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
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
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
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