in the Nicene Council as he undertakes to prove and thinks he has proved yet his Performance amounts to no more but this that of the Writers or Fathers who preceded the Nicene Council about 20 were for the Divinity of our Saviour and more than 200 against it II. The Characters of the Fathers and their Works more particularly of St. Barnabas Hermas and Ignatius WHEN a Man appeals to the Judgment and Authority of any sort of Writers the first thing to be considered is what is the Character of those Writers and their Writings Were the Writers skilful in that sort of Learning of which they are called to be Judges Are the Works or Writings that are imputed to them certainly genuine really and undoubtedly theirs If so yet have they not been corrupted by notorious Additions or Detractions so that 't is questioned by indifferent and impartial Persons what was written by the Author and what by the Interpolator Farther whereas Dr. Bull 's Book is concerning the Faith of the Nicene Fathers that it agreed perfectly with the Faith of the Fathers who flourished and wrote before that Council it will be another necessary Question what was the Faith of the Nicene Fathers either concerning the Divinity of our Saviour or concerning the pretended Trinity Lastly Dr. Bull has indeed given us his Opinion concerning the Faith of the Ante-nicene Fathers but what say other famous Criticks who tho they were zealous Trinitarians yet being more sincere and impartial it may be they grant that the Doctrine of the Ante-nicene Writers of the Church was no less than diametrically contrary to the Nicene Faith as well as to the Reform that has been made of that Faith by the Divines of the Schools I shall resolve all these Questions in proper Places at present to the first Question What is the true Character of these Writers to whom Dr. Bull has appealed He answers concerning one that he is doctissimus most learned of another that he is peritissimus most able and not to transcribe all his Flowers on these Fathers he dubs them all Doctores probati approved Doctors which is the least he ever says of them It is in some degree excusable because it may be imputed to his Zeal or his Art that he vends all his Geese for Swans but sure the very silliest Idolaters of his weak Book will hardly approve of it that he divides even all the Divine Attributes too among these his supposed Friends For one he calls sanctissimus most holy another is beatissimus most blessed a third is optimus most gracious and a fourth maximus the most high There is hardly a Page of his Book but you meet with one or more of these Extravagancies I suppose he tarried longer at School than is ordinary and so being an old Declamer he could never since speak but only in the superlative Degree no not when it borders on Blasphemy it self But tho it is true that few I believe none but Dr. Bull have spoke or thought of the remaining Ante-nicene Fathers at this wild rate yet the Opinion that Men generally have of these Authors is that they were certain most grave learned sage and experienced Divines and called Fathers not more for their Antiquity than for their profound Judgment and perfect Knowledg in all the Parts of the Christian Religion Because the Heads and Patrons of Sects affect to quote the Fathers and if possible to fill their Margin with References to Places in the Fathers it is therefore almost universally supposed that so great Deference has not been paid to them without most just Cause for it 'T is in the Father that the Papist finds the whole Doctrine of the Council of Trent in the Fathers the Lutheran finds also his Articles the Calvinist and the Church of England theirs The very Presbyterians Anabaptists and Antinomians are now turned Father-mongers and in the Fathers find their Discipline and Doctrine no less than their Opposers find also theirs In short there is such a scuffling for the Fathers by all Parties that 't is no wonder if Persons who have not themselves read 'em have a very raised and noble Idea of these Writers But all the Glory of the Fathers I speak of the Ante-nicene Fathers and except also Origen out of the Number is wholly due to the Vanity of modern learned Men who quote these Books not because indeed they value them but because being antient Monuments known to few and understood by fewer he seems a great learned Man who can drop Sentences out of these antique Books But let us begin to see what indeed they were The first of the Fathers and their Writings alledged by Dr. Bull is an Epistle if it please Heaven of St. Barnabas the Apostle I confess that St. Barnabas the Evangelist and Coadjutor of St. Paul is also honoured with the Title of an Apostle Acts 14.4 but that he left behind him an Epistle I shall desire a better Proof than I have yet seen What Dr. Bull says of him is Our most learned Hammond and the most high Vossius believe this Epistle was written by St. Barnabas chiefly for this Reason because it is cited under the Name of Barnabas by Clemens Alexandrinue Origen and othe Antients Nor can those of the adverse Party alledg any thing to the contrary but only this that the Author of this Epistle expounds too mystically some Passages of the Old Testament No no other Reason to be alledged why this Epistle was not written by the Evangelist Barnabas Does he not know that divers Criticks have observed that if the Antients had really believed that St. Barnabas the Companion Fellow-Evangelist and fellow-Fellow-Apostle of St. Paul had wrote this Epistle they would undoubtedly have reckoned it among the Canonical Books of Scripture as St. Paul's Epistles are And has not Eusebius informed us why this Epistle was not counted Canonical when he says Some Books are received as Holy Scripture by the common Consent of all namely the four Gospels the Acts the Epistles of St. Paul the first Epistle of St. John the first of St. Peter and if you will the Revelation of St. John some other Books are of questioned and doubtful Authority as the Epistles of James and Jude the second of St. Peter the second and thrid of St. John but these following are counterfeit pieces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Acts of Paul the Revelation of Peter the pretended Epistle of Barnabas c. these are Counterfeits Dr. Bull may consider at his leisure of what Weight the Judgment of his most learned Hammond and the most high Vossius may be when put into the Scale against Eusebius speaking not his own but the Sense of the Primitive Church And when his Hand is in let him tell us what might be in the Mind of the pretended Barnabas as Eusebius calls him to scandalize all the Apostles by saying that before they were called to be Apostles they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most
Recognitions imputed to Clemens Romanus They seem to be falsly reckoned to St. Clemens but they are very antient published probably in the Beginning of the 2 d Century or the second Century being but little advanced when so many other spurious Pieces were set forth under the Names of Apostles or of Apostolical Men. The Recognitions are quoted divers times by Origen who began to flourish about the Year 210. But they are much antienter than Origen for in a Fragment of Bardesanes apud Euseb Praep. Evang. l. 6. c. 10. who flourished about the Year 170 there is a Passage taken word for word out of the 9 th Book of the Recognitions Whereas Dr. Cave conjectures that Bardesanes was the Author of the Recognitions his Guess is nothing probable nay a manifest Mistake because the Author of the Recognitions was an Ebionite but Bardesanes a Valentinian that is held the Pre-existence of our Saviour and that he was not as the Apostle speaks made of a Woman but brought his Flesh from Heaven It remains therefore that the Recognitions are antienter not only than Origen but than Bardesanes how much antienter we cannot determinately say but probably published when the 2 d Century was but little advanced when so many affected to countenance their own Productions with the authoritative Names of the Aposiles and Apostolical Men. But tho the Recogaitions are not the Work of Clemens Romanus yet they serve to let us know what Doctrines and Rites were current or in use in those times and to this purpose they are quoted by the severely Criticks of all Parties and Perswasions I shall not need to cite particular Passages out of these Books for 't is consessed by the Trinitarian Criticks and by Monsieur du Pin who hath written last on the Fathers that the Author of the Recognitions was a manifest Ebionite Eccl. Hist cent 1. p. 28. But hitherto of the Apostolick Fathers and the Writings and Remains of the Apostolick Succession I have proved I think that hitherto we have no certain or probable notice that there were yet any who publickly professed to hold the Pre-existence of our Saviour or that he was God in any Sense of that Word But on the contrary the Apostles Creed the true and by all confessed St. Clemens Romanus the Nazaren Minean or Ebionite that is the Jewish Churches the Alogians or Gentile Churches Hegesippus the Father of Ecclefiastical History the most antient Author of the Recognitions were all of them Unitarians that is held there is but one Divine Person and the Lord Christ was a Man only It should seem then that very thing hapned to the Christian Church which had formerly come to pass in the Church of the Jews For as the Author of the Book of Judges Judg. 2.7 says The People of Israel served the Lord all the Days of Joshua and of the Elders that outlived Joshua but when all that Generation was gathered to their Fathers there arose another after them which knew not the Lord so the Children of Israel did Evil in the sight of the Lord and served Baalim i. e. the Gods In like manner while the Apostles lived and those Elders who had conversed with the Apostles the Christian Church kept her self to the Acknowledgment and Worship of the one true God and preserved the true Doctrine and Faith concerning the Person of the Lord Christ that he was a holy Man the great Prophet and Messias promised in the Law and other Book of the Old Testament But 〈◊〉 the Aposiles themselves and the 〈◊〉 of the Apostolick Succussion were gathered to their Fathers then 〈◊〉 Corruptions to prevail apace 〈◊〉 they sancied a pre-existent 〈◊〉 of God God's Minister and Instrument in the creating of all things and but little less than his Father A Son said they who being tho but the instrumental yet the immediate Creator of all things is to be worshipped by us his Creatures A Son who tho with respect to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they still spoke the true and very God the Father is but a Minister and Subject yet with respect to us his Creatures is a God A Son who must be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a God tho only the Father may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the God that is God by way of Excellence and true Propriety In a word after the Apostles and Apostolical Elders or Pastors were composed to rest the next Generation like the Jewish Church did Evil in the Sight of the Lord and served Baalim that is the half-Gods of their own devising Nemo repente fit turpissimus therefore here they stop a considerable time namely from about the Year 140 and 150 to the Nicene Council or the Year 325. at what time as we shall see hereafter Superstition and Impiety made a sudden and wonderful Advance The first Defender and publick Patron of the Apostacy mentioned in the foregoing Paragraph was Justin Martyr about the Year 150. Our Opposers can quote no Father or genuine Monument older than Justin Martyr for the Pre-existence of our Saviour or that he ought to be called a God in so much as the restrained inseriour Sense before said Dr. Bull indeed pretends to prove the contrary from the counterseit Barnabas the false Ignatius aliàs Pionius and the Impostor Hermas how injudiciously I think hath been competently shown in these present Papers but I will yet oppose to him one Authority which I doubt not will convince the indifferent unprejudiced Reader Eusebius that capital Antagonist of the Nazaren and Alogian Christians and who searched with the utmost Diligence into the remotest Antiquity for whatsoever might seem to make against them quotes H. E. l. 5. c. 28. a very antient Author whom in his foregoing Chapter he reckons among the Ecclesiastical Writers that deserve saith he to be esteemed for their laudable Zeal and Industry This laudable Man you must know wrote a Book against the Theodotians and Artemonites who were Branches of the Alogians what Eusebius there cites out of him is as follows The Unitarians pretend that the Apostles and all the Antients held the very Doctrine concerning the Person of our Saviour that is now maintained by the Unitarians and that it is but only since the Times of the Popes Victor and Zepherin that the Truth has been adulterated and discountenanced This would be credible if first the Unitarian Doctrine were not contrary to Holy Scripture and if divers before Victor and Zepherin had not contended for the Divinity of the Lord Christ namely Justin Martyr Miltiades Tatianus Clemens of Alexandria Ireneus Melito To whom we may add the antient Hymns or Psalms wrote from the beginning by the Brethren which speak of Christ as the WORD of God and attribute to him Divinity I will omit now that all these but only Justin were but Contemporaries to Victor and Zepherin or after them for it is home to my purpose that the first whom our Opposers of those early times could quote was
flagitious Men in the World I am of opinion we ought to answer that 't is not to be wondred at if a counterfeit Apostle belies the true ones This Crimination of the true Apostles is in the 5 th Chapter of the alledged Epistle The more learned and impartial Criticks freely observe concerning this Epistle that 't is full of strained and dull Allegories extravagant and incongruous Explications of Scripture and abundance of silly and notorious Fables concerning Animals And what all judicious Men think of the Epistle is that it is indeed very antient being quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen but that it was forged about the beginning of the 2 d Century or the 2 d Century being well advanced when also the Gospels of St. Thomas St. Peter St. Matthias the Acts of St. Andrew St. John and other Apostles were devised and published as Eusebiue witnesses H. E. l. 3. c. 25. But lest this Epistle should be thought to be of somewhat the more Credit because 't is barely quoted by Clemens and Origen the Reader may take notice that Clemens cites also other counterfeit Works of the Apostles as particularly the Revelation of St. Peter as has been noted by Eusebius H. E. l. 6. c. 14. And nothing is more common with Origen than to quote such supposititious Writings as for Instance the Book of Enoch the Revelation of St. Paul the Doctrine of St. Peter and many more concerning which Citations the Reader may see what Mr. du Pin has observed at large Cent. 3. p. 113. Dr. Bull 's next approved Father is the great either Prophet or Impostor Hermas in his Book called the Pastor or Shepherd We grant that St. Paul mentions one Hermas Rom. 16.14 and we doubt not that the Author of the Shepherd would be understood to be that Hormas for he makes himself contemporary with Clemens Romanus mentioned also by St. Paul Phil. 4.3 Vision 2 d. Chap. 4. The Shepherd of Hermas is distinguished into 3 Books whereof the first contains 4 Visions the second 12 Commands the third 10 Similitudes but both the Commands and Similitudes may be called Visions and Prophecies because they are Representations and Charges made to him by Angels The Scene of these Visions is Arcadia and that we may be assured that this Author would be taken for a Prophet and would have his Book pass for a Divine Revelation he introduces the Angel in his 2 d Vision Chap. 4. as commanding him that he should prepare 3 Copies of these Visions one for Clement then Bishop of Rome to be sent by him to all the Churches another for Grapte who should instruct out of it the Widows and their Children the third Hermas himself was to read to the Presbyters of the City of Rome This is the Book and Author in which Dr. Bull finds or thinks he finds some Passages in favour of our Saviour's Divinity as I said at first we must carefully examine what is the true Character of this Work and Writer By what has been said it is evident to every one that this pretended Hermas either was a Prophet or an Impostor there is no Middle between these two when the Person pretends to Visions to Conferences with Angels and such like extraordinary things That the pretended Hermas was not a Prophet is certain to me by these Arguments 1. He owns in the third Command that he was a most egregious and common Liar he saith expresly that he scarce ever spake a true Word in his whole Life but always lived in Dissimulation and that to all Men. He weeps hereupon and doubts whether he can be saved but his Angel assures him that if for the time to come he will leave off his Lying he may attain to Blessedness He that was so addicted to lying 't is no wonder that he has counterfeited also Visions and Colloquies with Angels or that to gain Credit to his Chimeras and Follies he father'd them on Hermas an Apostolical Man and Friend of St. Paul as others before him had laid their spurious Off-springs to the Apostles themselves But 2. Some of his Celestial Visions contain manifest Falshoods particularly he maketh his Angel to tell him that the whole World is made up of twelve Nations Simil. 9. Chap. 17. Being a Person altogether ignorant of secular Learning as appears in all his three Books 't was almost impossible but that in his feigned Conferences with Angels he should sometimes make them to speak divers things both false and absurd 3. To add no more on this Trifler he has been judged to be no Prophet by the whole Catholick Church in that his Book is not reckoned among the Canonical Books of Scripture were it a real Revelation from God by the Ministry of Angels as the Author pretends and so esteemed by the Catholick Church it must have been put among the Canonical Books It is true when it first appeared it imposed on some Churches by the Boldness of its Pretence and therefore was read in those Churches as other genuine Parts of Scripture were but even then very many of the more Judicious rejected it and as the Church began to fill with learned and able Persons it was not only every where laid aside but censured as both false and foolish Of so many of the Antients as condemned it we need only take notice of Eusebius who speaking of the Books used by Christians whether privately or in publick says Some Books are received by common Consent of all others are of questioned and doubtful Authority and finally others are supposititious and counterfeit of which last kind saith he are the Acts of Paul the Revelation of Peter the Shepherd of Hermas and the pretended Epistle of Barnabas Euseb H. E. l. 3. c. 25. Dr. Bull 's third Author is Ignatius but neither is this Writer a whit better or honester than the pretended Barnabas or the counterfeit Hermas I do not mean to deny that we have still the Epistles that are quoted by the Antients Origen and Eusebius under the Name of Ignatius but this I affirm that they were forged under Ignatius his Name about the time that so many other Impostures were published under the Names of Aposiles and of Apostolical Men of which the Learned know there were almost an infinite Number Let us see first what the Criticks of the contrary Perswasion have to alledg for the Epistles of Ignatius we may hear Mr. Du Pin for them all because he has written last and more largely than any other He observes that St. Polycarp being thereto desired by the Philippians sent them the Epistles of Ignatius to which he also prefixed an Epistle of his own directed to the same Philippians Well we acknowledg that Polycarp writing to the Philippians tells them towards the Close of his Epistle that he had sent them according to their Desire the Epistles of Ignatius that had by any means come to his Knowledg or Hand He adds that in these Epistles Ignatius treats of Faith and Patience
made this Creed either they 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 The Latter is a Supposition that none will make therefore the other is the Truth of the Matter and it remains only that we enquire who were the Framers of this Creed The Creed that bears the Name of the Apostles Creed was always reckoned both by Fathers and Moderns to be really composed by the Apostles for a Rule of Uniformity among themselves in their Preaching and of Faith to all the Converts till about the middle of this present Age G. J. Vossius published a Book wherein he denies that either the Apostles or the 120 Disciples who are mentioned Acts 1.15 and who assisted and voted with the Apostles in publick Matters were Authors of this Creed He thinketh it was only the Creed of the particular Church of Rome and that the Original of it was this Because it was the Custom to interrogate Persons that were to be baptized whether they believed in God the Father in the Lord Christ the Son of God and in the Holy Ghost in whose Names Baptism is administred therefore in process of Time it became a Form of Confession for Persons who were admitted to Baptism to say I believe in God the Father in Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son and in the Holy Ghost Afterwards some few more Words were added to these as a fuller Description both of the Father and Son and as Heresies grew up new Articles were added to the Creed in opposition to them and to distinguish Catholicks from Hereticks Against all Hereticks and Schismaticks in general this Article was made I believe in the Holy Catholick Church against the Sects of the Gnosticks this Article I believe the Resurrection of the Body This is the Conjecture of Vossius Because it was so evident that this Creed makes only the Father to be God and that it speaks of the Son by only humane Characters and says not the least Word of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit therefore this Book of Vossius was received with a mighty Applause among all the Denomiantions of Trinitarians Papists Lutherans Calvinists and all others They saw themselves delivered by this Book from such an Allegation and Aughority against the Doctrine of the Trinity as was more than equivalent to all their pretended Proofs from the Fathers or from the Holy Scriptures For what are all the Fathers if indeed they were all of their side when opposed by the College of Apostles And what are some incidental and very dubious Expressions of some particular Writer of Holy Scripture against a Creed composed by the Concurrence and Consent of all the Apostles and of their Senate or Council the CXX A Creed in which they not incidentally in which case Men often speak loosly and incorrectly but professedly and designedly declare what is the true Faith to be believed by all Christians concerning the Father Son and Holy Spirit I say for this Reason 't is not to be much wondred that Vossius his Book was so kindly received or that the Trinitarians of whatsoever Perswasion have generally ever since followed the Conjecture of Vossius If now and then a learned Man has dissented from the new Opinion he has always been laugh'd out of Countenance by the Croud of Pretenders to Learning Vossius says 1. St. Luke in his Acts of the Apostles would never have omitted so memorable a Transaction as the compiling a Creed by all the Apostles for a Rule of Doctrine to themselves and their Successors in the Pastoral Office and of Faith to the Converts He has set down many lesser Matters the Election of Matthias into the Apostolate of Judas the Conclusion of the Apostles and Elders assembled in Council concerning the Ritual and Judicial Parts of the Mosaick Law and even divers petty Matters relating only to private Persons and is it credible that he should not say a Word of the Rule of Faith of a Creed made by the joint Consent of all the Apostles and intended for the general and perpetual Use of both Pastors and People But besides that this Creed is never spoke of in the Acts none of the Apostles mention or so much as allude or refer to it in any of their Epistles it is incredible not to say impossible that there should not be so much as a hint given of this Creed in all the Apostolick Writings if indeed it had been composed by the Apostles as their Joint Work for the Use of the whole Catholick Church There are abundance of false Steps made in this reasoning of Vossius 1 It is evident enough that divers most important Matters were ordained by the joint Council and Authority of the Apostles and the CXX which yet St. Luke did not think necessary to be inserted into his History of the Preaching Travels and Persecutions of the Apostles The Institution of the Lord's Day instead of or with the Sabbath or seventh Day appointed by God himself in the 4 th Commandment the Form of Church-Government whether you will say by Bishops or by a Presbytery or in the Independent Way the solemn manner of ordaining the Church-Pastors by Imposition of Hands and Prayer made for them the Love-Feasts the Holy Kiss all these every one will confess are Institutions not of one Apostle but of the College of Apostles and their Council the CXX and yet St. Luke has not told us either when or by whom they were ordained but is as silent of their Institution by the Apostles as of their composing the Creed 2 'T is not hard to guess at the Reason why none of these great Matters or the compiling the Creed are particularly recorded in the Acts of the Apostles namely because they are not bare Memoirs or transient things but such as were to be kept up and perpetuated by Example and Practice Every one sees that the Lord's Day the Form of Church-Polity or Government the Ordination of Church-Pastors the Love-Feasts and the Holy Kiss are Institutions that needed not to be recorded because the constant and universal Practice of them by the Apostles and the whole Church was more effectual to preserve them than any Register or History would be The like is as evident of the Creed it was to be orally taught to every Convert in every Place as the Mark of their Christianity therefore being committed to so many Witnesses and Memories it was considered not as a transient thing of which there was Danger that it might go into Oblivion if not recorded but as laid up safely in the Minds and Memories of all the Faithful Farther 't is an Observation made by all Church-Historians that the Antients of a long time purposely forbore to commit the Creed to Writing partly because they would not expose the Mysteries of Religion to the Contempt Raileries and Opposition of the Heathen partly to oblige their own People to be more
to a Period 300 Years older than the times of which those Historians write 2. Vossius has not asked why Eusebius the oldest of the Ecclesiastical Historians and who begins his History from the very first has not mentioned or recited the Apostles Creed because he foresaw it would be answered that Eusebius was a thorow-paced Arian a great Opposer of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra against whom also he particularly wrote who held the Doctrine that the Socinians now do therefore perceiving that the Apostles Creed was as much against the Arians as the Homo-ousians and that it wholly favoured Marcellus he forbore to take notice of it in his History I shall grant that Eusebius was a most learned Historian and that we are extremely in his debt for the Collection of antient Monuments and Memoirs he has left to us but I could give and hereafter shall give divers Instances of his designed suppressing whatsoever of Antiquity that favoured the Nazarene and Minean or as we now speak the Socinian Doctrine 4. The last Argument of Vossius is propounded by the present famous Monsieur du Pin in his Eccl. Hist c. 1. p. 9. in more advantageous Terms and Manner than by Vossius I will therefore examine it as Mr. du Pin has offer'd it He says that 't is an Opinion establish'd on very good Grounds that this Creed was made by the Apostles but that they wrote or dictated it word for word just as we now have it he thinks is very improbable He chose to propound his Opinion after this fallacious manner that he might not be talk'd of it may be be censured by his Superiours for maintaining in terminis an Opinion which might be judged to be heretical For in very deed Mr. du Pin does not only not believe that the Apostles wrote this Creed word for word as we now have it but he thinks they were not Authors of it at all in any Sense according to him the Apostles neither made nor designed to make a Creed He saith indeed that 't is an Opinion establish'd on very good Grounds that the Apostles made this Creed and the Proposition he undertakes to prove is only this that the Apostles did not write this Creed word for word just as we now have it but his Arguments which are the same with those of Vossius aim at this that the Apostles neither wrote nor intended to write any Creed at all I have already considered all his Arguments but only the last which both he and Vossius seem to suppose to be the strongest in truth it is the weakest as being made up of Accounts that are too notoriously false it is this If the Apostles had made a Creed saith Mr. du Pin it would have been found the same in all Churches of all Ages all Christians would have learnt it by Heart all Churches and all Writers would have repreated it in the same manner and in the same terms But the contrary is evident for not only in the 2 d and 3 d Centuries but in the 4 th also there were many Creeds and all tho the same as to Doctrine yet different in the Expression In the 2 d and 3 d Ages we find as many Creeds as Authors which shows that there was not then any Creed that was reputed to be the Apostles or even any regulated or establish'd Form of Faith For Ireneus exhibits one Creed lib. 1. c. 2. and another lib. 1. c. 19. Tertullian makes use of three several Creeds in his Books de Praescriptione contra Praxeam and de Virgin velandis See also Origen peri Archon lib. 1. Dial. contr Marc. Ruffinus in the 4 th Age compares three antient Creeds of Aquileia Rome and the Orient none of which agree perfectly with the common one nor with one another as will appear saith he by the Table containing the 4 Creeds at the End of this Discourse St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetick Lectures gives us a particular Creed used by the Church of Jerusalem when this Father wrote The Authors also that have explained the Creed as St. Austin Serm. 119. St. Maximus Chrysologus Fortunatus omit some Expressions that are found in the Apostles Creed as we now have it as the Life everlasting and St. Jerom says that the Apostles Creed concludes with the Resurrection of the Body but now it concludes with the Life everlasting Lastly he saith that Ruffinus is the first and only Person of the 5 th Century who asserts that the Creed was composed by the Apostles and he proposes his Opinion only as a Matter that depended on popular Tradition the other Authors that are of this Opinion he saith took it up on the Credit of Ruffinus and are too late in time to be admitted as Witnesses in this Question about the Authors of the Creed called the Apostles Never was there less Truth in so many Words I shall therefore discuss very particularly all that he hath said He saith 1 If the Apostles had made a Creed all Churches and all Writers would have repeated it in the same Manner and Terms That all Churches repeated it in the same Terms and Manner we affirm nor will Mr. du Pin ever prove the contrary That all Writers should repeat it in the same Manner and Terms is a childish Supposition for sometimes they have occasion to repeat but part of it sometimes they repeat it Paraphrastically thereby to put on it their own Interpretation Therefore 't is but weakly urged by Mr. du Pin that Ireneus gives us two Creeds Tertullian three Origen yet another for of these Writers Tertullian de Virgin veland designed to repeat but only a part of the Creed the same Tertullian de Praescript contr Prax. as also Ireneus and Origen repeat the Creed Paraphrastically or Exegetically that their Reader might take it in their Sense 'T is to no purpose that Mr. du Pin urges the Creed in St. Cyrill used in the Church of Jerusalem for no Body denies that after the Council of Nice that is after the Year 325. the Nicene Creed and the Creeds made in imitation of that were explained in many Places to the Youth and Catechumens instead of the Apostles Creed that People might be infected betimes with that Insidelity which the Nicene Council had establish'd and publish'd But whereas he has given us a Table of 4 Creeds namely the Vulgar the Aquileian that of Rome and that of the Orient We ought to thank him for implicitly giving up the Question to us The Reader is to know that by the Orient in the Age of Ruffinus from whom Mr. du Pin takes the Aquileian Roman and Oriental Creeds was meant the Eastern Part of the Roman Empire namely all the Provinces that spoke the Greek Tongue which is to say all Illyricum and Grecia the Kingdoms and Provinces of Asia the Provinces and Kingdoms of Syria as far as the Euphrates and Tigris Egypt the Islands in the Archipelago Adriatick and Ionian Seas all these being
them also tempted and were destroyed of Serpents The Israelites then were destroyed of Serpents for their tempting that is provoking the Lord Christ with their Sins while in the Appearance of an Angel he led them thorow the Wilderness To this Text Grotius answers that without doubt Let us not tempt Christ is a false Reading and that we ought to read with the Alexandrian Copy Let us not tempt God as some of them tempted and were destroyed of Serpents Dr. Bull replies the Authority of the Alexandrian Copy cannot be opposed to the Syriac Latin and Arabick Versions to St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom and Theophylact. Yes the Alexandrian Copy is much antienter than any of those Versions or Fathers the Latin which is the first was made by St. Jerom above 100 Years after the Alexandrian Copy But why has Dr. Bull suppressed it that one of his own Historians St. Epiphanius has expresly informed us who was the particular Man that corrupted this Text the Heretick Marcion instead of let us not tempt the Lord that is to say God published in his Copies let us not tempt Christ Epiphan l. 1. T. 1. p. 358. Edit Petav. This Corruption is very antient for Marcion one of the first that defended our Saviour's Pre-existence and to support that Doctrine corrupted this Text flourished about the Year 150. But after the Nicene Council 't is no wonder that many Trinitarians followed in this Text the Copies of Marcion as being then near 200 Years old and it was after the Nicene Council that all the Versions and Fathers to whom Dr. Bull appeals concerning this Text appeared But to confirm farther the Pre-existence of the WORD or Son of God Dr. Bull dares pretend that 't is a part of the Jewish Cabbala or traditional Knowledg which that Nation derived from Moses he from God Hereupon he cites some Words of the Apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon which according to him is a very autient Book also some Expressions of Philo Judaeus supposed to be a Jew by Religion as well as by Nation He appeals also to the Chaldee Paraphrases or Translations of the Old Testament by Onkelos and Jonathan as if these spake of the WORD as a Person and the great Messenger of God under the Old Testament And finally he says Masius on Joshua has quoted a certain Rabbi and an old Jewish Book called Tanchumam which speak of the WORD much after the manner as doth the Author of the Wisdom of Solomon He saith first that the Pre-existence of the WORD as a Divine Almighty Person and as the Son of God is a part of the Jewish Cabbala or traditional Knowledg Then to prove this he cites Passages out of Philo the Wisdom of Solomon the Paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan a certain Rabbi and the Book Tanthumam He thinks it should seem that these Jewish Writers had their Notion of the WORD from the Jewish Cabbala I cannot but wonder I coufess that a Protestant Divine should believe the Jewish Cabbala or think that the Jews had a traditional Knowledg or Institution concerning God and Religion distinct from the Books of Moses and the Prophets I had thought that all Protestants nay all Christians were agreed that the Cabbala is the Invention of the Pharisees and Masters of the Pharisaical Sect not a Trudition from Moses If the Cabala had come from Moses or had it been acknowledged by the Prophets and antient Jewish Church as of Divine Revelation and Institution it would have been often mentioned appealed and alluded to in the Books of the Old Testament and there is no question that Ezra when he made the Collection of Canonical Books and Monuments immediately after the Return from the Babylonish Captivity would have had an especial Care of the Divine Cabala or Traditional Knowledg He would have committed it to Writing lest it should be lost or corrupted He would have added it to the Canon of Scripture when he collected all other Pieces that had been written by the Prophets or other holy Men He that has left to us the Proverbs of Solomon his Book of Love nay the Story of Ruth would not have neglected the Divine Cabala But I shall put this Dilemma to Dr. Bull let him take it by which Horn he likes best Either the Cabala of the Jews is of humane Invention or of divine Appointment and Revelation If the former why has he quoted in so great a Question as this now before us a spurious Work an Imposture an impious Pharisaical Addition to the Holy Scripture will such fraudulent Arts as these help or credit his Cause If the other if the Cabala is a Tradition of Divine Revelation and Institution 't is of equal Authority with the Writings of Moses and the Prophets and Dr. Bull ought to bind it up with the other two Parts of Holy Scripture namely the Old and New Testaments Dr. Bull may do as he pleases but the Socinians acquiesce in that Judgment which our Saviour himself has made of the Cabala at Mat. 15.6,9 where he calls this Traditional Law the Commandments of Men a mere humane Pharisaical Figment he adds there that by this Tradition of theirs they contradicted and made void the true and genuine Commandments of God It is in vain therefore that Mr. Bull tells us of a Cabala of the Jews of which he precariously and without having read it or so much as knowing what it is supposes that it not only speaks of the WORD but speaks of it as a Person and the Son of God and afterwards falls to citing some Jewish Authors who from this Cabala as he again untruly supposes discourse of the WORDâ—… a pre-existent Person the Son of 〈◊〉 by Generation and God's Messenger 〈◊〉 Minister during the times of the Old Testament I say this Pretence of Dr. Bull is vain because supposing the Cabala did speak of the WORD as a Person and the Son of God pre-existent to the Creation it self and supposing again that the Jewish Authors whom he cites had taken their Doctrine from the Cabala yet what will all this avail when the Cabala it self is so certainly not a Tradition from Moses or God but a mad Collection of Follies and Chimeras the sickly Dreams of the Fanatical Pharisees The Jewish Cabala is so far from owning a Trinity that this very Doctrine of Apostate Christians is the chief Offence that the Jews take at the Christian Religion it is the great thing that their learned Men in all Books and Conferences object to us that we have departed from the first Commandment and have advanced a second and a third God Farther they as little believe the WORD when taken in the Platonick Sense namely for a Person or that God has a Son who was his Minister in the Creation of all things and his Messenger or Angel to the Patriarchs In short neither now nor formerly have the Jews believed that the WORD is the Son of God but only his Power Energy and Virtue Dr. Bull will
never produce any thing of the Cabala that but looks this way And see here what Origen who flourished about the Year 270 fays of the Jews I have disputed often says this most Learned Father with the Jewish Rabbins that were of most Esteem but I could never meet with any of them who approve this Doctrine that the WORD is the Son of God Contr. Celsum l. 2. p. 79. Again l. 4. p. 162. he is more express in the case Celsus is ignorant that the Jews do not believe that the Messias or Christ whom they still expect as to come is not God nor the Son of God But Dr. Bull himself tho here to serve the present turn he contends that the Jewish Cabala speaks of the WORD as a Person and the Son of God elsewhere Judic Eccl. p. 170. owns and proves that the Jews do not expect any Messias or Christ promised to them by their Prophets but who shall be a mere Man And he cites Tripho the Jew saying We Jews expect a Christ who is a Man born of Men. But if this was the Opinion of the Jews concerning Christ that he shall be a Man only why does Mr. Bull pretend in this Place that the Cabala or Traditional Doctrine of the Jews which by them is supposed to be of Divine Revelation teaches the contrary namely that the Christ is to be a Divine Person the eternal Son of God and himself also God He will never reconcile these Contradictions to himself But let us now examine of what Authority his Quotations out of some Jewish Books are His first Citation is out of the Apocryphal Book of Wisdom Wisd 18.15,16 Thy Almighty WORD leap'd down from Heaven out of his Royal Throne as a fierce Man of War into a Land destined to Destruction He brought thine unfeigned Commandment as a sharp Sword and standing up filled all things with Death he touched the Heaven tho he stood upon the Earth In sober Sadness this was a terrible WORD his Feet stood on plain Ground and yet his Head touched not the Clouds or the Aether but Heaven it self and with his Death-dealing Fauchion he even depopulated the whole Country in a few Minutes 'T is sufficient however I suppose to sober People if we say hereupon that this same was only a Chimerical not a real Almanzor and that there is no Body but Dr. Bull that will ever be afraid of his Puissance But Dr. Bull objects that however this Passage serves to show that the Author of the Book of Wisdom who was a Jew believed the WORD Right but then he should have observed too that the Book as we now have it must be as much reckoned to the Translator who was a Christian as to the first Writer of it who it may be was a Jew Let us hear Grotius in his Preface to his Annotations on this Book The Book of Wisdom was written by a Jew who lived after the times of Ezra but some Christian or other who was a Greek hapning on it he hath given it us in the Greek Tongue but with divers Additions to it taken from the Christian Religion Of this kind no Man will doubt it is this Description of the WORD which is wholly Christian as Christianity began to be taught about the middle of the second Age the Jews as we have heard from Origen never believed such a kind of WORD namely that is a Person the Son of God or God His next Allegation is from the Paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan Jews that translated the Old Testament into Syro-Chaldaick after a Paraphrastical way But I cannot perceive that any of his Citations out of these Paraphrases speak of the WORD in the Platonick Sense namely as a Person or as a God but only in the Jewish and Socinian Sense namely as the Energy and Power of God or God's powerful effectual Mandate As to his last Quotation from a Paraphrase of Jonathan on the Psalms which has some Appearance of being to the purpose for which Mr. Bull alledged it whereas Jonathan seems to read the Lord said to his WORD Sit on my right Hand Jonathan's Words may better be rendred thus the Lord said by his WORD i. e. his Mandate or Decree Sit on my right Hand But Philo speaks home he expresly calls the WORD the Son of God his first-begotten Son to whose Care saith he farther as to the Vicarius and Deputy of God the whole Creation is committed and by whom it was originally made But I shall never believe that a Jew by Religion wrote those things concerning the WORD that we see in Philo's Works Eusebius suspects Photius directly affirms that Philo was a Christian This last adds that by occasion of some Displeasure taken Philo departed from the Christian Religion I believe with Eusebius and Photius that Philo was a Christian but I make no question that Eusebius is mistaken in thinking that this is the Philo who was sent on an Ambassage to the Emperor C. Caligula but a Philo of the second Age toward the expiring of it or of the 2 d Age just expiring For he describes the Therapeutae that is the Christians both in their Discipline their Studies and their manner of interpreting Holy Scripture not as they lived or were in the Apostolick Times but in the Close of the second and Beginning of the third Age. Lastly as to the obscure Rabbi cited by Masius and the unknown Book Tankumam enough has been said to evince that if they speak of the WORD as the Son of God they may be written perhaps in Rabbinical Hebrew and by Jews by Nation but such Jews as were come over to the Christian Religion there being nothing more certain than that the Jews never owned a Son of God in any other Sense but of Adoption Sanctification Exaltation and such like nor do I think that Dr. Bull himself will again insist on Jewish Authorities whether they be these or any other He should make himself ridiculous to all learned Men by persevering in such a notorious Mistake as this that the Jews either now or in any time past believed the WORD as a Person or that God begat a Son who was pre-existent to the World and was together with God the Creator of it 't is for this very Doctrine that the Jews have pretended ever since the Council of Nice and at this day do pretend that Christianity is a Revolt to Heathenism and Paganism There remains now but one thing more in Dr. Bull 's Defence of the Nicene Faith that I intend to consider in this first Part of my Answer to him his Explication of the Trinity or how three Divine Persons and Spirits each of which has all Divine Perfections and is singly and by himself God nay perfect God are for all that but one God On the Explication of the Trinity according to the Fathers and Dr. Bull. THAT three Divine Spirits and Persons each of which has all possible real Perfections and therefore is singly
and by himself as the Athanasian Creed speaks a most perfect God are but one God is so monstrous a Paradox that we might justly wonder such a contradictory and impossible Doctrine being unhappily got abroad was not immediately hissed again into the Hole from whence the Chimera first sallied did we not know that the Propagation and Conservation of this Affront to common Sense and to all the Principles of Knowledg and Silence was the Work and Effect of such penal Laws as would equally have restored the whole Body and System of Paganism While the Question about the Trinity was disputed only by Argument and Authorities of Holy Scripture the Proverb was all the World is against Athanasius and Athanasius is against all the World And in Constantinople it self the then capital City of the whole Roman Empire the Trinitarian Conventicle was so thin that it had more Benches than Men to fit on them and their Preacher was forced to comfort his almost empty Fold with such Reflections as these The Unitaries says he have the Churches but we we Trinitarians are the Temples of God they have the People but the Angels are with us my Flock indeed is little I easily tell all my Sheep but they hear my Voice they follow me and will not follow Strangers Greg. Nazianz. Serm. 35. against the Arians But the Empire falling at length to a Prince who was a bigotted Trinitarian he applied the Imperial Authority and the Awe of his Armies which comfilied for the most part of Souldiers and Officers who had been born bred and continued Pagans to establish Trinitarianism by Terrors and Force He 't was Theodosius and his Successors began with taking the Churches 〈◊〉 in all Unitarians by military Force then they were prohibited to hold their Assemblies Conventicles they were now called within the Preciucts of Cities or Towns Next he called general Councils but admitted none to Session or Vote but Trinitarians to whose Creeds and Canons all that stood for any the very least Church-Preferment must subscribe before they were admitted to their Places Afterwards all Disputes against the Decisions of these Councils were forbid to all without Exception to Churchmen and military Officers on pain of Deposition to Lay-men if they were free under the Penalty of Banishment to Servants under pain of corporal Chastisement and that too saith the Law after the severest manner They proceeded farther they required all Persons to deliver up all Heretical Books that they might be publickly burnt denouncing horrible Punishments to such as should presume to hide or conceal any such Books While the Civil Power acted his Part in this outragious manner the Ecclesiasticks were as industrious another way the Underlings of them sought the Favour of their Superiours by turning Informers against the Hereticks and their Assemblies others that could read and write took upon them the corrupting or as they then spoke the correcting the Bibles adding and leaving out as themselves pleased Nor would they have left to us any Remain of genuine Christianity or suffer'd a single Unitarian to escape their Barbarities but that their Divisions concerning their own Doctrine their own Disputes de Asini umbrâ diverted often their Rage and Treachery from the Scriptures and the Unitaries to the Members of their own Party and Communion Dares Dr. Bull or any other deny any thing of this when they do this and much more shall be proved upon them from the most allowed of their own Historians and from the Codes which contain the Imperial Constitutions We may say then that Trinitarianism is not so much a Religion as the Law of the Bizantine or Constantinopolitan Emperors it was first introduced by military Force then confirmed by Edicts of the Arbitrary Emperors of Constantinople Well but when Folly and Impiety are once establish'd by Law and are the only way to Preferment there will never want a great Number who will court the Favour of the Government by endeavouring to represent the current Doctrine of the Times as possible nay as reasonable and agreeable to Scripture and from hence came the Explications of the Trinity by the Parasites of those times whom now in regard of their Antiquity we call the Fathers These Explications were various and contrary to one another Dr. Bull has made choice of the most tolerable and passable Accounts given by the Fathers and tho he has patched up one Hypothesis or Explication out of many and divers I will be content to take it as he gives it He represents it as the ordinary Explication of all the Fathers as well the Ante-nicene as Post-nicene let us see what it is and then make our Reflections upon it They said there are three infinite Persons known by the Names of Father Son and Holy Spirit each of which has all Divine Perfections and in their highest Degree They are so many distinct tho not divided or separated Substances and Essences they are as much three Spirits as they are three Substances and Persons each has his own proper and personal distinct Understanding Will and Almighty Energy It is true that they said also that the three Divine Persons are consubstantial or have the same Substance but they did not mean thereby the self-same Substance or the same Substance in Number but the same for Kind and Properties that is their Substances are alike Divine Immortal and Unchangable They are consubstantial to one another as Stars are consubstantial to Stars that is their Substances tho divers in Number have the same Properties and Qualities In short the Father Son and Spirit are distinct intellectual Substances and are consubstantial or of the same Substance as their Substances or Essences are alike infinite immutable and immortal they are also and therefore distinct Beings and because they are intellectual and spiritual they are three Minds and three Spirits as much as they are three Persons and Substances Lastly because each has all possible real Perfections therefore each of them is true God I dare to affirm before-hand that Dr. Bull is so well satisfied that this is the Notion that the Fathers had of the Trinity that he will own it for theirs and his and will not disingenuously deny that he intended this Explication or Account of the Trinity in the several Chapters of his Defence of the Nicene Faith where he speaks either designedly or incidentally of this Point And his Book has given him such a Reputation all over Europe even in the Catholick Countries and his Citations out of the Fathers so plainly evince that this was their Sense that I believe no Trinitarian will be so rash or hardy as to call him Heretick or to attack or write against him as such tho others of less Esteem are now loudly challenged of Heresy for this very Explication In very deed it is the Doctrine of the Post-nicene Fathers and of all the real Trinitarians and since the Revival of these Controversies divers learned Writers by Name Dr. Cudworth the late