ee Sn a ax a oe oe a an’ oP ae oe? a aS a ee pie ted a Kalay Baan heTacrninea tant ar aah ato ° - ea Esente MDs 4. ny i“, of b ee ba Sac P eet A a mA MO Mao M re Minton ail Fe ee ears Oil Pinte BaP cig ghesD i A ght Bil ML nal IPL Fed 25 BAS = ad alee hth Mc fins Aes eat edt Bnet aS I a aE Fake nF amet 8 ot wer. PBR ay Pet wh hee ih at ale AP char oP et Pe IEDM AK AEG ates ; psa ee ee en eae : Pina gih oe Te SiP - F eben Pak PA = aes AEP AB 8A A EE Pete FP ae ol pin oh mae a Bie! 7 SO ar A Se Pica - cd * Ball Sly de 9 hm Se Foe ea a PP A PET Lot ow er ate rk AoE. ome fo a e Janine =" ate R Ete sity Panag eee FM Meory a Ki Bing. So Maan a Bhi im Boe : Fata he inn Fo Sa e 0 nc ee ign inna aes Bein : Liebe oP atin! Mol ait el ania le saben Mal 9M a trachea Rene t eee . a See, } ers eer pans Mme dhs Fan an Rin wht Taya mena tt, nicl tien Sieg OS a 7 Se p Fatt te so genet etait a Png ieee irra aR Is > , : Ete! eaten nL iat ati Me th att DAP ok aah woe Fre Pin Gases 4 fal weft - Fin ie Tekst eee (nat bm Nee Lad AH p Ba HED AM ce toi rae ie Say > ee Mnf! gM Rn Mah Actas Tem Otro stot Moo nating Frage oeiho 0" Reheat ren adie A Punta Ps LF EM of a Lim 2 ng Rt Dne Dect eaten nataXe! em) at eh ENR whan”) ee Se eee eee eee Bp Ree Nae Sag he en aide Mai ‘ en ee watetnd ts HI . “== -o% hee te Fl a wee te OO eA PE Sean Pa age Pat Patina ome Shee And ’ a, . hn gE et gD see! 9 Sine aa ret a a ine ~ ee ee Se ee SS eet tt * at et * ; Lah a ne el cal Aten aT tee Tanita in Manage a = + Tab Siing tint tne ese Fag Paces net afin Pa Oem te in 2 7 a oat, er eee ee Pat » Pmt tet emda gto 24 Sa ie taint Paes tatt Sel : Fain T7208 ota Pant an mann ai A” el Pneteel wit SE ee ie ak Se es ear C tae bee Net aM ete ae he Mh ec ee ee ee ee ee Ses he aa ™ Foam Fog emma a Bt wig 9 Caw tee aie ate Be “ nae on aT! ~ i! ap ee at neta 2 PS mt ns aR fen 255! bag « r Yeh e™, ee nee ah wee See ate teeaniels ¢ 4 “ Re ee ee ee ee = meet pinata Reh tres ee : Flint Bie efon toi ink De® att Bie PP Sn pee oh ne ee ee : 2 Fane ho Mee Pat noe Yen it atin ee le es Se : ; EIS, pO SO , Ss ala a alah z ‘ ee eee io SO eee ee eee 3 m £ < rs : Bnet Pmt af : a =. o a eataalindicntim et d-atinch tbr aa Nate Vint hein a Pap ox hate eidadial teeta ec Sa he et ate”. Tal Fam vont! “ %. Pate oe an ee 5 RR ee WI ® an 3 Pt inn A beter gh = St at eS ee ate 2h eta ee a ee batien eh : oe en eee ee Library of The Theological Seminary PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY WK PRESENTED BY Samuel Agnew, Esq. 1880 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/tractsondoctrineOOunse ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLY TRINETY; AND ON THE NICENE AND ATHANASIAN CREEDS, RISHOPS STILLINGFLEET AND BULL; DR WALLIS; LORD MONBODDOO, AND DR HORBERY ; WITH A DISQUISITION ON RATIONAL CHRISTIANITY, BY SOAME JENYNS, ESQ. To which is prefixed AN Pee ence TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, AND TO THE ATHANASIAN CREED, /BY THE RIGHT REVEREND THOMAS "BURGESS, D.D. F.R.S. & F.A.S BISHOP OF ST. DAVID 6. DURHAM: PRINTED BY G. WALKER, SADLER-STREET, And Sold by RIVINGTONS, AND HATCHARD, LONDON, 1814. Price Four Shillings. BBP LO LEP LPI IP PDP LP LI LLP DP PP LPL LL LPP LPI « As the doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, no man, who does not believe in the Trinity, can be said to be a Chris- tian.”—-Lorp Monsoppo’s Ancient Metaph. vol. v.— p- 189. ‘¢T hope the reader will not think I have said toe much upon a subject of such importance, as the doc- trine of the Trinity, being the foundation of the Chris- tian religion, and that which makes us Christians.”—= Turp. vol. vi. p. 43: , PLE LIP MP LP LPP LEE LP LP LP POP LP LI PP DLO LI PET ae | REG, NOY $880 ute THEOLOEGICK ay Seu Kee PREFACE. | —— 7 LN PARES * YN the following tracts the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as professed by the prim- itive Church, and the Church of England, is stated by Bishop Bull, and illustrated by _ Dr Wallis, and Lord Monboddo. The an- cient rules of this doctrine, the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds, are here also vindi- cated by Hooker, Bishops Stillingfleet and. Bull, and by Dr. Horbery. The volume is closed by a disquisition of Soame Jenyns, on « rational Christianity,” in which he very forcibly exposes the unreasonable objections of Unitarians, and the Antichristian charac- ter of Unitarianism. The contents of the volume require no in- troduction: I shall therefore detain the read- er, only to obviate two false assertions of Mr Belsham, (in which he calls Hooker a no- minal Trinitarian,* and asserts, that what he himself calls a “truly Unitarian doctrine,” re- * Calm inquiry, p. 520, [hid ceived the marked approbation of the uNIVER- SITY OF oxForp,)”’} and to state the degree of authority, which is meant to be annexed to the illustrations of the great Doctrine, which is the subject of this volume. No one, who has ever read Hooxer, (the ju- dicious,—-the defender of our faith and liturgy,—the boast and ornament of the Church of England) or knows any thing of Oxrorp, will give any ‘credit to either of Mr Belsham’s assertions. ‘The extract from the Ecclesiastical Polity, contained in this vo- lume, and the language of the Oxford Decree, will shew how contrary to the truth are both his assertions. The decree was not a decree of the Universily, that is, of the Uni- versity assembled in Convocation, but of the Vice-Chancellor and Heads of Houses; nor is there in it the slightest mention of any Uni- tarian doctrine. It passes a censure on some passages of Dr Sherlock’s Sermon, as contra- ry to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and especially to the doctrine of the Church + Calm inquiry, p. 519. elastin (ah of England: “ dissona et contraria doctrine - Ecclesize Catholice, & speciatim doctrine Ecclesie Anglhicane.”* Unitarianism is alto- gether contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England. How then was it pos- sible, that the censure of opinions, which were stated tobe contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, should convey a marked approbation of “a truly Unitarian doctrine ?” If Mr. Belsham has ever read the decree, he must know, that there is not one word in it expressive, either of Unitari- anism or approbation. If, then, truth is not “necessarily the object of his aversion and abhorrence,” as he says of the established Clergy, his assertions respecting Hooker, and the University of Oxford, certainly be- tray no great regard for truth That doctrine of the Church, which Uni- tarians hold in such “abhorrence,” Dr. Wallis and Lord Monboddo have shewn, is neither inconsistent with reason, nor philo. sophy. Their attempts to illustrate the mys- * The decree is printed in Dr. Sherlock’s Modest Examination. ; Foye teries of our faith are no concession to infi- delity ; for both these learned writers rest the truth of the doctrine on the authority of Scripture; and the latter maintains that it is the belief of this doctrine, which “makes us Christians,” and that “no man, who does not believe in the Trinity, can be said to be a Christian.” Such endeavours to illustrate the mysteries of revelation by natural ana- logies are countenanced by the example of St. Paul. The resurrection of the body is purely a doctrine of revelation ; yet St. Paul has shewn the reasonableness of our belief in it by a natural analogy. To the objection, «But some man will say, how are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?” the Apostle replies, “ Thou fool, that which thou sowest, is not quickened, except it die.” And though the analogy is not perfect, yet its similitude is sufficient to dispose the mind to acquiesce in the re- vealed doctrine. The Platonists of the se- cond and third centuries were pre-disposed. to Christianity by their knowledge of the Platonic Triad, how much soever the Pla- [ vii ] tonic and Christian doctrines, in some re- spects, differ from each other. For, as I have said in the following pages (p. 65.) “the doctrine of the Trinity was not brought into the Church by the Platonists, but the Pla- tonists were brought into the Church by the doctrine.” Evidence of analogy between the Christian and heathen Trinities we need not seek beyond the Triad of the Platonists : nor is it necessary, for the purpose of the proposed illustration, to prove any other af- finity, except the distinct existence, and co- eternity, of three hypostases in one God. I will take my leave of the reader with this single observation on the general sub- ject. As two heterogeneous natures, materi- al and immaterial, are so united, as to con- stitute one man; ‘“why should it be thought a thing incredible,” that three homogeneous natures, (or hypostases, or whatever better name can be had,) should be so united, as to be only one God? If we did not know the fact, would not the former union be the more incredible of the two ? T. St. DAVIDS, Durham, June 16, 1814, ERRATA. 56. 1. 14. read contenti. 65. 1. 18. read nostrt. 71. 1. 11. read emperor and emanation. 1. 19. read amoppnross. 72. 1, ult. read xoojov. 96. 1. 12. read parallel. 10 4. read TOOTH Tove 12 fal 4, 1, 21. read orthodox. CONTENTS. Page. 1 Preface iii 2 Introduction to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to the ie oe Creed. ix. $ Discourse on the doctrine of the Trinity, as held by the primitive Church, by Bishop Bull. 1, 4 An illustration ef the doctrine of the Trinity, by Dr. Wallis. 29, 5 An illustration of the doctrine of the Trinity by Lord Monboddo. 69. 6 The unity of the divine essence in three hypos-« tases, as maintained by the Platonists; and some remarkable circumstances belonging to that doctrine ; described by Bishop Stilling- fleet. 89. 7 The Athanasian Creed cleared from contradic« tions, by Bishop Stillingfleet. 95. 8 A Sermon on the Athanasian Creed, by Dr. Horbery. 121. 9 On the Nicene Creed, by Bishop Bull. 149. 10 On the Athanasian Creed, by Hooker. 155. 11 On Rational Christianity, by Soame Jenyns 159. id Gath ae as, Pee “ff ‘ “« Arte bad Da ai a i. ay) se > Pea i ts nat ve ars, ¢ Po at PSE f{) ¢ Y/ Pa i Nene SH 4 por % \ st SY GRR UP ™ Sag ‘ Shs PRIN OEY OI Ne rt, NOY 1800 ' THEOLOGICLLE ey MIN yA oT AN INTRODUCTION TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, AND TO THE ATHANASIAN CREED. SYVeqewiee Quod opus Evangelii, que est substantia Novi . Testamenti, statuens legem & prophetas usque ad Johannem, si non exinde Pater & Filius & Spiritus, tres crediti, unum Deum sistunt ? TERTULL. adv. Prax. c. xxxiii. Principale munus scientig cognoscere Trinite- tem, secundo vero in loco cognoscere creaturam ejts. OniceEn, in Cant. Cant. Hom. ii. een "L HE doctrine of the Trinity is the dis- tinguishing tenet of Christianity, and the foundation of the Christian faith, all Chris- tians being baptized in the name of the Fa- ruer,-and of the Son, and of the Hoty Guost. It is the belief and profession of this faith, which makes us Christians, (for we are Christians, to use the words of Tertullian, b Cia og credendo, quod creditum facit Christianos, ) and which therefore is necessary to our sal- vation. If the distinction of names in the baptis- mal ordinance be areal ‘distinction of Per- sons, it will appear in other parts of the Scriptures. We accordingly find itin Christ's promise to the Apostles, that “HE would send the Hoty Gaost from the Farner; in St. Paul’s declaration that ‘we have ac- cess through Curist by one Spirit to the Fatuer ;’t and in the Apostolical benedic- tion, “the grace of our Lord, Jasus Curist, the love of Gon, and the fellowship of the Ho.y Guost be with you all.” What can mark personality more strongly than grace, love, and fellowship? or than the means of access to the Father ? or than Christ’s send- ing the Holy Ghost from the Father ? And can Persons so united with the Almighty be other than God? than one God? for we know from the whole tenour of Scripture that there is only one God. It appears * John xv. 26 + Eph. ii. 8. Chaat) therefore from the baptismal ordinance, and from the other passages, that the great pur- pose of the Gospel was to make known the unity of the Godhead in the three divine Persons, the merciful and gracious authors of man’s salvation. Tertullian calls the revelation of this faith, “the work of the Gospel, and substance of the new Testa- ment.”* | If the distinction of names, Fatruer, Son, and Hoty Guost, be a real distinction of Persons, it will not be confined to the new dispensation ; it will be seen in the old Tes- tament, as well as the new. What says the Scripture? The creation of the world is ascribed to Gop, to the Worp or Gon, and to the Spirit or Gop; but especially to the Worn; as the redemption of mankind is to. the Fatuer, the Sen, and the Hoty Guost ; but especially to the Son. The Word, or Son of God, was in both dispensa- tions the visible representative of the Deity : * In the passage prefixed to this Introduction. ( xik ) in the former, he was JEHOVAH Mimra,* - his intercourse with the Patriarchs and. Prophets ; in the latter he was the Worp INCARNATE ; the Word, that, “ in the begin- ning, was with God, and was God;” and «became flesh ;"——“' God manifest in the flesh °’>—* in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” The distinction and plurality of divine Persons expressed in the several passages of the new Testament, is also evident in the Mosaic description of the creation. Let us take for our text the words of Moses in their literal sense. “In the beginning Gops ereated the heaven and the earth.—The Spirit of the Gops moved upon the face of the waters.—And the Gons said, Let there be light.—And the Lord Goos said, Behold the man is become as one of us.” So in Ec- clesiastes, “ Remember thy Creators in the * Tt js the common opinion of all antiquity, says Dr. Clarke, that the Angel, who said, I am the God of thy Fathers, was Christ. (Scripture Doctrine. p- 114.—118.) ! ( xii ) days of thy youth.”* Considering the heavy denunciations in Scripture against idolatry, . is it credible, that the divine name would have been expressed in the plural form, if some plurality, consistent with unity, had not been intended? Against any misappli- cation or abuse of the plural form, the words of Moses are sufficiently guarded. For though a plurality of persons be expressed by the plural form of Elohim, yet the unity of the Godhead is equally denoted by the singular form of the verbs created, said, saw &¢. with which it is connected. There is the same peculiarity of expression in the words, “the Spirit of the Gops moved up- on the face of the waters,” in which we have the Spirit, and not Spirits; and its verb also in the singular form ; the third Person of the Godhead a the _ of the Fa- ther and the Son. - The creation was the work of the three Persons of the Pe a ~— the agency of » Chap. xii, 1, { Xiv ) the Worn ought, perhaps, more especially to be understood in. those enunciations of the divine will, which are expressed in the pas- sages; “And Gop sain, Let there be light;” _«« Let us make man.”—&c. as the presence of the Hoxy Spirit is in the words, “ the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” 7 By these words, indeed, some expositors understand a great wind. But they do not explain why the violent agitation of the abyss should be more suitable to the work of creation, than the gentle influence of incu- bation, as the passage is commonly. under- stood. We know that on another occasion there was. “a great and strong wind,—but the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake ; but the Lord was not in the earthquake ; and after the earth- quake, a fire ; but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire, a still small voice.” The original terms for the Spirit of God (om>x rm) occur in many other passages of the Bible, but no where in the sense, which (weer) Unitarians “ascribé to this passage. And the reason seems to be, that the term ts in construction with any thing intellectual, can never signify an inanimate substance ; and therefore in construction with om>x can’ mean only the’ Spirit of God. It ought also to be observed, that om>x mm cannot mean a “ great wind,” because it is introduced before the commencement of the Creation of our mundane System, and consequently (wind being a created sub- stance) before the existence of wind. The first act of the Creation was the production of Light. A great wind is called n4 3 nm and 231. In a passage of Job, which re- lates to the work of the creation, the Spirit of God is equivalent to the Spirit of the Al- mighty. “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.” (xxxiii. 4:.) t The first verse of Genesis gives the general sub. Ject of Creation ; the second describes the unformed mass of Chaos created by God out of nothing; the third, the first act of Creation from this « rudis indi. gestaque moles” into the substances and ‘forme of inani- mate and animated nature, ( “VI ) - "Phe works of treation and redemption, and the resurrection of Christ are ascribed to each of the three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, because the three Persons are one God. veld : The Spirit of God is one with God; and the Spirit of Christ is one with Christ ; and therefore as the Spirit of Christ is one with the Spirit of Ged, (Rom. viii. 9, 10, 11.) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and the same God: one God in three Persons. The doctrine of a plurality of Persons in the Godhead, was not confined to Christi- ans; it was known to the Egyptians, and to the Greeks : which can be accounted for only in two ways; either that the doctrine in Egypt and Greece, was derived from re- velation, that is, from the Hebrew Scrip- tures, which was probably the fact; or from the investigations of a profound philosophy. If from the former source, the doctrine ought to be above all dispute; if from the latter,” * The doctrine of THREE IN One, and ONE IN THREE. ( XvVil ) that may well be allowed to be free from absurdity and contradiction, which was pro- fessed by the wisest ha prin nie Pla- to to Plotinus. | I will not here anticipate from the follow- ing pages, any of the observations* on the analogy between the three hypostases of the Platonists, and the Christian Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, any further than to remark the resemblance between the ¥uyn tov xocuev, the animating Spirit of the World, and the third Person of the Holy Trinity, as described in the Nicene Creed ; where he is called, “the Lord and giver of Life,’—life natural and spiritual,—a title, which is founded on the influence of the Ho- ly Spirit in the creation of the world, (Gen. i. 2.) in the miraculous conception, in the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and in the general resurrection, (Rom. viii. 11.) What Moses says of God, Job ascribes to the c * By Bishop Stillingfleet, Lord Monboddo, and Dr. Hales, included in a Volume of Tracts on the Doctrine of the Trinity, to which this Introduction is prefixed, ( XVill ) Spirit of God. “ And the Lord God formed man out of the dust, and breathed into his nostris the breath of Life’. (Gen. ii. 7-) « The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath* of the Almighty hath given me Life”. (Job. xxxiii. 4.) The creation being the work. of all the Persons of the Godhead, is ascrib- ed severally to each, and singly to God. The terms, Father and Son, imply some eabordination of one to the other ; and be- cause a human Son is necessarily subordi- nate in time to his Father; some unbelievers in the Trinity have supposed, that the Son of God was subordinate in time to the Father, judging of things human and divine, that is, of things infinitely disimilar, by the same rule; (though our Saviour had warned asof the difference: “If I have told you of earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things ?”+) and not recollecting, that every | thing in the divine nature must be instant * Breath and Spirit, (spiritus,) are equivalent terms. + John ni. 12. ( XIX ) and eternal, and therefore cannot admit of succession and subordination. If then it. can be proved from Scripture, that the Son and the Holy Spirit possess any one attribute of the divine nature, such as omnipresence, they must have possessed it from all eterni- ty ; and so the Father never could baye been without the Son; nor the Father and Son without the Holy Spirit. The unity of the three persons in one God follows both from the truth of Scripture, and from the impos- sibility that there should be more than one omnipresent and infinite Being. Tertullian says, Unitas irrationaliter col- lecta heeresin facit; & trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituit.* To obviate the opposite errors into which, irrational and unscriptural views of the divine attributes have led some unbelievers in the Trinity, the Church has adopted, as an explication of the Christian faith, the Creed of St. Athanasius, so called either because it was written by him, or contains such an exposi- * Adversus Praxeam, c. 3. (game) tion of our faith, as may be collected from his works. He lived early in the fourth Century Before therefore I proceed to an account of the Athanasian Creed, I shall subjoin a selection of passages from the Fa- thers of the three first Centuries, in which the doctrines of Christ's Divinity, and of the Holy Trinity, are professed. CENTURY IL. CLEMENS ROMANUS. A. D. 65.—83. « The sceptre of the majesty of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, came not in pomp and splendour, although he was able to assume them, but in lowliness of mind.”* (p. 8.) * The passages here selected may be found in most of the writers, who have opposed the Arian, and Soci- nian, or Unitarian, heresies, such as Pearson, Bull, Waterland, Abraham Taylor, Bingham, Randolph, Burgh, gc. But by the pages which I have placed at the end of each passage, (if not otherwise described) [ refer to Buran’s Inquiry into the opinions of Chris- tians of the three first Centuries, which is a very valu- able storehouse of Christian testimonies, and ought to be reprinted." ( XXi ) St. BarnaBas. A. D. 50. “ Christ, the Lord of the whole earth, to whom (God) said before the appointment of time, Let us make man in our image after our likeness.” Gen. i. 36. (p 15.) Hermas, A. D. 70. “The Son of God is more ancient than any creature, (Colos. 1. 15.) insomuch that he was in council with the Father, upon the subject of Creation. (p. 17.) “The name of the Son of God is great and without bound; and the whole world is upheld by him.” (p. 17.) CENTURY - LI. Ienatius. A. D. 101. “I glorify Jesus Christ, the God, who hath filled you with wisdom :’—** God clothed in flesh :’-—(p. 20, 21.) “J pray that you may be, in every res- pect, confirmed in your God, Jesus Christ.” (p. 21, 22.) ( Xxil ) Poutycare. A. D. 147. For this, and for all things else I praise thee, I bless thee, I glorify thee, through the eternal high Priest, Jesus Christ, thy be- loved Son, through whom to thee, with him in the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all succeeding ages.” (p. 54:) JUSTIN, Martyr. A. D. 164. “David hath proclaimed Christ to be born from the womb according to the coun- cil of the Father, and hath shewn him to be a mighty God, and to be worshipped.” (p. 90.) « From which I would have you to know, that this same crucified Person is explicitly declared to be both God and man,—that he is both the Christ and adorable God; that the Holy Ghost has called him God ; and that, by what has been already laid down, it has been abundantly demonstrated, that Christ, the Son of God, its God and Lord.” (p. 93.) ( XXII ) “We worship and adore Him, and his Son, (who came from him, and taught us these things,)—and the Prophetic Spirit.” (Whitaker's Origin of Arianism, p. 278.), Irenzus. A. D. 167%. “ And to this purpose our Lord, in these later times, came to us, not so as he might have come, but so as we might be able to behold him: for he might have come to us in his own unspeakable glory, but we should have been unable to bear the majesty of | his glory : for he is the word of God, the only begotten of the Father, Jesus Christ our God.” (p. 113.) a ‘¢ Thou art not unmade, O Man, nor didst thou always co-exist with God, as his own Word has done.” (Bull’s answer to Clerke. p. 938.) ATHENAGoRAS. A. D. 177. “ By him and through him were all things made, the Father and Son being one, the Son being in the Father, and the Father in ( XXIV ) ¢he Son, in the unity and power of the Spi- rit.” (p. 63.) « We profess God, and the Son his Word, and the Holy Ghost, and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are truly one, as concerning power.” (Pp. 66.) Tarran. A. D. 177. «We speak not foolishly, O Greeks, nor do we utter trifles, when we declare to you, that God was born in the form of a man.” (p. 99.) Tueopnitus. A. D. 182. _— Types of the Trinity, that is of God, and his Word, and his Wisdom.” (p. 129.) « By his Word and his Wisdom he found- ed the universe ; for by his Word and his Spirit the heavens were established.” (p- 140.) CLEMENS Avexanp. A. D. 192. «man, believe on him, who is man ( XKV ) and God ;—-O all men, trust in him,’ who alone is God of all men ;++receive light, that ye may vege him to be) ini “pie and Man.” (p. 162:): } rat solve DI « A Trinity indivisibly divisible, i in whom dwelleth the universally es : er of God.”,.(p. 1702) » Loh) i Phe id ‘el Son is the only God. y isi 176.) Piignoedd BOD Ie owt! “He can! Giants nothing, who-has’ the Word, the Alinigh ty God, tery ravronctnega Oe.» Aoyer 1 ( Bull’s Answer) tooClerke,' p. 935). tao Penturtian A’ D. tot-Lar¢. 9 ‘66 What j is the purpose, what the substaiice of the new Testament, but to teach t us, that the Three i in whom we believe, the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit, are one God: an “epdgeepi cst, asl tiash amc «The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three, not in dignity, but order ; not in sub- stance, but form ; “not in power, but mani- ‘festation ; - but they are of one Suen, fy! a ae etal '* Lat. specie, i. e. smiduke, appearance, manifestation. ( XXV1 } dignity, and power, because they are one God.” (p. 212) } wi_omo! _ . Christ is\God; and he who adores him, should eee him in spirit and in truth.” (p. 192.) © ty eh in ae « So God made man, in the image of God created he him, that is, in the image of Christ ; for the Word is’ God, who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be. che with God.” (p. P9460 « But the washing away of ‘Offence is an saieiitiiea ‘made by faith,’ sealed ‘and wit-. nessed. by the, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Yor if every word shall be established by three witnesses, how much. stronger is the ratification of our hope, Ww hen three divine names are set to it; when we haye the same to bear witness to our faith, who have pro- mised and engaged for our salvation in con- sequence of it.” (p. 195.) «The names of the Father, God Al- mighty, the most High, the Lord of Hosts, the King of Israel, He who is, as the Scrip- tures teach us: these we say, belong to ( XKVH ) the Son likewise, and that the Son came in these, and always acted in them, and so ma-: nifested them in himself to men... “ All that the Father hath, saith he, is mine :” why then not his names? wherefore, when thou readest Almighty God, and the most High, and the Lord of Hosts, and the King of Is- rael, and He who is, consider whether the. Son be not demonstrated hereby ; who is, an his own right, God Almighty, as he is the. Word of Almighty God.” (Tertullian, adv. Prax. c. 17.) CENTURY III. caius A. D. 210.” ** Psalms and Songs of the Brethren, written by the faithful from the beginning, celebrate the word of God, even Christ, de- claring him to be God.” (Hickes’s account of Dr. Grabe and his MSS. p. Ixi.) Oricen. A. D. 254. _ When we come to the grace of baptism,. we renounce all other Gods and Lords, and acknowledge one God alone, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” (p. 275.) ( xvii) “se 'There’are some,’ indeed, who confess the'Father, Son, ‘atid Holy Ghost,’ but not sincerely, not’ traly ; ‘such ‘as ‘all heretics, who coffess the Father, : Son, and Holy Spirit, but not rightly, not faithfully. For they either falsely separate ‘the Son ‘from the Father, declaring the Father to be of dne ‘nature, and the ‘Son of another ; or as falsely confound them, making God to be a compound of three, or a there ‘threefold ap- péllation. “But he who rightly declares the truth, will ascribe to the Father; Son, and Holy Ghost, what is peculiar'to each, with- out acknowledging any ‘difference in nature or substance.” (p. 274.y~ | | The contrary. heresies, which Origen has here discriminated, mutually produce each other. It became therefore im the next cen- tury necessary “to guard the Catholic faith agaitist these errors by ’a’more minute €x- ( ¥KIX ) plication of the truth. And this has béen effected in — THE ATHANASIAN CREED, of which I shall now give a summary view. We cannot be saved without a right faith ; and aright faith consists in believing God to be, as he is revealed to us in the Scriptures ; that is, in believing that there is only one God; and that there are three Persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; and so to believe, as not to confound the three Persons into one Person, nor to distinguish them into three Gods. The three Persons are uncreated, infinite,* eternal, and almighty, and therefore each. person is God and Lord; yet they are not three Gods; because the same Scriptures which ascribe to each the attributes of De- ity, teach us also that there is only one God. * In the English translation of the Athanasian Creed, the term incomprehensible means infinite or om- nipresent, that.is, qui nullo limite comprehendi, nullo SAiniri, potest. yah they are distinct Persons. For the on being of the Father is therefore not the ' rate: ; and the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son, is different from both; so that there is only one Father, one Son, and one Holy Ghost. But though different from each ofher: one is not before or after another, greater or less than another; because all the three Persons are infinite, eternal, and almighty ; and therefore, as there can be no degrees of infinity, one cannot be more infinite, more eternal, more almighty than another. He therefore that would be saved, must thus think of the Trinity, thatis, must believe that God is one in three Persons; and that the three Persons are one God; for thus is God revealed to us in the Scriptures. It is further necessary to believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ; that is, that Jesus Christ is not only the Son of God,. the second Person of the Trinity, but that he is also man,—very God, and very Man ;—God of God, being begotten of God ( XXXi ) before the foundation of the world ; and'man by the human nature, derived from his mo- ther in the world; equal to the Father in the several attributes of Deity before men- tioned ; and inferior to the Father in his human nature: who is one Christ by the assumption of the human nature into the divine, in one person; who died and rose again for our salvation; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead, At whose coming all men shall rise aga.) with their bodies; and shalt give account for their own works; and they that have done good, shall go into life everlasting ; and they that have done evil, into everlast- ing fire. This is the Catholic faith, the faith of the Gospel, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved. Some persons have objected, that the term Trinity is not in the Bible. It cer- ( Xxxi ) tainly is not to be found there any more than the terms unify, (applied to the attri- — -butes of God,) omnipr esence, and omnisct- ence. But no one will doubt, that these attributes are to be ascribed to the deity, on the authority of Scripture, because the before mentioned terms are not in the Bi- ple. It is sufficient for the doctrines, that it Is recorded in Scripture, that there is on- ly one God, that he is every where pr esent, and that he knoweth all things ; and that ahere are Tures, the Father, the Son, ‘iti the Holy Ghost, possessing t the Atlas of omnipresence and omniscience. But if the word Trinity be not in the Bible, we have a strong argument: for its primitive use and authority among Chris- tians in its very high antiquity. The first Latin writer, who wrote on the Christian doctrines, as early as the latter end of the second and the beginning of the third Cen- tury, T ertullian, uses the word Trinitas, ‘and, before him, Theophilus and Clemens Alexandrinus, the word tex;, without any ( XXxil ) intimation of either word being new to the Church. How soon after the general preach- ing of the Gospel the terms Trinity, omni: presence, and omniscience, were first used, cannot now be ascertained, nor is it of any consequence. | e : NOTE.—P. xx. (1. 6. Noie.) “ Mr Lindsey’s accusation of Unitarianism against all Christian people extending no farther than * till the council of Nice,” here also my enquiry into the tenets of the primitive Church shall find a termination. By that famous council, which was convened at Nice, acity, of Bythinia, A. D. 325, and which, I trust, I have now redeemed from the insinuated charge of innovation, the opinions of Arius were absolutely condemned, and the very doctrines, which are at this day received by the Church of England, were ratified and promilged to the Christian world. How far those doctrines which were then promulged, and which are now embraced by the Church of England, accord with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the faith of Ante-Nicene antiquity, it has been my Office to enquire and to communicate ; and thus have I‘made it appear, not by a single excep- tion only, that Mr. Lindsey’s géneral position is false, but by the testimony of every Christian writer of the Jirst three centuries, that, without a single exception, the contradictory of his position is true.’ (Buran’s In- quiry, p. 380.) P. xxi. 1.16 J glorify Jesus Christ, the God, who hath filled you with wisdom. Unbelievers in the Di- vinity of Christ, have often asserted that the term Ses is never applied, with the article, to Jesus Christ. ( XXXIV ) Though the assertion has been freequently refuted, yet, as long as the Unitarian heresy exists, the refu- tation cannot be too constantly maintained. Ignatius, who was a disciple of St. John, calls Christ 4 @¢o5 in many passages, besides the one at the head of this note: as ey Serneete tou Tlareos, noes Incov Xgirrov, Tov Ocov juov. (Epist. ad Ephes. Buren’s Inquiry, p. O28.) @sog yuowy Invove Xeioros. (Epist. ad Ephes.) Ey Incov Keira tw Oew nuov. (Epist. ad Rom.) ‘O sos nym Inoous Kerrros ey WaTet WY. (Idem ibid) Mieenrany stves Tov mwadovs Tov Qeov pov. (Idem ibid) So Justin Martyr: ‘Oo Aoyos tng LoPses, autos wy ovtes 6 Osos, aro cov Tlateos auy crwy syevness. (Dial. cum Tryph.) Tovro—simi—o Tov @xov Aoyos, penvowy neesy, oY sOnawes Tov Qcoy asyew. (Idem ibid) ‘Od: qesregos scergos Xeirros 6 @eos. (Idem, forsan, De Resurr.) These passages of Ignatius, and Justin Martyr, with many others, from Tatian, Theophilus, Ireneus, Melito, Clemens Alexandrinus, Hippolytus, Origen, and Dionysius Alexandrinus, the reader will find in Apranam Taytor’s True Scripture Doctrine ef the Trinity, vol. I. p. 27 6—278. London, 1727. j A DEMONSTRATION OF THE THREE GREAT TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY, That there is a God,—that there is only one God,— and that the three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God. Veeewe 1. All things in the universe are matter or mind, material or immaterial. 2. Nothing material could have been the cause of its own existence ; for if it could, it would have acted, before it existed, which is impossible. There must then have been something prior to all creation, that is, some- _ thing uncreated, uncaused, without begin- ning, self-existent, and eternal. ‘The world therefore was created by aself-existent and eternal being. | Whatever proves design in the works of Creation, proves also the previous existence of a Designer or Creator. The regular re- turn of the seasons; the structure of animal bodies ; the means which every parent ani- ( XXXV1 ) mal has for the support of her young, ia proportion to their number; are proofs of design in the works of creation, and there- fore prove that they were made by a Cre- ator, that is, by an uncreated, uncaused, self-existent, and eternal Being. 3 But if eternal, that is, infinite in time, he must have been infinite in all attributes, in time, space, power, &c. that is, he must have been eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, &c, otherwise he must have been, both in- finite and finite, which is impossible. And if infinite, then only one, For there cannot be two Beings possessing unlimited attri- butes. If omnipresent, then only one. For there cannot be two infinite Beings: for the rea- son before mentioned. And as two finite bodies cannot occupy the same space, at one and the same time, so, we may conceive, two infinite and omnipresent galt can- not occupy all space. And if omnipotent, then also only one; for there cannot be two omnipotent Beings, Two Beings cannot be superior to each other ( XXXvii ) at the same time and in the same attribute ; Neither can they be equal to each other, and be omnipotent. There cannot, therefore, be two infinite beings ; and consequently there can be only one God. 4. The Scriptures also declare, that there is only one God. But the same Scriptures declare that there are three omnipresent Persons; and, as there cannot be two om- nipresent Beings, the three omnipresent Persons can be only one God. 5. The distinct personality of the Three Persons is evident from many passages of Scripture ; from the Baptismal Commission, Christ’s promise of the Holy Spirit, (John, Xv. 26.) the Apostolical benediction, &c. The baptismal Commission, if not in the name of three divine Persons, would be in the name of God, of a man, and an attribute. The omnipresence of the Son is proved from his promise to be with his Church to the end of the world,* and from his hearing * Whether this be translated the end of the world, er the end of the Jewish age, makes no difference as to ( XXXVill ) our prayers. “ This is the confidence we have in him, that if we ask any thing accord- ing to his will, he heareth us.” (1 John v. 14.) His divinity is further evident from St. John’s testimony, that in the beginning he was with God and was God :** and from St. Paul, who calls him our great God and Sa- viour.t The omnipresence of the Holy Spirit, is evident from his presence with believers in Christ threughout the world, who are call- ed the temples of the Holy Spirit. His di- the proof of omnipresence. For if Christ was every where present, at all times with all his disciples disper- sed through different parts of the world during that age, he must be omnipresent in all ages. There can be no intermission of an infinite attribute. * St John’s testimony to Christ's Divinity, and to his creation of the world, is acknowledged by Julian. (Cyril. contra Julian. p. 327 .) And another Hea- then, Pliny, says that the Christians of the first Cen« tury paid divine worship to Christ, singing a hymn to Christ as to God, carmen Christo, quast Deo. + This interpretation of Tit. ul. 13. is required by the idiom of the original, and is supported by all the ancient Greek Fathers of the Church, and by all the Latin with one exception. ( XXXIX ) vinity is further evident from his omnisci- ence, in leading the Apostles into all truth. 6. That the Scriptures which contain these doctrines, are a divine Revelation we prove from the character of the writers, and from the authenticity of their writings ; and we establish that authenticity by the Same means that the authenticity of all other writings is proved, but much more am- ply and certainly than any other ancient writings can be authenticated. For we have not only the testimony of writers contem- porary with the Apostles, and an uninter- rupted series of testimony from their time for three Centuries, which comprehended. nearly one hundred and fifty writers, who, even in such of their writings, as are now ex- tant, have quoted almost every verse of the New Testament: but we have also a Ma- nuscript copy of the New Testament as an- cient as the end of the second or beginning of the third Century ; and other very anci- ent Manuscripts belonging to the fourth. fifth, sixth, and seventh Centuries. rs ‘ ‘ ‘ : > Pa oe 2 | QE A Lory Monsoppo’s Anciept Metaph. vol. v. «¢ These three principles of the intellectual world, though distinct substances, make but one Being. And thus we have the three in one, and the one in three; and the unity of the Godhead perfectly preserved.” THE DOCTRINE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THREE AGES OF CHRISTIANITY, CONCERNING THE BLESSED TRINITY. CONSIDERED, IN OPPOSITION TO SABELLIANISM AND TRITHEISM. a BY THE RIGHT REV. GEORGE BULL, D. D. Late Lord Bishop of St. David's. y) ¥ } ee ee ce) ae pi 4 Th Wk Age ' 2 i ‘ne i : : 7 ee My i a bit ay Aye, ‘ ie hy » Fis Me ee ; ek 4 be seen | t re gi 3 rp ‘ i“ : sah, an Tks Ge ae Coy i ; fj » { + J: Fe ' ea Le A pa Ri oe * | ' ) A DISCOURSE.* VNTAO4144927 HE unanimous sense of the catholic if doctors of the church, for the first three ages of christianity, concerning the article of the Trinity, is in short this. I. That there are in the Godhead three (not mere names or modes, but) really dis- dinct hypostases or persons, the Father, the Son or Word of God, and the Holy Ghost. Il. That these three persons are one God: which they thus explain. , 1. Lhere is but one fountain or principle of divinity, God the Father, who only is avié@-, God of, and from himself ; the Son, and Holy Ghost deriving their divinity from him; the Son immediately from the Father. B * Bishop Bull's Works, vol. 3. p, 828. (Ree the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, or from the Father by the Son. 2. The Son and Holy Ghost are so de- rived from the fountain of the divinity, as that they are not separate or separable from it, but do still exist in it, and are most inti- mately united to at. All the fathers insist upon this, that if - there were more than one fountain of the divinity, or if the three persons were each of them a self-dependent principle of divi- nity, or if the three persons were separate from each other, then there would be three Gods. But being there is but one fountain of the divinity, the Father; the Son and Holy Ghost deriving their divinity from that fountain, and that.so, as still to exist in it, and be inseparably united to it, there is but one God. ‘That this is the unani- mous consent, and constant doctrine of the primitive fathers, I have fully shewed in my Defens. Fid. Nic. J shall here resume, and more fully explain only one testimony which I have there alledged, because it es — ~~ (3a 9 shews us what was then accounted Sabel- lianism, what -T'ritheism, and what the Ca- tholic doctrine concerning the blessed. Tri- nity ; matters so hotly disputed among us at this day. Dionysius Bishop of Rome, who flourished about the year 259, whom his great name- sake of Alexandria stiles refy re % eeu learned and wonderful man, in an_ epistle against the Sabellians, (which doubtless he wrote, as the manner then was, with the ad- vice and consent of the clergy of his diocese, synodically convened) after he had refuted the doctrine of Sabellius, thus * proceeds to discourse against the contrary heresy of those “ who divide and cut asunder, < and overthrow the most sacred doctrine «< of the church of God, parting the mon- « archy into three certain powers and hy- “ postases, separated from each other, and « consequently into three deities. For I «hear, that there are some catechists and * Apud Athan, de decret Syn, Nic. Tom. 3. »- ON | ee 3 “ teachers of the word of God among you, ‘“ who maintain this opinion ; therein dia- “ metrically, if I may so speak, opposing “ the hypotheses of Sabellius. For he blas- *‘ phemeth by affirming that the Father is ‘the Son, and on the other side that the s¢ Son is the Father; but these men in 2 *‘ manner teach three Gods, whilst they di- _ vide the holy unity into hypostases, alien “ and wholly divided from cach other. For “it is absolutely necessary that we hold, * that the divine word is united to the God “ of all things, and that the Holy Ghost re- ** mains and dwells in God; and also, that “ the divine Trinity is gathered together, “and united into one, as into a. certain “head; I mean the omnipotent God, the “ father of all things*.” * And afterwards in the conclusion he saith, that in this way only, 9 dia Tesms x) Td cxfeoy xnev[ic 55 wovaeyias diacwlorle, 1. €. Both the divine T rinity, (that is,.a real Trinity) and also ihe holy dactrine of the mo- narchy, can be preserved. OE a ee ee Le (te) Here we see what is Sabellianism, viz. To affirm that the Son is the Father, and the Father the Son; and consequently that the Holy Ghost is the same with both. And all they come very near this heresy, who acknowledge only a modal distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. What is Tritheism, he also shews us plainly, viz. That it is to hold, that the three per- sons in the Trinity are ofa different nature, or separated and divided from each other; or that there is more than one fountain or principle of the divinity. According to _ which account, Dr Sherlock is certainly clear from the charge of T'ritheism: The Catholic doctrine he declares to be this, That there are three really distinct hyposta- ses in the Godhead, and yet thai there is but one God; because the Father only is the head of the divinity ; and the Son and Floly Ghost, as they are derived from him ; $0 th ey exist in him, and are inseparably united to ham. FR Nn §, Of such a distinction and union of persons we have indeed no example, or exact sim- ilitude among created beings: But what then? It does not follow, that therefore, there cannot be such a distinction and union in the transcendent and most: spiritual na- ture of God. The Antitrinttarians can never pr oduce a demonstrative reason to prove that this cannot be ; and divine revelation assures us that so it is. The most weighty arguments that are brought by the Anti- trinitarians against a distinction of hyposta- ses in the Godhead, are reducible to one, which if well answered, the rest will fall to the ground. ‘The argument is this. The most simple being admits of no dis-( tinction, God is the most simple being ; Therefore God admits of no distinction. [ Answ. If the Anttrinitarians that make this objection, are the Socinians among us, as I presume they are, it is news to hear that they should argue from the simplicity of the Godhead, seeing the great masters of Ne oe chat sect, Socinus, Crellius, &e. held that God is a material being, and consequently compounded of matter and form. Express citations to this purpose may be seen in Dr Edwards's Antidote against Socinianism, part i. p. 65, 66. This opinion they held, because they could not conceive how there can be any substance that is purely spiritual, and ab- stracted from all matter: And if they could have conceived this, perhaps they would not have stuck at the doctrine of the Trinity, For the great difficulty of: j conceiving a Trinity in unity, in the God- “head, arises chiefly from hence, that men } ( are apt to measure the divine nature from ; ideas and notions taken from material things. But to the purpose. Ml "Dhe simplicity. of the divine nature does indeed exclude all mixture; 7. e. all composition of things heterogeneous in the Godhead, there being nothing in God but what is God; but for all that, there may be distinction of hypostases in the Godhead, eyestrain PN ge Ce. provided they are homogeneous, and of the same nature, as the Catholic doctrine teaches. , 2. The simplicity of the divine nature, if rightly considered, is so far from exclud- ing, that it necessarily infers a distinction of hypostases in the Godhead. For where- in does the simplicity of the Godhead es- pecially consist but in this, that God is a pure eternal mind, free from the mixture of all kind of matter whatsoever? Now an eternal mind must needs have in it from eternity an aoe OF x[@, a notion or concep- tion of itself which the schools term Verbum mentis ; nor can it be conceived without it. This word in God cannot be, as it is In us, a transient, vanishing accident; for’ then the divine nature would indeed be com- pounded of substance and. accident, which would be ‘repugnant to its simplicity ; but it must be a substantial subsisting word. The great apostolical bishop of Neoccesarea, Gregory, sirnamed Thaumaturgus, in his panegyric to Origen (by all confessed to be ( yes genuine) calls it * The most perfect, living, and aniunate word of the very first mind. This word also is manifestly (though not divided, yet) distinct from the eternal mind from whence it proceeds. And this is no »ovel subtlety of the schools, but a notion that runs through all the Fathers, even those of the first ages, as appears from the testi- monies produced out of them in my Defens. Hid. Nic. and it is also grounded on holy Scripture. Elence the excellent Athanasius, than whom no man better understood the sense of Scripture, and the doctors of the church that were before him, in the article of the Trinity, insists upon it in his oration against the Sabelians. In the beginning of which, having first shewn how the catholic church of Christ, in her notion and worship of God, differs from the Heathens and Jews, he pro- ceeds to declare the difference betwixt. the C ~ ~ lad ~ ' ” * Trrtotaloy 19 Gavla, » avte te meaty ve Asfor erturer. * fae Oy orthodox christians and the Sabellians, and! other Unitarians of his time, who under pre-- tence of defending the unity of the God- head, denied all distinction of hypostases: therein. His words are these, “ We are « separated also from those who corrupt, “ Christianity with Judaism, who denying « the God of God, profess one God as the « Jews do, affirming him (the Father) to be * the only God, not upon account that he « only is unbegotten, and the only fountain. “ of the deity, but as if he were without a « Son, and barren, and void of his living” «“ word and true wisdom. For they con- « ceive the word of God to be such as pro- « ceeds from the mind of man, and his wis- « dom to be such as that of ours ; and there- “ fore affirm God with his word to be one “ person, just as we say that aman together « with his word is one man; being in this. “ no wiser than the Jews, who own not the “ Evangelist in the beginning of his gospel “ proclaiming, In the beginning was the word «and the word was with God, and the word | . | te “was Ged. For if God hath a word in his ‘“‘ mind not really begotten of him, as God of “ God, how could the word be with God, and * how could it be God ? For the word con- ** ceived in the mind of man is not a man *‘ with another man, seeing it neither lives “ nor subsists, but is only a motion or oper- *« ation of the same living subsisting mind.” This great man took it for granted that St. John, in the text alledged, meant that the word was with God in the beginning, before any created being existed, and con- sequently that he is called the word of God, not with respect to the creatures (though it — is true that he afterwards revealed the will of God to mankind, and might in that re- spect also be called the word of God) but with respect to God the Father, whose word he eternally was, and with whom he was in the beginning ; and therefore he was not the same hypostasis with him, and yet he was God as well as the Father. He had never heard of the senseless interpretation of Socinus, who by the beginning in that “we OY text understands the beginning of the gospel; there being then no heretic (among those many that opposed the divinity of our Lord) who had the confidence to advance so ridi- culous a sense of those words: Leelius So- cinus hath the honour of that interpretation. If it be objected, That all this beng granted, proves only two hypostases in the Godhead, not a Trinity. I answer, (1.) ‘This proves that a distinction of hypostases in the Godhead is very consistent with its sim- plicity; nay, that from the true notion of the simplicity of the Godhead, such a dis- tinction necessarily follows. (2.) If there be two hypostases in the Godhead, there may be a third; and that there is a third, the holy Scripture assures us. Indeed I do not remember, that any of the Fathers of the first three centuries have attempted to explain distinctly the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, or from the Father by the Son; there being little or no dispute concerning the divinity of the Holy Ghost, till Macedonius appeared, and (Mts 9) disputed the faith of the church in that ar- ticle. For before him, all the Antitrinita- rians of what sort soever, chose especially to oppugn the divinity of the Son of God, taking occasion from those texts of Scrip- ture, which respect his human nature, and that economy which for our salvation he took upon him. Which pretence, seeing they had not to make use of in disputing against the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, they thought it best to say nothing of it, contenting themselves in opposing the divi- nity of the Son, and by consequence to overthrow that of the Holy Spirit. But in general I have observed, that those primi- tive Fathers held the Holy Ghost to be as it were Vinculum Trinitatis, the bond of the Floly Trinity, the union of Father and Son. Hence some ancient doxologies run thus, Glory be tothe Father, and the Son, in the unity of the Holy Ghost. And the most jearned christian philosopher Athenagoras, who flourished very near the first succession of the Apostles, expressly affirms the Father ( 14 ) ‘and the Son to be one iéails maveal@, ae. by the unity of the Spit; which I think imports the same thing with what St. Aw- gustin and other later Fathers say, that the Holy Ghost is Amor Patris & Filii. But this by the way. There is another notion which frequently occurs in the writings of the primitive Fa- thers tending to shew the incongruity of ‘asserting the Godhead to be so simple a be- ing, as to be povomecrare a solitary sim- gle hypostasis, which hath also a foundation in the holy Scriptures, and it is this; *with- * Ante omnia Deus erat solus, tpse sibi 5 mundus § locus & omnia ; solus autem quia nihil aliud extrin- secus preter ipsum ; ceterum ne tunc quidem solus ; habebat enim secum, quam habebat in setpso, rationem suam scilicet. Hlanc Greeci xsfoy dicunt, Tertul. advers. Prax. cap. 5. Satis igitur nobis sciresolum, nihil esse Deo cowvum ; nihil erat preter ipsum, ipse solus mul~ tus erat. Neque enim erat sine ratione (Gr. 70. rofw) &c. Hippol. Hom. de Deo trino § uno. Bibl. PP. Tom. 15. p. 622. & Sieus tow, 8s ainivdvvoy die ray arevescas, Cee. |) ae eut acknowledging a distinction of hyposta- ses 7n the Godhead, we cannot well conceive that avrdéerxsie which we attribute to God, i. e. hss self-sufficiency and most perfect bliss and happiness in himself alone, before and with- out all created beings. But by admitting this, it plainly appears that himself alone is a most perfect and blessed society, the F'a- ther, the Son, and the Spirit eternally con- versing with, and enjoying each other. See Prov. vill. 22 to ver. 31. inclusive. Where the wisdom of God, which is said to be with God from everlasting, from the begin- ning, before the earth was, and to be his con- linual delight ; all the Fathers unanimously understood to be (asindeed the words them- selves literally and plainly import) coi upisaen, & subsisting, personal wisdom, i. e. the Son of God, who is accordingly by St. i uwY Td ooey ED yueay amostetioros tov Sedv row aed cuvey- 1@ auto Dole wovoleves” coDias Wl i meorer.cesgey® Sra yme ¥0e asl yalgar voudgoeras* Origen, apud Athana- ‘sium, Tom. i. a ; Cee: 4) Paui expressly stiled the wisdom of God, 1 Cor. i. ver. 24. And: that the *(@ or Son of God was known by the ancient Jews themselves, under the title of the wisdom of -God; sufficiently appears from many pas- sages in Philo, and from the author of the Book of wisdom, chap. vii. ver. 26. com pared with Coloss. i. ver. 15. and Heb. is ver. 3. To conclude; Fhe doctrine of the church concerning the blessed Trinity hath been abundantly confirmed. by catholic writers both ancient and modern, frony many clear texts out of the holy scriptures ; which as they assert the unity of the Godhead, so do they also plainly teach us, that there are three, to whom the essential attributes and proper operations of the Godhead do belong, viz, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The interpretations whereby Socinus and his more immediate followers endeavoured to elude the texts alledged by the Cathelies, are so manifestly forced and strained, that I do not see how any honest mind, that ee ae hears any reverence or respect to. the sa- cred Scriptures, can away with them. This the Socimzans among us of late seem to be sensible of, and therefore have taken a shorter, but more desperate course by call- ing in question the authority of the principal Scriptures alledged by us. Thus the author of the pamphlet entituled, The judgment of the Fathers, &e. disputes the authority of the Gospel of S?¢, John. For he tells us from Epiphanius that the Alogians or Alogi (whom accerding to his accustomed impu- dence he highly magnifies and affirms to be the purest and most ancient * Gentile chris- tians, yea and cozval with the Apostles, whereas Epiphanius | expressly saith that the heresy of the Alogi appeared in the world after the Cataphrigians (or Monta- D * Lardner denies the existence of such a Sect, Epiphanius seems to have been the first who used the ‘term AAsye:, and to haye applied it to all heretics, who denied that Christ was the Aeyos. He Says Adoyos xAnm Surovras. (Enit.) ; + Her. 51. in épso initio, (ete. say nists) the Quintilians, and the sect of the Quartodecimani, and therefore could not be earlier than about the beginning of the third century) were so called, because they denied the »@, or word, of which St. John speaks in his Gospel, epistles and revelation. They said that all’those pieces were writ- ten by Cerinthus, under the name of St: John » and’ in his considerations he produ- ceth their arguments, and with this preface, That he should be glad'lo see a good answer io the caceptions of those Unitarians against those books we receive of St. John’s. Which implies that he thinks those’ arguments | (which in truth are but senseless cavils,) ) have not’ been sufficiently answered by Hpi- phanus, or any other: catholic ; and that he limself cannot tell-how to answer them, and _ therefore must submit to the force of them, till he receives better information. — Now as for the Apocalypse ; we acknow- ledge that it hath been questioned by some, not only /reretics but catholics ; but upon slight grounds, as hath been sufficiently shewed by divers learned interpreters, and: A? gee) particularly by Grotius, in the preface to his annotations upon it. ‘The second and third epistles also have been, and still are doubted of by many, who rather think them to be written by St. John the presbyter ; see Grotius again in the preface to his notes on the second epistle. But as for the Gos- pel and first epistle attributed to St. John, they have always been received in the church of God, as his undoubted and ge- nuine writings. They are cited as St. John’s by the catholic Fathers, that lived nearest the times of that apostle; and particularly by Zrenceus, who was an auditor of St. Po- lycarp, the disciple of St. John. As for their being written by Cerinthus the heretic, no man in his wits, and that understands any thing of the dogmata of Cerinthus, can imagine it. For it is evident that the first chapter of the gospel accord- ing to St John, and divers passages through- out his first epistle, are directly opposite to the Cerinthian hypothesis, as I have fully* * Jud. Eccl. Cath. Cap. 23. § seqg. c ~ 9 shewn; and accordingly Irenéus and 0» thers of the ancients testify, That they were purposely written by St. John, against the Cerinthian heresy, which in his time began to trouble the church. So thit ‘those he7‘e- tics who fathered ‘the gospel and firstepistle, which ‘we receive as St. John’s, upon Cerin- thus, were by Epiphanius deservedly named Zeya, meh, in this, void of all sense and rea- son. | - But before I disiniss this account of the Alogi from Epiphaniu:, Vmust not omit by the way to observe, that they rejected not only his. Gospel and Revelation, but his épis- tles also, and’ all'upon the same account, be- cause in them there ‘was ‘mention made of the divine’y4¢-, Which they disowned, af- firming Christ ‘to be entirely and wholly a mere'man, ‘that had no existence before the blessed Virgin. “Now ‘where is ‘there any text in ‘the: épistles of St. John concerning’ the » tles, that the Apostles never baptised in that form of words, but only in the name of the Lord Jesus. But where doth this appear, either in the acts or epistles of the Apostles, that when the Apostles baptized any man they did it in this form only, J baptize thee in the name of the Lord Jesus? It is said indeed, that they baptized a the name of the Lord Jesus ? i. e: into the faith and religion of the Lord Jesus, vz. according to the form of Baptism prescribed by the Lord Jesus himself, 2. e. In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Are not they baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, that are baptized according to that form ? Do not we all understand the Lord Jesus to be meant by the second person named in that form, viz. the Son? Hence Grotius er ee cag: ea Cee ig): upon those words, Acts xix ver. 5: And when they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, hath this note, In nomen Patris, & Filiit, & Spiritus Sancti. And for this he refers us to his notes on Matt. xxviii. ver. 19. where he handles this matter at large. ! | Indeed this will clearly appear, if we do but look back to the verses preceding the aforementioned text in the Acts: There we read, ver. 1, 2, 3. that St. Paul meeting with certain Christians at Ephesus, asked them whether they had received the Holy Ghost ; ‘To which they answ ered, that they had not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. St. Paul, wondering at this, replies, Unto what then were ye bapli- zed ? As if he had said, how can you be ig- norant whether there be any Holy Ghost ? Have you not been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ? If not, after what form, or or how have you been baptized ? And they 2 ngs ( 26 ) said, unto John’s baptism. John indeed, as the Apostle rejoins, only baptized unto re- pentance, thereby to prepare men for the reception of the Messias, that was to come after him. He did not baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus, 2. e. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This form of Baptism was first ap- pointed by our Saviour himself, and that not till after the resurrection, just before he was to ascend into Heaven, and from thence soon after to pour out the Holy Ghost af- ter a wonderful manner upon the Apostles. Then, and not before, they weré command- ed by our Lord to baptize, zn plena & aduna- ta Trinitate, as * St. Cyprian expresses it. T'o the most holy and undivided Trinity, God the Father, Son; and Holy Ghost, be ascribed all honour and glory, adoration ang worship, now and for evermore, Amen. * Epist. ad Jubaranum,, ILLUSTRATION DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, IN A LETTER TO A FRIEND: — BY JOHN WALLIS, D. D. _BAVILIAN PROFESSOR OF GEOMETRY IN THE UNIVER= SITY OF OXFORD, A LETTER. SIR, NHE doctrine of the Arians, Socinians; or Anti-Trinitarians, (call them as you please, provided you call them not Or- thodox Christians) in opposition to those who believe (according to the word of God) that the Sacred Trinity, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are so distinguished one from the other, as that the Father is not the Son, or Holy Ghost; the Son not the Father, or Holy Ghost; the Holy Ghost not the Fa- ther, or Son; yet so united, or intimately one, as that they are all the same Gop; . {which, in the Athanasian Creed, is called Lrinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity ; or. (i. 3 in common speaking, three Persons and ont God ;) is what you were lately discoursing with me, and of which I shall give you (some of) my present thoughts. The Scripture tells us plainly, “ There “ are three that bear record in Heaven ; the “Father, the Word, and the Holy-Ghost ; ‘and these three are one*.” And the form of baptism is, “ In the name of the Father, «“ and of the Son, and of the Holy-Ghostt.” And the Christian Church, from the times of Christ and his Apostles downwards hi- therto, as well before as since the Council of Nice, have ever held the Divinity of those Three Persons (as they are commonly call- ed ;) and that these Three are but one Gop. And, that they have so held, hath been, by divers, sufficiently proved from the most ancient Christian. Writers which are now extant: Which, therefore, I take for grant- ed, as sufficiently proved by others, without spending time, at present, to prove it afresh. * 1 John v. 7. + Matt. xxviii. 19, ( 9 . That these are three, distinguished one from the other, is manifest: and that this distinction amongst themselves, is often call- ed personality. By which word, we mean, that distinction (whatever it be) whereby they are distinguished one from the other, and thence called Three Persons. If the word Person do not please; we need not be fond of words, so the thing be agreed : Yet is it a good word, and warranted by Scripture,* where the Son is called, the ex- press image of his Father’s person : (For so: we render the word EHypostasis, which is there used; and mean by it, what I think to be there meant.) And we have no reason to wave the word, since we know no better to put in the place of it. If it be asked, what these personalities or characteristicks are, whereby each person is distinguished one from the other; I think we have little more thereof in Scripture, than that the Father is said to beget; the Son, to be begotten; and the Holy-Ghost, to proceed, : * Heb. 1. 3. Cee ® {fit be further asked,. what is the full im- port of these words (which are but meta- phorical,) and what is the: adequate meaning of them; I think we need not trouble our- selves about it : for, since it is a matter pure- ly of revelation (rot of natural knowledge,} and we know no more of it than what is re- vealed in Scripture ; where the Scripture is silent, we may be content to be ignorant. And we who know so little of the essence of any thing, especially of Spiritual Beings, though finite, need not think it strange that _ we are not able to comprehend all the par- ticularities of what concerns that of Gop, and the Blessed Trinity. I know that the Fathers, and School- men, and some after them, have employed their wits to find out some faint resemblan- ces, from natural things, whereby to express their imperfect conceptions of the Sacred Trinity: but they do not pretend to give an adequate account of it; but only some conjectural hypotheses, rather of what may be, than of what certainly is. Nor need { Y we be concerned to be curiously inquisitive into it, beyond what Gop hath been pleased to reveal concerning it. That the Three Persons are distinguished is evident ; (though we do not perfectly un- derstand what those distinctions are :) that to each of these, the Scripture ascribes divinity ;. is abundantly shewed by those who have written on this subject : that there is but one Gop, is agreed on all hands: that the Father is said to beget; the Son, to be begotten ; and the Holy Ghost to proceed ; is agreed also; though we do not perfectly understand the full import of these words. And here we might rest quietly or ac- quiesce (without troubling ourselves further) did not the clamorous Socinians importune- ly suggest the impossibility and inconsist- ence of these things, insomuch as to tell us, that, how clear soever the expressions of Scripture be or can be, to this purpose, they will not believe it, as being inconsistent with natural reason. And therefore, though they F ¢ ge. 7 do not yet think fit to give us a hare-faced’ rejection of Scripture; yet they do (and: must, they tell us,) put such a forced: sense’ on the words of it: (be they: never: so plain) as to make them signify somewhat else. There is, therefore, in this doctrine of the Trinity; asin that ofthe Resurrection:from: the dead, a-double inquiry: First, whether: it be possible? and then, whetlier it’ be true > And these to be argued (in both cases) from a very different topick ; the one, from Na- tural Reason‘; the other, from Revelation. Yet so, that this latter doth certainly in-. clude the former, if rightly. understood. And: though we should not be able to solve all difficulties; yet must we believe the thing; if revealed ; unless we will deny the autho- rity of such revelation. Thus our Saviour, against the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection*: “Ye. err (saith he) “ not’-knowing the Scriptures, nor «the Power of:Gop.” The Power of Gop,. * Matt. xxi. 29.. a | 35 9) af rightly understood, was enough, from the light of reason, to prove it not impossible : but, whether or:no-it willbe so, which ‘na- tural Reason could not determine, was to be argued.from Scripture-revelation. In like manner, St. Paul before Agrip- pa*, first argues-the possibility of it : “ Why “should it be thought a thing incredible “with you, that Gop should raise the “dead +?” For if Agrippa did .believe the creation of the world, as many even of the Heathen did, from the light of nature, he could not think it ampossible for Gop, who had at first made all things of nothing, to collect:out of its dust or ashes a body which once had been. But, whether or no he would do so, depended upon another question, to be after askedt, « King Agrippa, believest ‘‘ thou the Prophets?” For this was purely a matter of Revelation, and could not other- wise be known. For, as to the Immortality of the Soul, and a future state hereafter, ma * Acts xxvi, + Ver, 8. TOW EE airs Cae 4 wy of the Heathens went very far, by the light of nature; but, as to the Resurrection of the Body, 1 do not find they had any sen- timents about it, or but very faint, if any > and, if they liad, it may well be supposed to be the remainder of some ancient tradi- tion from the Jews, or their predecessors. Nor do I see ‘any foundation in nature which “should make them think of it before it was revealed, any more than of the redemption of mankind by Christ, which we should ne- ver have thought of, had not Gop himself contrived and declared it tous. But, when that of the Resurrection was ‘Once suggest- ed, there was no pretence of reason to think it a thing impossible, and therefore no rea- son to doubt the truth of it; when declared, if we believe the Scriptures, wherein it was revealed; pears those of the New Tes-. tament. — ie Tt is much the aitie, as to the Doctrine: of the Trinity. It is a thing we should not have thought of, if it had not been suggest- ed by Divine Writers; but, when suggest- ( - 4 ed, there is nothing in Natural Reason, that we know of, or can know of, why it should be thought impossible; but whether or no it be so, depends only upon Revelation. And, in this case, the Revelation seems so clear, to those who believe the Scrip- tures, that we haye no reason to doubt of it, unless the thing be found to be really im- possible, and inconsistent with Reason. Nor do the Anti-trinitarians insist on any other ground why they deny it, save only, that it seems to them absolutely impossible ; and therefore think themselves bound to put ano- ther ‘sense on all places of Scripture, how clear soever they be, or can — which prove or favour ‘it. So that the controversy is now reduced to this single point, whether it be possible or not possible: whether it be consistent or inconsistent with natural light or reason. And'to that point therefore I shall confine my discourse. For it seems agreed on all hands, as to those who believe the Scrip- qe tures, that, if it be not impossible, it is suf- ficiently revealed. | is ae Now, for us, who understand so little of Gon’s infinite Essence ; and which it is im- possible for us fully to comprehend, who are ourselves but finite, and mostly conversant with material objects; insomuch that we cannot pretend to understand the essence of our own souls; and, when we attempt to ex~- plain it, must do it rather by saying what it is not, than what it is; so hard a matter is it for us to fix in our mind or fancy.a no- tion, idea, or conception, of a spiritual be- ing, which falls not under our senses: it is hard, I say, for us (who understand so little of a spirit) to determine (of what Gop is pleased to reveal) that it is impossible, or inconsistent with his essence ; which essence we cannot understand. ae But what is it that is thus pretended to be impossible ? It is but this, that there be Three Somewhats, which are but one God; and these Somewhats we commonly call per- sons. Now what inconsistence is there in all to ee...) this? That Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are three, is manifest ; and are, im scripture language, distinguished. That there is but one Gop, is manifest also; and all those three are this God : that the name person is no incongruous word, is evident from He- brews i.. 3. where it is used. If it be said, it doth not agree to them exactly in the same sense in which it is commonly used amongst men, we say so too; nor doth any word, when applied to Gop, signify just the same as when applied to men, but only somewhat analogous thereunto.. What kind or degree of distinction (ac- cording to our metaphysics) this is, we need not be very solicitous to know ; or, whether in our metaphysics, accommodated to our notions of finite beings, there be any name for it: it is enough for us, if these Three may truly be so distinguished, as that one be not the other, and yet all but One God.. Now, that there is no inconsistence or im- possibility, that what in one regard is Three may in another regard be one, is very mani- (ae » fest from many instances that may be given even in finite beings, such as we converse with; which, though they do not adequate- ly agree with this' of the Sacred Trinity (nor is it to be expected that they should; finite, with what is Infinite ;) yet there is enough in them to shew, there is no such inconsistence as is pretended. _ J shall spare to instance in many resem- blances which have been. given long since by the Fathers and Schoolmen, or by later. wri- ters; which, though they are not pretended to be adequately the same with that of the sacred Trinity (as neither will any thing else be, that we can take from finite beings; yet are they sufficient to shew that there is no in- consistence in it; which is all that is here incumbent on us to prove: I shall only name a few. I wili begin with what concerns the most gross of finite beings; that is, material bo- dies. > Suppose, for example, a cubical body, which what it is every one knows, that _ ? (fae 3y knows a dye. In this are three dimensions, length, breadth, and height, and yet but one’cube. Its length (suppose betweeneast 8 and West) AB. Its breadth aes (suppose between north and A G B © South) CD. Its height (be- tween bottom and top) E F. Here are three local dimensions, truly distinguished one from the other; not only imaginarily. The distance between: East and West (whether we think or think not of it) is not that be- tween North and South; nor are either of these, that are between top and bottom. The length is not the breadth or heighth; the breadth is not the length or heighth; and the heighth is not the length or breadth : but they are three dimensions, truly distinct one from the other; yet are all these but one cube: and if any one of the three were wanting, it were not a cube. ‘There is no inconsistence therefore, that what in one regard is three (three dimensions) may, in | ee 7 ( 42, ° ) another regard, be so united as to be but one (one cube.) And if it may be so in cor- poreals, much more in spirituals. Suppose we, further, each of these dimen- sions infinitely continued ; the length infi- nitely Eastward and Westward, the breadth infinitely Northward and Southward, the heighth infinitely upward and downward : here are three infinite dimensions, and but ene cube; there being. no limits in nature greater than that which a cube cannot be. And:these three dimensions (though distinct) are equal to each other, else it were not a cube. And though. we should. allow, that a cube cannot be infinite, because a. body, and therefore a finite creature ; yet a spirit may ; such as.is the infinite-Gop. And therefore there is no inconsistence, in there being three personalities, each infinite and all equal, and. yet but one Infinite Gop, essentially the same. with those three Persons I add further, that such infinite cube can therefore be but one, and those dimensions: can be but /hree, not. more nor fewer ; for, Ce ') if infinite as to its length (Eastward and _ Westward,) and as to breadth (Northward - and Southward,) and as to its heighth (up- ward and downward,) it will take up all imaginary space possible, and leave no room either for more cubes or more dimensions. and if this infinite cube were, and shall be, eternally so; its dimensions also must be in- finite and co-eternal. I say further: If in this (supposed) cube, we suppose (in order, not in time) its first dimension, that of length, as AB; and to this length be given an equal breadth, which is the natural generation of a square, as C D, which completes the square basis of this cube; and to this basis of length and breadth be given, as by a further procession from both, an equal height E F, which completes the cube; and all this eternally (for such is the cube supposed to be ;) here is a fair re- semblance (if we may parvis componere mag- na) of the Father, as the fountain or origi- nal; of the Son, as generated of him from all eternity ; and of the Holy Ghost, as eter- st nally proceeding from both: and all this without any inconsistence. This longum, latum, profundum (long, broad, and tall,) is but one cube; of three dimensions, and yet but one body : and this Father, Son, and Ho- ly Ghost, three Persons, and yet but one God. And, as there, the dimensions are not (in the abstract) predicated or affirmed of each other, or the cube of either (the length is not the breadth‘or heighth, nor either of these a cube;) but (in the concrete) cube is affirmed of all; this longum, latum, profun- dum, is a cube, and the same cube : so here, in the abstract, the personality of the Fa- ther is not that of the Son, nor either of these that of the Holy Ghost, nor the Dei- ty or Godhead any of these; but (in the concrete) though the personalities are not, yet the persons are, each of them, God, and, the same God. If it be objected, that those concretes are affirmed or predicated of each other ; that longum is also latum and profundum (this long is broad and tall; but.not so here, the _ aie Hather is not the Son or Holy Ghost: I an- swer, That, if the words be rightly consider- ed, the analogy holds here also; for when we say, this long is broad and tall (where cube or body is understood) the full meaning is plainly thus ; this body which, as to one di- mension (that of length,) is said to be a long body, is the same body, which, as to another dimension (that of breadth,) is said to be a broad body ; and which, as toa third dimen- sion (that of heighth,) is said to be a tall bo- dy. So here, that Gov, which (as to one Personality) is God the Father, is the same Gop, which (as to another personality) is God the Son, and which (as to a third per- sonality) is God the Holy Ghost. So the an- alogy holds every way ; nor is there any in- consistence in either case. (After stating some other cases of analogy, the author adds: ) It is true, that not any, nor all, of these instances, nor any of those given by other | learned men, do adequately express the dis- tinction and unity of the Persons in the Sa- cred Lrinity ; for neither hath Gon distinct- Cree cy ly declared it to us, nor are we able fully to comprehend it, nor is it necessary for us to know. But because we do not know “ How «the bones grow in the womb of her that. “ig with child*,” shall we therefore say they do not grow there ? Or, because “ We “cannot by searching find out Gon f,” be- cause * we cannot find out the Almighty to « perfection,” shall we therefore say, things cannot be, when Gop says they are, only because we know not how? If Gop say, «These Three are one {?” shall we say, they are not? If Gop say, “ The Word was Gop;” and, “ The word was made Flesh§,” shall we say, Not so, only because we can- not tell how ? It is safer to say, It is; when Gop says it is, though we know not (in par- ticular) how it is: especially when there are so many instances in nature, to shew it not to be impossible or inconsistent with reason. The thing is sufficiently revealed to those who are willing to be taught, and “receive * Eccl. xi. 5. - + Job xi. 7. Eccl. viii. 17. t 1 John v. 7. § Johni 1. 14. SS Nae RE the truth in the love of it” *. Nor is it de- nied by those who gainsay it; but that, if the thing be possible, it is sufficiently reveal- ed; there being no other exception made, as to the Revelation, but the impossibility of the thing. «But if any man list to be contentious +,” and to “quarrel about words { ;” it is no wonder if hearing they “do hear and not understand § ;” and that Gop “gives them over to believe a lie |j,” who do not “love the truth.” But “the “humble he will teach his way **.” And, while we are so, we are safe. Yours, * Aug. 11, 1690. JoHN WALLIS. * 2 Thess. ii. 10 tL Cor. si..4 Gi Rong. jie) $73 {1 Tim. vi..4. Tit. iii. 9. § Acts xxviii. 26. Matt, xiii. 13. 14. || 2 Thess. ii. 10,11. Rom. i. 21. 28, ** Psal. xxv. 9. if Ay : ; “te Sine AOW Tg v EX EJUSDEM JOANNIS WALLISII -‘SECUNDA CONCIONE DE SANCTA TRINITATE. BBVA 9 808 Objectio Quinta. Objicietur forte porro; Quid opus est ut de voce persona contendamus, (ut appel- Tentur Zres Persone; sisaltem T'res qui- dam (innominati) aut Z'rza quedam sit dictu sufficiens ? Respondeo 1. Nobis non esse plane neces- ariam Persone vocem ; quin ea carere pos- simus.. Sufficeret nobis vox Hypostasis. Et quidem si putent Greecorum Hypostasin non bene reddi per Latinorum Personam, utan- tur per me licet Grzca voce Hypostasi. H * * Wallisii Op. Vol. iii. p. 317. Bie es (Nos utrovis vocabulo idem intendimus.) At- que tum forte se privatos sentient ea cavil- lationis ansa, quam captant, a communi a- pud nos usu, quo Tres persone nonnun- quam dicantur pro Z'ribus Hominibus. : Verum 2°. si eatenus consensum sit, ut Tres quidam (seu Tria quedam, sic consi- derata) possint esse Unus Deus ; non video cur de nomine persone debeant conten- dere. Quippe heec est arcyoeyie mera, de: nomine contendere, si de re seu notione consensum sit: quod hz Tres, inter se distincti, sznt Unus Deus. 8. Si admissum foret (quod, cur sit, non video,) quod vox persona, aut non perfecte, aut minus apte, notzonem illam exprimat quam intellectam volumus; non gravius quid hinc inferri posset, quam, quod xo- menclaturam: haud satis commodam assig- navimus; non, quod ea notzo non sit vera. Quo nomine si cui cavillart libet, perinde est ac si quis contenderet, nunquam ex- titisse virum Ulum qui dicebatur Pius Quintns ; eo quod, qui sic dicebatur, non fag. Bia) fuerit vere pius. (Sufficit, sieo nomine satis — intelligatur, quem virum volumus.) Per Tres Personas (in Divinis) nos intelligimus hos tres; Patrem, Filium, & Spiritum Sanctum: quos dicimus, ita inter se dis- Ainctos esse, ut tamen sint Unus Deus. 4. At interim, non video, quin vox per- sona, sit satis apta; (neque ipsi, quod sciam, aptiorem suggerunt, quam pro persona sub- stituamus.) Horum duos designat nobis Scriptura Sa- cra, nominibus Paéris & Filii ; qui quidem Filius a Patre genitus dicitur ; (neque erit de hisce vocibus cavillandum, cum eas ex- hibeat Scriptura Sacra;) sed sensu meta- phorico (saltem figurativo) intelligendas esse satis constat. Nemo enim putaverit, hunc Patrem sic genuisse suum Frlium, ut voces ille (primaria sua significatione) apud nos significant. — 7 Relationes autem illw, Patris & Fiu, sensu proprio, tales sunt, quales innuit (sen- su proprio) vox persona. Ce) Adeoque (per eandem analogiam) Paier & Filius, sensu metaphorico seu figurativo, apte dicantur Persone, eodum sensu figu-. rativo. Et quo sensu dicuntur Pater & Filius, eodem dicendi sunt Persone ; se- cundum veram propriamgue Latinz vocis persone significationem: Nam, sic relatos, Latini vocant personas, Lsse Patrem & Ks- se Filium est Esse personam ; & quo sensu sunt Pater & Filius, eodum & sunt Persone. » Quod si Pater & Filius, apti dicantur Persone ; non dubitandum erit, quin. sic dici possit Spiritus Sanctus, ab ipsis proce- CeENS (exmogovsueves) Ut Joh. 14.26. Paracletus ile, qai est Spiritus Sanctus quem mittit Pa- ter in nomine Meo, ille vos docebit. omnia. Et. Joh. 15.26. Cum autem venerit Para- cletus ille, quem Ego mittam vobis .a Patre, Spiritus ile veritatis, qui a Patre emanat, ille testabitur de Me. Unde manifestum est, quosensu Patre & Filius reputandi sunt Persone; eodem & Paracletus ille, seu Spiritus Sanctus, sic reputandus erit. Co ie a Adeoque (ni fallor) satis vindicavi, tum notionem ipsam, quod hi Tres (quocunque nomine censendi sunt) sint Unus Deus ; tum nomen ipsum, quod apte diccndi sint Per- sone. “i Objectio Sexta. Unam adhuc objectionem nunc memora- bo, cui cum satisfecero, desistam; czetera, quz dicenda habeo, in tempus aliud relatu- rus. Objectio sexta (eaque debilis) hzc est ; quod ipsi Frinztarit (ut loquuntur hi objec- tores) non omnes inter se consentiunt, sed inter se differunt, aliter atque aliter se ex- pedientes, hance de T'rinitate notionem ex- plicando. , Esto hoc. Annon autem & Anti-trini- tarii, etiam magis adhuc inter se differunt, dum hanc oppugnant ? Annon Ariani & So- ciniani, tantundem inter se differunt quan- tum a nobis utrivis? atque hoc ipsum pro- fitentur ipsi ? Annon item & Arianz inter se, & inter se Sociniani, plus differunt, quam inter se Trinitariz ? Omnino. — Ce Non quidem negamus, quin alii viri, aliis atque aliis temporibus, aliter atque aliter se expediverint, hanc ipsam notionem, de Personarum inter se differentiis explicando. Sed id ipsum obvenire solet, in explican- dis rebus in mundo versatissimis, puta, Tempore, L000, Spatio, Motu, ‘& similibus. Nemo est qui se non putaverit satis intelli- gere, quid hisce vocibus significetur, dum id nondum sit interrogatus. Sin de horum aliquo interrogetur, Num aliquid sit aut nihil, num res aut non-res, aut. aliquid rei, & quid sit hoc aliquid ?, Omnino non sperandum est, aut expectandum, ut se ex- pediant omnes, eodem plane modo rem ip- sam explicando, et quidem, tam clare per- spicueque, ut qui velit. (quod aiunt) nodum in scirpo querere, non possit ansam captare cavillandi. Idem dixerim de Calore & Fr:- gore ; de Luce, Visu, & Coloribus : de Qdo- ribus & Saporibus, horumque variis specie- bus. | Nunquamne de hoc consensum iri dice- mus, quod ignis comburit & consumit lig- - gs — ee ee ee a ee ee ta li en — Ce 4 num; nisi prius intelligamus qua figura sint ignece particule, (quis earum motus & quo. impulsu) que subeunt lgna poros, ejusque partes dirimunt: has in fumum, las in flammam, istasque in. cineres con- vertendo ; & guas queque in horum singula; &, guomodo id. fiat ? : Quante igitur erit dementiz in abditis Pei rebus id exigere, (ut omnes eodem pla- ne modo conceptus suos explicent ;) cum id non exspectandum sit in rebus nature, _ que passim occurrent, suntque omnibus, semper & ubique, obvi ! Et quidem quo. casu, pro HORM conceptibus nostris non alia suppetunt vo- cabula quam figurata; non mirum. est, si alii utantur metaphoris, pro conceptibus suis quadantenus exprimendis. Verum hactenus, crede, inter orthodox- os conscnsum esse omnes: quod inter T'res illos, qui in Sacris literis vocantur, Pater, Filius, & Spiritus Sanctus ; seu Pater, Ser- mo, & Spiritus ; sit quedam diversitas seu distinctio, qua T'res sint; (& quidem ma- [Ree cee jor, quam quee est inter ea que dici solent divina attributa;) non: vero talis: qua sint Tres Dei, sed ut sint Deus Unus. Atque hance diversitatem seu distinctionem visum est his vocibus hypostascos & persone de- notare: Consensum item est, quod harum perso- narum una, (que Filius & + rive» sew Sermo, dicitur,) est caro facta, seu encarnata, as- sumpta in se humana natura. Sed, de modo quo, vel hae nature. duc (Divina scilicet & Humana,) inter se uni- untur, vel Tres illce persone inter se distin- guuntur ; coatenti sumus modeste nescire ; non perfecte & adzquate comprehendere,. sed eatenus saltem:quatenus Deo visum id nobis revelaye, seu patefacere. Scimus quidem nos animam immortalem humano corport conjunctam: esse, ut. fiat wnus homo; (ita tamen ut nec illa desinat esse spiritus ; neque hoc, corpus esse ;) sed difficili dictu est, guomodo fiat. Pariter dicimus, quod homo Jesus (ita ut maneat homo,) & Deus in carne patefactus Be aa, ita ut non desinat esse Deus) sunt unus Christus ; sed qual sit hac unio, quam hy- postaticam dicimus, nos non perfecte entellr- gimus. nec profitemur nos adequate compre- hendere. Scimus quidem quod Pater dicitur gene- rare; & Filius, esse genitus; & Spiritus Sanctus, procedere: sed, que sit horum verborum (in Divinis) plenaria significatio, nos non perfecte intelligimus, (mec necessa- rium est ut perfecte intelligamus ; cum ne- que perfecte intelligamus ipsum esse Del, nedum ipsius gignere; ) sed, prout jam ante dictum est, inter orthodoxos convenit. Ipsique Deo Patri, Deo Filio, Deoque Spiritui Sancto ; Tribus: Personis, sed uni Deo: sit laus, honor, & gloria; & nunc & mm secula seculorum. Amen. | eee ha’ Hosp fom 4 Fala my TOM IN neh bh a RY BEY - uk eee ee “FO 4 a ae SD shee cco ra ore ek 3 sine a ay oh fn aoe " Bs a cuca ae ae this or ; « 4 oe ee wih aasoeh ‘elit ae a ie } 3 Os “wataluye ary tt eae “en i oP ne /> ao ILLUSTRATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. BY ae LORD MONBODDO. Ap rat \ \ a ; j ise } ary ; 4 bees “ 7 ! aK Aes s oy. 4. ‘ ip aire ’ ' a . i ‘ in . < Jn \ x : ‘ x ‘ ‘ - PREFACE. By the Editor. | U) weeuevers in the Trinity object to the doctrine as impossible and inexplica- ble. ‘To obviate this objection, many ex- planations of the doctrme have been at- tempted: by the ancient: Fathers and by others. In reading these’ explanations, it is but justice to the doctrine, to bear in mind, that the doctrine is one thing and the explanation of it another. That Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God, is the doctrine of Scripture. But: how: the Son was begotten of the Father,—-how the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son,—and ow: the three divine persons, — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; are one God, are conjectures, which have no other autho- (G2 3%) rity than belongs.to the judgment of their _ respective authors, and no other merit than endeavouring to explain that which it is the interest of all men, as far as possible, to un- derstand. But on the merit or demerit of these illustrations the truth of Scripture, and of the doctrine, does not at all depend. Dr. Wallis, the celebrated Savilian pro- fessor of Geometry, has given (in a letter to a friend,* published by his descendant, J. Wallis, Esq.) an explanation of the doc- trine of the Trinity, which is the more valuable, because it rescues him from the class of Unitarian expositors, to which Mr. - Belsham has adjudged him in his Calm In- quiry. He was indeed a firm believer in the orthodox doctrine, whatever advan- tage he might have given to his Socinian opponents by any detached passages of his expositions of the doctrine.t * Prefixed to Dr. Wallis’s Sermons, Preface, p. Ixxxiv. + Mr. Belsham, after quoting a passage from Dr. Wallis’s “ Considerations on the Trinity,” says “ This { @e'.4)) Lord Monboddo has brought, from the theology of Plato, illustrations of the Christ- ian doctrine of the Trinity, more conge- nial to the subject, than Dr Wallis’s expla- nation, because derived from a philosophy, which probably had its origin in the He- brew Scriptures,* the knowledge of which the Greeks might have acquired by their intercourse with Egypt. The similarity of the two doctrines, was the occasion of con- truly Unitarian doctrine received the marked appro bation of the University of Oxford, while Dr. Sher- lock’s hypothesis, that the three persons of the Trinity were three distinct infinite minds, underwent a public censure.” With the proceedings of the University against Dr. Sherlock’s hypothesis I am very imper- fectly acquainted ; but that Dr. Wallis was no favourer of Unitarianism, nor Dr. Sherlock of Tritheism, we know, for the former, from his Tres Conciones dé Sancta Trinitate, as well as from his letter to a Friend, and, for the latter, from the judgment of Bishop Bull, im the preceding discourse. * Numenius thought that Moses and Plato did not differ in theirfirst principles; and Clemens Alex. andrinus, that Plato borrowed his three principles from Moses, (Cee: a) Ed verting many heathens from paganism to. Christianity in the first ages of the Church. ¢ ‘Augustin, who was a great admirer of the Platonic philosophy, as well as a zealous defender of the Christian verity, says of the ancient Platonists, si hanc vitam illi-viri no- biscum agere potuissent, viderent profecto, cujus auctoritate facilius -consuleretur ho- minibus, & paucis verbis & sententiis mluta- tis Christiani fierent,- sicut plerique recen- tiorum nostrorumque temperum Platonict . fecerunt.* 3 Unitarians} have attempted to discredit the doctrine of the Trinity by asserting, that it was intreduced into the Church by the converted Platonists of the second century. It may be said with much more truth, and was maintained by Tertullian and others, that the antitrinitarian heresies were the off- spring of philosophy. We contend therefore on the authority of the Fathers of the se- cond, third, and fourth centuries, that the * Augustin Op, Tom. I. De vera religione, §. 8. + Dr. Priestley, Mr Belsham, &c. a Dm £ Re ee = s < fe 4 4 SF igi fae : | * doctrine of the Trinity was not brought into _ the Church by the Platonists, but the Platon- ists were brought into the Church by the doctrine. So congenial indeed were the doc- trines of Christ with the philosophy of Plato, that the unconverted readers and admirers of this philosophy did not scruple to assert, that our Saviour learned them from the writings of Plato; though, as St. Ambrose ebserved, it is more probable, that the phi- losopher derived them from the Hebrew Scriptures. Dicere ausi sunt (Platonis lec- tores & dilectores) omnes Domini notri, Je- su Christi, sententias, quas admirari & prz- dicare coguntur, de Platonis libris eum di- dicisse-—Cum reperisset Ambrosius Plato- nem Jeremiz temporibus profectum esse in figyptum, ubi propheta ille tunc erat, pro- babilius esse ostendit, quod Plato potius lit- teris nostris per Jeremiam fuerit imbutus.* Absurd, however, as this supposition of the K * Augustini. Op. Tom. III, De doctrina Christiana. §. 4.3, ” (4 gentile Platonists was, that Christ derived his doctrines from the writings of Plato, it has this advantage; it is a proof, that the doctrines supposed by our modern Unita- rians to have been derived from Platonism, were the doctrines of the Gospel, and not introduced into. the Church by philosophi- zing Christians of the second century. - Lord Monboddo asserts that the doctrine of the Trinity, (which he maintains to be « the foundation of the Christian religion, and that which makes us Christians”) is far from being inexplicable; though he admits that it cannot be explained and understood without the aid of philosophy. No more, indeed, can the being, or unity of God. But it is no objection to the unity of the God- head, that it cannot be apprehended with- out philosophy and abstraction. Much less ought it to be objected to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it cannot be wrderstood by the ignorant and unlearned, (the simplices, im- prudentes, & idiotae) or that. it is capable of illustration from the philosophy of Plato. | — — a 4 (Wee) When Lord Monboddo asserts that “ we cannot believe what we do not understand,” this can be said only of inquiring and philo- sophical minds; and not even of such minds, when fully impressed with a persuasion of the authenticity and truth of Scripture. But whether true or not, it is clear, that Lord Monboddo, if he did not believe the doctrine of the Trinity, till he understood it, has shewn himself in the following illustration, a believer on conviction, and that on two grounds, its evidence 2n the Scriptures, and. the perfection of the truths resulting from it, surpassing the most consummate systems of heathen Theology.* guid: * T cannot present the reader with a better intro- ‘duction to Lord Monboddo’s illustration than the fol- lowing passage from Dr. Hares’s very valuable analysis of chronology (vol. iii. p. 502.) relative te Origen’s exposition of the Trinity of Plato: “(1,6 Marag, THE Farner, whom the Platonists rec« koned Avro oy, “ Being itself,’ and according to Por- phyry, T’ ayabey, << the Good :’——2. ‘O Novs, “the Mind,” or ¢ Aoyes, “the Oracle,’ whom they repre- sented, as inferior to the first, [not in nature, but or- der ; see the next paragraph, and whom Porphyry calls Anpssovgyos, “the framer of the world:”—And 3. » oxy rou xoowov, * the soul of the world,” (See Gale, G tee a vol. ii. p. 134.) alluding, perhaps, to the Spirit or Gop brooding upon the abyss, Gen. i.2. The first Being Plato called Muyy tng @eornros, “the fountain of the Godhead,’ and “the Father of the leader and cause of all,” cov re gyspoves nes ctstion wravres Marne. And the leader was remarkably a title of Christ, both in the Old and New Testament, 1 Chron. v. 2. Micah v. 2. Deut. ix. 25. Matt. ii. 6. &c. See Cudworth p. 385, 386, 387. ; | “¢ These three persons of Plato’s Trinity were not only eternal, but necessarily existent, and absolutely im- perishable, [and therefore equal in nature and pow- er.] For the first could not exist without the second, which was called Avrerogia, “ Wisdom atself.” (or that wisdom personified, which was with God at the creation, Prov, viii. 22—31. a title which our Lord assumed to himself, Matt. xi. 19.) nor the first and second without the third, any more than original light, without splendour, or effulgence, according to Plato’s comparison.—And he held, ér: Nous soz: syevyo~ +15 Tov wavrwy criov, ‘that Mind is cognate with the first cause of all things,” which in the language of the Nicene Creed, was expressed, that the Son was épcoucios, of the same substance with the Father, and therefore not a creature. Cudworth. Intell. Syst. p. 573. And this indeed was the true Athanasian doctrine ; for in the language of Athanasius himself, e de cdios eri 6 vlos, oux yy HTT. Eb ds REIT UC TOY VOVEL, OUR HY eines, “Tf the Son be eternal, he was no creature ; but if he is a creature, he was not eternal.” “« This remarkable analogy between the Platonic Philosophy: of the Alexandrian School, and the true Athanasian, or Nicene doctrine, is highly satisfacto- ry.” ANALYsIs or CHRoNoLoey, Vol. III. p. 502. On the importance of this analogy between the Christian Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, and the Platonic doctrine of the Divine essence in Three Hy- postases, see Bishop Stillingfleet’s Vindication, p. 214 —217. The passage I have subjoined to Lord Mon- boddo’s Illustration. (Epir.) AN ILLUSTRATION , OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. BY LORD MONBODDO.* r Tue doctrine of the Trinity is com- ‘monly held to be a mystery inconceivable. But no man can believe what he cannot con- ceive. And, as it is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, no man, who does not believe the Trinity, can be said to be a Christian ;+ for he cannot believe that Jesus * Ancient Metaph. vol. v. p. 189. t Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. They therefore who are not so baptized, and whose faith does not correspond with such bap- tism, are not Christians. That this was the sense of the primitive Church, we know not only. from. the writings of individual Fathers of the Church, but from the general sense of the Church expressed at the coun- cil of Arles, (c. 8.) A. D. $14. and of Nice, (c. 19.) A. D. 325. by both of which the baptism of unbeliev= ers in the Trinity was declared void. (Eniv.) Cee om Christ was the son of God, that is, the se- cond person of the Trinity, who assumed the human nature and human form, in or- der to save mankind, and to enable them to make some progress, in this life, in regain- ing their former state, from which they had -fallen.—But the Trinity I hold to be so far from an inconceivable mystery that, by a Philosopher, it isnot only perfectly concelv- ed, but understood to be a most perfect sys- tem of Cosmogony, and I may add Theogo- ny ;—more perfect than any system that has been invented by any ancient philoso- pher, or that could have been invented by any philosopher.—I have elsewhere obser- ved,* that the Christian religion is not only the best popular’ religon that ever was in the world, but also the most philosophical. The eternal generation of the Son of God and his incarnation, are both truths of philo- sophy; but the doctrine of the Trinity is more philosophical still than either of the * Vol, 4 of this work, p. 386. ee eee eee i Mt other two ; for it gives us what may be call- ed a system of the whole universe, and of the regular and orderly production of it ‘from the first cause. This first cause is called by Plato the Mewros Ons Or first God ; and in the language of the Christian church, he is called God the Huther ; and he was so called in the books of Hermes, as is observed by St. Cy- — rillus in what he has written against Julian the emporor.* The first emenation or pro- cession from him, not in order of time, (for all things belonging to the Godhead are * In this work St. Cyrillus has shown evidently that the doctrine of the Trinity was contained in the writings. of the Egyptian philosopher Hermes Trisme« gistus: ‘So that there can be no doubt that this doctrine was known in Egypt ; and that, though it was kept by Plato, £y emrogiTos, that is, as a secret, it was known to the philosophers of the Alexandrian school, parti- cularly to Porphyry, from whose writings Cyrillus has given us a quotation, which, contains the whole doc~ trine of the three Persons of the Trinity. ( Me } from all eternity) but in dignity and pre- eminence, is what we call the second per- son of the Trinity, or as it is more properly expressed in the language of the Greek church, ‘vxocracis Or substance, not person. This Second person of the Trinity is the Son, and, as our Scripture tells us, the only begotten of the Father, that is to say, the only Being which proceeds immediately from him.—This Second Person is the prin- ciple of Intelligence, by whom, as we are told, every thing was made, and nothing made without him: And, indeed, wherever there is a system, which every Theist must suppose the universe to be, and the most perfect of all systems, it must be formed by Intel- ligence, which, as it is the principal thing in the formation of the system, very properly holds the second place next to the first cause, or author of the system. The third constituent principle of the system, is the xvivua ‘ayer, OF Holy Spirit. By the Plato- nic philosophers it is called very properly duyn sov xaonov, OF Anima mundi, as from it ——< ee. {are 4) is derived that animation, motion and ac- tion, which makes the whole of nature a hiving system.— These three principles of the intellectual world, though distinct substances, make but one Being. And thus we have the three in one, and the one in three; and the unity of the Godhead perfectly preserved. Nor, in- deed, without such union, could we have any conception of the Deity. ‘For we could not conceive a Deity without intelligence, nor without a spirit of life and animation ; without both which he never could have produced the universe. Neither can we . conceive a Supreme Being, who produces nothing : So that both intelligence and ani- mation are essential to his nature. That three distinct substances should make but One being, appears, I know, to many, an in- conceivable mystery. But it will not ap- pear so to a philosopher, who considers that _ the Second Person is potentially, or virtual-_ ty contained in the First, otherwise he could fi, ce 4 not be produced out of him: And if so, the Second Person must contain in him the First actually ; and the same must be the case of the Third Person, with respect to the Second. BVVD9TBDVIVT *T will add something here to what I have said upon the Trinity in the preceding vo- | lume ; and I hope the reader will not think, that, when I have done so, I have said too much upon a subject of such importance, being the foundation of the Christian Reli- gion, and that which makes us Christians : For it is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that we are baptised, that is, initiated into the Christian Religion. And, as no man can believe what he does not comprehend, I think it will not be im- proper to add this chapter upon the sub- ject; in which I will explain another mys- tery of the Christian Religion,--the eternal generation of the Son of God.; Vol. VIL p. 43. - But besides the reverence. that every Christian ought to have for his religion, I hold that no man can be truly a Theist who does not know the doctrine of the Trinity; for, without that knowledge, he cannot per- fectly know the nature of God, in what manner he exists, nor how, or im what or- der, all things in the universe proceed from RC Ma RED aA ‘i - ‘What appears to be most uncomprehen- ‘there are three persons in it, or substinces . as they ought to ‘be called;* and yet these three make but one. Being; . so that the Trinity is both ¢hree and at the same time One | : It contains the system of the divine na- ture, which, as I have shown in the preced- ing volume,} must ‘necessarily comprehend one Supreme Being, the Author of all -*° ‘The word in Greek is ‘vrorracis, which is the very same with the Latin word, substantia and with our word substance. + Page 191, ae. things, and from him proceeding Intelli- gence, and from Intelligence a Spirit of Life and Animation, both so essential to the first being, that they are to be consider- ed as making with him but one being, con- sisting of three substances.— Thus it appears, that the whole sciaas of the universe, and even the individuals of that system, consist wholly of the one in the many, and the many in the one. So that the Supreme Being, the head of that system, if » he were so different from the other beings of the system, as to be only one and not more, there would not be that unity in the systém which we must conceive to be in a'system so perfect as that of the universe. The sub- stances which the doctrine of the Trinity joins with the nature of the Deity, are not only perfectly consistent with it, but so es- sential to it, that we could not have an idea of Deity wasbout them. These ,are, as I have said, Intelligence and the ptinciedl of Vitality ; without both which we could not eet. Bete eee ; conceive the Deity to have produced the universe ; and, as that production is essen- tial to his nature, we could not have other- wise conceived him to be God.— — : As, therefore, the relation of the one and the many goes through the whole system of beings in the universe, beings divine as well as others, it is evident that the system of the universe is the most uniform, and in that respect the most compleat system that can be imagined. How compleat it.is in other respects I shall afterwards show. I will on- ly say further, upon the subject of the Tri- nity, that it is so necessarily connected with the being of a God, that we cannot conceive a God without the principles of Intelligence _and Vitality being essential parts of his na- ture, and that it appears to have been be- lieved by every nation who had what can ‘be called a system of religion. It was a part of the religion of the Jews in the time of Moses, though it was not revealed or ex- plained to them as it was by our Saviour to his Disciples. — Boerne 9 There is another mystery in the Christi- an Religion which is as incomprehensible, by those who are not philosophers, as the doctrine of the Trinity is. The mystery I mean, is the eternal generation of the Son of God. The Son, or Second Person of the Trinity, is, according to the doctrine of the Christian Church, eternal as ‘well as the Father, from whom he is produced : - ‘And this is what is meant by the eternal ge- ‘neration ofthe Son. Now to ‘a-man, who ‘is not a philosopher, it must appear incon- eeivable that one being should be produced by another, and yet be co-existent with him from ‘all eternity. It is not, therefore I think, to be wondered.that there should be such a heresy in the the church as Arianism, or that it should have been once so preva- lent. ‘Now the doctrine of Arius was, that, ‘as the ‘Son, or Second Person of the Trinity ‘was produced, (or begoiten, as it is express- ed in Scripture,) by the Father, he must have been in existence ‘posterior to him; and then he must have existed a ¢ime, and GR Og not from all eternity, as the Father existed; and, accordingly, Arius maintained that there was a time when he was not. His expres- SION WAS, w drs ove » © But antient learn- ing will explain this mystery, as well as the: - mystery of the Trinity, and show that one thing may proceed from another as its cause and yet be coeval with it. This may be exs. plained by an example which every man, who has learned the elements of geometry, will readily understand: It is this: that every corollary of 2 proposition is a truth eternal as well as the proposition itself; and yet it is derived from the ‘proposition as its cause, and could not have existed if the pro- position had not been an eternal truth. What has led Arius and his followers into the error of supposing that the Son, being produced by the Father, could not be :co- eternal with him, but must have existed in time, is what we observe of the production of things on this earth, where the produc- tion is always posterior in its existence to. the cause producing it. But this is: only {wee true of things material, which have no per-... manent existence, but are constantly chang- ing, being never the same thing for two mo- ments together; so that they cannot be said properly to exist, but are always in the state of becoming something different from what they are; ovx ele arrdu yuerat, aS it is expressed in Greek : Whereas beings divine have a real existence, and are the +z ovras wre; and the same is true of all immaterial Beings. But setting aside things immaterial, there is one material thing which will illustrate this matter very much, and make it intelli- gible even to those who are not philoso- phers, The thing I mean is the Sun, which produces rays that are coeval with the cause producing them; as we cannot suppose the Sun to exist without rays: And this ex- ample, with the other I have given from the theorems of science, proves this general pro- position, that wherever any thing, by the necessity of its nature, produces another thing, both the thing produced and the : : bm) cause, or that which produces it, must be co-existent: So that if the cause, be eternal, the production also must be eternal. Now this is the case of the generation of the Son of God; for as production is ‘essential to the Supreme Being, and as the first produc- tion, according to the order of nature, must have been the principle of intelligence, or the Second Person of the Trinity, it was necessary that this production should be co- eval with the First Person of the Trinity, from which it is derived, and consequently co-eternal with him. And in this way, I think the eternal generation is clearly ex- plained, as it is shown that the First Per- son of the Trinity could not exist without producing the Second. Whoever does not believe this, must believe as Arius did, that the time was when our Saviour did not ex- ist; and that he was produced in the way of common generation here on earth. Now this is a heresy that strikes at the very foundation of the Christian religion, hut (eB 7 which,. as: I have shown, was an ‘error that men who were not philosophers, would na- turally fall into, and was therefore a more general heresy and more predominant than any other that ever was in the Christian church. | | | And thus, I think, the two. fundamen- tal principles: of the Christian religion, the doctrine of the Trinity,. and of the eternal generation. of the Son of God, are clearly explained.. And as they are thus made comprehensible by us, they may be believed ‘and ought to-be believed; as I think I have shown that they are truths of philosophy as well as of religiom And for the same rea- son that the Second Person of the Trinity must have been begotten from: all eternity of the First, so the Third must have pro-_ ceeded from: the Second. In this. way the eternal procession of the Second and ‘Third Persons ef the ‘Trinity from the First, and of all things in. the uni- verse from them is clearly explained. Nor, \, indeed, do 1 think that, without the doe \ : Ct ) trine of the Trinity, the procession of all things -in the universe from ‘the first cause ceuld be otherwise explained. For it is im- possible to suppose that all things should have proceeded immediately from the first cause, and promiscuously, ‘without order or arrangement ; as that would be making a chaos of the creation. Whereas.a more or- derly and regular production cannot be ima- gined than, first, Intelligence, by which the universe was formed ;—then the principle of Life and Animation, by which. every thing was moved and put in action, and se the universe made a compleat system. ‘There is-one other fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion which I-have not yet mentioned. That is the incarnation of our Saviour. But.this isnot such a mys- tery, nor so difficult to be understood, as the doctrine of the Trinity: or the eternal generation of the Second Person of the Trinity. For it is only supposing that our Saviour, instead of human intelligence, brought with him to this world that divine. ( 84 =) intelligence which belongs to his nature, and which was embodied with the animal and vegetable mind. _ to human nature. Btw itt Le@e | br iteengiereas ik icp Thus, I think, vidi the assistance of an- tient philosophy, I have been able to explain the philosophy of the Christian religion. For, as I have elsewhere observed,” as it is the best popular religion that ever was, so it is the most philosophical ; nor, indeed, do I think that the philosophy of it can be well explained, or even. comprehended, without: the assistance of antient philosophy. ‘To 4, maii who has not’ studied’ the system of the universe, as it is delivered to us.in the antient books of philosophy, the doctrine of the Trinity must be a most incomprehensi-. ble mystery ; for he never .can comprehend how the one should: be three, and the three one. 'Wheteas from these antient books of philosophy, he may learn that the whole sys- tem of nature is composed of one in the ma- * Vol. 5. p. 189 a Ma, ay, and many’ in the one* So that, as J have observed, the Trinity, if it had not - been composed in that way, would have been disconform to the rest of the system of the universe. Now, if a man cannot comprehend the doctrine of the Trinity, he cannot believe in it, nor consequently can he believe that fundamental principle of the Christian religion, that Jesus Christ’ is the Son of God, and the Second. Person of the Trinity ; and his eternal generation will be equally incomprehensible by him, unless he has learned that the production of an eter- nal being is eternal as well as the being who is the author of the production, The study, therefore, of antient philosophy ought to be very much encouraged by the church, as without it a man can only understand the popular part of the Christian religion, but not the philosophical : So that he can- not be said to be admitted into the Sanc- tum Sanctorum, nor to know so much as Plato learned in Egypt of the philosophy * See this enlarged upon in p. 45, of this volume. Co 3 of Christianity ; I mean the doctrine of the ‘frinity. na There are, I know, who think that we do not treat the mysteries of our religion with sufficient reverence, when we examine them so curiously; but that we ought to re- ceive and believe them as revealed to us by God, without any such examination. To this I have already given an answer, that we cannot truly believe what we do not comprehend or understand, though we may profess to believe it. Now there is the mystery of the Trinity ;—of the eternal ge- neration of the Son of God, the only begot- ten of the Father ;—and of his incarnation ; all fundamental doctrines of Christianity, (particularly the doctrine of the Trinity, without which we cannot, ‘as I have said, comprehend. how Jesus Christ should be the Son of God,) but which cannot be compre- hended nor believed without some know- ledge of philosophy. It is for this reason {have said* that the Christian religion is * Vol. 5. p. 18 , ae. Y -a philosophical religion, more than any reli- gion that ever was in the world. | But it is a popular religion at the same time; and I think I have shown it to be the best popu- lar religion that ever was. Now, though a man may not have cultivated his intellect enough, to understand. the philosophical part of the Christian religion, yet if he be- live that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, (though he may not be able to explain how he should be so, not understanding the doc- trine of the Trinity,) and that he came to this world, and took upon him the human form in order to save man from his fallen state ;—and if he likewise believe that, if he practices the precepts of the gospel, par- ticularly that precept which recommends to us the love of God and of man, as the funda- mental duty of a Christian, he shall be happy in the next life: whereas, if he lives a wick- ed and irreligious life, he shall be punished in the next world ;—He may be reckoned a Christian, and will have his reward in the next world ; though, as our Saviour has told CR us, “ That in his Father’s house there are many mansions”, I am persuaded he will not enjoy there so much happiness, as those who have cultivated their intelligence to such a degree as to understand those fun- damental doctrines of Christianity, which we call mysteries, and whose practice of re- ligion is suitable to their understanding of it. For as a man is an intellectual creature and as intelligence is predominant and the governing principle in his nature, it is evi- dent that the perfection of his intelligence particularly in matters of the most sublime speculation, such as things divine, must he the perfection of his nature. EXTRACT FROM BISHOP. STILLINGPLEET’S VINDICATION \ OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. p, 214—217.. VWVUeVsovseese 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 ie Ghost who as every where. And he thinks, Plato bor ribet his three Principles from Moses ; that his second was the Son, and his third the Holy Spirit. Even Origen himself highly commends ‘Moses above Plato, ¢ in his most undoubted » N * Clemens Peed. /. 3. c. 7. t Str. 2. 4. p. 517. Prof. p. 68. { Peed. 1. 1. c. 6. Str. J. 5. p. 598. Orig. c. Cels, /. 1, p. 16. 1. 4.'p..198. 1. 6. p. 275. 279. Fe. 308. 1. 7. p. S515 371. | Gogo!’ writings, and saith, that Numenius went e- yond 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 delivered in Scripture, than i in has’ artificial dialogues. Can any one that hath the least reverence for writers of such au- thority and zeal 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 Platonic Trinity, they suppose it to be borrowed from Moses. | And therefore Numeniussaid,* That Mo- . ses and Plato did not differ about the first, principles; aud Fheodoret mentions Nu- menius as one of those, who said, Plato un-. derstood the Hebrew Doctrine in Egypt ; and * Clem, Alex. Str. 1. Euseb.. Prep, L 8. Theod. Serm. 1. age rae ee aa during his thirteen years stay there, it is hardly possible to suppose, he should be ig- norant of the Hebrew Doctrine, about the Jirst principles, which he was so inquisitive after, especially among nations, who pre- tended to antiquity. And the Platonic notion of the Divine essence enlarging itself to three Hypostases, is considerable on these accounts : 1. That it is deliver’d with so much assu, rance 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 passages of Porphyry preserved by S. Cyril* and others. 2. That they took it up from no revela- tion ;f| but asa notion in itself agreeable enough ; as appears by the passages in Pla- * Cyril. c. Jul. 1.1. § 1. 8. + Though probably derived from the Hebrew Scriptures, its origin seems to have been unknown to the later Platonists, and not professed by the more ancient, Epit. He ee, fo and others concerning it. ‘They never sus- pected it to be liable to the charge of non- sense, and contradictions, as our modern unt- tarians charge the Trinity with ; although, their notion as represented by Porphyry 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 nonsense, and impossi- bilities, if these men [the hci ee. he trusted Pi esths 30, Besa ae 1: 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 Z'rismegistick: books, or the Chaldee oracles,.or any doubt- ful authorities ; but Plutarch* asserts the three Hypostases to have been received among the Persians, and Porphyry; and Jamblicus, say the same of the Hgyplians. * Plutarch. de Isid. & Osirld. p. 369. ed. Fr. Eu- sebius. Prep. E. 2. 3. c. 11. Jamb. de. Myst. Seet. 8. Cc. 2, yo ah) 4. That this Hypostasis did maintain its reputation so long in the world. For we find it continued to the time of Macrobius ; si who mentions it as a reasonable notion, Viz. of one supreme Being, Father of all, and a Mind proceeding from it, and soul [or ra- ther, lifet] 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 essen- tially different from creatures, and be FTy- postases in the Divine essence. * Macrob. in Som. Scipion. d. 1. c. 14. + tuyn tov nocnov, anima mundi, the Spirit of life and animation pervading the world. See Lord Monboddo’s illustration, p. 72, 73. 76. 83. In the Nicene Creed, the third Person of the Holy Trinity is called “ the lord and giver of life.” And this title is founded on the influence of the Holy Spirit, in the creation of the world, (Gen. i, 2. ii. 7.) in the miraculous conception, in the raising of Christ from the dead, and in the ge- neral resurrection. (Rom. viii, 11.) Job says, s, the Cee oy Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.” (xxii. 4.) From this life-giving influence, perhaps the Holy Spirit derives his name in Hebrew my, in Greek Thveopeay in Latin <‘ spiritus,” the term in each language segs the specific.attribute of life, Sa THE ATHANASIAN CREED CLEARED FROM CONTRADICTIONS.* WEVUUT Now come to the last thing I propo- sed, viz. to shew, That it is no contra- diction 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 sum of the Jjirst Articles, say they, ts this, The one true God is three distinct Persons, and three dis« tinct Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are the one true God. Which is plainiy, 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, *. Bishop Stillingfleet’s Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, chap. VII. +. Notés on Athanasius’s Creed, G96 8 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 Li rinity. But there are some Creatures as re- markable for their untoward kicking, as for their stupidity. And is not this great skill in these matters, to make such a parrallel between the three persons in the Godhead, and Peter, James, and John? Do they think - there is no difference between an infinitely perfect being, and such finite limited crea- tures 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 per- sons, but it is on the account of divine reve- Jation, and in such a2 manner, 2S. the divine ( a nature is capable of it. For it is a good rule of Boethius, Talia sunt predicata, 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 na- ture; and if that be not capable of division and separation, then the persons must be in the same undivided essence. 'The next ar- ticle 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 beings, but God being a pure and simple } O Cte. being was one by nature and not by number, as *St. Basil speaks (as is before observed) because he is not compounded, nor hath any besides himself to be reckoned with him. But because there are different hy- postases, therefore they allowed the use of aumber about them, and so we may say the hypostases or persons are numerically differ- ent; but we cannot say that the essence is one numerically. But why must they con- found the persons, of there be bul one essence ¢ The-relative properties cannot be confound- ed; for the Father cannot be the Son, nor the Son the Father ; and on these the dif- ference of persons Is founded. Fer, there can be no difference, as to essential proper- ties, and therefore all the difference, or, ra- ther distinction must be from those that are relative. A person of itself imports no re- lation, 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 * Basil. Ep. 141. C oe the Father, then they must be distinct from each other. But how? By dividing the substance ? That is impossible in a sub- stance that is indivisible. It may be said, That the essence of created beings is wndivi- sible, and yet there are divided persons. I grant it, but then a created essence is capa- ble of different accidents and qualities to divide ene person from another, which can- not 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, James, and John received their sever- al distinct personalities from God; at the same time he gave them their separate be- ings from each other, although the same es- sence 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 pro- perties of the persons do imply a division of the Substance? We deny that the Per- sons are divided as to the substance, because (0 ite, 5 that is impossible to be divided ; but we say they are and must be distinguished as to those incommunicable properties which immake 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 pro- per 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, 2. ¢. the same nature diversified by accidents, qualities, and a se- parate existence, but where these things cannot be, there the same essence must re- main undivided, but with such relative pro- perties as cannot be confounded. But may not the same undivided substance be commu- | grcated to three divided persons ; so-as that (Mer) each person may have his own proper sub- stance, and yet the divine essence be in itself undivided ? This is not the case before us. For the question upon the creed is, Whe- ther the substance can be divided? And here it is allowed to remain undivided. Yes in itself, but it may be divided in the persons. The substance, we say, is uncapable of be- ing divided any way; and to say, that a substance wholly undivided in itself is yet divided into as many proper and peculiar substances, as there are persons, doth not at all help our understanding in this mat- ter; but if no more be meant, as is ex- pressly declared, than That the same one di- vine nature is wholly and entirely communi- cated by the eternal Father to the eternai Son, and by Father and Son to the eternal Spirit, without any division or separation ; it is the same which all T'rinztarzans assert. And itis a great pity, that any new phrases or ways of expression should cause unrea- ~ sonable heats among those who are really vf the same mind. For those who oppose ( 102 ) the expressions of three distinct substances as new and dangerous; yet grant, that 2 2s one peculiar prerogative of the divine nature and substance, founded in its infinite, and therefore transcendent perfection, whereby at ws capable of residing in more persons than one: and 1s accordingly communicated from the Father to the Son and Holy Ghost; but this 1s done without any division or multipli- cation. Now if both parties mean what they say, where lies the difference? It is sufficient for my purpose that they are agreed, that there can be no division as to the divine essence by the distinction of per- sons. And so this passage of the Athana- stan Creed holds good, Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. , The next article, as it is set down in the notes on Athanasius’s Creed, is a contradic- tion 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 isa plain mistake for Gop} ‘person ; for there is no other variety in the copies but this, that Bayfius his Greek copy hathi.) Exeers, and, that: of Constantinople meoowmoy, but all the Latin copies persona. But what consequence do they draw from hence? Then, say they, the Son is not the Fa- ther, nor is the Father the Son, nor the Floly 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? Jf 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: I. The one true God, as having the true divine na- jure 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 un himself, as to make it incommu- nicable 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 ! (i gaog a: 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 Fa- ther, because they both partake of the same divine nature, so that there is no contradic- tion in this, that there 2s 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 al- lowed, 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, James, and John. What pleasant arguing would this be, Peter is not James nor John, nor James nor John are Peter, but Peter hath the true essence of a man in him; and the true essence is _ but one and indivisible; and therefore James and John cannot be true men, because Pe- ier hath the one and indivisible essence of a man in him? But they will say, We cannot (Gi Tis: \ 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 ove true divine essence. All the differeice lies [in this.) that a finite nature is capable 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 arlicle doth wn- pugn and destroy itself. Tow so.? Tor, if the glory and majesty be the same in nuinber, then it can be neither equal, nor co-elerna?/. Not equal for it is the same, which equais never are, nor co-eternal for thal intimates that they are distinct. Lor nothing is C0- clernal, nor co-temporary with risel/, There is no appearance of difficulty or contradiction in this, if the distinction of persons is allowed; for the three persons P niay be well said to be co-equal and co-eter- nal ; and if we honour the Son as we honour the Father we must give equal glory to him. But one great point of contradiction re- mains, 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 aman should say, the Father is a person, the Son a per- son, and the Holy Ghost a person, yet there are nol three persons, but one person. How is this possible, if a person doth suppose some peculiar properly; which must distin- guish 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 im this case, viz. that the term God is used person- ally, when it is said God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; but when it is said, Zhere are not three Gods, hut one God, the term God is used essenti- {oT y ally, and therefore comprehends the whole three persons, so that there is neither a ‘grammatical nor arithmetical contradiction*. And what say our Unitarzans 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 person- al Gods, and one essential God make four Gods ; if the essential God be not the same with the personal Gods: and though he is the same, yet since they are not the same with one another, but distinct, it follows, that there are three Gods, i. e. three person- al 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 as but one, true, and most high God; and that because of the perfect unity of the di- vine essence, which can be no more hen one, “ %* Notes en Athanasius’s Creed, p. 13. * Gi Wiis 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 ap- pearance. But may not the same essence be divided ? That I have already shewed 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 altributes ;. 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 per- sons an 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; te © (qs) 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 Per- _ sons which have the divine nature attribu- ted to them; what must we do in this case? must we cast off the unity of the divine es- sence ? No, that is too frequently and plain- ly asserted for us to call it into question. Must we reject those Scriptures which at- tribute divinity to the Son and Holy Ghost, as well as to the Father ? That we cannot do, unless we cast off those books of Scrip- ture, 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 Chris- * Facund, ]. p. 19, Ed. Serm. (. @bkO ) tian Church received the doctrine of the Trinity before the terms of three persons were used. But Sabellianism was the occa- ston of making use of the name of persons. Tt is true, that the Sabellians did not. dis- like our sense of the word person, (which they knew was not the Church's sense,) as it was taken for an appearance, or an ea- ternal quality ; which was consistent enough, with their hypothesis, who allowed 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 Sabelli- anism. ‘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 Gnos- tics, and that of the Cerinthians and Ebion- ites. For how much soever they differed from each other in other things; yet they both agreed in this, that there was no such thing as a Trinity, consisting of Father, (i Ee ‘Son, and Holy Ghost ; but that all was but different appearances and manifestations of God to mankind. In consequence where- of, the Gnostics denied the very humanity of Christ, and the Cerinthians and Ebion- ites his divinity. But both these sorts, were utterly rejected in the communion of the Christian Church; and no such thing as Sabellianism was found within it. After- wards, there arose some persons who start- ed the same opinion within the Church > the first we meet with of this sort, are those mentioned by T'heodoret,* Hpigonus, Cleo- menes, and Noetus, from whom they were called Noetians ; not long after, Sabellius broached the same doctrine in Pentapolis, and the parts thereabouts; which made Dionysius of Alecandriat appear so early | and so warmly against it. But he happen- ing to let fall some expressions, as though he asserted an inequality of hypostases in the Godhead, complaint was made of it to * Theod. haret. Fab. 1. 2. ¢. 3. + Athan. de Sent. Dionys. p. 558. GC) Sate Dionysius then Bishop of Rome, who there- upon 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 Sa- hellian doctrine, which confounded the Ka- ther, 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 Marcronists did. Dionysius of A-. lerandria, when he came to explain him- self, 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, Z'hat if a distinction of hypostases were not kept up, the doctrine of the Frinity would be lost ; as appears by an epistle of his in St. Basil.t Athanasius saith, That the heresy of Sabeilius lay in making the Father and Son to be only differ- * Atkanas. de Decret. Fi dei Nicen. p. 275. + Athanas de Sent. Dionys. ~ Basil de Sp. Sancto c. 29. (eg ent names of the same person; so that in one respect he is the Father,* and in another the Son. Gregory Naxianzent in opposition to Sabellianism, saith, We must believe one God, and three’ hypostases ; and commends Athanasius for preserving the true mean, in asserting the unity of nature, and the dis- - tinction of properties. St. Basil saith, t That the Sabellians made but one person of the Father and Son: that in name they confess- ed 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 Fa- ther, at other times that of a Son;) and so of the Holy Ghost. And to the same purpose in other places he saith, **Z'hat there are ) Rou * Athan. Orat. 4. ¢. 1... Arian. p. 456, t Greg. Nazian. Or. 1. p. 15, 17. * Or. XXI. p. 380 : || Basil Hom. 27. p. 602. 604. § Basil. Fpist. 141. ** Epist. 64. 391, (ose, distinct hypostases with their peculiar proper- ties ; which being joined with the unity of na-. ture make up the true confession of faith. - There were some who would have but one hypostasis ; whom he opposes with great ve- hemency ; and the reason he gives, is, that then they must make the persons to be mere. names: which is Sabellianism. -And he: saith, that of our notions. of distinct persons have no certain foundation they are mere. names, such as Sabellius called persons. But by this foundation he doth not mean any distinct essences, but the incommunrcadle pro« perties belonging to them, as Father, Son, and Foly Ghost. It is plain from hence, that the eiiiessity of asserting, three hypostases, came from thence, that otherwise they could not so well distinguish themselves from the Sabel- lians whose doctrine they utterly disowned ; as well as Arianism and Judaism; and. it appears by the testimonies of Athanasius,* Gregory Nazianzen,t and St. Basil,t that *Athanas. p. 567. + Greg. Naz. p. 16. { Basil. Hom, 27. ; | COREE BL - they looked on one as bad as the other; and they commonly join eeiteaee and \Sabelli- anism together. © -/ But yet there arose difficulties whether - they were to hold ene Aypostasis or three. The former insisted on the generally re- ceived sense of hypostasis for substance or essence; and therefore they could.not hold three hypostases without three distinct es- sences.as the Platonists and Marcionists held. Upon this a synod wascalledat Alerandriato 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 Ari- ans did, of different substances, and separate subsistences, as mankind and other creatures are? Or as other heretics, 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 ; + Ruffin. p- Sif. hist. "I>°T. + Athan, Ep, ad Antioch, p. 577. ( 116 ) 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 sub-— stance with the Father ; and the Holy Ghost not to be a creature, but to bear the same pro- per and inseparable essence with the Father and the Son. ‘Then the other side were asked, When they asserted but one hyposta- sis, whether they held with Sabellius or not ; and that the Son and Holy Ghost had no es- sence or subsistence 2 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, %# ra: tevrimra rs Quotes) 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 understood so as to be consistent with the individual unity | ( 117 ) 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- ed 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 Aypostases, be- cause they knew no other sense of it, but. for substance or ‘essence; and they all de- nied that there was any more than one. d?- vine substance, and. therefore they rather embraced the word persona ; and did agree in the name of persons, as most proper to signify 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 no- tion of it is so. -well .understood, to signify such. a, peculiar sense, 1 see no reason why any should scruple the use of it. As to its not being used in Scripture, Socinus him- : ( 318 )’ self despises it, and allows it to be no good reason. For when Franciscus Davides ob- jected, That the terms of essence and per son were not in Scripture ; Socinus tells him; * That they exposed their cause who went up- on such grounds; and that if the sense of them were in Scripture, it was no matter whe- ther the terms were or not. | Having thus cleared the notion of ‘three persons, I return to the sense of Scripture about these matters. And our Unitarians wtell 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, to 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 ap- pear to do, ‘must: be intended (according to them) to set up Christ, a mere man to be 4 * Socin. Vol. I. p. 778 ( Be ) 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 co- lour or reason for. Therefore these bold inconsiderate writers sought 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, * Zhe question only is, whe- ther 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 ne doubt, if they .can hit upon it, but they ge about it as untowardly as ever | men did. For is this to interpret Scripture like wise men, to take up some novel inter- pretations, against the general sense of the Christian Church from the Apostles’ times ? Is this to act like wese men, to raise objec- tions against the authority of the books, they cannot answer ; affd to cry out of false copies and translations without reason, and * Notes on Athanasius Creed. p. 13. _ (i eo” oe to render all places suspicious, which make against them? Is this to interpret Scripture hike.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 con- ferred 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. * Answer to my sermon, p. 14. 4 SERMON. © i TIM. Ill. Q. HOLDING THE MYSTERY OF THE FAITH IN 4 PURE CONSCIENCE. ees LL the use I design to make of these words is to introduce a discourse upon the subject of the Athanasian Creed. It is appointed by our church to be read several times in the year, and amongst the rest on Trinity Sunday ; it contains an excellent Summary of the Christian faith, concerning the Trinity of persons in the Godhead, and the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ ; and therefore should not be repeated with- out understanding ; and some persons are Pa * By Mattuew Horgery, D. D. Preached on Trinity Sunday. (age: apt to express a dislike of it, though they pretend to believe the doctrines which it contains. Upon all which accounts it cannot be improper to make some observations upon. it, partly to vindicate its use, and partly to explain its. meaning. . It is no. wonder that men, who disbelieve* both the doctrine of the Trinity, and the in- carnation of the Son of God, should treat this exposition of these doctrines with con- tempt and scorn, Though this may be no very decent part with respect to others, it is however a consistent one with regard to themselves, as it is agreeable to, their own principles. But with such men as these at present Ihave noconcern; for be it remem- bered, that Iam not now to prove the truth of these doctrines, but the expediency of this Creed; and the debate is with such only, as believe the Scripture to be the word of God, and that this Creed contains nothing in general, that is contrary to it, but yet up- an other accounts appear to dislike it. The ( ws ) proper enquiry therefore is, whether this dislike be founded in reason. Now the exceptions of such men as these against this ancient exposition of the catho- lick faith, may, I believe, be reduced to two; the first whereof pretends that it is unintelli- gible, so that people, at least common people, cannot understand it; and the se- cond, that it is wncharitable, as it excludes avery man from Salvation, who does not be- tieve faithfully all the abstruse points of this Creed. rete | With regard to ‘the first article, the diffi- ~ulty of understanding the Athanasian Creed, it ought indeed im equity to be supposed, that they who make this complaint, have ao negligence te charge themselves withal in this affair. 'Whena man complains, that he cannot understand a composition, the ve- ry complaint seems to imply, that he has considered it, and endeavoured to under- stand it. For otherwise the fault may be owing, not to the composition, but to his own neglect. It should therefore be pre- ( ome Sumed, that when. persons complain, that they don’t understand this Creed, they are able to: acquit themselves of all blame, or suspicion of negligence ‘in the case. And yet perhaps if we were to enquire of one of these complainers, it would not be easy for him to recollect, that ever in his whole life, he seriously sat’ down for one half hour, to study and consider it. But if he asserts that’ he has fairly considered it, and yet is not able to understand it, we must go far-_ ther, and examine whether there ‘be not still some mistake at the bottom. Tor it is carefully to be observed, that there is a great difference between under- standing’ the meaning of the Creed, or the doctrine which it sets forth; and compre- hending the thing itself, or the mystery, to which this doctrine relates. It is easy e- nough, for instance, to understand the Cay ¢ tholic faith, to understand the orthordox doctrine, concerning the Trinity which the Scripture teaches, and the Church has al. Ways received: but it is so far from being ( Lc easy, that it is impossible to comprehend the mystery of the Trinity itself, or to con- ceive the manner how three Persons are one God, or how the one God subsists in ‘three Persons. And it may happen, by not attending to this distinction, and through a little confusion of ideas, that a man may imagine he does not understand the doctrine of the Creed, only because he does not un- derstand the mystery of the Trinity. This latter, it is certain, is above his understan- ding. But is that any fault of the Creed ? take the Creed away ; and will he under- stand the mystery of the Trinity one jot the better; or will any other Creed, which the wit of man can devise, give him a clear conception of this mysterious truth, and en- able a finite capacity to comprehend an in- finite object ? But that the meaning of the Creed, or the doctrine which it teaches, is not so dark and difficult as ‘some men seem to apprehend, or affect’ to represent it, F shall now shew more distinctly, «by laying a brief explication of it before you. ( tea - } ‘The two principal points inculcated im this Creed, are the doctrines of the Trinity, and of the Incarnation : that is, it teaches us, that there are three divine Persons who are the one true God, and that. one of these, viz. the Son, was really and truly made man. It is not the business of Creeds to prove the truth of doctrines; ¢hat must be determined by Scripture. But the use and intent of a Creed is to put a form of sound words intd the mouths of Christians, that they may be able to make a proper confession of their. faith; and also to guard and secure that faith against the artifices and evasions of hereticks. Supposing therefore the truth. of these doctrines, and. resting that upon the authority of Scripture, the Creed before. us begins with shewing their importance, or the necessity there is that. every Christian should believe them. “ Whosoever will be “ saved; before all things it is necessary “ that he hold the Catholic faith. Which “ faith, except every one do keep whole «“ and undefiled, without doubt. he shall pe- oa! es Be « rish everlastingly.” The want of charity, which is charged upon this introduction, is to be considered hereafter; at present we are concerned only with its sense; which cah hardly be rendered plainer by a com- ment. Every Christian who is desirous of salvation, and expects it upon the terms laid down by Jesus Christ, in his Gospel, must first of all, and before all things, em- brace and hold fast the Chrisitan faith; the faith which was taught by Christ and his Apostles, which was once delivered unto the Saints, and which has always, and every where, been received by the whole Catho- lic, or universal Church. And one article of this faith, an article of great importance as it nearly affects our practice, our worship, and our prayers, is concerning the doctrine of three divine Persons in the unity of the Godhead, in whose name we were baptized, and to whose service we were then devoted. Now with regard to this point, * the Ca- “ tholic faith is this, that we worship one “God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity.” (naps 9 That is, maintaining at the same time the distinction of the persons, and the unity, or sameness, of nature; believing (as our church expresses it) “ that in unity of this « Godhead there be three persons of one ‘substance, power, and eternity ; the Fa-. « ther, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” This is the doctrine of the. Trinity, which the Catholick church has always taught; and if men could have been content with this short and plain account of it, there would have been less occasion for the particular ex-. plications that follow. But as various He- reticks arose, who in diverse manners at- tempted to corrupt and deprave it, there- fore the Creed goes on more explicitly to guard and secure it against their corruptions.. Some, for instance, (whose names are not worth repeating,) held Father, Son, and - Holy Ghost, to be but one person ; that it is one and the same person who is called by. these three names; and that consequently * Art. 1, Of Faith in the holy Trinity. (19 ) the Father and the Holy Ghost were made Flesh, and died for us, as well as the Son. Others again, instead of thus confounding the divine persons, ran into a contrary ex- . treme, and divided the substance; pretend- ing that the substance, or nature, of the Fa- ther was different from that of the Son, and superior to it; and the substance or na- ture of the Son superior to that of the Ho- ly Ghost. In opposition to both these er- rors, the Creed proceeds to instruct us to preserve and maintain the distinction of three persons, without confounding them in- to one person ; and the unity of substance, without dividing it into three substances : “ neither confounding the persons, nor di- « yiding the substance. For there is one « person of the Father, another of the Son, ‘and another of the Hely Ghost:” three distinct persons: ‘ but the Godhead,” the nature, essence, or substance, “ of the Fa- «ther, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost “igs all one; the glory equal, the Majesty & ! (8 RSD, 7) « co-eternal.” ‘To explain this a little: far- ther, | te. « Such as the Father is, such is the Son ; “and such is the Holy Ghost,” as to the na- ture or essence, and in all the essential per- fections of the divine nature. One of these perfections is absolutely necessary uncreated existence ; and in this perfection the divine persons are all alike ; “the Father uncre- “ate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost « uncreate :” none of them creatures, made out of nothing, or produced into being by the will and power of another ; but all exist- ing in the sublimest. sense of existence, which is that of necessity of nature. Ano- ther perfection of the Godhead is immensity,. or omnipresence; and this the.Creed de- clares, ‘according to the Latin Original, e- qually belongs to each of the three persons ; “ the Father immense, or omnipresent, the “the Son immense, and the Holy Ghost * immense,” for as to our Mnglish trans- lation, incomprehensible, though it contains a true proposition, yet it does not convey . | ge CY aaa the true meaning of the Creed, unless we understand by incomprehensible, what can- not. be comprehended in space, or in- cluded within bounds. Another divine per- fection is absolute and proper eternity, without beginning, and without end; and this again the Creed ascribes to each of the divine persons, without any difference or in- equality : “the Father eternal, the Son eter- « nal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.” If we, keep in mind the distinction be- tween divine substance or nature, and di- vine person, we shall not be at a loss to un- derstand what follows, though perhaps the most puzzling part of the Creed. Each of the three persons is eternal, “ and yet they are not three eternals ;”’ that is, not three different eternal substances, or natures, which would be three eternal Gods ; but one and the same divine eternal substance is common to them all; and therefore in this sense they are. “ but one eternal.” It is the same thing as to Omnipresence, and necessary existence ; every one of the divine persons exists necessarily, and is present everywhere ; and yet they are not three im- mense, self-existing substances, (which again would make three Gods,) but most intimate- ly united in one and the same substance, which is omnipresent and uncreated ; and this unity of substance, this identity of na- ture, makes them to be but one God. In the same sense, and upon the same account, though every one of the three divine per- sons be Almighty, “yet they are not three ‘* Almighties, but one Almighty :” because one and the same Omnipotence is enjoyed and exercised by them all. And as each of them has thus the whole divine nature, and all the perfections of that nature belong- ing to Him, it must necessarily follow that each is truly and properly God ; and yet since there is, and can be, but one divine nature, Sy they are not three Gods, but one “God.” To mention but one particular more.—* The Father is Lord, the Son Lord, “and the Holy Ghost Lord :” And yet as they have not three different dominions, ( BB. they are “not three Lords, but one Lord ;” possesing and exercising one and the same supreme universal dominion, the kingdom that ruleth over all. We are obliged by the Christian verity, the truths which are taught in Scripture, to acknowledge every one of the divine persons “ to be God and Lord ;” because they are so represented in Scrip- ture; and have the titles, the perfections, the operations, and worship of God, ascrib- ed and given to them. At the same time we are forbidden ‘by this religion, (and in- deed by true natural religion itself,) to say that there are “ three Gods, or three Lords :” For all true religion, and right reason itself, assures us that there is but one God. If these propositions be true, the unavoidable consequence is, that the one God subsists in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 7 é The Creed having thus taught us, that these divine persons have all the same nature, and the same essential perfections, proceeds next to set forth their personal distinction ; shew- povgeg J ing that the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Holy Ghost, nor the Holy Ghost either of the other.. The peculiar distinc- tive personal character of the Father is, that he is acre, God of himself; first in order, the head and fountain of the Deity; «‘the Father is made of none,” or the Fa- ther is of none, neither made, “ nor created, nor begotten.” The Son is distinguished by this, that He is “ofthe Father alone ;” yet “not made” by him in time, “ nor created” out of nothing like a creature; for there ne- ver was a time when he was not; “ but be- gotten.” ‘The manner of this eternal ge- neration we know nothing of; but as the Nicene Creed expresses it, He was “ begot- ten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.” The personal character of the Holy Ghost is, that he “is of the Fa- ther,” (though not of the Father alone, but of the Father,) “ and of the Son; yet nei- ther made, nor created, nor begotten,” of Co. MBS 4 or by them, “but proceeding” from them, as the Spirit of both: the mode, or manner, of which procession is above our capacities, and consequently a point we have no con- cern with. These characters then being pro- per and peculiar to the divine persons, to whom they respectively belong, sufficiently distinguish them from one another, and shew, that ‘ there is one Father, not three Fathers ; one Son, not three Sons; one Ho- ly Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.” But lest this distinction of persons should lead us to suspect some difference or inequality of na- ture, the Creed inculcates once more, before ‘it leaves the subject, their co-equality and co-eternity : “in this Trinity none 1s afore, or after other,” with regard to duration ; «none is greater, or less than another,” with respect to essential dignity; “ but the whole three persons are co-eternal together, and ¢o-equal.” This Trinity of persons in the unity of the Godhead is to be adored and worshipped by all Christians ; and this doctrine concerning it embraced and held (ee > fast by them, as they tender their everlast- ing Salvation. _‘ So that in all things as is aforesaid, the unity in Trinity,” one God in three persons, “ and the Trinity in unity,” the Trinity of persons in the unity of the divine nature, ‘is to be worshipped.” And he that is desirous to preserve himself from every dangerous and destructive error as to this point, let him “thus think of the Trinity.” : There is another doctrine which is of the foundation of Christianity, any change or al- teration whereof affects and alters the very essence of our religion; and that relates to the Incarnation of the Son of God. To this therefore the Creed next proceeds, and. declares that “it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that we believe rightly the Incar- nation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” St. John had declared long before, that whosoever confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come im the flesh, is a deceiver and an Antichrist.* * 2. Epist. ver. 7, ( @ey 9 If therefore the denial of this doctrine be, in the judgment of an Apostle, a certain mark, of an Antichristian spirit, there can be no great rashness in declaring, that the belief of it, upon the known terms of the Gospel, is necessary to Salvation. Now con~. cerning this point the “ right faith is ths, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and Man: God of the substance of the Fa- ther, begotten before the worlds; as has been above declared; and Man of the sub- stance of his mother, born in the world ;” at the time, and in the manner, related in the Gospels. “ Perfect God, and perfect Man ;” in opposition to the vain dreams of some he- reticks, some of whom bclieved him to be only a made or nominal God; while others denied the reality of his Body, or else his ra-. tional human soul; as an antidote against whose pernicious tenets, follow the words,— ‘¢ of areasonable soul, and human flesh sub- sisting ;” that is, he had a human soul and fF Raa body both, as other men have. He is, as God, equal to the Father, in nature and es- sential dignity; but as Man, he is, and must be, his inferior. ‘ Who although he be God and Man,” and has therefore two natures, yet he is not two persons, or two - Christs, as some hereticks have falsely ima- gined, “ but one Christ.” One he is, “ not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh,” or by changing God into. man, which is im- possible; “but by taking of the manhood into: God ;” assuming our human nature, and uniting it with the divine. And this al- together without “ confusion of substance,” that is, without any mixture of the divine and human\natures, so as to compose a third nature out of both; for the two natures re- mained distinct, though united in the same person: who is therefore “ one altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.” There is some resemblance or image of this. even in our own frame and constitution; in which two different sub- stances, the body and the soul, are united ; 4 . : 7 Go ee? without confusion ; and yet so closely and intimately united as to make but one man. This illustration therefore the Creed gives us -by adding, “as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, ‘so God and man is one Christ.” The remaining articles need no particu- lar explication ; and if those we have been considering have some difficulty in them, it should be remembered, that they are upon the abstrusest and sublimest points:of our religion. If other -Creeds seem more easy, with reference to these points, it is. only be- cause they are more general, and descend not to sucha particular explication. But for that very reason they are liable to this disadvantage, that they are sooner evaded and the true sense of them explained away. And we saw by a late attempt to reconcile the service and offices of our church with the Arian tenets, that when they were al- most all turned aside by too artful a hand, from their original meaning ; it was, upon second thoughts*, judged too desperate an * The Interpretations of the Athanasian Creed in ( 140 ) undertaking to tamper with the Créed be- fore us, which stood the great bulwark and preservative of the Catholic faith. No won- der, therefore, that Arians and Socinians should rail against it; the wonder is, that men of better principles should join the cry; and upon very slight grounds should endea- vour to defame an ancient and valuable ex- position of the faith, which they themselves profess to believe. One of their exceptions has been now considered; and to the other I must say a word or two before I conclude. In the second place then they say, that they dislike this Creed because it is unchari- table, and excludes every man from Salva- tion, who does not believe all the abstruse points which it contains. Now the truth is, this Creed neither contains move, nor more abstruse points of faith, than other Creeds do. With regard to two articles, which appear to be of the very essence of our religion, it the first Edition of Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, were in the second and subsequent prudently omitted, ( 141 ) enters indeed into a more minute detail, and is more particular in its explications : but, I speak it upon the authority of wise and learn- ed men,* the condemning clauses, as they are called, do not extend to these particu- lar explications, but are intended only to secure the general doctrine. And it should seem, that there is no want of charity in de- claring, that according to the terms of the Gospel, it is necessary, that Christians be- lieve that there are three divine persons who are one God, and that one of them was truly made man. If any Christian pre- tends that he knows not these things, I would ask him, unto what then were you baptized ? And what, or whose religion do ‘* The Commissioners in 1689, thirty eminent Di- vines, appointed to review and correct the Leturgy, close the Rubric they had prepared in the following Words,—“ And the condemning Clauses (viz. in the “« Athanasian Creed, ) are to be understood as relating ‘‘ronly to those who obstinately deny the Substance of * the Christian Faith.”*And since them to the same Purpose Archbp. Synge, Dr. Bennet, Dr. Waterlaud, Dr. Randolph, Mr. Wheatley, and others. (oe) you profess ? Were you solemnly dedicated to the honour and service of three divine persons ? And do you constantly worship them, offering up your prayers and devo- tions directly to them, sometimes jointly to all, and sometimes separately to each? And can you say after this, that you know not, or believe not, that faith in them is any ne- cessary part of your religion ? What is,. or can be, necessary in religion, if it be not ne- cessary to believe rightly concerning the ve- ry object of your worship, and the God whom you adore? So again with regard to the doctrine of Christ’s Incarnation, will you say that you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and that you hope to be saved through faith in his blood ? And can you with any consistency say at the same time, that. the doctrine of his Incarnation is a point of little consequence, or that the be- lief of it is not necessary to Salvation ? Is not this to set truth and error, belief and unbelief, upon an equal foot ? And to make religion and no religion the same thing ? ae) li Be { 143 ) If therefore these doctrines belong to the foundation of Christianity, if you can make no alteration in them, without altering the very essence of this religion, and changing it into some other thing; wherein is the Creed to be blamed, because it declares them © to be thus essential to the faith; and neces- sary to Salvation? The Creed lays down a general proposition, that it is necessary to believe the Christian or Catholick faith; a proposition which might easily be proved, if any Christian, who knows what he says, was hardy enough to deny it. It then gives a particular and circumstantial account of two great articles of this faith, relating to the Trinity and Incarnation. But if any man, merely for want of common good ca- pacity, cannot understand this explication ; the Creed condemns him not. It condemns no man’s incapacity ; it censures no man’s ignorance, provided that ignorance be not wilful; and then it ought to be censured, be- cause it is without excuse. For really these are points of too great consequence to be " (iis ebay OY neglected. In short, as St. Paul says in ar- other case, that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under. the law ;* so in this case, what things soever the Creed saith, it saith to them whom it may concern ; to them, who may understand it if they will: who want neither the means of instruction, nor capacity to use and ap- ply them ; and whose ignorance, or unbelief, is owing to their own neglect or prejudices, that is, to their own fault.. And if the Creed condemn such men as these, it may, I sup- pose, be supported in doing so, both by the reason of mankind, and the Gospel of Je- sus Christ. Men are apt enough to be indifferent in matters of religion. The better sort of them indeed will practise the common decencies of life, and perform the offices of humanity, _ justice, and common morality. They feel the good effects of such behaviour, in the value and esteem whick it procures them ; * Rom. iii. 19. (( ae) and the good order and well-being of the world could not be preserved without it. But one sometimes finds, even in persons of this sort, a wonderful inattention, and a strange indifference, with regard to the first and most fundamental doctrines of their re- ligion. It might possibly be with some view to this kind of conduct, that the compiler of the Creed inserted what are called the damnatory clauses. He was desirous to ex- cite their attention, and to rouse them from this unmeaning slumber ; to convince them that something is to be believed, as well as practised ; and that in matters of this im- portance men should not trifle with God, and their own consciences, and halt between two opinions*. To this purpose he declares that the doctrines he endeavours to explain are necessary to Salvation; because he thought this consideration most likely to make men serious about them, and engage their attention to them. But the censures, U * 1 Kings xviii, 21. ( “das oY or damnatory clauses, ‘are truly and pro- perly. no. censures at all ;. but only general ‘declarations of the importanee of the doc- trines, or directions about them; and when explained, ‘as general declarations must be, with proper allowances and exceptions, very consistent both with truth and charity. “He that will be saved,” says the compiler, ‘must thus think of the Trinity :” which though it may sound harsh, and look like a censure,dis in truth nothing more than good advice; is no more in effect than if he had said, I have now explained the doctrine of the Trinity in a sound and orthodox sense, and I would advise every Christian, who would avoid all dangerous errors in this point, to think of it in this manner: he that is willing to be saved, and. upon that account desirous to avoid all damnable heresies, 2a de Trinitate sentiat, let him thus think of the Trinity. | f. This. is his advice, and as I cannot con-\ clude with better, it is mine: for though \ orthodoxy cannot cover, it may prevent, (ig: Bet ‘multitude of sins. Let us therefore hold this ( mystery of the faith in a pure conscience ; ' in sincerity of heart, and in righteousness of | life : not in hypocrisy, outwardly professing i what we do not inwardly believe, for the sake of worldy interest; nor in unrighte- ousness, as if a right faith would atone for a wicked life ;—but let us add to our fazth, Virtuet ; so that we may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things ; and that he who is of the contrary part may be a- shamed ; having no evil thing to say of us.§ <2 Pet. 1. 5. § Titus ii. 8, 10. at , Bre ne Bas Ree tone |" EXTRACT From Bishop Bury’ s Vindication* of the Church of England. (p. 186—196.) ON THE NICENE FAITH. To obviate the perverse interpre- ‘tations of hereticks, she [the Church of En- gland] receiveth also that admirable sum- mary of the Christian Faith, which is called the Nicene Creed, but is indeed the entire ancient Creed of the Oriental Churches, to- gether with the necessary additional explica- tions thereof, made by Fathers, both of the council of Nice against Arius, and the coun- cil of Constantinople against Macedonius.— The sum of what the Nicene Fathers have added by way of explication to the rule of Faith, is this: That the Son of God is no creature, but very God, subsisting in the very substance, essence, and nature of his Father. Now although many of those ancient writers have let fall such things (especially in the * Ina Letter to the Countess of Newbrugh, dated Suddington, in Gloucestershire, Oct. 18, 1671. and published by the Bishop's Son, Mr.Robert Bull, Recter of Tortworth. London. 1719, Cee) heat of contest) as seem not very consistent with the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, yet the thing itself is professed- ly and frequently acknowledged by all, not one excepted; as I could make appear by many full and express testimonies out of each of them. Indeed not-one of them (no not Origen himself, charged by so many with heresy in this article) ever dreamt the Son of God (in that nature, wherein he is more properly so called) to be a creature. Nay, Tertullian* (who flourished about 130 years before the Nicene council, and hath as ma- ny unwary expressions in this matter, as any one ‘of those writers whatsoever, yet) delivers this as the received doctrine of the Catholic Church in his time: “That the Three persons of the ever to be adored Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are of one substance, and one state, and one * Omnovopeets sacramentum, que Unitatem in Trini- tafem disponit, tres dirigens Patrem, Filium, & Spi- ritum Sanctum; tres autem non statu, sed gradu, nec substantia sed forma, nec potestate sed specie ; unius autem substantie, & unius status, & unius potestatis, quia unus Deus, fc. TERTULL. adv. Prgx. ¢. 2. ( Weps1 YY power, because one God.” Where we have not only the full sense, but the very words of the Nicene Fathers in this articlee, which is especially quarrelled at by some no less presumptuous then peevish men. And this he delivers as a doctrine understood to be contained in the Creed or rule of Faith then, received in the Church, and which before he had just laid down. Nay, it is apparent from .the whole tenor of Tertullian’s discourse in that book, that the heresy of Praxeas, asserting the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to be but one Person, was built upon these two Hypotheses : Ist. That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were acknowledged by Ca- tholics to be of one and the same substance and nature. 2ly. That there could not be three distinct persons subsisting in the same _ divine essence. And, indeed, the main ar- gument made use of by all the several Here- ticks, that from. the beginning oppugned the Deity of the Son, (as asserted by the Catholicks) was this that the doctrine was repugnant to the wnity and simplicity of the divine essence: for which argument i tn) there had not been the least colour, if the Catholicks had only asserted the Son to be a made God, or a creature, (howsoever dig- nified, yet) of an essence and nature infi- -nitely distant and alien from the nature and essence of the Father. » Tothese let me add one argument, which seems to me irrefragable. ‘There was a fa- mous question* much disputed in the early days of the Church, even in the first succes- sion from the Apostles, (as it evidently ap- pearsfrom the writings of Justin Martyr, and his scholar Tatian, and others) concerning the manner of the Son’s generation, viz. whether it were by akind of abscission from the essence of the Father, or by a simple communication of essence, such as is bet- wixt fire producing other fire, without any diminution of itself, and the fire produced. Now, how impertinent, how frivolous, how even ridiculous had this controversy been, * Vide Justin Martyr, Dial cum Tryph. peg. 358. Col. p. 284. & Tatian. Oret. contra Gracos ad calcem Operum Juliani, p. 145. & librum de recta confessjone inter Opera Justini, p, 380. ( ws ) if it had not been taken for granted on all hands, that the Son was begotten of the very essence of the Father, and not made of things which were not ? The sum of the explicatory addition made by the Fathers of Constantinople to the ar- ticles concerning the Holy Ghost, is this, “ That the Holy Ghost is no created Spirit, but a divine Person, or very God, to whom in conjunction with the Father and the Son, divine worship and honour ought tobegiven.” Now we have already shewn, that the Cath- olic Church, even in Tertullian’s time, (so, long before the Conncil of Constantinople) acknowledged the Holy Ghost, no less than the Son to be of one substance, state, and power with the Father.* And the same Tertullian afterwards in the same book, de- livering again the common belief of the Ca- tholicks in his time) tells us expressly, “that xX * Duos Deos & Duos Dominos nunquam ex ore nostro proferimus, non quasi non et Pater Deus, & Spiritus Sanctus Deus, & Deus unusquisque &c. Tera tull. ady, Prax. cap, 13. n. 73. ex edit, Pamelii. Go aaa the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and every one of them is God.” And how many testimonies, out of the most ancient Fathers, might I here heap together? But it is needless; for as long as the Sacrament of Baptism, as it was ap- pointed by Christ to be administered in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, shall continue in the Church, (that is, whilst the Church shall continue) as long as the doxology, or glorification of the Fa- ther, Son, and Holy Ghost together, (which was received in the Catholic Church in the very age that trod upon the heels of the Apostles, as appears from the testimony of St. Justin Martyr,* and others) shall retain a place in the Liturgy and ‘public offices of the Church: so long shall we not want a clear proof, and a practical evidence and de- monstration, that the Deity of the Holy Ghost, and so the consubstantiality of each Person in the most blessed Trinity, is 4 Catholic verity. * Apolog. 2. p. 97, 98. tye EXTRACT From Hooxen’s Eccles, Pol. B. V. Section 42. p. 243, 245. 277. & Sect. 51. p. 259. ON THE ATHANASIAN CREED, —Under Constantine the Emperour, about three hundred years and upward after Christ, Arius, a priest in the Church of Alexandria, became, through envy and stomach, prone unto contradiction, and bold to broach at the length that heresie, where- in the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, (con- tained, but not opened in the former Creed,) the coequality and coeternity of the Son with the Father, was denied. Being for this impiety deprived of his place by the Bishop of the same Church, the punishment, which should have reformed him, did but increase his obstinacy, and give him occasion of la- bouring with greater earnestness elsewhere, to intangle unwary minds with the snares of his damnable opinion.—Now, although these contentions were cause of much evil, yet some good the Church hath reaped by them, in that they occasioned the learned and sound in faith to explain such things as Heresie went about todeprave. And in this respect, the Creed of ATHANASIUS, first exhi- bited unto Julius, Bishop of Rome ; and af- terwards, (as we may probably gather) sent to the Emperor Jovinian, for his more full in- formation concerning that truth, which Arian- ism so mightily did impugn; was both in the East and the West Churches accepted as a treasure of inestimable price, by as many as had not given up the very ghost of belief. Then was the Creed of Athanasius written, how- beit, not then so expedient to be publickly used, as now, in the Church of God.—That which heresie did, by sinister interpretations, | go about to pervert in the first and most an- cient Apostolical Creed, the same being by singular dexterity and plainness cleared. from those heretical corruptions, (partly by the Creed of ArHanasivus, written about the year 340, and partly by that other set down in the synod of Constantinople forty years after, comprehending together with the Ni- cene Creed, an addition of other articles, ™ ( 157 ) which the Nicene Creed omitted, because the controversie then in hand, needed no mention to be made of them,) these Catho- lick declarations of our belief delivered by them, which were so much nearer than we are to the first publication thereof; and con- tinuing needful for all men at all times te know; these confessions, as ¢estimonies of our continuance in the same faith to this present day, we rather use, than any other gloss or paraphrase devised by ourselves, which, though it were to the same effect, notwith- standing could not be of the like authority and credit.—The very Creed of ATHaNna- sius, and that sacred hymn of glory, than which nothing doth sound more heavenly in the ears of faithful men, are now reckoned as superfluities, which we must in any case pare away, lest we cloy God with too much service. Is there in that confession of faith any thing which doth not at all times edify and instruct the attentive hearer ? or is our faith in the blessed Trinity a matter needless to be so oftentimes mentioned and opened in the principal part of that duty, which we (we 4} owe to God, our public prayer ?—Albeit, con- flict with Arians brought forth the occasion of writing that Creed, which long after was made a part of the Church liturgy, as hymns and sentences of glory were a part thereof before; yet cause sufficient there is, why — - both should remain in use, the one as a most divine explication of the chiefest articles of our Christian belief, the other as an heaven- ly acclamation of joyful applause to his praises, in whom we believe ; neither the one nor the other unworthy to be heard sound- ing, as they are, in the Church of Christ, whether Arianism live or die.” —‘ The Lord our God is one Lord: In which indivisible unity notwithstanding we adore the Father, as being altogether of him- self; we glorifie that consubstantial Word, which is his Son; we bless and magnifie that co-essential Spirit, eternally proceeding from both, which is the Holy Spirit. Seeing therefore the Father is of none, the Son is of the Father, and the Spirit is of both, they are by these several properties really distin- guishable each from other.” DISQUISITION ON RATIONAL CHRISTIANITY.* O several learned and ingenious wri- i . ters, some doctrines of the Christian religion have appeared so contradictory to all the principles of reason and equity, that they cannot assent to them, nor believe that they can be derived from the fountain of all truth and justice. In order therefore to sa- tisfy themselves and others, who may labour under the same difficulties, they have under- taken the arduous task of reconciling reve- lation and reason; and great would have been their merits, had they begun at the right end, that is, had they endeavoured to J -* Disquisitions by Soame Jenyns, Esq. p. 101. Go) sage exalt the human understanding to the com- prehension of the sublime doctrines of the Gospel, rather than to reduce those doctrines to the lowsstandard of human reason ; but, unfortunately for themselves and many o- thers, they have made choice of the latter. method, and, as the shortest way to effect. it, have with inconsiderate rashness expun- ged from the new Testament every divine declaration, which agrees not exactly with | their own notions of truth and rectitude; and this they have attempted by no other: means, than by absurd explanations, or by bold assertions that they are not there,* in direct contradiction to the sense of language, and the whole tenour of those writings; as some philosophers have ventured, in opposi- tion to all men’s senses, and even to their * This has been the common practice of heresy in all ages. ‘TERTULLIAN says of Marcion and Valenti-« nus: Alus manu scripturas, alius sensus explicatione intervertit. (De Preescript. c. 38.) Cum enim ex serip- turis arguuntur, 1n accusationem convertuntur ipsarum scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex authoritate, (Inenaus L. iii. c. 2, ed. Grab.) Eprr. (: Mee) own, to deny the existence of matter, for no other reason, but because they find in it pro- perties which they are unable to account for. Thus they have reduced Christianity to a mere system of ethics, and retain no part of it but the moral, which in fact is no cha- raeteristic part of it at all, as this, though in a manner less perfect, makes a part of every religion which ever appeared in the world. This ingenious method of converting Christianity into Deism, cannot fail of ac- quiring many respectable proselytes ; for e- very virtuous and pious man, who would be a Christian if he could, that is, who rever- ences the name of Christianity but cannot assent to its tenets, is glad to list under the standard of any leader, who can teach him to be a Christian, without believing any one principle of that institution. Whoever will look back into the theolo- gical annals of this country, will find, that during the last century, the fashionable phi- losophers were for the most part Atheists, who ascribed every ne to chance, fate, (> age or necessity ; exclusive of all intelligence or design. These mighty giants, who fought against Heaven, being at length overthrown by the absurdity of their own principles, and the superior abilities of their adversaries, re- treated, about the beginning of the present, to the more tenable fort of Deism. But here again, being frequently worsted, they at last took shelter under the covert-way of ration- al Christianity, where they now make their stand, and attack revelation with less odi- um and more success, than from the open plains of professed Deism; because many are ready to reject the whole substance of the Christian institution, who would be shoeked at the thought of relinquishing the name. If Christianity is to be learned out of the New Testament, and words have any mean- ing affixed to them, the fundamental prin- ciples of it are these :—That mankind come into this world in a depraved and fallen con- dition ;—that they are placed here for a while, to give them an opportunity to work out their salvation, that is, by a virtuous and ( és } pious life to purge off this guilt and depra- vity, and recover their lost state of happi- ness and innocence, in a future life ;—that this they are unable to perform, without the grace and assistance of God ;—and that af- ter their best endeavours, they cannot hope for pardon from their own merits, but only from the merits of Christ, and the atone- ment made for their transgressions by his sufferings and death. This is clearly the sum and substance of the Christian dispensation ; and so adverse is it to all the principles of human reason, that if brought before her tribunal, it must inevitably be condemned by so incompetent a judge. If we give no credit to its divine authority, any attempt to reconcile them [reason and revelation ] is useless ; and, if we believe it, presumptuous* in the highest degree. ‘To prove the rea- sonableness of a revelation, is in fact to de- stroy it;* because a revelation implies in- ** This appears to be much too strongly said. The resurrection of the body is purely a doctrine of Reve- lation, and could never have been discovered by unas- ( 164 ) formation of something which reason cannot discover, and therefore -must be different from its deductions, or it would be no reve- lation. If God had told us, that we come into this world in a state of perfect inno- cence, void of all propensities to evil; that our depravity proceeds entirely from the abuse of that free-will, with which he has: been pleased to endue us ; that, if in this life we pursue a virtuous conduct, we have a -right* to be rewarded, and if a vicious, we may expect to be punished in another, ex- cept we prevent it by repentance and refor- mation, and that these are always in our own power{|—if God had informed us of no- sisted reason. Yet St. Paul shews from natural anae logies, that it is not contrary to reason. Eprt. * Christ, indeed, says, “ Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they mey have right to the tree of life.” (Rev. xxii. 14.) But the pardon of our sins being altogether the consequence of Christ’s atone- ment, our right becomes so much a matter of grace, that we cannot properly apply it to ourselves. Eprr. + By prayer ;—through the grace of God obtained by prayer. Epir. ( 165 ) ‘thing mere, this would have been no revela- tion, because it is Just what our reason, properly employed, might have taught us: ‘but if he has thought proper, by supernatu- ral means, to assure us, that our situation, ‘our relations, gur depravity, our merits, and our powers, are all of a kind extremely different from what we imagine; and that his dispensations towards us are founded on. principles which cannot be explained to us, because, in our present state, we are unable to comprehend them; this is a revelation, which we may believe, or not, according to our opinion of its authority; but let us not reason it into no revelation at all. The writers of the New Testament fre- quently declare, that the religion which they teach, is a mystery, that is, a revelation of the dispensations of God to mankind, which without supernatural information we never could have discovered. ‘Thus St. Paul says, « Having made known to us the mystery of “his will.” What then is this mystery ? not the moral precepts of the gospel; for they K 108% ) are no more a mystery than the Ethics of Aristotle, or the offices of Cicero. The mys- tery consists alone in these very doctrines, which the Rationalist explodes, because they disagree with the conclusions of his reason; that is, because they are mysteries, as they are avowed to be by those who taught them. But these bold advocates for reason, un- derstand not its extent, its powers, or the proper application of them. The utmost perfection of human reason, is the knowledge of its own defects, and the limits of its own confined powers, which are extremely nar- row. It is alamp which serves us very well for the common*occupations of life, which are near at hand, but can shew us no pros- pect at a distance. On all speculative sub- jects, it is exceedingly fallacious, but in none so frequently misleads us, as in our religious and political inquiries ; because, in the for- mer, we draw conclusions without premises; and in the latter, upon false ones. Thus, for instance, reason tells us, that a Creator, infinitely powerful and good, could never ( Mier yp permit any evil, natural or moral, to have a place in his works ; because his goodness must induce him, and his power enable him, to exclude them. This argument is unan- swerable by any thing, but experience, which every hour confutes it. Thus again, reason assures us, that sufferings, though they may be just punishments for past crimes, and a means to prevent them for the future, can never be compensations for them; much less can the sufferings of one being atone for the guilt of another. Against this no objection can be urged, except the belief of mankind, in all ages and nations, and the express declarations of revelation ; which unanimously contradict it, and afford sufficient grounds for our concurrence. In these two instances we are deceived by mis- applying our reason to subjects in which we have no premises to reason upon ; for, being totally ignorant on what plan the universal system is formed and supported, we can be no judges of what is good or evil with re- gard to the whole ; and, as we know not for C -.) ~ what ends either guilt or sufferings were ever admitted we must be unable to com- prehend what connections between them may possibly be derived from those ends. In our political discussions, reason equally mis- . leads us; in these, she presents us with schemes of government, in which, by the most admirable contrivances, justice is so impartially administered, property so well guarded, and liberty so effectually secured, that in theory it seems impossible, that any people under such wise regulations can pos- sibly fail of being happy, virtuous, and free; but experiment soon convinces us, that they are inadequate to these salutary purposes, and that, in practice, they are productive only of anarchy and confusion. Here our errors arise from reasoning on false premi- ses, that is, from supposing that mankind will act on principles incompatible with the vices, the follies, and the passions of human nature. If reason, therefore, is so fallible a judge in the little and low concerns of human policy, with which she is daily conversant, ( 469 > No _ how absurd is the Rationalist, who consti- | % tutes her sole arbiter in the discussions of the most sublime subjects, of which she has not the least comprehension, the attributes and dispensations of the Almighty, our re- lations. to him, and our connections with past and*future states of existence ! Of all men, who are called Christians, the Rationalist seems to have the least pre- tence to that denomination. The Church of England acknowledges the belief of all the — doctrines of this institution in her Artitles: | but the Rationalist reprobates the whole, as impious, ridiculous, and contradic- tory to the justice of God; and the reason of man. Nor is he less adverse to the spirif, than to the letter of this religion. The true Christian is. ble, teachable, and diffident: the Rationalist is assu ing, jbbstinate, and self-sufficient: the Christian hopeth ail things, feareth all things, and believeth all things; the Rationalist hopeth for nothing, but from his own merits, feareth nothing from his own depravity, and believeth no- ar 4 WM) thing, the grounds of which he cannot per- fectly understand.— FINIS. PLP BPP LL LMI Laiely published, price 2s. 6d. And sold by Rivingtons, and Hatchard, London. A BRIEF MEMORIAL on the REPEAL of so much of the Statute 9. and 10. William III. as relates to PERSONS DENYING THE DOCTRINE of the HOLY TRINITY: addressed to all who believe the Christ- ian Religion to be the True Religion, and who are desirous of maintaining the religious Institutions of their Ancestors. To which is prefixed a Demon- stration of the Three Great Truths of Christianity, together with Specimens. of Unitarian Rejection of Scripture, and of all Antiquity. Also, price 25. The repeal of the Act against Blasphemy, &c. consider- ed,—the benefits of the curates’ act illustrated,—the Bible Society vindicated,-and_the grounds: of the Roman Catholic claims disproved, in a CHARGE delivered to the Crerey of the Diocese of St. Da- vids ; in the month of September, 1813. Second edition. BRD VWVVAWVSY Where, also may be had, price 1s. svi had TMT, ayour Osos Pavepwtes sv ceepet, sive Selecta loca ex Prophetis aliisque libris veteris Tes- tamenti ad Messiam in primis pertinentia, Hebraice, una cum Eorundem Locorum Versione Greca xx, Locisque Parallelis) Novi Testamenti, Dunelmiz, Excud. L. Pennington, 1808. i Py a iA ¥ i , au | Apel ‘ Sue ie rq. “5 a, y ia : ’ ity ) , iy 4 - 7 nal As) ee ee aah ni A he Zz nae y out? 7 re gut ie Wy ¥ 0) Vv a ns Bide i (\ einen he ated ; aes meee RP A fa toary” vhey 6 of D 8 +) A > (oe i iy. Ps) ’ nee te 4 : - Ai Ae REN? a } i, oy 0 ech Rh Bt Or le yi ek ee UE er ha i it | nim * * « 7 mht eg mae he we Ps “ r, ¥ wariy a 4 hy Data ale uprraey. ip pe) be ese te ee Bt ACR Pah N tae a ; bias on i 4 ~ ; A vee 4) ‘ an i? *s . : ‘ - went *, ] oa \ | 4 Pat 1 rig Fi) ed gl Mea Y Seabee ap ry : ne et 2, by ee ae a SY, . hy , ie eae ye NE * ‘io 7 ii J ney ge 4 pry = ~ RNa SS ech a Ca id INULIN 1 1012 01007 7412 ig ot : coy his n A eV er A ee rar UY a vd i by > Lee ih ib ge 8 Pui Te. 7 0 ,S Wop sy (rms Lee nad f ‘i £) : L a } ‘ ud ” ns Be pa ay 4\ bh = 7 ae Jia) ‘ ‘i 7 i ‘ : ; : I 7 é ye iy Tie eee a! ining by t 1 hy. ’ mae f 4 ey iset ny La A ‘ ue 1 i Re, ¥ i aie” Bett Da gua he aN: pew e ES TE ~~ ee ee een ans at eda Sie Pe el Se oak cae Sie Tl aa A eep e. Se = foes —— a ee a ene aR-3 ert sk sss" i i at od ca, Sy ihe! 5 ae Be oto ah ae eel a eh 2 +e ot a “ Se nk kee