Ghost not to be a Creature , but to bear the same proper and inseparable Essence with the Father and the Son . Then the other side were asked , When they asserted but one Hypostasis , whether they held with Sabellius or not ; and that the Son and Holy Ghost had no Essence or Subsistence ? which they utterly denied ; but said , that their meaning was , That Hypostasis was the same with Substance ; and by one Hypostasis , they intended no more , but that the Father , Son and Holy Ghost were of the same individual Substance ; ( for the Words are 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and so they held but one Godhead and one divine Nature : and upon these terms they agreed . From whence it follows , that the Notion of three Hypostases , as it was received in the Christian Church , was to be under●●ood so as to be consistent with the Individual Vnity of the divine Essence . And the great rule of the Christian Church was to keep in the middle , between the Doctrines of Sabellius and Arius ; and so by degrees , the Notion of three Hypostases and one Essence was look'd on in the Eastern Church , as the most proper Discrimination of the Orthodox from the Sabellians and Arians .

But the Latin Church was not so easily brought to the use of three Hypostases , because they knew no other Sense of it , but for Substance or Essence ; and they all denied that there was any more than one divine Substance , and therefore they rather embraced the Word Persona ; and did agree in the Name of Persons , as most proper to signifie their meaning , which was , That there were three which had distinct Subsistences , and incommunicable Properties , and one and the same divine Essence . And since the Notion of it is so well understood , to signifie such a peculiar Sense , I see no reason why any should scruple the use of it . As to it s not being used in Scripture , Socinus himself despises it , and allows it to be no good reason . For when Franciscus Davides objected , That the terms of Essence and Person were not in Scripture ; Socinus tells him , Socin . Vol. l. p. 778. That they exposed their cause who went upon such grounds ; and that if the sense of them were in Scripture , it was no matter whether the terms were or not .

H●ving thus clear'd the Notion of three Persons , I return to the Sense of Scripture about these matters . And our Vnitarians tell us , that we ought to interpret Scripture otherwise . How doth that appear ? They give us very little encouragement to follow their Interpretations , which are so new , so forced , so different from the general Sense of the Christian World , and which I may say , reflect so highly on the Honour of Christ and his Apostles , i. e. by making use of such Expressions , which if they do not mean , what to honest and sincere Minds they appear to do , must be intended ( according to them ) to set up Christ a meer Man to be a God . And if such a thought as this could enter into the Mind of a thinking Man , it would tempt him to suspect much more as to those Writings than there is the least colour or reason for . Therefore these bold inconsiderate Writers ought to reflect on the consequence of such sort of Arguments , and if they have any regard to Christianity , not to trifle with Scripture as they do .

But say they , The question only is , Whether we ought to interpret Scripture when it speaks of God , Notes on Athanas . his Creed , p. 13. according to reason or not , that is like Fools or like wise Men ? Like wise Men no doubt , if they can hit upon it , but they go about it as untowardly as ever Men did . For is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men , to take up some novel Interpretations , against the general Sense of the Christian Church from the Apostles times ? Is this to act like wise Men , to raise Objections against the Authority of the Books , they cannot answer : and to cry out of false Copies and Translations without reason , and to render all places suspicious , which make against them ? Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men , to make our Saviour affect to be thought a God , when he knew himself to be a mere Man , and by their own Confession had not his divine Authority and Power conferr'd upon him ? And to make his Apostles set up the Worship of a Creature , when their design was to take away the Worship of all such , who by Nature are not Gods ? Answer to my Sermon , p. 14. Is this like wise Men , to tell the World , that these were only such Gods , whom they had set up , and God had not appointed ; as though there were no Real Idolatry but in giving Divine Worship without God's Command .

CHAP. VIII . The Socinian Sense of Scripture examined .

BUT they must not think to escape so easily for such a groundless and presumptuous saying ; that they interpret the Scripture not like Fools , but like Wise Men : because the true sense of Scripture is really the main point between us ; and therefore I shall more carefully examine the Wise Sense they give of the chief places which relate to the matter in hand .

1. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise Men , to make the Author to the Hebrews in one Chapter , and that but a short one , to bring no less than four places out of the Old Testament , and according to their Sense , not one of them proves that which he aimed at ? viz. that Christ was superiour to Angels , Heb. 1.5 . as will appear by the Sense they give of them . For unto which of the Angels said he at any time , Thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee ? Hist. of the Unit. p. 15. Edit. 2. 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 , Hist of the Unit. p. 17. 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 , Defence of of the Hist. of Unitar . p. 35. 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 , Hist. of the Unit. p. 16. 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 , Ibid p. 17. 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 .

Answer to Dr. Wallis his Letter , p. 9.

Answer to my Sermon , p. 9.

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 , Reflections no Dr. Bull , p. 39 , 46. 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 ; Sand. p. 93. 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 ? Answ. to the Archbishop , p. 54. 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 , Eus●b . Pra●p . Evang. l. 11. c. 18. 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 ?

Cyril . c. Julian , l. 10. p. 427.335 .

Julian ep. 51.

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 ; Facund . l. 4. p. 163. 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 ; Rittangel in Jezirah p. 96. 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 , Morinus Exerc. Biblic . l. 3. Exerc. 8. c. 6. 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 , Eusebius Dem. Evang. l. 4. c. 1. 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 particula●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 Parascha●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 , Bichin . Happerasch p. 21. 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 , Paris , A. D. 1566. 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 Word , 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 ;

Joh. 1.1.3.13.6.38 , 62.8.42 .

Answer to the Archbishop's Serm. p. 56.

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 , Answer to my Sermon , p. 10. 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 ▪ Hist. of the Unit. p. 29. 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 ; Answer to my Sermon , p. 9. that is , the Lord Christ was taken up into Heaven to be instructed in all points relating to his Ambassage or Ministry . Ans. to the Archbishop , p. 56. 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 ; Matth. 17.1 . Mar. 9 2. Luk. 9.28 . 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 . 2 Pet. 1 16. 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 . 17. For he received from God the Father , Honour and Glory , when there came such a voice to him from the excellent Glory — . 18. 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 ; Enjed. in Joh. 6.62 . b●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 , Answer to my Sermon , p. 10. 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 . History of the Unit. p. 26. There indeed I find Grotius his Interpretation ( as they call it ) prefer●d before that of Socinus . But they say , Grotius was Socinian all over , P. 11 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 , P. 2● . is not an eternal Son of God , but the Power a●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 Word 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 ; H. Grot. Opusc p. 294 T. 3. 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 .

Christe caput rerum vitae melioris Origo ,

Immensi mensura Patris , quem mente Supremâ

Miratus sese Genitor , de Lumine Lumen

Fundit , & aequali se spectat imagine totum .

H Grot. Syl. p. 8. Ed. 1643 ▪

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 , Joh. 8.58 . 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 , Answer to the Archbishop . p. 58. 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 , Joh. 10.36 . his chief meaning was , That he was the Son of God in such a Sense , Answer to Milb . p. 31. 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 , Ib. p. 30. which is true of every good man , I am the Son of God . And yet the Iews accused him of Blasphemy , for making himself the Son of God ; and the High Priest adjured him to tell , Whether he were the Christ the Son of God . Joh. 19.7 . Matt. 26.63 .

Did they mean no more , but as any Good man is ?

But Mr. Selden saith , Selden de Jure Nat. & Gent. l. 2. c. 12. that by the Son of God the Jews meant , the Word of God ( as he is called in the Chaldee Para●hrast ) which was all one , Pocock Not. Miscel. ad Maim . p. 307. &c. as to profess himself God : And our learned Dr. Pocock saith , that according to the Sense of the ancient Iews , the Son of God spoken of , Psal. 2. was the eternal Son of God , of the same Substance with the Father .

And by this we may understand S. Peter's Confession , Thou art the Christ ,

Matt. 16.16

S. Joh. 6.69 . 1.49 .

the Son of the living God ; and Nathanael's , Thou art the Son of God . But it is plain the Iews in the Conference thought he made himself God , by saying , I and my Father are One . Not one God , say our Wise Interpreters , 10.30.33 . Hist. of Unitar . p. 29. but as Friends are said to be One. And what must they think of our Saviour the mean time , who knew the Iews understood him quite otherwise , and would not undeceive them ?

But they say , Answer to Milb . p. 29. The Jews put a malicious Construction upon his Words . How doth that appear ? Do they think the Iews had not heard what passed before in some former Conferences , when they thought he had made himself equal with God ; Joh. 5.18.23 . and that he said , That all men should honour the Son , even as they honoured the Father ?

These Sayings no doubt stuck with them ; and therefore from them , they had Reason to think that he meant something extraordinary , by his saying , I and my Father are One. And if they were so Wise in interpreting Scripture , as they pretend , they would have considered , that if these things did not imply his being really the Son of God , according to the old Jewish Notion , he would have severely checked any such Mis-constructions of his meaning , and have plainly told them , he was but the Son of Man But S. Paul's Character of him doth plainly shew , that he was far from any thing like Vanity or Ostentation , Phil. 2.6 , 7. Although he was in the form of God , and thought it no Robbery to be equal with God ; which must imply that he was very far from assuming any thing to himself ; which he must do in a very high measure , if he were not really the Son of God , so as to be equal with God . The meaning whereof , say our Wise Interpreters , is , he did not rob God of his Honour by arrogating to himself to be God , Hist. of Unitar . p. 38. or equal with God . But what then do they think of these passages in his Conferences with the Iews ? Was he not bound to undeceive them , when he knew they did so grossly mis-understand him , if he knew himself to be a meer Man at the same time ? This can never go down with me , for they must either Charge him with affecting Divine Honour , which is the highest Degree of Pride and Vanity , or they must own him to be , as he was , The eternal Son of God .

VI. Is this interpreting Scripture like Wise men , to deny Divine Worship to be given to our Saviour when the Scripture so plainly requires it ? When I had urged them in my Sermon with the Argument from Divine Worship being given to Christ ; they do utterly deny it , and say , I may as well charge them with the blackest Crimes . Answer to Serm. p. 13. This I was not a little surprized at , knowing how warmly Socinus had disputed for it . But that I might not misunderstand them , I look'd into other places in their late Books , and from them I gather these things .

1. They make no Question but some Worship is due to the Lord Christ , Answer to Milb . p. 49. but the Question is concerning the kind or sort of Worship .

2. They distinguish three sorts of Worship . 1. Civil Worship from Men to one another . 2. Religious Worship given on the account of a Persons Holiness , or Relation to God ; which is more or less , according to their Sanctity or nearer Relation to God 3. Divine Worship which belongs only to God ; which consists in a Resignation of our Vnderstandings , Wills and Affections , and some peculiar Acts of Reverence and Love towards him . The two former may be given to Christ , they say , but not the last .

From whence it follows , that they cannot according to their own Principles , resign their Vnderstandings , Wills , and Affections to Christ ; because this is proper Divine Worship . Are not these very good Christians the mean while ? How can they believe sincerely , and heartily what he hath revealed , unless they resign their Vnderstandings to him ; How can they Love and Esteem him , and place their Happiness in him , if they cannot resign their Wills and Affections to him ? I think never any who pretended to be Christians , durst venture to say such things before and all for fear they should be thought to give Divine Worship to Christ .

But they confess , That they are divided among themselves about the Invocation of Christ . Ib. Col. 1. Those who are for it , say , That he may be the object of Prayer , without making him God , or a Person of God , and without ascribing to him the Properties of the Divine Nature , Omnipresence , Omniscience , or Omnipotence . Those who deny it , they say , do only refuse it , because they suppose he hath forbidden it , which makes it a meer Error . And in the New Testament , they say , The Charge is frequently renewed , that they are to Worship God only . And as great Writers as they have been these last seven years , Answer to Archbish. Serm p. 25. p. 59. they affirm that , They have wrote no Book in that time in which they have not been careful to profess to all the World , that a like Honour or Worship ( much less the same ) is not to be given to Christ as to God . And now I hope we understand their opinion right as to this matter . The question is , Whether this be interpreting those Scriptures which speak of the Honour and Worship due to Christ , like wise Men ? And for that I shall consider ,

1. That herein they are gone off from the opinion of Socinus and his Followers , as to the Sense of Scripture in those places .

2. That they have done it in such a way , as will justifie the Pagan and Popish Idolatry ; and therefore have not interpreted Scripture like wise Men.

1. That they are gone off from the opinion of Socinus and his followers , who did allow divine Worship to Christ . This appears by the disputes he had with Franciscus Davidis and Christianus Francken about it . The former was about the Sense of Scripture . Socinus produced all those places which mention the Invocation of Christ , and all those wherein S. Paul saith , The Grace of our Lord Iesus Christ be with you all ; and the Lord Iesus Christ direct our way , &c. and all those wherein a divine Power and Authority is given to Christ as head of the Church , for the support of the Faith and Hope of all those who believe in him in order to Salvation . And this Socinus truly judged to be proper divine Worship . Georg. Blandrata was unsatisfied , that Socinus did not say 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 . De divin . Christi , c. ●4 . 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 , Defence of the Hist. of the Unit. p. 54. 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 g●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 , Rom. 9.5 . Hist. of the Unit. p 35. 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 . Answer to Milb p 35. 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 , Ante-Nicen . p. 29 , 78. 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 , Answer to Milb p 34. 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 , Ans. to the Archbishop , p. 29. 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 . Answer to Milb p. 3. But F. Simon , whose authority they sometimes magnifie as to critical Learning , saith plainly , That Grotius was mistaken , Histoir Critique du Nov. Test. To. III. c. 54. p. 813. 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 , Annot. in Cypr. advers. Judaeos . 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 the words are , Hilar. in Psal. 122. Ex quibus Christus qui est super omnia Deus . And for S. Chrysostom , all that is said , is , That it doth not appear that he read it , but he thinks it might be added afterwards . But what a sort of proof is this against the general consent of MSS. for S. Chrysostom doth not say he thought so . Erasmus very plainly saith , that it is clearer than the Sun , that Christ is called God in other places of Scripture ; but Grotius can by no means be excused , nor those that rely upon him as to this place .

VIII . Is this interpreting Scripture like wise Men , to take advantage of all Omissions in Copies , when those which are entire ought to be preferr'd ? This I mention for the sake of another noted place , 1 Tim. 3.16 . God was manifest in the Flesh. Here our wise Interpreters triumph unreasonably ; Hist. of the Unit. p. 40. viz For , they say , it appears by the Syriac , Latin , Aethiopick , Armenian , Arabick , and most ancient Greek Bibles , that the word God was not originally in this Text but added to it . But the Arabick in all the Polyglotts hath God in ; the Syriac and Aethiopick , if we believe their Versions , read it in the Masculine Gender , and therefore in the King of Spain's Bible , Guido Fabricius Boderianus puts in Deus . As to the Armenian , I have nothing to say , but what F. Simon tells us from Vscan an Armenian Bishop ; that there was great variety in their Copies , Hist. Critique du Nov. To. II. c. 17. and that their first Translation was out of Syriac and not out of Greek . And the main point is , as to the old Greek Copies ; and we are assured , that there is but One , viz. the Clermont Copy which leaves out God , but that it is in the Alexandrian , the Vatican and all others ; and Curcellaeus mentions no more than the Clermont Copy .

It is therefore necessary to Examine in this place , the Authority of this Clermont Copy , ( as it is called ) whose reading is set up against all other ancient Greek Copies . Beza affirms it with great Confidence , Verum repugnant perpetuo consensu omnes Graeci Codices . Bez. That all the Greek Copies have God with one Consent . But how comes he to take no notice of this Difference of the Clermont Copy ? For that he had a sight of that part of it , which hath the Epistles of S. Paul , appears by his Notes in which he refers to it . For he mentions it three times in his Notes on Rom. 1. v. 13.29.32 . and in one he calls it a very ancient Manuscript written in large Letters . What should make Beza pass it over here ? It seems by Morinus that in the Clermont Copy , Motinus Exercit. Bibl. l. 1. Ex. 2. c. 4. there was a Correction made by another hand ; which is put into the various Lections of the Polyglott in Morinus his Words . But how doth it appear , that Beza's Clermont Copy was the very same which Morinus had ? Morinus saith , he had it from the F. F. Puteani ; Simon . Dissert. Sur le MS. du Nov , Test p. 14 ( and is the same I suppose with that in the King of France's Library ; of which they were then the Keepers ) But Morinus intimates that it was an old Copy , Rigalt . vit. P. Puteani , p. 62. which fell into their hands ; and so might come into the French King's Library , when they gave their own Manuscripts to it . This seems to have been the same which P. Pithaeus speaks of ; for the Description exactly agrees with it ; but Pithaeus , P. Pithae de Latino Interpret . p. II. who was a Person of great Integrity and Learning , affirms , That this Volume of the Epistles in great Letters came out of the Monastery of Corbey ; and so it could not be the Clermont Copy which Beza had . And I shall make it appear from the very places mention'd by Morinus , that Beza's Copy did differ from that which Morinus perused , as Rom. 4.9 . Morinus his Copy had 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; Beza takes notice of it only in the vulgar Latin ; which he would never have done , if it had been in the Clermont Copy , Rom 5.6 . For 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Morinus reads in that Copy 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and saith it is the true reading : but Beza condemns it , and never intimates that his Copy had it , Rom. 7.25 . Morinus saith , the reading of his Copy is the true , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 : Beza saith , It is against all the Greek Copies but one , and that hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; whether Beza were mistaken as to other Copies is not our business to enquire ; but if the reading had been in his Copy as Morinus found it ; he could never have said , that but one Copy had that different reading . Rom. 8.13 , Morinus his Copy had it 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; Beza takes no notice of any difference . Rom. 10.8 , Morinus reads 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Beza saith , It is not in the Greek Copies ; and he had then the Clermont by him : but it is both in that of the French King's Library , and of S. Germain's ; which agree with each other , where Beza's Copy differs ; and Beza upon Rom. 7.6 . and 11.6 observes , that his Clermont Copy differs from the rest ; by which we see how careful he was to observe the variuos Readings in it ; and so upon Rom. 15.24 , 33 , 16 , 27.

Rom. 14.6 . Beza observes , That the vulgar Latine leaves out part of the Verse , but that it is found in all the Greek Copies ; here Morinus charges Beza with Negligence , or Dis-ingenuity ; because it was left out in the Clermont Copy ; but how doth he prove he had the same Copy ? He saith indeed , That the ancient Copy , which he had was lent to Beza ; but he tells not by whom , nor in whose Possession it was afterwards . But if Beza were a man of any ordinary Care or Honesty , he would never have concealed those things , which Morinus found in it . 1 Cor. 6.20 , Beza saith , That those words 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , are in all the Greek Copies ; Morinus saith , That they were wanting in that which he made use of . It 's true , they are wanting in the Alexandrian , and some others ; but in none that Beza had the sight of ▪ if he may be believed . These are sufficient to shew , that there is no good Proof , that the ●opy which Beza had was the same which Morinus borrow'd ; and therefore his Authority is not to be slighted in this matter , when he affirms , that all the Greek Copies agreed in reading God manifest in the flesh ; and I cannot imagine Beza so intolerably careless as he must have been , if Morinus his Copy and Beza's were the same . But whether it were in Beza's Copy or not , it 's certain , they say , That it is not in that ancient Manuscript , which is called the Clermont Copy ; which is affirmed by Morinus , and taken for granted by others , therefore we must enquire a little farther into the Authority of this ancient Copy . It appears by those who have view'd and considered them , that there are two very ancient Copies of S. Paul's Epistles , so exactly agreeing , that one is supposed to be the Transcript of the other ; one is in the King's Library , the other in the Monastery of S. Germains . Which Mabillon saith is a Thousand years old . Mabil . de Re Deplomat . l. 5. p. 346. These two Copies are in effect but one , agreeing so much where they differ from others ; and having the old Latin Version opposite to the Greek . Monsieur Arnauld had so bad an Opinion of both parts of this Clermont Copy , ( as it is called ) that he charges it with manifest Forgery , and Imposture ; inserting things into the Text without ground . F. Simon who defends them cannot deny several things to be inserted , but he saith , it was through Carelessness and not Design . But he Confesses , Dissert. surless MS. du Nov. Test. p. 17. That those who transcribed both those ancient Copies of S. Paul 's Epistles did not understand Greek , and hardly Latin . And now let us consider , of what just Authority this different reading of the Clermont Copy ought to be against the Consent of all other ancient Copies . We find some good Rules laid down by the Roman Criticks , when they had a Design under Vrban 8th . to compare the Greek Text of the New Testament , with their ancient Manuscripts in the Vatican , and elewhere , and to publish an exact Edition of it ( which Collation was preserved in the Barberin Library , and from thence published by Pet. Possinus . ) And the main Rules as to the various Lections of Manuscripts were these , 1. That the Text was not to be alter'd but a Concurrence of all , or the greatest part of the Manuscripts . 2. That if one Manuscript agreed with the vulgar Latin , the Text was not to be alter'd , but the Difference to be set down at the end of the Chapter . But it is observable in that Collation of Twenty two Manuscripts , there is no one Copy produced , wherein there is any Variety as to this place . I know they had not Twenty two Manuscripts of S. Paul's Epistles , ( they mention but Eight ancient Manuscripts ) but they found no difference in those they had . And now I leave any reasonable man to judge , whether this Clermont Copy ought to be relied upon in this matter . But I have something more to say about the Greek Copies .

1. That God is in the Complutensian Polyglott , which was the first of the Kind , and carried on by the wonderful Care and Expence of that truly grea● Man Cardinal Ximenes , Alavarez Gomez de rebus Gestis Fr. Ximenii , l. 2. & 3. who spared for no Cost or Pains in procuring the best ancient Copies both Hebrew and Greek ; and the fittest men to judge of both Languages . And in pursuit of this noble Design , he had the best Vatican Manuscripts sent to him ( as is expressed in the Epistle before his Greek Testament , ) and what others he could get out of other places , among which he had the Codex Britannicus mention'd by Erasmus . But after all these Copies made use of by the Editors , there is no Intimation of any variety as to this Place ; although the vulgar Latin be there as it was .

But Erasmus mentions the great Consent of the old Copies as to the vulgar Latin , and whence should that come , but from a Variety in the old Greek Copies . To that I Answer ,

2. That the Greek Copies , where they were best understood had no Variety in them ; i. e. among the Greeks themselves . As appears by Gregory Nyssen , S. Chrysostom , Theodoret , Oecumenius and Theophylact. But doth not Monsieur Amelote say , Amelote in Loc. That the Marquiss of Velez had Sixteen old Manuscripts , out of which he gathered various Readings , and he reads it O! I cannot but observe , how he commends Fabricius and Walton , for rendring the Syriac Version according to the vulgar Latin ; but that will appear to be false , to any one that looks into them ; the former is mentioned already ; and the latter translates it , Quod manifestatus sit in carne . But as to the Marquiss of Velez his Copies , there is a Secret in it , which ought to be understood , and is discover'd by Mariana . Marian. Edit. vulg. c. 17. He Confesses , He had so may Manuscripts , eight of them out of the Escurial , but that he never set down whence he had his Readings .

And in another place , he ingenuously confesses , That his Design was to justifie the vulgar Latin ; Praef. ad Schol. and therefore collected Readings on purpose , and he suspects some , out of such Greek Copies , as after the Council of Florence were made comfortable to the Latin . Which Readings were published by la Cerda , whose Authority Amelote follows . And now what Reason can there be , that any such late Copies should be prefer'd before those which were used by the Greek Fathers ?

3. That the Latin Fathers did not concern themselves about changing their Version , because they understood it still to relate to the Person of Christ . So do S. Ierom , Leo , Hilary , Fulgentius ,

Hier. in Loc. Leo Epist. 34. ad Fl.

Hilar de Trinit. l. 11.

Fulg. ad Thra. c. 4.

and others . As to the Objections about Liberatus , Macedonius and Hincmarus , I refer them to the Learned Oxford Annotations .

IX . It is not wisely done of these Interpreters , to charge our Church so much for retaining a Verse in S. Iohn's first Epistle , 1 Joh. 5.7 . when they had so good authority to do it ? The Verse is , There are three that bear Record in Heaven , the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , Consider on the Explic. p. 29. &c. From hence they charge us with corrupted Copies and false Translations ; as an instance of the former , they produce this Text , which they say , was not originally in the Bible , History of Unit. p. 43. Ans. to the Archbishop , p. 29. but is added to it , and is not found in the most ancient Copies of the Greek , nor in the Syriac , Arabick , Ethiopick , or Armenian Bibles , nor in the most ancient Latin Bibles . Notwithstanding all which , I hope to be able to shew , that our Church had reason to retain it . For which end we are to consider these things ;

1. That Erasmus first began to raise any scruple about it . For , however it might not be in some MSS. which were not look'd into , this Verse was constantly and solemnly read as a part of Scripture both in the Greek and Latin Churches , as Mr. Selden confesses , Selden de Syned. l. 2. c. 4. and that it was in Wickliff's Bible . So that here was a general consent of the Eastern and Western Churches for the receiving it ; and although there might be a variety in the Copies , yet there was none in the publick Service , and no Objections against it that we find . But Erasmus his authority sway'd so much here , that in the Bibles in the time of H. 8. and E. 6. it was retained in a different Letter . As in Tyndell's Bible printed by the King's Printer , A. D. 1540. and in the Church Bible of King E. 6. in both which they are read , but not in the same Character . Yet Erasmus his authority was not great enough to cast it out , if he had a mind to have done it . Which doth not appear , for he saith himself , that finding it in the codex Britannicus , as he calls it , he restored it in his Translation as well as the Greek Testament , out of which he had expunged it befo●e in two Editions . And the Complutensian Bible coming out with it , added greater authority to the keeping of it in , and so it was preserved in the Greek Testaments of Hervagius , Plautin and R. Stephens and others , after the MSS. had been more diligently searched . Morinus saith , Morin exercit Bibl. l. 1 , 2 , Ex. 2. it was in seven of Rob. Stephens his MSS. but F. Simon will not allow that it was in any but the Complutensian , Simon dissert. de MSS p. 14. which is a strange piece of boldness in him . For Beza saith , Bez Epist. ad nov . Testam . He had the use of them all from him ; and H. Stephens let him have his Father's Copy compared with 25 MSS. and he affirms , That he found it in several of R. Stephens his old MSS. besides the Codex Britannicus and the Complutensian Copy , and therefore he concludes , that it ought to be retained . ( And so it was , after these Copies were come abroad in the Bishop's Bible , under Queen Elizabeth , without any distinction of character , as likewise in our last Translation . ) And it is observable , that Amelote affirms , that he found it in the most ancient Greek Copy in the Vatican Library ; but the Roman Criticks confess , it was not in their 8 MSS. yet they thought it fit to be retained from the common Greek Copies , and the Testimonies of the Fathers agreeing with the Vulgar Latin .

2. This Verse was in the Copies of the African Churches from S. Cyprian's time , as appears by the Testimonies of S. Cyprian , Fulgentius , Facundus , Victor Vitensis , and Vigilius Tapsensis , which are produced by others . Critique in nov. Test. c. 18. F. Simon hath a bold conjecture , of which he is not sparing , that Victor Vitensis is the first who produced it as S. John 's saying ; and that it was S. Cyprian 's own Assertion and not made use of by him as a Testimony of Scripture . But they who can say such things as these , are not much to be trusted . For S. Cyprian's words are , speaking of S. Iohn before , Et iterum de Patre & Filio scriptum est , & hi tres unum sunt . And it was not Victor Vitensis , but the African Bishops and Eugenius in the head of them , who made that address to Huneric , wherein they say , That it is clearer than Light , that Father , Son and Holy Ghost are one God , and prove it by the Testimony of S. John . Tres sunt qui Testimonium perhibent in caelo , Pater , Verbum & Spiritus Sanctus , & hi Tres unum sunt .

3. In the former Testimony , the authority of the Vulgar Latin was made use of : and why , is it rejected here ? When Morinus confesses there is no variety in the Copies of it . Morin . exercit . Bibl. l 1. Ex. 2. c. 1. n. 9. Vulgata versio hunc versum constanter habet . And he observes , that those of the Fathers , who seem to omit it ( as S. Augustin against Maximinus ) did not follow the old Latin Version . Lucas Brugensis , saith only , That in 35 old Copies , they found it wanting but in five . As to S. Ierom's Prologue , I am not concerned to defend it ; but Erasmus thought it had too much of S. Jerom in it , and others think it hath too little . F. Simon confesses , Critique To. I. c. 9. that P. Pithaeus and Mabillon think it was S. Ierom's , and that it was in the MSS. But I conclude with saying , That whoever was the Author , at the time when it was written , the Greek Copies had this Verse , or else he was a notorious Impostor .

X. The next thing I shall ask these wise Interpreters of Scripture , is , Whether , when the Scripture so often affirms , That the World was made by the Son , Joh. 1.3 . Heb. 1.2 , 10. Col. 1.16 . and that all things were created by him in Heaven and in Earth , it be reasonable to understand them of Creating nothing ? For after all their Shifts and Evasions it comes to nothing at last . But that we may see , how much they are confounded with these places , we may observe ,

1. They sometimes say , that where the Creation of all things is spoken of , it is not meant of Christ but of God . For in the answer they give to the place of the Epistle to the Colossians , they have these words : For by him all things were created , Hist. of the Unit. p. 38. are not spoken of Christ , but of God : the sense of the whole Context is this , The Lord Christ is the most perfect Image of the invisible God , the first born from the dead of every Creature ; for , O Colossians , by him , even by the invisible God were all things created ; they were not from all eternity , nor rose from the concourse of Atoms , but all of them , whether things in Heaven , or things in Earth ; whether Thrones , or Dominions , or Principalities , or Powers , are Creatures , and were by God created , who is before them all , and by him they all consist . This is a very fair Concession , that of whomsoever these words are spoken he must be God .

2. But in the defence of this very Book they go about to prove , Defence of the History of Unitar . p. 13 , 14. That the Creation of the World is not meant by these words . Is not this interpreting like wise Men indeed ? And they tell us , They cannot but wonder , that Men should attribute the old or first Creation to Christ . Wise Men do not use to wonder at plain things . For what is the old or first Creation , but the making the World , and creating all things in Heaven and Earth ? And these things are attribu●ed to the Word , to the Son to Christ . But say they , The Scripture does never say in express words ▪ that Christ hath created the Heaven and the Earth . What would these wise Interpreters have ? Doth not by whom all things were created in Heaven and Earth imply , that Heaven and Earth were created by him ? But they have a notable observation from the Language of the New Testament , viz That Christ is never said to have created the Heaven , the Earth , and the Sea , and all that therein is ; but we are apt to think , that creating all things takes in ●he Sea too , and that in the Scripture Language Heaven and Earth are the same with the World , and I hope the World takes in the Sea ; and the World is said to be made by him , and do not all things take in all ? No , say they , all things are limited to all Thrones , Principalities and Powers , visible and invisible . Then , however the making of these is attributed to Christ . And if he made all Powers , Visible and invisible , he must be God . Not so neither . What then is the meaning of the words , By him were all things created that are in Heaven and in Earth , visible and invisible ; whether they be Thrones , or Dominions , or Principalities , or Powers , all things were created by him and for him ? Surely then , these Dominions and Powers were created by him . No , say they , P. 10. that which we render created , ought to be rendred , modelled , disposed , or reformed into a new Order . Were ever wise Men driven to such miserable Shifts ? One while these words are very strong and good proof of the Creation of the World against Atheists and Epicureans , and by and by they prove nothing of all this , but only a new modelling of some things called Dominions and Powers . Do they hope ever to convince Men at this rate of wise interpreting ? Well , but what is this creating or disposing things into a new order ? And who are these Dominions and Powers ? they answer , Men and Angels . How are the Angels created by him and for him ? Did he die to reform them , as well as Mankind ? No , but they are put under him . And so they were created by him , that is , they were not created by him , but only made subject 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 Answer to Milb . p. 15. 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 , P. 16. 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 , Sand. Interp. Et Paradox . p. 115. 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 , Epiph. haer. 62. n. 2. 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 : N. 4. 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 , Hilar. l. 2. de Trinit. 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 , P. 17. 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 , Cypri●n . ad Jul. Ep. 73. That the Form of Baptism is prescribed by Christ , that it should be in plenâ & aduna●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 , Erasm. ad Cens. Paris . Tit. II. Vossi . de Symb. diss . I. n. 38. as well as others . And it 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 , Hierom. Ep. 61. 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 ●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 , Tertul. de Bap●ism . ● 13. That the Form of Baptism was prescribed by our Saviour himself as a Law to his Church . De Praescript . haeret . c. 20. S. Cyprian to the same purpose , Cyprian . Ep. 27.73 . Ed. Ox. That he commanded it to be used S. Augustin calls them , the Words of the Gospel , without which there is no Baptism . Aug. de Baptism . c. Donat. l. 6. c. 25. The Reason given by S. Ambrose is , Ambros. de Sp. Sanct. l. 1. c 3. 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 , Bed . in Act. 19. Hugo de S Vict. de Sacr. l. 1. c. 13. Peter Lombard and others . Lomb. 4. Sent. Dist. ● . c. sed qd. Basil c Eunom . l. 5. c. 3. c. 10. 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 , Epiph. Haer. 76. ad fin . 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 . Concil. Nicaen . c. 19. 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 . Aug. de Haeres c. 44. Concil. Arel . I. c. 8. That Council was held A. D. 314. and therefore Bellarmin , Bellarm. de Bap. l. 1. c. 3. 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 n●t answer to this Trinity let them be baptized , saith this plenary Cou●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 Answer to Mi●b p. 18. 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 , P. 17. That he lived 120 years before the Nicene Council , and that he particularly insists upon the Form of Baptism against Praxeas . Advers. Prax. c. 26. 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 so grosly , as to take three Persons to be only three several Names .

He grants to Praxeas , that Father , C 2. Son and Holy Ghost are one , but how ? Per unitatem substantiae , because there is but one divine Essence : but yet he saith , there are three , not with respect to essential Attributes , for so they are unius Substantiae , & unius Status , & unius Potestatis , quia unus Deus . And therefore the difference can be only as to personal Properties and distinct Capacities , which he calls Gradus , Forma , Species , not merely as to internal Relations , but as to external Dispensations , which he calls their Oeconomy . For his great business is to prove against Praxeas , that the Son and Holy Ghost had those things attributed to them in Scripture , which could not be attributed to the Father . For Praxeas asserted , Tertul. de praescr . haeret . c. ult. That the Father suffer'd ; and thence his followers were called Patripassians and Monarchici , i. e. Vnitarians . The main ground which Praxeas went upon , Con. Prax. ● . 3. was the Vnity of the Godhead , so often mention'd in Scripture , from hence Tertullian saith , That he took advantage of the weakness of the common sort of Christians , and represented to them , that whereas the Doctrine of Christ made but one God , those who held the Trinity according to the Form of Baptism , must make more Gods than one . Tertullian answers , that they held a Monarchy , i. e. unicum imperium , one supreme Godhead , and a supreme power may be lodged in distinct Persons and administred in several manners ; that nothing overthrew the divine Monarchy , but a different Power and Authority , which they did by no means assert . They held a Son , C. 4. but of the Substance of the Father , and a Holy Ghost from the Father by the Son : he still keeps to the distinction of Persons ,

Alium autem quomodo accipere debes jam professus sum , Personae non Substantiae nomine , ad Distinctionem , non ad Divisionem , caeterum ubique teneo unam substantiam in tribus cohaerentibus . Advers. Prax. c. 12.

Et sermo erat apud Deum & nunquam separatus à Patre aut alius à Patre , quia ego & Pater unum sumus . Haec erat probola veritatis , custos unitatis qua prolatum dicimus Filium à Patre , sed non separatum . C. 8.

and the Vnity of Substance . And he utterly denies any Division of Essences or separate Substances ; for therein , he saith , lay the Heresie of Valentinus , in making a Prolation of a separate Being . But although he saith , the Gospel hath declared to us , that the Father is God , the Son God , and the Holy Ghost God , yet we are taught that there is still but one God : redactum est jam nomen Dei & Domini in unione , c. 13. whereby the Christians are distinguished from the Heathens who had many Gods This is the force of what Tertullian saith upon this matter .

And what say our Vnitarians to it ? They cannot deny that he was an Ante-Nicene Father ; and it is plain that he did understand the Form of Baptism so as to imply a Trinity of Persons in an Vnity of Essence : To which they give no Answer .

But I find three things objected against Tertullian by their Friends :

1. That Tertullian brought this Doctrine into the Church from Montanus , whose Disciple he then was . So Schlichtingius in his Preface against Meisner , Schlicht . ad M●isn . de Trinit. p. 13 , 14.17 . grants , That he was very near the Apostolical Times , and by his Wit and Learning promoted this new Doctrine about the Trinity , especially in his Book against Praxeas . Advers. Prax. 2. But how doth it appear , that he brought in any new Doctrine ? Yes , saith Schlichtingius , he confesses , That he was more instructed by the Paraclete . But if he had dealt ingenuously , he would have owned that in that very place , Nos vero ut semper nunc magi● ut instructiores per Paracletum , &c. he confesses , He was always of that opinion , although more fully instructed by the Paraclete ? This only shews that Montanus himself innovated nothing in this matter , but endeavoured to improve it . And it is possible , that Tertullian might borrow his Similitudes and Illustrations from him , Hanc regulam ab initio Evangelii decueurrisse etiam ante priores haereticos , n●dum Praxean hesternum . which have added no ●●rength to it . But as to the main of the Doctrine he saith , It came from the rule of Faith delivered by the Apostles , before Praxeas , or any Hereticks his Predecessors . Which shews , that those who rejected this Doctrine were always esteemed Hereticks in the Christian Church . And this is a very early Testimony of the Antiquity and general Reception of it , because as one was received the other was rejected , so that the Assertors of it were accounted Hereticks . And the Sense of the Church is much better known by such publick Acts , than by mere particular Testimonies of the learned Men of those times . For when they deliver the Sense of the Church in such publick Acts , all persons are Judges of the truth and falshood of them at the time when they are deliver●d ; and the nearer they came to the Apostolical Times , the greater is the strength of their evidence ; this I ground on Tertullian's appealing to the ancient rule of Faith , which was universally known and received in the Christian Church , and that such Persons were look'd on as Hereticks who differ'd from it . Which being so very near the Apostles Times , it 's hardly possible to suppose , that the whole Christian Church should be mistaken as to what they received as the rule of Faith , which was deliver'd and explained at Baptism , and therefore the general Sense of the Form of Baptism must be understood by all who were admitted to it . So that the Members of the Christian Church cannot be supposed better acquainted with any thing than the Doctrine they were baptized into . Here then we have a concurrence of several publick Acts of the Church . 1. The Form of Baptism . 2. The Rule of Faith relating to that Form , and explained at Baptism . 3. The Churches rejecting those as Hereticks who differ'd from it : which Tertullian applies to those who rejected the Trinity . And Praxeas his Doctrine was then condemned , not by a particular Sentence , but by the general Sense of the Church at that time . For Optatus Milevitanus reckons him among the condemned Hereticks , Optat. Mil. l. 1. and joyns him with Marcian and Valentinus , as well as Sabellius , who follow'd him in the same Heresie . How was this possible , if Praxeas deliver'd the true Doctrine , and Tertullian brought in a new Opinion as Schlichtingius fansies . Tertullian was at that time a declared Montanist ; and if he had introduc'd a new Doctrine about the Trinity , can we imagine those would have been silent about it , who were sharp enough upon Tertullian for the sake of his Paraclete ? Some of the followers of Montanus afterwards fell into the same opinions with Praxeas , as Theodoret tells us , Theodor. haer l. 3 c. 2. and Tertullian saith as much of those Cataphrygians who follow'd Aeschines : Tertul. de praefer . c. 5. But these Montanists are distinguished from the rest . And Rigaltius observes , that Tertullian follow'd Montanus chiefly in what related to Discipline , Rigalt . in Tertul. ad Praxean . and that himself was not so corrupted in point of Doctrine as some of his Followers were .

2. It 's objected , Ante-Nicen . p. 27. That Tertullian's Doctrine is inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Trinity ; for he denies the eternal Generation of the Son ; and only asserts an Emission of him before the Creation .

But my business is not to justifie all Tertullian's Expressions or Similitudes ; for Men of Wit and Fancy love to go out of the Road , and sometimes involve things more by Attempts to explain them ; but I keep only to that which he saith , was the Faith of the Church from the beginning ; and I see no reason to call in Question his Fidelity in reporting , however he might be unhappy in his Explications .

3. Tertullian himself saith , Schlichtingius , in other Places , where he speaks of the rule of Faith , doth not mention the Holy Ghost ; P. 12. and therefore this seems added by him for the sake of the Paraclete . But this can be of no force to any one that considers , that Tertullian grounds his Doctrine not on any New Revelation by the Paraclete , but on the Rule of Faith received in the Church long before ; and upon the Form of Baptism prescribed by our Saviour . Will they say , the Holy Ghost was there added for the sake of Montanus his Paraclete ? And in another of his Books , he owns the Father , Son and Holy Ghost to make up the Trinity in Vnity . In quo est Trinitas unius Divinitatis , Pater , Filius & Spiritus Sanctus . De Pudicit . c. 21. Petav. T. 2. l. 1. c. 5. Sect. 4. Wherein Petavius himself confesses , That he asserted the Doctrine of the Church in a Catholick manner ; although he otherwise speaks hardly enough of him .

The next I shall mention , is Novatian , whom Schlichtingius allows , Schlichting . Praef p. 30. to have been before the Nicene-Council ; Ante-Nicen . p. 27. and our modern Vnitarians call him a great Man , whoever he was , and very ancient . And there are two things I observe in him . 1. That he opposes Sabellianism ; for , before his time Praxeas and Noetus were little talked of , especially in the Western Church ; but Sabellius his Name and Doctrine were very well known by the opposition to him , by the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome . Novatian . de Trinit. c. 12.21 , 31. He sticks not , at the calling it Heresie several times ; and Disputes against it , and answers the Objection about the Vnity of the Godhead . 2. That he owns , that the Rule of Faith requires our believing in Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; C. 29. and asserts the Divine Eternity of it , and therefore must hold the Doctrine of the Trinity to be the Faith of the Church contained in the Form of Baptism . For he saith , Et cum Spiritus Sancti divina aeternitate sociari . The Authority of Faith , and the Holy Scriptures admonish us to believe not only in the Father and Son , but in the Holy Ghost . Therefore the Holy Ghost must be considered , as an object of Faith joyned in the Scripture with the other two , which is no where more express , than in the Form of Baptism , which as S. Cyprian saith , was to be administred in the full Confession of the Trinity , in the place already mention●d . And it is observable that S. Cyprian rejects the Baptism of those who denied the Trinity at that time , Cypr. Ep. 37. among whom he instances in the Patripassians , who it seems were then spread into Africa .

The Dispute about the Marcionites Baptism was upon another ground , for they held a real Trinity , as appears by Dionysius Romanus in Athanasius , and Epiphanius , &c. but the Question was , whether they held the same Trinity or not . S. Cyprian saith , That our Saviour appointed his Apostles to baptize in the Name of Father , Son and Holy Ghost , and in the Sacrament of this Trinity they were to baptize . Doth Marcion hold this Trinity ? So that S. Cyprian supposed the validity of Baptism to depend on the Faith of the Trinity . And if he had gone no farther , I do not see how he had transgressed the Rules of the Church ; but his Error was , that he made void Baptism upon difference of Communion , and therein he was justly opposed . But the Marcionites Baptism was rejected in the Eastern Church , Basil Epist. Canon , 47. because of their Doctrine about the Trinity .

In the Parts of Asia about Ephesus , Noetus had broached the same Doctrine , which Praxeas had done elsewhere . For which he was called to an account , and himself with his Followers we cast out of the Churches Communion , as Epiphanius reports , which is another considerable Testimony of the Sense of the Church at that time . Epiphanius saith , Epiph haeres. 57. n. 1. he was the first who broached that Blasphemy ; but Theodoret mentions Epigonus and Cleomenes before him ; it seems , that he was the first who was publickly taken notice of for it ; and therefore underwent the Censure of the Church with his Disciples . When he was first summon'd to answer , he denied that he asserted any such Doctrine ; because no man before him saith Epiphanius , had vented such Poison . And in the beginning he saith , that Noetus out of a Spirit of Contradiction had utter'd such things , as neither the Prophets , nor the Apostles , nor the Church of God ever thought or declared . Now what was this unheard of Doctrine of Noetus ? That appears best by Noetus his answer upon his second appearance which was , That he worshipped One God , and knew of no other , who was born and suffer'd , and died for us ; and for this he produced the several places which assert the Vnity of the Godhead , N. 2. and among the rest one very observable , Rom. 9.5 . Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came , who is over all God blessed for ever . From whence he inferr'd that the Son and the Father were the same , and the same he affirmed of the Holy Ghost . But from hence we have an evident Proof that the most ancient Greek Copies in Noetus his time , which was long before the Council of Nice , had God in the Text. Epiphanius brings many places of Scripture to prove the Distinction of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead ; but that is not my present business , but to shew the general Sense of the Church at that time . I do not say that Noetus was condemned by a general Council ; but it is sufficient , to shew that he was cast out of the Church , where he broached his Doctrine , and no other Church received him , or condemned that Church which cast him out , which shews an after Consent to it . Now what was this Doctrine of Noetus ? The very same with that of Praxeas at Rome . Theodoret saith , Theod. haer. l. 3. c. 3. this his Opinon was , That there was but One God the Father , who was himself impassible , but as he took our Nature , so he was passible and called the Son . Epiphanius more fully , Epiph. 57. n. 2. that the same Person was Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; wherein he saith , he plainly contradicts the Scriptures , which attribute distinct Personalities to them ; and yet assert but one Godhead . The Father hath an Hypostasis of his own , and so have the Son and Holy Ghost ; but yet there is but one Divinity , one Power , and one Dominion ; for these distinct Persons are , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; of the same individual Essence and Power . But Epiphanius was no Ante-Nicene Father : however in matters of Antiquity , where there is no incongruity in the thing , we may make use of his Authority ; and I think no one will question , that Noetus was condemned ; which was the thing I produced him to prove .

But although Noetus was condemned , Comment. in Matth. p. 470. yet this Doctrine did spread in the Eastern parts ; for Origen mentions those who confounded the Notion of Father and Son , and made them but one Hypostasis , and distinguished only by thought , and Denomination . This Doctrine was opposed not only by Origen , but he had the Sense of the Church concurring with him , as appears in the Case of Beryllus Bishop of Bostra , who fell into this Opinion , and was reclaimed by Origen ; and Eusebius gives this account of it , Euseb. l. 6. c. 33. That there was a Concurrence of others with him in it , and that this Doctrine was look'd on as an Innovation in the Faith . For his Opinion was that our Saviour had no proper Subsistence of his own before the Incarnation ; and that the Deity of the Father alone was in him . He did not mean that the Son had no separate Divinity from the Father , but that the Deity of the Father only appeared in the Son ; so that he was not really God , but only one in whom the Deity of the Father was made manifest . Which was one of the oldest Heresies in the Church , and the most early condemned and opposed by it .

But those Heresies , which before had differenced Persons from the Church , were now spread by some at first within the Communion of it ; as it was not only in the Case of Noetus and Beryllus , but of Sabellius himself , who made the greatest noise about this Doctrine ; and his Disciples , Epiphanius tells us , Epiph. haer. 62. spread very much both in the Eastern and Western parts ; in Mesopotamia and at Rome . Their Doctrine , he saith , was , that Father , Son and Holy Ghost were but one Hypostasis , with three different Denominations . They compared God to the Sun , the Father to the Substance , the Son to the Light , and the Holy Ghost to the Heat which comes from it ; and these two latter were only distinct Operations of the same Substance .

Epiphanius thinks that Sabellius therein differ'd from Noetus , because he denied that the Father suffer'd ; but S. Augustin can find no difference between them . Aug. in Joh. tract. 36. All that can be conceived is , that a different Denomination did arise from the different appearance and Operation ; which our Vnitarians call three Relative Persons , and one Subsisting Person . Discourse of Nominal . and real Unit. p. 1●

Sabellius did spread his Heresie most in his own Country ; which was in Pentapolis of the Cyrenaick Province , being born in Ptolemais one of the five Cities there . Of this Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria gives an account in his Epistle to Xystus then Bishop of Rome , Euseb. l. 7. c. 6.26 . wherein he takes notice of the wicked and blasphemous Heresie , lately broached there against the Persons of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost . Letters on both sides were brought to him , on which occasion he wrote several Epistles , among which there was one to Ammonius Bishop of Bernice , another of the Cities of Pentapolis . In this , he disputed with great warmth against this Doctrine of Sabellius , insomuch , that he was afterwards accused to Dionysius of Rome , that he had gone too far the other way ; and lessen'd the Divinity of the Son by his Similitudes ; of which he clear'd himself , as appears by what remains of his Defence in Athanasius . But as to his Zeal against Sabellianism it was never question'd . Dionysius of Rome declares his Sense at large in this matter against both Extremes , viz. of those who asserted three separate and independent Principles , and of those who confounded the Divine Persons ; Athan. de Decret. Synodi Nicaenae , p. 275. and he charges the Doctrine of Sabellius too with Blasphemy , as well as those who set up three different Principles , and so made three Gods . But he declares the Christian Doctrine to be , that there were Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; but that there is an indivisible Vnion in One and the same Godhead . It seems Dionysius of Alexandria was accused for dividing and separating the Persons , to which he answers , that it was impossible he should do it , because they are indivisible from each other ; Athanas. de Sentent . Dionysii , p. 561. and the name of each Person did imply the inseparable Relation to the other , as the Father to the Son , and the Son to the Father , and the Holy Ghost to both . And this Judgment of these two great Men in the Church concerning Sabellianism , was universally receiv'd in the Christian Church . And this happen'd long before the Nicene Council .

2. Another argument of the general Sense of the Christian Church is from the Hymns and Doxologies publickly received ; which were in the most solemn Acts of religious Worship made to Father , Son and Holy Ghost . The force of this argument appears hereby , that divine Worship cannot be given to mere Names , and an Equality of Worship doth imply an Equality of Dignity in the object of Worship , and therefore , if the same Acts of Adoration be performed to Father , Son and Holy Ghost , it is plain , that the Christian Church did esteem them to have the same divine Nature , although they were distinct Persons . And if they were not so , there could not be distinct Acts of divine Worship performed to them . S. Basil mentions this Doxology of Africanus , Basil de Sp. Sancto c. 29. ( that ancient Writer of the Christian Church ) in the fifth Book of his Chronicon , We render thanks to him who gave our Lord Iesus Christ to be a Saviour , to whom with the Holy Ghost be Glory and Majesty for ever . And another of Dionysius Alexandrinus in his 2d . Epistle to Dionysius of Rome . To God the Father and his Son our Lord Iesus Christ with the Holy Ghost , be Glory and Power for ever and ever , Amen . And this is the more considerable , because he saith he did herein follow the ancient Custom and Rule of the Church ; and he joyned with it , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Praising God in the same voice with those who have gone before us , which shews how early these Doxologies to Father , Son and Holy Ghost , had been used in the Christian Church . But to let us the better understand the true Sense of them , S. Basil hath preserved some passages of Dionysius Alexandrinus which do explain it , viz. That either the Sabellians must allow three distinct Hypostases , or they must wholly take away the Trinity . By which it is evident , that by Father , Son and Holy Ghost he did understand three distinct Hypostases , but not divided ; for that appears to have been the Sabellians Argument , That if there were three , they must be divided : No saith Dionysius , they are three whether the Sabellians will or not ; or else there is no Trinity : which he look'd on as a great absurdity to take away , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Divine Trinity . Of what ? Of mere Names or Energies ? That is no Trinity ; for there is but one subsisting Person of separate and divided Substances : That the Sabellians thought must follow but both the Dionysius's denied it . And in another Passage there mention'd , Dionysius of Alexandria asserts the Trinity in Vnity .

〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 .

But before Dionysius , he quotes a passage of Clemens Romanus concerning Father , Son and Holy Ghost , which attributes Life distinctly to them . Now Life cannot belong to a Name or Energy , and therefore must imply a Person .

But that which is most material to our purpose , is the Publick Doxology in the Church of Neo-Caesarea , brought in by Gregory Thaumaturgus . S. Basil gives a very high Character of him , as of a Person of extraordinary Piety and Exactness of Life , and a great promoter of Christianity in those Parts , and by him the Form of Doxology was introduced into that Church , being chiefly formed by him ( there being but Seventeen Christians when he was first made Bishop there ) which was , Glory to God the Father , and Son with the Holy Ghost , which ought to be understood according to the sense of the Maker of it . And Gregory hath deliver'd his sense plainly enough in this matter : for in that Confession of Faith , which was preserved in the Church of Neo-Caesarea , he owns a perfect Trinity in Glory , Greg. Thaumat . p. 1. 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 , Athanas. c. Serap . p. 10. 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 . Answer to Milb . p. 18. 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 , Rittang . p. 81. and this last is by the old Chaldee Paraphrast rendred 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , P. 113. 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 , P. 117. 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 , Answer to Dr. Bull , p. 59. 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 ; Morin . Exercit. l. 2. l. 10. c. 8. 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 , Cosri Part. 4. p. 316. 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 . P. 302. 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 , P. 61. 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 . N●●hing , saith S. Basil , De Sp. Sancto , c. 10. 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 , C. 17. 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 , C. 18. wh●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 , C. 29. 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 , Euseb. l. 4. c. 15. 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 . Vales. ad Euseb. p. 73. These suffer'd Martyrdom for Christianity , and owned the same Divine Honour to the Father , Son and Holy Ghost .

Coteler VII . p. 1●27 . 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 Te●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 , C. 29. 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 , Prudent . Cath. that it was continued to his Time ; as appea●s by his Hymn on that occasion , Hymn . 5. which concludes with this Doxology , and S. Hilary ends his Hymn written to his Daughter , Hilar. Op. N. E. p. 1214. 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 , Apol. 2. p. 94. 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 . P. 26. 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 , P. 97. 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 , P. 98. by his Son Iesus Christ , and the Holy Ghost . And in other places , he mentions the Worship they give to Father , P. 56. Son and Holy Ghost . Indeed he mentions a difference of Order between them ; P. 60. 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 thought he could not honestly conceal so fundamental a Point of the Christian Faith , and which related to their being entred into the Christian Church . For if the Profession of this Faith had not been look'd on as a necessary condition of being a Member of the Church of Christ ; it is hard to imagine , that Iustin Martyr should so much insist upon it , not only here , but in his other Treatises : Of which an Account hath been given by others .

Athenagoras had been a Philosopher , as well as Iustin Martyr , before he professed himself a Christian ; and therefore , must be supposed to understand his Religion before he embraced it . And in his Defence he asserts , Athenag . p. 11. That the Christians do believe in Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; in God the Father , God the Son , and the Holy Ghost . And he mentions both the Vnity and Order which is among them . Which can signifie nothing unless they be owned to be distinct Persons in the same Divine Nature . And in the next Page , he looks on it , as thing which all Christians aspire after in another Life , That they shall then know the Vnion of the Father , and the Communication of the Father to the Son , what the Holy Ghost is , and what the Vnion and Distinction there is between the Holy Ghost , the Son and the Father . No man who had ever had the name of a Philosopher would have said such things , unless he had believed the Doctrine of the Trinity a● we do , i. e. that there are three distinct Persons in the same Divine Nature , but that the manner of the Union , and Distinction between them , is above our reach and comprehension .

But our Vnitarians have an Answer ready for these men , Defence of the Hist. of the Unit. p. 5. viz. That they came out of Plato 's School , with the Tincture of his three Principles ; and they sadly complain , that Platonism had very early corrupted the Christian Faith as to these matters .

In answer to which Exception , Resp. ad Judic . Eccles p. 174.178 . I have only one Postulatum to make ; which is , that these were honest Men , and knew their own Minds be●t , and I shall make it appear , that none can more positively declare , than they do , that they did not take up these Notions from Plato , but from the Holy Scriptures ; Iustin Martyr saith he took the Foundation of his Faith from thence , Just. Apol. 2. Paraei . ad Graec. p. 18 , 22 , 24. and that he could find no certainty as to God and Religion any where else : that he thinks , Plato took his three Principles from Moses ; and in his Dialogue with Trypho , Dial. cum Trypho , p. 274 , &c. he at large proves the Eternity of the Son of God from the Scriptures ; and said , He would use no other Arguments , for he pretended to no Skill but in the Scriptures , which God had enabled him to understand .

Athenagoras declares , Athenag . p. 8 , 9. That where the Philosophers agreed with them , their Faith did not depend on them , but on the Testimony of the Prophets , who were inspired by the Holy Ghost .

To the same purpose speaks Theophilus Bishop of Antioch , Theophil . ad Autolyc . p. 100. who asserts the Coeternity of the Son with the Father , from the beginning of S. John's Gospel ; and saith , their Faith is built on the Scriptures .

Clemens Alexandrinus owns not only , Clemens Paed. l. 3. c. 7. the Essential Attributes of God to belong to the Son ; but that there is one Father of all , and one Word over all , and one Holy Ghost who is every where .

Str. l. 4. p. 517. Prof. p. 68. And he thinks , Plato borrowed his three Principles from Moses ; that his second was the Son , and his third the Holy Spirit .

Even Origen hims●l● highly commends Moses above Plato ,

Paed l. 1. c 6. Str. l 5 p. 598. Orig. c.

Celf l 1. p. 16. l 4. p. 198 l. 6. p. 275 , 2●9 , &c. 308. l 7. p. 351 , 371.

in his most undoubted Writings , and saith , That Numen●us went beyond Plato , and that he borrowed out of the Scriptures ; and so he saith , Plato did in other places ; but he adds , That the Doctrines were better deliver'd in Scripture , than in his Artificial Dialogues . Can any one that hath the least reverence for Writers of such Authority and Z●al for the Christian Doctrine , imagine that they wilfully corrupted it in one of the chief Articles of it ; and brought in new Speculations against the Sense of those Books , which at the same time , they professed to be the only Rule of their Faith ? Even where they speak most favourably of the Platonick Trinity , they suppose it to be borrowed from Moses .

And therefore Numenius said ,

Clem Alex . Str. 1. Euseb.

Praep. l. 8. Theod. Serm. 1.

That Moses and Plato did not differ about the first Principles ; and Theodoret mentions Numenius as one of those , who said , Plato understood the Hebrew Doctrine in Egypt ; and during his Thirteen years ●ay there , it is hardly possible to suppose , he should be ignorant of the Hebrew Doctrine , about the first Principles , which he was so inquisitive after , especially among Nations , who pretended to Antiquity .

And the Platonick Notion of the Divine Essence inlarging it self to three Hypostases , is considerable on these Accounts :

1. That it is deliver'd with so much assurance by the Opposers of Christianity ; such as Plotinus , Porphyrius , Proclus and others were known to be , and they speak with no manner of doubt concerning it ; as may be seen in the passage of Porphyrie preserved by S. Cyril and others . Cyril . c. Jul. l. 1. & l. 8.

2. That they took it up from no Revelation ; but as a Notion in it self agreeable enough ; as appears by the passages in Plato and others concerning it . They never suspected it to be liable to the Charge of Non-Sense , and Contradictions , as our modern Vnitarians charge the Trinity with ; although their Notion as represented by Porphyrie be as liable to it . How came these Men of Wit and Sense , to hit upon , and be so fond of such absurd Principles which lead to the Belief of Mysterious Non-Sense , and Impossibilities ; if these Men may be trusted ?

3. That the Nations most renowned for Antiquity and deep Speculations , did light upon the same Doctrine , about a Trinity of Hypostases in the Divine Essence . To prove this I shall not refer to the Trismegistick Books , or the Chaldee Oracles , or any doubtful Authorities ;

Plutarch de Isid. & Osirld . p. 369. ed. Fr.

Eusebius Praep. E. l. 3. c. 11. Jamb. de Myst. Sect. 8. c. 2.

Macrob. in Som. Scipion . l. 1. c. 14.

but Plutarch asserts the three Hypostases to have been receiv●d among the Persians , and Porphyry , and Iamblicus , say the same of the Egyptians .

4. That this Hypostasis did maintain its Reputation so long in the World . For we find it continued to the time of Macrobius ; who ment●ons it as a reasonable Notion , viz. of one supreme Being , Father of all , and a Mind proceeding from it , and soul from Mind . Some have thought that the Platonists made two created Beings , to be two of the Divine Hypostases ; but this is contrary to what Plotinus and Porphyry affirm concerning it , and it is hard to give an Account , how they should then be Essentially different from Creatures , and be Hypostases in the Divine Essence . But this is no part of my business , being concerned no farther , than to clear the Sense of the Christian Church , as to the Form of Baptism in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; which according to the Sense of the Ante-Nicene Fathers , I have proved , doth manifest the Doctrine of the Trinity , to have been generally receiv'd in the Christian Church .

2. Let us now see what our Vnitarians object again●t the Proof of the Trinity from these words .

1. They say , That there is a Note of distinction and Superiority . Answer to Milb p. 17. 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 ;

Athan. Ep. ad Serapion , p. 14.

Tom. 2. Ad Serap . Tom. 1. p. 186 , 179.

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 , Or. 3. c. Arian p. 413. 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 , Petavius T. II. l. 2. c. 12. sect. 8. 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 , Hist. of the Unitar . p. 25. 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 . Aug. in Psal. 77. 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 ? I know none that lay the force of the Argument upon any thing parallel to those Places . But it depends upon laying the Circumstances together . Here was a new Religion to be taught mankind , and they were to be entred into it , not by a bare verbal Profession , but by a solemn Rite of Baptism ; and this Baptism is declar'd to be in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost : which cannot be understood of their Ministery , and therefore must relate to that Faith , which they were baptized into , which was concerning the Father , Son and Holy Ghost . And so the Christian Church understood it , from the beginning , as I have proved in the foregoing Discourse .

And from hence came the Instruction of Catechumens , who were to be baptized about the Trinity ; and the first Creeds which related only to them , as I have already observed . And so much our Vnitarians grant in one of their latest Pamphlets , Answ. to Dr. Bull , p. 17. that a Creed was an Institution , or Instruction what we are to believe in the main , and fundamental Articles , especially concerning the Persons of Father , Son and Holy Ghost . But they contend , That the Creed which bears the Name of the Apostles , was the Original Creed framed by the Apostles themselves , because they suppose this Creed doth not assert the Son and Holy Ghost , to be Eternal and Divine Persons , and therefore they conclude , that the Makers of this Creed , either did not know , that any other Person but the Father is God , or Almighty , or Maker of Heaven and Earth , or they have negligently , or wickedly concealed it .

This is a matter so necessary to be clear'd , that I shall examine these two things before I put an end to this Discourse .

1. What Proofs they bring that this Creed was framed by the Apostles .

2. What Evidence they produce , that this Creed excludes the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost .

1. As to the Proofs they bring , that this Creed was framed by the Apostles . We believe the Creed to be Apostolical in the true Sense of it ; but that it was so in that Frame of Words , and Enumeration of Articles , as it is now receiv'd , hath been called in question by some Criticks of great Judgment and Learning , whom I have already mentioned . Erasmus saith , Eras. ad Cens. Paris . Tit. II. He doth not question the Articles being Apostolical ; but whether the Apostles put it thus into Writing . And his chief Argument is from the Variety of the Ancient Creeds ; of which no Account can be given so probable , as that they were added Occasionally in opposition to a growing Heresie . As for Instance , the Word Impassible was inserted with Respect to the Father in the ancient Eastern Creed , against the Doctrine of Sabellius ; but it was not in the old Western Creed . And he argues , That the Apostolical Creed ended with the Holy Ghost ; because the Nicene Creed did so . Voss de tribus Symb. Dissert. 1. Sect. 47. And Vossius thinks the other Articles which are in Cyril , were added after the Nicene Council ; which would not have omitted them , if they had been in the former Creed . And when there were so many Creeds made afterwards , it is observable , that they do all end with the Article of the Holy Ghost ; which they would never have done , in so jealous a time about Creeds , if they had left out any Articles of what was then receiv'd for the Apostolical Creed .

The first Creed after the Nicene , which made great noise in the World , was that framed at Antioch ; Hilar. de Synod . p. 1169. and that Creed not only ends with the Article of the Holy Ghost ; but mentions the Form of Baptism ; and our Saviours commanding his Apostles to baptize in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; as the Foundation of the Creed . For it hereby appears , that the Father is true Father , and the Son true Son , and the Holy Ghost true Holy Ghost ; not bare Names , but such as import three distinct Subsistences .

For Hilary observes , That this Council chiefly intended to overthrow Sabellianism , and therefore asserted tres Subsistentium Personas , Epiphaninius haer. 73. n. 17. as Hilary interprets their meaning , and so doth Epiphanius ; which was to remove the Suspition , that they asserted only triplicis vocabuli Vnionem ; as Hilary speaks . The next Creed is of the Eastern Bishops at Sardica , and that ends wi●h the Holy Ghost , and so do both the Creeds at Sirmium ▪ and the latter calls the Article of the Trinity , the close of our Faith ; which is always to be kept according to our Saviour's command , Clausula Fidei in Edit. nuperâ Paris . ex MSS. Go teach all Nations , baptizing them in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost . So that in all these Creeds , about which there was so much heat in the Christian Church , there was not the least Objection , that any Articles of the Apostolical Creed were omitted . It is no Argument , That there was then no contest about these Articles ; for they were bound to give in an entire Creed ; and so the Council of Antioch declares , that they would publish the Confession of the Faith of the Church : and how could this be , if they left out such Articles which had been always receiv●d from the Apostles times ? But certainly our Vnitarians would not attack such Men , as Erasmus , and Vossius in a matter relating to Antiquity , if they had not some good Arguments on their side . Their first business , is to shew , that some of Vossius his Arguments are not conclusive ; such as they are , I leave them to any one that will compare them with the Answers . But there are two things they lay weight upon .

1. That the whole Christian Church East and West , P. 27. could not have agreed in the same Creed , as to Number and Order of Articles , and manner of Expression , if this Creed had not come from the same Persons , from whom they receiv'd the Gospel and the Scriptures ; Namely , from the Apostles and Preachers of Christianity .

2. That it was receiv'd by a constant Tradition to have been the Apostles ; P. 28. not a bare Oral Tradition , but the Tradition of the ancient Commentators upon it .

Now these I confess to be as good Arguments , as the Matters will bear ; and I will no longer contest this Point with them , provided , that we be allowed to make use of the same Arguments ; as to the second Point ; wherein they undertake to prove , That the Apostles Creed doth exclude the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost . What is now become of the general Consent of the Christian Church , East and West ? and of the Commentators upon this Creed ? If the Argument hold good in one Case , I hope it will be allowed to do so in the other also . And what greater Testimony can be given of such a Consent of the Christian Church ; than that those who opposed it , have been condemned by it , and that the Church hath expressed her Sense of it in Publick , and Private Acts of Devotion , and Divine Worship , and have defended it as a necessary part of the Christian Faith , against the Assaults of Infidels and Hereticks ? So that although the Apostles Creed do not in express words declare , The Divinity of the three Persons in the Vnity of the Divine Essence ; yet taking the Sense of those Articles , as the Christian Church understood them from the Apostles times , then we have as full , and clear Evidence of this Doctrine , as we have that we receiv'd the Scriptures from them .

CHAP. X. The Objections against the Trinity in Point of Reason answer'd .

HAving in the foregoing Chapters endeavour'd to clear the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Charge of Contradictions , and to prove it agreeable to the Sense of Scripture , and the Primitive Church ;

I now come in the last place to Examine the remaining Objections , in Point of Reason ; and those are ,

1. That this Doctrine is said to be a Mystery , and therefore above Reason , and we cannot in reason be obliged to believe any such thing .

2. That if we allow any such Mysteries of Faith as are above Reason , there can be no stop put to any absurd Doctrines , but they may be receiv'd on the same Grounds

1. As to this Doctrine being said to be above Reason , and therefore not to be believ'd ; we must consider two things ;

1. What we understand by Reason ;

2. What ground in Reason there is , to reject any Doctrine above it , when it is proposed as a Matter of Faith .

1. What we understand by Reason . I do not find that our Vnitarians have explained the Nature and Bounds of Reason in such manner , as those ought to have done , who make it the Rule and Standard of what they are to believe . But sometimes they speak of clear and distinct Perceptions , sometimes of natural Ideas ,

Answer to my Sermon p. 4.

Letter of Resolution , p. 3.

sometimes of congenit Notions , &c. But a late Author hath endeavour'd to make amends for this , and takes upon him to make this matter clear ; and to be sure to do so , he begins with telling us , Christianity not Mysterious , p. 8 , 9. That Reason is not the Soul abstractedly consider'd ; ( no doubt of it ) but the Soul acting in a peculiar manner is Reason . ( And this is a ver● peculiar way of explaining it ) But farther we are told , It is not the Order or Report ( respect I suppose ) which is naturally between all things . ( But that implies a Reason in things . ) But the thoughts which the Soul forms of things according to it , may properly claim that Title , i. e. such thoughts which are agreeable to the Reason of things are reasonable thoughts . This is clear and distinct . And I perfectly agree with him , That our own Inclinations , or the bare Authority of others is not Reason . But what is it ? Every one experiences in himself a Power , or Faculty of form●ng various Ideas , or Perceptions of things ; of affirming , or denying according as he sees them to agree or disagree , and this is Reason in General It is not the bare receiving Ideas into the Mind , that is strictly Reason , ( who ever thought it was ? ) but the Perception of the Agreement , or Disagreement of our Ideas in a greater of lesser Number ; wherein soever this Agreement or Disagreement may consist . If the Perception be immediate without the Assistance of any other Idea , this is not call'd Reason , but Self-Evidence : but when the mind makes use of intermediate Ideas to discover that Agreement or Disagreement , this method of Knowledge is properly call'd Reason or Demonstration . And so Reason is defined to be that Faculty of the Soul , which discovers the certainty of any thing dubious , or obscure by comparing it with something evidently known .

This is offer'd to the World , as an Account of Reason ; but to shew how very loose , and unsatisfactory it is , I desire it may be consider'd , that this Doctrine supposes , that we must have clear and distinct Ideas of whatever we pretend to any certainty of in our Minds , and that the only Way to attain this certainty , is by comparing these Ideas together . Which excludes all certainty of Faith or Reason , where we cannot have such clear and distinct Ideas . But if there are many things of which we may be certain , and yet can have no clear and distinct Ideas of them ; if those Ideas we have , are too imperfect and obscure to form our Judgments by ; if we cannot find out sufficient intermediate Ideas ; then this cannot be the Means of Certainty , or the Foundation of Reason .

But I shall keep to our present Subject ; and our certainty of it in Point of Reason , depends upon our Knowledge of the the Nature of Substance , and Person and the Distinction between them : but if we can have no such clear Ideas in our Minds concerning these things , as are required from Sensation , or Reflection ; then , either we have no use of Reason about them , or it is in sufficient to pass any Judgment concerning them .

1. I begin with the Notion of Substance . And I have great Reason to begin with it ; for , according to this Man's Principles there can be no certainty of Reason at all about it . And so our new Way of Reason is advanced to very good Purpose . For we may talk and dispute about Substance , as long as we please , but , if his Principles of Reason be true , we can come to no certainty ; since we can have no clear Idea in our Minds concerning it , as will appear from his own Words ; and the method he proceeds in .

Chap. I. ( 1. ) He saith , That the Mind receives in Ideas two ways . 1. By Intermission of the Senses , as Colours , Figures , Sounds , Smells , &c. 2. By the Souls considering its own Operations about what it thus gets from without , as knowing , doubting , affirming , denying , &c.

( 2. ) That these simple and distinct Ideas , thus laid up in the great Repository of the Vnderstanding , are the sole matter and Foundation of all our Reasoning .

Then it follows , That we can have no Foundation of Reasoning , where there can can be no such Ideas from Sensation , or Reflection .

Now this is the Case of Substance ; it is not intromitted by the Senses , nor depends upon the Operations of the Mind ; and so it cannot be within the compass of our Reason . And therefore I do not wonder , that the Gentlemen of this new way of reasoning , have almost discarded Substance out of the reasonable part of the World . Human understanding , l. 1. chap. 4. sect. 18. For they not only tell us . That we can have no Idea of it by Sensation or Reflection ; but that nothing is signified by it , only an uncertain Supposition of we know not what . And therefore it is parallel'd , more than once , L. 2. c. 13. sect. 19. with the Indian Philosophers , He knew not what ; which supported the Torto●se , Chap. 23. sect. 2. that supported the Elephant , that supported the Earth ; so Substance was found out only to support Accidents . And , that when we talk of Substances we talk like Children , who being ask'd a Question , about somewhat which they know not , readily give this satisfactory Answer , that it is Something .

If this be the truth of the Case , we must still talk like Children , and I know not how it can be remedied . For , if we cannot come at a rational Idea of Substance , we can have no Principle of certainty to go upon in this Debate .

I do not say , that we can have a clear Idea of Substance , either by Sensation or Reflection ; but from hence I argue , that this is a very insufficient Distribution of the Ideas necessary to Reason . For besides these , there must be some general Ideas , which the mind doth form , not by meer comparing those Ideas it has got from Sense or Reflection ; but by forming distinct general Notions , of things from particular Ideas . And among these general Notions , or rational Ideas , Substance is one of the first ; because we find that we can have no true Conceptions of any Modes or Accidents ( no matter which ) but we must conceive a Substratum , or Subject wherein they are . Since it is a Repugnancy to our first Conceptions of things , that Modes or Accidents should subsist by themselves , and therefore the Rational Idea of Substance is one of the first , and most natural Ideas in our minds .

But we are still told , That our Vnderstanding can have no other Ideas , but either from Sensation or Reflection . L. 2. ch. 1. sect. 5. And that , herein chiefly lies the Excellency of mankind , above Brutes , that these cannot abstract , and inlarge their Ideas as men do .

But how comes the general Idea of Substance , to be framed in our Minds ? Is this by Abstracting and inlarging simple Ideas ? No , but it is by a Complication of many simple Ideas together : because not imagining how these simple Ideas can subsist by themselves , L 2. ch. 23. sect. 1. we accustom our selves to suppose some Substratum wherein they do subsist , and from which they do result , which therefore we call Substance . And is this all indeed , that is to be said for the being of Substance , that we accustom our selves to suppose a Substratum ? Is that Custom grounded upon true Reason or not ? If not , then Accidents or Modes , must subsist of themselves , and these simple Ideas need no Tortoise to support them : For Figures and Colours , &c. would do well enough of themselves , but for some Fancies men have accustomed themselves to . If it be grounded on plain and evident Reason , then we must allow an Idea of Substance , which comes not in by Sensation or Reflection ; and so we may be certain of some things which we have not by those Ideas .

The Idea of Substance , we are told again , is nothing but the supposed , but unknown support of those Qualities we find existing , which we imagine cannot subsist , sine re substante , which according to the true import of the word , is in plain English , standing under , or upholding . But very little weight is to be laid upon a bare Grammatical Etymology , when the word is used in another sense by the best Authors , such as Cicero and Quintilian , who take Substance for the same with Essence ; as Valla hath proved ; Valla Disput. Dial. l. 1. c. 6. and so the Greek word imports ; but Boethius in translating Aristotle's Predicaments , rather chose the word Substance as more proper , to ●xpress a Compound Being , and reserved Essence , for what was more simple and immaterial . And in this Sense , Substance was not applied to God but only Essence , as S. Augustine observes , but afterwards , the names of Substance , and Essence were promiscuously used , with respect to God and his Creatures . And do imply , that which makes the Real Being , as distinguished from Modes and Properties . And so the Substance , and Essence of a Man are the same ; not being taken for the individual Substance , which cannot be understood without particular Modes and Properties ; but the general Substance , or Nature of Man abstractly from all the Circum●●ances of Persons .

And I desire to know , whether according to true Reason , that be not a clear Idea of a Man ; not of Peter , Iames or Iohn , but of a Man as such . This is not a meer universal Name , or Mark , or Sign ; but there is as clear and distinct a Conception of this in our Minds , as we can have from any such simple Ideas , as are convey'd by our Senses . I do not deny that the Distinction of particular Substances , is by the several Modes and Properties of them , ( which they may call a Complication of simple Ideas if they please ) but I do assert , that the general Idea , which relates to the Essence without these is so just , and true an Idea , that without it the Complication of simple Ideas , will never give us a right Notion of it .

I must do that Right to the ingenious Author of the Essay of humane Vnderstanding ( from whence these Notions are borrowed to serve other Purposes than he intended them ) that he makes the Case of Spiritual , and Corporeal Substances to be alike , as to their Idea's , and that we have as clear a Notion of a Spirit , as we have of a Body , the one being supposed to be the Substratum to those simple Ideas we have from without , Chap. 23. sect. 5. and the other of those Operations we find within our selves . And that it is as rational to affirm , there is no Body , because we cannot know its Essence , as 't is called , or have no Idea of the Substance of Matter ; as to say , there is no Spirit , because we know not its Essence , or have no Idea of a Spiritual Substance .

From hence it follows , That we may be certain , that there are both Spiritual and Bodily Substances , although we can have no clear and distinct Ideas of them . But , if our Reason depend upon our clear and distinct Idea's ; how is this possible ? We cannot reason without clear Ideas , and yet we may be certain without them : Can we be certain without Reason ? Or doth our Reason give us true Notions of things , without these Idea's ? If it be so , this new Hypothesis about Reason must appear to be very unreasonable .

Let us suppose this Principle to be true , That the simple Ideas by Sensation or Reflection , are the sole Matter and Foundation of all our Reasoning : I ask then , how we come to be certain , that there are Spiritual Substances in the World , since we can have no clear and distinct Ideas concerning them ? Can we be certain without any Foundation of Reason ? This is a new sort of Certainty , for which we do not envy these Pretenders to Reason . But methinks , they should not at the same time assert the absolute necessity of these Ideas to our knowledge , and declare that we may have certain Knowledge without them . If there be any other method , they overthrow their own Principle ; if there be none , how come they to any Certainty , that there are both Bodily and Spiritual Substances ?

As to these latter ( which is my business ) I must enquire farther , how they come to know that there are such . The Answer is by Self-Reflection , on those Powers we find in our selves , which cannot come from a mere Bodily Substance . I allow he Reason to be very good , but the Question I ask is , whether this Argument be from the clear and distinct Idea or not ? We have Ideas in our selves of the several Operations of our Minds of Knowing , Willing , Considering , &c. which cannot come from a Bodily Substance . Very true ; but is all this contained in the simple Idea of these Operations ? How can that be , when the same Persons say , that notwithstanding their Ideas it is possible for Matter to Think . For it is said , Humane Underst . I. 4. ch. 3. That we have the Ideas of Matter and Thinking , but possibly shall never be able to know , whether any mere material Being thinks or not ; Sect. 6. 2d . Ed. p. 310 it being impossible for us by the Contemplation of our own Ideas , without Revelation to discover whether Omnipotency hath not given to some Systems of Matter , fitly disposed , a Power to perceive or think . If this be true , then for all that we can know by our Ideas of Matter and Thinking ; Matter may have a Power of Thinking : and if this hold , then it is impossible to prove a Spiritual Substance in us , from the Idea of Thinking : For how can we be assured by our Ideas , that God hath not given such a Power of Thinking , to Matter so disposed as our Bodies are ? Especially since it is said , That in respect of our Notions , it is not much more remote from our Comprehension to conceive that God can , if he pleases , super-add to our Idea of Matter a Faculty of Thinking , than that he should super-add to it another Substance , with a Faculty of Thinking . Whoever asserts this , can never prove a Spiritual Substance in us , from a Faculty of Thinking ; because he cannot know from the Idea of Matter and Thinking , that Matter so disposed cannot Think . And he cannot be certain that God hath not framed the matter of our Bodies , so as to be capable of it .

It is said indeed elsewhere , That it is repugnant to the Idea of Sensless Matter , Book . IV. Chap. 10. sect. 5. that it should put into it self Sense , Perception and Knowledge : But this doth not reach the present Case ; which is not what Matter can do of it self , but what Matter prepared by an Omnipotent hand can do . And what certainty can we have that he hath not done it ? We can have none from the Ideas ; for those are given up in this Case ; and consequently , we can have no certainty upon these Principles , whether we have any Spiritual Substance within us or not .

But we are told , That from the Operations of our Minds , Book . II. Chap. 23. sect. 15. we are able to frame the Complex Idea of a Spirit . How can that be , when we cannot from those Ideas be assured , but that those Operations may come from a material Substance . If we frame an Idea on such Grounds , it is at most but a possible Idea ; for it may be otherwise ; and we can have no Assurance from our Ideas , that it is not : So that the most men may come to in this way of Idea's is , That it is possible it may be so , and it is possible it may not ; but that it is impossible for us from our Ideas , to determine either way . And is not this an admirable Way to bring us to a certainty of Reason ?

I am very glad to find the Idea of a Spiritual Substance made as consistent , and intelligible , as that of a Corporeal ; for as the one consists of a Cohesion of solid Parts , and the Power of communicating Motion by impulse , so the other consists in a Power of Thinking , and Willing , and moving the Body ; and that the Cohesion of solid Parts , is as hard to be conceived as Thinking ; and we are as much in the dark about the Power of communicating Motion by impulse , Sect. 27. as in the Power of exciting Motion by thought . We have by daily experience clear Evidence of Motion produced , both by Impulse and by Thought ; but the manner how , Sect. 28. hardly comes within our Comprehension ; we are equally at a loss in both .

From whence if follows , That we may be certain of the Being of a Spiritual Substance , although we have no clear and distinct Idea of it , nor are able to comprehend the manner of its Operations : And therefore it is a vain thing in any to pretend , that all our Reason and Certainty is founded on clear and distinct Ideas ; and that they have Reason to reject any Doctrine which relates to Spiritual Substances , because they cannot comprehend the manner of it . For the same thing is confessed by the most inquisitive Men , about the manner of Operation , both in material , and immaterial Substances . It is affirmed , That the very Notion of Body , Sect. 31. implies , something very hard , if not impossible to be explained , or understood by us ; and that the natural Consequence of it , viz. Divisibility ; involves us in Difficulties impossible to be explicated , or made consistent . That we have but some few Superficial Ideas of things ; Sect. 32. that we are destitute of Faculties , to attain to the true Nature of them ; and that when we do that , we fall presently into Darkness and Obscurity ; and can discover nothing farther , but our own Blindness and Ignorance .

These are very fair and ingenuous Confessions of the shortness of humane Understanding , with respect to the Nature and Manner of such things , which we are most certain of the Being of , by constant and undoubted Experience . I appeal now to the Reason of mankind , whether it can be any reasonable Foundation for rejecting a Doctrine proposed to us , as of Divine Revelation , because we cannot comprehend the manner of it ; especially , when it relates to the Divine Essence . For as the same Author observes , Sect. 33 , 34 , 35. Our Idea of God is framed from the Complex Ideas of those Perfections we find in our selves , but inlarging them so , as to make them suitable to an infinite Being , as Knowledge , Power , Duration , &c. And the Degrees or Extent of these which we ascribe to the Soveraign Being , are all boundless and infinite . Sect. 36. For it is infinity , which joyned to our Ideas of Existence , Power , Knowledge , &c. makes that Complex Idea , whereby we represent to our selves the best we can , the Supreme Being .

Now , when our Knowledge of gross material Substances is so dark ; when the Notion of Spiritual Substances is above all Ideas of Sensation ; when the higher any Substance is , the more remote from our Knowledge ; but especially when the very Idea of a Supreme Being implies its being Infinite , and Incomprehensible , I know not whether it argues more Stupidity , or Arrogance to expose a Doctrine relating to the Divine Essence , because they cannot comprehend the manner of it . But of this more afterwards . I am yet upon the Certainty of our Reason , from clear and distinct Ideas : and if we can attain to Certainty without them , and where it is confessed we cannot have them ; as about Substances : then these cannot be the sole Matter and Foundation of our Reasoning , which is so peremptorily asserted by this late Author .

But I go yet farther : and as I have already shew'd , we can have no certainty of an Immaterial Substance within us , from these simple Ideas ; so I shall now shew , that there can be no sufficient Evidence , brought from them by their own Confession , concerning the Existence of the most Spiritual and infinite Substance , even God himself .

We are told , That the Evidence of it is equal to Mathematical Certainty ; Book IV. chap. 10. sect. 1. and very good Arguments are brought to prove it , in a Chapter on purpose : but that which I take notice of is , that the Argument from the clear and distinct Idea of God is passed over . How can this be consistent with deducing our Certainty of Knowledge from clear and simple Ideas ? I do not go about to justifie those , who lay the whole stress upon that Foundation ; which I grant to be too weak to support so important a Truth ; and that those are very much to blame , who go about to invalidate other Arguments for the sake of that ; but I doubt all this Talk about clear and distinct Ideas , being made the Foundation of Certainty , came Originally from those Discourses , or Meditations , which are aimed at . The Author of them was an ingenious , Thinking man , and he endeavour'd to lay the Foundations of Certainty , as well as he could . The first thing he found any certainty in , was his own Existence ; which he founded upon the Perception of the Acts of his Mind , which some call an Internal , infallible Perception that we are . From hence he proceeded , to enquire , how he came by this Certainty , and he resolved it into this , that he had a clear and distinct Perception of it ; and from hence he formed his general Rule , That what he had a clear and distinct Perception of was true . Which in Reason ought to go no farther , than where there is the like Degree of Evidence : for the Certainty here , was not grounded on the clearness of the Perception , but on the Plainness of the Evidence Which is of that Nature , that the very Doubting of it proves it ; since it is impossible , that any thing should doubt or question its own Being , that had it not . So that here it is not the Clearness of the Idea , but an immediate Act of Perception , which is the true ground of Certainty . And this cannot extend to things without our selves ; of which we can have no other Perception , than what is caused by the Impressions of outward Objects . But whether we are to judge according to those Impressions , doth not depend on the Ideas themselves , but upon the Exercise of our Judgment and Reason about them , which put the Difference between true and false , and adequate , and inadequate Ideas . So that our Certainty is not from the Ideas themselves , but from the Evidence of Reason , that those Ideas are true , and just , and consequently that we may build our Certainty upon them .

But the Idea of an infinite Being hath this peculiar to it , that necessary Existence is implied in it . This is a clear and distinct Idea , and yet it is denied , that this doth prove the Existence of God . How then can the Grounds of our Certainty arise from clear and distinct Ideas ; when in one of the clearest Ideas of our Minds we can come to no Certainty by it ? I do not say , That it is denied to prove it ; but this is said , That it is a doubtful thing from the different make of mens Tempers and Application of their thoughts . Sect. 7. What can this mean , unless it be to let us know , that even clear and distinct Ideas , may lose their Effect by the difference of mens Tempers and Studies ; so that besides Ideas , in order to a right Judgment , a due Temper and Application of the mind is required .

And wherein is this different , from what all men of Understanding have said ? Why then should these clear and simple Ideas be made the sole Foundation of Reason ? One would think by this , that these Ideas would presently satisfie mens Minds , if they attended to them . But even this will not do , as to the Idea of an infinite Being . It is not enough to say , They will not examine how far it will hold : for they ought either to say , that it doth hold , or give up this Ground of Certainty from clear and distinct Ideas .

But instead of the proper Argument from Ideas , we are told , Sect. 6. That from the Consideration of our selves , and what we find in our own Constitutions , our Reason leads us to the Knowledge of this certain and evident Truth ; that there is an eternal , most powerful , and most knowing Being . All which I readily yield ; but we see plainly , the Certainty is not placed in the Idea , but in good and sound Reason from the Consideration of our selves and our Constitutions . What! in the Idea of our Selves ? No certainly ; for let our Idea be taken which way we please , by Sensation or Reflection , yet it is not the Idea that makes us certain , but the Argument from that which we perceive in , and about our Selves .

Sect. 5. But we find in our selves Perception and Knowledge . It 's very true ; but how doth this prove that there is a God ? It is from the clear and distinct Idea of it . No , but from this Argument : That either there must have been a knowing Being from Eternity , or an unknowing ; for something must have been from Eternity : but if an unknowing , then it was impossible there ever should have been any knowledge ; it being as impossible , that a thing without knowledge should produce it , as that a Triangle should make it self three Angles bigger than two right ones . Allowing the Argument to be good , yet it is not taken from the Idea , but from Principles of true Reason ; as That no man can doubt his own Perception ; that every thing must have a Cause ; that this Cause must either have Knowledge or not : if it have , the Point is gained ; if it hath not , nothing can produce nothing ; and consequently , a not knowing Being cannot produce a knowing .

Again , If we suppose nothing to be first , Sect. 10. Matter can never begin to be ; if bare Matter without Motion eternal , Motion can never begin to be ; if Matter and Motion be supposed Eternal , Thought can never begin to be . For , if Matter could produce thought , then Thought must be in the power of Matter ; and if it be in Matter as such , it must be the inseparable Property of all matter ; which is contrary to the Sense and Experience of mankind . If only some parts of Matter have a power of Thinking , how comes so great a difference in the Properties of the same Matter ? What disposition of Matter is required to thinking ? And from whence comes it ? Of which no account can be given in Reason .

This is the Substance of the Argument used , to prove an infinite spiritual Being , which I am far from weakning the force of ; but that which I design , is to shew ▪ That the Certainty of it is not placed upon any clear and distinct Ideas , but upon the force of Reason distinct from it , which was the thing I intended to prove .

2. The next thing necessary to be clear'd in this Dispute is , the Distinction between Nature and Person , and of this we can have no clear and distinct Idea from Sensation or Reflection . And yet all our Notions of the Doctrine of the Trinity , depend upon the right understanding of it . For we must talk unintelligibly about this Point , unless we have clear and distinct Apprehensions concerning Nature and Person , and the grounds of Identity and Distinction . But that these come not into our Minds by these simple Ideas of Sensation and Reflection , I shall now make it appear ;

1. As to Nature , That is sometimes taken for the Essential Property of a thing , as when we say , that such a thing is of a different Nature from another , we mean no more than that it is differenced by such Properties as come to our Knowledge . Sometimes Nature is taken for the Thing it self in which those Properties are ; and so Aristotle took Nature for a Corporeal Substance , which had the Principles of Motion in it self : but Nature and Substance are of an equal extent ; and so that which is the Subject of Powers , and Properties is the Nature , whether it be meant of Bodily or Spiritual Substances . I grant , that by Sensation and Reflection we come to know the Powers and Properties of Things ; but our Reason is satisfied , that there must be something beyond these ; because it is impossible that they should subsist by themselves . So that the Nature of things propery belongs to our Reason , and not to meer Ideas .

But we must yet proceed farther . For , Nature may be consider'd two ways .

1. As it is in distinct Individuals , as the Nature of a Man is equally in Peter , Iames , and Iohn ; and this is the common Nature with a particular Subsistence proper to each of them . For the Nature of man , as in Peter , is distinct from that same Nature , as it is in Iames and Iohn ; otherwise , they would be but one Person , as well as have the same Nature . And this Distinction of Persons in them is discerned both by our Senses , as to their different Accidents ; and by our Reason , because they have a separate Existence ; not coming into it at once and in the same manner .

2. Nature may be consider'd Abstractly , without respect to individual Persons , and then it makes an entire Notion of it self . For however , the same Nature may be in different Individuals , yet the Nature in it self remains one and the same : which appears from this evident Reason ; that otherwise every Individual must make a different kind .

Let us now see , how far these things can come from our simple Ideas , by Reflection and Sensation . And I shall lay down the Hypothesis of those , who resolve our Certainty into Ideas , as plainly , and intelligibly , as I can .

1. We are told , That all simple Ideas are true and adequate . Humane Underst . l. 2. ch. 30 , 31. Not , that they are the true Representation of things without us ; by that they are the true Effects of such Powers in them , as produce such Sensations within us . So that really we can understand nothing certainly by them , but the Effects they have upon us .

2. All our Ideas of Substances are imperfect and inadequate ; because they refer to the real Essences of things , of which we are Ignorant , and no man knows what Substance is in it self : And they are all false , Chap. 32. sect. 18. when look'd on as the Representations of the unknown Essences of things .

Book 3. Chap. 3. sect. 6. 3. Abstract Ideas are only general Names , made by separating Circumstances of time and place , &c. from them , which are only the Inventions , and Creatures of the Vnderstanding .

4. Essence may be taken two ways . 1. For the real , internal , Ib. sect. 15. unknown Constitutions of things , and in this Sense it is understood as to particular things . 2. For the abstract Idea , and one is said to be the Nominal , the other the Real Essence . And the Nominal Essences only are immutable ; Sect. 19 , 20. and are helps to enable Men to consider things , and to discourse of them .

But two things are granted , which tend to clear this Matter .

1. That there is a Real Essence , which is the Foundation of Powers and Properties .

2. That we may know these Powers and Properties , although we are ignorant of of the Real Essence .

From whence I inferr .

1. That from those true and adequate Ideas , which we have of the Modes and Properties of Things , we have sufficient certainty of the Real Essence of them : For these Ideas are allow'd to be true ; and either by them we may judge of the truth of things ; or we can make no Judgment at all of any thing without our selves .

If our Ideas be only the Effects we feel of the Powers of things without us ; yet our Reason must be satisfied , that there could be no such Powers , unless there were some real Beings which had them . So that either we may be certain by those Effects of the real Being of Things ; or it is not possible , as we are framed , to have any certainty at all of any thing without our selves .

2. That from the Powers and Properties of things which are knowable by us , we may know as much of the internal Essence of Things , as those Powers and Properties discover . I do not say , That we can know all Essences of things alike ; nor that we can attain to a perfect understanding of all that belong to them : but if we can know so much , as that there are certain Beings in the World , endued with such distinct Powers and Properties , what is it we complain of the want of , in order to our Certainty of Things ? But we do not see the bare Essence of things . What is that bare Essence without the Powers and Properties belonging to it ? It is that internal Constitution of things from whence those Powers and Properties flow . Suppose we be ignorant of this ( as we are like to be , for any Discoveries that have been yet made , that is a good Argument to prove the uncertainty of Philosophical Speculations about the Real Essences of things ; but it is no prejudice to us , who enquire after the Certainty of such Essences . For although we cannot comprehend the internal Frame , or Constitution of things , nor in what manner they do flow from the Substance ; yet by them we certainly know that there are such Essences , and that they are distinguished from each other by their Powers and Properties .

3. The Essences of things as they are knowable by us , have a Reality in them : For they are founded on the natural Constitution of things . And however the abstract Ideas are the work of the Mind ; yet they are not meer Creatures of the Mind ; as appears by an instance produced of the Essence of the Sun , being in one single Individual ; in which Case it is granted , Book Chap. Sect. 1. That the Idea may be so abstracted , that more Suns might agree in it , and it is as much a Sort as if there were as many Suns as there are Stars . So that here we have a Real Essence subsisting in one Individual , but capable of being multiplied into more , and the same Essence remaining . But in this one Sun there is a Real Essence , and not a meer Nominal or abstracted Essence : but suppose there were more Suns ; would not each of them have the Real Essence of the Sun ? For what is it makes the second Sun to be a true Sun , but having the same Real Essence with the first ? If it were but a Nominal Essence , then the second would have nothing but the Name .

Therefore there must be a Real Essence in every individual of the same kind ; for that alone is it , which makes it to be what it is . Peter , and Iames , and Iohn , are all true and real Men ; but what is it which makes them so ? Is it the attributing a general Name to them ? No certainly , but that the true and Real Essence of a Man is in every one of them . And we must be as certain of this , as we are that they are Men ; they take their Denomination of being Men from that common Nature , or Essence which is in them .

4. That the general Idea is not made from the simple Ideas by the meer Act of the Mind abstracting from Circumstances , but from Reason and Consideration of the true Nature of Things . For , when we see so many Individuals , that have the same Powers and Properties , we thence infer , that there must be something common to all , which makes them of one kind : and if the difference of Kinds be real , that which makes them of one kind and not of another , must not be a Nominal , but Real Essence . And this difference doth not depend upon the complex Ideas of Substance , whereby Men arbitrarily joyn Modes together in their Minds ; for let them mistake in the Complication of their Ideas , either in leaving out , or putting in what doth not belong to them , and let their Ideas be what they please ; the Real Essence of a Man , and a Horse , and a Tree , are just what they were : and let their Nominal Essences differ never so much , the Real common Essence , or Nature of the several Kinds are not at all alter'd by them .

And these Real Essences are unchangeable : For , however there may happen some variety in Individuals , by particular Accidents , yet the Essences of Men , and Horses , and Trees remain always the same ; because they do not depend on the Ideas of Men , but on the Will of the Creator , who hath made several sorts of Beings .

2. Let us now come to the Idea of a Person . For , although the common Nature in mankind be the same , yet we see a difference in the several Individuals from one another : So that Peter and Iames , and Iohn are all of the same kind ; yet Peter is not Iames , and Iames is not Iohn . But what is this Distinction founded upon ? They may be distinguished from each other by our Senses , as to difference of Features , distance of Place , &c. but that is not all ; for supposing there were no such external difference ; yet there is a difference between them , as several Individuals in the same common Nature . And here lies the true Idea of a Person , which arises from that manner of Subsistence which is in one Individual , and is not Communicable to another . An Individual , intelligent Substance , is rather supposed to the making of a Person , than the proper Definition of it ; for a Person relates to something which doth distinguish it from another Intelligent Substance in the same Nature ; and therefore the Foundation of it lies in the peculiar manner of Subsistence , which agrees to one , and to none else of the Kind ; and this is it which is called Personality .

But how do our simple Ideas help us out in this Matter ? Can we learn from them , the difference of Nature and Person ? We may understand the difference between abstracted Ideas , and particular Beings , by the Impressions of outward Objects ; and we may find an Intelligent Substance in our selves by inward Perception ; ●ut whether that make a Person or not , must be understood some other Way ; for , if the meer Intelligent Substance makes a Person , then there cannot be the Union of two Natures , but there must be two Persons .

Therefore a Person is a compleat Intelligent Substance , with a peculiar manner of Subsistence ; so that if it be a part of another Substance , it is no Person ; and on this account the Soul is no Person , because it makes up an entire Being by its Union with the Body .

But when we speak of Finite Substances and Persons , we are certain that distinct Persons do imply distinct Substances , because they have a distinct and separate Existence ; but this will not hold in an infinite Substance , where necessary Existence doth belong to the Idea of it . And although the Argument from the Idea of God , may not be sufficient of it self to prove his Being ; yet it will hold as to the excluding any thing from him , which is inconsistent with necessary Existence ; therefore , if we suppose a Distinction of Persons in the same Divine Nature , it must be in a way agreeable to the infinite Perfections of it . And no objection can be taken from the Idea of God , to overthrow a Trinity of Co-existing Persons in the same Divine Essence . For necessary Existence doth imply a Co-existence of the Divine Persons ; and the Unity of the Divine Essence , that there cannot be such a difference of individual Substances , as there is among mankind . But these things are said to be above our Reason , if not contrary to it , and even such are said to be repugnant to our Religion .

2. That therefore is the next thing to be carefully Examin'd , whether Mysteries of Faith , or Matters of Revelation above our Reason , are to be rejected by us . And a Thing is said to be above our Reason , when we can have no clear and distinct Idea of it in our Minds : And , that if we have no Ideas of a thing , it is certainly but lost labour for us to trouble our selves about it ; Christianity not Myst. p. 28. and that , if such Doctrines be proposed which we cannot understand , we must have new Powers , and Organs for the Perception of them .

We are far from defending Contradictions to our natural Notions ( of which I have spoken already ) but that which we are now upon is , whether any Doctrine may be rejected , when it is offer'd as a Matter of Faith upon this account , that it is above our Comprehension , or that we can have no clear Idea of it in our Minds . And this late Author hath undertaken to prove , That there is nothing so Mysterious , or above Reason in the Gospel .

To be above Reason , he saith , may be understood two ways . P. 67. 1. For a thing Intelligible in it self , but cover'd with figurative and mystical Words . 2. For a thing in its own Nature unconceivable , and not to be judged of by our Faculties , tho' it be never so clearly revealed . This in either Sense is the same with Mystery . And from thence he takes occasion to shew his Learning about the Gentile Mysteries , and Ecclesiastical Mysteries , which might have been spared in this Debate , but only for the Parallel aimed at between them , as to Priest-craft and Mysteries ; without which a Work of this nature would want its due relish with his good Christian Readers . Others we see have their Mysteries too ; but the Comfort is , that they are so easily understood , and seen through ; as when the Heathen Mysteries , are said , to have been instituted at first in Commemoration of some remarkable Accidents , P. 71. or to the Honour of some great Persons that obliged the World by their Vertues and useful Inventions to pay them such Acknowledgments . He must be very dull that doth not understand the meaning of this ; and yet this Man pretends to vindicate Christianity from being Mysterious .

P. 73. 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 , P. 145. 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 , P. 75. 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 w●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 , Ad. Attic. 4.87 . ed. R S. 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 , Acad. 4.18 . 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 : De Leg. l. 2. c. 14. 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 it may be observed , that the Word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is opposed to 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and so the Mysteries related to those who were initiated and not made Epoptoe ; i. e. to those who did not throughly understand them , although they had more knowledge of them than such as were not initiated . Olympiodorus , in reckoning up the Degrees of Admissions , mentions the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . So that they were properly Mysteries to such , who knew something ; though there were other things farther to be discover'd , but they did not yet know what they were , as the Epoptoe did .

From hence the ancient Christian Writers did not only call the Sacraments , but more abstruse Points of Faith by the name of Mysteries ; so S. Chrysostom calls the Resurrection , a great and ineffable Mystery . Chrys. Hom. de Resurrect. And Isidore Pelusiota in his Epistle to Lampetius saith , Isidor . Pelus . l. 2. Ep. 192. That S. Paul , when he speaks of the great Mystery of Godliness , doth not mean that it is wholly unknown to us , but that it is impossible to Comprehend it . Theophylact saith , it is therefore called the great Mystery of Godliness ; because although it be now revealed to all , yet the manner of it is hidden from us , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , for this Reason it is called a Mystery .

But this is in the way of Reading ; let us now come to deep Reasoning ; and see how strongly he argues against this Sense of the Word Mysteries : his Words are these ; They trifle then exceedingly , and discover a mighty Scarcity of better Arguments , who defend their Mysteries , Christianity not Myst. p. 80 , 81. by this pitiful shift of drawing Inferences from what is unknown to what is known , or of insisting upon adequate Ideas ; except they will agree as some do , to call every Spire of Grass , sitting and standing , fish and flesh to be Mysteries . And if out of a pertinacious or worse humour , they will be still fooling , and call these things Mysteries , I 'm willing to admit as many as they please in Religion , if they will allow me likewise to make mine as intelligible to others , as these are to me .

It is easie to guess whom these kind Words were intended for : And are not these very modest and civil Expressions ? Trifling , Fooling ; out of a pertinacious , or worse Humour ; but why , Fooling about Mysteries , to call such things by that Name , which are in some measure known , but in a greater measure unknown to us ? and if these are real Mysteries in Nature , why may not the same term be used for Matters of Faith ?

And I think in so plain a Case , no great store of Arguments need to be used . But in these natural things , he saith , P. 84. we have distinct Ideas of the Properties which make the Nominal Essence , but we are absolutely ignorant of the Real Essence , or intrinsick Constitution of a thing , which is the ground or support of all its Properties . Are not then ( without Trifling and Fooling ) these Real Essences Mysteries to them ? They know there are such by the Ideas of their Properties , but know nothing of their Real Essence ; and yet they will not allow them to be Mysteries ? If they do understand them , why do they say , They do not , nor cannot ? And if this be true , let them call them what they please , they must be inexplicable Mysteries to them . So that all this is mere quarrelling about a Word , which they would fain be rid of , if they knew how ; but they involve and perplex themselves more by their own deep Reasonings against the Trifling and Fooling of others .

But he saith , That some would have the most palpable Absurdities and gross Contradictions to go down , or words that signifie nothing , because men cannot comprehend the Essence of their own Souls , nor the Essence of God , and other Spiritual Substances . We utterly deny , that any Article of our Faith contains in it any palpable Absurdities , or gross Contradictions ( as I hope hath been proved already as to the Doctrine of the Trinity which is chiefly struck at ) but surely your deep Reasoners may find a difference between gross Contradictions to our Reason , and barely being above it , or not having any distinct Conception of the Nature of it . And that is all that we assert , and which they grant as to all Substances .

If this be their Way of arguing , they may even return to Transubstantiation again , without any great lessening of their Understandings . But none are so bold in attacking the Mysteries of the Christian Faith ; as the Smatterers in Ideas , and new Terms of Philosophy , without any true Understanding of them . For these Ideas are become but another sort of Canting with such men ; and they would reason as well upon Genus and Species , or upon Occult Qualities , and Substantial Forms , but only that they are Terms out of Fashion .

But we find that the change of Terms doth neither improve nor alter mens Understandings ; but only their Ways of speaking ; and ill Gamesters will not manage their Game one jot the better , for having new Cards in their hands . However , we must see what Work they make of it .

P. 86. Although we do not know the Nature of the Soul , yet we know as much of it , as we do of any thing else , if not more , i. e. we really know nothing by any adequate Idea of it , but we must believe nothing , but what we have a clear distinct Idea of . Is not this a rare way of fixing the Boundaries of Faith and Reason ? As to God and his Attributes , P. 81. it is said , That they are not Mysteries to us for want of an adequate Idea ; no not Eternity . And in another place , As to God , P. 88. we comprehend nothing better than his Attributes .

Let us try this , by the Attribute pitched on by himself ; viz. Eternity . We see he pretends to comprehend nothing better than the Divine Attributes ; and Eternity as well as any ; ( which I am very apt to believe ) but how doth he Comprehend Eternity ? Even by finding , That it cannot be Comprehended . P. 82. Is not this Subtle and deep Reasoning ? But Reason he saith , performs its part in finding out the true Nature of Things ; and if such be the Nature of the thing , that it cannot be Comprehended , then Reason can do no more , and so it is not above Reason . Was there ever such Trifling that pretended to Reason ; and that about the highest Matters , and twith Scorn and Contempt of others whom he calls Mysterious Wits ? The Question is , whether any thing ought to be rejected as an Article of Faith , because we cannot comprehend it , or have a clear and distinct Perception of it ? He concludes it must be so , or else we overthrow Religion , and the Nature of Man , and the Wisdom and Goodness of God . Here is an Essential Attribute of God , viz. his Eternity . Am I bound to believe it or not ? Yes , doubtless . But how can I comprehend this Attribute of Eternity ? Very easily . How so ? Do not you comprehend that it is incomprehensible ? What then ? Doth this reach the Nature of the thing , or only the manner of our Conception ? If the Nature of the thing be , that it cannot be comprehended , then you rightly understand the Nature of the thing , and so it is not above your Reason . Let the Case be now put as to the Trinity ; do you believe the Doctrine of it , as of Divine Revelation ? No , God hath given me the Nature , and Faculties of a Man ; and I can believe nothing , which I cannot have a distinct and clear Idea of ; otherwise I must have new Faculties . Will you hold to this Principle ? Then you must believe nothing , which you cannot have a clear and distinct Idea of . Very true : But can you have a clear and distinct Idea of what you cannot comprehend ? A clear Idea , is that whereof the mind hath a full and evident Perception . A distinct Idea , is that whereby the mind perceives the difference of it from all others . Is this right ? Yes . But can you have a full and evident Perception of a thing , so as to difference it from all others , when you grant it to be Incomprehensible ? If you have a full Perception of it , you comprehend its Nature , and especially if you can difference it from all other things ; but when you say , its Nature is Incomprehensible , and yet believe it , you must deny it to be necessary to Faith , to have a clear and distinct Idea of the thing proposed . And if it be repugnant to your Faculties to reject the Trinity , because you cannot have a clear and distinct Idea of it , for the same Reason , you must unavoidably reject his Eternity , and all other Attributes which have Infinity joyned with them .

But we must stop here , because this admirable Undertaker hath said , That he despairs not of rendring Eternity , and Infinity as little Mysterious , P. 8● . as that three and two make five . And till then I take my leave of him .

And so I return to our professed Vnitarians , who in answer to my Sermon fell upon the same Subject , and it is necessary that I consider so much , as tends to the clearing of it . In my Sermon I had urged this Argument to prove , that we may be bound to believe some things that are Incomprehensible to us , because the Divine Nature , and Attributes are acknowledged to be so ; and I had said ,

( 1. ) That there is no greater Difficulty in the Conception of the Trinity , and Incarnation , than there is of Eternity . Not but that there is great Reason to believe it , but from hence it appears , that our Reason may oblige us to believe some things , which it is not possible for us to comprehend .

And what say our Vnitarians to this ?

They Charge my Notion of Eternity ( as they call it ) with a Contradiction .

The best way of proceeding will be to set down my own Words which are these . We know that either God must have been for ever , Answer 1● Serm. p. 5. or it is impossible he ever should be , for if he should come into being when he was not , he must have some Cause of his Being , and that which was the first Cause would be God . But if he was for ever , he must be from himself , and what Notion , or Conception can we have in our Minds concerning it ?

To this say they , To say a Person , or Thing is from it self is a Contradiction ; it implies this Contradiction , it was before it was . And they are sorry an Eternal God must be a Contradiction . What a false and spiteful Inference is this ?

But it had look'd like very deep Reasoning , if I had said , That God was the cause of himself . For , that would have implied the Contradiction he had charged it with : but I had expressly excluded his being from any Cause ; and the thing I urged was only the Impossibility , of our having a clear and distinct Conception of Eternity . For , if he could have no Cause , what could we think of his being Eternal ? If to be from himself as a Cause , be unconceivable , ( as I grant it is ) then it proves what I designed , that we cannot have any distinct Idea of Eternity . But to be from himself in the Sense generally understood , is a meer Negative Expression ; for no Men were such Fools to imagine any thing could be before it self , and in this Sense only , Learned Men have told us , that it is to be understood by those ancient and modern Writers , who have used that Expression . Possevin . Appar . in Genebrard . As when S. Ierom saith , That God is self Originated ; and S. Augustin , that God is the Cause of his own Wisdom ; and Lactantius , that God made himself ; all these and such like Expressions are only to be Negatively understood .

But I confess I aimed at shewing , that it was impossible for us to have any clear and distinct Idea of Eternity , and therefore I took in all possible ways of conceiing it , either by Gods being from himself , or his Co-existing with all differences of Time , without any Succession in his own Being ; or his having a successive Duration . From all which I argued the Impossibility of a clear Notion of Eternity . And now what do these Men do ? They dispute against one of these Notions , and very triumphantly expose , as they think , the Absurdities of it . And what then ? Why then this Notion will not do . But I say none will do .

I prove there can be no successive Duration in a Being of necessary Existence ; and that it is not to be conceived , how without Succession God should be present with the Being , and not Being , the Promise and Performance of the same thing ; and yet one of these ways we must make use of . From whence I concluded , That all we can attain to is , a full Satisfaction of our Reason concerning God's Eternity , although we can form no distinct Conception of it in our Minds . But when these Men instead of answering the Argument from all the Notions of Eternity , only dispute against one Notion of it , they apparently shew the weakness of their Cause , if it will bear no other Defences , but such as this . For I take it , that the main Debate in point of Reason depends upon this , whether we can be certain of the Being of a Thing , of which we can have no clear and distinct Idea ? If we may , then it can be no Objection in point of Revelation , that we can have no clear and distinct Idea of the Matter revealed ; since there can be no Reason to tie us up stricter in Point of Revelation , than we are without it . If we can be certain in Reason of many things , we can have no such Ideas of , what imaginable Reason can there be , that a Point of Faith should be rejected on that account .

2. I urged another Attribute of God , viz. his Spirituality for the same Reason ; viz. that we are satisfied in point of Reason that God must be a Spirit ; and yet we cannot have a clear distinct positive Notion of a Spirit .

And what answer do they give to this ? As wise as the former . Why truly , I had no cause to object this against them , P. 6. because they own the Spirituality of God's Nature , and none since Biddle have denied it .

Very well ! but doth my argument proceed upon that , or upon the not having a distinct and clear Idea of a Spirit ? It was hardly possible for men so to mistake my meaning , unless they did it , because they had no other answer to give .

3. I argued from God's Prescience , which I do expresly assert , and prove that they cannot have a distinct Notion of it , nay that Socinus denied it , because he could not understand it .

〈…〉 they tell me , P. 7. I cannot defend our 〈…〉 against theirs without finding Contra●●●tions in God●s Eternity and Foreknowledge . If this be the Ingenuity and Justice and Charity of the Vnitarians ; commend me to the honest-hearted Deists , if there be any such , as they assure us there are . One had better be charged with Trifling and Fooling with Mysteries , than with undermining the main foundations of Religion , by charging them with Contradictions .

But nothing could be farther from my Thoughts , than any thing tending that way . And such a base Calumny is too much honoured with a Confutation . But do they offer to clear the difficulty and give us a clear and distinct Idea of God●s fore-knowing future Events without a certain Cause to make them future . Nothing like it . For the question is not , Whether a thing be necessary because God foresees it as certain , ( as they suppose . ) But how of a thing merely possible it comes to be certain without a certain Cause ; and how a thing which hath no certain Cause can be certainly foreknown , and what clear and distinct Notion we can have of this in our Minds . If they had answer'd this , they had said something to the purpose . To resolve all into God's infinite Wisdom is a good answer from us , but not from them . For we think it our Duty to satisfie our selves with what God hath revealed , without prying into the manner of things above our Comprehension ; but these Men who will receive nothing but what they have clear and distinct Ideas of , ought to shew the manner of this , or else we must be excused on the same reason , if we allow the manner of the divine Subsistences in the same Essence to be above our Comprehension .

4. I shew'd how unreasonable their demands were , when the Nature of God is owned to be incomprehensible , and his Perfections infinite .

And now of a sudden they are quite turned about ; for before they were only for fencing and warding off Blows , but at last they come to the point , and own the being of God to be comprehensible by them ; and that they have clear and distinct Ideas of God's infinite Attributes . This is indeed to the purpose , if they can make these things out . But Fencers have many tricks , and I wish we find none here . I had said , That in consequence to the Assertion , that nothing is to be believ'd , but what may be comprehended , the very Being of God must be rejected too , because his Being is incomprehensible , and so they must reject one God as well three Persons .

To this they reply , P. 7. That to comprehend the Being or Existence of God , is only this , to comprehend that God is , and if we cannot comprehend that , all Religion ceases . Is not this a fine turn ? What I said of God as to the Perfections of his Nature , they will have it understood of his bare Existence , which I do not mention . When God is said to be an incomprehensible Being ; who before them did understand the meaning to be , That we cannot comprehend that there is a God ? This is not mere trifling , for it looks like something worse ; and yet they presently after say , That to comprehend a thing is to have a clear adequate Conception of it . And will they pretend to have such a one of the divine Essence , when they confess but a little before , That we converse every day with very many things , P. 5. none of which we comprehend , and that I might have spared my pains in proving it ? But what can be the meaning of these sayings , They cannot comprehend the common Natures of things , nor have a clear and distinct Idea of them , but they can comprehend an infinite Being , whom all Mankind own to be incomprehensible . But as to divine Attributes , they say , They have clear distinct and adequate Conceptions of them ; and instance in Eternity , Power , Wisdom and Iustice . We do not deny that in such Attributes which we apply to God , because we find them to be Perfections in us , we have a distinct and clear Perception of them , as they are consider'd in themselves , for that is the reason why we attribute them to God . But for such as peculiarly belong to God as Eternity doth ; and for the degrees of other Attributes as they belong to him , as they are infinite , so they are above our Comprehension . ( 1. ) As to Eternity , say they , it is a clear and distinct Notion of Eternity , to say , it is a duration without beginning and without end .

But we can have no clear and distinct Notion of Duration , when applied to a Being that hath necessary Existence . For Duration , they say , consists in a Succession . And what Succession can there be in a Being which always is the same , if there were no difference of times , i. e. God was the same Being before time was , and is the very same Being under all the differences of times ; he hath not any other Duration now than he had before , and what Succession could there be where there was no time ? But we make use of Duration with respect to things done in time , and for the help of our und●●standings apply the measure of time to divine Acts. But in a necessary Existence , there can be no past , present , or to come ; and in a successive Duration , there must be conceived a longer continuance from time to time ; which is repugnant to the Notion of a Being , which always is . So that , if we cannot conceive Eternity wi●hout Duration , nor Duration without Succession ; nor can apply Succession to a Being which hath necessary Existence , then we can have no clear and distinct Notion of God's Eternity . ( 2. ) As to the Infiniteness of God's Perfections , they say , That although the Mind be in it self finite , P. 8. yet it hath an infinite Comprehension , for what is finite with respect to its Extension of parts may be infinite in other respects , and with respect to some of its Powers . But how doth it appear that we have any Power to comprehend what is infinite ? All the Power we have extends only to adding and enlarging our Ideas without bounds , i. e. we can put no stop to our apprehensions , but still they may go farther than we can possibly think , but is this an infinite Comprehension ? So far from it , that this shews our Capacities to be finite , because our Ideas cannot go so far as our Reason . For our Reason tells us , we can never go so far , but we may still go farther : but it is impossible for our understanding to have distinct Ideas of the infinite moments in an eternal Succession of the utmost Bounds of Immensity , or of the extent of infinite Power and Knowledge , since 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 , Answer to the Archbishop , &c. p. 4. 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 , P. 17. P. 67. That all the defence we have made for one will serve for the other , Letter of Resolut p. 3. or any other absurd and impossible Doctrine . That what we say , will equally serve all the Nonsense , Considerat . on the Explication , &c. by Dr. W. p. 30. 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 , Considerat . on the Explication by Dr. W. p. 30. 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 Tex●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 ; Answer to the Archbishop , p. 21. 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 .