Justin Martyr who saith himself in his first Apology that he presented his Apology in the Year 150. The Epistles of Barnabas and Ignatius and the Prophecies and Visions of Hermas were not it should seem yet come out of the Mint or were so well known to be Impostures that no Body durst to alledg them in these Controversies The Question between Dr. Bull and the present Unitarians is concerning the Fathers and Monuments of the Apostolick Succession whether these held our Saviour's Pre-existence and Divinity Eusebius answers us out of a laudable Author that Justin Martyr opposed our Doctrine that is he giveth up to us the whole Apostolick Succession which is as much as the Socinians ever claimed As to the Hymns or Psalms of the Brethren which he saith spoke of Christ as the WORD of God and attributed to him Divinity 't is plain that he spoke rashly and at adventures when he added they were composed by the Brethren from the very first for seeing the Authors of them were unknown so also of necessity must their Date Is doubt not these are the Psalms in Honour of Christ which were put down in the Patriarchal Church of Antioch under this Censure that in very deed they were novel Compositions by later Men and containing some dangerous Strains As we learn from a Letter of the Council at Anticch apud Euseb H. E. l. 7. c. 30. Having said what was necessary concerning the Apostolick Fathers I might now proceed immediately to the Primitive Fathers so called to distinguish them from the Fathers that lived after the Nicene Council or the Year 325 who are simply called Fathers But because I would have nothing else to do in the 2 d and 3 d Parts of this Answer to Dr. Bull but only to examine and discuss his impertinent and most fraudulent Citations out of the Fathers and to oppose to them the certain and clear Testimonies of the same and other Fathers therefore here I will consider the two Passages in Dr. Bull 's Defence of the Nicene Council which in my opinion are the only Parts of his Book that needed to be at all remarked on by the Socinians The first is concerning the Grounds on which Justin Martyr and the following Fathers built their new Doctrine of our Saviour's Pre-existence and that he was tho a Ministerial and Subordinate yet an Agent in the Creation of all things The other is whether the Explication of the Trinity or how three Divine coeternal co-equal Persons and Spirits can be but one God given by Dr. Bull as out of the Fathers be not an undeniable unavoidable Tritheism Of the Grounds on which Justin Martyr and the following Fathers built their Doctrine of our Saviour's Pre-existence and that he is a Ministerial Creator AFter Dr. Bull had quoted some Passages of the Fathers wherein they say it was the Divine WORD who appeared so often to the Patriarchs as to Adam Abraham Jacob Moses He takes notice also that some learned Men of the Moderns at p. 20. he calls them viri quidam doctrissimi deride these Citations as mere Dreams of the good Fathers and hold it for a certain Truth that it was only an Angel who appeared so often and on so many Occasions to the Patriarchs but the Angel say they is called Jehovah and God because on those Occasions he represented the Person and Authority of God He notes again that others may object hereupon if the Fathers were mistaken in the Ground on which they did build their Supposition of our Saviour's Pre-existence 't is but too probable that they have erred also in the Supposition it self namely that the Lord Christ did pre-exist or had a Being before he was born of the Virgin Mary He answers to the several Arguments of the viri quidam doctissimi and I intend here to examine his Answers 1. They argue that indeed it is said at Exod. 3.4 God called to Moses out of the midst of the Bush but it is owned in the preceding 2 d Verse that it was indeed an Angel of the Lord that appeared to Moses in a Flame of Fire in the midst of the Bush and St. Stephen also assures us Acts 7.30 There appeared to Moses an Angel of the Lord in a Flame of Fire in the midst of a Bush Dr. Bull replies 1 st The Divine WORD who is the true God might be called here an Angel because he appeared in such manner as Angels were wont to appear 2 dly Some of the Fathers said that it was an Angel that appeared in the Bush but the Divine WORD was in the Angel and it was God in the Angel that spoke to Moses these Words I am the God of thy Fathers 3 dly 'T is an absurd nay horrible Opinion to think or maintain that the Angels ever as it were acted the Person and part of God by assuming his incommunicable Name Jehovah or his Person Authority and Attributes He saith it was never heard of that an Ambassador in delivering the Message or Commands of his Master took on him the Person and Stile of his Master but all Ambassadors say only thus saith my Master Now in answer to these Elusions first Mr. Bull has but imperfectly reported the Argument of those learned Men to whom he endeavours to answer For they not only alledg that the Person who is called Jehovah at Exod. 3.4 is declared at ver 2. of the same Chapter and by St. Stephen at Acts 7.30 to be only an Angel therefore called Jehovah and God because he represented the Person and Authority of God but they prove this by Examples and by very cogent Reasons Moses tells the Israelites from God Exod. 23.20 I send an Angel before thee in the way to bring thee into the Place that I have prepared Beware of him obey his Voice provoke him not for he will not pardon your Transgressions for my Name is in him Who sees not here that the Meaning is the Angel being to represent my Person and to exercise my Authority therefore my Name is in him or therefore he is called by my Name even Jehovah or the LORD which is the Name by which this Angel is all along called in the following History set down in the subsequent Chapters and Books of Moses Again when it is said at Gen. 7.16 that Noah and his Sons and the Creatures that were to be preserved being entred into the Ark the LORD Heb. Jehovah shut them in and when the Angel that wrestled with Jacob is called Gen. 32.30 God is there not an absolute necessity of saying that these Angels had the Names Jebovah and God given to them on the account that they were heavenly Messengers that represented the Person of God For is it congruous to say God shut the Door and God wrestling with Jacob prevailed not against him In a word the viri doctissimi show first that 't is expresly said concerning a mere Angel that the Name of God was in him And next that very often the
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-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
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
and all other things that tend to Edification in Christ But here two Doubts arise First whether the Epistles that we now have were the same that are intended in the Epistle of Polycarp or so much as directed to the same Persons or Churches The Reason of the doubt is the Epistles that we now have treat of nothing less than Faith and Patience nay they treat not of Faith and Patience at all much less if it could be are they a Collection of all things that tend to Edification in Christ they are very far from being a kind of Summary of the Christian Doctrine either in Faith or Morals They are Letters of Compliment and Respect not of Instruction or Exhortation The other Doubt is of what Authority and Credit is this Epistle of Polycarp on which the Credit of the Epistles of Ignatius wholly depend Mr. Du Pin answers It is quoted by St. Ireneus Supposing now what Mr. Du Pin has not proved nor can prove that the Epistle of Polycarp intended by Ireneus is in part that Epistle of Polycarp which we now have because both the one and the other are directed to the Philippians I say supposing this yet divers learned Criticks are of opinion that the genuine Epistle written by the true Polycarp and which Ireneus intends concludes with the 12 th Chapter where he solemnly gives them his valedictory Blessing so that the following Chapters which speak of Ignatius his Epistles and other Matters have probably been added by him whoever he was who contrived Epistles in the Name of Ignatius No says Mr. du Pin nor can that be for Ireneus who praises that Epistle of Polycarp quotes also certain Words which are found in the very Epistles of Ignatius But I do not know that Ireneus quotes any Epistle of Ignatius or so much as names the Man but only repeats a Saying of a certain Christian Martyr which Saying the Forger of the Epistles of Ignatius thought fit to insert into those Epistles which himself wrote in the Name and Person of Ignatius In short I say Eusebius and before him Origen owned the present Epistles of Ignatius because they considered the Matter but lightly as not being any way concerned to disprove them And Ireneus older than they quotes an Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians as also elsewhere some Words that are now found in an Epistle imputed to Ignatius but supposing that we now have that Epistle of Polycarp yet it seems likely that the Epistle did then conclude with the 12 th Chapter without any mention of the Epistles of Ignatius and we cannot be assured that Ireneus quotes the Words of one of the Epistles of Ignatius rather than that the Forger of those Epistles borrowed those Words from Ireneus If it be said but why all this Suspiciousness it will be hard to prove any Matter of Fact of remote Ages if such close and strict Proofs be required I answer there is too much Cause to start these Doubts and Suspicions For we have the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians as also the Epistles of Ignatius and the Martyrdoms of Ignatius and Polycarp whereof the latter is contained in an Epistle pretended to be written by the Church of Smyrna with this Advertisement at the end of them This Epistle concerning the Martyrdom of Polycarp was transcribed by Cains from the Copy of Ireneus who was a Disciple of Polycarp And I Socrates transcribed it at Corinth from the Copy of Caius After which I Pionius wrote it from the Copy before-mentioned having searched it out by the Revelation of Polycarp who directed me to it having gathered these things together now almost corrupted by Time that Jesus Christ may also gather me together with his Elect ones Here then is an Epistle namely the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna concerning the Martyrdom of Polycarp and as the Advertisement saith other things that were almost corrupted thorow Process of Time namely a Relation of the Martyrdom of Ignatius and seven Epistles of Ignatius all these miraculously discovered to Pionius the good by Polycarp after his Death It should seem Polycarp could not rest even in Rest nor be blessed in Blessedness till he had broke from the Abodes of Bliss and appeared to honest Pionius to make known to him where these Golden Remains were to be found If we should understand the Advertisement so as saying that the Epistle concerning Polycarp's Martyrdom came to Pionius by Revelation and the other Pieces and Epistles were collected by the proper Industry of Pionius yet thus the whole Collection depends on the Credit of Pionius who with most I doubt has utterly ruined his Credit as a Publisher of antient Monuments by his Pretence that at least part of them are by Revelation The Clowns will certainly cry out Away with Impostors let Pionius take his Bandle to himself both his own Collection and Polycarp's Revelation for coming from him we must needs believe them to be true alike Could not this Knave will they say be content to personate first the Church of Smyrna in a most palpable Fiction then the Assistants at the Martyrdom of Ignatius and finally Ignatius himself but he must seek too to confirm his counterfeit Wares by Revelations from Heaven by Visions and Apparitions of departed Saints We demand Authorities out of the Antients concerning the pretended Divinity of our Saviour from Writings and Monuments that are verified by some good humane Testimony our Opposers answer us out of Books which some of their Fraternity received by Apparitions by Revelations from the Dead but if once we allow of such Proofs what end will there be of Fictions The departed Saints were first called up to bear witness to certain Epistles and Books but in the next Age when the first Cheat had taken with many they were made to witness to their Bones and Reliques in order to their being inshrined and worshipped this last sort of Apparitions were every whit as true as the first They will prove they say their consubstantial co-eternal Trinity not only from the Antenicene Fathers but from the Apostolical Fathers that is the Fathers that had Converse with the very Apostles and flourished some of them to the Year 150 but when these Authors are produced they are Barnabas the Apostle the Prophet Hermas the Martyrdoms and Epistles of Polycarp and Ignatius whereof the two former we have seen are rejected as spurious by the Catholick Church the other are grounded on Visions and Apparitions to one Pionius But let us consider the Contents of these pretious Pieces the Pionian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Martyidom of Polycarp saith That when the Fire began to blaze to a great height the Flame making an Arch like the Sail of a Ship against a full Wind incompass'd the Martyr's Body at a distance without hurting it while from his Body proceeded a Smell like to Frankincense or some other rich Spices The first of these Miracles would make the Boys wonder and shout
among them witnesses that all Jews who were Christians were named Ebionites or the poor ones partly from the poor Opinion they had of our Saviour's Person partly because they adhered still to the beggarly Principles and Rites of the Mosaick Law it unavoidably follows that the Nazarens were Ebionites in this Sense that they held the Lord Christ was a Man only and observed the Law together with the Gospel I said Ebionites in this Sense because as was noted before the Ebionites more strictly so called believed our Saviour was the Son of Joseph and Mary but the Nazarens tho they believed he was a Man only yet they held he was miraculously conceived in the Womb of Mary by the sole Power and Energy of God without the Concurrence of any Man As Origen makes no Distinction of the Ebionites into Ebionites and Nazarens because of their Agreement in the main Points that the Lord Christ was a Man only and that the Mosaick Law must be observed by all Jewish Christians no more does Eusebius who contents himself to observe that some Ebionites hold the miraculous Conception others of them say he was the Son of Joseph and Mary Euseb H. E. l. 3. c. 27. But neither he nor Origen charge either of them as Epiphanius in after Ages from no Author does that they owned of the Old Testament only the Books of Moses and Joshua not the Prophets or that they calumniated St. Paul and rejected his Epistles publishing also certain Acts of St. Paul wherein they charge him as an Apostate from the Law only because he could not obtain for his Wise a Priest's Daughter Epiphanius imputes this not to the Nazaren-Ebionites but to those Ebionites who held our Saviour was the Son of only Joseph and Mary but as I said he quotes no Author and therefore this seems to be one of the malitious Tales which contending Sects and Parties frequently raise upon one another So in after-times the Albigenses Waldenses and Wiclevites were charged with monstrous Heresies which they not only abominated but are refuted by the Protestant Historians out of the Catechisms Sermons and other Books of those early Reformers They were charged with teaching that the Devil is above God that Elizabeth was Christ's Concubine and taken with him in Adultery with other more horrid and foolish things not fit to be named but the Protestant Historians have evinced to the Satisfaction even of all learned and ingenuous Papists out of the Books and Catechisms of those pious Men that these are diabolical Calumnies devised by their Persecutors the Friars Farther Dr. Bull grants that Theodoret Haeret. Fab. l. 2. c. 3. affirms expresly that the Nazarens honour the Lord Christ only as a holy Man not as God or a Divine Person Because this Father also lived in Syria was a most learned and inquisitive Person and writeth in that Work before-quoted of all Hereticks and their Opinions we may surely rely on the Account he gives 'T was impossible that Theodoret whose Bishoprick was in Syriâ cavâ whereabouts the Nazarens and Mineans then most abounded and whose very Design it was in that Book which we alledg to set down the peculiar Opinions of all the Distinctions and Denominations of Christians I say 't is impossible he should not certainly know the Doctrine of the Nazarens the most famous as well as most antient of all those Denominations which dissented from the Church or prevailing Party of those Times And whereas Dr. Bull excepts that Theodoret is a later Father than some he quotes 't is a mere and a wretched Subterfuge First because St. Jerom before cited witnesses that then the Nazarens flourish'd over all the Orient and Epiphanius that they abounded chiefly in Palestine and Syriâ cavâ Secondly because in very Deed Theodoret was contemporary with Sulpitius Severus who is as we shall see Dr. Bull 's only Author the only Father who ever mistook the Nazaren Doctrine concerning our Saviour and the Occasion of his Mistake was that he lived so remote from them they in the Orient he in the West that is to say at about 2000 Miles distance Sulpitius began to write at soonest about the Year 401. Theodoret was made Bishop in 420. so Theodoret might be the older Man But however that be one lived in Syria among the Nazaren Churches the other in the remotest Parts of Gaul distant from the Nazarens the whole length of the Roman Empire when in its greatest Extent and therefore 't is no wonder if he mistook the Nazaren Doctrine He grants again that Epiphanius Haeres 30. c. 2. informs us Cerinthianis Nazaraeis fuâ—sse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cerinthians and Nazarens had like Sentiments and Haeres 30. c. 2. Nazaraeos Ebionaeos capita simul contulisse suamque nequitiam invicem communicasse i. e. The Nazarens and Ebionites laid Heads together and communicated their Impiety by which Epiphanius without doubt means their Heresy one with another Lastly that Epiphanius doubts only of this whether in this the Nazarens agreed with the Cerinthians that the Lord Christ was a common and ordinary Man or was miraculously generated by the Holy Spirit or Power of God in the Womb of Mary Let us put this together Epiphanius says the Nazarens and Cerinthians had like Opinions but did the former believe as the other did that the Lord Christ was a common Man born as all other Men are of a humane Father and Mother or did they grant that he was a Man indeed but miraculously conceived by the Divine Power in the Womb of a Virgin Epiphanius professes that he cannot upon his own Knowledg charge the Nazarens with the former of these Opinions Farther he owns that the Ebionites and Nazarens were extremely gratious and intimate and communicated in the same Impiety that is Heresy These Testimonies do stagger Dr. Bull so that at last Judic Eccl. p. 56 57. he is willing to grant that at length some Nazarens were infected with the Ebionite Heresy that the Lord Christ is a Man only and of these Nazarens whom he calls the latter Nazarens tho the Antients never make any such Distinction as the former and latter Nazarens he thinks Origen is to be undestood when he says as was before quoted that the Jewish Christians i. e. the Nazarens are Ebionites There never was a more injudicious Paragraph unless the Man wilfully prevaricates For first why doth he say some Nazarens were infected with the Ebionite Heresy when Origen who is his Author expresly says all the Jewish Christians are Ebionites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Jews that own Jesus to be the Christ are Ebionites Contr. Cels l. 2. p. 56. Secondly I desire to know of Dr. Bull how Epiphanius could more effectually declare the Doctrine of the Nazarens concerning the Quality of our Saviour's Person than by saying they hold as the Cerinthians do and they mutually communicate their Heresy with the Ebionites For was
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