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
and Discipline were also Unitarians that is held with Hegesippus that the Lord Christ is a Man only For he saith apud Euseb l. 4. c. 22. That he travelled to Rome where he lived under the Popes Anicetus Soter and Eleutherus successively Popes of Rome but both here and in all other Episcopates they keep the Doctrines taught by the Law and the Prophets and by our Saviour Briefly he owns that he found the Churches every where to be Orthodox and uniform of which if he was an Unitarian as I think I have proved the Meaning can be only this that they believed as the Jewish Christians do the Lord Christ is a Man the Prophet and Messenger of God on whom the Logos or Divine WORD rested This perfectly agrees with the Account that the old Unitarians in Eusebius give namely that they had kept the Doctrine deliver'd by the Apostles and which was professed every where till the Opposition made to it by the Popes Victor and Zepherin who succeeded to Eleutherus as he to Soter and Soter to Anicetus with which Orthodox Popes Hegesippus had conversed The short is We grant that Eusebius says the Jerusalem-Bishops professed the true Knowledg of Christ We answer he borrowed this from Hegesippus whom he took for his Author especially in what concerned the Apostolick Times and the Times that followed to the taking of Jerusalem by the Emperor Adrian in the Year 135 that is while the 15 Bishops concerning whom our present Question and Debate is governed the Churches of Jerusalem and Judea But Hegesippus being himself a Jewish Christian that is one that believed our Saviour to be a Man only when he said the Jerusalem-Bishops professed the true Knowledg of Christ he undoubtedly meant that our Lord was a true and mere Man against the Docetae and other platonizing Christians who held his Pre-existence and denied that he was a Man Dr. Bull is not ashamed to infer from St. Austin's Saying that the Nazarens confess Christ is the Son of God that they held he is so the Son of God that he was born of God from all Eternity I say he is not ashamed of this Inference tho he knows that all Ebionites believed Christ was a Man only and yet Epiphanius says of them divers times as St. Austin does of the Nazarens that they own the Lord Christ is the Son of God For tho the Ebionites did not believe the miraculous Conception yet they said the Lord Christ is the Son of God progressione Virtutis quatenus ad sublimia coelestiaque provectus est i. e. by Holiness and by his Exaltation to the right Hand of God Epiphan Haeres Ebion c. 13. Iren. l. 3. c. 30. But let us recite the very Words of St. Austin de Haeres c. 9 10. The Nazarens as they confess Christ is the Son of God so they observe the whole Law the which Christians have been taught that 't is to be understood and taken spiritually not carnally The Ebionites also say that Christ is a Man only and observe the cernal Precepts of the Law These Words the Ebionites also say that Christ is a Man only would be Nonsense if the Nazarens of whom he speaks immediately before had not likewise so held In like manner he would put a false Meaning on these Words of St. Jerom The Nazarens believe in Christ the Son of God who was born of the Virgin Mary the same say they who suffered under Pontius Pilate and rose again from the Dead in whom also WE i. e. we of the Church believe One would have thought that when the Nazarens say here We believe in the Son of God that was born of the Virgin Mary was put to Death under Pontius Pilate and rose again from the Dead they had sufficiently declared that the Son of God in whom they believed was the Man Christ Jesus not a Son of God that could not be born of the Virgin Mary or die or rise again But because St. Jerom says in whom also we believe Dr. Bull cries out Look here the Nazarens believed in that Son of God in whom the Orthodox believed We think so too Doctor because both Parties believed in the Son of God who was generated and born of Mary died and rose again tho the Orthodox so called invented also another Son of God a Son that could not be generated and born of Mary a Son that could not die a Son as old as his Father a second Almighty another Creator first made known by the Council of Nice Next Dr. Bull produces as Passage out of Justin Martyr to prove that there were some Christians who observed the Mosaick Law and yet believed in such a Christ who was before Luciser and the Moon and who could these be but the Nazarens I answer whoever they were they were not the Nazarens most of the Gnostick Sects who also observed the Mosaick Law beld the Pre-existence of our Saviour What hinders but that they might be the Cerinthians Besides it is uncertain whether Justin meant to say that there were some Christians who keep the Law of Moses and yet believe that Christ was before Lucifer and the Moon to make out this Sense Dr. Bull is forced to add these Words to the Words of Justin such a Christ as you before described Judic Eccl. p. 52. which Addition seems also contrary to the Context where 't is inserted by Dr. Bull for Dr. Bull contends for a Christ in that Context who was before Lucifer and the Moon and the Context describes a Christ that was crucified and to whom GOD has committed the Judgment of the Dead and Living and has given to him a Kingdom that shall have no end This seems to be a mere Ebionite or Socinian-Christ a Man not God Lastly he quotes the Title of the 12 th Chapter of the 6 th Book of the Constitutions of St. Clement that is as Dr. Bull himself confesses falsly intitled to Sr. Clement The Words are these Of those who confess but yet live after the manner of the Jews Dr. Bull would have it thought that this Title speaks of those who confess that Christ is the most High and Eternal God These Mr. Bull thinks could be no other but the Nazarens But to come at that Conclusion Mr. Bull must first prove not only that the Nazarens believed the Lord Christ is God the WORD but that there were no other Denominations of Christians who observed the Mosaick Law and also believed that Christ is God the WORD But he knows that the Cerinthians and most of the Gnostick Sects did Judaize and also believe the Pre-existence of our Saviour and that he is God the WORD But let us grant to Dr. Bull whatever he contends for from this Citation and see how it will advantage his main Cause The Question is concerning the Nazarens whether they held as the Church now does that there is more than one Divine and Eternal Person are there two or three such Persons is 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
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