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
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
flagitious Men in the World I am of opinion we ought to answer that 't is not to be wondred at if a counterfeit Apostle belies the true ones This Crimination of the true Apostles is in the 5 th Chapter of the alledged Epistle The more learned and impartial Criticks freely observe concerning this Epistle that 't is full of strained and dull Allegories extravagant and incongruous Explications of Scripture and abundance of silly and notorious Fables concerning Animals And what all judicious Men think of the Epistle is that it is indeed very antient being quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen but that it was forged about the beginning of the 2 d Century or the 2 d Century being well advanced when also the Gospels of St. Thomas St. Peter St. Matthias the Acts of St. Andrew St. John and other Apostles were devised and published as Eusebiue witnesses H. E. l. 3. c. 25. But lest this Epistle should be thought to be of somewhat the more Credit because 't is barely quoted by Clemens and Origen the Reader may take notice that Clemens cites also other counterfeit Works of the Apostles as particularly the Revelation of St. Peter as has been noted by Eusebius H. E. l. 6. c. 14. And nothing is more common with Origen than to quote such supposititious Writings as for Instance the Book of Enoch the Revelation of St. Paul the Doctrine of St. Peter and many more concerning which Citations the Reader may see what Mr. du Pin has observed at large Cent. 3. p. 113. Dr. Bull 's next approved Father is the great either Prophet or Impostor Hermas in his Book called the Pastor or Shepherd We grant that St. Paul mentions one Hermas Rom. 16.14 and we doubt not that the Author of the Shepherd would be understood to be that Hormas for he makes himself contemporary with Clemens Romanus mentioned also by St. Paul Phil. 4.3 Vision 2 d. Chap. 4. The Shepherd of Hermas is distinguished into 3 Books whereof the first contains 4 Visions the second 12 Commands the third 10 Similitudes but both the Commands and Similitudes may be called Visions and Prophecies because they are Representations and Charges made to him by Angels The Scene of these Visions is Arcadia and that we may be assured that this Author would be taken for a Prophet and would have his Book pass for a Divine Revelation he introduces the Angel in his 2 d Vision Chap. 4. as commanding him that he should prepare 3 Copies of these Visions one for Clement then Bishop of Rome to be sent by him to all the Churches another for Grapte who should instruct out of it the Widows and their Children the third Hermas himself was to read to the Presbyters of the City of Rome This is the Book and Author in which Dr. Bull finds or thinks he finds some Passages in favour of our Saviour's Divinity as I said at first we must carefully examine what is the true Character of this Work and Writer By what has been said it is evident to every one that this pretended Hermas either was a Prophet or an Impostor there is no Middle between these two when the Person pretends to Visions to Conferences with Angels and such like extraordinary things That the pretended Hermas was not a Prophet is certain to me by these Arguments 1. He owns in the third Command that he was a most egregious and common Liar he saith expresly that he scarce ever spake a true Word in his whole Life but always lived in Dissimulation and that to all Men. He weeps hereupon and doubts whether he can be saved but his Angel assures him that if for the time to come he will leave off his Lying he may attain to Blessedness He that was so addicted to lying 't is no wonder that he has counterfeited also Visions and Colloquies with Angels or that to gain Credit to his Chimeras and Follies he father'd them on Hermas an Apostolical Man and Friend of St. Paul as others before him had laid their spurious Off-springs to the Apostles themselves But 2. Some of his Celestial Visions contain manifest Falshoods particularly he maketh his Angel to tell him that the whole World is made up of twelve Nations Simil. 9. Chap. 17. Being a Person altogether ignorant of secular Learning as appears in all his three Books 't was almost impossible but that in his feigned Conferences with Angels he should sometimes make them to speak divers things both false and absurd 3. To add no more on this Trifler he has been judged to be no Prophet by the whole Catholick Church in that his Book is not reckoned among the Canonical Books of Scripture were it a real Revelation from God by the Ministry of Angels as the Author pretends and so esteemed by the Catholick Church it must have been put among the Canonical Books It is true when it first appeared it imposed on some Churches by the Boldness of its Pretence and therefore was read in those Churches as other genuine Parts of Scripture were but even then very many of the more Judicious rejected it and as the Church began to fill with learned and able Persons it was not only every where laid aside but censured as both false and foolish Of so many of the Antients as condemned it we need only take notice of Eusebius who speaking of the Books used by Christians whether privately or in publick says Some Books are received by common Consent of all others are of questioned and doubtful Authority and finally others are supposititious and counterfeit of which last kind saith he are the Acts of Paul the Revelation of Peter the Shepherd of Hermas and the pretended Epistle of Barnabas Euseb H. E. l. 3. c. 25. Dr. Bull 's third Author is Ignatius but neither is this Writer a whit better or honester than the pretended Barnabas or the counterfeit Hermas I do not mean to deny that we have still the Epistles that are quoted by the Antients Origen and Eusebius under the Name of Ignatius but this I affirm that they were forged under Ignatius his Name about the time that so many other Impostures were published under the Names of Aposiles and of Apostolical Men of which the Learned know there were almost an infinite Number Let us see first what the Criticks of the contrary Perswasion have to alledg for the Epistles of Ignatius we may hear Mr. Du Pin for them all because he has written last and more largely than any other He observes that St. Polycarp being thereto desired by the Philippians sent them the Epistles of Ignatius to which he also prefixed an Epistle of his own directed to the same Philippians Well we acknowledg that Polycarp writing to the Philippians tells them towards the Close of his Epistle that he had sent them according to their Desire the Epistles of Ignatius that had by any means come to his Knowledg or Hand He adds that in these Epistles Ignatius treats of Faith and Patience
made this Creed either they did not know that any other Person but the Father is God or Almighty or Maker of Heaven and Earth or they have negligently or wickedly concealed it The Latter is a Supposition that none will make therefore the other is the Truth of the Matter and it remains only that we enquire who were the Framers of this Creed The Creed that bears the Name of the Apostles Creed was always reckoned both by Fathers and Moderns to be really composed by the Apostles for a Rule of Uniformity among themselves in their Preaching and of Faith to all the Converts till about the middle of this present Age G. J. Vossius published a Book wherein he denies that either the Apostles or the 120 Disciples who are mentioned Acts 1.15 and who assisted and voted with the Apostles in publick Matters were Authors of this Creed He thinketh it was only the Creed of the particular Church of Rome and that the Original of it was this Because it was the Custom to interrogate Persons that were to be baptized whether they believed in God the Father in the Lord Christ the Son of God and in the Holy Ghost in whose Names Baptism is administred therefore in process of Time it became a Form of Confession for Persons who were admitted to Baptism to say I believe in God the Father in Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son and in the Holy Ghost Afterwards some few more Words were added to these as a fuller Description both of the Father and Son and as Heresies grew up new Articles were added to the Creed in opposition to them and to distinguish Catholicks from Hereticks Against all Hereticks and Schismaticks in general this Article was made I believe in the Holy Catholick Church against the Sects of the Gnosticks this Article I believe the Resurrection of the Body This is the Conjecture of Vossius Because it was so evident that this Creed makes only the Father to be God and that it speaks of the Son by only humane Characters and says not the least Word of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit therefore this Book of Vossius was received with a mighty Applause among all the Denomiantions of Trinitarians Papists Lutherans Calvinists and all others They saw themselves delivered by this Book from such an Allegation and Aughority against the Doctrine of the Trinity as was more than equivalent to all their pretended Proofs from the Fathers or from the Holy Scriptures For what are all the Fathers if indeed they were all of their side when opposed by the College of Apostles And what are some incidental and very dubious Expressions of some particular Writer of Holy Scripture against a Creed composed by the Concurrence and Consent of all the Apostles and of their Senate or Council the CXX A Creed in which they not incidentally in which case Men often speak loosly and incorrectly but professedly and designedly declare what is the true Faith to be believed by all Christians concerning the Father Son and Holy Spirit I say for this Reason 't is not to be much wondred that Vossius his Book was so kindly received or that the Trinitarians of whatsoever Perswasion have generally ever since followed the Conjecture of Vossius If now and then a learned Man has dissented from the new Opinion he has always been laugh'd out of Countenance by the Croud of Pretenders to Learning Vossius says 1. St. Luke in his Acts of the Apostles would never have omitted so memorable a Transaction as the compiling a Creed by all the Apostles for a Rule of Doctrine to themselves and their Successors in the Pastoral Office and of Faith to the Converts He has set down many lesser Matters the Election of Matthias into the Apostolate of Judas the Conclusion of the Apostles and Elders assembled in Council concerning the Ritual and Judicial Parts of the Mosaick Law and even divers petty Matters relating only to private Persons and is it credible that he should not say a Word of the Rule of Faith of a Creed made by the joint Consent of all the Apostles and intended for the general and perpetual Use of both Pastors and People But besides that this Creed is never spoke of in the Acts none of the Apostles mention or so much as allude or refer to it in any of their Epistles it is incredible not to say impossible that there should not be so much as a hint given of this Creed in all the Apostolick Writings if indeed it had been composed by the Apostles as their Joint Work for the Use of the whole Catholick Church There are abundance of false Steps made in this reasoning of Vossius 1 It is evident enough that divers most important Matters were ordained by the joint Council and Authority of the Apostles and the CXX which yet St. Luke did not think necessary to be inserted into his History of the Preaching Travels and Persecutions of the Apostles The Institution of the Lord's Day instead of or with the Sabbath or seventh Day appointed by God himself in the 4 th Commandment the Form of Church-Government whether you will say by Bishops or by a Presbytery or in the Independent Way the solemn manner of ordaining the Church-Pastors by Imposition of Hands and Prayer made for them the Love-Feasts the Holy Kiss all these every one will confess are Institutions not of one Apostle but of the College of Apostles and their Council the CXX and yet St. Luke has not told us either when or by whom they were ordained but is as silent of their Institution by the Apostles as of their composing the Creed 2 'T is not hard to guess at the Reason why none of these great Matters or the compiling the Creed are particularly recorded in the Acts of the Apostles namely because they are not bare Memoirs or transient things but such as were to be kept up and perpetuated by Example and Practice Every one sees that the Lord's Day the Form of Church-Polity or Government the Ordination of Church-Pastors the Love-Feasts and the Holy Kiss are Institutions that needed not to be recorded because the constant and universal Practice of them by the Apostles and the whole Church was more effectual to preserve them than any Register or History would be The like is as evident of the Creed it was to be orally taught to every Convert in every Place as the Mark of their Christianity therefore being committed to so many Witnesses and Memories it was considered not as a transient thing of which there was Danger that it might go into Oblivion if not recorded but as laid up safely in the Minds and Memories of all the Faithful Farther 't is an Observation made by all Church-Historians that the Antients of a long time purposely forbore to commit the Creed to Writing partly because they would not expose the Mysteries of Religion to the Contempt Raileries and Opposition of the Heathen partly to oblige their own People to be more
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
Nature and Quality of the Action that is imputed to the Person who bears the Names Jehovah and God evinces that the Person spoken of is Jehovah and God only by Representation But let us now weigh Dr. Bull 's Answers He saith first the Divine WORD who is true God might be called an Angel when he appeared to Moses in the Bush Because God appeared in such manner as Angels are wont to appear But we cannot grant that if God appears in suchmanner as Angels are wont to appear God may therefore be called an Angel tho Dr. Bull desires us that of all Love we would grant it for he only says it and offers no manner of Proof of so absurd and in very deed impossible a Supposition And we give this incontestable Reason why the Person who appeared in the Bush to Moses and is called sometimes Angel sometimes God was only an Angel who was called God on the Account that he represented God because if he were God and therefore spoke these Words I am the God of thy Fathers in his own Name not in the Name of another or as representing another He should have been called God only and not Angel which is to say Messenger Nor do I know why Dr. Bull pretends here God is called an Angel in this Place Because he appeared in such manner as Angels are wont to appear there was no Cause at all why he should say so at least there is nothing in the Text or Context to countenance his so saying But our Argument is extremely probable while we say if it was indeed not an Angel but God himself that spake these Words I am the God of thy Fathers he could be only called God and he was not at all an Angel that is a Messenger Briefly 't is say I a Chimera founded on nothing what Dr. Bull here says that the true God is called an Angel in this Context because he appeared in such manner as Angels are wont to appear for the manner of appearing here was wholly unusual there never was any such Appearance whether by God or Angel either before or since But we argue solidly and concludingly when we alledg if it be not an Angel that speaks here in the Name and Person of God but God himself and in his own Name 't is against all Propriety and Grammar that he is called both by Moses and St. Stephen the Angel or Messenger of the Lord. But Dr. Bull has a 2 d Evasion Several Fathers said an Angel indeed appeared in the Bush but God was in the Angel and it was not the Angel that spoke but God in the Angel This is a Whimsy tho he should quote an hundred Fathers for it For if God himself was in the Fire and the Voice was from God not from the Angel what need was there that an Angel should be there at all Lastly he says 't is an impious Opinion that Angels ever as it were acted the Person and Part of God by assuming the incommunicable Name Jehovah and the Authority and Attributes of God No Ambassador he saith ever took on him the Name and Stile of his Prince but the Ambassador says only thus saith my Master He is a bold Man to charge even Angels themselves and so many Writers of holy Scripture as ridiculous and impious for giving the Name God to those that represent God Has not our Saviour himself told us that they also are called Gods to whom the Word of God comes that is the Magistracy as all confess And for the Name Jehovah which Dr. Bull calls the Incommunicable Name I ask how comes Jehovah to be a greater Name or more incommunicable than God And why has he said nothing to so many Instances as the Socinians and his own viri quidam doctissimi give of Persons and even of Places on which the Name Jehovah is bestowed in the Historical Books of Scripture What he says of Ambassadors serves only to show that he has forgot some part of his Academical Learning and is but little acquainted with the World There is no Freshman in Oxford or Cambridg but will inform him out of the Roman Antiquities that Publick Messengers were wont to assurne the Name and whole Stile of the Persons whom they represented The Fecialis or Herald at Arms denounced War in these Terms I the King and People of Rome denounce and proclaim Hostility and War against the King and People of N. At this present time in the Christian Countries Ambassadors in some Cases take on them the Name and Stile of their Prince as in all Espousals and some other Cases but they always retain the Majesty and Dignity of the Prince or State from whom they come they always speak with the Hat on and their Persons are sacrosanct that is they cannot be arrested confined or punished they can only be required to depart out of the Kingdom This whole Defence therefore of Dr. Bull is either groundless or directly false For if it had been God who spoke to Moses out of the Bush he being present and speaking in his own Name these Words I am the God of thy Fathers he could not have at all been called an Angel that is Messenger And if God himself as Mr. Bull pretends was in the Fire there was no Occasion that an Angel also should be there And 't is utterly false that publick Messengers do not assume the Name or the Stile or Dignity of the Sovereigns that send them and whom they represent I shall therefore thank Dr. Bull for giving up his Cause to the Socinians For if it was the WORD or Son as he says that appeared in the Bush to Moses it follows that the WORD is not God but the Angel or Messenger of God for he can never elude our Argument that if the Person that spoke these Words I am the God of thy Fathers had been God himself speaking in his own Person and there present he could not have been called a Messenger of the Lord either by Moses or St. Stephen Dr. Bull must of necessity grant either that the WORD did not appear in the Bush which is to yield that his Fathers mistook in the chief Ground on which they built our Saviour's Pre-existence or that the WORD is but a Messenger not God which is to yield his Cause 2. It is argued again against Dr. Bull 's Fathers by the viri quidam doctissimi that indeed it is said at Exod. 20.1 God spake all these Words namely the ten Commandments but other Texts inform us that God is said to have spoke the Commandments and given the Law because it and they were given and spoke by an Angel attended or accompanied by other Angels in the Person and Name of God or as representing God Acts 7.53 They received the Law by the Disposition of Angels Gal. 3.19 It was ordained by Angels in the Hand of a Mediator i. e. it was commanded or spoken by Angels yet not immediately to the People but by