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
them to be one God because mere Contact is only a juxta-Position not a real Vnion All Philosophers but only the Platonists who understand not Physicks or the Nature of things will assent to this Reasoning and I doubt not it was one of the Causes why the Schoolmen who were learned Philosophers unanimously agreed that three distinct Divine Substances are most certainly three Gods and they the Divines of the Schools have been followed by all the Divinity-Chairs in Christendom from about the Year 1200 to this present time I do not believe there is a Chair in Christendom that will own more than one Divine Substance or will admit that three Divine Substances can be one God Dr. Bull will not approve his Hypothesis to the Chairs or to Universities or Schools of Learning I am of opinion however that so arrogant a Man as Dr. Bull will not let go his Hypothesis it being too the Doctrine of the Fathers and of a great many learned Men who treat of these Questions as Divines not as Philosophers and Dr. Bull having acquired so great a Reputation all over Europe by his Book the Chairs and Nominal Trinitarians will not it may be adventure to attack him But if after all Dr. Bull fearing the Numbers and Reputation of the Nominal Trinitarians will deny his Hypothesis and in hopes to compound with them pretend that it differs not or not materially from the Doctrine of the Schools besides that all discerning and ingenuous Men will laugh at his Pusilanimity I shall not desire an easier Task than to prove from his own Book and from innumerable Quotations of the Fathers that both they and he hold three distinct Divine Substances and consequently so many Minds and Spirits both which are rejected as Heretical nay as Tritheistical by the Schools and their Followers I will conclude this first Part of my Answer with observing that tho Dr. Bull says here that the Fathers believed the three Divine Persons are one God because the second and third are derived from the first have like Substances and Properties with him and all of them do mutually immeate one another yet this is not the Explication of any particular Father much less of all of them but an Hypothesis that Dr. Bull has pieced up from the Writings of divers Fathers The Fathers explained the Unity in Trinity each of them his own way One said the three Persons are one God because they are in one another by mutual Love and Agreement Another said they are one God because of the Subordination and perfect Subjection of the second and third Persons to him who is the first God Another they are one God because the Son and Spirit are propagated from the Father Another because they unanimously govern the World that is they are one God because they are one Monarchy and thereby as it were one Ruler Some of them said three Divine Persons and three infinite Spirits are God and the Godhead in such Sense as all Men are called Man or Mankind As three golden Coins of the same Emperor are called Aurum Gold not Aura Golds in the Plural So in proper speaking three Divine Persons because like three Men or three golden Coins they are consubstantial that is have the same specifick Substances and Properties they are in proper speaking to be called God not Gods This was a very ridiculous Reasoning contrary both to Grammar and Philosophy and yet it was the Explication of some of the most learned of the Post-Nicene Fathers Briefly these two things I affirm That Dr. Bull 's Explication of the Unity of God is indeed taken out of some of the Fathers but it was not as 't is laid down by him the particular Explication given by any one of them much less the agreed and common Explication of all of them but part of it is from some other Parts of it from other Fathers Secondly the Fathers advanced several other Explications on which some of them insisted more and rather than on any part of Mr. Bull 's The Ante-Nicens chiefly urged the Unity of Love or else of Monarchy the most learned but least judicious of the Post-Nicens served themselves of the pretended Consubstantiality or that the three Persons having like Substances and Properties are therefore one God as all Men or Mankind are called Homo and as three or more golden Coins are called Aurum Gold never Aura Golds. But of these things I shall speak fully in the Conclusion of the third Part of this Answer to Dr. Bull. The CONCLVSION I Have said what I intended in this first Part. In the Second I will report the Doctrine of the following Fathers concerning the Trinity and the Person of our blessed Saviour in their own Words By the following Fathers I mean those Fathers who flourished from about the Year 150 to the Nicene Council or the Year 325. In the last Part I shall discover Dr. Bull 's Frauds and Mistakes detect his Sophistries and Elusions and confront his Misrepresentation of the Fathers with the Confessions and Judgment of the Criticks who have either published or commented on the Writings of the Fathers Here and now it remains only that I inform the Reader who hath not seen Dr. Bull 's Books why I have answer'd so indifferently and without any particular Deference to the Merit of his Learning and Abilities for it cannot be denied that this Gentleman is a dextrous Sophister or that he has read the principal Fathers with a more than ordinary Application Diligence and Observation Dr. Bull has written two Books his Defence of the Nicene Faith and Judgment of the Catholick Church designedly and directly against the Unitarians whether they be Arians or Socinians In the first of these he attacks more particularly Chr. Sandius a very learned Arian and the Author of Irenicum Irenicorum who was Dr. Zwicker M. D. a Socinian Dr. Zwicker is complemented by Dr. Bull with such Flowers as these Bipedum ineptissimus the greatest Fop in Nature Omnium odio qui veritatem candorem amant dignus deserving the Hatred of all Lovers of Truth and Sincerity Of Sandius he saith He hath ship-wrack'd his Conscience as well as his Faith a Trifler a mere empty Pretender He adds at p. 331. He hath only transcribed the Author of Iren. Irenicorum and in one Place he prays for Sandius as one that is mad This and such as this is Dr. Bull 's constant Language concerning these two very learned Men nor doth he ever reply to them without pretending an absolute and incontestable Victory and casting some most unworthy Scorn or other upon them by occasion of his supposed Advantage He never calls the Arians by any other Name but Ariomanitae the mad Arians and Socinianism is always with him the Atheistical Heresy I do not remember that he ever calls our Doctrine by a better Name In short he hath expressed such a Malevolence and hath so notoriously and infamously broke the Cartel of Honour and Civility
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
Nature and Quality of the Action that is imputed to the Person who bears the Names Jehovah and God evinces that the Person spoken of is Jehovah and God only by Representation But let us now weigh Dr. Bull 's Answers He saith first the Divine WORD who is true God might be called an Angel when he appeared to Moses in the Bush Because God appeared in such manner as Angels are wont to appear But we cannot grant that if God appears in suchmanner as Angels are wont to appear God may therefore be called an Angel tho Dr. Bull desires us that of all Love we would grant it for he only says it and offers no manner of Proof of so absurd and in very deed impossible a Supposition And we give this incontestable Reason why the Person who appeared in the Bush to Moses and is called sometimes Angel sometimes God was only an Angel who was called God on the Account that he represented God because if he were God and therefore spoke these Words I am the God of thy Fathers in his own Name not in the Name of another or as representing another He should have been called God only and not Angel which is to say Messenger Nor do I know why Dr. Bull pretends here God is called an Angel in this Place Because he appeared in such manner as Angels are wont to appear there was no Cause at all why he should say so at least there is nothing in the Text or Context to countenance his so saying But our Argument is extremely probable while we say if it was indeed not an Angel but God himself that spake these Words I am the God of thy Fathers he could be only called God and he was not at all an Angel that is a Messenger Briefly 't is say I a Chimera founded on nothing what Dr. Bull here says that the true God is called an Angel in this Context because he appeared in such manner as Angels are wont to appear for the manner of appearing here was wholly unusual there never was any such Appearance whether by God or Angel either before or since But we argue solidly and concludingly when we alledg if it be not an Angel that speaks here in the Name and Person of God but God himself and in his own Name 't is against all Propriety and Grammar that he is called both by Moses and St. Stephen the Angel or Messenger of the Lord. But Dr. Bull has a 2 d Evasion Several Fathers said an Angel indeed appeared in the Bush but God was in the Angel and it was not the Angel that spoke but God in the Angel This is a Whimsy tho he should quote an hundred Fathers for it For if God himself was in the Fire and the Voice was from God not from the Angel what need was there that an Angel should be there at all Lastly he says 't is an impious Opinion that Angels ever as it were acted the Person and Part of God by assuming the incommunicable Name Jehovah and the Authority and Attributes of God No Ambassador he saith ever took on him the Name and Stile of his Prince but the Ambassador says only thus saith my Master He is a bold Man to charge even Angels themselves and so many Writers of holy Scripture as ridiculous and impious for giving the Name God to those that represent God Has not our Saviour himself told us that they also are called Gods to whom the Word of God comes that is the Magistracy as all confess And for the Name Jehovah which Dr. Bull calls the Incommunicable Name I ask how comes Jehovah to be a greater Name or more incommunicable than God And why has he said nothing to so many Instances as the Socinians and his own viri quidam doctissimi give of Persons and even of Places on which the Name Jehovah is bestowed in the Historical Books of Scripture What he says of Ambassadors serves only to show that he has forgot some part of his Academical Learning and is but little acquainted with the World There is no Freshman in Oxford or Cambridg but will inform him out of the Roman Antiquities that Publick Messengers were wont to assurne the Name and whole Stile of the Persons whom they represented The Fecialis or Herald at Arms denounced War in these Terms I the King and People of Rome denounce and proclaim Hostility and War against the King and People of N. At this present time in the Christian Countries Ambassadors in some Cases take on them the Name and Stile of their Prince as in all Espousals and some other Cases but they always retain the Majesty and Dignity of the Prince or State from whom they come they always speak with the Hat on and their Persons are sacrosanct that is they cannot be arrested confined or punished they can only be required to depart out of the Kingdom This whole Defence therefore of Dr. Bull is either groundless or directly false For if it had been God who spoke to Moses out of the Bush he being present and speaking in his own Name these Words I am the God of thy Fathers he could not have at all been called an Angel that is Messenger And if God himself as Mr. Bull pretends was in the Fire there was no Occasion that an Angel also should be there And 't is utterly false that publick Messengers do not assume the Name or the Stile or Dignity of the Sovereigns that send them and whom they represent I shall therefore thank Dr. Bull for giving up his Cause to the Socinians For if it was the WORD or Son as he says that appeared in the Bush to Moses it follows that the WORD is not God but the Angel or Messenger of God for he can never elude our Argument that if the Person that spoke these Words I am the God of thy Fathers had been God himself speaking in his own Person and there present he could not have been called a Messenger of the Lord either by Moses or St. Stephen Dr. Bull must of necessity grant either that the WORD did not appear in the Bush which is to yield that his Fathers mistook in the chief Ground on which they built our Saviour's Pre-existence or that the WORD is but a Messenger not God which is to yield his Cause 2. It is argued again against Dr. Bull 's Fathers by the viri quidam doctissimi that indeed it is said at Exod. 20.1 God spake all these Words namely the ten Commandments but other Texts inform us that God is said to have spoke the Commandments and given the Law because it and they were given and spoke by an Angel attended or accompanied by other Angels in the Person and Name of God or as representing God Acts 7.53 They received the Law by the Disposition of Angels Gal. 3.19 It was ordained by Angels in the Hand of a Mediator i. e. it was commanded or spoken by Angels yet not immediately to the People but by
Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of Glocester Dr. Sherlock Mr. How and others imbrace this Notion of the Trinity 'T is not unlikely that by degrees it will exclude the Sabellian Nominal Trinity of the Schools and not only exclude it but be the Occasion that it shall be declared Heretical 'T is true that more commonly in Universities they go the way of the Schools but the scholastick Trinity implies so many Follies and is so certainly nothing else but a disguised Sabellianism that the real Trinitarians may probably enough carry their Point against the Nominals if the Difference between them breaking out into a Contention shall fall into the Hands of able Managers We have seen how the Fathers understood the Trinity but the Difficulty is still behind how did they make out the Unity of God For if there are three spiritual intellectual Substances three infinite Spirits three eternal all-knowing and all-powerful Minds Three each of which is a perfect God do we not lose the Unity of God the principal Article of revealed Religion and the grand Design of both the Testaments while we believe and affirm three such Persons Dr. Bull here offers his Hand at a dead lift he tells us the Fathers easily came off from this Exception or Doubt by saying 1. The Son and Spirit had their Original their Being and Godhead from the Father therefore having proceeded from him as their Principle and Fountain they are not distinct Gods from him but one God with him The Fathers granted that were not the Son and Spirit originated from the Father the three Divine Persons being so many several Principles would also be so many Gods but because the Son and Spirit are not as the Father self-originated or unoriginated but from the Father therefore they are rightly said to be one God with him Every one sees that there lies this Exception against this Account of the Unity of God If to be originated from the Father will make the Persons so originated to be one God with him or one with him and with one another it follows that not only the Son and Holy Spirit but Angels also and Men nay the whole Creation the very vilest Parts of it shall be one God with the Father and with the pretended Trinity and one with one another because they are all originated from the Father Therefore the Fathers said 2. Bare Origination from the Father will not constitute the Persons so originated one God or one with him or with one another unless they have the same Substance with the Father that is as has been said the same for Kind and Properties And this Confideration they said excludes all Creatures from being one God or one with the Father or the blessed Trinity for created Substances are finite subject to Change and Accidents In a word they are wholly unlike to the Divine Substance They foresaw that it would be again objected here If to be originated from another who is of the same kind with the Persons so originated from him will make them all to be one for Instance will make the Son and Spirit to be truly one and one God with the Father from whom they are originated then two Sons or a Son and Grandson because they are originated from the same Father and are of the same kind with him shall also be one with him they shall not be three Men but one Man as Father Son and Holy Spirit are not three Gods but one God To wind themselves from this most certain and solid Reasoning the Fathers devised a third Elusion as wise as either of the two former they said that 3. Origination of two Persons from a first Person tho they are all of the same kind will not make them one or one God except as it most luckily happens between the three Divine Persons the originated Persons are propagated interiori productione that is are generated by an internal Production so that they are always and inseparably in the Person that produced them And this at length is the Fathers whole Explication of a Trinity in Unity They said in short three distinct Divine Persons Substances Spirits each of which is singly and by himself a perfect God are notwithstanding but one God because the second and third Persons are originated from the first and are of the same Kind and Properties with him and are generated or propagated by an internal Production so that they inseparably and always remain in the Father and he in them This in effect is to say that naturally properly and truly speaking there are three Gods or there are three Gods in Number but in regard that God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are of the same kind with God the Father are originated from him and are eternally and inseparably in him they may in a Catachrestical improper and respective Sense all be called one God I will examine very particularly the whole Hypothesis of these Fathers their Trinity of Substances Minds and Spirits and their Explication now laid down how three such Persons and Divine Minds can be but one God Only for preventing if it may be future Cavils I would first take notice that this Explication of the Unity of God or how three Persons can be but one God by the Fathers and Dr. Bull evidently supposes that they held the three Divine Persons are so many distinct Substances Minds and Spirits as well as distinct Persons I think 't is sufficient to prove that the Fathers held the three Persons are so many distinct Spirits and Minds in that they so certainly affirmed them to be distinct spiritual Substances if the three Divine Persons are three distinct Substances all Men the very nominal Trinitarians themselves will grant that they are distinct Minds and Spirits Dr. Bull hath incontestably proved by a great Number of Quotations and might have proved by a great many more that by consubstantial or of the same Substance the Fathers meant not the same Substance in Number but the same in Properties As Stars are consubstantial to Stars and the Bodies of Men to the Bodies of Beasts because they are Substances of the same kind that is corporeal and of the same Properties for all Stars are lucid and the Bodies of Men and Beasts are organized and subject to Alteration So are the three Divine Persons consubstantial being of the same kind that is to say spiritual and having the same Properties namely Eternity Immutability Omnipresence and the other Divine Attributes I will undertake for it that none of the Nominal Trinitarians as angry as some of them are will ever attempt to confute Dr. Bull 's first Chapter of his second Section where he gives this Account of the word Consubstantial out of the Fathers But if the Divine Persons are therefore Consubstantial because they are of like kind and have the same Properties their Substance is not the same in Number but only as Dr. Bull speaks the same in Nature And if this be true as
incontestably it is that the Fathers believed the three Divine Persons to be so many distinct spiritual Substances in Number it will be controverted by no Body that they are also in the Judgment of the Fathers distinct Minds and Spirits Secondly But as I said the before-mentioned Explications of the Unity of God or how the three Divine Persons are yet but one God are another and an invincible Declaration that they held the said Persons are three Minds Spirits and Substances If the Fathers had held that the three Persons are but one only numerical Substance one infinite Spirit one omniscient Mind and Energy and that they are called Persons only because the one numerical Substance subsists in three Modes that is after three several manners I say if this had been the Opinion of the Fathers the Question would not have been how the three Persons can be but one God but how they can be called Hypostases or Persons As at this day no Man is so foolish as to charge the Nominal Trinitarians with Tritheism or holding three Gods but only with Gotham Philosophy and Divinity in calling Modes or a Substance subsisting after three manners Persons when it is so obvious that Modes are not Persons but certain Affections and accidental Denominations belonging to Persons The Fathers would never have troubled themselves nor would any ever have objected it to them or demanded it of them how they could say there is but one God if the three Persons by them so called were but one numerical Substance subsisting three manner of ways or in three relative Modes all the Question as I said would have been what they meant by this Gibberish subsisting in three Modes or three manner of ways What Occasion was there for the Fathers to tell us the three Divine Persons may be called one God because the Son and Spirit are originated from the Father are like to him in all Divine Properties and subsist in him what need I say was there of these Excuses or how are they possibly applicable to the three Divine Persons if the Persons were not taken to be so many Spirits Minds and Substances but only a threefold manner of Subsistence of the same numerical Substance Mind and Spirit I omit for the present a great deal that might be farther said on this Subject because when the Nominal Trinitarians have called till they are hoarse weary and asham'd to Universities and Bishops to espouse their Cause and to censure the real Trinitarians after all the very Names by which the three Divine Persons are called a Father his Son an Holy Spirit distinct from both do so manifestly imply those Persons to be distinct Beings Substances Minds and Spirits and not Modes or Relations only of the self same numerical Being and Spirit that it will always be carried against them by the Majority of considering Divines All their Appeals notwithstanding it will not be long e're they are told by their Superiors in the Church that 't is expedient for them to be quiet left themselves be censured as Sabellians or as we now speak Unitarians To sum up all I say the Fathers beld that the three Divine Persons are three distinct spiritual intellectual Substances three Minds three Spirits this appears say I farther by their Explications of the word Consubstantial by their Answers to this Question how three such Persons can be but one God and by the Terms which they use concerning the three Persons a Father his Son a Spirit distinct from both These things being I suppose sufficiently establish'd we may rely on it that Dr. Bull will not deny that I have truly reported what the Fathers the Post-nicene Fathers say I but Dr. Bull says all the Fathers held both concerning the three Divine Persons and how we must understand them to be but one God Therefore now I will examine his whole Hypothesis it hath these Parts 1. There are three Divine Hypostases or intellectual Substances three ommscient almighty Minds and Spirits each of these has all Divine Perfections and is singly and by himself a most compleat and perfect God 2. Yet doth not this contradict that most great and indisputable Truth visible in the Works of Creation and ascertained by Revelation of holy Scripture that there is but one God because of the three Divine Hypostases and Spirits before described the second and third are originated from the first have the same Nature and Properties that he has and are propagated from him by an internal Production so that they are always inseparably in him and he in them by a mutual Pervasion Immeation or Penetration There is no necessity that I should concern my self against the first of these Propositions for if I disprove the second the first will fall of it self if three Hypostases or Spirits cannot be one God this sort of Trinitarians must either give up their three distinct Substances their three Minds and Spirits or openly profess that they believe three Gods Notwithstanding it will not be amiss or besides our Purpose if we show these Gentlemen that whatever Arguments militate against a Plurality of Gods prove also no less effectually and directly that there can be but one Divine intellectual Substance but one infinite Spirit and Mind How do Philosophers and Divines establish the Unity of God or that there neither is nor can be more than one God They say all Plurality of Beings of the same kind and sort is from the Imbecillity Weakness and Unsufficiency in some respect or other of those Beings for if a Being be absolutely perfect infinite in all Perfections all-sufficient for it self and for the Beings to which it relates there is no need that it should be multiplied or be more than one We see say they that all Nature has nothing that is superfluous nothing in vain where-ever one of the sort is sufficient as one Sun and such like the Individuals of that kind never proceed beyond Unity But the Divine Nature as the most excellent of all will much more exclude all Multiplicity more Infinites more All sufficients would be such an impertinent Repetition so altogether vain and to no purpose that we cannot think of it without immediately rejecting it This is the first Argument used by Philosophers to prove the Unity of God no Body will contest it that it equally proves but one infinite Spirit one all-sufficient Mind one absolutely perfect Being They say again it implies a Contradiction that there should be more than one all-sufficient God Mind or Spirit because such a Supposition pretends to make an infinite Addition of the same kind to what is already infinite and to increase All-sufficiency And if there are more Gods or more Minds and Spirits infinite in their Perfections either they are all of them unoriginated or one only is unoriginated and the rest are derived from him by Generation or Creation The Trinitarians with whom we have now to do answer that only one the Father is unoriginated the other Persons
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
the better Moiety of the Roman Empire were called the Orient The Church of Rome tho she was not as she now calls her self the Mistress yet being the Patriarchal Chair of all the West she was the Example of the Churches of the West Part of the Empire I affirm now that these two Creeds as also that of Aquileia perfectly agree with the Vulgar by which he means the Apostles Creed as we now have it Mr. du Pin's Table which we confess to be exact enough will show us no Difference but what will confirm every intelligent Reader that without peradventure they are all but one Creed made by the same Author or Joint-Authors There is more Difference between the ten Commandments as recited by Moses at Exod. 20. and as repeated again by the same Moses at Deut. 5. than between these Creeds Mr. du Pin will sooner perswade a prudent Reader that the 10 Commandments in Deuteronomy were not the Commandments spoke on Mount Sinai and recorded Exod. 20. than that the 4 Creeds in his Table are not the same or came not from the same Hands The whole Difference of the 4 Creeds consists in these unsignificant Words and Expressions The Oriental Creed said I believe in one God the Father Almighty Invisible and Impassible The Roman I believe in God the Father Almighty and the Aquileian said I believe in one God the Father Almighty the present or Vulgar Creed adds Maker of Heaven and Earth The Roman and Aquileian and Present say And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord the Oriental transposes the word only thus and in our only Lord Jesus Christ his Son The Oriental Roman and Aquileian said who was born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary the Present by way of Explication who was conceived of the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary The Oriental and Roman said was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried the Aquileian crucified under Pontius Pilate buried descended into Hell the Present crucified under Pontius Pilate dead buried descended into Hell But descendit ad inferos he descended to those below or as we render it into Hell is confess'd on all Hands to be an accidental Addition in the Creed of Aquileia and from that Creed was taken into the Present Creed on this Occasion In some Churches it was said was buried in others went to those below which every one sees are equivalent Expressions and intended to signify the same thing but the Church of Aquileia desiring that her Creed should be most full and compleat took in both the Expressions tho at the same time as Ruffinus who was of Aquileia acknowledges she meant no more by both than other Churches by the single word buried And hence it was that the other Churches and Copies of the Creed which said descended into Hell or descended to those below did omit buried and so at this day doth the Athanasian Creed But it was not long before this Variety of expressing the same thing begat Mistakes for by occasion of this Expression descended to those below divers began to imagine a local Descent of Christ into Hell Some of them said to triumph over the Devil others said to release those Damned who believed and repented at the sight of him others had still other as ungrounded Conceits But the Disputes about the Reasons of our Saviour's Descent to those below made the Article taken in general to be believed and therefore it was added at last to the Roman Creed which with this and some other Alterations makes the Vulgar or Present Creed All the Creeds say the third Day he arose again from the Dead The Oriental Roman and Aquileian said he ascended into Heaven sitteth on the right Hand of God the Father the present to the word Father adds the word Almighty They all said from thence he shall come to judg the quick and the dead The Oriental Roman and Aquilean said And in the Holy Ghost the Present more explicitly I believe in the Holy Ghost The Oriental Roman and Aquileian said I believe the Holy Church the Communion of Saints the Present to the word Church adds the word Catholick or Universal All the Creeds said the Forgiveness of Sins In like manner they all said the Resurrection of the Body saving that the Aquileian said of this Body The Present concludes with the Life everlasting the other three mention not the Life everlasting because it is supposed and included in the foregoing Article the Resurrection of the Body I say now let any one read the ten Commandments at Exod. 20. and compare them with the same ten Commandments at Deut. 5. and he will perceive that he may better deny them to be the same Commandments than that these four various Copies are Copies of the same Creed The Variations of the 4 Copies are so inconsiderable the Causes of that Variation so obvious and evident that he that will call them not various Readings of the same Creed but 4 several Creeds proceeding from so many several Compilers in my opinion ought if obstinate in his Error to take Physick But if these are only various Readings of the same Creed without doubt we have gained our Point that the Apostles were the Authors of it For I desire to know how it was morally possible that the East and West which is to say all the Churches of Christendom should in all Kingdoms Provinces and Episcopates happen to have the very same Creed both for Number and Order of Articles and Manner of Expression if they did not receive it from the very same Persons from whom they received the Gospel and the Scriptures namely from the Apostles and other first Missionaries and Preachers of the Heavenly Doctrine It is granted to us that there had been no General Council when this Creed as we have made it appear was the common and only Creed both of the West and Orient therefore when all the Fathers without excepting any that speak of this Creed tell us they have received ex traditione Majorum by Tradition of their Predecessors that this Creed was made by the Apostles they give us such an Account as justifies and proves its own Truth for no other Cause can be thought of how it should become the common and only Creed of Christians 2 Mr. du Pin saith Ruffinus in the 5 th Century is the first Person who asserts that this Creed was composed by the Apostles and that too from popular Tradition indeed a great many other Fathers say the same thing but they all had it from Ruffinus First Mr. du Pin reckons Ruffinus to the 5 th Century only to lessen his Authority and Credit in this Question for it is certain and acknowledged by Dr. Cave and afterwards by Mr. du Pin that Ruffinus flourish'd at Aquileia in the Year 360. at which Time and Place he had a great Friendship and Intimacy with St. Jerom. It is true because he lived to be old he saw the Year of
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
Justin Martyr who saith himself in his first Apology that he presented his Apology in the Year 150. The Epistles of Barnabas and Ignatius and the Prophecies and Visions of Hermas were not it should seem yet come out of the Mint or were so well known to be Impostures that no Body durst to alledg them in these Controversies The Question between Dr. Bull and the present Unitarians is concerning the Fathers and Monuments of the Apostolick Succession whether these held our Saviour's Pre-existence and Divinity Eusebius answers us out of a laudable Author that Justin Martyr opposed our Doctrine that is he giveth up to us the whole Apostolick Succession which is as much as the Socinians ever claimed As to the Hymns or Psalms of the Brethren which he saith spoke of Christ as the WORD of God and attributed to him Divinity 't is plain that he spoke rashly and at adventures when he added they were composed by the Brethren from the very first for seeing the Authors of them were unknown so also of necessity must their Date Is doubt not these are the Psalms in Honour of Christ which were put down in the Patriarchal Church of Antioch under this Censure that in very deed they were novel Compositions by later Men and containing some dangerous Strains As we learn from a Letter of the Council at Anticch apud Euseb H. E. l. 7. c. 30. Having said what was necessary concerning the Apostolick Fathers I might now proceed immediately to the Primitive Fathers so called to distinguish them from the Fathers that lived after the Nicene Council or the Year 325 who are simply called Fathers But because I would have nothing else to do in the 2 d and 3 d Parts of this Answer to Dr. Bull but only to examine and discuss his impertinent and most fraudulent Citations out of the Fathers and to oppose to them the certain and clear Testimonies of the same and other Fathers therefore here I will consider the two Passages in Dr. Bull 's Defence of the Nicene Council which in my opinion are the only Parts of his Book that needed to be at all remarked on by the Socinians The first is concerning the Grounds on which Justin Martyr and the following Fathers built their new Doctrine of our Saviour's Pre-existence and that he was tho a Ministerial and Subordinate yet an Agent in the Creation of all things The other is whether the Explication of the Trinity or how three Divine coeternal co-equal Persons and Spirits can be but one God given by Dr. Bull as out of the Fathers be not an undeniable unavoidable Tritheism Of the Grounds on which Justin Martyr and the following Fathers built their Doctrine of our Saviour's Pre-existence and that he is a Ministerial Creator AFter Dr. Bull had quoted some Passages of the Fathers wherein they say it was the Divine WORD who appeared so often to the Patriarchs as to Adam Abraham Jacob Moses He takes notice also that some learned Men of the Moderns at p. 20. he calls them viri quidam doctrissimi deride these Citations as mere Dreams of the good Fathers and hold it for a certain Truth that it was only an Angel who appeared so often and on so many Occasions to the Patriarchs but the Angel say they is called Jehovah and God because on those Occasions he represented the Person and Authority of God He notes again that others may object hereupon if the Fathers were mistaken in the Ground on which they did build their Supposition of our Saviour's Pre-existence 't is but too probable that they have erred also in the Supposition it self namely that the Lord Christ did pre-exist or had a Being before he was born of the Virgin Mary He answers to the several Arguments of the viri quidam doctissimi and I intend here to examine his Answers 1. They argue that indeed it is said at Exod. 3.4 God called to Moses out of the midst of the Bush but it is owned in the preceding 2 d Verse that it was indeed an Angel of the Lord that appeared to Moses in a Flame of Fire in the midst of the Bush and St. Stephen also assures us Acts 7.30 There appeared to Moses an Angel of the Lord in a Flame of Fire in the midst of a Bush Dr. Bull replies 1 st The Divine WORD who is the true God might be called here an Angel because he appeared in such manner as Angels were wont to appear 2 dly Some of the Fathers said that it was an Angel that appeared in the Bush but the Divine WORD was in the Angel and it was God in the Angel that spoke to Moses these Words I am the God of thy Fathers 3 dly 'T is an absurd nay horrible Opinion to think or maintain that the Angels ever as it were acted the Person and part of God by assuming his incommunicable Name Jehovah or his Person Authority and Attributes He saith it was never heard of that an Ambassador in delivering the Message or Commands of his Master took on him the Person and Stile of his Master but all Ambassadors say only thus saith my Master Now in answer to these Elusions first Mr. Bull has but imperfectly reported the Argument of those learned Men to whom he endeavours to answer For they not only alledg that the Person who is called Jehovah at Exod. 3.4 is declared at ver 2. of the same Chapter and by St. Stephen at Acts 7.30 to be only an Angel therefore called Jehovah and God because he represented the Person and Authority of God but they prove this by Examples and by very cogent Reasons Moses tells the Israelites from God Exod. 23.20 I send an Angel before thee in the way to bring thee into the Place that I have prepared Beware of him obey his Voice provoke him not for he will not pardon your Transgressions for my Name is in him Who sees not here that the Meaning is the Angel being to represent my Person and to exercise my Authority therefore my Name is in him or therefore he is called by my Name even Jehovah or the LORD which is the Name by which this Angel is all along called in the following History set down in the subsequent Chapters and Books of Moses Again when it is said at Gen. 7.16 that Noah and his Sons and the Creatures that were to be preserved being entred into the Ark the LORD Heb. Jehovah shut them in and when the Angel that wrestled with Jacob is called Gen. 32.30 God is there not an absolute necessity of saying that these Angels had the Names Jebovah and God given to them on the account that they were heavenly Messengers that represented the Person of God For is it congruous to say God shut the Door and God wrestling with Jacob prevailed not against him In a word the viri doctissimi show first that 't is expresly said concerning a mere Angel that the Name of God was in him And next that very often the
the Mediation that is the Intervention of Moses the Angels spake it to Moses in the Mount he to the People Heb. 2.2,3 If the Word spoke by Angels was stedfast how shall we escape if we neglect so great Salvation which at first began to be spoke by the Lord Jesus and was confirmed to us by them that heard him None ever doubted that all these Texts speak of the Law and the first and second of the ten Commandments more especially but we see 't is here said they were received from Angels were ordained by Angels were spoke by Angels of which the Meaning can only be that the Angels spoke ordained and gave the Law in the Person of God or as sustaining the Name and Person of God we can no otherways reconcile these Texts to those other which impute the giving and speaking the Law to God himself Whereas Dr. Bull replies the Law indeed is sometimes said to be given by Angels and spoke by Angels because they were present and attended when God gave the Law Almighty God came he saith waited on by his Angels to manifest his Greatness and Majesty I ask seeing according to Dr. Bull God was personally present nay it was he that spoke the Commandments and the Law how could the Holy Scriptures say of the Angels who assisted only at Attendants and Servants in the Train of the Celestial King that they gave they ordained they spoke the Law If his Majesty should come to Parliament in his Robes and other Marks of Sovereign and Legislative Power but withal waited on by the Gentlemen of his Chamber or others whom he thinks fit to call to him will any one be so absurd as to say that these Gentlemen made a most gratious Speech to the two Houses The Scriptures often tell us the Commandments and Law were spoke were ordained were given by Angels True says Dr. Bull out of his Fathers for the Angels were present they waited on God when he gave ordained and spoke the Law Who sees not that at this rate of answering and arguing he may also impute the Acts of our Kings and Parliaments to their Mace-bearers and Door-keepers Whereas he refers us to Deut. 33.2 and Psal 68.17 as Texts that will prove to us that God himself was with the Angels at Sinai where the Commandments and Law were delivered it had been but civil if he had repeated the very Words of those Texts Readers commonly take it very unkindly when lazy Authors send them of an Errand and generally to a wrong Place too It may be I am reading below Stairs in my Parlor my Bible is on the Stool by my Bed-side two Stories higher is it good Manners in an Author to oblige me to clamber up with gouty Knees and Hands into my Bed-chamber to search for certain Words which he himself durst not recite for fear I should laugh at him Well but I have look'd into the Texts which Mr. Bull was ashamed to relate and I will assure our common Reader that they do not at all say that God was any more with the Angels in Sinai than he is in all other Places which is not such a sort of Presence as will answer Mr. Bull 's Purpose We doubt not God was at Sinai in the midst of the Angels in such Sense as it is said by David Psal 68.25 It is well seen my God and King how thou goest into the Sanctuary the Minstrels go before the Singers follow in the midst are Damsels playing with Timbrels Or as he is in the ordinary Congregations of such as assemble to hear or pray But we say such general Omnipresence notwithstanding it is the Minister not God that immediately exhorts the Congregation and at Sinai the Angels not God immediately gave and spoke the Law that is as representing the Person of God and by his especial Mandate Orders and Directions they gave the Law and the Commandments 3. Again they object to Mr. Bull 's Fathers Heb. 1.1,2 God who at sundry times and in divers manners as by Visions Dreams Apparitions of his Angels spake in times past by the Prophets to the Fathers hath in these last Days spoken to us by his Son Here now are Dr. Bull 's Fathers and St. Paul at utter Variance St. Paul says God in times past spoke to the Patriarchs and the Jewish Church by his Prophets in divers manners by Dreams Apparitions of Angels Visions Burdens Inspirations but at length in these last Days in the Gospel-Age with which the World shall conclude he has spoke to us by his Son Dr. Bull 's Fathers on the contrary pretend that God spake all along in the Old Testament-times not by a created Angel but by his Son the eternal WORD The Socinians are absolutely of opinion that one St. Paul is to be preferred to all the Fathers and tho on this Account they are reckoned grand Hereticks yet they are content to be reproached for their Adherence to Scripture But what says Dr. Bull He is never at a loss he answers When St. Paul says 't is but in these last Days or in the Gospel-Age that the Son of God hath spoken to Mâ—… the Meaning is he did not before speak immediately to Men. How so why not immediately if he appeared visibly was heard audibly and directed his Speech immediately to the Person or Persons to whom he appeared No all this is not immediate spealing Dr. Bull says 'T is a hard Case truly but when the Scriptures say farther that God that is the Angel who represented God spake to Moses face to face as a Man to his Friend shall not this neither be immediate speaking Doubtless it must not for if it be Dr. Bull has lost his Cause which is the only Reason why speaking audibly visibly face to face and as a Man to his Friend is not immediate speaking But when the Apostle says 't is but in these last Days in the Gospel-Age that God hath spoke to Men by his Son who gave Dr. Bull or Friend L. de Tena Authority to add to his Words immediately or immediatione suppositi The Apostle speaks in unlimited Terms it is saith he but only in this Gospel-Age that God hath spoke to Men by his Son fair and softly cries Dr. Bull it must be understood cum grano salis or good Paul is quite out for when all is done God spoke to Men by his Son nay by none but him from the very first For the Son spoke to Men from the Beginning in the Likeness of an Angel not indeed immediately but visibly audibly as a Friend to his Friend and directing also his Speech immediately to the Person and to no other to whom he at that time appeared And this they call interpreting of Scripture their Cause indeed requires such Interpreters But to prove that the Lord Christ did indeed pre-exist and was that Angel who led the Israelites thorow the Wilderness Dr. Bull alledges 1 Cor. 10.9 And let us not tempt Christ as some of
them also tempted and were destroyed of Serpents The Israelites then were destroyed of Serpents for their tempting that is provoking the Lord Christ with their Sins while in the Appearance of an Angel he led them thorow the Wilderness To this Text Grotius answers that without doubt Let us not tempt Christ is a false Reading and that we ought to read with the Alexandrian Copy Let us not tempt God as some of them tempted and were destroyed of Serpents Dr. Bull replies the Authority of the Alexandrian Copy cannot be opposed to the Syriac Latin and Arabick Versions to St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom and Theophylact. Yes the Alexandrian Copy is much antienter than any of those Versions or Fathers the Latin which is the first was made by St. Jerom above 100 Years after the Alexandrian Copy But why has Dr. Bull suppressed it that one of his own Historians St. Epiphanius has expresly informed us who was the particular Man that corrupted this Text the Heretick Marcion instead of let us not tempt the Lord that is to say God published in his Copies let us not tempt Christ Epiphan l. 1. T. 1. p. 358. Edit Petav. This Corruption is very antient for Marcion one of the first that defended our Saviour's Pre-existence and to support that Doctrine corrupted this Text flourished about the Year 150. But after the Nicene Council 't is no wonder that many Trinitarians followed in this Text the Copies of Marcion as being then near 200 Years old and it was after the Nicene Council that all the Versions and Fathers to whom Dr. Bull appeals concerning this Text appeared But to confirm farther the Pre-existence of the WORD or Son of God Dr. Bull dares pretend that 't is a part of the Jewish Cabbala or traditional Knowledg which that Nation derived from Moses he from God Hereupon he cites some Words of the Apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon which according to him is a very autient Book also some Expressions of Philo Judaeus supposed to be a Jew by Religion as well as by Nation He appeals also to the Chaldee Paraphrases or Translations of the Old Testament by Onkelos and Jonathan as if these spake of the WORD as a Person and the great Messenger of God under the Old Testament And finally he says Masius on Joshua has quoted a certain Rabbi and an old Jewish Book called Tanchumam which speak of the WORD much after the manner as doth the Author of the Wisdom of Solomon He saith first that the Pre-existence of the WORD as a Divine Almighty Person and as the Son of God is a part of the Jewish Cabbala or traditional Knowledg Then to prove this he cites Passages out of Philo the Wisdom of Solomon the Paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan a certain Rabbi and the Book Tanthumam He thinks it should seem that these Jewish Writers had their Notion of the WORD from the Jewish Cabbala I cannot but wonder I coufess that a Protestant Divine should believe the Jewish Cabbala or think that the Jews had a traditional Knowledg or Institution concerning God and Religion distinct from the Books of Moses and the Prophets I had thought that all Protestants nay all Christians were agreed that the Cabbala is the Invention of the Pharisees and Masters of the Pharisaical Sect not a Trudition from Moses If the Cabala had come from Moses or had it been acknowledged by the Prophets and antient Jewish Church as of Divine Revelation and Institution it would have been often mentioned appealed and alluded to in the Books of the Old Testament and there is no question that Ezra when he made the Collection of Canonical Books and Monuments immediately after the Return from the Babylonish Captivity would have had an especial Care of the Divine Cabala or Traditional Knowledg He would have committed it to Writing lest it should be lost or corrupted He would have added it to the Canon of Scripture when he collected all other Pieces that had been written by the Prophets or other holy Men He that has left to us the Proverbs of Solomon his Book of Love nay the Story of Ruth would not have neglected the Divine Cabala But I shall put this Dilemma to Dr. Bull let him take it by which Horn he likes best Either the Cabala of the Jews is of humane Invention or of divine Appointment and Revelation If the former why has he quoted in so great a Question as this now before us a spurious Work an Imposture an impious Pharisaical Addition to the Holy Scripture will such fraudulent Arts as these help or credit his Cause If the other if the Cabala is a Tradition of Divine Revelation and Institution 't is of equal Authority with the Writings of Moses and the Prophets and Dr. Bull ought to bind it up with the other two Parts of Holy Scripture namely the Old and New Testaments Dr. Bull may do as he pleases but the Socinians acquiesce in that Judgment which our Saviour himself has made of the Cabala at Mat. 15.6,9 where he calls this Traditional Law the Commandments of Men a mere humane Pharisaical Figment he adds there that by this Tradition of theirs they contradicted and made void the true and genuine Commandments of God It is in vain therefore that Mr. Bull tells us of a Cabala of the Jews of which he precariously and without having read it or so much as knowing what it is supposes that it not only speaks of the WORD but speaks of it as a Person and the Son of God and afterwards falls to citing some Jewish Authors who from this Cabala as he again untruly supposes discourse of the WORDâ—… a pre-existent Person the Son of 〈◊〉 by Generation and God's Messenger 〈◊〉 Minister during the times of the Old Testament I say this Pretence of Dr. Bull is vain because supposing the Cabala did speak of the WORD as a Person and the Son of God pre-existent to the Creation it self and supposing again that the Jewish Authors whom he cites had taken their Doctrine from the Cabala yet what will all this avail when the Cabala it self is so certainly not a Tradition from Moses or God but a mad Collection of Follies and Chimeras the sickly Dreams of the Fanatical Pharisees The Jewish Cabala is so far from owning a Trinity that this very Doctrine of Apostate Christians is the chief Offence that the Jews take at the Christian Religion it is the great thing that their learned Men in all Books and Conferences object to us that we have departed from the first Commandment and have advanced a second and a third God Farther they as little believe the WORD when taken in the Platonick Sense namely for a Person or that God has a Son who was his Minister in the Creation of all things and his Messenger or Angel to the Patriarchs In short neither now nor formerly have the Jews believed that the WORD is the Son of God but only his Power Energy and Virtue Dr. Bull will
never produce any thing of the Cabala that but looks this way And see here what Origen who flourished about the Year 270 fays of the Jews I have disputed often says this most Learned Father with the Jewish Rabbins that were of most Esteem but I could never meet with any of them who approve this Doctrine that the WORD is the Son of God Contr. Celsum l. 2. p. 79. Again l. 4. p. 162. he is more express in the case Celsus is ignorant that the Jews do not believe that the Messias or Christ whom they still expect as to come is not God nor the Son of God But Dr. Bull himself tho here to serve the present turn he contends that the Jewish Cabala speaks of the WORD as a Person and the Son of God elsewhere Judic Eccl. p. 170. owns and proves that the Jews do not expect any Messias or Christ promised to them by their Prophets but who shall be a mere Man And he cites Tripho the Jew saying We Jews expect a Christ who is a Man born of Men. But if this was the Opinion of the Jews concerning Christ that he shall be a Man only why does Mr. Bull pretend in this Place that the Cabala or Traditional Doctrine of the Jews which by them is supposed to be of Divine Revelation teaches the contrary namely that the Christ is to be a Divine Person the eternal Son of God and himself also God He will never reconcile these Contradictions to himself But let us now examine of what Authority his Quotations out of some Jewish Books are His first Citation is out of the Apocryphal Book of Wisdom Wisd 18.15,16 Thy Almighty WORD leap'd down from Heaven out of his Royal Throne as a fierce Man of War into a Land destined to Destruction He brought thine unfeigned Commandment as a sharp Sword and standing up filled all things with Death he touched the Heaven tho he stood upon the Earth In sober Sadness this was a terrible WORD his Feet stood on plain Ground and yet his Head touched not the Clouds or the Aether but Heaven it self and with his Death-dealing Fauchion he even depopulated the whole Country in a few Minutes 'T is sufficient however I suppose to sober People if we say hereupon that this same was only a Chimerical not a real Almanzor and that there is no Body but Dr. Bull that will ever be afraid of his Puissance But Dr. Bull objects that however this Passage serves to show that the Author of the Book of Wisdom who was a Jew believed the WORD Right but then he should have observed too that the Book as we now have it must be as much reckoned to the Translator who was a Christian as to the first Writer of it who it may be was a Jew Let us hear Grotius in his Preface to his Annotations on this Book The Book of Wisdom was written by a Jew who lived after the times of Ezra but some Christian or other who was a Greek hapning on it he hath given it us in the Greek Tongue but with divers Additions to it taken from the Christian Religion Of this kind no Man will doubt it is this Description of the WORD which is wholly Christian as Christianity began to be taught about the middle of the second Age the Jews as we have heard from Origen never believed such a kind of WORD namely that is a Person the Son of God or God His next Allegation is from the Paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan Jews that translated the Old Testament into Syro-Chaldaick after a Paraphrastical way But I cannot perceive that any of his Citations out of these Paraphrases speak of the WORD in the Platonick Sense namely as a Person or as a God but only in the Jewish and Socinian Sense namely as the Energy and Power of God or God's powerful effectual Mandate As to his last Quotation from a Paraphrase of Jonathan on the Psalms which has some Appearance of being to the purpose for which Mr. Bull alledged it whereas Jonathan seems to read the Lord said to his WORD Sit on my right Hand Jonathan's Words may better be rendred thus the Lord said by his WORD i. e. his Mandate or Decree Sit on my right Hand But Philo speaks home he expresly calls the WORD the Son of God his first-begotten Son to whose Care saith he farther as to the Vicarius and Deputy of God the whole Creation is committed and by whom it was originally made But I shall never believe that a Jew by Religion wrote those things concerning the WORD that we see in Philo's Works Eusebius suspects Photius directly affirms that Philo was a Christian This last adds that by occasion of some Displeasure taken Philo departed from the Christian Religion I believe with Eusebius and Photius that Philo was a Christian but I make no question that Eusebius is mistaken in thinking that this is the Philo who was sent on an Ambassage to the Emperor C. Caligula but a Philo of the second Age toward the expiring of it or of the 2 d Age just expiring For he describes the Therapeutae that is the Christians both in their Discipline their Studies and their manner of interpreting Holy Scripture not as they lived or were in the Apostolick Times but in the Close of the second and Beginning of the third Age. Lastly as to the obscure Rabbi cited by Masius and the unknown Book Tankumam enough has been said to evince that if they speak of the WORD as the Son of God they may be written perhaps in Rabbinical Hebrew and by Jews by Nation but such Jews as were come over to the Christian Religion there being nothing more certain than that the Jews never owned a Son of God in any other Sense but of Adoption Sanctification Exaltation and such like nor do I think that Dr. Bull himself will again insist on Jewish Authorities whether they be these or any other He should make himself ridiculous to all learned Men by persevering in such a notorious Mistake as this that the Jews either now or in any time past believed the WORD as a Person or that God begat a Son who was pre-existent to the World and was together with God the Creator of it 't is for this very Doctrine that the Jews have pretended ever since the Council of Nice and at this day do pretend that Christianity is a Revolt to Heathenism and Paganism There remains now but one thing more in Dr. Bull 's Defence of the Nicene Faith that I intend to consider in this first Part of my Answer to him his Explication of the Trinity or how three Divine Persons and Spirits each of which has all Divine Perfections and is singly and by himself God nay perfect God are for all that but one God On the Explication of the Trinity according to the Fathers and Dr. Bull. THAT three Divine Spirits and Persons each of which has all possible real Perfections and therefore is singly