THE JUDGMENT OF THE FATHERS Concerning the Doctrine of the TRINITY Opposed to Dr. G. Bull 's DEFENCE of the Nicene Faith PART I. The Doctrine of the Catholick Church during the first 150 Years of Christianity and the Explication of the Unity of God in a Trinity of Divine Persons by some of the following Fathers considered London Printed in the Year MDCXCV The JVDGMENT of the Fathers concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity I. The Design of Dr. Bull 's Book I Intend in these Sheets to examine Dr. Bull 's Defence of the Nicene Faith I shall prescribe to my self to be as brief as possible I can and to deal fairly and ingenuously What is the Pretence of his Book he tells us at pag. 5 th and 6 th of his Preface to it in these Words To evince that all the approved Doctors and Fathers of the Church from the very Age of the Apostles to the first Nicene Council agreed in one common and self-same Faith concerning the Divinity of our Saviour with the said Nicene Council A ridiculous Offer for taking care as he does to limit himself to the approved Doctors and Fathers who is so dull does Mr. Bull think as not to understand that no Father or Doctor shall be allowed this new and rare Title of Doctor probatus approved Doctor if Mr. Bull and he cannot accord about the Nicene Faith What if an Arian or Socinian should make the like impertinent Proposal even to show that all the approved Doctors and Fathers before the Nicene Council did agree with Arius or Socinus would it not be laugh'd at For would not the Reader reply immediatly that this insidious word approved makes his Attempt to be of no use at all because he will be sure not to approve any Doctor or Father who is not of the Party of Socinus or Arius Therefore if Dr. Bull would have spoke to the purpose he should have said simply that all the Ante-nicene Fathers or Doctors were of the same Mind with the Doctors and Fathers in the Nicene Council in the Question of our Saviour's Divinity this had come up to the famous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Rule of Orthodoxy and Truth suggested first by Vincentius and approved by all Parties quod ab omnibus quod ubique id demum Catholicum est i. e. that which all the Antient Doctors have taught and in all Places is Catholick and Fundamental But Mr. Bull durst not pretend to all the Doctors and Fathers before the Nicene Council but only to certain approved Fathers and Writers among them about 20 among upwards of 200. The Reason is evident he foresaw that we should presently mind him of Theodotion Symmachus Paulus Patriarch of Antioch Theodorus of Byzantium Apollonides Hermophilus Lucianus the Authors of the Apostolical Constitutions and of the Recognitions of Melito Bishop of Sardis who published a Book with this Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Creation and Birth of Christ not to mention here the Nazarens or Ebionites who inhabited Judea Galilee Moab the most part of Syria and a great part of Arabia or the Mineans who had their Synagogues or Churches says St. Jerom Epist ad August over all Asia or the 15 first Bishops of Jerusalem As these were more in number so they were vastly superiour in Learning to Mr. Bull 's approved Doctors and Fathers For it was Theodotion and Symmachus who distinctly translated the Bible into Greek so dextrously that their Translations together with the Translations of the LXX and of Aquila made the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or fourfold Translation of Origen which was the most useful as well as most celebrated Theological Work of all Antiquity It was Lucianus who restored the Bible of the LXX to its Purity Of Theodorus or Theodotus St. Epiphanius tho a great Opposer of the Unitarians confesses that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very Learned Paulus Patriarch and Archbishop of Antioch was so elegant a Preacher that they always hummed and clapped him and tho two Councils of the adverse Party assembled at Antioch to deprive him for the Truths he maintained the Antiochians despised these seditious Councils who had riotously combined against their Primate and would by no means part with Paulus Of the whole Unitarian Party in general it is noted in Eusebius that they were Learned in Logick Natural Philosophy Geometry Physick and the other liberal Sciences and 't is there ridiculously impured to them as a Fault that they excelled in secular Learning and much more ridiculously that they were great Criticks and extremely curious in procuring correct Copies of the Bible Euseb l. 5. c. 28. They were perfectly qualified to judg of good Copies and to correct faulty ones by their accurate Knowledg of the Hebrew Tongue for St. Epiphanius tho so much their back-Friend assures us that they were Hebraicae Linguae scientissimi great Masters in the Hebrew Tongue Epiph. Haeres Naz. c. 7. Furthermore Dr. Bull appeals here to the approved Doctors and Fathers but it appears that he would have it thought that besides the 20 Fathers or thereabouts whom he has cited those Fathers also whose Works are so unhappily lost were no less Orthodox as 't is called in this Question about our Saviour's Divinity But the Criticks who have written sincerely and impartially concerning the Fathers are of opinion that whereas there are now lost about 200 for some 20 Ante-nicene Writers and Fathers who have been preserved we are to impute this Loss to the Errors contained in their Books more plainly to their too manifest Agreement with the Arian and Minean now called the Socinian Heresies The famous Critick H. Valesius whom Dr. Bull sometimes commends nay extols in his first Note on Euseb l. 5. c. 11. speaking of the Hypotyposes of St. Clemens concerning which Photius had observed that they are full of Arian Blasphemies as that the Son is but a Creature and such like I say that by occasion of the said Hypotyposes Valesius maketh this Note Isti libri ob errores quibus scatebant negligentius habiti tandem perierunt nec alia meo judicio causa est cur Papiae Hegesippi aliorumque veterum libri interciderint 'T is undeniable that the Errors intended by Valesius are the Seeds of Arianism and Unitarianism which so much abounded in the Hypotyposes of St. Clemens and he saith thereupon the because of these Errors not only the Hypotyposes of Clemens but the Works of Hegesippus Papias and other Primitive Ante-nicene Fathers were first slighted and then lost Which is in effect to say that the visible Agreement of the antient Fathers and Doctors with the Unitarians hath been the Cause that their Writings have miscarried are either lost or else destroyed so that of above 200 Ante-nicene Writers scarce 20 are left to us and those also very imperfect Therefore if it were indeed so that Mr. Bull 's approved Doctors did really agree in their Faith about the Lord Christ with the Doctors or Fathers
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
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
them to be one God because mere Contact is only a juxta-Position not a real Vnion All Philosophers but only the Platonists who understand not Physicks or the Nature of things will assent to this Reasoning and I doubt not it was one of the Causes why the Schoolmen who were learned Philosophers unanimously agreed that three distinct Divine Substances are most certainly three Gods and they the Divines of the Schools have been followed by all the Divinity-Chairs in Christendom from about the Year 1200 to this present time I do not believe there is a Chair in Christendom that will own more than one Divine Substance or will admit that three Divine Substances can be one God Dr. Bull will not approve his Hypothesis to the Chairs or to Universities or Schools of Learning I am of opinion however that so arrogant a Man as Dr. Bull will not let go his Hypothesis it being too the Doctrine of the Fathers and of a great many learned Men who treat of these Questions as Divines not as Philosophers and Dr. Bull having acquired so great a Reputation all over Europe by his Book the Chairs and Nominal Trinitarians will not it may be adventure to attack him But if after all Dr. Bull fearing the Numbers and Reputation of the Nominal Trinitarians will deny his Hypothesis and in hopes to compound with them pretend that it differs not or not materially from the Doctrine of the Schools besides that all discerning and ingenuous Men will laugh at his Pusilanimity I shall not desire an easier Task than to prove from his own Book and from innumerable Quotations of the Fathers that both they and he hold three distinct Divine Substances and consequently so many Minds and Spirits both which are rejected as Heretical nay as Tritheistical by the Schools and their Followers I will conclude this first Part of my Answer with observing that tho Dr. Bull says here that the Fathers believed the three Divine Persons are one God because the second and third are derived from the first have like Substances and Properties with him and all of them do mutually immeate one another yet this is not the Explication of any particular Father much less of all of them but an Hypothesis that Dr. Bull has pieced up from the Writings of divers Fathers The Fathers explained the Unity in Trinity each of them his own way One said the three Persons are one God because they are in one another by mutual Love and Agreement Another said they are one God because of the Subordination and perfect Subjection of the second and third Persons to him who is the first God Another they are one God because the Son and Spirit are propagated from the Father Another because they unanimously govern the World that is they are one God because they are one Monarchy and thereby as it were one Ruler Some of them said three Divine Persons and three infinite Spirits are God and the Godhead in such Sense as all Men are called Man or Mankind As three golden Coins of the same Emperor are called Aurum Gold not Aura Golds in the Plural So in proper speaking three Divine Persons because like three Men or three golden Coins they are consubstantial that is have the same specifick Substances and Properties they are in proper speaking to be called God not Gods This was a very ridiculous Reasoning contrary both to Grammar and Philosophy and yet it was the Explication of some of the most learned of the Post-Nicene Fathers Briefly these two things I affirm That Dr. Bull 's Explication of the Unity of God is indeed taken out of some of the Fathers but it was not as 't is laid down by him the particular Explication given by any one of them much less the agreed and common Explication of all of them but part of it is from some other Parts of it from other Fathers Secondly the Fathers advanced several other Explications on which some of them insisted more and rather than on any part of Mr. Bull 's The Ante-Nicens chiefly urged the Unity of Love or else of Monarchy the most learned but least judicious of the Post-Nicens served themselves of the pretended Consubstantiality or that the three Persons having like Substances and Properties are therefore one God as all Men or Mankind are called Homo and as three or more golden Coins are called Aurum Gold never Aura Golds. But of these things I shall speak fully in the Conclusion of the third Part of this Answer to Dr. Bull. The CONCLVSION I Have said what I intended in this first Part. In the Second I will report the Doctrine of the following Fathers concerning the Trinity and the Person of our blessed Saviour in their own Words By the following Fathers I mean those Fathers who flourished from about the Year 150 to the Nicene Council or the Year 325. In the last Part I shall discover Dr. Bull 's Frauds and Mistakes detect his Sophistries and Elusions and confront his Misrepresentation of the Fathers with the Confessions and Judgment of the Criticks who have either published or commented on the Writings of the Fathers Here and now it remains only that I inform the Reader who hath not seen Dr. Bull 's Books why I have answer'd so indifferently and without any particular Deference to the Merit of his Learning and Abilities for it cannot be denied that this Gentleman is a dextrous Sophister or that he has read the principal Fathers with a more than ordinary Application Diligence and Observation Dr. Bull has written two Books his Defence of the Nicene Faith and Judgment of the Catholick Church designedly and directly against the Unitarians whether they be Arians or Socinians In the first of these he attacks more particularly Chr. Sandius a very learned Arian and the Author of Irenicum Irenicorum who was Dr. Zwicker M. D. a Socinian Dr. Zwicker is complemented by Dr. Bull with such Flowers as these Bipedum ineptissimus the greatest Fop in Nature Omnium odio qui veritatem candorem amant dignus deserving the Hatred of all Lovers of Truth and Sincerity Of Sandius he saith He hath ship-wrack'd his Conscience as well as his Faith a Trifler a mere empty Pretender He adds at p. 331. He hath only transcribed the Author of Iren. Irenicorum and in one Place he prays for Sandius as one that is mad This and such as this is Dr. Bull 's constant Language concerning these two very learned Men nor doth he ever reply to them without pretending an absolute and incontestable Victory and casting some most unworthy Scorn or other upon them by occasion of his supposed Advantage He never calls the Arians by any other Name but Ariomanitae the mad Arians and Socinianism is always with him the Atheistical Heresy I do not remember that he ever calls our Doctrine by a better Name In short he hath expressed such a Malevolence and hath so notoriously and infamously broke the Cartel of Honour and Civility
Lord Christ the eternal God Yes says Dr. Bull for the Constitutions chap. 11. have a Confession to that purpose and the 12 th Chapter is concerning those that confess that is so confess and yet live after the manner of the Jews that is observe the Mosaick Law and these most certainly were the Nazarens But if the Nazarens confessed in the Form there mentioned they were far from believing as Dr. Bull and the Church now believe Let us hear the Confession at chap. 11. to which the Title urged by Dr. Bull does refer It saith We teach but one God the Father of Christ not a second not a third not a manifold God but one eternal God One would think this were Socinus or J. Crellius de uno Deo Patre but towards the Conclusion the Author or Authors show that he held the same Doctrine with Arius for tho he had said there is but one God who is Eternal or from Eternity yet he owns that Christ is not a mere Man but is also God the WORD That is there is but one true one eternal God yet the Son or WORD is also God in an inferiour Sense namely a God that was generated in time and is set over the Works of the Creation Monsieur du Pin deals ingenuously when he owns that the Author of the Constitutions seems to have been an Arian he rightly adds that the Constitutions as we now have them were forged after the times of St. Epiphanius for that Father quotes them far otherways than nay contrary to what they now are Eccl. Hist Cent. 1. p. 29 30. If the Reader compares this Section with what I have alledged in the foregoing he will perceive that 't is with the greatest Justice and Truth in the World that the present Unitarians claim the Nazarens or first Jewish Churches and Christians as of our Party Of the Alogi or Alogians c. FRom the Nazarens that is the Jewish Christians I go on to the Alogi or Alogians who were the antient Gentile Christians They were called Alogian or Alogi because they denied the Logos or WORD of which St. John speaks in his Gospel Epistles and Revelation they said that all those Pieces were written by Cerinthus under the Name of St. John to confirm Cerinthus his Conceits about the Logos and the Millenium or thousand Years Reign of Christ here upon Earth For tho the Alogi held that the Lord Christ is a Man only as also did Cerinthus yet Cerinthus of the antient Unitarians had these two things peculiar to himself 1. That the World was made not immediately by God but by God by the Ministry of his Angels 2. That the Lord Christ was a Man only the Son of Joseph and Mary but there rested on him the Logos or Divine WORD which he also called the Christ by which Cerinthus intended the Spirit Energy or Power of God that Power by which he created Original Matter and made the World but as the Christ or WORD descended on Jesus at his Baptism so it left him at his Crucifixion The Alogians believed none of these things they said they had only received from the Aposiles that the Lord Christ was the great Prophet promised by Moses in the Law and the Messias or Christ intended in the Prophet Daniel and who in the Fulness of Time was sent by God to unite both Jews and Gentiles under one common Institution or Law of Religion Epiphanius is the first who gave to them the Name of Alogi before him that is before the Year 368 they were simply called Christians without any other Name that might signify them to be a particular Sect. They were those Christians of the Gentiles who retained the sincere Apostolick Doctrine concerning the Unity of God and the Person of our Saviour without corrupting it more or less with Platonick Notions or Gnostick Novelties they were very antient co-eval with the Apostles and flourished as the prevailing Party in the Period called the Apostolick Succession or to about the Year 140. Epiphanius all along speaks of them as the antient Unitarians of the Gentiles He says also expresly Theodotus adjunxit se Haeresi Alogorum Theodotus joined himself to the Sect and Churches of the Alogians Theodotus appeared about the Year 190 by joining himself to the Alogian Sect we learn that before he was of the Number of the new Platonick Christians who held the Pre-existence of our Saviour Eusebius is strangely out or prevaricates too notoriously when he says Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 28. that this Theodotus was the first who held that our Saviour was a mere Man for not only the Alogians so held but so also did both sorts of Ebionites and that by Confession of Eusebius himself elsewhere particularly H. Eccl. l. 3. c. 27. But Eusebius takes all Occasions tho never so fraudulently to depress the Unitarians whom he had undertaken to confute in the Person of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra We may take notice too that the Excerpta at the End of Clemens of Alexandria his Books of Stromata which bear the Title of the Oriental Doctrine of Theodotus were not Particulars of the Doctrine of Theodotus the Unitarian for the Doctrine of Theodotus was diametrically opposite to the Contents of those Excerpta but the Excerpta are nothing else but a Fragment of the Hypotyposes of St. Clemens himself which also is observed by the learned Valesius in his first Note on Euseb H. E. l. 5. c. 11. and again on lib. 6. c. 14. In few Words that the Alogi held our Saviour was a Man only is not questioned by any that they belonged at least to the Apostolick Succession is proved because 't is confessed by the Trinitarian Historians that the Theodotians who appeared about the Year 190 joined themselves to the Alogian Churches and because Epiphanius speaks of them throughout as flourishing in that Period We have therefore deservedly here reckoned them among the antient and first Witnesses of the true Doctrine As to the Reasons which they gave and which I affirm not against the Gospel and other Works which we now account to St. John I have already briefly intimated them in the Considerations on the 4 Sermons of his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury It was 400 Years before the Epistle to the Hebrews was received as Canonical any where in the West and but in few Places of the Orient and other Books of the New Testament especially St. John's Revelation were not presently admitted by the Catholick Church it ought not therefore to seem strange that the modern Unitarians allow of the Gospel and other Pieces of St. John tho they are aware that many of the Antients and particularly some Unitarians suspected and too hastily rejected them As it often happens that Time detects Frauds and Falshoods so also not unfrequently it discovers and vindicates oppressed Truths The last Monument or Remain of the Apostolick Succession which agrees with the Socinian Doctrine concerning our Saviour are the