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
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
Trallians I salute you saith he to the Trallians in the Fulness of the Apostolical Character In short no one can read these Epistles with Judgment and impartially but he will see what was the Aim of the Forger of them namely under the venerable Authority and Name of Ignatius to magnify the Reverence and Respect belonging to Church-men This is the Beginning Middle and End of all these Epistles except only that to the Romans where to cover his Design and discover his Folly he only advises the Christians not to rescue him from the Imperial Guards These are all the Apostolical Fathers and Writings that our Opposers can muster up during the first 150 Years of Christianity that is to the Times when the Socinians and all Protestants confess that the Faith began to be actually corrupted I have proved that the Monuments they have to produce are unquestionably and incontestably counterfeit and therefore I do not think my self concerned to examine the few and impertinent Passages alledged out of them by Dr. Bull but before I proceed to his other approved Doctors 't is but reasonable that I should have leave to search what Authors and Books of these times of which we are speaking favoured the Unitarians and particularly the Socinians The Question between Dr. Bull and the Unitarians is what genuine Monuments or Remains there are of the Period which Church-Historians have called the Apostolical Succession that is of the Time in which those Doctors of the Church who had conversed with the Apostles and received the pure Faith of the Gospel from their very Mouths flourished And whether those Remains or Monuments do favour the Unitarians or the Trinitarians whether they teach the Doctrine of one God or of three We have seen what Dr. Bull can produce for their pretended Trinity his Apostle Barnabas the Prophet Hermas both of them rejected as false and soolish by the Catholick Church Next the Revelations of Pionius that is the Martyrdoms of Polycarp and Ignatius and their Epistles all which being almost perished and worn out by Time were revealed to Pionius by one from the Dead It is true our Opposers having been so long Masters have made use of their Power to destroy and abolish as much as was possible whatever Monuments of those first Times that too notoriously contradicted the Innovations in the Faith that were made by the Councils of Nice Constantinople and Chalcedon yet as there is no Battel so bloody and cruel but some tho it may be a very few have the good luck to escape from the Massacre so from this Persecution of Books and Writings some illustrious Testimonies and Witnesses to the Truth are come down even to our Times These are the Apostles Creed an unquestioned Epistle of St. Clemens Romanus the Accounts given by unsuspected Historians of the Nazarens or Ebionites the Mineans and the Alogi who all held as the Socinians now do concerning God and the Person of our Saviour the Recognitions of St. Clemens which tho it may be they are not rightly imputed to him yet are a most antient Book and serve to show what was the current Doctrine of those Times they are cited by Origen in divers Places by Eusebius Aikanasins and others Of the Apostles Creed COncerning the Apostles Creed we must resolve two Questions What it teaches and who were the Compilers of it To the first the Creed it self answers I belâ—eve in one God so this Creed was antiently read both in the East and West the Father Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth In these Words the Father is character'd by these Names Properties and Attributions that he is God the one God Almighty and Maker of Heaven and Earth Concerning the Lord Christ it saith And in Jesus Christ his only Son Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only begotten Son our Lord. So the Characters of our Saviour are that he is not the one God but the only begotten Son of the only or one God and that he is our Lord. Our Lord he is as he is our Saviour Teacher and Head of the Church both in Heaven and Earth He is called the only begotten Son of the only or one God to distinguish him from all other Sons of God from Angels who were not begotten but created Sons from Holy Men who are adopted Sons and from Adam who is called the Son of God not because he was generated or begotten but made or formed by God himself immediately Well but it may be this only-begotten Son of God is an only-begotten Son in some higher Sense and namely by eternal Generation from the Substance or Essence of God whereby he is God no less than the Father is God But the Compilers of this Creed knew nothing or however have said nothing of any such Generation so far from that they describe his Generation and his Person by humane Characters and by such only Every thing that they say here either of his Person or Generation is not only humane but inconsistent with Divinity He was conceived say they of the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary was crucified dead and buried he arose again from the Dead ascended into Heaven sitteth on the right Hand of God i. e. is next in Dignity to God Our very Opposers confess that every one of these is a Description of a mere humane Person and Generation even they acknowledg that God cannot be conceived be born die ascend and least of all be at God's right Hand or next to God to be God and next to God are wholly inconsistent There is no answering here that the before-mentioned are intended only as the Characters of our Saviour's Humane Nature For a Creed being an Institution or Instruction what we are to believe in the main and sundamental Articles of Religion especially concerning the Persons of the Father Son and Holy Spirit if the first is described as the one or only God and the Son only by Characters that speak him a mere Man and are utterly incompatible with Divinity it remains that the Compilers of the Creed really intended that we should believe the Father is the one God and the Son a mere Man tho not a common Man because conceived not of Man but of the Holy Spirit which is the Power and Energy of God If they had meant or but known that the Son and Spirit are eternal and divine Persons no less than the Father they have done to both of them the greatest possible Wrong because in the same Creed in which they declare that they believe that the Father is the one God Almighty and Maker of Heaven and Earth they believe the Son was conceived born died descended into Hell ascended into Heaven is next to God that is they believe he is a mere Man and concerning the Spirit they believe no higher thing than of the Church we believe in the Holy Spirit and in the Holy Catholick Church It is evident then and incontestable by any fair and sincere Considerer that whoever
careful to learn it exactly To this purpose they cite among divers others the Testimony of St. Jerom Epist ad Pam. In the Creed says St. Jerom there which is not written with Ink and Paper but on the fleshly Tables of the Heart 3 It is not true what Vossius adds that the Apostles do not seem to allude or refer to this Creed in any of their Epistles St. Paul says Rom. 6.17 Ye have obeyed from the Heart the Form of sound Doctrine which was delivered to you The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exemplar or Form of Doctrine here cannot be better interpreted than of the common Creed It seems also to be meant Rom. 12.6 Let him that prophesieth or preacheth preach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Analogy or the Rule of Faith The Scriptures of the New Testament not being yet written the Christian's Rule of Faith could be no other but the Creed which accordingly by the most antient Fathers is expresly called Regula fidei the Rule of Faith 1 Tim. 6.20 O Timothy keep 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Depositum or the thing committed to thy Trust and turn not aside The Depositum or Trust from which Timothy might not turn aside is generally and very reasonably understood by Interpreters to be the true Doctrine or Faith of the Gospel but if so 't is very probable that the Apostle intended more particularly the Rule of Faith the Creed composed by all the Apostles 2 Tim. 1.13 Hold fast the Form of sound Words which thou didst hear of me Heb. 5.12 Whereas ye ought for the time to have been Teachers ye have need that one teach you again the first Principles of the Doctrines not the Oracles of God Heb. 6.1 Leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ let us go on to Perfection Here the Form of sound Words and the first Principles and again the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ are Expressions so most properly applicable to the Creed that it was too much Boldness or Inadvertence in Vossius to affirm directly that there is no Allusion to the Creed in all the Apostolick Writings one may say they not only allude but even point to it And what does St. Jude so likely mean in these Words Jude 3. Earnestly contend for the Faith once delivered to the Saints for there are certain Men crope in denying the only God and our Lord Jesus Christ It is highly credible that by the Faith delivered to the Saints he means the Creed that was given out by the Apostles to all their Churches And does he not refer to the two first Articles of it in these Words for certain Men are crope in who deny the only or one God and the Lord Jesus Christ 2. Vossius his next Argument is yet more weak nay perfectly ridiculous If this Creed saith he had been made and so thought to be by the Apostles the Church would never have presumed to add any thing to it and much less to take ought from it I know not what he means by taking ought from it it doth not appear that any thing has been taken from it it is still the same for all that I know or have ever read as at first But they would not have added by this he means the Creeds of Nice of Constantinople and Chalcedon by making of which Creeds 't is manifest that divers things were added to the first Creed namely the Creed of the Apostles I answer 1 The Fathers in these Councils excused themselves by pretending their Creeds were only Explications of the antient Faith or Creed They professed to keep close to the Old Faith without adding any thing to it because they added not any new Articles but only more largely and fully explained the old ones In short they came off from this Exception of Vossius as they thought by calling their Additions by the Name of Explications and Declarations not of Additions But 2 If they had directly said that they thought fit to inlarge the Creed made by the Apostles by some other Doctrines taken from the New Testament I do not think that this is the worst thing of the kind that Mother Church ever did 'T is known to all the World that she has added to and taken away from the Sacraments and the Scriptures therefore 't is no such great wonder if also she turned her own Doctrines into Creeds and mingled her Articles with the Articles of the Apostles From the Sacrament of the Supper she hath taken away the Cup and in the same Sacrament has changed unleavened Bread into leavened The Sacrament of Baptism she hath wholly changed turning it into the mimical Rite of sprinkling and also added the Cross to that false Baptism which she administers As for the Scriptures all learned Criticks even of the Trinitarian Perswasion agree that abundance of Words and some whole Texts have been added 'T is uncontestable that they have added there are three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the WORD and the Holy Ghost and these three are one It was expresly denied at the first Council of Nice it self that the Apostle Paul said Great is the Mystery of Godliness GOD was manifested in the Flesh but which which Mystery was manifested by Flesh namely by the Lord Christ and the Apostles And to omit many other certain and yielded Depravations of Scripture both by adding and omitting there are shrewd Presumptions that to the Institution of Baptism by our Saviour in the Gospel of St. Matthew these Words have been added In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost It appears in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles that the Apostles never baptized in that Form of Words but only in the Name of the Lord Jesus But we need no more but the Testimony of one of their own Historians St. Epiphanius concerning the Fidelity of the Church as the prevailing Party always calls it self in preserving pure and intire the Oracles of God Epiphanius owns in direct terms that the Orthodox put out of their Bibles some Passages of Scripture which they liked not and the Bibles of his time that had not been so used this good Father roundly calls them the Bibles that have not been rectified Ancor n. 31. 3. Vossius saith farther that none of the Ecclesiastical Historians tho they have set down the Creeds made in Councils have recorded the Creed of the Apostles thus Socrates and others register not only the Creeds made in legitimate Councils but even those by the Arian Councils but they have not a Word of the Apostles Creed To this I say 1. Socrates and the Historians that follow him begin their Histories at soonest no higher than the Conversion of Great Constantine to the Christian Faith Therefore 't is no wonder that tho they record the Creeds in order as they were composed by the Councils that assembled under Great Constantine and his Successors yet they say nothing of the Apostles Creed which belonged
to a Period 300 Years older than the times of which those Historians write 2. Vossius has not asked why Eusebius the oldest of the Ecclesiastical Historians and who begins his History from the very first has not mentioned or recited the Apostles Creed because he foresaw it would be answered that Eusebius was a thorow-paced Arian a great Opposer of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra against whom also he particularly wrote who held the Doctrine that the Socinians now do therefore perceiving that the Apostles Creed was as much against the Arians as the Homo-ousians and that it wholly favoured Marcellus he forbore to take notice of it in his History I shall grant that Eusebius was a most learned Historian and that we are extremely in his debt for the Collection of antient Monuments and Memoirs he has left to us but I could give and hereafter shall give divers Instances of his designed suppressing whatsoever of Antiquity that favoured the Nazarene and Minean or as we now speak the Socinian Doctrine 4. The last Argument of Vossius is propounded by the present famous Monsieur du Pin in his Eccl. Hist c. 1. p. 9. in more advantageous Terms and Manner than by Vossius I will therefore examine it as Mr. du Pin has offer'd it He says that 't is an Opinion establish'd on very good Grounds that this Creed was made by the Apostles but that they wrote or dictated it word for word just as we now have it he thinks is very improbable He chose to propound his Opinion after this fallacious manner that he might not be talk'd of it may be be censured by his Superiours for maintaining in terminis an Opinion which might be judged to be heretical For in very deed Mr. du Pin does not only not believe that the Apostles wrote this Creed word for word as we now have it but he thinks they were not Authors of it at all in any Sense according to him the Apostles neither made nor designed to make a Creed He saith indeed that 't is an Opinion establish'd on very good Grounds that the Apostles made this Creed and the Proposition he undertakes to prove is only this that the Apostles did not write this Creed word for word just as we now have it but his Arguments which are the same with those of Vossius aim at this that the Apostles neither wrote nor intended to write any Creed at all I have already considered all his Arguments but only the last which both he and Vossius seem to suppose to be the strongest in truth it is the weakest as being made up of Accounts that are too notoriously false it is this If the Apostles had made a Creed saith Mr. du Pin it would have been found the same in all Churches of all Ages all Christians would have learnt it by Heart all Churches and all Writers would have repreated it in the same manner and in the same terms But the contrary is evident for not only in the 2 d and 3 d Centuries but in the 4 th also there were many Creeds and all tho the same as to Doctrine yet different in the Expression In the 2 d and 3 d Ages we find as many Creeds as Authors which shows that there was not then any Creed that was reputed to be the Apostles or even any regulated or establish'd Form of Faith For Ireneus exhibits one Creed lib. 1. c. 2. and another lib. 1. c. 19. Tertullian makes use of three several Creeds in his Books de Praescriptione contra Praxeam and de Virgin velandis See also Origen peri Archon lib. 1. Dial. contr Marc. Ruffinus in the 4 th Age compares three antient Creeds of Aquileia Rome and the Orient none of which agree perfectly with the common one nor with one another as will appear saith he by the Table containing the 4 Creeds at the End of this Discourse St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetick Lectures gives us a particular Creed used by the Church of Jerusalem when this Father wrote The Authors also that have explained the Creed as St. Austin Serm. 119. St. Maximus Chrysologus Fortunatus omit some Expressions that are found in the Apostles Creed as we now have it as the Life everlasting and St. Jerom says that the Apostles Creed concludes with the Resurrection of the Body but now it concludes with the Life everlasting Lastly he saith that Ruffinus is the first and only Person of the 5 th Century who asserts that the Creed was composed by the Apostles and he proposes his Opinion only as a Matter that depended on popular Tradition the other Authors that are of this Opinion he saith took it up on the Credit of Ruffinus and are too late in time to be admitted as Witnesses in this Question about the Authors of the Creed called the Apostles Never was there less Truth in so many Words I shall therefore discuss very particularly all that he hath said He saith 1 If the Apostles had made a Creed all Churches and all Writers would have repeated it in the same Manner and Terms That all Churches repeated it in the same Terms and Manner we affirm nor will Mr. du Pin ever prove the contrary That all Writers should repeat it in the same Manner and Terms is a childish Supposition for sometimes they have occasion to repeat but part of it sometimes they repeat it Paraphrastically thereby to put on it their own Interpretation Therefore 't is but weakly urged by Mr. du Pin that Ireneus gives us two Creeds Tertullian three Origen yet another for of these Writers Tertullian de Virgin veland designed to repeat but only a part of the Creed the same Tertullian de Praescript contr Prax. as also Ireneus and Origen repeat the Creed Paraphrastically or Exegetically that their Reader might take it in their Sense 'T is to no purpose that Mr. du Pin urges the Creed in St. Cyrill used in the Church of Jerusalem for no Body denies that after the Council of Nice that is after the Year 325. the Nicene Creed and the Creeds made in imitation of that were explained in many Places to the Youth and Catechumens instead of the Apostles Creed that People might be infected betimes with that Insidelity which the Nicene Council had establish'd and publish'd But whereas he has given us a Table of 4 Creeds namely the Vulgar the Aquileian that of Rome and that of the Orient We ought to thank him for implicitly giving up the Question to us The Reader is to know that by the Orient in the Age of Ruffinus from whom Mr. du Pin takes the Aquileian Roman and Oriental Creeds was meant the Eastern Part of the Roman Empire namely all the Provinces that spoke the Greek Tongue which is to say all Illyricum and Grecia the Kingdoms and Provinces of Asia the Provinces and Kingdoms of Syria as far as the Euphrates and Tigris Egypt the Islands in the Archipelago Adriatick and Ionian Seas all these being
Brother of our Lord if these believed that Christ was a Man only it will certainly follow that the Article concerning our Saviour's Divinity can be no longer defended Judic Eccl. p. 42. I do not thank him for this Concession for who sees not that if the Churches of Jerusalem and Judea planted by the Apostles and which indured in a most flourishing Condition under 15 successive Hebrew Bishops to the times of the Emperor Adrian were Unitarians then is the Unitarian Belief concerning our Saviour incontestably true and the certain Doctrine of the Apostles But before I argue this Point it will not be unprofitable to the Reader who is not versed much in these Questions if I give a short Account of the Occasion and Reason of these Names Nazaren Minean Ebionite The followers of the Doctrine of Jesus were first called Christians at Antioch a City of Syria out of the Bounds of Judea but in Judea it self they were from the first called Nazarens and Mineans Nazarens from Nazareth the Place of our Saviour's Education Mineans from an Hebrew Word which signifies Hereticks Tertullus when he accused Paul before Felix makes this to be his Fault that he was a Ring-leader of the Sect of the Nazarens Acts 24.5 To the other Name Minean or Heretick St. Paul himself refers in his Defence against the same Tertullus This I confess saith Paul that after the way which they call Heresy so worship I the God of my Fathers Acts 24.14 These two Names Nazaren and Minean are indifferently used by the Fathers in the following Ages that is they were applied to the same Persons and Sect so we learn from St. Jerom writing to St. Austin in these Words There is to this day over all the Orient a Jewish Sect who are called Mineans and by the Vulgar Nazarens who believe in Christ the Son of God St. Epiphanius in the Account he gives of this Sect says the Nazarens and Cerinthians began at the same time and that all Christians were at first called Nazarens Epiph. Haeres Naz. c. 1. What he says farther of them shall be alledged in its proper Place in the mean time these Testimonies which no Man controverts are sufficient to show what was the Cause of this Name and how antient it is and that the Sect thereby intended not only indured but overspread the Orient at what time St. Jerom wrote to St. Austin which was about the Year 416. What is meant by the Orient was declared before when I treated of the Creed Ebionites is another Name of the antient Unitarians and first genuine Christians tho not without a Mixture if their Adversaries after having destroyed all their Writings and Defences may be accepted as Witnesses against them of very bad People among them It is not certain whether they have been thus named from one Ebion a particular Man or from the poor and low Opinion they had of our Saviour's Person owning him indeed to be the Christ but the Son of Joseph and Mary Some of the Antients affirm the one some the other of these Nor is the Matter worth disputing because they are by all granted to have been Contemporaries with the Apostles and that they held the Lord Christ was a Man only the Christ the Son of Joseph and Mary by Generation the Son of God by Holiness Adoption and Exaltation The Question now between Dr. Bull and us is not concerning the Ebionites for he and all others grant that the Ebionites held concerning our Saviour that he was a mere Man but concerning the Nazarens and Mineans namely whether the Nazarens and Mineans supposed the Lord Christ was a Divine Person and God or only a Man a Prophet the true Messias or Christ the Son of God not only by Holiness Adoption and Exaltation as the other Ebionites said but by his miraculous Generation in the Womb of Mary by the Spirit or Power of God We affirm the latter of these but not altogether confounding the Mineans and Nazarens with the Ebionites For tho they were both of them Jews or Proselytes of the Jews yet there was this Difference between the Ebionites and the Nazarens that the former believed the Lord Jesus was the Son of Joseph and Mary by Nature the Son of God by Adoption Exaltation and Holiness but the Nazarens said he was the Son of God also by his miraculous Conception being conceived by the Spirit or Power of God and born of Mary who had never known any Man But this also is to be noted that tho the Nazarens held our Saviour's miraculous Conception by the Spirit of God and the Ebionites contended that he was the Son of only Joseph and Mary yet because they both agreed in these two main Points that Jesus Christ was a Man only and that the Law by Moses ought to be observed by all Jewish Christians not by the Gentile Christians together with the Gospel therefore the Vulgar and even those Learned Writers of the Catholick Party who consider'd them only in what they agreed namely that the Lord Christ is not God but Man only called both of them Ebionites as we shall presently see Dr. Bull is a very litigious Opposer it will therefore be expedient for the prevention of a great many Elusions and Subtleties to take notice in the first place what he grants to us concerning the proposed Question What the Nazarens held concerning our Saviour's Person What Authorities has he owned and how far has he yielded this Question in the yielding of which he professes that the Socinians have carried this whole Controversy concerning the Quality of our Saviour's Person for it can be disputed no longer he saith whether our Saviour was a Man only if the Nazaren Christians were of that Belief He grants that Origen assures us That the Jews who believe in Christ observe the Mosaick Law together with the Gospel and that all Jews who own Jesus to be the Christ are called Ebionites Orig. contr Cels l. 2. p. 56. I wish instead of his wondring at this Account given by Origen he had been so sincere as to let the Reader know that Origen having lived long in Syria nay in Palestine which is to say in the very midst of the Nazaren or Jewish Churches could not but know their true State and Opinions He saith all the Jews that are Christians are called Ebionites and does not he and with him all the Antients every where tell us that the Ebionites were all of them Unitarians nay were called Ebionites from their poor and low Opinion of our Saviour that he was a Man only not God Let Dr. Bull produce any of the Fathers who have ever named the Ebionites who do not also explicitly confess that they believed our Saviour to be a Man only In short the Nazarens are granted by all and by Dr. Bull in particular to be those Christian Jews that were gathered into Churches in Jerusalem and Palestine by the Ministry of the Apostles themselves Origen who lived
among them witnesses that all Jews who were Christians were named Ebionites or the poor ones partly from the poor Opinion they had of our Saviour's Person partly because they adhered still to the beggarly Principles and Rites of the Mosaick Law it unavoidably follows that the Nazarens were Ebionites in this Sense that they held the Lord Christ was a Man only and observed the Law together with the Gospel I said Ebionites in this Sense because as was noted before the Ebionites more strictly so called believed our Saviour was the Son of Joseph and Mary but the Nazarens tho they believed he was a Man only yet they held he was miraculously conceived in the Womb of Mary by the sole Power and Energy of God without the Concurrence of any Man As Origen makes no Distinction of the Ebionites into Ebionites and Nazarens because of their Agreement in the main Points that the Lord Christ was a Man only and that the Mosaick Law must be observed by all Jewish Christians no more does Eusebius who contents himself to observe that some Ebionites hold the miraculous Conception others of them say he was the Son of Joseph and Mary Euseb H. E. l. 3. c. 27. But neither he nor Origen charge either of them as Epiphanius in after Ages from no Author does that they owned of the Old Testament only the Books of Moses and Joshua not the Prophets or that they calumniated St. Paul and rejected his Epistles publishing also certain Acts of St. Paul wherein they charge him as an Apostate from the Law only because he could not obtain for his Wise a Priest's Daughter Epiphanius imputes this not to the Nazaren-Ebionites but to those Ebionites who held our Saviour was the Son of only Joseph and Mary but as I said he quotes no Author and therefore this seems to be one of the malitious Tales which contending Sects and Parties frequently raise upon one another So in after-times the Albigenses Waldenses and Wiclevites were charged with monstrous Heresies which they not only abominated but are refuted by the Protestant Historians out of the Catechisms Sermons and other Books of those early Reformers They were charged with teaching that the Devil is above God that Elizabeth was Christ's Concubine and taken with him in Adultery with other more horrid and foolish things not fit to be named but the Protestant Historians have evinced to the Satisfaction even of all learned and ingenuous Papists out of the Books and Catechisms of those pious Men that these are diabolical Calumnies devised by their Persecutors the Friars Farther Dr. Bull grants that Theodoret Haeret. Fab. l. 2. c. 3. affirms expresly that the Nazarens honour the Lord Christ only as a holy Man not as God or a Divine Person Because this Father also lived in Syria was a most learned and inquisitive Person and writeth in that Work before-quoted of all Hereticks and their Opinions we may surely rely on the Account he gives 'T was impossible that Theodoret whose Bishoprick was in Syriâ cavâ whereabouts the Nazarens and Mineans then most abounded and whose very Design it was in that Book which we alledg to set down the peculiar Opinions of all the Distinctions and Denominations of Christians I say 't is impossible he should not certainly know the Doctrine of the Nazarens the most famous as well as most antient of all those Denominations which dissented from the Church or prevailing Party of those Times And whereas Dr. Bull excepts that Theodoret is a later Father than some he quotes 't is a mere and a wretched Subterfuge First because St. Jerom before cited witnesses that then the Nazarens flourish'd over all the Orient and Epiphanius that they abounded chiefly in Palestine and Syriâ cavâ Secondly because in very Deed Theodoret was contemporary with Sulpitius Severus who is as we shall see Dr. Bull 's only Author the only Father who ever mistook the Nazaren Doctrine concerning our Saviour and the Occasion of his Mistake was that he lived so remote from them they in the Orient he in the West that is to say at about 2000 Miles distance Sulpitius began to write at soonest about the Year 401. Theodoret was made Bishop in 420. so Theodoret might be the older Man But however that be one lived in Syria among the Nazaren Churches the other in the remotest Parts of Gaul distant from the Nazarens the whole length of the Roman Empire when in its greatest Extent and therefore 't is no wonder if he mistook the Nazaren Doctrine He grants again that Epiphanius Haeres 30. c. 2. informs us Cerinthianis Nazaraeis fuâ—sse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cerinthians and Nazarens had like Sentiments and Haeres 30. c. 2. Nazaraeos Ebionaeos capita simul contulisse suamque nequitiam invicem communicasse i. e. The Nazarens and Ebionites laid Heads together and communicated their Impiety by which Epiphanius without doubt means their Heresy one with another Lastly that Epiphanius doubts only of this whether in this the Nazarens agreed with the Cerinthians that the Lord Christ was a common and ordinary Man or was miraculously generated by the Holy Spirit or Power of God in the Womb of Mary Let us put this together Epiphanius says the Nazarens and Cerinthians had like Opinions but did the former believe as the other did that the Lord Christ was a common Man born as all other Men are of a humane Father and Mother or did they grant that he was a Man indeed but miraculously conceived by the Divine Power in the Womb of a Virgin Epiphanius professes that he cannot upon his own Knowledg charge the Nazarens with the former of these Opinions Farther he owns that the Ebionites and Nazarens were extremely gratious and intimate and communicated in the same Impiety that is Heresy These Testimonies do stagger Dr. Bull so that at last Judic Eccl. p. 56 57. he is willing to grant that at length some Nazarens were infected with the Ebionite Heresy that the Lord Christ is a Man only and of these Nazarens whom he calls the latter Nazarens tho the Antients never make any such Distinction as the former and latter Nazarens he thinks Origen is to be undestood when he says as was before quoted that the Jewish Christians i. e. the Nazarens are Ebionites There never was a more injudicious Paragraph unless the Man wilfully prevaricates For first why doth he say some Nazarens were infected with the Ebionite Heresy when Origen who is his Author expresly says all the Jewish Christians are Ebionites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Jews that own Jesus to be the Christ are Ebionites Contr. Cels l. 2. p. 56. Secondly I desire to know of Dr. Bull how Epiphanius could more effectually declare the Doctrine of the Nazarens concerning the Quality of our Saviour's Person than by saying they hold as the Cerinthians do and they mutually communicate their Heresy with the Ebionites For was
evince how frivolous and impertinent it is He objects first the Authority of Sulpitius Severus who began to write about the Year 401. Sulpitius says The Emperor Adrian drove all Jews out of Jerusalem but this tended to the Advantage of the Christian Religion for at that time almost all of them believed in Christ God Hist sacr l. 2. c. 31. This Expulsion of all Jews from Jerusalem hapned about the Year of Christ 135. The Words almost all are intended to signify that as the Jews were the Majority of the Inhabitants and Citizens of Jerusalem so the most the far greater Number of them were Christians But when he adds they believed in Christ-God I have proved it to be a Mistake by the Testimony of those Fathers who lived among the Jewish Christians namely Origen and Theodoret and of other Fathers who were much nearer to them than Sulpitius even Epiphanius and St. Augustin Epiphanius was Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus an Island just by Palestine and he himself was a Native and had his Education in Palestine St. Austin from Hippo in Africa informed himself of the State of the Syrian and Palestine Churches not only by Letters to and from the Learned Men of those Churches and Provinces but also by some of his Clergy whom he maintained at Jerusalem and the Holy Land only for Intelligence and Information On the contrary Sulpitius lived in Aquitain a Province of Gaul in the remotest western Parts of the Roman Empire at the Distance of above 2000 Miles from Palestine and Syria where the Jewish Christians had their Churches or as their Enemies particularly St. Jerom spoke their Synagogues We cannot much wonder that at so great a Distance from the Jewish Christians Sulpitius mistook their Doctrine concerning the Quality of our Saviour's Person or whether he were God or Man nor will any Man of Prudence think that one Sulpitius at such a Remotion from them is to be believed against so many most learned Fathers who dwelt partly among the Nazarens partly very near to them Beside Sulpitius was not a Divine but a Lawyer bred a Heathen and went over to the Christian Religion after he had long practised as they speak at the Bar 't is easily conceived that a New Convert to Christianity might not be very skilful in the Knowledg and Distinction of Sects Therefore Monsieur du Pin observes concerning Sulpitius That tho his Abridgment of the Ecclesiastical History is the best we have of the Antients yet it is not very exact He commits divers Faults against the Truth of History especially the Ecclesiastical Eccl. Hist cent 5. p. 112. Dr. Bull cites also Euseb Hist l. 4. c. 5. where that Historian says that the first 15 Bishops of Jerusalem sat but a very short time but that he finds in the Writings of the Antients that those Bishops received and professed the true Knowledg of Christ I believe there is no learned Man will doubt that Eusebius his Author for this was Hegesippus who was the first that wrote an Ecclesiastical History which he published about the Year of Christ 170 a Work now lost to the great Regret of learned Men. But when Hegesippus says the Bishops of Jerusalem professed the true Knowledg of Christ did he mean as Dr. Bull supposes that Christ is God most High No he meant that they professed in opposition to the Docetae and others who held the Pre-existence of our Saviour and that he was not a Man he was a true and very Man and a Man only Of this I am perswaded by these Considerations First Hegesippus was himself a Jewish Christian as Eusebius Hist l. 4. c. 22. witnesses but all Jewish Christians saith Origen who lived and flourish'd above 100 Years before Eusebius were Ebionites that is denied the Divinity of Christ Secondly The same Eusebius ibid says that Hegesippus made use of St. Matthew 's Hebrew Gospel which was used only by the Ebiouites and Unitarian Christians Thirdly When Hegesippus apud Euseb ibid. reckons up the Heresies and Hereticks of the Jewish Nation that were saith he against the Tribe of Judah and against Christ he names the Samaritans Pharisees Sadduces Esseans Masbotheans Galileans Hemerobaptists but if the Denial of our Saviour's Divinity had been a Jewish Heresy if the Ebionites or Cerinthians had been Hereticks in the Judgment of Hegesippus they must have come into the Catalogue of Hereticks that were against Christ for 't is certain and yielded on all hands that both these Sects denied the Divinity of our Saviour If it be said Hegesippus might not reckon the Ebionites and Cerinthians among the Jewish Hereticks because tho they were Jews by Nation they were Christians by Religion yet at least he would have put them into the List of Christian Hereticks which he does not The Christian Heresies according to Hegesippus are the Heresy of the Simomans Menandrians Marcionites Carpocratians Valentinians Basilidiaus Saturninians but not a word of the Ebionite Cerinthian Alogian or Monarchian Hereticks who were all Unitarians But the Reader must here take care that he is not imposed on by Valesius his Translation of Eusebius for the Translation after the Enumeration of the before-named Heresies and Hereticks adds aliique and others as if some were omitted but the Greek Text of Eusebius has no such Words In short I say Hegesippus gives a Catalogue of the Heresies of the Jews and Gentiles but does not account either the Cerinthians or Ebionites among the Hereticks which he certainly would if he himself had held the Pre-existence and Divinity of our Saviour Lastly I have before cited Valesius owning and professing that the Ecclesiastical History of Hegesippus was lost by the Antients because like the Hypotyposes of St. Clemens it was observed to agree with the Unitarians If it be said But did not Eusebius know this and yet he always speaks respectfully of Hegesipput I answer without doubt he knew it but durst not take notice of it it was not for Eusebius to find fault with an Apostolical Father he could only dissemble his Knowledg of what the Unitarians and particularly his Antagonist Marcellus would not fail to make Advantage and this also is the Reason as I hinted before why this crafty Arian will take no notice of the Apostolick Creed as composed by them tho he recites paraphrastically that so he may impose on his Reader the Heads of it Hist l. 1. c. 13. But if Hegesippus Unitarian Hegesippus was the Author whom Eusebius follows in the Account he gives of the first 15 Bishops of Jerusalem that they professed the true Knowledg of Christ which will not be questioned by any that are conversant in Eusebius or have observed that he professes Hist l. 4. c. 8 22. to follow Hegesippus concerning the Apostolick and following times we have also gained another very great Point namely this That not only the Jewish Christians but those of Rome and all the great Churches to which Hegesippus had resorted to know their Doctrine
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
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