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
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
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
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
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