Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, Discourse · Chapter 9

Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity · Discourse · Chapter 9

p. 177CHAP. IX. The General Sense of the Christian Church, proved from the Form of Baptism, as it was understood in the first Ages.

BUT our Vnitarians pretend, that they are satisfied, that the Form of Baptism is found in all Copies, and all the ancient Translations; and that it was used before the Council of Nice,P. 17. as appears by several places of Tertullian. But how then? There are two things stick with them.

(1.) That the Ante-Nicene Fathers do not alledge it to prove the Divinity of the Son, or Holy Ghost.

(2.) That the Form of Words here used, doth not prove the Doctrine of the Trinity. Both which must be strictly Examined.

1. As to the former. It cannot but seem strange to any one conversant in the Writings of those Fathers; when S. Cyprian saith expressly,Cypri…n. ad Jul. Ep. 73. That the Form of Baptism is prescribed by Christ, that it should be in plenâ & aduna…â Trinitate: i. e. in the full Confession of the Holy Trinity; and p. 178therefore, he denied the Baptism of the Marcionites, because the Faith of the Trinity was not sincere among them, as appears at large in that Epistle. And this, as far as I can find, was the general Sense of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Erasm. ad Cens. Paris. Tit. II. Vossi. de Symb. diss. I. n. 38.Titus 2as well as others. And it is no improbable Opinion of Erasmus, and Vossius, two learned Criticks indeed, That the most ancient Creed went no further than the Form of Baptism, viz. to Believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; and the other Articles were added as Heresies gave occasion. S. Ierom saith,Hierom. Ep. 61. That in the Traditional Creed, which they received from the Apostles, the main Article was, the Confession of the Trinity; to which he joyns the Vnity of the Church, and Resurrection of the Flesh; and then adds, that herein is contained, Omne Christiani Dogmatis Sacramentum, the whole Faith into which Christians were baptized. And he saith, It was the Custom among them to instruct those who were to be Baptized for forty days in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. So that there was then no Question but the Form of Baptism had a particular Respect to …t; and therefore, so much weight is laid upon the use of it, as well by the Ante-Nicene Fathers, as others. For, Tertullian saith,Tertul. de Bap…ism. … 13. That the Form of Baptism was p. 179prescribed by our Saviour himself as a Law to his Church. De Praescript. haeret. c. 20.S. Cyprian to the same purpose,Cyprian. Ep. 27.73. Ed. Ox. That he commanded it to be used S. Augustin calls them, the Words of the Gospel, without which there is no Baptism. Aug. de Baptism. c. Donat. l. 6. c. 25.The Reason given by S. Ambrose is,Ambros. de Sp. Sanct. l. 1. c 3. because the Faith of the Trinity is in this Form. But how if any one Person were left out? He thinks, that if the rest be not denied, the Baptism is good; but otherwise, vacuum est omne Mysterium, the whole Baptism is void.

So that the Faith of the Trinity was that which was required in order to true Baptism, more than the bare Form of Words. If there were no reason to question the former, S. Ambrose seems of Opinion that the Baptism was good, although every Person were not named, and therein he was followed by Beda, Hugo de Sancto Victore, Bed. in Act. 19. Hugo de S Vict. de Sacr. l. 1. c. 13.Acts 19Peter Lombard and others.Lomb. 4. Sent. Dist. …. c. sed qd. Basil c Eunom. l. 5. c. 3. c. 10. And S Basil in the Greek Church, asserted that Baptism in the name of the Holy Ghost was sufficient, because he is hereby owned to be of equal Dignity with the Father and Son; but it is still supposing that the whole and undivided Trinity be not denied. And he elsewhere saith, That Baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is a most solemn Profession of the Trinity p. 180in Vnity, because they are all joyned together in this publick Act of Devotion. But others thought that the Baptism was not good, unless every Person were named; which Opinion generally obtained both in the Greek and Latin Church. And the late Editors of S. Ambrose observe, that in other places he makes the whole Form of Words necessary as well as the Faith in the Holy Trinity. The Baptism of the Eunomians was rejected, because they alter'd the Form and the Faith too,Epiph. Haer. 76. ad fin. saying, That the Father was uncreate, the Son created by the Father, and the Holy Ghost created by the Son.

The Baptism of the Samosatenians was rejected by the Council of Nice. Concil. Nicaen. c. 19.S. Augustin thinks it was because they had not the right Form, but the true Reason was, they rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity. And so the Council of Arles I. doth in express Words refuse their Baptism who refused to own that Doctrine. Aug. de Haeres c. 44. Concil. Arel. I. c. 8.That Council was held A. D. 314. and therefore Bellarmin, Bellarm. de Bap. l. 1. c. 3.and others after him, are very much mistaken, when they interpret this Canon of the Arians, concerning whose Baptism there could be no Dispute till many years after. But this Canon is de Afris; among whom the Custom of Baptizing prevailed; but p. 181this Council propounds an expedient as most agreeable to the general Sense of the Christian Church, viz. That if any relinquished their Heresie and came back to the Church, they should ask them the Creed, and if they found that they were baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, they should have only imposition of hands, but if they did not confess the Trinity, their Baptism was declared void. Now this I look on as an impregnable Testimony of the Sense of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, viz. That they did not allow that Baptism which was not in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; or (which they understood to be the same) in the confession of the Faith of the Trinity. How then can our Vnitarians pretend, That the Ante-Nicene Fathers did not alledge the Form of Baptism to prove the Trinity? For the words are, If they do n…t answer to this Trinity let them be baptized, saith this plenary Cou…cil, as S. Augustin often calls it. What Trinity do they mean? Of mere Names or Cyphers, or of one God and two Creatures joyned in the same Form of words, as our Vnitarians understand it? But they affirm, That the Ancients of 400 years do not insist on this Text of S. Matthew to prove the Divinity p. 182Answer to Mi…b p. 18.or Personality of the Son or Spirit.

Therefore to give a clear account of this matter, I shall prove, that the Ante-Nicene Fathers did understand these words, so as not to be taken, either for mere Names, or for Creatures joyned with God; but that they did maintain the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost, from the general Sense, in which these words were taken among them.

And this I shall do from these Arguments;

1. That those who took them in another Sense, were opposed and condemned by the Christian Church.

2. That the Christian Church did own this Sense in publick Acts of divine Worship as well as private.

3. That it was owned and defended by those who appeared for the Christian Faith against Infidels. And I do not know any better means than these, to prove such a matter of Fact as this.

1. The Sense of the Christian Church may be known by its behaviour towards those, who took these words only for different Names or Appearances of One Person.

And of this we have full Evidence, as to Praxeas, Noëtus and Sabellius, all long before the Council of Nice.

p. 183Praxeas was the first, at least in the Western Church, who made Father, Son and Holy Ghost, to be only several Names of the same Person, and he was with great Warmth and Vigor opposed by Tertullian, who charges him with introducing a new opinion into the Church, as will presently appear. And his testimony is the more considerable, because our Vnitarians confess,P. 17. That he lived 120 years before the Nicene Council, and that he particularly insists upon the Form of Baptism against Praxeas.Advers. Prax. c. 26. But to what purpose? Was not his whole design in that Book to prove three distinct Persons of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and yet but One God? Doth he not say expresly, That Christ commanded that his Disciples should baptize into the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, not into One of them; ad singula nomina in Personas singulas tingimur. In Baptism we are dipped once at every Name, to shew that we are baptized into three Persons. It is certain then, that Tertullian could not mistake the Sense of the Church so grosly, as to take three Persons to be only three several Names.

He grants to Praxeas, that Father, C 2.Son and Holy Ghost are one, but how? Per unitatem substantiae, because there is but p. 184one divine Essence: but yet he saith, there are three, not with respect to essential Attributes, for so they are unius Substantiae, & unius Status, & unius Potestatis, quia unus Deus. And therefore the difference can be only as to personal Properties and distinct Capacities, which he calls Gradus, Forma, Species, not merely as to internal Relations, but as to external Dispensations, which he calls their Oeconomy. For his great business is to prove against Praxeas, that the Son and Holy Ghost had those things attributed to them in Scripture, which could not be attributed to the Father. For Praxeas asserted,Tertul. de praescr. haeret. c. ult. That the Father suffer'd; and thence his followers were called Patripassians and Monarchici, i. e. Vnitarians. The main ground which Praxeas went upon,Con. Prax. …. 3. was the Vnity of the Godhead, so often mention'd in Scripture, from hence Tertullian saith, That he took advantage of the weakness of the common sort of Christians, and represented to them, that whereas the Doctrine of Christ made but one God, those who held the Trinity according to the Form of Baptism, must make more Gods than one. Tertullian answers, that they held a Monarchy, i. e. unicum imperium, one supreme Godhead, and a supreme power may be p. 185lodged in distinct Persons and administred in several manners; that nothing overthrew the divine Monarchy, but a different Power and Authority, which they did by no means assert. They held a Son, C. 4.but of the Substance of the Father, and a Holy Ghost from the Father by the Son: he still keeps to the distinction of Persons,Alium autem quomodo accipere debes jam professus sum, Personae non Substantiae nomine, ad Distinctionem, non ad Divisionem, caeterum ubique teneo unam substantiam in tribus cohaerentibus. Advers. Prax. c. 12. Et sermo erat apud Deum & nunquam separatus à Patre aut alius à Patre, quia ego & Pater unum sumus. Haec erat probola veritatis, custos unitatis qua prolatum dicimus Filium à Patre, sed non separatum. C. 8. and the Vnity of Substance. And he utterly denies any Division of Essences or separate Substances; for therein, he saith, lay the Heresie of Valentinus, in making a Prolation of a separate Being. But although he saith, the Gospel hath declared to us, that the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, yet we are taught that there is still but one God: redactum est jam nomen Dei & Domini in unione, c. 13. whereby the Christians are distinguished from the Heathens who had many Gods This is the force of what Tertullian saith upon this matter.

And what say our Vnitarians to it? They cannot deny that he was an Ante-Nicene Father; and it is plain that he did understand the Form of Baptism so as to p. 186imply a Trinity of Persons in an Vnity of Essence: To which they give no Answer.

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

1. That Tertullian brought this Doctrine into the Church from Montanus, whose Disciple he then was. So Schlichtingius in his Preface against Meisner, Schlicht. ad M…isn. de Trinit. p. 13, 14.17.grants, That he was very near the Apostolical Times, and by his Wit and Learning promoted this new Doctrine about the Trinity, especially in his Book against Praxeas.Advers. Prax. 2. But how doth it appear, that he brought in any new Doctrine? Yes, saith Schlichtingius, he confesses, That he was more instructed by the Paraclete. But if he had dealt ingenuously, he would have owned that in that very place,Nos vero ut semper nunc magi… ut instructiores per Paracletum, &c. he confesses, He was always of that opinion, although more fully instructed by the Paraclete? This only shews that Montanus himself innovated nothing in this matter, but endeavoured to improve it. And it is possible, that Tertullian might borrow his Similitudes and Illustrations from him,Hanc regulam ab initio Evangelii decueurrisse etiam ante priores haereticos, n…dum Praxean hesternum. which have added no …rength to it. But as to the main of the Doctrine he saith, It came from the rule of Faith delivered by the Apostles, before Praxeas, or any Hereticks his Predecessors. Which shews, that those who rejected this p. 187Doctrine were always esteemed Hereticks in the Christian Church. And this is a very early Testimony of the Antiquity and general Reception of it, because as one was received the other was rejected, so that the Assertors of it were accounted Hereticks. And the Sense of the Church is much better known by such publick Acts, than by mere particular Testimonies of the learned Men of those times. For when they deliver the Sense of the Church in such publick Acts, all persons are Judges of the truth and falshood of them at the time when they are deliver…d; and the nearer they came to the Apostolical Times, the greater is the strength of their evidence; this I ground on Tertullian's appealing to the ancient rule of Faith, which was universally known and received in the Christian Church, and that such Persons were look'd on as Hereticks who differ'd from it. Which being so very near the Apostles Times, it's hardly possible to suppose, that the whole Christian Church should be mistaken as to what they received as the rule of Faith, which was deliver'd and explained at Baptism, and therefore the general Sense of the Form of Baptism must be understood by all who were admitted to it. So that p. 188the Members of the Christian Church cannot be supposed better acquainted with any thing than the Doctrine they were baptized into. Here then we have a concurrence of several publick Acts of the Church. 1. The Form of Baptism. 2. The Rule of Faith relating to that Form, and explained at Baptism. 3. The Churches rejecting those as Hereticks who differ'd from it: which Tertullian applies to those who rejected the Trinity. And Praxeas his Doctrine was then condemned, not by a particular Sentence, but by the general Sense of the Church at that time. For Optatus Milevitanus reckons him among the condemned Hereticks, Optat. Mil. l. 1.and joyns him with Marcian and Valentinus, as well as Sabellius, who follow'd him in the same Heresie. How was this possible, if Praxeas deliver'd the true Doctrine, and Tertullian brought in a new Opinion as Schlichtingius fansies. Tertullian was at that time a declared Montanist; and if he had introduc'd a new Doctrine about the Trinity, can we imagine those would have been silent about it, who were sharp enough upon Tertullian for the sake of his Paraclete? Some of the followers of Montanus afterwards fell into the same opinions with Praxeas, as Theodoret p. 189tells us,Theodor. haer l. 3 c. 2. and Tertullian saith as much of those Cataphrygians who follow'd Aeschines: Tertul. de praefer. c. 5.But these Montanists are distinguished from the rest. And Rigaltius observes, that Tertullian follow'd Montanus chiefly in what related to Discipline,Rigalt. in Tertul. ad Praxean. and that himself was not so corrupted in point of Doctrine as some of his Followers were.

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

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

3. Tertullian himself saith, Schlichtingius, in other Places, where he speaks of the rule of Faith, doth not mention the Holy Ghost;P. 12. and therefore this seems added by him for the sake of the Paraclete. But this can be of no force to any one that considers, p. 190that Tertullian grounds his Doctrine not on any New Revelation by the Paraclete, but on the Rule of Faith received in the Church long before; and upon the Form of Baptism prescribed by our Saviour. Will they say, the Holy Ghost was there added for the sake of Montanus his Paraclete? And in another of his Books, he owns the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to make up the Trinity in Vnity. In quo est Trinitas unius Divinitatis, Pater, Filius & Spiritus Sanctus. De Pudicit. c. 21. Petav. T. 2. l. 1. c. 5. Sect. 4.Wherein Petavius himself confesses, That he asserted the Doctrine of the Church in a Catholick manner; although he otherwise speaks hardly enough of him.

The next I shall mention, is Novatian, whom Schlichtingius allows,Schlichting. Praef p. 30. to have been before the Nicene-Council;Ante-Nicen. p. 27. and our modern Vnitarians call him a great Man, whoever he was, and very ancient. And there are two things I observe in him. 1. That he opposes Sabellianism; for, before his time Praxeas and Noetus were little talked of, especially in the Western Church; but Sabellius his Name and Doctrine were very well known by the opposition to him, by the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome. Novatian. de Trinit. c. 12.21, 31.He sticks not, at the calling it Heresie several times; and Disputes against p. 191it, and answers the Objection about the Vnity of the Godhead. 2. That he owns, that the Rule of Faith requires our believing in Father, Son and Holy Ghost; C. 29.and asserts the Divine Eternity of it, and therefore must hold the Doctrine of the Trinity to be the Faith of the Church contained in the Form of Baptism. For he saith,Et cum Spiritus Sancti divina aeternitate sociari. The Authority of Faith, and the Holy Scriptures admonish us to believe not only in the Father and Son, but in the Holy Ghost. Therefore the Holy Ghost must be considered, as an object of Faith joyned in the Scripture with the other two, which is no where more express, than in the Form of Baptism, which as S. Cyprian saith, was to be administred in the full Confession of the Trinity, in the place already mention…d. And it is observable that S. Cyprian rejects the Baptism of those who denied the Trinity at that time,Cypr. Ep. 37. among whom he instances in the Patripassians, who it seems were then spread into Africa.

The Dispute about the Marcionites Baptism was upon another ground, for they held a real Trinity, as appears by Dionysius Romanus in Athanasius, and Epiphanius, &c. but the Question was, whether they held the same Trinity or not. S. Cyprian saith, That our Saviour appointed his Apostles p. 192to baptize in the Name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and in the Sacrament of this Trinity they were to baptize. Doth Marcion hold this Trinity? So that S. Cyprian supposed the validity of Baptism to depend on the Faith of the Trinity. And if he had gone no farther, I do not see how he had transgressed the Rules of the Church; but his Error was, that he made void Baptism upon difference of Communion, and therein he was justly opposed. But the Marcionites Baptism was rejected in the Eastern Church,Basil Epist. Canon, 47. because of their Doctrine about the Trinity.

In the Parts of Asia about Ephesus, Noetus had broached the same Doctrine, which Praxeas had done elsewhere. For which he was called to an account, and himself with his Followers we cast out of the Churches Communion, as Epiphanius reports, which is another considerable Testimony of the Sense of the Church at that time. Epiphanius saith,Epiph haeres. 57. n. 1. he was the first who broached that Blasphemy; but Theodoret mentions Epigonus and Cleomenes before him; it seems, that he was the first who was publickly taken notice of for it; and therefore underwent the Censure of the Church with his Disciples. When he was first summon'd to answer, he denied that he asserted any such Doctrine; p. 193because no man before him saith Epiphanius, had vented such Poison. And in the beginning he saith, that Noetus out of a Spirit of Contradiction had utter'd such things, as neither the Prophets, nor the Apostles, nor the Church of God ever thought or declared. Now what was this unheard of Doctrine of Noetus? That appears best by Noetus his answer upon his second appearance which was, That he worshipped One God, and knew of no other, who was born and suffer'd, and died for us; and for this he produced the several places which assert the Vnity of the Godhead, N. 2.and among the rest one very observable, Rom. 9.5. Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever. From whence he inferr'd that the Son and the Father were the same, and the same he affirmed of the Holy Ghost. But from hence we have an evident Proof that the most ancient Greek Copies in Noetus his time, which was long before the Council of Nice, had God in the Text. Epiphanius brings many places of Scripture to prove the Distinction of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead; but that is not my present business, but to shew the general Sense of the Church at that time. I do not say that Noetus was condemned by a p. 194general Council; but it is sufficient, to shew that he was cast out of the Church, where he broached his Doctrine, and no other Church received him, or condemned that Church which cast him out, which shews an after Consent to it. Now what was this Doctrine of Noetus? The very same with that of Praxeas at Rome. Theodoret saith,Theod. haer. l. 3. c. 3. this his Opinon was, That there was but One God the Father, who was himself impassible, but as he took our Nature, so he was passible and called the Son. Epiphanius more fully,Epiph. 57. n. 2. that the same Person was Father, Son and Holy Ghost; wherein he saith, he plainly contradicts the Scriptures, which attribute distinct Personalities to them; and yet assert but one Godhead. The Father hath an Hypostasis of his own, and so have the Son and Holy Ghost; but yet there is but one Divinity, one Power, and one Dominion; for these distinct Persons are, foreign; of the same individual Essence and Power. But Epiphanius was no Ante-Nicene Father: however in matters of Antiquity, where there is no incongruity in the thing, we may make use of his Authority; and I think no one will question, that Noetus was condemned; which was the thing I produced him to prove.

p. 195But although Noetus was condemned,Comment. in Matth. p. 470. yet this Doctrine did spread in the Eastern parts; for Origen mentions those who confounded the Notion of Father and Son, and made them but one Hypostasis, and distinguished only by thought, and Denomination. This Doctrine was opposed not only by Origen, but he had the Sense of the Church concurring with him, as appears in the Case of Beryllus Bishop of Bostra, who fell into this Opinion, and was reclaimed by Origen; and Eusebius gives this account of it,Euseb. l. 6. c. 33. That there was a Concurrence of others with him in it, and that this Doctrine was look'd on as an Innovation in the Faith. For his Opinion was that our Saviour had no proper Subsistence of his own before the Incarnation; and that the Deity of the Father alone was in him. He did not mean that the Son had no separate Divinity from the Father, but that the Deity of the Father only appeared in the Son; so that he was not really God, but only one in whom the Deity of the Father was made manifest. Which was one of the oldest Heresies in the Church, and the most early condemned and opposed by it.

But those Heresies, which before had differenced Persons from the Church, were p. 196now spread by some at first within the Communion of it; as it was not only in the Case of Noetus and Beryllus, but of Sabellius himself, who made the greatest noise about this Doctrine; and his Disciples, Epiphanius tells us,Epiph. haer. 62. spread very much both in the Eastern and Western parts; in Mesopotamia and at Rome. Their Doctrine, he saith, was, that Father, Son and Holy Ghost were but one Hypostasis, with three different Denominations. They compared God to the Sun, the Father to the Substance, the Son to the Light, and the Holy Ghost to the Heat which comes from it; and these two latter were only distinct Operations of the same Substance.

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

Sabellius did spread his Heresie most in his own Country; which was in Pentapolis of the Cyrenaick Province, being born in Ptolemais one of the five Cities there. Of this Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria p. 197gives an account in his Epistle to Xystus then Bishop of Rome, Euseb. l. 7. c. 6.26.wherein he takes notice of the wicked and blasphemous Heresie, lately broached there against the Persons of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Letters on both sides were brought to him, on which occasion he wrote several Epistles, among which there was one to Ammonius Bishop of Bernice, another of the Cities of Pentapolis. In this, he disputed with great warmth against this Doctrine of Sabellius, insomuch, that he was afterwards accused to Dionysius of Rome, that he had gone too far the other way; and lessen'd the Divinity of the Son by his Similitudes; of which he clear'd himself, as appears by what remains of his Defence in Athanasius. But as to his Zeal against Sabellianism it was never question'd. Dionysius of Rome declares his Sense at large in this matter against both Extremes, viz. of those who asserted three separate and independent Principles, and of those who confounded the Divine Persons;Athan. de Decret. Synodi Nicaenae, p. 275. and he charges the Doctrine of Sabellius too with Blasphemy, as well as those who set up three different Principles, and so made three Gods. But he declares the Christian Doctrine to be, that there were Father, Son and Holy Ghost; but that there p. 196duplicate page p. 197duplicate page p. 198is an indivisible Vnion in One and the same Godhead. It seems Dionysius of Alexandria was accused for dividing and separating the Persons, to which he answers, that it was impossible he should do it, because they are indivisible from each other;Athanas. de Sentent. Dionysii, p. 561. and the name of each Person did imply the inseparable Relation to the other, as the Father to the Son, and the Son to the Father, and the Holy Ghost to both. And this Judgment of these two great Men in the Church concerning Sabellianism, was universally receiv'd in the Christian Church. And this happen'd long before the Nicene Council.

2. Another argument of the general Sense of the Christian Church is from the Hymns and Doxologies publickly received; which were in the most solemn Acts of religious Worship made to Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The force of this argument appears hereby, that divine Worship cannot be given to mere Names, and an Equality of Worship doth imply an Equality of Dignity in the object of Worship, and therefore, if the same Acts of Adoration be performed to Father, Son and Holy Ghost, it is plain, that the Christian Church did esteem them to have the same divine Nature, although they were p. 199distinct Persons. And if they were not so, there could not be distinct Acts of divine Worship performed to them. S. Basil mentions this Doxology of Africanus, Basil de Sp. Sancto c. 29.(that ancient Writer of the Christian Church) in the fifth Book of his Chronicon, We render thanks to him who gave our Lord Iesus Christ to be a Saviour, to whom with the Holy Ghost be Glory and Majesty for ever. And another of Dionysius Alexandrinus in his 2d. Epistle to Dionysius of Rome. To God the Father and his Son our Lord Iesus Christ with the Holy Ghost, be Glory and Power for ever and ever, Amen. And this is the more considerable, because he saith he did herein follow the ancient Custom and Rule of the Church; and he joyned with it, foreign, Praising God in the same voice with those who have gone before us, which shews how early these Doxologies to Father, Son and Holy Ghost, had been used in the Christian Church. But to let us the better understand the true Sense of them, S. Basil hath preserved some passages of Dionysius Alexandrinus which do explain it, viz. That either the Sabellians must allow three distinct Hypostases, or they must wholly take away the Trinity. By which it is evident, that by Father, Son and Holy Ghost he did p. 200understand three distinct Hypostases, but not divided; for that appears to have been the Sabellians Argument, That if there were three, they must be divided: No saith Dionysius, they are three whether the Sabellians will or not; or else there is no Trinity: which he look'd on as a great absurdity to take away, foreign the Divine Trinity. Of what? Of mere Names or Energies? That is no Trinity; for there is but one subsisting Person of separate and divided Substances: That the Sabellians thought must follow but both the Dionysius's denied it. And in another Passage there mention'd, Dionysius of Alexandria asserts the Trinity in Vnity. foreign. foreign.But before Dionysius, he quotes a passage of Clemens Romanus concerning Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which attributes Life distinctly to them. Now Life cannot belong to a Name or Energy, and therefore must imply a Person.

But that which is most material to our purpose, is the Publick Doxology in the Church of Neo-Caesarea, brought in by Gregory Thaumaturgus. S. Basil gives a very high Character of him, as of a Person of extraordinary Piety and Exactness of p. 201Life, and a great promoter of Christianity in those Parts, and by him the Form of Doxology was introduced into that Church, being chiefly formed by him (there being but Seventeen Christians when he was first made Bishop there) which was, Glory to God the Father, and Son with the Holy Ghost, which ought to be understood according to the sense of the Maker of it. And Gregory hath deliver'd his sense plainly enough in this matter: for in that Confession of Faith, which was preserved in the Church of Neo-Caesarea, he owns a perfect Trinity in Glory, Greg. Thaumat. p. 1.Eternity and Power, without Separation or Diversity of Nature, On which Doctrine his Form of Doxology was grounded. Which S. Basil following, Exceptions were taken against it, by some as varying from the Form used in some other places. For the Followers of Aetius took advantage from the Expression used in those Doxologies, Glory be to the Father, by the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, to infer a Dissimilitude in the Son and Holy Ghost to the Father, and to make the Son the Instrument of the Father, and the Holy Ghost only to relate to time and place. But S. Basil takes a great deal of Pains to shew the impertinency of these Exceptions. They p. 202would fain have charged this Doxology as an Innovation on S. Basil, because it attributed equal Honour to Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which the Aetians would not endure; but they said, That the Son was to be honoured only in Subordination to the Father, and the Holy Ghost as inferiour to both. But S. Basil proves from Scripture an Equality of Honour to be due to them: and particularly from the Form of Baptism, c. 10. wherein the Son and Holy Ghost are joyned with the Father, without any note of Distinction. And what more proper token of a Conjunction in the same Dignity, than being put together in such a manner.

Especially considering these two things. 1. The extream Jealousie of the Jewish Nation, as to joyning the Creatures with God in any thing that related to Divine Honour. But as S. Basil argues, If the Son were a Creature, then we must believe in the Creator, and the Creature together; and by the same reason that one Creature is joyned, the whole Creation may be joyned with him; but saith he, we are not to imagine the least Disunion or Separation between Father, Son and Holy Ghost; nor that they are three distinct parts of one inseparable Being, but that there is an indivisible Conjunction p. 203of three in the same Essence; so that where one is, there is the other also. For where the Holy Ghost is, there is the Son, and where the Son is, there is the Father. And so Athanasius urges the Argument from these Words,Athanas. c. Serap. p. 10. That a Creature could not be joyned with the Creator in such a manner, as in the Form of Baptism; and it might have been as well said, Baptize in the Name of the Father, and any other Creature. And for all that I see, our Vnitarians would have liked such a Form very well; for they parallel it with those in Scripture; and they worshipped the Lord, and the King; and they feared the Lord and Samuel. Answer to Milb. p. 18.But the Iews understood the different occasion of such Expressions too well, to have born such a Conjunction of Creatures with the Creator in the most solemn Act of Initiation into a Profession of Religion.

2. The Iews had a Notion among them of three distinct Subsistences in the Deity sutable to these of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This hath been shew'd by many as to the Son, or the Divine Word; and Rittangel makes out the same as to the Holy Ghost. Among the three Subsistences in the Mercavah (which Rittangel had proved from their most ancient Writings) those which are added to the first are Wisdom and Intelligence, p. 204Rittang. p. 81.and this last is by the old Chaldee Paraphrast rendred foreign,P. 113. and he proves it to be applied to God in many places of the Pentateuch, where such things are attributed to him, as belong to the Holy Ghost. And he particularly shews by many places,P. 117. that the Schecinah is not taken for the Divine Glory, but that is rendred by other Words (however the Interpreters of the Chaldee Paraphrast have rendred it so) but he produces ten places where the Chaldee Paraphrast uses it in another Sense; and he leaves, he saith, many more to the Readers observation. If the Iews did of old own three Subsistences in the same Divine Essence, there was then great Reason to joyn Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the solemn Act of Initiation: But if it be denied, that they did own any such thing; they must deny their most ancient Books, and the Chaldee Paraphrast, which they esteem next to the Text, and Rittangel saith, They believe it written by Inspiration. That which I chiefly urge, is this, that if these things be not very ancient, they must be put in by the later Iews, to gratifie the Christians in the Doctrine of the Trinity; which I do not believe any Iew will assent to. And no one else can imagine this, when our p. 205Vnitarians say,Answer to Dr. Bull, p. 59. That the Doctrine of the Trinity is the chief Offence which the Iews take at the Christian Religion. How then can we suppose the Iews should forge these Books on purpose to put in such Notions, as were most grateful to their Enemies, and hateful to themselves? Morinus hath endeavoured to run down the Credit of the most ancient Books of the Iews;Morin. Exercit. l. 2. l. 10. c. 8. and among the rest the Book Iezirah, the most ancient Cabbalistical Book among the Iews, which he learnedly proves was not written by Abraham, (as the Iews think.) I will not stand with Morinus about this; however the Book Cosri saith,Cosri Part. 4. p. 316. it was made by Abraham before God spake to him, and magnifies it to the King of Cosar, as containing an admirable Account of the first Principles above the Philosophers. Buxtorf saith, that the Book Cosri hath been extant Nine hundred years, and in the beginning of it, it is said, that the Conference was Four hundred years before, and therein the Book Iezirah is alledged as a Book of Antiquity: and there the three Subsistences of the Deity are represented by Mind, Word, and Hand. P. 302.So that this can be no late Invention of Cabbalistical Iews. But our Vnitarians utterly deny that the Jews had any Cabbala concerning p. 206the Trinity. And they prove it, because the Jews in Origen, and Justin Martyr deny the Messias to be God. They might as well have brought their Testimony to prove Jesus not to be the Messias; for the Iews of those times, being hard pressed by the Christians, found they could not otherwise avoid several places of the Old Testament. But this doth not hinder, but that they might have Notions of three Subsistences in their ancient Books: which contained neither late Invention, nor Divine Revelations; but a Traditional notion about the Divine Being, and the Subsistences in it: and I can find no Arguments against it, that deserve mentioning. For when they say the Iewish Cabbala was a Pharisaical Figment, &c. it needs no answer. But what do they say to the Old Paraphrases, whereon the main Weight as to this matter lies? All that I can find is,P. 61. That they do not speak of distinct Persons; but they confess that Philo speaks home, and therefore they make him a Christian. But Philo had the same Notion with the Paraphrasts; and their best way will be to declare, that they look upon them all as Christians; and they might as well affirm it of Onkelos, as they do of Philo; but I doubt the World will not take their Word for either.

p. 207But to proceed with the Christian Doxologies. N…hing, saith S. Basil,De Sp. Sancto, c. 10. shall make me forsake the Doctrine I received in my Baptism, when I was first entred into the Christian Church; and I advise all others to keep firm to that Profession of the Holy Trinity, which they made in their Baptism; that is, of the indivisible Vnion of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And, as he saith afterwards,C. 17. by the Order of the Words in Baptism, it appears that as the Son is to the Father, so the Holy Ghost is to the Son. For they are all put without any Distinction or Number, C. 18.wh…ch he observes agrees only to a multitude. For by their Properties they are one and one; yet by the Community of Essence the two are but one: and he makes it his business to prove the Holy Ghost to be a proper Object of Adoration, as well as the Father and Son, and therefore there was no reason to find fault with the Doxology used in that Church: and that, Firmilian,C. 29. Meletius and the Eastern Christians agreed with them in the use of it, and so did all the Western Churches from Illyricum to the Worlds end: and this, he saith, was by an immemorial Custom of all Churches, and of the greatest men in them. Nay, more he saith, It had been continued in the Churches, from the time the Gospel had p. 208been receive'd among them. And nothing can be fuller than the Authority of his Testimony, if S. Basil may be believed.

To these I shall add the Doxology of Polycarp at this Martyrdom, mentioned by Eusebius, Euseb. l. 4. c. 15.which is very full to our Purpose; I Glorifie thee by our Eternal High-Priest Iesus Christ thy beloved Son, by whom be Glory to thee, with him in the Holy Ghost. What can we imagine Polycarp meant by this, but to render the same Glory to Father, Son and Holy Ghost; but with such a difference as to the Particles, which S. Basil at large proves come to the same thing? And to the same purpose, not only the Church of Smyrna, but Pionius the Martyr, who transcribed the Acts, speaking of Iesus Christ, with whom be Glory to God the Father, and the Holy Ghost. Vales. ad Euseb. p. 73.These suffer'd Martyrdom for Christianity, and owned the same Divine Honour to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Coteler VII. p. 1…27.What could they mean, if they did not believe them to have the same Divine Nature? Can we suppose them Guilty of such stupidity to lose their Lives, for not giving Divine Honour to Creatures, and at the same time to do it themselves? So that, if the Father, Son and Holy Ghost p. 209were not then believed to be three Persons and one God, the Christian Church was mightily deceived; and the Martyrs acted inconsistently with their own Principles. Which no good Christian will dare to affirm. But some have adventured to say, that Polycarp did not mean the same Divine Honour to Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But if he had so meant it, how could he have expressed it otherwise? It was certainly a Worship distinct from what he gave to Creatures; as appears by the Church of Smyrna's disowning any Worship but of Love and Repect to their fellow Creatures; and own the giving Adoration to the Son of God; with whom they joyn both Father and Holy Ghost. Which it is impossible to conceive, that in their Circumstances, they should have done, unless they had believed the same Divine Honour to belong to them.

S. Basil's Testimony makes it out of Dispute, that the Doxology to Father, Son and Holy Ghost, was universally receiv'd in the publick Offices of the Church, and that from the time of greatest Antiquity: So that we have no need of the Te…timonies from the Apostolical Constitutions (as they are called) to prove it. But I avoid all disputable Authorities. And I shall p. 210only add that it appears from S. Basil, C. 29.that this Doxology had been long used not only in publick Offices, but in Occasional Ejaculations, as at the bringing in of Light in the Evening, the People, he saith, were wont to say, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, &c. This, he saith, had been an ancient Custom among the People, and none can tell who brought it in. But Prudentius shews,Prudent. Cath. that it was continued to his Time; as appea…s by his Hymn on that occasion,Hymn. 5. which concludes with this Doxology, and S. Hilary ends his Hymn written to his Daughter,Hilar. Op. N. E. p. 1214. in the same manner.

3. I come therefore to the last Proof, which I shall produce of the Sense of the Christian Church, which is, from the Testimony of those who wrote in Defence of our Religion against Infidels. In which I shall be the shorter, since the particular Testimonies of the Fathers, have been so fully produced, and defended by others, especially by Dr. Bull.

Iustin Martyr in his Apology for the Christians, Apol. 2. p. 94.gives an Account of the Form of Baptism, as it was administred among Christians, which he saith, was in the Name of God the Father of all, and of our Saviour Iesus Christ, and of the Holy p. 211Ghost. And that he spake of them as of distinct Persons, as appears by his words afterwards.P. 26. They who take the Son to be the Father, neither know the Father nor the Son, who being the Word and first begotten is God. And when he speaks of the Eucharist, he saith,P. 97. That it is offer'd to the Father of all, by the Name of the Son, and the Holy Ghost: and of other solemn Acts of Devotion, he saith, That in all of them they praise God the Father of all, P. 98.by his Son Iesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. And in other places, he mentions the Worship they give to Father, P. 56.Son and Holy Ghost. Indeed he mentions a difference of Order between them;P. 60. but makes no Difference as to the Worship given to them. And all this in no long Apology for the Christian Faith. What can be the meaning of this if he did not take it for granted, that the Christian Church embraced the Doctrine of the Trinity in Baptism? Iustin Martyr was no such weak Man to go about to expose the Christian Religion instead of defending it; and he must have done so, if he did not believe this not only to be a true, but a necessary part of the Christian Faith For, why did he at all mention such a Mysterious and dark Point? Why did he not conceal it, p. 212(as some would have done) and only represent to the Emperours, the fair and plausible part of Christianity? No, he was a Man of great Sincerity, and a through Christian himself; and therefore thought he could not honestly conceal so fundamental a Point of the Christian Faith, and which related to their being entred into the Christian Church. For if the Profession of this Faith had not been look'd on as a necessary condition of being a Member of the Church of Christ; it is hard to imagine, that Iustin Martyr should so much insist upon it, not only here, but in his other Treatises: Of which an Account hath been given by others.

Athenagoras had been a Philosopher, as well as Iustin Martyr, before he professed himself a Christian; and therefore, must be supposed to understand his Religion before he embraced it. And in his Defence he asserts,Athenag. p. 11. That the Christians do believe in Father, Son and Holy Ghost; in God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And he mentions both the Vnity and Order which is among them. Which can signifie nothing unless they be owned to be distinct Persons in the same Divine Nature. And in the next Page, he looks p. 213on it, as thing which all Christians aspire after in another Life, That they shall then know the Vnion of the Father, and the Communication of the Father to the Son, what the Holy Ghost is, and what the Vnion and Distinction there is between the Holy Ghost, the Son and the Father. No man who had ever had the name of a Philosopher would have said such things, unless he had believed the Doctrine of the Trinity a… we do, i. e. that there are three distinct Persons in the same Divine Nature, but that the manner of the Union, and Distinction between them, is above our reach and comprehension.

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

In answer to which Exception,Resp. ad Judic. Eccles p. 174.178. I have only one Postulatum to make; which is, that these were honest Men, and knew their own Minds be…t, and I shall make it appear, that none can more positively declare, than they do, that they did not take up these Notions from Plato, but from the Holy Scriptures; Iustin Martyr saith he p. 214took the Foundation of his Faith from thence, Just. Apol. 2. Paraei. ad Graec. p. 18, 22, 24.and that he could find no certainty as to God and Religion any where else: that he thinks, Plato took his three Principles from Moses; and in his Dialogue with Trypho, Dial. cum Trypho, p. 274, &c.he at large proves the Eternity of the Son of God from the Scriptures; and said, He would use no other Arguments, for he pretended to no Skill but in the Scriptures, which God had enabled him to understand.

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

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

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

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

p. 215Even Origen hims…l… highly commends Moses above Plato,Paed l. 1. c 6. Str. l 5 p. 598. Orig. c. Celf l 1. p. 16. l 4. p. 198 l. 6. p. 275, 2…9, &c. 308. l 7. p. 351, 371. in his most undoubted Writings, and saith, That Numen…us went beyond Plato, and that he borrowed out of the Scriptures; and so he saith, Plato did in other places; but he adds, That the Doctrines were better deliver'd in Scripture, than in his Artificial Dialogues. Can any one that hath the least reverence for Writers of such Authority and Z…al for the Christian Doctrine, imagine that they wilfully corrupted it in one of the chief Articles of it; and brought in new Speculations against the Sense of those Books, which at the same time, they professed to be the only Rule of their Faith? Even where they speak most favourably of the Platonick Trinity, they suppose it to be borrowed from Moses.

And therefore Numenius said,Clem Alex. Str. 1. Euseb. Praep. l. 8. Theod. Serm. 1. That Moses and Plato did not differ about the first Principles; and Theodoret mentions Numenius as one of those, who said, Plato understood the Hebrew Doctrine in Egypt; and during his Thirteen years …ay there, it is hardly possible to suppose, he should be ignorant of the Hebrew Doctrine, about the first Principles, which he was so inquisitive after, especially among Nations, who pretended to Antiquity.

p. 216And the Platonick Notion of the Divine Essence inlarging it self to three Hypostases, is considerable on these Accounts:

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

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

3. That the Nations most renowned for Antiquity and deep Speculations, did light upon the same Doctrine, about a Trinity of Hypostases in the Divine Essence. To prove this I shall not refer to the Trismegistick Books, or the Chaldee p. 217Oracles, or any doubtful Authorities;Plutarch de Isid. & Osirld. p. 369. ed. Fr. Eusebius Praep. E. l. 3. c. 11. Jamb. de Myst. Sect. 8. c. 2. Macrob. in Som. Scipion. l. 1. c. 14. but Plutarch asserts the three Hypostases to have been receiv…d among the Persians, and Porphyry, and Iamblicus, say the same of the Egyptians.

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

p. 2182. Let us now see what our Vnitarians object again…t the Proof of the Trinity from these words.

1. They say, That there is a Note of distinction and Superiority. Answer to Milb p. 17.For Christ owns▪ that his Power was given to him by the Father.

There is no question, but that the Person who suffer'd on the Cross, had Power given to him, after his Resurrection; but the true Question is, whether his Sonship were then given to him. He was then declared to be the Son of God with Power, and had a Name or Authority given him above every Name; being exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give Repentance, and Remission of Sins: in order to which he now appointed his Apostles to teach all Nations; baptizing them in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. He doth not say in the name of Iesus, who suffer'd on the Cross; nor in the name of Iesus the Christ now exalted; but in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost: and although there were a double Gift with respect to the Son and Holy Ghost; the one, as to his Royal Authority over the Church; the other, as to his extraordinary Effusion on the Apostles, yet neither of these are so much as intimated; but the p. 219Office of Baptism is required to be performed in the Name of these three as distinct and yet equal; without any Relation to any Gift, either as to the Son or Holy Ghost. But if the ancient Iews were in the Right, as we think they were, then we have a plain account, how these came to be thus mention'd in the Form of Baptism, viz. that these three distinct Subsistences in the Divine Essence, were not now to be kept up as a secret Mystery from the World; but that the Christian Church was to be formed upon the Belief of it.

2. They bring several places of Scripture, where God and his Creatures are joyned, without any Note of distinction or Superiority; as, The people feared the Lord, and Samuel, 1 Sam. 12.18. They worshipped the Lord, and the King, 1 Chron. 29.20. I charge thee before God the Lord Iesus Christ, and his elect Angels, 1 Tim. 5.21. The Spirit and the Bride say come, Revel. 22.17.

But can any Man of Sense imagine, these places contain a Parallel with a Form of Words, wherein men are entred into the Profession of a new Religion, and by which they were to be distinguished from all other Religions? in the former places, the Circumstances were so notorious p. 220as to God, and the Civil Magistrate, that it shews no more than that the same external Acts may be used to both, but with such a different Intention as all men understood it. What if S. Paul name the elect Angels in a solemn Obtestation to Timothy, together with God, and the Lord Iesus Christ? What can this prove, but that we may call God and his Creatures to be Witnesses together of the same thing? And so Heaven and Earth are called to bear Witness against obstinate Sinners: May men therefore be baptized in the name of God and his Creatures? The Spirit and Bride may say come without any Incongruity; but it would have been strange indeed, if they had said, Come be baptized in the Name of the Spirit and the Bride. So that these Instances are very remote from the purpose.

But they say farther, That the ancients of the first Four hundred years do not insist on this place, to prove the Divinity or Personality of the Son or Spirit. As to the first Three hundred years, I have given an account already; and as to the Fourth Century, I could not have thought, that they would have mention'd it: since there is scarce a Father of the Church in that time, who had occasion to do it, but p. 221makes use of the Argument from this place to prove the Divinity and Personality of the Son and Spirit.

Athanasius saith, That Christ founded his Church on the Doctrine of the Trinity contained in these Words;Athan. Ep. ad Serapion, p. 14. Tom. 2. Ad Serap. Tom. 1. p. 186, 179. and if the Holy Ghost had been of a different Nature, from the Father and Son, he would never have been joyned with them in a Form of Baptism, no more than an Angel, or any other Creature. For the Trinity must be Eternal and Indivisible, which it could not be, if any created Being were in it, and therefore he disputes against the Arian Baptism, Or. 3. c. Arian p. 413.although performed with the same Words, because they joyned God and a Creature together in Baptism. To the same purpose argue Didymus, Gregory Nazianzen, S. Basil and others, within the Compass of four hundred years,Petavius T. II. l. 2. c. 12. sect. 8. whose Testimonies are produced by Petavius; to whom I refer the Reader, if he hath a mind to be satisfied in so clear a Point, that I cannot but think our Vnitarians never intended to take in the Fathers after the Council of Nice, who are so expressly against them; and therefore I pass it over as a slip.

4. They object, That the Form of Baptism implies no more, Hist. of the Unitar. p. 25.than being admitted p. 222into that Religion which proceeds from God the Father, and deliver'd by his Son, and confirmed by the Testimony of the Holy Ghost. So much we grant is implied, but the Question still remains, whether the Son and Holy Ghost are here to be consider'd only in order to their Operations, or whether the Persons of the Son and Holy Ghost, from whom those Effects came, are not here chiefly intended? For if no more had been meant, but these Effects, then the right Form of Admission had not been, into the Name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost; but in the Name of the Father alone, as Revealing himself by his Son, and Confirming it by the miraculous Works of the Holy Ghost. For these are only subservient Acts to the design of God the Father, as the only subsisting Person.

5. They tell us, That it is in vain, not to say ridiculously pretended, that a Person or Thing is God, because we are baptized into it; for some were baptized into Moses, and others into John's Baptism, and so Moses and John Baptist would be Gods; and to be baptized into a Person or Persons, and in the name of such a Person is the same thing. Grant this; yet there is a great difference between being baptized in the name of a Minister of Baptism, and of the p. 223Author of a Religion, into which they are baptized. The Israelites were baptized unto Moses; but how? The Syriac and Arabic Versions render it per Mosen; and so S. Augustin reads it.Aug. in Psal. 77.Ps 77 And this seems to be the most natural sense of the Word, foreign, being put for foreign as it is, Act. 7.53. compared with Gal. 3.19. And the force of the Apostle's Argument, doth not lie in the Parallel between being baptized into Moses, and into Christ; but in the Privileges they had under the Ministery of Moses with those which Christians enjoyed. The other place implies no more, than being enter'd into that Profession, which John baptized his Disciples into. But doth any one imagine, that because Iohn Baptist did enter his Disciples by Baptism, therefore they must believe him to be God? I know none that lay the force of the Argument upon any thing parallel to those Places. But it depends upon laying the Circumstances together. Here was a new Religion to be taught mankind, and they were to be entred into it, not by a bare verbal Profession, but by a solemn Rite of Baptism; and this Baptism is declar'd to be in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost: which cannot be understood of their Ministery, p. 224and therefore must relate to that Faith, which they were baptized into, which was concerning the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And so the Christian Church understood it, from the beginning, as I have proved in the foregoing Discourse.

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

This is a matter so necessary to be clear'd, that I shall examine these two p. 225things before I put an end to this Discourse.

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

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

1. As to the Proofs they bring, that this Creed was framed by the Apostles. We believe the Creed to be Apostolical in the true Sense of it; but that it was so in that Frame of Words, and Enumeration of Articles, as it is now receiv'd, hath been called in question by some Criticks of great Judgment and Learning, whom I have already mentioned. Erasmus saith,Eras. ad Cens. Paris. Tit. II.Titus 2 He doth not question the Articles being Apostolical; but whether the Apostles put it thus into Writing. And his chief Argument is from the Variety of the Ancient Creeds; of which no Account can be given so probable, as that they were added Occasionally in opposition to a growing Heresie. As for Instance, the Word Impassible was inserted with Respect to the Father in the ancient Eastern Creed, against the Doctrine of Sabellius; but it was not in the old Western Creed. And he argues, That the Apostolical Creed ended with the Holy Ghost; because the p. 226Nicene Creed did so.Voss de tribus Symb. Dissert. 1. Sect. 47. And Vossius thinks the other Articles which are in Cyril, were added after the Nicene Council; which would not have omitted them, if they had been in the former Creed. And when there were so many Creeds made afterwards, it is observable, that they do all end with the Article of the Holy Ghost; which they would never have done, in so jealous a time about Creeds, if they had left out any Articles of what was then receiv'd for the Apostolical Creed.

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

For Hilary observes, That this Council chiefly intended to overthrow Sabellianism, and therefore asserted tres Subsistentium Personas, Epiphaninius haer. 73. n. 17.as Hilary interprets their meaning, and so doth Epiphanius; which was to p. 227remove the Suspition, that they asserted only triplicis vocabuli Vnionem; as Hilary speaks. The next Creed is of the Eastern Bishops at Sardica, and that ends wi…h the Holy Ghost, and so do both the Creeds at Sirmium ▪ and the latter calls the Article of the Trinity, the close of our Faith; which is always to be kept according to our Saviour's command,Clausula Fidei in Edit. nuperâ Paris. ex MSS. Go teach all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. So that in all these Creeds, about which there was so much heat in the Christian Church, there was not the least Objection, that any Articles of the Apostolical Creed were omitted. It is no Argument, That there was then no contest about these Articles; for they were bound to give in an entire Creed; and so the Council of Antioch declares, that they would publish the Confession of the Faith of the Church: and how could this be, if they left out such Articles which had been always receiv…d from the Apostles times? But certainly our Vnitarians would not attack such Men, as Erasmus, and Vossius in a matter relating to Antiquity, if they had not some good Arguments on their side. Their first business, is to shew, that some of Vossius his Arguments are not conclusive; p. 226duplicate page p. 227duplicate page p. 228such as they are, I leave them to any one that will compare them with the Answers. But there are two things they lay weight upon.

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

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

Now these I confess to be as good Arguments, as the Matters will bear; and I will no longer contest this Point with them, provided, that we be allowed to make use of the same Arguments; as to the second Point; wherein they undertake to prove, That the Apostles Creed doth exclude the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost. What is now become of the general Consent of the Christian Church, East and West? and of the Commentators upon this Creed? If the Argument hold good in one Case, I hope it will be allowed to do so in the other also. And p. 229what greater Testimony can be given of such a Consent of the Christian Church; than that those who opposed it, have been condemned by it, and that the Church hath expressed her Sense of it in Publick, and Private Acts of Devotion, and Divine Worship, and have defended it as a necessary part of the Christian Faith, against the Assaults of Infidels and Hereticks? So that although the Apostles Creed do not in express words declare, The Divinity of the three Persons in the Vnity of the Divine Essence; yet taking the Sense of those Articles, as the Christian Church understood them from the Apostles times, then we have as full, and clear Evidence of this Doctrine, as we have that we receiv'd the Scriptures from them.