but that which is delivered to us upon Divine Teftimony; and we are to seek for the Teftimony of God, nowhere but in the written Word of God, and therefore Bafil difputes after this manner, whatsoever is not in the written Word of God is not of faith,and whatfoever is not of faith is fin, and therefore it is a fin to obtrude any Doctrine up on the conscience as an Article of faith, y Vide Ba- which is not written in the y Word of God. fil. After. Putean is bold to say that if Bafil his Reg. 80. meaning was according to his words, he ENTOS & Wasa Hugonot, that is as we use to say, a Deo ev's Pur tane. Πᾶν τὸ τία δεν. γραφῆς, ἐκ When I read what the Papifts write on miss this Argument, I ftand amazed at their öv, duapblafphemies, and am unwilling to stain my Nihil eft paper with the repetition of them; they de fide nifi who have read Canus, Hofius Cofterus, quod Deus Eckius, Gautierus, Charronaus, Stapleton, per Apo- and the reft of that rabble, will not wonder ftolos & that the Socinians call the Doctrine of Prophetas revelavit, 3.Perfons and one God into question,when aut quod the Papiirs who were baptized in the name inde evi of the Trinity & profeffe that they beleeve ducitur. the equality of three diftinct Subfiftences in the lame divine Effence, do yet notwith14.dever- ftanding in their writings grant as much as bo Dei c.9. the Socinians need prove, namely that the Doctrine of the diitinction and equality of Perfons in the iame Divine Effence cannotbe proved but by unwritten Traditions, by denter de Bellarm the the testimony of the Church of Rome, &c. and yet diverse Papifts undertake to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against the Socinians, though they know that the Socinians do not at all value traditions or the teftimony of the Church of Rome; and therefore though divers Papifts write against the Socinians, yet they do promote Socinianisme by their vaine doctrine of unwritten traditions. Stapleton is not ashamed to deny that it can be proved out of Scripture that the Holy Ghoft is God, or that he is to be worshipped. But Salmeron zdeferves commendation < Vide in this point; The Scriptures faith he, are Salmer. therefore said to be written by divine infpi- in 2 Epift. ration, because they inftruit us in divine my-, Difput. 4. fteries, concerning the Unity of God, and Trinity of Perfons. ad Timoth. a αλλ' ἐκ ἐκ πατρικών Photius in his Bibliotheca fhews, that a Phot. Ephrani did not dispute of the confubftan- Biblioth. tiall Trinity out of the Teftimonies of Fa- in Deir thers, but out of the Holy Scriptures; fu- kapay fin Martyr, Athanafius, Bafil, Irenans, waren Cyrill, Cyprian, Tertullian, Epiphanius,The- μαρτυριών odoret, and many other of the Fathers did affert the doctrine of the Trinity, and fome of them did confute the Valentinians, Eunomians, Sabellians, Photinians, Arrians, Macedonians, Samofatenians, &c. out of the Holy Scriptures.The Nicene Synod did urge Scripture for the maintenance of the Truth Vide Cyrill. de truth, which they declared in the Confeffion of their Faith; and the Synod which met at Conftantinople did the like, as is most evident to such as have perused those learned and ancient Records. Athanafius confounded the Arians by cleare Teftimonies of Scripture, and in his Book of perf.Chri- the Decrees of the Nicene Synod, he faith fti c. 10. that the true difciples of Christ, do clearly Theodoret. understand the doctrine of the Holy Trinity Epit. divin.dogm, preached by divine Scripture. I fhall not c. de Spi. trouble or amufe the Reader by quotatiritu San- ons out of Cyrill, Ambrofe, Hilary, Augu &o. Da ftine, Nyffen, Nazianzen, or any of those mafc. orth. Worthies but now mentioned, whole lafid. 1 3. bours have been ever famous in the Church Naz Orat. 23. in of God; yet I must not omit one pregnant laudem proofe out of Augustine, who appealed Heronis. from the Nicene and Ariminenfian Synods, Athan, de and challenged Maximinus to dispute with Synod. Ni- him about the great point of confubftanticen. Eun- ality out of the Scriptures. Bellarmine himdem E- felt is forced to confeffe that Augustine pift. ad had good reason to do so, becaule that Serapion. & de fen- point is cleare by Scripture; but then we Decret. tent. Greg. Nyffen. Dyonf. contra Eunom. Tertul.. adverfus Praxxan. Theodoret. Dialog.z.cap. 4. Nazianzen.orat. 37. de Spiritu Santo. Epiphan. contra Sabel. Bafilium contra Eunomium, Sabellium, Arium. Cyprian. lib. 2. adverfus Judaos ad Quinirum, cap. 6. Auguft. contra Maximin, Bellarm. de verbo dei 1.4.0, 11. muft muft likewife confider what Augustine faith upon this Argument, that the thing c Quod (or fenfe of any word) may be in Scripture exprefle though the word it self be not to be found non habe there, though the words Trinity Trin-uni- turinScri pturis, po ty, Confubftantial, are not found in Scri- teft tamen pture, yet that which is fignified by thofe inde eviwords may be clearly proved by the holy denter de Scriptures. These three are one; I and my Vocabu Father are one; Behold a Trinity Trin-uni- in ty, Confubftantiality, and all quickly pro- Scripturis ved. duci. non legimus; rem cui hoc vocabulum recte adhibitum eft, fideique fetifam invenimus. Vide Auguftinum Epift. 174. ubi contra P afcentium Arianum difputat. Eundem infuper in Joannem Tra&.97. Ame brofium lib. de fide contra, Arianos cap. 5. Auguftinum contra Maximinum Arian.Theod. Hift. lib.1.c.8.Bafil. contra Eunom; c. 4. Tractat. Definit. Tom. 2. Athanaf. That Rule is of great concernment and very pertinent to the point in hand, which Auguftine delivers in his third Book and third Chapter against Maximinus the Arian. Out of those things which we read in Scripture we may collect fome things which we do not read, and fo both understand and beleeve the thing which is delivered in other words in Scripture, then those which we are now forced to use, that we may confirme the Orthodox Chriftians, and refute the gain-fayers. But I am weary of this task,and therefore call upon my Reader to joyne with me in fearching the Scriptures C thae that we may find out the truth; for reason cannot demonstrate or comprehend these mysteries of faith; and the Rule is, Rationum fulcro diffoluto humana concidit authoritas. CHAP. IV. This fingle and Eternall Godhead doth fubfift in Father, Son, and holy Ghost, without any multiplication of the Godhead: d d Gres. When a nom.lib.1. τεχνολο a The Baron ias, &c. Hen & Gregory Nyffen undertook to confute the artificiall blafphemy contra Eu- of Eunomius, he desired that the true God, the Son of the true God, and the Holy Spirit would direct him into all truth. I have likewife implored the Divine affiftance of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, that I may open this Mystery of the fingle Godhead in three diftin&Subsistences,with faith and prudence, perfpicuity and reverence. I confider that the Godhead is Spiritual, and therefore I defire to avoid all carnal expreffions in a Treatife of this nature. 1 here is a twofold knowledge of God, Abfolute,and Relative;the Abfolute know ledge |