Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, Discourse · Chapter 4

Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity · Discourse · Chapter 4

p. 29CHAP. IV. Of the considerable Men they pretend to have been of their Opinion in the Primitive Church.

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

The first is Theodotion, whom they make to be an Vnitarian. But he was, saith Eusebius from Irenaeus, Euseb. l. 5. c. 8.a Iewish Proselyte, and so they may very much increase the number of Vnitarians, by taking in all the Iews as well as Proselytes. But must these pass for men of Sense too, because they are against the Doctrine of the Trinity, and much upon the same grounds with our modern Vnitarians? For they cry out of Contradictions and Impossibilities just as they do; i. e. with as much confidence and as little reason. Symmachus is another of their ancient Heroes; p. 30he was, if Epiphanius may be believed,Epiph. de ponder. & mens. n. 16. first a Samaritan, and then a Iew, and Eusebius saith indeed,Euseb. l. 6. c. 17. That he was an Ebionite, and therefore for observing the Law of Moses. S. Augustin saith,August. c. Crescon. l. 1. c. 31. that in his time the Symmachiani were both for Circumcision and Baptism. Hier. in Heb. c. 3.Heb 3S. Ierom observes, that Theodotion and Symmachus, both Ebionites, translated the Old Testament in what concerned our Saviour, like Iews, and Aquila who was a Iew, like a Christian; but in another place he blames all three for the same fault.Advers. Ruffin. Eusebius goes somewhat farther: for he saith, Symmachus wrote against S. Matthew's Gospel to establish his own Heresie, which shew'd he was a true Ebionite.

The next they mention as one of their great Lights, was Paulus Samosatenus, Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch. But in another place, they have a spiteful Insinuation, that men in such places are the great Pensioners of the World; Answer to the Archb. Sermon p. 44, 66.as though they were sway'd only by interest; and that it keeps them from embracing of the truth. Now Paulus Samosatenus gave greater occasion for such a Suspicion than any of the persons so unworthily reflected upon. For he was a man noted for his Affectation of excessive Vanity and Pomp, and very p. 31unjust methods of growing rich. It is well we have Eusebius his Testimony for this;Euseb. l. 7. c. 30. for they sleight Epiphanius for his malicious Tales, and S. Ierom for his Legends; but they commend Eusebius for his Exactness and Diligence. Reflect. on Dr. Bull, p 35. Answer to Milbourn, p. 20.And I hope Theodoret may escape their censure, who affirms, that Paulus Samofatenus suited his Doctrine to his interest with Zenobia who then governed in those parts of Syria and Phoenicia, who professed her self to be of the Iewish Perswasion. Athanasius saith,Athan. ad solit. vit. agent p. 857. She was a Iew and a Favourer of Paulus Samosatenus. What his opinions were, our Vnitarians do not take the pains to inform us, taking it for granted that he was of their Mind. Eusebius saith,Euseb. l. 3. c. 27. He had a very mean and low opinion of Christ, as having nothing in him above the common nature of Mankind. Theodoret saith, he fell into the Doctrine of Artemon to oblige Zenobia, and Artemon, he saith, held that Christ was a mere Man born of a Virgin, but exceeding the Prophets in Excellency. Where the words foreign are used to express the opinion of Artemon, which ought to be taken notice of,Respons. ad judicium Ecclesiae p…r I…. Bull, p. 150 because our modern Vnitarians say, That those words among the ancient Writers were taken in opposition to the miraculous Conception of our Saviour.

p. 32But Paulus Samosatenus was universally disowned by the Christian Church of that time; although as long as Zenobia held her Power, he kept his See; which was for some time after he was first called in question for his Heresie. But at first he made use of many Arts and Devices to deceive the Christian Bishops of the best Reputation,Restaurans Pauli Samosatensis Artes & Dolos. Decret. Conc. Sardin. apud Hilar. fragment. p. 1310. Ed. Par. 1693. Euseb l. 7. c. 27. Theodor. haer. fab. l. 2. c. 8. who assembled at Antioch in order to the suppressing this dangerous Doctrine, as they all accounted it. For hearing of his opinions about our Saviour, they ran together, saith Eusebius, as against a Wolf which designed to destroy the Flock. Now from hence it is very reasonable to argue, that the Samosatenian Doctrine was then look'd on as a very dangerous Novelty in the Christian Church. For, although the Ebionites had asserted the same thing, as to the Divinity of our Saviour, yet they were not look'd on as true Members of the Christian Church; but as S. Ierom saith, While they affected to be both Iews and Christians, they were neither Iews nor Christians. Artemon whoever he was, was but an obscure person; and Theodotus had Learning, they say, but was of no place in the Church; but for such a considerable person as the Bishop of Antioch to own such a Doctrine must unavoidably p. 33discover the general sence of the Christian Church concerning it. Paulus Samosatenus wanted neither parts, nor interest, nor experience; and he was supported by a Princess of great Spirit and Courage, enough to have daunted all the Bishops, at least in those parts, from appearing against him. But such was the zeal and concernment of the Bishops of the Christian Church in this great affair, that they not only assembled themselves, but they communicated it to Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, Athanas. desentent. Dionysii, p. 558.and to another of the same name, Bishop of Rome, and others; and desired their advice and concurrence, who did all agree in the condemnation of his Doctrine. The former said, He would have gone himself to Antioch, but for his extreme old Age; and he died soon after the first Council, which met at Antioch on this occasion; but he sent his judgment and reasons thither, which we find in an Epistle of his still extant, whereof mention is made in the Epistle of the second Synod of Antioch to Dionysius Bishop of Rome, and Maximus Bishop of Alexandria, and all other Bishops, Priests and Deacons of the Catholick Church, wherein they give an account of their proceedings against Paulus Samosatenus, p. 34and they say,Euseb. l. 7. c. 30. They had invited the Bishops of the remoter parts to come to Antioch for the suppression of this damnable Doctrine; and among the rest Dionysius of Alexandria, and Firmilian of Cappadocia, as persons of greatest reputation then in the Church. Firmilian was there at the former Synod, (of whom Theodoret saith, that he was famous both for divine and humane Learning) and so were Gregorius Thaumaturgus and Athenodorus Bishops of Pontus, and Helenus Bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia, and Nicomas of Iconium, and Hymenaeus of Ierusalem, and Theotecnus of Caesarea; who all condemned his Doctrine, but they spared his person upon his solemn Promises to retract it; but he persisting in it when they were gone home, and fresh complaints being made of him, Firmilian was coming a third time to Antioch, but died by the way: but those Bishops who wrote the Synodical Epistle do all affirm, That they were Witnesses and many others, when he condemned his Doctrine, but was willing to forbear his person upon his promise of amendment, which they found afterwards was merely delusory.

Dionysius Alexandrinus, they say, would not write to him, but sent his mind about p. 35him to the Church of Antioch. Which Epistle is mention'd by S. Ierom, (as written by him a little before his death) as well as by Eusebius and Theodoret; and I do not see sufficient reason to question the authority of that, which Fronto Ducaeus published from Turrian's Copy, although it be denied by H. Valesius and others. It's said, indeed, That he did not write to him, i. e. he did not direct it to him, but he might send it to the Council in answer to his Letters, which he mentions. How far it differs from his style in other Epistles, I will not take upon me to judge; but the design is very agreeable to an Epistle from him on that occasion. It's true, that it seems to represent the opinion of Paulus Samosatenus after a different manner from what it is commonly thought to have been. But we are to consider, that …e made use of all the Arts to d…sguise himself that he could; and when he found the making Christ to be a mere Man would not be born, he went from the Ebionite to the Cerinthian Hypothesis, viz. That the foreign did dwell in him, and that there were two Persons in Christ, one Divine and the other Humane; and two Sons, the one by Nature the Son of God, who had a Pre existence, and the other the p. 36Son of David, who had no subsistence before. This is the opinion which Dionysius sets himself against in that Epistle; and which therefore …ome may imagine was written after Nestorius his Heresie. But that was no new Heresie, as appears by the Cerinthians; and it was that which Paulus Samosatenus fled to, as more plausible; which not only appears by this Epistle, but by what Athanasius and Epiphanius have delivered concerning it.

Athanasius ▪ Athan. de Incarn. To I. p. 591.wrote a Book of the Incarnation against the followers of Paulus Samosatenus, who held, as he saith, Two Persons in Christ, viz. One born of the Virgin, and a divine Person, which descended upon him and dwelt in him. Against which opinion he disputes from two places of Scripture; viz. God was manifest in the Flesh; and the Word was made Flesh: and from the ancient Doctrine of the Christian Church, and the Synod of Antioch against Paulus Samosatenus. And in another place he saith,P. 635. that he held, That the divine Word dwelt in Christ. And the words of Epiphanius are express to the same purpose;foreign. Epiph. haer. 65. n. 1. Concil. Ephesin. part I. Supplicatio Basilii, &c. That the Logos came and dwelt in the Man Iesus. And the Clergy of Constantinople charged Nestorius p. 37with following the Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus. And Photius in his Epistles saith,Phot. Epist. 35. That Nestorius tasted too much of the intoxicated Cups of Paulus Samosatenus; and in the foregoing Epistle, he saith, That Paulus his followers asserted two Hypostases in Christ. But some think, that Paulus Samosatenus did not hold any subsistence of the foreign before, but that the Word was in God before without any subsistence of its own, and that God gave it a distinct subsistence when it inhabited in the Person of Christ; and so Marius Mercator and Leontius understand him; who say that he differ'd from Nestorius therein;Marius Mercat. de 12 Anath. Nestorii, n. 16. Leontius de sectis p. 436. edit. Basil. who asserted a Divine Word with its proper subsistence. But according to them Paulus by the Word unders…ood that Divine Energy whereby Christ acted, and which dwelt in him; but Dionysius saith he made two Christs, and two Sons of God. But the Doctrine of the Christian Church, he saith was that there was but one Christ, and one Son, who w…s the Eternal Word, and was made Flesh. And it is observable, that he brings the very same places we do now to prove this Doctrine, as In the beginning was the Word, &c. and Before Abraham was I am. It seems that some of the Bishops who had been upon the examination p. 38of his Opinions before the second Synod, which deposed him, sent him an account of their Faith and required his answer; wherein they declare the Son not to be God, according to God's Decree, (which he did not stick at) but that he was so really and substantially; and whosoever denied this, they said, was out of the Communion of the Church, and all the Catholick Churches agreed with them in it.

And they declare, that they received this Doctrine from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and bring the same places we do now, as, Thy Throne O God was for ever, &c. Who is over all, God blessed for ever. All things were made by him, &c. And we do not find that Paulus Samosatenus, as subtle as he was, ever imagin'd that these places belong'd to any other than Christ, or that the making of all things was to be understood of the making of nothing; but putting it into mens power to make themselves new Creatures. These were discoveries only reserved for the Men of Sense and clear Ideas in these brighter Ages of the World.

But at last, after all the arts and subterfuges which Paulus Samosatenus used, there was a Man of Sense, as it happen'd, among the Clergy of Antioch, called p. 39Malchion, who was so well acquainted with his Sophistry, that he drove him out of all, and laid his Sense so open before the second Synod, that he was solemnly deposed for denying the Divinity of the Son of God, Euseb. l. 7. c. 30.and his Descent from Heaven, as appears by their Synodical Epistle. It is pity we have it not entire; but by the Fragments of it, which are preserved by some ancient Writers, we find that his Doctrine of the Divinity in him by Inhabitation was then condemned,Leont. c. Nestor. l. 3. and the substantial Union of both Natures asserted. I have only one thing more to observe concerning him, which is, that the Arian Party in their Decree at Sardica, (or rather Philippopolis) do confess that Paulus Samosatenus his Doctrine was condemned by the whole Christian World. For they say,Hilar. fragment. p. 1321. Theod. l. 1. c. 4. That which passed in the Eastern Synod, was signed and approved by all. And Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, in his Epistle to Alexander of Constantinople affirms the same. And now I hope, I may desire our Men of Sense to reflect upon these Matters. Here was no Fire nor Faggot threatned, no Imperial Edicts to inforce this Doctrine, nay the Queen of those parts, under whose Jurisdiction they lived at that time, openly espoused p. 40the cause of Paulus Samosatenus, so that here could be nothing of interest to sway them to act in opposition to her. And they found his interest so strong, that he retained the Possession of his See, till Aurelian had conquer'd Zenobia, and by his authority he was ejected. This Synod which deposed him, did not sit in the time of Aurelian, as is commonly thought, but before his time, while Zenobia had all the power in her hands in those Eastern parts, which she enjoy'd five years; till she was dispossess'd by Aurelian, from whence Ant. Pagi concludes,Pagi Critica in Bar. A. 272. n. 2. that Paulus kept his See three years after the Sentence against him; but upon application to Aurelian; he who afterwards began a Persecution against all Christians, gave this rule, That he with whom the Italian Bishops, and those of Rome communicated, should enjoy the See, upon which Paulus was at last turned out. By this we see a concurrence of all the Christian Bishops of that time against him, that denied the Divinity of our Saviour; and this without any force, and against their interest, and with a general consent of the Christian World. For there were no mighty Awes and Draconic Sanctions to compell,Answer to the Archbishop, p. 54. of which they sometimes speak, as if they were the only p. 41powerfull methods to make this Doctrine go down. And what greater argument can there be, that it was then the general sense of the Christian Church? And it would be very hard to condemn all his Opposers for men that wanted Sense and Reason, because they so unanimously opposed him.

Not so unanimously neither, say our Vnitarians, because Lucian, a Presbyter of the Church of Antioch, and a very learned man, joyned with him. It would have been strange indeed, if so great a Man as Paulus Samosatenus, could prevail with none of his own Church to joyn with him, especially one that came from the same place of Samosata, as Lucian did; and probably was by him brought thither.

He hath an extraordinary character given him by Eusebius, Euseb l. 8, 13, 9. c. 6.both for his Life and Learning; and so by S. Ierom, without the least reflection upon him as to matter of Faith. But on the other side, Alexander Bishop of Alexandria in his Epistle concerning Arius to Alexander of Constantinople, doth say,Theod. l. 1. c. 4. That he follow'd Paulus Samosatenus, and held separate Communion for many years, under the three following Bishops. He doth not say that he died so, when he suffer'd Martyrdom p. 42under Maximinus at Nicomedia; neither doth he say the contrary. Upon which learned Men are divided, whether he persisted in that opinion or not. Petavius and Valesius give him up;Petav. de Trinit. l. 1. c. 4. n. 13. H. Valesius in Theod. l. 1. c. 4. Baron. A. 318. n. 75, &c. on the other side Baronius vindicates him, and saith, The mis-report of him came from his zeal against Sabellianism; and that Alexander wrote that of him before his Books were throughly examin'd; that Athanasius never joyns him with Paulus Samosatenus; that the Arians never produced his authority in their debates, as they would have done, since the Emperor's Mother had built a City in the place where he suffer'd Martyrdom. It cannot be doubted that the Arian Party would have it believed that they came out of Lucian's School, as appears by Arius his Epistle to Eusebius of Nicomedia; but on the other side, the great argument to me is, That this very party at the Council of Antioch, produced a Creed, which they said, was there found written with Lucian's own hand, which is directly contrary to the Samosatenian Doctrine.Soz. l. 3 c. 5. Now, either this was true or false: if it were true, then it was false that he was a Samosatenian; if it were false, how came the Arian Party to give it out for true? Especially those who valued themselves for p. 43coming out of his School. They were far enough from being such weak men to produce the authority of Lucian at Antioch, where he was so much esteemed, for a Doctrine utterly inconsistent with that of Paulus Samosatenus, if it were there known, that he was his Disciple, and separated from three Bishops on that account. For therein the Son is owned to be God of God, begotten of the Father before all Ages, perfect God of perfect God, &c. Suppose they had a mind to subvert the Nicene Faith by this Creed under the name of Lucian, (only because foreign was left out) yet what an improbable way did they take, when they supported the main points by his authority, and that at Antioch, where it was greatest? If Philostorgius may be credited,Philost. l. 2. c. 15, 16. the great men of the Arian Party had been his Scholars, as besides Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon, Theognis of Nice, Leontius of Antioch, and several other leading Bishops, and even Arius himself pretended to it. Which makes me apt to think, that Alexander knowing this, and at first not being able so well to judge of Lucian's opinion, charged him with following Paulus Samosatenus, from whence the odium would fall upon his Scholars. p. 44For his design is to draw the succession down from Ebion, and Artemon, and Paulus Samosatenus, and Lucian to Arius and his Associates; and charges them with holding the same Doctrine, wherein he was certainly mistaken; and so he might be about Lucian's separation from the following Bishops on that account.

The last our Vnitarians mention among their great men, is Photinus Bishop of Sirmium. They take it for granted that he was of their opinion. This is certain, that whatever it was, it was generally condemned, as well by the Arians as others; and after several Councils called, he was deposed for his Heresie. The first time we find him condemned, was by the Arian Party in a second Council at Antioch, as appears by the profession of Faith drawn up by them, extant in Athanasius and Socrates. Athanas. Tom. 1. p. 898. Socr. l. 2. c. 19.There they anathematize expressly the Disciples of Marcellus and Photinus, for denying the Pre-existence and Deity of Christ. But by Christ, they understood, The Person born of the Virgin, who was the Son of God; but they did not deny the Pre-existence of the foreign, and never dream'd that any could think that Christ was to be called the foreign, from his Office of Preaching, p. 45as our modern Vnitarians assert. But Photinus his opinion was,Athan. de Synodis Arim. &c. p. 897. That the foreign was before all Ages, but not Christ, or the Son of God, which divine word was partly internal, and so it was ever with God, and partly external, when it was communicated to the Person of Christ, whereby he became the Son of God. But the Arians there declare their Belief, That Christ was the living Word, and Son of God before all Worlds, and by whom he made all things. The next time he is said to be condemned, was in that which is called the Council at Sardica, but was the Council of the Eastern Bishops after their parting from the Western. This is mention'd by Epiphanius and Sulpitius Severus, Epiph haeret. 71. Sulpit. Sever. l. 2. p. 397.the latter saith he differ'd from Sabellius only in the point of Vnion, i. e. because Sabellius made the Persons to be merely Denominations which was then called the Heresie of the Vnionitae; and therefore Photinus must assert an Hypostasis to the foreign,Prudent. Apoth. or else he did not at all differ from Sabellius. And it appears by Epiphanius, that Photinus did distinguish between Christ and the Word. In the Beginning was the Word, said he,Epiph. n. 2. but not the Son, which title was promised and foretold, but did not belong to Christ till he was born of the Holy Ghost and Mary, so p. 46he expresses it. Herein, saith Epiphanius, he follow'd Paulus Samosatenus, N. 1, 2.but exceeded him in his Inventions. In answer to him, he saith, that S. Iohn's words are not, In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was in God, but the Word was with God, N. 4.and the Word was God. Little did either side imagine that this was to be understood of the beginning of the Gospel, as our modern Photinians would make us believe they think; but Photinus himself was a Person of too much Sagacity to take up with such an absurd and insipid sence. I pass over the fresh condemnations of Photinus in the Councils at Milan and Rome, because his opinion is not to be learnt from them; and come to that at Sirmium, where it is more particularly set …orth, as well as condemned. But here we must distinguish the two Councils at Sirmium; in the former, he was condemned, but the people would not part with him; but in the second, he was not only condemned, but effectually deposed, the Emperor Constantius a professed Arian, forcing him to withdraw: But it was upon his own Appeal to the Emperor against the Judgment of the Council, who appointed Judges Delegates to hear this cause:Epiph. haeret. 71. Socr. l. 2. …. 30. and Basilius Ancyranus was the manager p. 47of the debate with him,Soz. l. 4 c. 6. Hist. Tripart. l. 5. c. 8. wherein he is said to have been so much too hard for Photinus, that the Emperor himself order'd his Banishment. And I can find nothing of his return; but our Vnitarians have found out (but they do not tell us where) that the people recalled him, and so he planted his Doctrine among them, Hist. of the Unit. p. 10.that it overspread and was the Religion of the Illyrican Provinces, till the Papacy on one hand, and the Turk on the other, swallow'd up those Provi…ces. This looks too like making History to serve a turn, unless some good proof were brought for it. But instead of Photinus his returning, Concil general. To. II. p. 888.and his Doctrine prevailing and continuing there, we find Valentinian calling a Council in Illyricum, and establishing the Nicene Faith there: and a Council at Aquileia against the Arians, where the Bishop of Sirmium was present,Ib. p. 989. and declared against Arianism, and joyned with S. Ambrose, who condemns Photinus for making Christ the Son of David,Ambros. Apol. David. c. 4. and not the Son of God▪ Paulinus saith in his Life, that he went on purpose to Sirmium to consecrate an Orthodox Bishop there; which he did, notwithstanding the power of Iustina the Empress, who favoured the Arians. S. Ierom in his Chronicon saith, that Photinus p. 48died in Galatia which was his own Country; so that there is no probability in what they affirm of Photinus his settling his Doctrine in those parts, till the Papacy and the Turk swallow'd those Provinces; for any one that looks into the History of those parts may be soon satisfied, that not the Pope nor the Turk, but the Huns under Attila, made the horrible Devastations not only at Sirmium, but in all the considerable places of that Country: So that if these mens reason be no better than their History, there is very little cause for any to be fond of their Writings.

But as though it were not enough to mention such things once; in their answer to the late Archbishop's Sermons, they inlarge upon it. For he having justly rebuked them for the Novelty of their Interpretations, they, to avoid this, boast of the concurrence of the ancient Vnitarians, the followers of Paulus and Photinus, Ans. to the Archbish. Serm p. 53.who, they say, abounded every-where, and even possessed some whole Provinces. This passage I was not a little surprized at. Since Theodoret, who, I think, was somewhat more to be credited than Sandius, doth so expresly say,Theodor. haer…t. Fab. l. 2. in Photino. That the Samosatenians and Photinians were extinct in his time, p. 49in a place already mentioned. But upon search I could find no other ground for it, but a passage or two in Sandius, who is none of the exactest Historians. In one place he saith from an obscure Polish Chronicle (extant in no other Language but of that Country) that the Bulgarians when they first received Christianity embraced Photinianism. Sand. Hist. Enucl. l. 3. p. 357.And is not this very good Authority among us? From hence he takes it for granted, that they all continued Photinians to the time of Pope Nicolas, who converted them. But all this is grounded on a ridiculous mistake in Platina, who in the Life of Nicolas saith,P. 372. that the Pope confirmed them in the Faith, pulso Photino; whereas it should be pulso Photio; for Photius at that time was Patriarch of Constantinople, and as appears by his first Epistle, assumed their Conversion to himself; and insisted upon the right of Jurisdiction over that Country. Sandius referrs to Blondus; who saith no such thing,Blond. Dec. 2. l. 2. but only that the Bulgarians were converted before; which is true; and the Greek Historians, as Ioh. Curopalates, Zonaras, and others, gives a particular Account of it; but not a word of Photinianism in it. So that the Archbishop had very great reason to charge their Interpretation with Novelty; p. 50and that not only because the Photinians had no such Provinces, as they boast of; but that neither Paulus Samosatenus, nor Photinus, nor any of their followers, that we can find, did ever interpret the beginning of S. John, as they do; i.e. Of the New Creation, and not of the Old; and so, as the Word had no Pre-existence before he was born of the Virgin. I do not confine them to the Nicenists, as they call them; but let them produce any one among the Samosatenians, or Photinians, who so understood S. Iohn. Sand. Hist. Eccles. l. 1. p. 64.93.Sir 50:1And therein Sandius was in the right (which ought to be allow'd him, for he is not often so) when he saith, that no Christian Interpreter before Socinus ever held such a sense of the Word, as he did; and therefore his followers he saith, ought to be called Socinians only, and not Ebionites, Samosatenians, or Photinians.

But to return to Photinus his Opinion. It is observable, what Socrates saith,Socr. l. 2. c. 29. foreign. concerning his being deposed at Sirmium, viz. that what was done in that matter was universally approved, not only then, but afterwards. So that here we have the general Consent of the Christian World, in that divided time, against the Photinian Doctrine. And yet it was not near p. 51so unreasonable as our Vnitarians; for Photinus asserted the Pre-existence of the foreign and its inhabiting in Christ from his Conception; wherein he differ'd from Paulus Samosatenus who asserted it to have been upon the Merit of his Virtue. In the Anathema's of the Council of Sirmium against Photinus, one is against any one that asserts that there is one God, Hilar. de Synod. p. 1175. Ed. Paris.but denies Christ to have been the Son of God before all Worlds, and that the World was made by him in obedience to the Will of the Father. Others, against him that asserts that there was a Dilatation of the Divine Substance to make him the Son of God, who was a Man born of the Virgin Mary; this appears from Anath. 6, 7, 9. put together. Which is best explained by Hilary himself in another place,Hilar. de Trinit. l. 10. n. 50. where he mentions this as the Photinian Doctrine, That God the Word did extend himself so far, as to inhabit the person born of the Virgin. This he calls a subtle and dangerous Doctrine. And therein he saith Photinus differ'd from Sabellius; Hilar. de Trin. l. 7. n. 7.that the latter denied any difference between Father and Son, but only in Names; but Photinus held a real difference, but not before the Nativity of Christ; then he said, The Divine Word inhabiting in Christ made him to be the real Son of God.

p. 52The only doubt is, whether Photinus held, the Word to have had a distinct Hypostasis before or not. Marius Mercator an Author of good credit, who lived in S. Augustin's time (and to whom an Epistle of his is extant in the new Edition of his Works) gives a very particular account of the Opinion of Photinus with relation to the Nestorian Controversie,August. Ep. 193. in which he was very well versed. In an Epistle written by him on purpose,Ma…ii Mercat. Oper. Par. 2. p. 17. he shews that Nestorius agreed with Photinus in asserting, That the Word had a Preexistence; and that the name of Son of God did not belong to the Word, but to Christ after the inhabitation of the Word. But he there seems to think, that Photinus did not hold the Word to have had a real Hypostasis before the Birth of Christ: but when he comes after to compare their Opinions more exactly, he then affirms, that Photinus and Nestorius were agreed, and that he did not deny the Word to be Con…substantial with God; but that he was not the Son of God till Christ was born in whom he dwelt. … 12. A…th. N…s…orii p. 128.By which we see how little reason our Vnitarians have to boast of Photinus as their Predecessor.

As to the boast of the first Unitarians at Rome, that theirs was the general Doctrine, p. 53before the time of Victor; it is so fully confuted by the ancient Writer in Eusebius, Euseb. l. 5. c. 28.who mentions it, from the Scriptures and the first Christian Writers, named by him, that it doth not deserve to be taken notice of; especially since he makes it appear, that it was not heard of among them at Rome, till it was first broached there by Theodotus, as not only he, but Tertullian affirms; as I have already observed.

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

Therefore they would conclude still that they have the better of us in point of Reason, because they tell us, that they p. 54have clear and distinct Perceptions, that what we call Mysteries of Faith, are Contradictions, Impossibilities, and pure Nonsense; and that they do not reject them, because they do not comprehend them, but because they do comprehend them to be so.

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