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. Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. 1697 Approx. 512 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 188 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2004-08 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A61548 Wing S5585 ESTC R14244 13589086 ocm 13589086 100626 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A61548) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 100626) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 851:30) 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. Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. [2], lxii, [4], 292 p. Printed by J.H. for Henry Mortlock ..., London : 1697. Reproduction of original in Cambridge University Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Trinity -- Early works to 1800. Socinianism -- Early works to 1800. 2004-02 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2004-04 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-05 Olivia Bottum Sampled and proofread 2004-05 Olivia Bottum Text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-07 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A DISCOURSE In VINDICATION of the Doctrine of the Trinity : WITH An ANSWER To the Late Socinian Objections Against it from Scripture , Antiquity and Reason . AND A PREFACE concerning the different Explications of the Trinity , and the Tendency of the present SOCINIAN Controversie . By the Right Reverend Father in God , Edward , Lord Bishop of Worcester . LONDON , Printed by I. H. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in S. Paul's Church-yard , 1697. THE PREFACE . WHen I was desir'd , not long since , to reprint the Discourse lately published , concerning the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction , I thought it necessary to look into the Socinian Pamphlets , ( which have swarmed so much among us within a few years ) to see how far an Answer had been given in them to any of the arguments contained in it ; but I found the Writers of them thought it not for their purpose to take any notice at all of it ; but rather endeavour'd to turn the Controversie quite another way , and to cover their true Sense under more plausible Expressions . Of which I have given a full account in the Preface to the late Edition of it . But among those Treatises which ●or the general good of the Nation are gather●d into Volumes and dispers'd abroad to make either Proselytes or Infidels ) I found one , wherein there is p●etended to be an Answer to my Sermon about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith , ( reprinted with the former Discourse ▪ ) and therein I meet with a passage , which hath given occasion to this Vindication . For there are these Words , That I had utterly mistaken , in thinking that they deny the Articl●s of the new Creed , or Athanasian Religion , because they are Mysteries , or because , say they , we do not comprehend them ; we deny them , because we do comprehend them , we have a clear and distinct Perception , that they are not Mysteries , but Contradictions , Impossibilities and pure Nonsense . Which words contain in them so spitefull , so unjust , and so unreasonable a Charge upon the Christian Church in general , and our own in particular ▪ that I could not but think my self concerned , especially since they are addressed to me , to do what in me lay ( as soon as my uncertain State of Health would permit ) towards the clearing the fundamental Mystery of the Athanasian Religion , as they call it , viz. The Doctrine of the Trinity , ( which is chiefly struck at by them ) without running into any new Explications , or laying aside any old terms , for which I could not see any just occasion . For however thoughtfull Men may think to escape some particular difficulties better , by going out of the common Roads ; yet they may meet with others , which they did not foresee , which may make them as well as others judge it , at last , a wiser and safer course to keep in the same way , which the Christian Church hath used , ever since it hath agreed to express her Sense in such Terms , which were thought most proper for that purpose . For in such cases , the Original and Critical Signification of words is not so much to be attended , as the use they are applied to , and since no other can be found more significant or proper for that end ; it looks like yielding too great advantage to our Adversaries , to give up the Boundaries of our Faith. For although there be a difference between the necessary Article of Faith it self , and the manner of expressing it , so that those may truely believe the Substance of it , who differ in the Explication ; yet since the Sense of the Article hath been generally received under those terms , there seems to be no sufficient reason to substitute new ones instead of the old , which can hardly be done , without reflecting on the Honour of the Christian Church , and giving occasion for very unreasonable Heats and Disputes , among those , who , if we may believe their own words , agree in the same fundamental Doctrine ; viz. a Trinity in Unity , or three Persons in the same undivided divine Essence . I am so little a Friend to any such Heats and Differences among our selves especially when we are so violently attacked by our common Adversaries , that were there no other reason , I should for the sake of that alone forbear making use of new Explications ; but there is another too obvious , which is , the mighty advantage they have taken from hence to represent our Doctrine as uncertain , as well as unintelligi●le . For as soon as our Unitarians began to appear with that Briskness and Boldness they have done now for several years , some of our Divines thought themselves obliged to write in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity . Thence came several Answers to them , and in several Methods , as the Persons thought most subservient to the same end ; but whatever their intentions were , our Adversaries were too much pleased to conceal the Satisfaction which they took in it . For soon after , we had the several Explications set forth and compared with each other ; and all managed so , as to make the Cause to suffer by the disagreement of the Advocates for it . And from hence they have formed a fivefold Trinity . 1. The Ciceronian Trinity , because Tully had used the Word Personae for different Respects ; Sustineo ego tres Personas ; and according to this Acceptation , Three Persons in the Godhead are no more than three Relations , Capacities or Respects of God to his Creatures , which say they , is downright Sabellianism : and is no manner of Mystery , but the most intelligible and obvious thing in the World. 2. The Cartesian Trinity , which maketh three divine Persons , and three infinite Minds , Spirits and Beings to be but one God. 3. The Platonick Trinity , of three divine Co-eternal Persons , whereof the second and third are subordinate or inferiour to the first in Dignity , Power , and all other Qualities , except only Duration . 4. The Aristotelian Trinity , which saith the Divine Persons are one God , because they have one and the same numerical Substance . 5. The Trinity of the Mobile , or that which is held by the common People , or by such lazy Divines , who only say in short , that it is an unconceivable Mystery ; and that those are as much in fault who go about to explain it , as those who oppose it . But that which hath made the most noise , and caused the greatest Heat and Ferment among us , hath been a difference first begun between two learned Divines of our Church , about the second and fourth ; and the account which our Unitarians give of both is this , That the one is a rational and intelligible Explication , but not true nor Orthodox ; the other is true and Orthodox , but neither rational , intelligible nor possible . I do not mention this , as though their words were to be taken as to either ; but only to shew what advantage they take from both , to represent that which is set up for the Churches Doctrine , either not to be truly so , or to be neither rational nor intelligible . The design of the following Discourse , is to make it appear , ( 1. ) That the Churches Doctrine , as to the Trinity , as it is expressed in the Athanasian Creed , is not liable to their charges of Contradiction , Impossibilities and pure Nonsense . ( 2. ) That we own no other Doctrine than what hath been received by the Christian Church in the several Ages from the Apostles Times : ( 3. ) And that there are no Objections in point of reason , which ought to hinder our Assent to this great point of the Christian Faith. But the chief Design of this Preface , is to remove this Prejudice which lies in our way from the different manners of Explication , and the warm Disputes which have been occasion'd by them . It cannot be denied , that our Adversaries have taken all possible advantage against us from these unhappy differences ; and in one of their latest Discourses they glory in it , and think they have therein out-done the foreign Unitarians : For , say they , We have shewed , that their Faiths concerning this pretended Mystery are so many and so contrary , that they are less one Party among themselves , than the far more learned and greater number of them are one Party with us : this is spoken of those they call Nominal Trinitarians ; and for the other whom they call Real , they prove them guilty of manifest Heresie ; the one they call Sabellians , which they say is the same with Unitarians , and the other Polytheists or disguised Pagans , and they borrow arguments from one side to prove the charge upon the other ; and they confidently affirm that all that speak out in this matter , must be driven either to Sabellianism , or Tritheism . If they are Nominal Trinitarians , they fall into the former , if Real , into the latter . This is the whole Design of this late Discourse , which I shall here examine , that I may remove this stumbling Block , before I enter upon the main business . 1. As to those who are called Nominal Trinitarians . Who are they ? And from whence comes such a Denomination ? They tell us , That they are such who believe three Persons , who are Persons in Name only ; indeed and in truth they are but one subsisting Person . But where are these to be found ▪ Among all such , say they , as agree that there is but one only and self-same divine Essence and Substance . But do these assert , that there is but one subsisting Person , and three only in Name ? Let any one be produced who hath written in defence of the Trinity ; for those who have been most charged , have utterly deny'd it That learned Person , who is more particularly reflected upon in this Charge , is by them said to affirm , That God is one divine intellectual Substance , or really subsisting Person , and distinguished and diversified by three relative Modes , or relative Subsistences . And Mr. Hooker is produc'd to the same purpose , That there is but one Substance in God , and three distinct rela●ive Properties , which Substance being taken with its peculiar Property , makes the distinction of Persons in the Godhead . But say they , These Modes and Properties do not make any real subsisting Persons ; but only in a Grammatical and Critical Sense , and at most , this is no more than one Man may be said to be three Persons on the account of different Relations , as Solomon was Son of David , Father of Rehoboam , and proceeding from David and Bathsheba , and yet was but one subsisting P●rson . This is the force of what they say . But then in a triumphing manner they add , That the Realists have so manifest an advantage against them , that they have no way to de●end themselves but by Recrimination , i. e. by shewing the like Absurdity in their Doctrine . And thus they hope either side will baffle the other , and in the mean time , the Cause be lost between them . But in so nice a matter as this , we must not rely too much on an Adversaries Representation ; for the leaving out some expressions , may make an opinion look with another Appearance , than if all were taken together , it would have . We must therefore take notice of other passages which may help to give the true Sense of the learned Author , who is chiefly aimed at . 1. In the very same Page he asserts , That each of the divine Persons has an absolute Nature distinctly belonging to him , though not a distinct absolute Nature ; and to the same purpose in another place . 2. That the eternal Father is and subsists as a Father , by having a Son , and communicating his Essence to another . And elsewhere , that the Relation between Father and Son is founded on that eternal Act , by which the Father communicates his divine Nature to the Son. 3. That the foundation of the Doctrine of the Trinity is this , 1. That there can be but one God. 2. That there is nothing in God but what is God. 3. That there can be no Composition in the Deity with any such positive real Being , distinct from the Deity it self . But the Church finding in Scripture mention of three , to whom distinctly the Godhead does belong , expressed these three by the Name of Persons , and stated their Personalities upon three distinct Modes of Subsistence , allotted to one and the same Godhead , and these also distinguished from one another by three distinct Relations . What do these men mean , to charge one who goes upon these grounds with Sabellianism ? Doth he make the three Persons to be mere Names , as S. Basil in few words expresses the true nature of Sabellianism , that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , One thing with different Denominations ? Can the communicating the divine Essence by the Father to the Son , be called a Name , or a Mode , or a Respect only ? And these Men of wonderfull Subtilty , have not learnt to distinguish between Persons and Personalities . Where is the least Intimation given , that he look'd on the divine Persons as Modes and Respects only ? That is impossible , since he owns a Communication of the divine Essence , and that each of the divine Persons hath the divine Nature belonging to him ; could it ever enter into any Man's head to think , that he that owns this should own the other also ? But the Personality is a thing of another consideration . For it is the reason of the distinction of Persons in the same undivided Nature . That there is a distinction , the Scripture assures us ; and withall , that there is but one divine Essence . How can this distinction be ? Not by essential Attributes , for those must be in the divine Essence , and in every Person alike , otherwise he hath not the entire divine Nature ; not by accidents , as Men are distinguished from each other , for the divine Nature is not capable of these ; not by separate or divided Substances , for that would be inconsistent with the perfect Vnity of the Godhead ; since therefore there can be no other way of distinction , we must consider how the Scripture directs us i● this case ; and that acquaints us with the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , as having mutual Relation to each other ; and there is no Repugnancy therein to the divine Nature , and therefore the distinction of the Persons hath been fixed on that , as the most proper foundation for it . And these are called different Modes of Subsistence , on which the distinct Personalities are founded , which can be no other than relative . But a Person is that which results from the divine Nature and Subsistence together ; and although a Person cannot be said to be a relative , consider'd as such , yet being joyned with the manner of Subsistence , it doth imply a Relation , and so a Person may be said to be a relative Being . But say they , If the three Persons have all the same individual Substance , then they are truly and properly only three Modes ; and therefore a●though among Men , Personalities are distinct from the Persons , because the Persons are distinct intelligent Substances , yet this cannot hold where there is but one individual Substance . The question is , Whether those they call Nominal Trinitarians , are liable to the charge of Sabellianism ; the answer is , That they cannot , because they assert far more than three Names , viz. That each Person hath the divine Nature distinctly belonging to him . But say they , These Persons are but mere Modes . No , say the other ; We do not say that the Person is only a Modus , but that it is the divine Nature , or Godhead subsisting under such a Modus , so that the Godhead is still included in it , joyned to it , and distinguished by it . Grant all this , the Vnitarians reply , yet where there is the same individual Substance , the Person can be only a Modus . To which it is answer'd , That this individual Substance hath three distinct ways of subsisting , according to which it subsists distinctly and differently in each of the three divine Persons . So that here lies the main point , whether it be Sabelliani●m , to assert the same individual Substance under three such different Modes of Subsistence . If it be , the most learned and judicious of the Fathers did not know what Sabellianism meant ( as I have shewd at large in the following Discourse ) for they utterly disowned Sabellianism , and yet asserted , That the several Hypostases consisted of peculiar Properties in one and the same divine Substance . But it is not the authority of Fathers which they regard , for they serve them only as Stones in the Boys way when they quarrel , viz. to throw them at our Heads . Let us then examine this matter by reason without them . Persons among Men , say they , are distinguished from Personalities , because they have distinct Substances , therefore where there is but one Substance , the Person can be only a Mode , and therefore the same with the Personality . I answer , that the true original Notion of Personality is no more than a different Mode of subsistence in the same common Nature . For every such Nature is in it self one and indivisible ; and the more perfect it is , the greater must its Vnity be . For the first Being is the most One ; and all Division comes from Distance and Imperfection . The first foundation of Distinction is Diversity ; for if there were no Diversity , there would be nothing but entire and perfect Vnity . All Diversity comes from two things , Dissimilitud● and Dependence . Those Philosophers ( called Megarici ) did not think much amiss , who said , That if all things were alike , there would be but one Substance or Being in the World ; and what we now call different Substances , would be only different Modes of Subsistence in the same individual Nature . The difference of Substances in created Beings , arises from those two things . 1. A Dissimilitude of Accidents , both internal and external . 2. The Will and Power of God , whereby he gives them distinct and separate Beings in the same common Nature . As for instance , the Nature or Essence of a Man consider'd in it self , is but one and indivisible ; but God gives a separate Existence to every Individual , whereby that common Nature subsists in so many distinct Substances , as there are Individuals of that kind ; and every one of these Substances is distinguished from all others ▪ not only by a separate internal vital Principle and peculiar Properties , but by such external Accidents , as do very easily discriminate them from each other . And the subject of all these Accidents is that peculiar Substance , which God hath given to every Individual , which in rational Beings is called a Person ; and so we grant that in all such created Beings the Personality doth suppose a distinct Substance ; not from the Nature of Personality , but from the condition of the subject wherein it is . The Personality in it self is but a different Mode of Subsistence in the same common Nature , which is but One : but this Personality being in such a subject as Man is , it from thence follows ▪ that each Person hath a peculiar Substance of his own ; and not from the Nature of Personality . But when we come to consider a divine Essence , which is most perfectly one , and is wholly uncapable of any separate Existence or Accidents , there can be no other way of distinction conceived in it , but by different Modes of Subsistence , or relative Properties in the same divine Essence . And herein we proceed , as we do in our other Conceptions of the divine Nature , i. e. we take away all Imperfection from God , and attribute only that to him , which is agreeable to his divine Perfections , although the manner of it may be above our comprehension . And if this be owning the Trinity of the Mob , I am not ashamed to own my self to be one of them ; but it is not out of Lazyness or affected Ignorance , but upon the greatest and most serious consideration . They may call this a Trinity of Cyphers , if they please , but I think more modest and decent Language about these matters would become them as well as the things themselves much better . And they must prove a little better than they have done , that different Modes of Subsistence in the divine Nature , or the relations of Father and Son are mere Cyphers , which is so often mentioned in Scripture , as a matter of very great consequence ; and that when we are baptized in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , we are baptized into a Trinity of Cyphers . But our Unitarians proceed , and say that the same Author affirms not only the Personalities , but the Persons to be merely Relative . For he saith , That every Person , as well as every Personality in the Trinity , is wholly Relative . But it is plain he speaks there , not of the Person in himself , but with respect to the manner of Subsistence , or the relative Properties belonging to them . But if the Notion of a Person doth besides the relative Property , necessarily suppose the divine Nature together with it ; how can a Person then be imagined to be wholly Relative ? But they urge , That which makes the first Person in the Trinity to be a Person , makes him to be a Father , and what makes him to be a Father , makes him to be a Person . And what follows from hence , but that the relative Property is the Foundation of the Personality ? But by no means , that the Person of the Father is nothing but the relative Property ? The instance of Solomon is not at all to the purpose , unless we asserted three Persons founded upon those different Relations in his individual Nature . Who denies , that one Person may have different Respects , and yet be but one Person subsisting ? Where doth the Scripture say , That the Son of David , the Father of Rehoboam , and he that proceeded from David and Bathsheba were three Persons distinguished by those relative Properties ? But here lies the foundation of what we believe as to the Trinity ; we are assured from Scripture , that there are three to whom the divine Nature and Attributes are given , and we are assured both from Scripture and Reason , that there can be but one divine Essence ; and therefore every one of these must have the divine Nature , and yet that can be but One. But it is a most unreasonable thing to charge those with Sabellianism , who assert , That every Person hath the divine Nature distinctly belonging to him , and that the divine Essence is communicated from the Father to the Son. Did ever N●etus or Sabellius , or any of their Followers speak after this manner ? Is the divine Essence but a mere Name , or a different respect only to Mankind ? For the asserting such relative Persons as have no Essence at all , was the true Sabellian Doctrine , as will be made appear in the following Discourse . And so much is confess'd by our Unitarians themselves , for they say , That the Sabellians held , that Father , Son and Spirit are but only three Names o● God given to him in Scripture , by occasion of so many several Dispensations towards the Creature , and so he is but one subsisting Person and three relative Persons ; as he sustains the three Names of Father , Son and Spirit , which being the Relations of God towards things without him , he is so many relative Persons , or Persons in a Classical Critical Sense , i. e. Persons without any Essence belonging to them as such . But those who assert a Communication of the divine Essence to each Person can never be guilty of Sabellianism , if this be it , which themselves affirm . And so those called Nominal Trinitarians , are very unjustly so called , because they do really hold a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead . 2. Let us now see what charge they lay upon those whom they call Real Trinitarians : and they tell us , That the Nominals will seem to be profound Philosophers , deep Sages in comparison with them . These are very obliging expressions to them in the beginning . But how do they make out this gross Stupidity of theirs ? In short it is , That they stand condemned and anathematized as Hereticks by a general Council , and by all the Moderns , and are every day challenged and impeached of Tritheism , and cannot agree among themselves , but charge one another with great Absurdities ; and in plain terms they charge them with Nonsense in the thing , whereas the other lay only in words . Because these assert three divine subsisting Persons , three infinite Spirits , Minds or Substances , as distinct as so many Angels or Men , each of them perfectly God , and yet all of them are but one God. To understand this matter rightly , we must consider that when the Socinian Pamphlets first came abroad , some years since , a learned and worthy Person of our Church , who had appear'd with great vigour and reason against our Adversaries of the Church of Rome in the late Reign ( which ought not to be forgotten ) undertook to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity against the History of the Unitarians , and the Notes on the Athanasian Creed ; but in the warmth of disputing , and out of a desire to make this matter more intelligible , he suffer'd himself to be carried beyond the ancient Methods which the Church hath used to express her Sense by , still retaining the same fundamental Article of three Persons in one undivided Essence , but explaining it in such a manner , as to make each Person to have a peculiar and proper Substance of his own . This gave so great an advantage to the Author of those Treatises , that in a little time , he set forth his Notes with an Appendix in answer to this new Explication . Wherein he charges him with Heresie , Tritheism and Contradiction . The very same charges which have been since improved and carried on by others ; I wish I could say , without any unbecoming Heat or Reflections . But I shall now examine how far these charges have any ground , so as to affect the Doctrine of the Trinity , which is the chief end our Adversaries aimed at , in heaping these Reproaches upon one who appear'd so early , and with so much zeal to defend it . We are therefore to consider these things : 1. That a Man may be very right in the Belief of the Article it self ; and yet may be mistaken in his Explication of it . And this one of his keenest Adversaries freely acknowledges . For he plainly distinguishes between the fundamental Article and the manner of explaining it , and affirms , That a Man may quit his Explication without parting with the Article it self . And so he may retain the Article with his Explication . But suppose a Man to assent to the fundamental Article it self , and be mistaken in his Explication of it , can he be charged with Heresie about this Article ? For Heresie must relate to the fundamental Article to which he declares his hearty and unfeigned Assent ; but here we suppose the mistake to lie only in the Explication . As for instance , Sabellianism is a condemned and exploded Heresie , for it is contrary to the very Doctrine of the Trinity ; but suppose one who asserts the Doctrine of three Persons , should make them to be three Modes , must such a one presently be charged with Heresie , before we see whether his Explication be consistent with the fundamental Article or not ? For this is liable to very obvious Objections , that the Father begets a Mode instead of a Son , that we pray to three Modes instead of three real Persons , that Modes are mutable things in their own Nature , &c. but must we from hence conclude such a one guilty of Heresie , when he declares , that he withall supposed them not to be mere Modes , but that the divine Essence is to be taken together with the Mode to make a Person ? Yea , suppose some spitefull Adversary should say , That it is a Contradiction to say , That the same common Nature can make a Person with a Mode superadded to it ▪ unless that be individuated , for a ●erson doth imply an individual Nature , and not a mere relative Mode . Is this sufficient to charge such a Person with the Sabellian Heresy , which he utterly disowns ? Is not the like Equity to be shew●d in another though different Explication ? Suppose then a Person solemnly professes to own the fundamental Doctrine of the Trinity as much as any others ; but he thinks , that three Persons must have distinct Substances to make them Persons , but so as to make no Division or Separation in the Godhead , and that he cannot conceive a Communication of the divine Essence without this ; must this presently be run down as Heresie , when he asserts at the same time three Persons in the same undivided Essence ? But this is said to be a Contradiction ; so it was in the other case and not allow'd then and why should it be otherwise in this ? I speak not this to justifie such Explications , but to shew that there is a difference between the Heresie of denying an Article , and a mistake in the Explication of it . Even the greatest Heresie-makers in the world , distinguish between Heresies and erroneous Explications of Articles of Faith , as any one may find that looks into them . And even the Inquisitors of Heresie themselves allow the distinction between Heresie and an erroneous Proposition in Faith , which amounts to the same with a mistaken Explication of it ; and they all grant that there may be Propositions that tend to Heresie or savour of it , which cannot be condemned for Heretical . And even Pegna condemns Melchior Canus for being too cruel in asserting it to be Heresie to contradict the general Sense of Divines , because the Schools cannot make Heresies . 2. It is frequently and solemnly affirmed by him , That the Unity of the Godhead is the most real , essential , indivisible , inseparable Unity ; that there is but one divine Nature , which is originally in the Father , and is substantially communicated by the Father to the Son , as a distinct subsisting Person , by an eternal ineffable Generation , and to the Holy Ghost by an eternal and substantial Procession from Father and Son. Do the others who maintain a Trinity deny this ? By no means . For we have already seen that they assert the same thing . So that they are fully agreed as to the main fundamental Article . And even the Unitarians yield , that from the beginning he asserted , That the three divine Persons are in one undivided Substance . Wherein then lies the foundation of this mighty Quarrel , and those unreasonable Heats that Men have fallen into about it ; to the great scandal of our Church and Religion ? In short it is this ; that the same Author asserts , ( 1. ) That it is gross Sabellianism to say , That there are not three personal Minds , or Spirits , or Substances . ( 2. ) That a distinct substantial Person must have a distinct Substance of his own proper and peculiar to his own Person . But he owns , that although there are three distinct Persons , or Minds , each of whom is distinctly and by himself God , yet there are not three Gods , but one God , or one Divinity ; which he saith , is intirely , and indivisibly , and inseparably in three distinct Persons or Minds . That the same one divine Nature is wholly and entirely communicated by the eternal Father to the eternal Son and by the Father and Son to the eternal Spirit without any Division or Separation ; and so it remains one still . This is the substance of this new Explication , which hath raised such Flames , that Injunctions from authority were thought necessary to suppress them . But those can reach no farther than the restraint of Mens Tongues and Pens about these matters , and unless something be found out to satisfie their Minds and to remove Misapprehensions , the present Heat may be only cover'd over and kept in ; which when there is a vent given ▪ may break out into a more dangerous Flame . Therefore I shall endeavour to state and clear this matter so as to prevent any future Eruption thereof , which will be done by considering how far they are agreed , and how far the remaining difference ought to be pursued . 1. They are agreed , That there are three distinct Persons and but one Godhead . 2. That there are no separate and divided Substances in the Trinity ; but the divine Nature is wholly and entirely one and undivided . 3. That the divine Essence is communicated from the Father to the Son , and from both to the holy Spirit . So that the charge of Sabellianism on those who reject this new Explication is without ground . For no Sabellian did or could assert a Communication of the divine Essence . Which being agreed on both sides , the Dispute turns upon this single point , whether a communicated Essence , doth imply a distinct Substance or not . On the one side it is said , That there being but one God , there can be but one divine Essence , and if more Essences more Gods. On the other side , that since they own a communicated Essence necessary to make a distinction of Persons in the Son and Holy Ghost , if the Essence be not distinct , the foundation of distinct Personalities is taken away . But how is this clear'd by the other Party ? They say , 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 . So that the Communication of the divine Nature is owned to the Persons of the Son and Holy Ghost . But how then comes it not to make a distinct Essence , as it makes distinct Persons , by being communicated ? The answer we see is , That it is a peculiar Prerogative founded on the infinite and therefore transcendent Perfection of the divine Nature . But they further add , That when the Son and Holy Ghost are said to have the same divine Nature from the Father , as the Origin and Fountain of the Divinity ; not by the Production of a new divine Nature but by a Communication of his own ; which is one and the same in all three without Separation , Difference , or Distinction ; that this is indeed a great Mystery , which hath been always look'd upon by the greatest and wisest Men in the Church , to be above all Expressions and Description . So that the greatest difficulty is at last resolved into the incomprehensible Perfection of the divine Nature ; and that neither Man nor Angels can give a satisfactory answer to Enquiries about the manner of them . And the Author of the Animadversions saith , That in the divine Persons of the Trinity , the divine Nature and the personal Subsistence coalesce into one , by an incomprehensible , ineffable kind of Union and Conjunction . But do those on the other side think , that the asserting three distinct Substances in one and the same individual Substance tends to clear and explain the Notion of the Trinity and make it more easie and intelligible ? The Divinity , they say , is whole , intire , indivisible , and inseparable in all three . But can one whole entire indivisible Substance be actually divided into three Substances ? For if every Person must have a peculiar Substance of his own ; and there be three Persons , there must be three peculiar Substances , and how can there be three peculiar Substances , and yet but one entire and indivisible Substance ? I do not say , there must be three divided Substances in place , or separate Substances , but they must be divided as three Individuals of the same kind , which must introduce a Specifick Divine Nature , which I think very inconsistent with the divine Perfections ; but of this at large in the following Discourse . I do not lay any force upon this argument , that there can be no ground of the Distinction between the three Substances , if there be but one Substance in the Godhead , ( as some have done ) because the same Substance cannot both unite and distinguish them ; for the ground of the distinction is not the Substance but the Communication of it , and where that is so freely asserted , there is a reason distinct from the Substance it self , which makes the Distinction of Persons . But the difficulty still remains , how each Person should have a Substance of his own ; and yet there be but one entire and indivisible Substance , for every Person must have a proper Substance of his own ; or else according to this Hypothesis , he can be no Person ; and this peculiar Substance must be really distinct from that Substance which is in the other two : so that here must be three distinct Substances in the three Persons . But how then can there be but one individual Essence in all three ? We may conceive one common Essence to be individuated in three Persons , as it is in Men ; but it is impossible to conceive the same individual Essence to be in three Persons , which have peculiar Substances of their own . For the Substances belonging to the Persons , are the same Essence individuated in those Persons : and so there is no avoiding making three individual Essences and one specifick or common divine Nature . And Maimonides his argument is considerable against more Gods than one ; If , saith he , there be two Gods , there mu●t be something wherein they agree , and something wherein they differ ; that wherein they agree must be that which makes each of them God ; and that wherein they differ must make them two Gods. Now wherein doth this differ from the present Hypothesis ? There is something wherein they differ , and that is their proper Substance ; but Maimonides thought that wherein they differ'd sufficient to make them two Gods. So that I fear it will be impossible to clear this Hypothesis as to the reconciling three individual Essences with one individual divine Essence , which looks too like asserting that there are three Gods and yet but one . And the Author of this Explica●ion doth at last confess , that three distinct whole inseparable Same 's , are hard to conceive as to the manner of it . Now to what purpose are new Explications started and Disputes raised and carried on so warmly about them , if after all , the main difficulty be confess'd to be above our Comprehension ? We had much better satisfie our selves with that Language which the Church hath receiv●d and is express'd in the Creeds , than go about by new Terms , to raise new Ferments , especially at a time , when our united Forces are most necessary against our common Adversaries . No wise and good Men can be fond of any new Inventions , when the Peace of the Church is hazarded by them . And on the other side , it is as dangerous to make new Heresies as new Explications . If any one denies the Doctrine contained in the Nicene Creed , that is no new Heresie ; but how can such deny the Son to be consubstantial to the Father , who assert one and the same indivisible Substance in the Father and the Son ? But they may contradict themselves . That is not impossible on either side . But doth it follow that they are guilty of Heresie ? Are not three Substances and but one a Contradiction ? No more , say they , than that a communicated Substance is not distinct from that which did communicate . But this whole dispute we find is at last resolved into the infinite and unconceivable Perfections of the Godhead , where it is most safely lodged ; and that there is no real Contradiction in the Doctrine it self , is part of the design of the Discourse afterwards . But here it will be necessary to take notice of what the Unitarians have objected against this new Explication , viz. That it was condemned by the ancients in the Person of Philoponus ; in the middle Ages , in the Person and Writings of Abhor Ioachim ; but more severely since the Reformation , in the Person of Valentinus Gentilis , who was condemned at Geneva , and beheaded at Bern for this very Doctrine . To these I shall give a distinct answer : 1. As to Joh Philoponus , I do freely own , that in the Greek Church , when in the sixth Century he broached his opinion , That every Hypostasis must have the common Nature individuated in it , this was look'd upon as a Doctrine of dangerous consequence , both with respect to the Trinity and Incarnation . The latter was the first occasion of it ; for as Leontius observes , the dispute did not begin about the Trinity , but about the Incarnation ; and Philoponus took part with those who asserted but one Nature in Christ after the Vnion , and he went upon this ground , That if there were two Natures there must be two Hypostases , because Nature and Hypostasis were the same . Then those on the Churches side , saith Leontius , objected , That if they were the same , there must be three distinct Natures in the Trinity , as there were three Hypostases ; which Philoponus yielded , and grounded himself on Aristotle's Doctrine , that there was but one common Substance and several individual Substances , and so held it was in the Trinity , whence he was called the leader of the Heresie of the Tritheius . This is the account given by Leontius who lived very ●ear his time , A. D. 620. The same is affirmed of him by Nicephorus , and that he wrote a Book on purpose about the Vnion of two Natures in Christ , out of which he produces his own words concerning a common and individual Nature , ( which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) which can agree to none else . And the main argument he went upon was this , that unless we assert a singular Nature in the Hypostases , we must say , that the whole Trinity was incarnate ; as unless there be a singular humane Nature distinct from the common , Christ must assume the whole Nature of Mankind . And this argument from the Incarnation , was that which made Roscelin , in the beginning of the disputing Age , A. D. 1093 , to assert , That the three Persons were three things distinct from each other , as three Angels or three Men , because otherwise the Incarnation of the second Person could not be understood , as appears by Anselm's Epistles , and his Book of the Incarnation written upon that occasion . But as A●selm shews at large , if this argument hold , it must prove the three Persons not only to be distinct , but separate and divided Sub●●ances , ( which is directly contrary to this new Explication ) and then there is no avoiding Tritheism . But to return to Joh. Philoponus , who , saith Nicephorus , divided the indivisible Nature of God into three Individuals as among Men : Which , saith he , is repugnant to the Sense of the Christian Church ; and he produces the Testimony of Gregory Nazianzen against it , and adds , that Leontius and Georgius Pisides confuted Philoponus . But in that divided time . there were some called Theodosiani , who made but one Nature and one Hypostasis ; and so fell in with the Sabellians ; but others held , That there was one immutable divine Essence , but each Person had a distinct individual Nature : which the rest charged with Tritheism . Which consequence they utterly rejected , because although they held three distinct Natures , yet they said , They were but one God , because there was but one invariable Divinity in them . Nicephorus saith , that Conon's Followers rejected Philoponus ; but Photius mentions a conference between Conon and others , a●out Philoponus , wherein he defends him against other Severians . Photius grants , that Conon and his Followers held a consubstantial Trinity and the Unity of the Godhead , and so far they were Orthodox : but saith , They were far from it , when they asserted proper and peculiar Substances to each Person . The difference between Conon and Philoponus about this point , ( for Conon wrote against Philoponus about the Resurrection ) seems to have been partly in the Doctrine , but chiefly in the consequence of it ; for these rejected all kind of Tritheism , which Philoponus saw well enough must follow from his Doctrine , but he denied any real Division or Separation in those Substances as to the Deity . Isidore saith , That the Tritheists owned three Gods , as well as three Persons ; and that if God be said to be Triple , there must follow a Plurality of Gods. But there were others called Triformiani , of whom S. Augustin speaks . Who held the three Persons to be three distinct parts , which being united made one God ; which , saith he , is repugnant to the divine Perfection . But among these Severians , there were three several opinions : 1. Of Philoponus , who held one common Nature and three Individual . 2. Of those who said there was but one Nature and one Hypostasis . 3. Of those who affirm'd there were three distinct Natures , but withal , that there was but one indivisible Godhead ; and these differ'd from Philoponus in the main ground of Tritheism , which was , that he held the common Nature in the Trinity , to be only a specifick Nature , and such as it is among Men. For Philoponus himself in the words which Nicephorus produces , doth assert plainly , that the common Nature is separated from the Individuals , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by a mere act of the Mind ; so that he allow'd no individual Vnity in the divine Nature , but what was in the several Persons ; as the common Nature of Man is a Notion of the Mind , as it is abstracted from the several Individuals , wherein alone it really subsists ; so that here is an apparent difference between the Doctrine of Joh. Philoponus and the new Explication , for herein the most real , essential and indivisible Unity of the divine Nature is asserted ; and it is said to be no Species , because it is but one , and so it could not be condemned in Joh. Philoponus 2. We now come to Abbat Joachim , whose Doctrine seems to be as much mistaken , as it is represented in the Decretal , where the Condemnation of it by the Lateran Council is extant . But here I cannot but observe what great Authority these Unitarians give to this Lateran Council , as if they had a Mind to set up Transubstantiation by it , which they so often parallel with the Trinity . Thence in their late Discourse they speak of it as the most general Council that was ever called , and that what was there defined , it was made Heresie to oppose it . But by their favour , we neither own this to have been a general Council , nor that it had Authority to make that Heresie which was not so before . But that Council might assert the Doctrine of the Trinity truly , as it had been receiv'd , and condemn the opinion of Joachim justly But what it was , they do not or would not seem to understand . Joachim was a great Enthusiast , but no deep Divine ( as Men of that Heat seldom are ) and he had many Disputes with Peter Lombard in his Life , as the Vindicator of Joachim confesses . After his Death , a Book of his was found , taxing Peter Lombard with some strange Doctrine about the Trinity , wherein he called him Heretick and Madman ; this Book was complained of in the Lateran Council , and upon Examination it was sound , that instead of charging Peter Lombard justly , he was fallen into Heresie himself , which was denying the essential Vnity of the three Persons , and making it to be Vnity of Consent . He granted that they were one Essence , one Nature , one Substance : but how ? Not by any true proper Unity , but Similitudinary and Collective , as they called it , as many Men are one People , and many Believers make one Church . Whence Thomas Aquinas saith , that Joachim fell into the Arian Heresie . It is sufficient to my purpose , that he denied the individual Vnity of the divine Essence , which cannot be charged on the Author of the new Explication , and so this comes not home to the purpose . 3. But the last charge is the most terrible , for it not only sets down the Heresie , but the capital punishment which follow'd it . Yet I shall make it appear , ( notwithstanding the very warm Prosecution of it by another hand ) that there is a great difference between the Doctrine of Valentinus Gentilis , and that which is asserted in this Explication . 1. In the Sentence of his Condemnation it is expressed , That he had been guilty of the vilest Scurrility and most horrid Blasphemies against the Son of God and the glorious Mystery of the Trinity . But can any thing of this Nature be charged upon one , who hath not only written in Defence of it , but speaks of it with the highest Veneration ? 2. In the same Sentence it is said , That he acknowledged the Father only to be that infinite God which we ought to worship , which is plain Blasphemy against the Son. But can any Men ever think to make this the same case with one , who makes use of that as one of his chief arguments , That the three Persons are to be worshipped with a distinct divine Worship ? 3. It is charged upon him , That he called the Trinity a mere human Invention , not so much as known to any Catholick Creed , and directly contrary to the Word of God. But the Author here charged , hath made it his business to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity to be grounded on Scripture and to vindicate it from the Objections drawn from thence against it . 4. One of the main Articles of his charge was , That he made three Spirits of different Order and Degree , that the Father is the one only God , by which the Son and Holy Ghost are excluded manifestly from the Unity of the Godhead ; But the Person charged with his Heresie saith , The Reason why we must not say three Gods , is , because there is but one and the same Divinity in them all ; and that entirely , indivisibly , inseparably . But it is said , that although there may be some differences , yet they agree in asserting , That there are three distinct eternal Spirits or Minds in the Trinity ; and Genebrard is brought into the same Heresie with them But Genebrard with great indignation rejects the Doctrine of Valentinus Gentilis , because he held an Inequality in the Persons , and denied the individual Vnity of the Godhead in them ; but he saith , he follow'd Damascen in asserting three real Hypostases ; and he utterly denies Tritheism , and he brings a multitude of reasons , why the charge of Tritheism doth not lie against his opinion , although he owns the Hypostases to be three distinct individuals , but then he adds , That there is an indivisible and insep●rable Union of the divine Nature in all three Persons . Now to deal as impartially in this matter as may be , I do not think our understandings one jot helped in the Notion of the Trinity by this Hypothesis ; but that it is liable to as great difficulties as any other , and therefore none ought to be fond of it , or to set it against the general Sense of others , and the current Expressions of Divines about these Mysteries ; nor to call the different opinions of others Heresie or Nonsense , which are provoking Words , and tend very much to inflame Mens Passions , because their Faith and Vnderstanding are both call'd in question , which are very tender things . But on the other side , a difference ought to be made between the Heresie and Blasphemy of Valentinus Gentilis , and the opinion of such who maintain the individual and indivisible Unity of the Godhead ; but withal , believe that every Person hath an individual Substance as a Person , and that Sabellianism cannot be avoided otherwise . Wherein I think they are mistaken , and that the Fathers were of another opinion ; and that our Church owns but one Substance in the Godhead , as the Western Church always did , ( which made such difficulty about receiving three Hypostases , because they took Hypostasis for a Substance ) but yet I see no reason why those who assert three Hypostases , and mean three individual Substances should be charged with the Heresie of Valentinus Gentilis , or so much as with that of Abba● Joachim or Philoponus , because they all rejected the individual Unity of the divine Nature , which is constantly maintained by the Defenders of the other Hypothesis . But it is said and urged with vehemency , that these two things are inconsistent with each other ; that it is going forward and backward , being Orthodox in one Breath and otherwise in the next ; that all this looks like shuffling and concealing the true meaning , and acting the old Artifices under a different Form. For the Samosatenians and Arians , when they were pinched , seem'd very Orthodox in their Expressions , but retained their Heresies still in their Minds ; and there is reason to suspect the same Game is playing over again , and we cannot be too cautious in a matter of such Consequence . I grant very great caution is needfull , but the mixture of some Charity with it will do no hurt . Why should we suspect those to be inwardly false , and to think otherwise than they speak , who have shew'd no want of Courage and Zeal , at a time when some thought it Prudence to say nothing , and never call'd upon their Superiours then to own the cause of God , and to do their Duties as they have now done , and that in no very obliging manner ? And if the same Men can be cool and unconcerned at some times , ( when there was so great reason to be otherwise ) and of a sudden grow very warm , and even to boil over with Zeal ; the World is so ill natur'd , as to be too apt to conclude there is some other cause of such an alteration than what openly appears . But there is a kind of bitter Zeal , which is so fierce and violent , that it rather inflames than heals any Wounds that are made ; and is of so malignant a Nature , that it spreads and eats like a Cancer , and if a stop were not given to it , it might endanger the whole Body . I am very sensible how little a Man consults his own ease , who offers to interpose in a dispute between Men of Heat and Animosity ; but this moves me very little , when the interest of our Church and Religion is concerned , which ought to prevail more than the fear of displeasing one or other Party , or it may be both . I do heartily wish , that all who are equally concerned in the common Cause , would lay aside Heats , and Prejudices , and hard Words , and consider this matter impartially ; and I do not question , but they will see cause to judge , as I do , that the difference is not so great as our Adversaries for their own advantage make it to be . And since both sides yield , that the matter they dispute about is above their reach , the wisest course they can take is to assert and defend what is revealed , and not to be too peremptory and quarrelsom about that which is acknowledged to be above our comprehension , I mean as to the manner how the three Persons partake of the divine Nature . It would be of the most fatal consequence to us , if those Weapons , which might be so usefully imploy'd against our common Adversaries , should still be turned upon one another . I know no manner of advantage they have against us , but from thence , and this is it which makes them write with such Insolence and Scorn towards those who are far their Superiours in Learning and Wit , as well as in the Goodness of their cause . And is it possible that some of our most skilfull Fencers should play Prizes before them , who plainly animate them against each other for their own Diversion and Interest ? Sometimes one hath the better , sometimes the other , and one is cried up in Opposition to the other , but taken alone is used with the greatest Contempt . One Man's work is said to be learned and accurate , and the more , because it follows , that he concerns not himself with the Socinians . The wiser Man no doubt , for that Reason . At another time it is called the Birth of the Mountains , and the Author parallel'd with no less a Man than Don Quixot , and his elaborate Writings with his Adventures , and they ridicule his Notion of Modes as if they were only so many Gambols and Postures . And then for his Adversary , they hearten and incourage him all they can ; they tell him , He must not allow to the other the least Title of all he contends for , least their sport should be spoiled ; and to comfort him , they tell him , that his Adversary is a Socinian at bottom , and doth not know it ; that all his Thingums , Modes , Properties are only an Addition of Words and Names , and not of Persons properly so called , and that his whole Scheme is nothing but Socinianism drest up in the absurd Cant of the Schools . That his Book hath much more Scurrility than Argument , that his usage of him was barbarous , and a greater Soloecism in manners , than any he accuses him of in Grammar or Speech ; and in short , That his Explication of the Trinity is a great Piece of Nonsense , ( though it comes so near to Socinianism . ) But how doth the other Antagonist escape ? What , nothing but good Words to him ? In this place they had a mind to keep him in heart , and only charge him with a Heresie which they laugh at ; but in another place , they set him out with such colours , as shew they intended only to play one upon the other . They charge him not only with Heresie but Polytheism , Which , they say , is next to Atheism ; that his Vindication is a supercilious , disdainfull and peevish Answer : that he had neither Humanity nor good Manners left : that there is nothing considerable in his Books but what he borrow'd from Them. These are some of the Flowers which they bestow on these Persons of Reputation in Polemick Squabble as they call it , which plainly shew , that their aim is , as much as may be , to divide and then to expose us . And shall we still go on to gratifie this insulting Humour of theirs , by contending with one another , and afford them still new matter for Books against both ? As we may see in their late Discourse about Nominal and Real Trinitarians , which was intended for a rare shew , wherein the two Parties are represented as combating with one another , and they stand by and triumph over these Cadmean Brethren , as they call them . Neither are they the Socinians only , but those who despise all Religion ( who I doubt are the far greater number ) are very much entertained with such encounters between Men of Wit and Parts , because they think , and they do not think amiss , that Religion it self will be the greatest sufferer by them at last : And this is the most dangerous , but I hope not the most prevailing Party of Men among us . The Socinians profess themselves Christians , and I hope are so , ( especially if but One Article of Faith be required to make men so ) but I cannot but observe that in the late Socinian Pamphlets , there is too strong a biass towards Deism , ( which consideration alone should make us unite and look more narrowly to their steps . ) I do not charge their Writers with a professed design to advance Deism among us ; but their way of managing their Disputes , is as if they had a mind to serve them . And such men who are Enemies to all revealed Religion , could not find out better Tools for their purpose than they are . For they know very well , that in such a Nation as ours , which is really concerned for the Profession of Religion one way or other , there is no opening professed Schools of Atheism ; but the design must be carried on under some shew of Religion . And nothing serves their turn so well , as setting up natural Religion in opposition to Revealed . For this is the way by degrees to loosen and unhinge the Faith of most Men , which with great reason is built on the Scripture as the surest foundation . But here it is fit to observe the several steps they take in order to this advancing Deism , and how our Unitarians have complied with all of them . I. The first point they are to gain is , The lessening the Authority of Scripture , and if this be once done , they know Mens Minds will be left so roving and uncertain , that they will soon fall into Scepticism and Infidelity . II. The next is , to represent Church-men as Persons of Interest and Design , who maintain Religion only because it supports them ; and this they call Priest-Cra●t , and if they can by this means take away their Authority too , the way lies still more open for them ; for it is more easie to make a Prey of the Flock , when the Shepherds are suspected only to look after their Fleeces . Since such a suspicion takes away all Trust and Confidence in their Guides ; and they know very well , how little others will be able to defend themselves . III. Another step is , to magnifie the Deists as Men of Probity and good Sense ; that assert the just Liberties of Mankind , against that terrible thing called Priest-Craft ; and that would rescue Religion from false Glosses and absurd Notions taken up from the Schools and taught in the Universities , on purpose to keep under those Principles of universal Liberty as to Opinions , which those of freer Minds endeavour to promote . But especially they are great Enemies to all Mysteries of Faith , as unreasonable Impositions on those of more refined Vnderstandings , and of clear and distinct Perceptions , as they have learnt to express themselves . These they account intolerable Vsurpations on Men of such Elevations as themselves ; for Mysteries are only for the Mob , and not for Persons of such noble Capacities . IV. The last thing is , to represent all Religions as indifferent , since they agree in the common Principles of natural Religion , especially the Vnity of God , and all the rest is but according to the different Inventions of Men , the skill of the Contrivers , and the several Humors and Inclinations of Mankind . These are the chief Mysteries of Deism in our Age ; for even Deism hath its Mysteries , and it is it self a Mystery of Iniquity , which I am afraid is too much working already among us , and will be more if no effectual stop be put to it . I call it Deism , because that Name obtains now , as more plausible and modish ; for Atheism is a rude unmannerly Word , and exposes Men to the Rabble , and makes Persons shun the company and avoid the Conversation and Dealing with such who are noted for it . And this would be a mighty Prejudice to them , as to their Interests in this World , which they have reason to value . But to be a Deist , seems to be only a setting up for having more Wit , than to be cheated by the Priests , and imposed upon by the common Forms of Religion , which serve well enough for ordinary People that want Sense , and are not skill●d in Demonstrations ; but the Deists are so wise as to see through all these things . And therefore this name gains a Reputation among all such as hate Religion , but know not how otherwise to distinguish themselves from prosessed Atheists , which they would by no means be taken for ; although if they be pressed home , very few among them will sincerely own any more than a Series of Causes , without any intellectual Perfections , which they call God. A strange God without Wisdom , Goodness , Iustice or Providence ! But I am now to shew , how in all these points the present Unitarians have been very serviceable to them , in the Books which they have lately published and dispersed both in City and Country . 1. As to the Authority of Scripture : They have been already justly exposed for undermining the Authority of S. John's Gospel , by mustering up all the Arguments of the old Hereticks against it , and giving no answers to them . And what defence have they since made for themselves ? No other but this very trifling one , that they repeat their Reasons but do not affirm them . What is the meaning of this ? If they are true , why do they not affirm them ? If they are false , why do they not answer them ? Is this done like those who believe the Gospel of S. John to be divine , to produce all the arguments they could meet with against it ; and never offer to shew the Weakness : and Vnreasonableness of them ? Doth not this look like a design to furnish the Deists with such arguments as they could meet with against it ? Especially , when they say , That S. Iohn doth not oppose them Why then are these Arguments produced against his Gospel ? Men do not use to dispute against their Friends , nor to tell the World what all People have said against them , and give not a word of answer in vindication of them . But they say , The modern Vnitarians allow of the Gospel and other Pieces of S. Iohn . A very great favour indeed , to allow of them . But how far ? As of divine Authority ? Not a word of that . But as ancient Books which they think it not fit for them to dispute against . But if the ancient Ebionites were their Predecessors , as they affirm , they can allow none but the Gospel according to the Hebrews ; and must reject the rest and all S. Paul's Epistles ; and in truth , they make him argue so little to the purpose , that they must have a very mean opinion of his Writings . But of these things in the Discourse it self . As to Church-men , no professed Deists could express themselves more spitefully than they have done , and that against those to whom they profess the greatest respect . What then would they say of the rest ? They say in general , That it is natural to Worldlings , to mercenary Spirits , to the timorous and ambitious ; in a word , to all such as preferr not God before all other , whether Persons or Considerations , to believe as they would have it . But although the words be general , yet any one that looks into them may s●e● find that they were intended for such Church-men who had written against their opinions . And the Insinuation is , that if it were not for worldly Interests , they would own them to be in the right . Whereas I am fully perswaded , that they have no way to defend their Opinions , but to reject the Scriptures and declare themselves Deists ; and as long as we retain a just Veneration for the Scripture , we can be of no other Opinion , because we look on their Interpretations as unreasonable , new , forced , and inconsistent with the circumstances of Places and the main Scope and Tenor of the New Testament . But their Introduction to the Answer to the late Archbishop's Sermons about the Trinity and Incarnation , shew their Temper sufficiently as to all Church-men . He was the Person they professed to esteem and reverence above all others , and confess that he instructs them in the Air and Language of a Father , ( which at least deserved a little more dutifull Language from them . ) But some Mens fondness for their Opinions breaks all bounds of Civility and Decency ; for presently after , mentioning the Archbishop and other Bishops who had written against them , they say it signifies nothing to the case , That they are great Pensioners of the World. For it is certain we have a mighty Propensity to believe as is for our Turn and Interest . And soon after , that their Opposers are under the power of such fatal Biasses , that their Doctrine is the more to be suspected because it is theirs . For the reason why they maintain the Doctrine of the Trinity is , because they must . The plain meaning of all this is , that the late Archbishop ( as well as the rest ) was a mere self-interested Man , ( which none who knew either the outside or inside of Lambeth could ever imagine ) that if he were really against them ( as none could think otherwise , who knew him so well and so long as I did ) it only shew'd what a strange Power , Interest hath in the Minds of all Church-men . But what Bias was it , which made him write with that Strength and Iudgment against their Opinions ? Let us set aside all Titles of Respect and Honour as they desire , let Reason be compared with Reason ; and his Arguments with their Answers ; and it will be soon found that the advantage which he had , was not from any other Dignity than that of a clearer Iudgment , and a much stronger way of Reasoning Whereas their Answers are such , as may well be supposed to come from those , who had some such Bias , that they must at least seem to answer what in truth they could not . As hath been fully made appear in the Vindication of him , to which no reply hath been given , although other Treatises of theirs have come out since . In the Conclusion of that Answer they say , That they did not expect that their Answer should satisfie us , and in truth they had a great deal of reason to think so . But what reason do they give for it ? A very kind one no doubt ; because Prepossession and Interest have taken hold of us . As though we were Men of such mean and mercenary Spirits , as to believe according to Prepossession without Reason , and to act only as serves our present Interest . But we never made mean Addresses to Infidels to shew how near our Principles came to theirs , nor made Parallels between the Trinity and Transubstantiation , as some did , and defended them , as well as they could , when Popery was uppermost . But enough of this . 3. We have seen how much they have gratified the Deists by representing Church-men in such a manner , let us now see in what manner they treat the Deists . It is with another sort of Language ; and which argues a more than ordinary kindness to them . In one place they say , That the Deists are mostly well-natured Men , and Men , of Probity and Understanding ; in effect that they are sincere honest-hearted Men , who do good by the impulse of their natural Religion , Honesty and good Conscience , which have great Influence upon them . What another sort of character is this from that of the greatest , and in their opinion the best of our Clergy ? This must proceed from some Intimacy and Familiarity with them ; and it is easie to imagine from hence , that they are upon very good Terms with one another , because they must be Unitarians , if they believe a God at all . But where else are these honest , conscientious Deists to be found ? It is rare indeed for others to find any one that rejects Christianity out of pure Conscience , and that acts by principles of sincere Virtue . I never yet could meet with such , nor hear of those that have . And I would fain know the reasons on which such conscientious Men proceeded ; for truly the Principles of natural Religion are those which recommend Christianity to me ; for without them the Mysteries of Faith would be far more unaccountable than now they are ; and supposing them , I see no Incongruity in them , i. e. That there is a just and holy God , and a wise Providence , and a future State of Rewards and Punishments ; and that God designs to bring Mankind to Happiness out of a State of Misery ; let these be supposed , and the Scheme of Christianity will appear very reasonable and fitted to the Condition and Capacity of Mankind . And the sublimest Mysteries of it are not intended to puzzle or amuse Mankind , as weak Men imagine ; but they are discover'd for the greatest and best purposes in the World , to bring Men to the hatred of Sin and Love of God , and a patient continuance in well-doing , in order to a blessed Immortality . So that this is truly a Mystery of Godliness , being intended for the advancement of real Piety and Goodness among Mankind in order to make them happy . But as to these Unitarians , who have such happy Acquaintance with these conscientious Deists ; I would fain learn from them , if they think them mistaken , why they take no more pains to satisfie and convince them ; for I find they decline saying a word against them . In one place they compare the Atheist and Deist together ; and very honestly and like any conscientious Deists , they impute all the Deism and most part of the Atheism of our Age to the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation . Is it possible for Men that live in our Age to give such an account as this of the Growth of Deism and Atheism among us ? What number of Atheists is there , upon any other account than from a looseness of Thinking and Living ? Where are those who believe God to be an incomprehensible Being , and yet reject the Mysteries which relate to his Being , because they are incomprehensible ? Suppose any reject spiritual Substance as Nonsense and a Contradiction , as they do the Trinity on the same Pretences . Is this a sufficient reason or not ? They may tell them , as they do us that they can have no Ideas , no clear and distinct Perceptions of immaterial Substances ? What answer do they give in this case ? Not a Syllable ; although they take notice of it . But I hope they give some better satisfaction to the Deist ; No , for they say , This is not a place to argue against either Atheist or Deist . By no means : some would say , They were not such Fools to fall out with their Friends . And it cannot be denied , that they have been the greatest Incouragers of such kind of Writings , which serve their turn so well ; and in pure Gratitude they forbear to argue against them . IV. To shew how near they come to an Indifferency in Religion , they speak favourably of Mahometans , and Jews , and even Tartars , because they agree with them in the Vnity of the Godhead . What an honest-hearted Deist do they make that Impostor Mahomet ? One would hardly think such a character could have come out of the Mouth of Christians . But these are their Words , Mahomet is affirmed by divers Historians to have had no other design in pretending himself to be a Prophet , but to restore the Belief of the Unity of God , which at that time was extirpated among the Eastern Christians by the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation . Who are those Historians who give this character of him ? Why are they not named , that their authority might be examin'd ? Was the Morocco Ambassador one of them ? Or Paulus Alciatus , who from a Unitarian turned Mahometan ? But by the best accounts we can meet with , we find that he was a very cunning Impostor , and took in from the Jews and Ishmaelites his Countrymen , Circumcision ; from the Christians , an honourable mention of Christ , as a Prophet , and as the the Word and Spirit of God , and owned his Miracles ; from the ancient Hereticks he denied his Suffering , but owned his being taken up into Heaven . Yea , he owned , That he had his Gospel from Heaven ; but that his Disciples changed it after his Death , and attributed more to Christ than he assumed to himself . Which shews that he had so much Sence , as to discern , that if the Books of the New Testament were genuine , more must be given to Christ , than either Mahomet or the Unitarians do allow . Let any indifferent Reader compare their character of Mahomet with that of Athanasius , which these Men give , and they will easily find that they take as much care to blacken one , as they do to vindicate the other . What Christian Ingenuity is here ? But Mahomet was a Deist , and Athanasius a Trinitarian . But they go on . Whatsoever the design of Mahomet was , its certain , that Mahometism hath prevailed over greater Numbers and more Nations , than at this day profess Christianity . But how ? Was it not by force of Arms and the Prevalency of the Saracen and Turkish Empire ? No , say these learned Historians , It was not by the Force of the Sword , but by that one Truth in the Alcoran the Unity of God. It were endless to quote the Historians , who say , That it was Mahomet's Principle , to subdue all by Force of Arms who opposed his Religion ; but the authority of Elmacinus alone is sufficient ; for in the beginning of his History he owns that it was his Principle , To make War upon those that would not submit to his Law. And others say , that in remembrance of this , Their Law is expounded by their Doctors , with a Sword drawn by them , and that it is the Law of the Alcoran to kill and slay those that oppose it . What liberty the Turkish Empire allows to Christians in the conquer'd Provinces is not to this purpose , but by what means Mahometism prevailed in the World. But say they , The Jews as well as Mahometans are alienated from us , because they suppose the Trinity to be the Doctrine of all Christians . And what then ? Must we renounce the Christian Doctrine to please the Jews and Mahometans ? Must we quit Christ's being the Messias , because the Jews deny it ? Or the suffering of Christ , because the Mahometans think it inconsistent with his Honour ? But if this be the truth of the case , as to Jews and Mahometans ; no Persons are so well qualified to endeavour their Conversion , as our Unitarians ; which would be a much better imployment for them , than to expose the Christian Doctrine by such Writings among us . I am ashamed to mention what they say of the Tartars , when they call them , The Shield and Sword of that way of acknowledging and worshipping God. So that Mahometans , Jews and Tartars are fairly represented because they agree in the grand Fundamental of the Vnity of the Godhead ; but the Christian Church is charged with believing Impossibilities , Contradictions , and pure Nonsense . And thus we find our Unitarians serving the Deists in all their methods of overthrowing Revealed Religion and advancing Deism among us . And if this will not awaken us to look more after them , and unite us in the defence of our Common Cause against them , I do not think that other Methods will do it . For it is become a Restless and Active , although as yet , but a small Body of Men , and they tell the World plainly enough that they are free from the Biasses of Hopes and Fears ; and sit loose from the Awes and Bribes of the World. So that there is no way of dealing with them , but by shewing the falsness & weakness of the grounds they go upon ; and that they have no advantage of us as to Scripture , Antiquity or Reason : which is the Design of this Vndertaking . Worcester , Sept. 30. 1696. E. W. THE CONTENTS . CHAP. I. THE Occasion and Design of the Discourse . Pag. 1. CHAP. II. The Doctrine of the Trinity not receiv'd in the Christian Church by Force or Interest . p. 10. CHAP. III. The Socinian Plea , for the Antiquity of their Doctrine , Examined . p. 15. CHAP. IV. Of the Considerable Men they pretend to have been of their Opinion in the Primitive Church . p. 29. CHAP. V. Of their Charge of Contradiction in the Doctrine of the Trinity . p. 54. CHAP. VI. No Contradiction for Three Persons to be in One common Nature . p. 68. CHAP. VII . The Athanasian Creed clear'd from Contradictions . p. 101. CHAP. VIII . The Socinian Sense of Scripture Examined . p. 121. CHAP. IX . The General Sense of the Christian Church , proved from the Form of Baptism , as it was understood in the first Ages . p. 177. CHAP. X. The Objections against the Trinity , in point of Reason , Answer'd . p. 230. ERRATA . PAg. 113. l. 12. for our r. one . p. 122. l. 12. r. Heb. 1.5 . for unto which . p. 124. l. 7. add N. 11. p. 126. l. 29. for Damascenus r. Damascius . p. 129. l. 21. for appointed r. appropriated . p. 181. l. 22. after them put in not . p. 192. l. 19 for we r. were . p. 211. l. 1. dele that . p. 217. l. 6. for Hypostasis r. Hypothesis . p. 234. l. 6. for Intermission r. Intromission . p. 283. l. 21. r. as well as . 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 , 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 . Therefore they muster up the old Objections against them , and give no answer to them ; they find fault with Copies , and say , they are corrupted and falsified to speak the Language of the Church : they let fall suspicious words , as to the Form of Baptism , as though it were inserted from the Churches Practice ; they charge us with following corrupt Copies and making false Translations without any manner of ground for it . And doth not all this discover no good will to the Scriptures , at least , as they are received among us ? And I despair of meeting with better Copies , or seeing a more faithfull Translation than ours is . So that it is plain , that they have no mind to be tried by the Scriptures . For these exceptions are such , as a Malefactor would make to a Jury , he is afraid to be condemned by . But what then is the peculiar light which these happy men have found in a corner , the want whereof hath made the Christian Church to fall into such monstrous Errors and Contradictions ? Nothing ( they pretend ) but the mere light of common sense and reason ; which they call after a more refined way of speaking , clear Ideas and distinct Perceptions of things . But least I should be thought to misrepresent them ; I will produce some of their own Expressions . In one place they say , We deny the Articles of the new Christianity , or the Athanasian religion , not because they are Mysteries , or because we do not comprehend them ; we deny them , because we do comprehend them ; we have a clear and distinct Perception , that they are not Mysteries , but Contradictions , Impossibilities , and pure Nonsense . We have our reason in vain , and all science and certainty would be destroy'd ▪ if we could not distinguish between Mysteries and Contradictions . And soon after , we are not to give the venerable name of Mystery to Doctrines that are contrary to nature's and reason's Light , or which destroy or contradict our natural Ideas . These things I have particular reason to take notice of here , because they are published as an Answer to the foregoing Sermon about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith : and this shews the general grounds they go upon , and therefore more fit to be consider'd here . To which I shall add one passage more , wherein they insinuate , that the Doctrine of the Trinity hath been supported only by interest and force . Their words are ( after they have called the Doctrine of the Trinity , a monstrous Paradox and Contradiction ) This is that , say they , which because all other arguments failed them in their disputations with the Photinians and Arians , they at last effectually proved , by the Imperial Edicts , by Confiscations and Banishments , by Seizing and Burning all Books written against it or them , by capital Punishments , and when the Papacy ( of which this is the chief Article ) prevailed , by Fire and Faggot . This is a new discovery indeed , that the Doctrine of the Trinity , as it is generally receiv'd in the Christian Church , is the chief Article of Popery ; although it were embraced and defended long before Popery was known ; and I hope would be so , if there were no such thing as Popery left in the world . But if every thing which displeases some men must pass for Popery , I am afraid Christianity it self will not escape at last : for there are some who are building apace on such foundations as these ; and are endeavouring what they can , to remove out of their way all revealed Religion , by the help of those two powerfull Machines , viz. Priest-craft and Mysteries . But because I intend a clear and distinct Discourse concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity , as it hath been generally received among us ; I shall proceed in these four Enquiries . ( 1. ) Whether it was accounted a monstrous Paradox and Contradiction , where Persons were not sway'd by Force and Interest ? ( 2. ) Whether there be any ground of common reason , on which it can be justly charged with Nonsense , Impossibilities and Contradiction ? ( 3. ) Whether their Doctrine about the Trinity or ours , be more agreeable to the sense of Scripture and Antiquity ? ( 4. ) Whether our Doctrine being admitted , it doth overthrow all certainty of reason , and makes way for believing the greatest Absurdities under the pretence of being Mysteries of Faith ? CHAP. II. The Doctrine of the Trinity not received in the Christian Church by Force or Interest . AS to the first , it will lead me into an enquiry into the sense of the Christian Church , as to this Doctrine , long before Popery was hatched , and at a time when the main force of Imperial Edicts was against Christianity it self ; at which time this Doctrine was owned by the Christian Church , but disowned and disputed against by some particular Parties and Sects . And the question then will be , whether these had engrossed Sense , and Reason , and Knowledge among themselves ; and all the body of the Christian Church , with their heads and governors , were bereft of common Sense , and given up to believe Nonsense and Contradictions for Mysteries of Faith. But in order to the clearing this matter , I take it for granted , That Sense and Reason are no late inventions , only to be found among our Vnitarians ; but that all Mankind have such a competent share of them , as to be able to judge , what is agreeable to them , and what not , if they apply themselves to it ; That no men have so little sense as to be fond of Nonsense , when sense will do them equal service ; That if there be no Biass of Interest to sway them , men will generally judge according to the evidence of reason ; That if they be very much concerned for a Doctrine opposed by others , and against their interest , they are perswaded of the truth of it , by other means than by force and fear ; That it is possible for men of sense and reason to believe a Doctrine to be true on the account of divine Revelation , although they cannot comprehend the manner of it ; That we have reason to believe those to be men of sense above others , who have shew'd their abilities above them in other matters of Knowledge and Speculation ; That there can be no reason to suspect the integrity of such men in delivering their own Sense , who at the same time might far better secure their interest by renouncing their Faith ; lastly , That the more Persons are concerned to establish and defend a Doctrine which is opposed and contemned , the greater evidence they give , that they are perswaded of the truth of it . These are Postulata so agreeable to sense and common reason , that I think if an affront to human Nature 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 , 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 ; 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 ; 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 . And so do other ancient Writers . From the laying several passages together , Erasmus suspects , 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 ; 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 , 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 , first a Samaritan , and then a Iew , and Eusebius saith indeed , That he was an Ebionite , and therefore for observing the Law of Moses . S. Augustin saith , that in his time the Symmachiani were both for Circumcision and Baptism . 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 . 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 ; 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 ; for they sleight Epiphanius for his malicious Tales , and S. Ierom for his Legends ; but they commend Eusebius for his Exactness and Diligence . 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 ▪ wrote a Book of the Incarnation against the followers of Paulus Samosatenus , who held , as he saith , Two Persons in Christ , viz. One born of the Virgin , and a divine Person , which descended upon him and dwelt in him . Against which opinion he disputes from two places of Scripture ; viz. God was manifest in the Flesh ; and the Word was made Flesh : and from the ancient Doctrine of the Christian Church , and the Synod of Antioch against Paulus Samosatenus . And in another place he saith , that he held , That the divine Word dwelt in Christ. And the words of Epiphanius are express to the same purpose ; That the Logos came and dwelt in the Man Iesus . And the Clergy of Constantinople charged Nestorius with following the Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus . And Photius in his Epistles saith , That Nestorius tasted too much of the intoxicated Cups of Paulus Samosatenus ; and in the foregoing Epistle , he saith , That Paulus his followers asserted two Hypostases in Christ. But some think , that Paulus Samosatenus did not hold any subsistence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before , but that the Word was in God before without any subsistence of its own , and that God gave it a distinct subsistence when it inhabited in the Person of Christ ; and so Marius Mercator and Leontius understand him ; who say that he differ'd from Nestorius therein ; who asserted a Divine Word with its proper subsistence . But according to them Paulus by the Word 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 , and his Descent from Heaven , as appears by their Synodical Epistle . It is pity we have it not entire ; but by the Fragments of it , which are preserved by some ancient Writers , we find that his Doctrine of the Divinity in him by Inhabitation was then condemned , and the substantial Union of both Natures asserted . I have only one thing more to observe concerning him , which is , that the Arian Party in their Decree at Sardica , ( or rather Philippopolis ) do confess that Paulus Samosatenus his Doctrine was condemned by the whole Christian World. For they say , That which passed in the Eastern Synod , was signed and approved by all . And Alexander Bishop of Alexandria , in his Epistle to Alexander of Constantinople affirms the same . And now I hope , I may desire our Men of Sense to reflect upon these Matters . Here was no Fire nor Faggot threatned , no Imperial Edicts to inforce this Doctrine , nay the Queen of those parts , under whose Jurisdiction they lived at that time , openly espoused the cause of Paulus Samosatenus , so that here could be nothing of interest to sway them to act in opposition to her . And they found his interest so strong , that he retained the Possession of his See , till Aurelian had conquer'd Zenobia , and by his authority he was ejected . This Synod which deposed him , did not sit in the time of Aurelian , as is commonly thought , but before his time , while Zenobia had all the power in her hands in those Eastern parts , which she enjoy'd five years ; till she was dispossess'd by Aurelian , from whence Ant. Pagi concludes , that Paulus kept his See three years after the Sentence against him ; but upon application to Aurelian ; he who afterwards began a Persecution against all Christians , gave this rule , That he with whom the Italian Bishops , and those of Rome communicated , should enjoy the See , upon which Paulus was at last turned out . By this we see a concurrence of all the Christian Bishops of that time against him , that denied the Divinity of our Saviour ; and this without any force , and against their interest , and with a general consent of the Christian World. For there were no mighty Awes and Draconic Sanctions to compell , of which they sometimes speak , as if they were the only powerfull methods to make this Doctrine go down . And what greater argument can there be , that it was then the general sense of the Christian Church ? And it would be very hard to condemn all his Opposers for men that wanted Sense and Reason , because they so unanimously opposed him . Not so unanimously neither , say our Vnitarians , because Lucian , a Presbyter of the Church of Antioch , and a very learned man , joyned with him . It would have been strange indeed , if so great a Man as Paulus Samosatenus , could prevail with none of his own Church to joyn with him , especially one that came from the same place of Samosata , as Lucian did ; and probably was by him brought thither . He hath an extraordinary character given him by Eusebius , both for his Life and Learning ; and so by S. Ierom , without the least reflection upon him as to matter of Faith. But on the other side , Alexander Bishop of Alexandria in his Epistle concerning Arius to Alexander of Constantinople , doth say , That he follow'd Paulus Samosatenus , and held separate Communion for many years , under the three following Bishops . He doth not say that he died so , when he suffer'd Martyrdom under Maximinus at Nicomedia ; neither doth he say the contrary . Upon which learned Men are divided , whether he persisted in that opinion or not . Petavius and Valesius give him up ; on the other side Baronius vindicates him , and saith , The mis-report of him came from his zeal against Sabellianism ; and that Alexander wrote that of him before his Books were throughly examin'd ; that Athanasius never joyns him with Paulus Samosatenus ; that the Arians never produced his authority in their debates , as they would have done , since the Emperor's Mother had built a City in the place where he suffer'd Martyrdom . It cannot be doubted that the Arian Party would have it believed that they came out of Lucian's School , as appears by Arius his Epistle to Eusebius of Nicomedia ; but on the other side , the great argument to me is , That this very party at the Council of Antioch , produced a Creed , which they said , was there found written with Lucian's own hand , which is directly contrary to the Samosatenian Doctrine . Now , either this was true or false : if it were true , then it was false that he was a Samosatenian ; if it were false , how came the Arian Party to give it out for true ? Especially those who valued themselves for coming out of his School . They were far enough from being such weak men to produce the authority of Lucian at Antioch , where he was so much esteemed , for a Doctrine utterly inconsistent with that of Paulus Samosatenus , if it were there known , that he was his Disciple , and separated from three Bishops on that account . For therein the Son is owned to be God of God , begotten of the Father before all Ages , perfect God of perfect God , &c. Suppose they had a mind to subvert the Nicene Faith by this Creed under the name of Lucian , ( only because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was left out ) yet what an improbable way did they take , when they supported the main points by his authority , and that at Antioch , where it was greatest ? If Philostorgius may be credited , the great men of the Arian Party had been his Scholars , as besides Eusebius of Nicomedia , Maris of Chalcedon , Theognis of Nice , Leontius of Antioch , and several other leading Bishops , and even Arius himself pretended to it . Which makes me apt to think , that Alexander knowing this , and at first not being able so well to judge of Lucian's opinion , charged him with following Paulus Samosatenus , from whence the odium would fall upon his Scholars . For his design is to draw the succession down from Ebion , and Artemon , and Paulus Samosatenus , and Lucian to Arius and his Associates ; and charges them with holding the same Doctrine , wherein he was certainly mistaken ; and so he might be about Lucian's separation from the following Bishops on that account . The last our Vnitarians mention among their great men , is Photinus Bishop of Sirmium . They take it for granted that he was of their opinion . This is certain , that whatever it was , it was generally condemned , as well by the Arians as others ; and after several Councils called , he was deposed for his Heresie . The first time we find him condemned , was by the Arian Party in a second Council at Antioch , as appears by the profession of Faith drawn up by them , extant in Athanasius and Socrates . There they anathematize expressly the Disciples of Marcellus and Photinus , for denying the Pre-existence and Deity of Christ. But by Christ , they understood , The Person born of the Virgin , who was the Son of God ; but they did not deny the Pre-existence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and never dream'd that any could think that Christ was to be called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , from his Office of Preaching , as our modern Vnitarians assert . But Photinus his opinion was , That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was before all Ages , but not Christ , or the Son of God , which divine word was partly internal , and so it was ever with God , and partly external , when it was communicated to the Person of Christ , whereby he became the Son of God. But the Arians there declare their Belief , That Christ was the living Word , and Son of God before all Worlds , and by whom he made all things . The next time he is said to be condemned , was in that which is called the Council at Sardica , but was the Council of the Eastern Bishops after their parting from the Western . This is mention'd by Epiphanius and Sulpitius Severus , the latter saith he differ'd from Sabellius only in the point of Vnion , i. e. because Sabellius made the Persons to be merely Denominations which was then called the Heresie of the Vnionitae ; and therefore Photinus must assert an Hypostasis to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or else he did not at all differ from Sabellius . And it appears by Epiphanius , that Photinus did distinguish between Christ and the Word . In the Beginning was the Word , said he , but not the Son , which title was promised and foretold , but did not belong to Christ till he was born of the Holy Ghost and Mary , so he expresses it . Herein , saith Epiphanius , he follow'd Paulus Samosatenus , but exceeded him in his Inventions . In answer to him , he saith , that S. Iohn's words are not , In the Beginning was the Word , and the Word was in God , but the Word was with God , and the Word was God. Little did either side imagine that this was to be understood of the beginning of the Gospel , as our modern Photinians would make us believe they think ; but Photinus himself was a Person of too much Sagacity to take up with such an absurd and insipid sence . I pass over the fresh condemnations of Photinus in the Councils at Milan and Rome , because his opinion is not to be learnt from them ; and come to that at Sirmium , where it is more particularly set ●orth , as well as condemned . But here we must distinguish the two Councils at Sirmium ; in the former , he was condemned , but the people would not part with him ; but in the second , he was not only condemned , but effectually deposed , the Emperor Constantius a professed Arian , forcing him to withdraw : But it was upon his own Appeal to the Emperor against the Judgment of the Council , who appointed Judges Delegates to hear this cause : and Basilius Ancyranus was the manager of the debate with him , wherein he is said to have been so much too hard for Photinus , that the Emperor himself order'd his Banishment . And I can find 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 , 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 , 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 , and declared against Arianism , and joyned with S. Ambrose , who condemns Photinus for making Christ the Son of David , 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 ; 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 , in which he was very well versed . In an Epistle written by him on purpose , 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 . 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 , 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 ; 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 . 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 ? 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 , 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 . 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 ; we are to embrace with it , all that it can reach to ; and where we can go no farther , we must believe without doubting : which is a wise resolution of this matter . For there are some things revealed , which we can entertain the notion of in our minds , as we do of any other matters , and yet there may be some things belonging to them which we cannot distinctly conceive . We believe God to have been from all Eternity ; and that because God hath revealed it ; but here is something we can conceive , viz. that he was so ; and here is something we cannot conceive , viz. How he was so . This Instance I had produced in my Sermon , to shew that we might be obliged to believe such things concerning God , of which we cannot have a clear and distinct Notion ; as that God was from all Eternity , although we cannot conceive in our minds , how he could be from himself . Now , what saith the Vnitarian to this , who pretended to Answer me ? He saith , If God must be from himself , then an Eternal God is a Contradiction ; for that implies , that he was before he was ; and so charges me with espousing the cause of Atheists . I wish our Vnitarians were as free from this Charge as I am . But this is malicious cavilling . For my design was only to shew , that we could have no distinct conception of something which we are bound to believe . For upon all accounts we are bound to believe an Eternal God , and yet we cannot form a distinct and clear Idea of the manner of it . Whether being from himself be taken positively , or negatively , the matter is not cleared ; the one is Absurd , and the other Unconceivable by us . But still I say , it is a thing that we are bound to believe stedfastly , although it is above our comprehension . But instead of Answering to this , he runs out into an Examination of one notion of Eternity : and as he thinks , shews some Absurdities in that , which are already answer'd . But that was not my meaning , but to shew that we could have no clear and distinct Notion of Eternity ; And if his Arguments were good they prove what I aimed at , at least as to that Part ; and himself produces my own Words to shew , that there were such Difficulties every way , which we could not master ; and yet are bound to believe , that necessary Existence is an inseparable Attribute of God. So that here we have a clear instance of what S. Augustin saith , That we may believe something upon full Conviction , as that God is eternal ; and yet there may remain something which we cannot reach to by our understanding , viz. the manner how Eternity is to be conceived by us : which goes a great way towards clearing the Point of the Trinity , notwithstanding the Difficulty in our conceiving the manner how Three should be one , and One three . But S. Augustin doth not give it over so ; Let us keep stedfast , saith he , to the Foundation of our Faith , that we may arrive to the top of Perfection ; the Father is God , the Son is God , the Holy Ghost is God ; the Father is not the Son , nor the Son the Father , nor the Holy Ghost either Father or Son. And he goes on . The Trinity is one God , one Eternity , one Power , one Majesty , Three Persons one God. So it is in Erasmus his Edition ; but the late Editors say , that the word Personae was not in their Manuscript . And it is not material in this Place , since elsewhere he approves the use of the word Persons , as the fittest to express our meaning in this Case . For since some Word must be agreed upon , to declare our Sense by , he saith , those who understood the Propriety of the Latin tongue , could not pitch upon any more proper than that , to signifie that they did not mean three distinct Essences , but the same Essence with a different Hypostasis , founded in the Relation of one to the other ; as Father and Son have the same Divine Essence , but the Relations being so different that one cannot be confounded with the other , that which results from the Relation being joyned with the Essence , was it which was called a Person . But saith S. Augustin , The Caviller will ask , if there be Three , what Three are they ? He answers , Father , Son and Holy Ghost . But then he distinguishes between what they are in themselves , and what they are to each other . The Father as to himself is God , but as to the Son he is Father : the Son as to himself is God , but as to the Father he is the Son. But how is it possible to understand this ? Why , saith he , Take two men , Father and Son ; the one as to himself is a Man , but as to the Son a Father ; the Son , as to himself is a Man , but as to the Father , he is a Son : but these two have the same common Nature . But saith he , Will it not hence follow , that as these are two Men , so the Father and Son in the Divine Essence must be two Gods ? No , there lies the difference between the humane and Divine Nature . That one cannot be multiplied and divided as the other is . And therein lies the true Solution of the Difficulty , as will appear afterwards . When you begin to count , saith he , you go on , One , two and Three . But when you have reckon'd them what is it you have been Counting ? The Father is the Father , the Son the Son , and the Holy Ghost , the Holy Ghost . What are these Three ? Are they not three Gods ? No , Are they not three Almighties ? No , They are capable of Number as to their Relation to each other ; but not as to their Essence which is but One. The substance of the Answer lies here , the Divine Essence is that alone which makes God , that can be but One , and therefore there can be no more Gods than one . But because the same Scripture , which assures us of the Unity of the Divine Essence , doth likewise joyn the Son and Holy Ghost in the same Attributes , Operations and Worship , therefore as to the mutual Relations , we may reckon Three , but as to the Divine Essence , that can be no more than One. Boëthius was a great Man in all respects , for his Quality , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 . Let us for the present suppose it , 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 , 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 : 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 . Curcellaeus answers , That Athanasius by this indivisible Vnity meant only a close and indissoluble Vnion . 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 , 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; it is now very well known that they belong not to him , but to Maximus ; and by comparing them with other places in him , it may appear , that he intended no Specifick Nature in God. But saith Curcellaeus , If the Fathers intended any more than a Specifick Nature , why did they not use Words which would express it more fully , As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ? For that very Reason , which he mentions from Epiphanius , because they would seem to approach too near to Sabellianism . S. Basil was a great Man , ( notwithstanding the flout of our Vnitarians , ) and apply'd his thoughts to this matter , to clear the Doctrine of the Church from the Charge of Sabellianism and Tritheism . As to the former , he saith , in many places , That the Heresie lay in making but one Person as well as one God , or one Substance with three several Names . As to the latter , no man asserts the individual Unity of the Divine Essence in more significant Words than he doth . For he uses the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , . as S. Cyril of Alexandria doth likewise , and yet both these are produced by Curcellaeus for a Specifick Nature . But saith Curcellaeus , S. Basil in his Epistle to Gregory Nyssen doth assert the difrence between Substance and Hypostasis to consist in this , That the one is taken for common Nature , and the other for individual , and so making three Hypostases , he must make three Individuals , and One common or Specifick Nature . I answer , That it is plain by the design of that Epistle , that by three Hypostases he could not mean three individual Essences . For he saith , The design of his writing it , was to clear the difference between Substance and Hypostasis . For saith he , From the want of this , some assert but one Hypostasis , as well as one Essence ; and others , because there are three Hypostases , suppose there are three distinct Essences . For both went upon the same Ground , that Hypostasis and Essence were the same . Therefore saith he , those who held three Hypostases , did make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Division of Substances . From whence it follows , that S. Basil did look upon the Notion of three distinct Substances as a mistake : I say distinct Substances , as Individuals are distinct ; for so the first Principles of Philosophy do own that Individuals make a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Division of the Species into several and distinct Individuals . But doth not S. Basil go about to explain his Notion by the common Nature of man , and the several Individuals under it ; and what can this signifie to his purpose , unless he allows the same in the Godhead ? I grant he doth so , but he saith the Substance , is that which is common to the whole kind ; the Hypostasis is that which properly distinguisheth one Individual from another ; which he calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the peculiar incommunicable Property . Which he describes by a Concourse of distinguishing Characters in every Individual . But how doth he apply these things to the divine Nature ? For therein lies the whole difficulty . Doth he own such a Community of Nature , and Distinction of Individuals there ? He first confesses the divine Nature to be incomprehensible by us ; but yet we may have some distinct Notions about these things . As for instance , In the Father we conceive something common to him and to the Son ; and that is the divine Essence : and the same as to the Holy Ghost . But there must be some proper characters to distinguish these , one from another ; or else there will be nothing but confusion : which is Sabellianism . Now the essential Attributes and divine Operations are common to them ; and therefore these cannot distinguish them from each other . And those are the peculiar Properties of each Person , as he shews at large . But may not each Person have a distinct Essence belonging to him , as we see it is among Men ? For this S. Basil answers : ( 1. ) He utterly denies any possible Division in the divine Nature . And he never question'd , but the distinction of Individuals under the same Species was a sort of Division , although there were no Separation . And the followers of Ioh. Philoponus did hold an indissoluble Vnion between the three individual Essences in the divine Nature ; but they held a distinction of peculiar Essences , besides the common Nature , which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; as appears by Photius , who was very able to judge . And it appears by one of themselves in Photius , that the controversie was , whether an Hyposiasis could be without an individual Essence belonging to it self ; or whether the peculiar Properties and Characters did make the Hypostasis . But as to S. Basil's Notion , we are to observe ; ( 2. ) That he makes the divine Essence to be uncapable of number , by reason of its perfect Unity . Here our Vnitarians tell us , that when S. Basil saith , That God is not one in number , but in nature , he means : as the Nature of Man is one , but there are many particular Men , as Peter , James and John , &c. so the Nature of God , or the common Divinity is one , but there are as truely more Gods in number , or more particular Gods , as there are more particular Men. but that this is a gross mistake or abuse of S. Basil's meaning , I shall make it plain from 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 ? 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 ; 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 , and Caesarius joyns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; 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 , he saith , he looks on the Doctrine of the Trinity as a profound Mystery ( which three individual Persons in one specifick Nature is far from . ) But wherein lies it ? Chiefly in this , That there should be Number and no Number ; different View and yet but One ; a distinction of Hypostases , and yet no Division in the Subjects . For so his words are , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; which is contrary to what he said of human Hypostases . Now , what is the Subject in this case ? According to Curcellaeus his Notion , it must be an Individual . But since he asserts there can be no Division in the Subjects , then he must overthrow any such Individuals , as are among Men. These are the chief Testimonies out of the Greek Fathers , whose authority Curcellaeus and others rely most upon , as to this matter , which I have therefore more particularly examin'd . But S. Ierom , saith Curcellaeus , in his Epistle to Damasus , thought three Hypostases implied three distinct Substances ; and therefore when the Campenses would have him own them , he refused it and asked his Advice . Then it is plain , S. Ierom would not own three distinct Substances , and so could not be of Curcellaeus his mind . But saith he , S. Ierom meant by three Substances , three Gods different in kind , as the Arians did . But how doth that appear ? Doth he not say , the Arian Bishop , and the Campenses put him upon it ? But who was this Arian Bishop , and these Campenses ? No other than the Meletian Party ; for Meletius was brought in by the Arians , but he joyned against them with S. Basil and others , who asserted three Hypostases ; and the Campenses were his People who met without the Gates , as the Historians tell us . But it is evident by S. Ierom , that the Latin Church understood Hypostasis to be the same then with Substance ; and the reason why they would not allow three Hypostases , was , because they would not assert three Substances . So that Curcellaeus his Hypothesis hath very little colour for it among the Latin Fathers ; since S. Ierom there saith , it would be Sacrilege to hold three Substances , and he freely bestows an Anathema upon any one that asserted more than one . But Hilary , saith Curcellaeus , owns a specifick Vnity , for in his Book de Synodis , he shews , That by one Substance , they did not mean one individual Substance , but such as was in Adam and Seth , that is of the same kind . No man asserts the Vnity and Indiscrimination of the divine Substance more fully and frequently than he doth ; and that without any Difference or Variation , as to the Father and the Son. And although against the Arians he may use that for an Illustration , of Adam and Seth ; yet when he comes to explain himself , he declares it must be understood in a way agreeable to the divine Nature . And he denies any Division of the Substance between Father and Son , but he asserts one and the same Substance to be in both ; and although the Person of the Son remains distinct from the Person of the Father , yet he subsists in that Substance of which he was begotten , and nothing is taken off from the substance of the Father , by his being begotten of it . But doth he not say , That he hath a Legitimate and proper Substance of his own begotten Nature from God , the Father ? And what is this , but to own two distinct Substances ? How can the Substance be distinct , if it be the very same ; and the Son subsist in that Substance of which he was begotten ? And that Hilary ( besides a multitude of passages to the same purpose in him ) cannot be understood of two distinct Substances will appear by this Evidence . The Arians in their Confession of Faith before the Council of Nice set down among the several Heresies which they condemned ; that of Hieracas , who said the Father and Son were like two Lamps shining out of one common Vessel of Oil. Hilary was sensible that under this that Expression was struck at , God of God , Light of Light , which the Church owned . His Answer is , Luminis Naturae Vnitas est , non ex connexione porrectio . i e. they are not two divided Lights , from one common Stock ; but the same Light remaining after it was kindled that it was before . As appears by his Words , Light of Light , saith he , implies , That it gives to another that which it continues to have it self . And Petavius saith , that the Opinion of Hieracas was , That the substance of the Father and Son differ'd Numerically as one Lamp from another . And Hilary calls it an Error of humane Understanding which would judge of God , by what they find in one another . Doth not S. Ambrose say , as Curcellaeus quotes him , That the Father and Son are not two Gods , because all men are said to be of one Substance ? But S Ambrose is directly against him . For , he saith , The Arians objected , that if they made the Son true God , and Con-substantial with the Father , they must make two Gods ; as there are two men , or two Sheep of the same Essence ; but a Man and a Sheep are not said to be Men , or two sheep . Which they said to excuse themselves , because they made the Son of a different kind and substance from the Father . And what Answer doth S. Ambrose give to this ? 1. He saith , Plurality according to the Scriptures rather falls on those of different kinds ; and therefore when they make them of several kinds , they must make several Gods. 2. That we who hold but One Substance , cannot make more Gods than One. 3. To his instance of Men , he answers , That although they are of the same Nature by Birth , yet the● differ in Age , and Thought , and Work , and Place from one another ; and where there is such Diversity , there cannot be Vnity : but in God , there is no difference of Nature , Will , or Operation ; and therefore there can be but one God. The last I shall mention is S. Augustin , whom Curcellaeus produces to as little purpose ; for although he doth mention the same instance of several Men being of the same kind ; yet he speaks so expresly against a Specifick Vnity in God ; that he saith , The Consequence must be , that the three Persons must be three Gods ; as three humane Persons are three Men. And in another place , That the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , are One in the same individual Nature . And what saith Curcellaeus to these places , for he was aware of them . To the latter he saith , That by individual , he means Specifick . This is an extraordinary Answer indeed . But what Reason doth he give for it ? Because they are not divided in Place or Time , but they may have their proper Essences however . But where doth S. Augustin give any such Account of it ? He often speaks upon this Subject ; but always gives another Reason . viz. because they are but One and the same Substance . The Three Persons are but One God , because they are of One Substance ; and they have a perfect Vnity , because there is no Diversity of Nature , or of Will. But it may be said , That here he speaks of a Diversity of Nature . In the next Words he explains himself , that the three Persons are One God , propter ineffabilem conjunctionem Deitatis ; but the Union of three Persons in one Specifick Nature , is no ineffable Conjunction , it being one of the commonest things in the World ; and in the same Chapter , propter Individuam Deitatem unus Deus est ; & propter uniuscujusque Proprietatem tres Personae sunt . Here we find one Individual Nature ; and no difference but in the peculiar Properties of the Persons . In the other place he is so express against a Specifick Vnity , that Curcellaeus his best Answer is , That in that Chapter he is too intricate and obscure . i. e. He doth not to speak his Mind . Thus much I thought fit to say in Answer to those undeniable Proofs of Curcellaeus , which our Vnitarians boast so much of , and whether they be so or not , let the Reader examine and judge . CHAP. VII . The Athanasian Creed clear'd from Contradictions . III. I Now come to the last thing I proposed , viz. to shew , That it is no contradiction to assert three Persons in the Trinity and but one God ; and for that purpose , I shall examine the charge of Contradictions on the Athanasian Creed . The summ of the first Articles , say they , is this , The one true God is three distinct Persons , and three distinct Persons , Father , Son and Holy Ghost are the one true God. Which is plainly , as if a Man should say , Peter , James and John , being three Persons are one Man ; and one Man is these three distinct Persons , Peter , James and John. Is it not now a ridiculous attempt as well as a barbarous Indignity , to go about thus to make Asses of all Mankind , under pretence of teaching them a Creed . This is very freely spoken , with respect , not merely to our Church , but the Christian World , which owns this Creed to be a just and true Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity . But there are some Creatures as remarkable for their untoward kicking , as for their Stupidity . And is not this great skill in these Matters , to make such a Parallel between three Persons in the Godhead , and Peter , Iames and Iohn ? Do they think there is no difference between an infinitely perfect Being , and such finite limited Creatures as Individuals among Men are ? Do they suppose the divine Nature capable of such Division and Separation by Individuals , as human Nature is ? No , they may say , but ye who hold three Persons must think so : For what reason ? We do assert three Persons , but it is on the account of divine Revelation , and in such a manner , as the divine Nature is capable of it . For it is a good rule of Boethius , Talia sunt praedicata , qualia subjecta permiserint . We must not say that there are Persons in the Trinity , but in such a manner as is agreeable to the divine Nature ; and if that be not capable of Division and Separation , then the Persons must be in the same undivided Essence . The next Article is , Neither confounding the Persons , nor dividing the Substance ; But how can we , say they , not confound the Persons that have , as ye say , but one numerical Substance ? And how can we but divide the Substance , which we find in three distinct divided Persons ? I think the terms numerical Substance , not very proper in this case ; and I had rather use the Language of the Fathers , than of the Schools ; and some of the most judicious and learned Fathers would not allow the terms of one numerical Substance to be applied to the divine Essence . For their Notion was , That Number was only proper for compound 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 , 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 , nor Arithmetical Contradiction . And what say our Vnitarians to this ? Truly , no less , Than that the Remedy is worse , ( if possible ) than the Disease . Nay then , we are in a very ill Case . But how I pray doth this appear ? 1. Say they , Three personal Gods , and one Essential God make four Gods ; if the Essential God be not the same with the personal Gods : and tho' he is the same , yet since they are not the same with one another , but distinct , it follows , that there are three Gods , i. e. three personal Gods. 2. It introduces two sorts of Gods , three Personal and one Essential . But the Christian Religion knows and owns but One , true and most high God of any sort . So far then , we are agreed , That there is but One , true and most high God ; and that because of the perfect Vnity of the Divine Essence , which can be no more than One , and where there is but One Divine Essence , there can be but One true God , unless we can suppose a God without an Essence , and that would be a strange sort of God. He would be a personal God indeed in their critical Sense of a Person for a shape or appearance . But may not the fame Essence be divided ? That I have already shew'd to be impossible . Therefore we cannot make so many personal Gods , because we assert one and the same Essence in the three Persons of Father , Son and Holy Ghost . But they are distinct , and therefore must be distinct Gods , since every one is distinct from the other . They are distinct as to personal Properties , but not as to Essential Attributes ; which are and must be the same in all : So that here is but one Essential God , and three Persons . But after all , why do we assert three Persons in the Godhead ? Not because we find them in the Athanasian Creed ; but because the Scripture hath revealed that there are Three , Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; to whom the Divine Nature and Attributes are given . This we verily believe , that the Scripture hath revealed ; and that there are a great many places , of which , we think no tolerable Sense can be given without it , and therefore we assert this Doctrine on the same Grounds , on which we believe the Scriptures . And if there are three Persons which have the Divine Nature attributed to them ; what must we do in this Case ? Must we cast off the Vnity of the Divine Essence ? No , that is too frequently and plainly asserted for us to call it into Question . Must we reject those Scriptures which attribute Divinity to the Son and Holy Ghost , as well as to the Father ? That we cannot do , unless we cast off those Books of Scripture , wherein those things are contained . But why do we call them Persons , when that Term is not found in Scripture , and is of a doubtful Sense ? The true Account whereof I take to be this . It is observed by Facundus Hermianensis , that the Christian Church received the Doctrine of the Trinity before the Terms of three Persons were used . But Sabellianism was the occasion of making use of the name of Persons . It 's true , That the Sabellians did not dislike our Sense of the Word Person , ( which they knew was not the Churches Sense ) as it was taken for an Appearance , or an external Quality ; which was consistent enough with their Hypothesis , who allow'd but One real Person with different Manifestations . That this was their true Opinion , appears from the best account we have of their Doctrine , from the first Rise of Sabellianism . The Foundations of it were laid in the earliest and most dangerous Heresies in the Christian Church , viz. that which is commonly called by the name of the Gnosticks , and that of the Cerinthians and Ebionites . For how much soever they differ'd from each other in other things ; yet they both agreed in this , that there was no such thing as a Trinity , consisting of Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; but that all was but different Appearances and Manifestations of God to 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 : 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 . But he happening to let fall some Expressions , as though he asserted an Inequality of Hypostases in the Godhead , Complaint was made of it to Dionysius then Bishop of Rome ; who thereupon explained that , which he took to be the true Sense of the Christian Church in this matter . Which is still preserved in Athanasius : Therein he disowns the Sabellian Doctrine , which confounded the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , and made them to be the same ; and withal , he rejected those who held three distinct and separate Hypostases ; as the Platonists , and after them the Marcionists did . Dionysius of Alexandria , when he came to explain himself , agreed with the others and asserted the Son to be of the same Substance with the Father ; as Athanasius hath proved at large : but yet he said , That if a distinction of Hypostases were not kept up , the Doctrine of the Trinity would be lost ; as appears by an Epistle of his in S. Basil. Athanasius saith , That the Heresie of Sabellius lay in making the Father and Son to be only different Names of the same Person ; so that in one Respect he is the Father , and in another the Son. Gregory Nazianzen in opposition to Sabellianism , saith , We must believe one God , and three Hypostases ; and commends Athanasius for preserving the true Mean , in asserting the Vnity of Nature , and the Distinction of Properties . S. Basil saith , That the Sabellians made but one Person of the Father and Son : that in Name they confessed the Son ; but in Reality they denied him . In another place , that the Sabellians asserted but one Hypostasis in the Divine Nature ; but that God took several Persons upon him , as occasion required : sometimes that of a Father , at other times of a Son ; and so of the Holy Ghost . And to the same purpose , in other places he saith , That there are distinct Hypostases with their peculiar Properties ; which being joyned with the Vnity of Nature make up the true Confession of Faith. There were some who would have but One Hypostasis ; whom he opposes with great vehemency ; and the Reason he gives , is , That then they must make the Persons to be meer Names ; which is , Sabellianisn . And , he saith , That if our Notions of distinct Persons have no certain Foundation they are meer Names , such as 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 ? 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 ? These words , say they , in their original and primary Sense are spoken of David , but in their mystical Sense are a Prophecy concerning Christ. Was this mystical Sense primarily intended or not ? If not , they are only an accommodation and no proof . But they say , even in that mystical Sense , they were intended not of the Lord Christ's supposed eternal Generation from the Essence of the Father , but of his Resurrection from the dead . But if that be not taken as an Evidence of his being the eternal Son of God , how doth this prove him above Angels ? Heb. 1.6 . And again , when he bringeth his first begotten into the World , he saith , And let all the Angels of God Worship him . This , one would think home to the business . But our wise Interpreters tell us plainly , that the words were used by the Psalmist on another occasion , i. e. they are nothing to the purpose . But being told of this , instead of mending the matter , they have made it far worse ; for upon second thoughts , ( but not wiser ) they say , The words are not taken out of the Psalm , but out of Deut. 32.43 . where the words are not spoken of God , but of God's People ; and if this be said of God's People , they hope it may be said of Christ too , without concluding from thence , that Christ is the supreme God. But we must conclude from hence , that these are far from being wise Interpreters ; for what consequence is this , the Angels worship God's People , therefore Christ is superiour to Angels ? Heb. 1.8 . Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever , i. e. say they , God is thy Throne for ever . And so they relate not to Christ but to God. And to what purpose then are they brought ? Heb. 1.10 . Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the Earth , and the Heavens are the work of thy Hands . These words , say they , are to be understood not of Christ , but of God. Which is to charge the Apostle with arguing out of the old Testament very impertinently . Is this interpreting the Scriptures like wise Men ? Is it not rather exposing and ridiculing them ? Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men , to give such a forced Sense of the beginning of S. John's Gospel , as was never thought of from the writing of it , till some in the last Age thought it necessary to avoid the proof of Christ's Divinity from it . For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was never taken , in the Sense they put upon it , for him that was to preach the Word , in S. Iohn's time ; but the signification of it was then well understood from the Alexandrian School ( as appears by Philo ) whence it was brought by Cerinthus into those parts of Asia , where S. Iohn lived when he wrote his Gospel : and one of themselves confesses , that Cerinthus did by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mean something divine , which rested upon , and inhabited the Person of Iesus , and was that power by which God created original Matter and made the World , but as the Christ or the Word descended on Iesus at his Baptism , so it left him at his Crucifixion . That which I observe from hence is , that there was a known and current Sense of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the time of S. Iohn's writing his Gospel , very different from that of a Preacher of the Word of God ; and therefore I cannot but think it the wisest way of interpreting S. John , to understand him in a Sense then commonly known ; and so he affirms the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have been in the beginning , i. e. before the Creation ( for he saith afterwards , All things were made by him ) and that he was with God , and was God ; and this Word did not inhabit Iesus , as Cerinthus held , but was made Flesh and dwelt among us . And so S. Iohn clearly asserted the Divinity and Incarnation of the Son of God. And in all the Disputes afterwards with Paulus Samosatenus , and Photinus , it appears , that they understood the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not for any meer Man , but for some Divine Power , which rested upon the Person of Iesus . So that this was a very late , and I think no very Wise Interpretation of S. Iohn . And even Sandius Confesses , That Socinus his Sense was wholly new and unheard of in the ancient Church ; not only among the Fathers , but the Hereticks , as I have before observed . For they agreed ( except their good Friends the Alogi who went the surest way to work ) that by the Word no meer Man was understood . Let them produce one if they can , saith Sandius ( even the learned and judicious Sandius . ) Did they all interpret the Scriptures like Fools , and not like Wise Men ? But if the Christian Interpreters were such Fools ; what think they of the Deists , whom they seem to have a better opinion of , as to their Wisdom ? What , if Men without Biass of Interest , or Education think ours the more proper and agreeable Sense ? The late Archbishop to this purpose had mentioned Amelius the Platonist , as an indifferent Iudge . But what say our Wise Interpreters to this ? Truly they say , That the Credit of the Trinitarian Cause runs very low , when an uncertain Tale of an obscure Platonist of no Reputation for Learning or Wit , is made to be a good part of the Proof , which is alledged for these Doctrines . If a Man happen to stand in their way , he must be content with such a Character , as they will be pleased to give him . If he had despised S. Iohn's Gospel , and manner of expression , he had been as Wise as the Alogi ; but notwithstanding the extraordinary Character given of Friend Amelius ( as they call him ) by Eusebius , by Porphyrius , by Proclus , and by Damascenus , this very Saying of his sinks his Reputation for ever with them . What would Iulian have given for such a Wise Interpretation of S. Iohn ? when he cannot deny , but that he did set up the Divinity of Christ by these Expressions ; and upbraids the Christians of Alexandria , for giving Worship to Iesus as the Word and God ? With what satisfaction would he have received such a Sense of his Words ; when he Complemented Photinus for denying the Divinity of Christ ; while other Chrians asserted it ? But they do not by any means deal fairly with the late Archbishop as to the Story of Amelius ; for they bring it in , as if he had laid the weight of the Cause upon it ; whereas he only mentions it , as a Confirmation , of a probable Conjecture , That Plato had the Notion of the Word of God from the Jews ; because that was a Title which the Jews did commonly give to the Messias , as he proves from Philo , and the Chaldee Paraphrast . To which they give no manner of Answer . But they affirm in answer to my Sermon , p. 9. That Socinus his Sense was , That Christ was called the Word , because he was the Bringer or Messenger of Gods Word . But were not the Iews to understand it in the Sense it was known among them ? And if the Chaldee Paraphrast had used it in that Sense , he would never have applied it to a Divine Subsistance , as upon Examination it will appear that he doth . Of which Rittangel gives a very good Account , who had been a Iew , and was very well skilled in their ancient Learning . He tells us , That he had a Discourse with a learned Vnitarian upon this Subject , who was particularly acquainted with the Eastern Languages ; and he endeavoured to prove , That there was nothing in the Chaldee Paraphrasts use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , because it was promiscuously used by him for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it was applied to God. This Rittangel denied ; and offer'd to prove , that the Chaldee Paraphrast did never use that Word in a common manner , but as it was appropriated to a Divine Subsistance . He produces several places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put , and nothing answering to Word in the Hebrew , as Gen. 20.21 . The Chaldee hath it , The Word of Iehovah shall be my God. Exod. 2.25 . And Iehovah said , He would redeem them by his Word , Exod. 6.8 . Your murmurings are not against us , but against the Word of Iehovah , Exod. 19.17 . And Moses brought the People out to meet the Word of Iehovah , Levit. 26.46 . These are the Statutes and Iudgments , and Laws , which Iehovah gave between his Word and the Children of Israel by the hand of Moses , Numb . 11.20 . Ye have despised the Word of Iehovah whose Divinity dwelt among you , Numb . 23.21 . The Word of Iehovah is with him , and the Divinity of their King is among them , Deut 1.30 . The Word of Iehovah shall fight for you , Deut. 2.7 . These forty years the Word of Iehovah hath been with thee , Deut. 1.32 . Ye did not believe in the Word of Iehovah your God , Deut 4.24 . Iehovah thy God , his Word is a consuming fire , Deut. 5.5 . I stood between the Word of Iehovah and you , to shew you the Word of the Lord , Deut. 32.6.8 . Iehovah thy God , his Word shall go with thee , with many other places , which he brings out of Moses his Writings ; and there are multitudes to the same purpose in the other Books of Scripture ; which shews , saith he , that this Term the Word of God , was so appointed for many Ages ; as appears by all the Chaldee Paraphrasts and the ancient Doctors of the Iews . And he shews by several places , that the Chaldee Paraphrast did not once render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when there was occasion for it ; no , not when the Word of God is spoken of with respect to a Prophet ; as he proves by many Testimonies ; which are particularly enumerated by him . The result of the Conference was , that the Vnitarian had so much Ingenuity to confess , That unless those Words had another Sense , their Cause was lost ; and our Faith had a sure Foundation . But it may be objected that Morinus hath since taken a great deal of pains to prove the Chaldee Paraphrasts , not to have been of that Antiquity , which they have been supposed by the Iews to be of . In answer to this , we may say in general , that Morinus his great Proofs are against another Chaldee Paraphrast of very small Reputation , viz. of Ionathan upon the Law ; and not that of Onkelos , which Rittangel relied upon in this Matter . And none can deny this to have been very ancient ; but the Iews have so little knowledge of their own History , but what is in Scripture , that very little certainty can be had from them . But we must compare the Circumstances of things , if we would come to any resolution in this Matter . Now it is certain , that Philo the Alexandrian Iew , who lived so very near our Saviours time , had the same Notion of the Word of God , which is in the Chaldee Paraphrast : whose Testimonies have been produced by so many already , that I need not to repeat them . And Eusebius saith , The Jews and Christians had the same Opinion as to Christ , till the former fell off from it in opposition to the Christians ; and he 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 , but in probability the Chaldee Paraphrase ; and the Words he used upon the Cross , were in the Chaldee Dialect . The later Iews have argued against the Trinity , and the Divinity of Christ like any Vnitarians , as appears by the Collection out of Ioseph Albo , David Kimchi , &c. published by Genebrard , with his Answers to them . And is it any ways likely , that those who were so much set against these Doctrines , should themselves put in such Expressions , which justifie what the Evangelist saith about the VVord , being in the Beginning , being with God , and being God ? The Substance of what I have said , as to S. Iohn's Notion of the Word is this ; That there is no colour for the Sense which Socinus hath put upon it ; either from the use of it among other Authors , or any Interpretation among the Jews . But that there was in his time a current sense of it , which from the Jews of Alexandria , was dispersed by Cerinthus in those parts where he lived . That for such a Notion there was a very ancient Tradition among the Jews , which appears in the most ancient Paraphrase of the Law , which is read in their Synagogues . And therefore according to all reasonable ways of interpreting Scripture , the Word cannot be understood in S. Iohn , for one whose Office it was to preach the Word , but for that Word which was with God before any thing was made , and by whom all things were made . 3. Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men , to give a new Sense of several Places of Scripture from a matter of Fact of which there is no proof , the better to avoid the proof of the Divinity of the Son of God ? This relates to the same beginning of S. Iohn's Gospel , the Word was with God ; and several other places , making mention of his descent from Heaven . The Sense which these wise Interpreters put upon them is , that Christ was rapt up into Heaven , before he entred upon his Preaching . But where is this said ? What Proof , what Evidence , what credible Witnesses of it , as there were of his Transfiguration , Resurrection and Ascension ? Nothing like any Proof is offer'd for it ; but it is a wise Way they think of avoiding a pressing difficulty . But they have a farther reach in it , viz. to shew how Christ , being a mere Man , should be qualified for so great an undertaking as the founding the Christian Church ; and therefore they say , That before our Lord entred upon his Office of the Messias ▪ he was taken up to Heaven to be instructed in the Mind and Will of God ( as Moses was into the Mount , Exod. 24.1 , 2 , 12. ) and from thence descended to execute his Office , and declare the said Will of God. In another place , That when it is said , the Word was with God ; that is , the Lord Christ was taken up into Heaven to be instructed in all points relating to his Ambassage or Ministry . In a third , they say , That our Saviour before he entred upon his Ministry , ascended into Heaven , as Moses did into the Mount , to be instructed in all things belonging to the Gospel Doctrine and Polity which he was to establish and administer . Now considering what sort of Person they make Christ to have been , viz. a mere Man ; this was not ill thought of by them ; to suppose him taken up into Heaven and there instructed in what he was to teach and to do , as Moses was into the Mount before he gave the Law. But here lies a mighty difference ; when Moses was called up into the Mount , the People had publick notice given of it ; and he took Aaron and his Sons , and Seventy Elders of Israel with him ; who saw the Glory of God , v. 10. And all Israel beheld the Glory of the Lord as a devouring Fire on the Top of the Mount , v. 17. and after the 40 days were over , it is said , That Moses came down from the Mount , and the Children of Israel saw him with his Face shining , Exod. 34.40 . Now if Christ were taken up into Heaven , as Moses was into the Mount , why was it not made publick at that time ? why no Witnesses ? why no Appearance of the Glory to satisfie Mankind of the truth of it ? And yet we find , that when he was transfigured on the holy Mount , he took Peter , and James , and John with him ; which circumstance is carefully mention'd by the Evangelists . And Peter , who was one of the Witnesses then present , lays great weight upon this being done in the presence of Witnesses . For we have not follow'd cunningly devised Fables , when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Iesus Christ , but were Eye-witnesses of his Majesty . For he received from God the Father , Honour and Glory , when there came such a voice to him from the excellent Glory — . And this voice which came from Heaven we heard , when we were with him in the holy Mount. Now let any one compare this with the account which they give of Christ's Ascension into Heaven . The Transfiguration was intended only for a particular Testimony of God's Favour , before his suffering ; but even in that , he took care there should be very credible Witnesses of it . And is it then possible to believe , there should be such an Ascension of Christ into Heaven , for no less a purpose , than to be instructed in his Ambassage , and to understand the Mind and Will of God as to his Office ; and yet not one of the Evangelists give any account of the circumstances of it ? They are very particular , as to his Birth , Fasting , Baptism , Preaching , Miracles , Sufferings , Resurrection and Ascension ; but not one Word among them all as to the circumstances of this being taken up into Heaven for so great a purpose ? If it were necessary to be believed , why is it not more plainly revealed ? Why not the time and place mention'd in Scripture , as well as of his Fasting and Temptation ? Who can imagine it consistent with that Sincerity and Faithfulness of the Writers of the New Testament , to conceal so material a part of Christ's Instructions and Qualifications ; and to wrap it up in such doubtfull Expressions , that none ever found out this meaning till the days of Socinus ? Enjedinus mentions it only as a possible Sense ; 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 , it is not the Doctrine of all the Unitarians , and refer me to another account given of these Texts in the History of the Unitarians . There indeed I find Grotius his Interpretation ( as they call it ) prefer●d before that of Socinus . But they say , Grotius was Socinian all over , and that his Annotations are a compleat System of Socinianism ; and his Notes on the first of S. John are written artificially , but the Sense at the bottom is theirs . In short , That the Word , according to Grotius , is not an eternal Son of God , but the Power 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 VVord was made flesh , v. 14. i. e. say the Vnitarians as from Grotius ; It did abode on , and inhabit a humane Person , the Person of Iesus Christ ; and so was in appearance made flesh or man. But what saith Grotius himself ? The Word that he might bring us to God , shew'd himself in the Weakness of humane Nature ; and he quotes the words of S. Paul for it , 1 Tim. 3.16 . God was manifest in the flesh : and then produces several Passages of the Fathers to the same purpose . Is not this a rare Specimen of Wise interpreting , and Fair dealing with so considerable a Person , and so well known , as Grotius ? Who , after all , in a Letter to his intimate Friend Ger. I. Vossius , declares that he owned the Doctrine of the Trinity ; both in his Poems and his Catechism ; after his reviewing them ; which Epistle is Printed before the last Edition of his Book about Christ's Satisfaction ; as an account to the World of his Faith as to the Trinity . And in the last Edition of his Poems , but little before his Death , he gives a very different Account of the Son of God from what these Vnitarians fasten upon him . And now let the World judge , how wisely they have interpreted both S. Iohn , and his Commentator Grotius ? IV. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise men , to make our Saviour's meaning to be expressly contrary to his Words ? For when he said : Before Abraham was , I am ; they make the Sense to be that really he was not , but only in Gods Decree , as any other man may be said to be . This place the late Archbishop ( who was very far from being a Socinian , however his Memory hath been very unworthily reproached in that , as well as other Respects , since his Death ) urged against the Socinians , saying , That the obvious Sense of the Words is , that he had a real Existence , before Abraham was actually in Being , and that their Interpretation about the Decree is so very flat , that he can hardly abstain from saying it is ridiculous And the wise Answer they give is , That the words cannot be true in any other Sense , being spoken of one who was a Son , and Descendant of Abraham . Which is as ridiculous as the Interpretation ; for it is to take it for granted , he was no more than a Son of Abraham . V. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise men , to say , that when our Saviour said in his Conference with the Iews , I am the Son of God , his chief meaning was , That he was the Son of God in such a Sense , as all the faithful are called Gods Children ? Is not this doing great Honour to our Saviour ? Especially when they say , That he never said of himself any higher thing than this , which is true of every good man , I am the Son of God. And yet the Iews accused him of 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. Did they mean no more , but as any Good man is ? But Mr. Selden saith , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 ; 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 , 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. 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 , 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 VVorship ( 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 . And Smalcius saith , That they are no Christians who refuse giving divine Worship to Christ. 2. Is it like wise Men , to go upon such grounds as will justifie both Pagan and Popish Idolatry ? This they have been charged with , and we shall see what wise Men they are , by the Defences they make for themselves . 1. As to Pagan Idolatry , they say , 1. They had no divine command for such a Worship . This was well thought of , when they confess , that some among themselves deny that there is any command for invocating Christ , and therefore they must charge all those who do it with Idolatry . But this is no very wise Notion of Idolatry , which depends upon the Nature of the Worship , and not the meer positive Will of God. 2. They set up the Creatures more than the Creator , as S. Paul saith . S. Paul doth not think them such Fools , that they took the Creatures to be above the Creator , which was impossible , while they owned one to be the Creator and the other the Creatures ; but that they 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 , Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came , who is over all , God blessed for ever , into a Thanksgiving to God for the Exaltation of Christ , i. e. God who is over all be blessed for ever . But what reason do they give for such a forced and unusual Sense , besides the avoiding the difficulty of having the Name of God given here to Christ ? A very substantial one . If the words had been intended of Christ , it would have been in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which they have taken up from Erasmus and Curcellaeus . But Beza , who understood Greek as well as either , ( and Curcellaeus owned him for his Master in that Tongue ) saith , He could not sufficiently wonder at this Criticism of Erasmus , and thinks it a violent and far-fetched Interpretation , and not agreeable to the Greek Idiom , and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same there with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And which may signifie more to our Vnitarians , one of the learnedst Men they have had among them , utterly disowns this Interpretation , and saith , That the whole Verse belongs to Christ. But if that will not do , they have another fetch in the case , viz. That it is very probable that the word God was not originally in the Text. How doth this appear to be very probable ? Of that , we have this account : Grotius observes , that the Greek Copies , used by the Author of the Syriac , had not the word God , and that Erasmus had noted , that the Copies of S. Cyprian , S. Hilary and S. Chrysostom had only blessed over all , or above all , without the word God ; upon which he charges his Adversary with no less than Impiety in concealing this ; and calls it , cheating his Reader . But how if all this prove a gross Mistake in him ; unless it be only , that Grotius and Erasmus come in for their shares . It 's true , that Grotius saith , That the word God was left out in the Syriac Version . But F. Simon , whose authority they sometimes magnifie as to critical Learning , saith plainly , That Grotius was mistaken , and that the word God is in all the old Copies , and in all the old Versions . And upon his bringing Erasmus to prove that it was not in S. Cyprian , S. Hilary , and S. Chrysostome , he cries out , Where is Sincerity ? Erasmus had met with one faulty Edition which had it not , but he saith , all the rest of the MSS. have it . And the learned Oxford Annotators , both on S. Cyprian , and the Greek Testament compar'd with MSS. ( which excellent Work we hope will shortly appear more publickly ) declare , that they found it in all the MSS. they could meet with ; and even Erasmus himself saith , That the Omission in S. Hilary might be only by the negligence of the Transcribers ; and so it appears by the late Edition out of the best MSS. where the words are , 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 ; 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 ; ( 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 ; 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 , 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 , 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 , &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 , 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 , 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 , it was in seven of Rob. Stephens his MSS. but F. Simon will not allow that it was in any but the Complutensian , which is a strange piece of boldness in him . For Beza saith , 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 . 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 Learned Criticks have given very strong Reasons why they believe these Words . In the name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost , were not spoke by our Saviour , but have been added to the Gospel of S. Matthew , from the common Form and Practise of the Church . Why are these strong Reasons of learned Criticks mentioned , but to raise Doubts in Peoples minds about them ? But they declare afterwards against them . Not too much of that . For they say , only , That they are not without their weight , but they have observed several things that make them think , that this Text is a genuine part of Scripture . Very Wisely and Discreetly spoken ! The Reasons are strong and weighty ; but they think otherwise . I wish they had told the World , who these learned Criticks were ; lest it should be suspected that they were their own Inventions . But I find a certain Nameless Socinian was the Author of them ; and his Words are produced by Sandius ( a Person highly commended by them for his Industry and Learning , but as much condemned by others , for want of Skill or Ingenuity . ) The reason of writing these Reasons Sandius freely Confesses was , because this place clearly proved a Trinity of Persons against the Socinians . But what are these very strong and weighty Reasons ? For it is great Pity , but they should be known . In the first place he observes , That S. Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew , and the Original he saith is lost ; and he suspects that either S. Jerom was himself the Translator into Greek and Latin ( who was a Corrupter of Scripture , and Origen ) or some unknow Person : from whence it follows , that our Gospel of S. Matthew is not of such Authority , that an Article of such moment should depend upon it . Is not this a very strong and weighty Reason ? Must not this be a very learned Critick who could mention S. Ierom , as Translator of S. Matthews Gospel into Greek ? But then one would think this Interpreter might have been wise enough to have added this of himself . No ; he dares not say that , but that it was added by Transcribers . But whence or how ? To that he saith , That they seem to be taken out of the Gospel according to the Egyptians . This is great News indeed . But comes it from a good hand ? Yes , from Epiphanius . And what saith he to this purpose ? He saith , That the Sabellians made use of the counterfeit Egyptian Gospel , and there it was declared that Father , Son and Holy Ghost were the same . And what then ? Doth he say they borrowed the Form of Baptism from thence ? Nothing like it . But on the contrary , Epiphanius urges this very Form in that place against the Sabellians : and quotes S. Matthew's Authority for it . But this worthy Author produces other Reasons , which Sandius himself laughs at , and despises ? and therefore I pass them over . The most material seems to be if it hold , That the most ancient Writers on S. Matthew take no notice of them , and he mentions Origen , Hilary , and S. Chrysostom , but these Negative Arguments Sandius thinks of no force . Origen and S. Chrysostom , he saith , reach not that Chapter ; the Opus Imperfectum , which was none of his , doth not ; but his own Commentaries do , and there he not only mentions the Form , but takes notice of the Compendious Doctrine delivered by it , which can be nothing else but that of the Trinity . In the Greek Catena on S. Matthew there is more mentioned , viz. That Christ had not then first his Power given him ; for he was with God before , and was himself by Nature God. And there Gregory Nazianzen saith , The Form of Baptism was in the Name of the Holy Trinity ; and he there speaks more fully . Remember , saith he , the Faith into which thou wert baptized . Into the Father ? That is well , but that is no farther than the Jews go ( for they own one God , and one Person . ) Into the Son ? That is beyound them , but not yet perfect . Into the Holy Ghost ? Yes , saith he , this is perfect Baptism . But what is the common Name of these three , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Plainly , that of God. But this learned Critick observes , that Hilary in some Copies takes no notice of this Form. That is truly observed , for the very Conclusion is not Hilary's , but taken out of S. Ierom ; but if he had look'd into Hilary's Works , he would have found the Form of Baptism owned , and asserted by him . For he not only sets it down as the Form of Faith , as well as our Baptism appointed by Christ ; but argues from it , against the Sabellians and Ebionites , as well as others . Thus we see how very strong and weighty the Arguments of this learned Critick were . CHAP. IX . The General Sense of the Christian Church , proved from the Form of Baptism , as it was understood in the first Ages . BUT our Vnitarians pretend , that they are satisfied , that the Form of Baptism is found in all Copies , and all the ancient Translations ; and that it was used before the Council of Nice , as appears by several places of Tertullian . But how then ? There are two things stick with them . ( 1. ) That the Ante-Nicene Fathers do not alledge it to prove the Divinity of the Son , or Holy Ghost . ( 2. ) That the Form of Words here used , doth not prove the Doctrine of the Trinity . Both which must be strictly Examined . 1. As to the former . It cannot but seem strange to any one conversant in the Writings of those Fathers ; when S. Cyprian saith expressly , That the Form of Baptism is prescribed by Christ , that it should be in plenâ & 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 , 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 , 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 , That the Form of Baptism was prescribed by our Saviour himself as a Law to his Church . S. Cyprian to the same purpose , That he commanded it to be used S. Augustin calls them , the Words of the Gospel , without which there is no Baptism . The Reason given by S. Ambrose is , because the Faith of the Trinity is in this Form. But how if any one Person were left out ? He thinks , that if the rest be not denied , the Baptism is good ; but otherwise , vacuum est omne Mysterium , the whole Baptism is void . So that the Faith of the Trinity was that which was required in order to true Baptism , more than the bare Form of Words . If there were no reason to question the former , S. Ambrose seems of Opinion that the Baptism was good , although every Person were not named , and therein he was followed by Beda , Hugo de Sancto Victore , Peter Lombard and others . And S Basil in the Greek Church , asserted that Baptism in the name of the Holy Ghost was sufficient , because he is hereby owned to be of equal Dignity with the Father and Son ; but it is still supposing that the whole and undivided Trinity be not denied . And he elsewhere saith , That Baptizing in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost is a most solemn Profession of the Trinity in Vnity , because they are all joyned together in this publick Act of Devotion . But others thought that the Baptism was not good , unless every Person were named ; which Opinion generally obtained both in the Greek and Latin Church . And the late Editors of S. Ambrose observe , that in other places he makes the whole Form of Words necessary as well as the Faith in the Holy Trinity . The Baptism of the Eunomians was rejected , because they alter'd the Form and the Faith too , saying , That the Father was uncreate , the Son created by the Father , and the Holy Ghost created by the Son. The Baptism of the Samosatenians was rejected by the Council of Nice . S. Augustin thinks it was because they had not the right Form , but the true Reason was , they rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity . And so the Council of Arles I. doth in express Words refuse their Baptism who refused to own that Doctrine . That Council was held A. D. 314. and therefore Bellarmin , and others after him , are very much mistaken , when they interpret this Canon of the Arians , concerning whose Baptism there could be no Dispute till many years after . But this Canon is de Afris ; among whom the Custom of Baptizing prevailed ; but this Council propounds an expedient as most agreeable to the general Sense of the Christian Church , viz. That if any relinquished their Heresie and came back to the Church , they should ask them the Creed , and if they found that they were baptized in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , they should have only imposition of hands , but if they did not confess the Trinity , their Baptism was declared void . Now this I look on as an impregnable Testimony of the Sense of the Ante-Nicene Fathers , viz. That they did not allow that Baptism which was not in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; or ( which they understood to be the same ) in the confession of the Faith of the Trinity . How then can our Vnitarians pretend , That the Ante-Nicene Fathers did not alledge the Form of Baptism to prove the Trinity ? For the words are , If they do 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 or Personality of the Son or Spirit . Therefore to give a clear account of this matter , I shall prove , that the Ante-Nicene Fathers did understand these words , so as not to be taken , either for mere Names , or for Creatures joyned with God ; but that they did maintain the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost , from the general Sense , in which these words were taken among them . And this I shall do from these Arguments ; 1. That those who took them in another Sense , were opposed and condemned by the Christian Church . 2. That the Christian Church did own this Sense in publick Acts of divine Worship as well as private . 3. That it was owned and defended by those who appeared for the Christian Faith against Infidels . And I do not know any better means than these , to prove such a matter of Fact as this . 1. The Sense of the Christian Church may be known by its behaviour towards those , who took these words only for different Names or Appearances of One Person . And of this we have full Evidence , as to Praxeas , Noëtus and Sabellius , all long before the Council of Nice . Praxeas was the first , at least in the Western Church , who made Father , Son and Holy Ghost , to be only several Names of the same Person , and he was with great Warmth and Vigor opposed by Tertullian , who charges him with introducing a new opinion into the Church , as will presently appear . And his testimony is the more considerable , because our Vnitarians confess , That he lived 120 years before the Nicene Council , and that he particularly insists upon the Form of Baptism against Praxeas . But to what purpose ? Was not his whole design in that Book to prove three distinct Persons of Father , Son and Holy Ghost , and yet but One God ? Doth he not say expresly , That Christ commanded that his Disciples should baptize into the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , not into One of them ; ad singula nomina in Personas singulas tingimur . In Baptism we are dipped once at every Name , to shew that we are baptized into three Persons . It is certain then , that Tertullian could not mistake the Sense of the Church so grosly , as to take three Persons to be only three several Names . He grants to Praxeas , that Father , 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 , That the Father suffer'd ; and thence his followers were called Patripassians and Monarchici , i. e. Vnitarians . The main ground which Praxeas went upon , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , and Tertullian saith as much of those Cataphrygians who follow'd Aeschines : But these Montanists are distinguished from the rest . And Rigaltius observes , that Tertullian follow'd Montanus chiefly in what related to Discipline , and that himself was not so corrupted in point of Doctrine as some of his Followers were . 2. It 's objected , 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 ; 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 . 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 , to have been before the Nicene-Council ; 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 . 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 ; 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 . 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 , 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 ; 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 ; 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 , ( 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 , Eternity and Power , without Separation or Diversity of Nature , On which Doctrine his Form of Doxology was grounded . Which S. Basil following , Exceptions were taken against it , by some as varying from the Form used in some other places . For the Followers of Aetius took advantage from the Expression used in those Doxologies , Glory be to the Father , by the Son , and in the Holy Ghost , to infer a Dissimilitude in the Son and Holy Ghost to the Father , and to make the Son the Instrument of the Father , and the Holy Ghost only to relate to time and place . But S. Basil takes a great deal of Pains to shew the impertinency of these Exceptions . They would fain have charged this Doxology as an Innovation on S. Basil , because it attributed equal Honour to Father , Son and Holy Ghost , which the Aetians would not endure ; but they said , That the Son was to be honoured only in Subordination to the Father , and the Holy Ghost as inferiour to both . But S. Basil proves from Scripture an Equality of Honour to be due to them : and particularly from the Form of Baptism , c. 10. wherein the Son and Holy Ghost are joyned with the Father , without any note of Distinction . And what more proper token of a Conjunction in the same Dignity , than being put together in such a manner . Especially considering these two things . 1. The extream Jealousie of the Jewish Nation , as to joyning the Creatures with God in any thing that related to Divine Honour . But as S. Basil argues , If the Son were a Creature , then we must believe in the Creator , and the Creature together ; and by the same reason that one Creature is joyned , the whole Creation may be joyned with him ; but saith he , we are not to imagine the least Disunion or Separation between Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; nor that they are three distinct parts of one inseparable Being , but that there is an indivisible Conjunction of three in the same Essence ; so that where one is , there is the other also . For where the Holy Ghost is , there is the Son , and where the Son is , there is the Father . And so Athanasius urges the Argument from these Words , That a Creature could not be joyned with the Creator in such a manner , as in the Form of Baptism ; and it might have been as well said , Baptize in the Name of the Father , and any other Creature . And for all that I see , our Vnitarians would have liked such a Form very well ; for they parallel it with those in Scripture ; and they worshipped the Lord , and the King ; and they feared the Lord and Samuel . But the Iews understood the different occasion of such Expressions too well , to have born such a Conjunction of Creatures with the Creator in the most solemn Act of Initiation into a Profession of Religion . 2. The Iews had a Notion among them of three distinct Subsistences in the Deity sutable to these of Father , Son and Holy Ghost . This hath been shew'd by many as to the Son , or the Divine Word ; and Rittangel makes out the same as to the Holy Ghost . Among the three Subsistences in the Mercavah ( which Rittangel had proved from their most ancient Writings ) those which are added to the first are Wisdom and Intelligence , and this last is by the old Chaldee Paraphrast rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and he proves it to be applied to God in many places of the Pentateuch , where such things are attributed to him , as belong to the Holy Ghost . And he particularly shews by many places , that the Schecinah is not taken for the Divine Glory , but that is rendred by other Words ( however the Interpreters of the Chaldee Paraphrast have rendred it so ) but he produces ten places where the Chaldee Paraphrast uses it in another Sense ; and he leaves , he saith , many more to the Readers observation . If the Iews did of old own three Subsistences in the same Divine Essence , there was then great Reason to joyn Father , Son and Holy Ghost in the solemn Act of Initiation : But if it be denied , that they did own any such thing ; they must deny their most ancient Books , and the Chaldee Paraphrast , which they esteem next to the Text , and Rittangel saith , They believe it written by Inspiration . That which I chiefly urge , is this , that if these things be not very ancient , they must be put in by the later Iews , to gratifie the Christians in the Doctrine of the Trinity ; which I do not believe any Iew will assent to . And no one else can imagine this , when our Vnitarians say , That the Doctrine of the Trinity is the chief Offence which the Iews take at the Christian Religion . How then can we suppose the Iews should forge these Books on purpose to put in such Notions , as were most grateful to their Enemies , and hateful to themselves ? Morinus hath endeavoured to run down the Credit of the most ancient Books of the Iews ; and among the rest the Book Iezirah , the most ancient Cabbalistical Book among the Iews , which he learnedly proves was not written by Abraham , ( as the Iews think . ) I will not stand with Morinus about this ; however the Book Cosri saith , it was made by Abraham before God spake to him , and magnifies it to the King of Cosar , as containing an admirable Account of the first Principles above the Philosophers . Buxtorf saith , that the Book Cosri hath been extant Nine hundred years , and in the beginning of it , it is said , that the Conference was Four hundred years before , and therein the Book Iezirah is alledged as a Book of Antiquity : and there the three Subsistences of the Deity are represented by Mind , Word , and Hand . So that this can be no late Invention of Cabbalistical Iews . But our Vnitarians utterly deny that the Jews had any Cabbala concerning the Trinity . And they prove it , because the Jews in Origen , and Justin Martyr deny the Messias to be God. They might as well have brought their Testimony to prove Jesus not to be the Messias ; for the Iews of those times , being hard pressed by the Christians , found they could not otherwise avoid several places of the Old Testament . But this doth not hinder , but that they might have Notions of three Subsistences in their ancient Books : which contained neither late Invention , nor Divine Revelations ; but a Traditional notion about the Divine Being , and the Subsistences in it : and I can find no Arguments against it , that deserve mentioning . For when they say the Iewish Cabbala was a Pharisaical Figment , &c. it needs no answer . But what do they say to the Old Paraphrases , whereon the main Weight as to this matter lies ? All that I can find is , 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 , shall make me forsake the Doctrine I received in my Baptism , when I was first entred into the Christian Church ; and I advise all others to keep firm to that Profession of the Holy Trinity , which they made in their Baptism ; that is , of the indivisible Vnion of Father , Son and Holy Ghost . And , as he saith afterwards , by the Order of the Words in Baptism , it appears that as the Son is to the Father , so the Holy Ghost is to the Son. For they are all put without any Distinction or Number , 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 , Meletius and the Eastern Christians agreed with them in the use of it , and so did all the Western Churches from Illyricum to the Worlds end : and this , he saith , was by an immemorial Custom of all Churches , and of the greatest men in them . Nay , more he saith , It had been continued in the Churches , from the time the Gospel had been receive'd among them . And nothing can be fuller than the Authority of his Testimony , if S. Basil may be believed . To these I shall add the Doxology of Polycarp at this Martyrdom , mentioned by Eusebius , which is very full to our Purpose ; I Glorifie thee by our Eternal High-Priest Iesus Christ thy beloved Son , by whom be Glory to thee , with him in the Holy Ghost . What can we imagine Polycarp meant by this , but to render the same Glory to Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; but with such a difference as to the Particles , which S. Basil at large proves come to the same thing ? And to the same purpose , not only the Church of Smyrna , but Pionius the Martyr , who transcribed the Acts , speaking of Iesus Christ , with whom be Glory to God the Father , and the Holy Ghost . These suffer'd Martyrdom for Christianity , and owned the same Divine Honour to the Father , Son and Holy Ghost . What could they mean , if they did not believe them to have the same Divine Nature ? Can we suppose them Guilty of such stupidity to lose their Lives , for not giving Divine Honour to Creatures , and at the same time to do it themselves ? So that , if the Father , Son and Holy Ghost were not then believed to be three Persons and one God , the Christian Church was mightily deceived ; and the Martyrs acted inconsistently with their own Principles . Which no good Christian will dare to affirm . But some have adventured to say , that Polycarp did not mean the same Divine Honour to Father , Son and Holy Ghost . But if he had so meant it , how could he have expressed it otherwise ? It was certainly a Worship distinct from what he gave to Creatures ; as appears by the Church of Smyrna's disowning any Worship but of Love and Repect to their fellow Creatures ; and own the giving Adoration to the Son of God ; with whom they joyn both Father and Holy Ghost . Which it is impossible to conceive , that in their Circumstances , they should have done , unless they had believed the same Divine Honour to belong to them . S. Basil's Testimony makes it out of Dispute , that the Doxology to Father , Son and Holy Ghost , was universally receiv'd in the publick Offices of the Church , and that from the time of greatest Antiquity : So that we have no need of the 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 , that this Doxology had been long used not only in publick Offices , but in Occasional Ejaculations , as at the bringing in of Light in the Evening , the People , he saith , were wont to say , Glory be to the Father , and to the Son , and to the Holy Ghost , &c. This , he saith , had been an ancient Custom among the People , and none can tell who brought it in . But Prudentius shews , that it was continued to his Time ; as appea●s by his Hymn on that occasion , which concludes with this Doxology , and S. Hilary ends his Hymn written to his Daughter , in the same manner . 3. I come therefore to the last Proof , which I shall produce of the Sense of the Christian Church , which is , from the Testimony of those who wrote in Defence of our Religion against Infidels . In which I shall be the shorter , since the particular Testimonies of the Fathers , have been so fully produced , and defended by others , especially by Dr. Bull. Iustin Martyr in his Apology for the Christians , gives an Account of the Form of Baptism , as it was administred among Christians , which he saith , was in the Name of God the Father of all , and of our Saviour Iesus Christ , and of the Holy Ghost . And that he spake of them as of distinct Persons , as appears by his words afterwards . They who take the Son to be the Father , neither know the Father nor the Son , who being the Word and first begotten is God. And when he speaks of the Eucharist , he saith , That it is offer'd to the Father of all , by the Name of the Son , and the Holy Ghost : and of other solemn Acts of Devotion , he saith , That in all of them they praise God the Father of all , by his Son Iesus Christ , and the Holy Ghost . And in other places , he mentions the Worship they give to Father , Son and Holy Ghost . Indeed he mentions a difference of Order between them ; but makes no Difference as to the Worship given to them . And all this in no long Apology for the Christian Faith. What can be the meaning of this if he did not take it for granted , that the Christian Church embraced the Doctrine of the Trinity in Baptism ? Iustin Martyr was no such weak Man to go about to expose the Christian Religion instead of defending it ; and he must have done so , if he did not believe this not only to be a true , but a necessary part of the Christian Faith For , why did he at all mention such a Mysterious and dark Point ? Why did he not conceal it , ( as some would have done ) and only represent to the Emperours , the fair and plausible part of Christianity ? No , he was a Man of great Sincerity , and a through Christian himself ; and therefore 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 ; 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 . For Christ owns ▪ that his Power was given to him by the Father . There is no question , but that the Person who suffer'd on the Cross , had Power given to him , after his Resurrection ; but the true Question is , whether his Sonship were then given to him . He was then declared to be the Son of God with Power , and had a Name or Authority given him above every Name ; being exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour , to give Repentance , and Remission of Sins : in order to which he now appointed his Apostles to teach all Nations ; baptizing them in the Name of the Father , the Son and the Holy Ghost . He doth not say in the name of Iesus , who suffer'd on the Cross ; nor in the name of Iesus the Christ now exalted ; but in the name of Father , Son and Holy Ghost : and although there were a double Gift with respect to the Son and Holy Ghost ; the one , as to his Royal Authority over the Church ; the other , as to his extraordinary Effusion on the Apostles , yet neither of these are so much as intimated ; but the Office of Baptism is required to be performed in the Name of these three as distinct and yet equal ; without any Relation to any Gift , either as to the Son or Holy Ghost . But if the ancient Iews were in the Right , as we think they were , then we have a plain account , how these came to be thus mention'd in the Form of Baptism , viz. that these three distinct Subsistences in the Divine Essence , were not now to be kept up as a secret Mystery from the World ; but that the Christian Church was to be formed upon the Belief of it . 2. They bring several places of Scripture , where God and his Creatures are joyned , without any Note of distinction or Superiority ; as , The people feared the Lord , and Samuel , 1 Sam. 12.18 . They worshipped the Lord , and the King , 1 Chron. 29.20 . I charge thee before God the Lord Iesus Christ , and his elect Angels , 1 Tim. 5.21 . The Spirit and the Bride say come , Revel . 22.17 . But can any Man of Sense imagine , these places contain a Parallel with a Form of Words , wherein men are entred into the Profession of a new Religion , and by which they were to be distinguished from all other Religions ? in the former places , the Circumstances were so notorious as to God , and the Civil Magistrate , that it shews no more than that the same external Acts may be used to both , but with such a different Intention as all men understood it . What if S. Paul name the elect Angels in a solemn Obtestation to Timothy , together with God , and the Lord Iesus Christ ? What can this prove , but that we may call God and his Creatures to be Witnesses together of the same thing ? And so Heaven and Earth are called to bear Witness against obstinate Sinners : May men therefore be baptized in the name of God and his Creatures ? The Spirit and Bride may say come without any Incongruity ; but it would have been strange indeed , if they had said , Come be baptized in the Name of the Spirit and the Bride . So that these Instances are very remote from the purpose . But they say farther , That the ancients of the first Four hundred years do not insist on this place , to prove the Divinity or Personality of the Son or Spirit . As to the first Three hundred years , I have given an account already ; and as to the Fourth Century , I could not have thought , that they would have mention'd it : since there is scarce a Father of the Church in that time , who had occasion to do it , but makes use of the Argument from this place to prove the Divinity and Personality of the Son and Spirit . Athanasius saith , That Christ founded his Church on the Doctrine of the Trinity contained in these Words ; and if the Holy Ghost had been of a different Nature , from the Father and Son , he would never have been joyned with them in a Form of Baptism , no more than an Angel , or any other Creature . For the Trinity must be Eternal and Indivisible , which it could not be , if any created Being were in it , and therefore he disputes against the Arian Baptism , although performed with the same Words , because they joyned God and a Creature together in Baptism . To the same purpose argue Didymus , Gregory Nazianzen , S. Basil and others , within the Compass of four hundred years , whose Testimonies are produced by Petavius ; to whom I refer the Reader , if he hath a mind to be satisfied in so clear a Point , that I cannot but think our Vnitarians never intended to take in the Fathers after the Council of Nice , who are so expressly against them ; and therefore I pass it over as a slip . 4. They object , That the Form of Baptism implies no more , than being admitted into that Religion which proceeds from God the Father , and deliver'd by his Son , and confirmed by the Testimony of the Holy Ghost . So much we grant is implied , but the Question still remains , whether the Son and Holy Ghost are here to be consider'd only in order to their Operations , or whether the Persons of the Son and Holy Ghost , from whom those Effects came , are not here chiefly intended ? For if no more had been meant , but these Effects , then the right Form of Admission had not been , into the Name of Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; but in the Name of the Father alone , as Revealing himself by his Son , and Confirming it by the miraculous Works of the Holy Ghost . For these are only subservient Acts to the design of God the Father , as the only subsisting Person . 5. They tell us , That it is in vain , not to say ridiculously pretended , that a Person or Thing is God , because we are baptized into it ; for some were baptized into Moses , and others into John's Baptism , and so Moses and John Baptist would be Gods ; and to be baptized into a Person or Persons , and in the name of such a Person is the same thing . Grant this ; yet there is a great difference between being baptized in the name of a Minister of Baptism , and of the Author of a Religion , into which they are baptized . The Israelites were baptized unto Moses ; but how ? The Syriac and Arabic Versions render it per Mosen ; and so S. Augustin reads it . And this seems to be the most natural sense of the Word , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , being put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is , Act. 7.53 . compared with Gal. 3.19 . And the force of the Apostle's Argument , doth not lie in the Parallel between being baptized into Moses , and into Christ ; but in the Privileges they had under the Ministery of Moses with those which Christians enjoyed . The other place implies no more , than being enter'd into that Profession , which John baptized his Disciples into . But doth any one imagine , that because Iohn Baptist did enter his Disciples by Baptism , therefore they must believe him to be God ? 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 ; 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 ; 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 , 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 , 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 . ( 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. 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 , with the Indian Philosophers , He knew not what ; which supported the Torto●se , 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 . 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 , 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 ; 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 , 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 , 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 ; 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 ; 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 , 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 . 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 ; 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 . 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 . 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 , when look'd on as the Representations of the unknown Essences of things . 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 , 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 ; 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 , 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 ; 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 . 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 , 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 . But there are some , he saith , that being strongly inclined out of Ignorance , or Passion to maintain what was first introduced by the Craft or Superstition of their Forefathers , will have some Christian Doctrines to be still Mysteries in the second Sense of the Word ; that is , unconceiveable in themselves , however clearly revealed . I hope there are still some , who are so throughly perswaded of the Christian Doctrine , that they dare own and defend it , notwithstanding all the Flouts and Taunts of a sort of Men , whose Learning and Reason lies most in exposing Priest-craft , and Mysteries . Suppose there are such still in the world , who own their Assent to some Doctrines of Faith , which they confess to be above their Comprehension , what mighty Reason , and invincible Demonstration is brought against them ? He pretends to Demonstrate ; but what I pray ? The Point in hand ? No. But he will Demonstrate something instead of it ? What is that ? Why truly , That in the New Testament Mystery is always used in the first Sense of the Word . And what then ? Doth it therefore follow , that there are no Doctrines in the Gospel above the reach and comprehension of our Reason ? But how doth it appear , that the Word Mystery is always used in that Sense ? When S. Paul saith in his first Epistle to Timothy , Chap. 3. v. 9. That the Deacons must hold the Mystery of Faith in a pure Conscience ; doth he not mean thereby the same with the Form of sound Words , which Timothy had heard of him , 2 Tim. 1.13 . And are not all the main Articles of the Christian Faith comprehended under it ? Especially that whereinto they were Baptized , in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost : and if the Doctrine of the Trinity were understood by this Form , as I have already proved , then this must be a part of the Mystery of Faith. And in the same Chapter , v. 16. He makes God manifest in the Flesh ; the first part of the Mystery of Godliness . If it extends to all the other things , doth it exclude this , which is the first mention'd ? ( And that our Copies are true , is already made to appear . ) There is no Reason therefore to quarrel with our Use of the Word Mystery in this Sense ; but the Debate doth not depend upon the Word , but upon the Sense of it . And therefore I pass over all that relates to the bare use of the Word , as not coming up to the main Point ; which is , Whether any Point of Doctrine , which contains in it something above our Comprehension can be made a Matter of Faith ? For our Author concludes from his Observations , That Faith is so far from being an implicit Assent to any thing above Reason , that this Notion directly contradicts the end of Religion , the Nature of Man , and the Goodness and Wisdom of God. But we must not be frighted with this bold Conclusion , till we have Examin'd his Premises ; and then we shall find , that some who are not great Readers , are no deep Reasoners . The first thing he premises is , That nothing can be said to be a Mystery , because we have not an adequate Idea of it , or a distinct View of all its Properties at once , for then every thing would be a Mystery . What is the meaning of this , but that we cannot have an adequate Idea of any thing ? And yet all our Reason depends upon our Ideas according to him , and our clear and distinct Ideas are by him made the sole Foundation of Reason . All our simple Ideas are said to be adequate , because they are said to be only the Effects of Powers in things which produce Sensations in us . But this doth not prove them adequate as to the things , but only as to our Perceptions . But as to Substances we are told , That all our Ideas of them are inadequate . So that the short of this is , that we have no true Knowledge or Comprehension of any thing ; but we may understand Matters of Faith , as well as we understand any thing else , for in Truth we understand nothing . Is not this a method of true Reasoning to make us reject Doctrines of Faith , because we do not comprehend them , and at the same time to say we comprehend nothing ? For I appeal to the common Sense of mankind , whether we can be said to Comprehend that , which we can have no adequate Idea of ? But he appeals to the Learned ; for he saith , That to comprehend in all correct Authors is nothing else but to know . But what is to know ? Is it not to have adequate Ideas of the things we know ? How then can we know , that of which we can have no adequate Idea ? For if our Knowledge be limited to our Ideas , our Knowledge must be imperfect and inadequate where our Ideas are so . But let us lay these things together . Whatever we can have no adequate Idea of is above our Knowledge , and consequently above our Reason ; and so all Substances are above our Reason ; and yet he saith , with great Confidence , That to Assent to any thing , above Reason , destroys Religion , and the Nature of man , and the Wisdom and Goodness of God. How is it possible for the same man to say this , and to say 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 , but he would not let his Amanuensis know ; no doubt such things might be very well understood as soon as discover'd . 2. Something kept from common Knowledge , although there might be great Difficulties about them when discover'd . Thus Tully speaks of Mysteries among the Philosophers , particularly among the Academicks , who kept up their Doctrine of the Criterion as a Secret , which , when it was known , had many Difficulties about it . 3. Something that Persons were not admitted to know , but with great Preparation for it . Such were the Athenian Mysteries which Tully mentions with Respect , although they deserved it not : but because they were not Communicated to any but with Difficulty , they were called Mysteries . And this is so obvious a piece of Learning , that no great Reading , or deep Reasoning is required about it . Only 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 . And Isidore Pelusiota in his Epistle to Lampetius saith , 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , and all Science and Certainty would be destroy'd , which they repeat several times . And from hence they do so frequently insist on the Parallel between the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation : They say , That all the defence we have made for one will serve for the other , or any other absurd and impossible Doctrine . That what we say , will equally serve all the Nonsense , and impossible Doctrines that are to be found among Men ; and they particularly instance in Transubstantiation . I need mention no more . But I did not expect to have found this Parallel so often insisted upon , without an answer to two Dialogues purposely written on that Subject , at a time when the Doctrine of the Trinity was used as an argument to bring in Transubstantiation , as that is now alledged for casting off the other . But I must do them that right to tell the World , that at that time a Socinian Answer was written to those Dialogues , which I saw , and wish'd might be Printed , that the World might be satisfied about it and them . But they thought fit to forbear ; and in all their late Pamphlets where this Parallel is so often repeated , there is but once , that I can find , any notice taken of those Dialogues , and that in a very superficial manner . For the main Design and Scope of them is past over , and only one particular mention'd , which shall be answer'd in its due order . But in answer to the general Enquiry , I shall endeavour to state the due Bounds between Faith and Reason , and thereby to shew , that by those grounds on which we receive the Doctrine of the Trinity , we do not give way to the Entertainment of any absurd Opinion , nor overthrow the Certainty of Reason . 1. We have no difference with them about the Vse of our Reason as to the Certainty of a Revelation . For in this case , we are as much as they , for searching into the grounds of our Faith ; for we look on it as a reasonable Act of our Minds , and if we did not allow this , we must declare our selves to believe without grounds . And if we have grounds for our Faith , we can express them in Words that are intelligible ; and if we can give an account of our Faith in an intelligible manner , and with a design to give others satisfaction about it , I think this is making use of our Reason in matters of Faith. 2. We have no difference with them about the use of our Reason , as to the true Sense of Revelation . We never say , that Men are bound to believe upon the bare sound of Words without examining the Sense of them . We allow all the best and most reasonable ways of attaining to it , by Copies , Languages , Versions , comparing of Places , and especially the Sense of the Christian Church in the best and purest Ages , nearest the Apostolical Times and express'd in solemn and publick Acts. By these Rules of Reason we are willing to proceed , and not by any late and uncertain methods of interpreting Scripture . 3. We differ not with them about the right use of the Faculties which God hath given us , of right Vnderstanding such matters as are offer'd to our Assent . For it is to no purpose to require them to believe , who cannot use the Faculties which are necessary in order to it . Which would be like giving the Benefit of the Clergy to a Man with a Cataract in both his Eyes . And it would be very unreasonable to put his Life upon that Issue , whether he could read or not , because he had the same Organs of Seeing that other Men had ; for in this case the whole matter depended not on the Organ but the Vse of it : This needs no Application . 4. We differ not with them about rejecting some Matters proposed to our Belief which are contradictory to the Principles of Sense and Reason . It is no great argument of some Mens Reason , whatever they pretend to talk against admitting seeming Contradictions in Religion ; for who can hinder seeming Contradictions ? Which arise from the shallowness of Mens Capacities , and not from the repugnancy of Things : and who can help Mens Understandings ? But where there is evident proof of a Contradiction to the Principles of Sense and Reason ; we are very far from owning any such thing to be an Article of Faith , as in the case of Transubstantiation . Which we reject , not only , as having no foundation in Scripture , but as repugnant to the common Principles of Sense and Reason ; as is made to appear in the two Dialogues before-mention'd . But our Vnitarians find fault with the Author of them , for laying the force of his argument upon this , That there are a great many more Texts for the Trinity than are pretended for Transubstantiation ; whereas many other arguments are insisted on , and particularly the great Absurdity of it in point of Reason , Dial. 2. from p. 33. to the end . And it is not the bare number of Texts , which he relies upon , but upon the greater Evidence and Clearness of the 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 ; 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 . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A61548-e160 Consideraton the Ezplications of the Doctrine of the Trinity , by Dr. W. &c. p. 10. P. 9. P. 13. Discourse concerning the Real and Nominal Trinitarians , A. D. 1695 , p. 3. Letter to the Universities , p. 15. Discourse of Nominal and Real Trinit . p. 7. P. 10. P. 11. P. 13. Tritheism charged , &c. p. 157. Animadvers p. 245. Animadv . &c. p. 243. Ibid p. 240. Basil Ep. 64. Considerat . on the Explication , p. 23. Animadv . p. 291. Tritheism charged , p. 306. Chap. VII . Letter to the University , p. 15. Discourse of Nominal and real Trinitarians , p. 10. Tritheism charged , &c. p. 157. Discourse of Nominal and Real Unitarians , p. 18. Discourse of Nom. &c. p. 19. P. 32. Consideraton the Explication of the Trinity , p. 12. Tritheism charged , &c. p. 309. Direct . Inquisit . part II. quaest . 2. p. 226. Modest examin p. 19. P. 27 , 28. Notes on Athanasius his Creed , Edit . 2. p. 19. Modest examin p 15. P. 17. P. 29. P. 30. Remarks upon the examinat . p. 33. Remarks p. 34. P. 36. Ibid. Animadv . p. 36. Modest examin p. 30. Tritheism charged , p. 262. P. 264. More Nevoch , par . II. c. 1. Modest examin . p. 30. Considerat . on the Explication of the Trinity , &c. p. 12. Leont . de Sectis Act. 5. Niceph. Callist l. 18. c. 46 , 47. Anselm . epist. l. 2. ep . 41. De fide Trinit . &c. c. 3. C. 48. C 49. Phot. Biblioth . Cod. 24. Phot Cod. 23. Isid. Orig. l. 7. de haeret de Trinit . Aug. de haeres●● 74. Modest examin . p. 19. Discourse of Real and Nominal Trinit p 4 Greg de Laur Apol . Joachim Abb●t , c. 66. Decret . Greg. l. 1. c. 2. Comment . in decret . opusc . 24. Bri●f Account of Valentin . Gentilis , p. 132. Ibid. Modest examin . p. 20. Brief Account , &c. p. 40. Brief Account , &c. p. 41 , 42 , 43 , 45. Modest examin . p. 29. Genebrard de Trinit l. 2. p. 91. L 2 p 159. P. 153. Od●●at rixas & jurgia , p●aesertimque inter eruditos ; ac turpe esse diceb●t viros indubitatè doctos canina rabie famam vicissim suam rodere ac lacerare scriptis trucibus , tanquam vilissimos de plebe cerdones in Angiportis sese luto ac stercore conspurcan●●● . Nic Rigalt . vit . P. 〈◊〉 , p. 48. Considerat . on the Explication by Dr. W. &c. p. 12. P. 13. P. 22. P. 23. P. 25. P. 19. P. 13. Defence of the Notes on Athanasius his Creed . p. 24. P. 31. Vindication of the Archbishop's Sermons . p. 5. Answer to Dr. Bull , p. 47. History of the Unitarians , p. 10. Considerat . on the Explication by the Archbishop , &c. p. 13. Answ●r to the Archbish . Serm. p. 43. P. 44. Answer to the Archbishop p. 65. Some thoughts upon Dr. Sh. Vindication , p. 21. Letter of Resol . concerning the Trinity and Incarn . p. 18. Letter of Resol . p. 5. Letter of Resol . concerning the Trinity and Incarn . p. 18. Elmacin hist. Sarac . p. 4. Levin . Warner . de Alcoran . Acts of Athanasius , p. 5. Ricard . confut . legis Saracen . c. 10. Letter of Resol . p. 19. Answer to the Archbishop p. 44. P. 66. Notes for div A61548-e10340 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. 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. Answer to my Sermon p. 4. Ans. to Dr. Wallis 's four Letters , p. 4. Theodoret haeret . l. 1. & 11. Epiphan . Haeres . 19. n. 5.29 . n. 17. Tertull de praescript . haeret c 52. Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 28. Hist. of the Unit. p. 10. Edit . II. Euseb. l. 3. c. 27. Ante-Nicenism . p. 37. Answer to Milb . p. 20. Euseb. l. 4. c. 5. Resp. ad Judic . Eccles . p. 176. Answer to Dr. Bull , part I. p. 41. Euseb. l. 4 , c. 22. Act. 24.5 . Epiphan . haer . 29 n. 7. Euseb. l. 3. c. 5. L. 4. c. 8. L. 4 c. 6. Oros. l. 7. c. 13. Answer to Dr. Bull , p. 42. Answer to Dr. Bull , p. 39. Euseb. l. 3. c. 24 , 39. L 5. c. 8.10 . L. 6. c. 25. Hieron . c. Pelag. l. 3. Hieron . de script . in Matth. Comment . in Matth. c. 12. In Isa. c. 11. In Ezek. c. 18. Erasm. advers . Stunic . c. 1. Answer to Dr. Bull , p. 35. P. 40. P. 39. Origen c. Cels. l. 5. p. 274. Theodor haeret . l. 2. c. 1. Hieron in Matth. c. 12. Euseb. l. 5. c. 8. Epiph. de ponder . & mens . n. 16. Euseb. l. 6. c. 17. August . c. Crescon . l. 1. c. 31. Hier. in Heb. c. 3. Advers . Ruffin . Answer to the Archb. Sermon p. 44 , 66. Euseb. l. 7. c. 30. Reflect . on Dr. Bull , p 35. Answer to Milbourn , p. 20. Athan. ad solit . vit . agent p. 857. Euseb. l. 3. c. 27. Respons . ad judicium Ecclesiae p●r I● . Bull , p. 150 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. Athanas. desentent . Dionysii , p. 558. Euseb. l. 7. c. 30. Athan. de Incarn . To I. p. 591. P. 635. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Epiph. haer . 65. n. 1. Concil . Ephesin . part I. Supplicatio Basilii , &c. Phot. Epist . 35. Marius Mercat . de 12 Anath . Nestorii , n. 16. Leontius de sectis p. 436. edit . Basil. Euseb. l. 7. c. 30. Leont . c. Nestor . l. 3. Hilar. fragment . p. 1321. Theod. l. 1. c. 4. Pagi Critica in Bar. A. 272. n. 2. Answer to the Archbishop , p. 54. Euseb l. 8 , 13 , 9. c. 6. Theod. l. 1. c. 4. Petav. de Trinit . l. 1. c. 4. n. 13. H. Valesius in Theod . l. 1. c. 4. Baron . A. 318. n. 75 , &c. Soz. l. 3 c. 5. Philost . l. 2. c. 15 , 16. Athanas. Tom. 1. p. 898. Socr. l. 2. c. 19. Athan. de Synodis Arim. &c. p. 897. Epiph haeret . 71. Sulpit . Sever. l. 2. p. 397. Prudent . Apoth . Epiph. n. 2. N. 1 , 2. N. 4. Epiph. haeret . 71. Socr. l. 2. ● . 30. Soz. l. 4 c. 6. Hist. Tripart . l. 5. c. 8. Hist. of the Unit. p. 10. Concil general . To. II. p. 888. Ib. p. 989. Ambros. Apol. David . c. 4. Ans. to the Archbish. Serm p. 53. Theodor. haer●t . Fab. l. 2. in Photino . Sand. Hist. Enucl . l. 3. p. 357. P. 372. Blond . Dec. 2. l. 2. Sand. Hist. Eccles. l. 1. p. 64.93 . Socr. l. 2. c. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Hilar. de Synod . p. 1175. Ed. Paris . Hilar. de Trinit . l. 10. n. 50. Hilar. de Trin. l. 7. n. 7. August . Ep. 193. Ma●ii Mercat . Oper . Par. 2. p. 17. 〈◊〉 12. A●●th . N●s●orii p. 128. Euseb. l. 5. c. 28. Answer to the Serm. about the Trinity , p. 4 , 5 , 8. History of the Unitar . p. 9. n. 7. D●fence of the History of the Unitarians , p. 7. A●t o● Athanasiu● , p. 13. 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. Nos ergo Fratres , fide praecedente , quae sanat oculum cordis nostri , quod intelligimus sine obscuritate capiamus , quod non intelligimus sine dubitatione credamus . Ibid. Answ. to Serm. p. 5. 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. Trinitas Unus Deus , Trinitas una Aeternitas , una Potestas , una Majestas , tres Personae sed non tres Dii . 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. 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 . 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 . 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 . Boëth . Oper . p. ● 121. 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 . 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 . Answer to Milb . p. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Porphyr . Isag. c. 2. ●6 . Niceph. Callist . l. 18. c. 47. Discourse concerning the nominal and real Trinitarian , p. 16. Petav. de Trinit . l. 4. c. 4. Defence of the History of the Unit . p. 5. Ib. Ib. Answer to La Moth. p. 5. Explic. p. 13. Letter to the University , p. 13. Curcell . devocibus Trinit . Sect. 70. Athanas. de Sentent . Dionys . p. 558 , 567. Orat. 4. de Arian . p. 456. De Communi Essent . &c. p. 214. Expos. Fidei , p. 25● . In illud Omnia mihi trad p. 154. Ep. ad Serap . p. 259. Orat. 4. c. Arian . p. 554 , 456 , 459. &c. Curcell . Sect. III. Petav. de Trinit . l. 4. c. 16. De Decret . Synod . Nic. p. 259.269 , 274 , 276. Orat. 5. c. Arian . p. 514. De Decret . Synod p. 275. Curcell . Dissert . n. 106. Curcell . n. 82. Athanas. de Synod . Arim & Seluc . p. 916 , 920 , 928. P. 919. Curcell . n. 84. Maxim. Oper. T. II. p. 384. T. I. p 413. Curcell . Sect. 73. A Discourse conc●rn●●g No●●●●l and real Unitar . p 26. Basil Hom. ●7 . p. 60● , 604. Epist. 141 , 391 , 64. T. I. p. 605. T. II. p. 9●6 . Cyril Alex . Dialog . de Trinit . 3. p. 498 , 500. Curcell . n. 74. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 810. B. Phot. Cod. 24. Cod. 234. Discourse conce●ning the Nominal and Real Unitar . p. 26 , 27. Basil. Ep. 141. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Basil. T. II. p. 926. Petav. de Trinit . l. 4 c. 13. n. 10. Cur. n 106. Basil. T. I. p. 604. Cur n. 113. N. 105. T. II. p. 30. Cur. n. 106. Greg. Nyssen . T. III. p. 17. Petav. de Trin. l. 4. ● 9 n. 2 , 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niceph. Calist. hist. l. 18. c. 47. Athan. T. II. p. 280. Caesar. Quaest. 3. p. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Greg. Nyssen , Tom. III. p. Cur. n. 48. N. 107. Cur. n. 89. Hilar. de Synod . n. 67. Hilar. de Trinit . l. 4. n. 6. Hilar. de Synod . n. 18. Hilar. de Trinit . l. 6. n. 12. Lumen ex lumine , quod sine detrimento suo naturam suam praestat ex sese , & quod dat habet , & quod dederit habeat , nascaturque quod sit . Petav. de Trinit . l. 5. c. 8. n. 9 , 12. Curcell . n. 96. Ambros. de Fide l. 5. c. 3. ed. Nov. Curcell . n. 97. Aug. de Trinit . l. 7. c. 6. C Maxim l. 1. Curcell . n. 114. 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. Curcell . n. 114. Notes on Athanasius his Creed , p. 11. Basil. Ep. 141. Notes on Athanas . his Creed , p. 13. Facund . l 1. p. 19. Ed. Serm. Theod. haeret . Fab. l. 2. c. 3. Athan. de Sent. Dionys . p. 558. Athanas. de Decret . Fidei Nicen . p. 275. Athanas. de Sent. Dionys. Basil de Sp. Sancto c. 29. Athan. Orat . 4. c. Arian . p. 456. Greg. Nazian . Or. I. p. 16 , 17. Or. XXI p. 380. Basil. Hom. 27. p. 602 , 604. Basil. Epist 141. ●pist . 64.391 . Athanas. ● . 567. Greg. Naz. p. 16. Basil. Hom. 27. Ruffin . p. 211. hist. l. 1. Athan. Ep. ad Antioch , p. 577. Socin . Vol. l. p. 778. Notes on Athanas . his Creed , p. 13. Answer to my Sermon , p. 14. Hist. of the Unit. p. 15. Edit . 2. Hist of the Unit. p. 17. Defence of of the Hist. of Unitar . p. 35. Hist. of the Unit. p. 16. Ibid p. 17. Answer to Dr. Wallis his Letter , p. 9. Answer to my Sermon , p. 9. Reflections no Dr. Bull , p. 39 , 46. Sand. p. 93. Answ. to the Archbishop , p. 54. Eus●b . Pra●p . Evang . l. 11. c. 18. Cyril . c. Julian , l. 10. p. 427.335 . Julian ep . 51. Facund . l. 4. p. 163. Rittangel in Jezirah p. 96. Morinus Exerc. Biblic . l. 3. Exerc. 8. c. 6. Eusebius Dem. Evang . l. 4. c. 1. Bichin . Happerasch p. 21. Paris , A. D. 1566. Joh. 1.1.3.13.6.38 , 62.8.42 . Answer to the Archbishop's Serm. p. 56. Answer to my Sermon , p. 10. Hist. of the Unit. p. 29. Answer to my Sermon , p. 9. Ans. to the Archbishop , p. 56. Matth. 17.1 . Mar. 9 2. Luk. 9.28 . 2 Pet. 1 16. 17. 18. Enjed. in Joh. 6.62 . Answer to my Sermon , p. 10. History of the Unit. p. 26. P. 11 P. 2● . H. Grot. Opusc p. 294 T. 3. 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 ▪ Joh. 8.58 . Answer to the Archbishop . p. 58. Joh. 10.36 . Answer to Milb . p. 31. Ib. p. 30. Joh. 19.7 . Matt. 26.63 . Selden de Jure Nat. & Gent. l. 2. c. 12. Pocock Not. Miscel . ad Maim . p. 307. &c. Matt. 16.16 S. Joh. 6.69 . 1.49 . 10.30.33 . Hist. of Unitar . p. 29. Answer to Milb . p. 29. Joh. 5.18.23 . Phil. 2.6 , 7. Hist. of Unitar . p. 38. Answer to Serm. p. 13. Answer to Milb . p. 49. Ib. Col. 1. Answer to Archbish. Serm p. 25. p. 59. De divin . Christi , c. ●4 . Defence of the Hist. of the Unit. p. 54. Rom. 9.5 . Hist. of the Unit. p 35. Answer to Milb p 35. Ante-Nicen . p. 29 , 78. Answer to Milb p 34. Ans. to the Archbishop , p. 29. Answer to Milb p. 3. Histoir Critique du Nov. Test. To. III. c. 54. p. 813. Annot. in Cypr. advers . Judaeos . Hilar. in Psal. 122. Hist. of the Unit. p. 40. Hist. Critique du Nov. To. II. c. 17. Verum repugnant perpetuo consensu omnes Graeci Codices . Bez. Motinus Exercit. Bibl. l. 1. Ex. 2. c. 4. Simon . Dissert . Sur le MS. du Nov , Test p. 14 Rigalt . vit . P. Puteani , p. 62. P. Pithae de Latino Interpret . p. II. Mabil . de Re Deplomat . l. 5. p. 346. Dissert . surless MS. du Nov. Test. p. 17. Alavarez Gomez de rebus Gestis Fr. Ximenii , l. 2. & 3. Amelote in Loc. Marian. Edit . vulg . c. 17. Praef. ad Schol. Hier. in Loc. Leo Epist. 34. ad Fl. Hilar de Trinit . l. 11. Fulg. ad Thra. c. 4. 1 Joh. 5.7 . Consider on the Explic. p. 29. History of Unit. p. 43. Ans. to the Archbishop , p. 29. Selden de Syned . l. 2. c. 4. Morin exercit Bibl. l. 1 , 2 , Ex. 2. Simon dissert . de MSS p. 14. Bez Epist. ad nov . Testam . Critique in nov . Test. c. 18. Morin . exercit . Bibl. l 1. Ex. 2. c. 1. n. 9. Critique To. I. c. 9. Joh. 1.3 . Heb. 1.2 , 10. Col. 1.16 . Hist. of the Unit. p. 38. Defence of the History of Unitar . p. 13 , 14. P. 10. Answer to Milb . p. 15. P. 16. Sand. Interp . Et Paradox . p. 115. Epiph. haer . 62. n. 2. N. 4. Hilar. l. 2. de Trinit . P. 17. Cypri●n . ad Jul. Ep. 73. Erasm. ad Cens. Paris . Tit. II. Vossi . de Symb. diss . I. n. 38. Hierom. Ep. 61. Tertul. de Bap●ism . ● 13. De Praescript . haeret . c. 20. Cyprian . Ep. 27.73 . Ed. Ox. Aug. de Baptism . c. Donat. l. 6. c. 25. Ambros. de Sp. Sanct. l. 1. c 3. Bed. in Act. 19. Hugo de S Vict. de Sacr. l. 1. c. 13. Lomb. 4. Sent. Dist. ● . c. sed qd . Basil c Eunom . l. 5. c. 3. c. 10. Epiph. Haer. 76. ad fin . Concil . Nicaen . c. 19. Aug. de Haeres c. 44. Concil . Arel . I. c. 8. Bellarm. de Bap. l. 1. c. 3. Answer to Mi●b p. 18. P. 17. Advers . Prax. c. 26. C 2. Tertul. de praescr . haeret . c. ult . Con. Prax. ● . 3. C. 4. 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. Schlicht . ad M●isn . de Trinit . p. 13 , 14.17 . Advers . Prax. 2. Nos vero ut semper nunc magi● ut instructiores per Paracletum , &c. Hanc regulam ab initio Evangelii decueurrisse etiam ante priores haereticos , n●dum Praxean hesternum . Optat. Mil. l. 1. Theodor. haer l. 3 c. 2. Tertul. de praefer . c. 5. Rigalt . in Tertul. ad Praxean . Ante-Nicen . p. 27. P. 12. In quo est Trinitas unius Divinitatis , Pater , Filius & Spiritus Sanctus . De Pudicit . c. 21. Petav. T. 2. l. 1. c. 5. Sect. 4. Schlichting . Praef p. 30. Ante-Nicen . p. 27. Novatian . de Trinit . c. 12.21 , 31. C. 29. Et cum Spiritus Sancti divina aeternitate sociari . Cypr. Ep. 37. Basil Epist. Canon , 47. Epiph haeres . 57. n. 1. N. 2. Theod. haer . l. 3. c. 3. Epiph. 57. n. 2. Comment . in Matth. p. 470. Euseb. l. 6. c. 33. Epiph. haer . 62. Aug. in Joh. tract . 36. Discourse of Nominal . and real Unit. p. 1● Euseb. l. 7. c. 6.26 . Athan. de Decret . Synodi Nicaenae , p. 275. Athanas. de Sentent . Dionysii , p. 561. Basil de Sp. Sancto c. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Greg. Thaumat . p. 1. Athanas. c. Serap . p. 10. Answer to Milb . p. 18. Rittang . p. 81. P. 113. P. 117. Answer to Dr. Bull , p. 59. Morin . Exercit. l. 2. l. 10. c. 8. Cosri Part. 4. p. 316. P. 302. P. 61. De Sp. Sancto , c. 10. C. 17. C. 18. C. 29. Euseb. l. 4. c. 15. Vales. ad Euseb. p. 73. Coteler VII . p. 1●27 . C. 29. Prudent . Cath. Hymn . 5. Hilar. Op. N. E. p. 1214. Apol. 2. p. 94. P. 26. P. 97. P. 98. P. 56. P. 60. Athenag . p. 11. Defence of the Hist. of the Unit. p. 5. Resp. ad Judic . Eccles p. 174.178 . Just. Apol. 2. Paraei . ad Graec. p. 18 , 22 , 24. Dial. cum Trypho , p. 274 , &c. Athenag . p. 8 , 9. Theophil . ad Autolyc . p. 100. Clemens Paed. l. 3. c. 7. Str. l. 4. p. 517. Prof. p. 68. 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. Clem Alex . Str. 1. Euseb. Praep. l. 8. Theod. Serm. 1. Cyril . c. Jul. l. 1. & l. 8. 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. Answer to Milb p. 17. Athan. Ep. ad Serapion , p. 14. Tom. 2. Ad Serap . Tom. 1. p. 186 , 179. Or. 3. c. Arian p. 413. Petavius T. II. l. 2. c. 12. sect . 8. Hist. of the Unitar . p. 25. Aug. in Psal. 77. Answ. to Dr. Bull , p. 17. Eras. ad Cens. Paris . Tit. II. Voss de tribus Symb. Dissert . 1. Sect. 47. Hilar. de Synod . p. 1169. Epiphaninius haer . 73. n. 17. Clausula Fidei in Edit . nuperâ Paris . ex MSS. P. 27. P. 28. Answer to my Sermon p. 4. Letter of Resolution , p. 3. Christianity not Mysterious , p. 8 , 9. Chap. I. Human understanding , l. 1. chap. 4. sect . 18. L. 2. c. 13. sect . 19. Chap. 23. sect . 2. L. 2. ch . 1. sect . 5. L 2. ch . 23. sect . 1. Valla Disput . Dial. l. 1. c. 6. Chap. 23. sect . 5. Humane Underst . I. 4. ch . 3. Sect. 6. 2d . Ed. p. 310 Book . IV. Chap. 10. sect . 5. Book . II. Chap. 23. sect . 15. Sect. 27. Sect. 28. Sect. 31. Sect. 32. Sect. 33 , 34 , 35. Sect. 36. Book IV. chap. 10. sect . 1. Sect. 7. Sect. 6. Sect. 5. Sect. 10. Humane Underst . l. 2. ch . 30 , 31. Chap. 32. sect . 18. Book 3. Chap. 3. sect . 6. Ib. sect . 15. Sect. 19 , 20. Book Chap. Sect. 1. Christianity not Myst. p. 28. P. 67. P. 71. P. 73. P. 145. P. 75. Ad. Attic. 4.87 . ed. R S. Acad. 4.18 . De Leg. l. 2. c. 14. Chrys. Hom. de Resurrect . Isidor . Pelus . l. 2. Ep. 192. Christianity not Myst. p. 80 , 81. P. 84. P. 86. P. 81. P. 88. P. 82. P. 8● . Answer 1● Serm. p. 5. Possevin . Appar . in Genebrard . P. 6. P. 7. P. 7. P. 5. P. 8. Answer to the Archbishop , &c. p. 4. P. 17. P. 67. Letter of Resolut p. 3. Considerat . on the Explication , &c. by Dr. W. p. 30. Considerat . on the Explication by Dr. W. p. 30. Answer to the Archbishop , p. 21.