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. 5th and 6th 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[Page 4]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 'tis 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 'tis called) in this Questi­on[Page 5]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 (aliorum (que) vete­rum) libri interciderint. 'Tis 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 in the Nicene Coun­cil; as he undertakes to prove, and thinks he has proved: yet his Per­formance amounts to no more but this; that of the Writers or Fathers who preceded the Nicene Council, about 20 were for the Divinity of our Saviour, and more than 200 against it.

II. The Characters of the Fathers, and their Works; more parti­cularly of St. Barnabas, Hermas, and Ignatius.

WHEN a Man appeals to the Judgment and Authority of any sort of Writers; the first thing to be considered, is, what is the Cha­racter of those Writers, and their Writings: Were the Writers skilful in that sort of Learning, of which they are called to be Judges? Are the Works or Writings that are imputed to them, certainly genuine, really[Page 6]and undoubtedly theirs? If so; yet have they not been corrupted, by (notorious) Additions, or Detracti­ons; so that 'tis questioned, by in­different and impartial Persons, what was written by the Author; and what by the Interpolator? Farther, whereas Dr. Bull's Book is concern­ing the Faith of the Nicene Fathers, that it agreed perfectly with the Faith of the Fathers who flourished and wrote before that Council; it will be another necessary Question, what was the Faith of the Nicene Fathers, either concerning the Divinity of our Saviour, or concerning the (pretend­ed) Trinity? Lastly, Dr. Bull has in­deed given us his Opinion concerning the Faith of the Ante-nicene Fathers; but what say other (famous) Cri­ticks; who, tho they were zealous Trinitarians, yet being more sincere and impartial, it may be, they grant that the Doctrine of the Ante-nicene Writers of the Church, was no less than diametrically contrary to the Ni­cene Faith, as well as to the Reform that has been made of that Faith, by the Divines of the Schools. I shall resolve all these Questions, in proper Places; at present, to the first Que­stion.

What is the true Character of these Writers, to whom Dr. Bull has ap­pealed? He answers, concerning one, that he is doctissimus, most learned; of another, that he is peritissimus, most able: and not to transcribe all his Flowers, on these Fathers, he dubs them all, Doctores probati, ap­proved Doctors; which is the least he ever says of them. It is in some de­gree excusable, because it may be im­puted to his Zeal, or his Art; that he vends all his Geese for Swans: but sure the very silliest Idolaters of his (weak) Book, will hardly ap­prove of it; that he divides even all the Divine Attributes too, among these his (supposed) Friends. For one he calls sanctissimus, most holy; another is beatissimus, most blessed; a third is optimus, most gracious; and a fourth, maximus, the most high. There is hardly a Page of his Book, but you meet with one or more of these Extravagancies: I suppose, he tarried longer at School than is ordi­nary; and so being an old Decla­mer, he could never since speak but only in the superlative Degree, no not when it borders on Blasphemy it self. But tho it is true, that few (I believe, none but Dr. Bull) have spoke or thought of the (remaining) Ante-nicene Fathers, at this wild rate: yet the Opinion that Men ge­nerally have of these Authors, is, that they were certain most grave, learned, sage, and experienced Di­vines; and called Fathers, not more for their Antiquity, than for their profound Judgment, and perfect Knowledg, in all the Parts of the Christian Religion. Because the Heads and Patrons of Sects, affect to quote the Fathers; and, if possible, to fill their Margin with References to Places in the Fathers: it is therefore almost universally supposed, that so great Deference has not been paid to them, without most just Cause for it.[Page 7]'Tis in the Father, that the Papist finds the whole Doctrine of the Council of Trent: in the Fathers, the Lutheran finds also his Articles; the Calvinist and the Church of Eng­land, theirs. The very Presbyteri­ans, Anabaptists, and Antinomians, are now turned Father-mongers; and in the Fathers find their Discipline and Doctrine, no less than their Op­posers find also theirs. In short, there is such a scuffling for the Fa­thers, by all Parties, that 'tis no wonder, if Persons who have not themselves read 'em, have a very raised and noble Idea of these Wri­ters. But all the Glory of the Fa­thers (I speak of the Ante-nicene Fa­thers, and except also Origen out of the Number) is wholly due to the Vanity of modern learned Men; who quote these Books, not because indeed they value them; but because being antient Monuments, known to few, and understood by fewer; he seems a great learned Man, who can drop Sentences out of these an­tique Books. But let us begin, to see what indeed they were.

The first of the Fathers and their Writings, alledged by Dr. Bull, is an Epistle (if it please Heaven) of St. Barnabas, the Apostle. I con­fess, that St. Barnabas, the Evange­list and Coadjutor of St. Paul, is also honoured with the Title of an Apo­stle; Acts 14.4. but that he left be­hind him an Epistle, I shall desire a better Proof than I have yet seen. What Dr. Bull says of him, is, ‘"Our most learned Hammond, and the most high Vossius believe, this Epi­stle was written by St. Barnabas; chiefly for this Reason; because it is cited under the Name of Barna­bas, by Clemens Alexandrinue, Origen, and othe Antients. Nor can those of the adverse Party, al­ledg any thing to the contrary, but only this; that the Author of this Epistle expounds too mysti­cally some Passages of the Old Te­stament.’

No; no other Reason to be al­ledged, why this Epistle was not written by the Evangelist Barnabas? Does he not know, that divers Cri­ticks have observed, that if the Anti­ents had really believed that St. Bar­nabas, the Companion, Fellow-Evangelist, and Fellow-Apostle of St. Paul, had wrote this Epistle; they would (undoubtedly) have reck­oned it among the Canonical Books of Scripture, as St. Paul's Epistles are. And has not Eusebius informed us, why this Epistle was not counted Ca­nonical; when he says: ‘"Some Books are received as Holy Scrip­ture, by the common Consent of all; namely, the four Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles of St. Paul, the first Epistle of St. John, the first of St. Peter, and (if you will) the Revelation of St. John. some other Books are of questioned and doubtful Authority, as the E­pistles of James and Jude, the se­cond of St. Peter, the second and thrid of St. John: but these fol­lowing are counterfeit pieces, [...]; the[Page 8]Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, the pretended Epistle of Bar­nabas, &c. these are Counterfeits.’ Dr. Bull may consider at his leisure, of what Weight the Judgment of (his most learned) Hammond and (the most high) Vossius may be, when put into the Scale against Euse­bius speaking (not his own, but) the Sense of the Primitive Church. And when his Hand is in, let him tell us, what might be in the Mind of the pretended Barnabas, as Euse­bius calls him, to scandalize all the Apostles, by saying; that before they were called to be Apostles, they were ( [...]) the most flagitious Men in the World. I am of opinion, we ought to answer, that 'tis not to be wondred at, if a counterfeit Apostle belies the true ones. This Crimination of the true Apo­stles is in the 5th Chapter of the al­ledged Epistle.

The more learned and impartial Criticks freely observe, concerning this Epistle, that 'tis full of strained and dull Allegories, extravagant and incongruous Explications of Scrip­ture, and abundance of silly and no­torious Fables concerning Animals. And what all judicious Men think of the Epistle, is, that it is indeed very antient, being quoted by Clemens A­lexandrinus and Origen: but that it was forged about the beginning of the 2d Century, or the 2d Century being well advanced; when also the Gospels of St. Thomas, St. Peter, St. Matthias, the Acts of St. An­drew, St. John, and other Apostles, were devised and published, as Eu­sebiue witnesses, H. E. l. 3. c. 25. But lest this Epistle should be thought to be of somewhat the more Credit, because 'tis (barely) quoted by Cle­mens and Origen; the Reader may take notice, that Clemens cites also other counterfeit Works of the Apo­stles, as particularly the Revelation of St. Peter, as has been noted by Eusebius, H. E. l. 6. c. 14. And nothing is more common with Ori­gen, than to quote such supposititious Writings; as (for Instance) the Book of Enoch, the Revelation of St. Paul, the Doctrine of St. Peter, and many more; concerning which Citations the Reader may see what Mr. du Pin has observed at large, Cent. 3. p. 113.

Dr. Bull's next approved Father is the great, either Prophet or Impostor, Hermas; in his Book called the Pa­stor or Shepherd.

We grant, that St. Paul mentions one Hermas, Rom. 16.14. and we doubt not, that the Author of the Shepherd would be understood to be that Hormas, for he makes himself contemporary with Clemens Romanus (mentioned also by St. Paul, Phil. 4.3.) Vision 2d. Chap. 4. The Shepherd of Hermas is distinguished into 3 Books; whereof the first con­tains 4 Visions, the second 12 Com­mands, the third 10 Similitudes: but both the Commands and Simili­tudes may be called Visions and Pro­phecies; because they are Representa­tions and Charges, made to him by Angels. The Scene of these Visions[Page 9]is Arcadia; and that we may be as­sured, that this Author would be taken for a Prophet, and would have his Book pass for a Divine Re­velation: he introduces the Angel (in his 2d Vision, Chap. 4.) as com­manding him, that he should prepare 3 Copies of these Visions; one for Clement then Bishop of Rome, to be sent by him to all the Churches; ano­ther for Grapte, who should instruct out of it the Widows and their Children; the third Hermas himself was to read to the Presbyters of the City of Rome. This is the Book and Author, in which Dr. Bull finds (or thinks he finds) some Passages in favour of our Saviour's Divinity; as I said at first, we must carefully exa­mine what is the true Character of this Work and Writer.

By what has been said, it is evi­dent to every one; that this (pre­tended) Hermas either was a Pro­phet or an Impostor: there is no Middle between these two, when the Person pretends to Visions, to Con­ferences with Angels, and such like extraordinary things. That the (pre­tended) Hermas was not a Prophet, is certain to me, by these Arguments. 1. He owns, in the third Command, that he was a most egregious, and common Liar: he saith expresly, that he scarce ever spake a true Word in his whole Life, but always lived in Dissimulation. and that to all Men. He weeps hereupon; and doubts, whether he can be saved: but his Angel assures him, that if for the time to come he will leave off his Lying, he may attain to Blessed­ness. He that was so addicted to ly­ing, 'tis no wonder that he has coun­terfeited also Visions and Colloquies with Angels; or that to gain Credit to his Chimeras and Follies, he fa­ther'd them on Hermas an Apostolical Man and Friend of St. Paul, as others before him had laid their spurious Off-springs to the Apostles them­selves. But, 2. Some of his (Cele­stial) Visions contain manifest Fal­shoods; particularly, he maketh his Angel to tell him, that the whole World is made up of twelve Nations, Simil. 9. Chap. 17. Being a Person altogether ignorant of secular Learn­ing, as appears in all his three Books, 'twas almost impossible, but that in his feigned Conferences with Angels he should sometimes make them to speak divers things both false and ab­surd. 3. To add no more on this Trifler; he has been judged to be no Prophet, by the whole Catholick Church, in that his Book is not reckoned among the Canonical Books of Scripture: were it a real Revela­tion from God, by the Ministry of Angels, as the Author pretends; and so esteemed by the Catholick Church; it must have been put among the Ca­nonical Books. It is true, when it first appeared, it imposed on some Churches, by the Boldness of its Pretence; and therefore was read in those Churches, as other genuine Parts of Scripture were: but even then, very many of the more Judici­ous rejected it; and as the Church began to fill with learned and able[Page 10]Persons, it was not only every where laid aside, but censured as both false and foolish. Of so many of the An­tients as condemned it, we need on­ly take notice of Eusebius; who, speaking of the Books used by Chri­stians, whether privately or in pub­lick, says; ‘"Some Books are re­ceived by common Consent of all; others are of questioned and doubt­ful Authority; and finally others are supposititious and counterfeit, of which last kind (saith he) are the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the pretended Epistle of Bar­nabas.’ Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 25.

Dr. Bull's third Author is Ignati­us: but neither is this Writer a whit better or honester, than the pretended Barnabas, or the counterfeit Her­mas. I do not mean to deny, that we have still the Epistles that are quo­ted by the Antients (Origen and Eu­sebius) under the Name of Ignatius: but this I affirm, that they were forged under Ignatius his Name, about the time that so many other Impostures were published under the Names of Aposiles, and of Aposto­lical Men; of which, the Learned know, there were almost an infinite Number.

Let us see, first, what the Criticks of the contrary Perswasion, have to alledg for the Epistles of Ignatius; we may hear Mr. Du Pin for them all, because he has written last, and more largely than any other. He observes that St. Polycarp, being thereto de­sired by the Philippians, sent them the Epistles of Ignatius; to which he also prefixed an Epistle of his own, directed to the same Philippians. Well, we acknowledg that Polycarp, writing to the Philippians, tells them towards the Close of his Epistle, that he had sent them (according to their Desire) the Epistles of Ignatius, that had by any means come to his Know­ledg or Hand. He adds, that in these Epistles, ‘"Ignatius treats of Faith and Patience, and all other things that tend to Edification in Christ.’ But here, two Doubts arise. First, whether the Epistles that we now have, were the same that are intended in the Epistle of Poly­carp, or so much as directed to the same Persons or Churches? The Rea­son of the doubt is, the Epistles that we now have, treat of nothing less than Faith and Patience, nay they treat not of Faith and Patience at all; much less (if it could be) are they a Collection of all things that tend to Edification in Christ; they are very far from being a kind of Summary of the Christian Doctrine, either in Faith or Morals. They are Letters of Compliment and Respect, not of In­struction or Exhortation. The other Doubt is, of what Authority and Credit is this Epistle of Polycarp; on which the Credit of the Epistles of Ignatius wholly depend? Mr. Du Pin answers; It is quoted by St. Ire­neus. Supposing now, what Mr. Du Pin has not proved, nor can prove; that the Epistle of Polycarp intended by Ireneus, is (in part) that Epistle of Polycarp which we now have, be­cause[Page 11]both the one and the other are directed to the Philippians: I say, supposing this; yet divers learned Criticks are of opinion, that the ge­nuine Epistle written by the true Po­lycarp, and which Ireneus intends, concludes with the 12th Chapter; where he solemnly gives them his va­ledictory Blessing: so that the fol­lowing Chapters which speak of Ig­natius his Epistles, and other Mat­ters, have (probably) been added by him (whoever he was) who con­trived Epistles in the Name of Igna­tius. No, says Mr. du Pin, nor can that be; for Ireneus (who praises that Epistle of Polycarp) quotes also certain Words, which are found in the very Epistles of Ignatius. But I do not know that Ireneus quotes any Epistle of Ignatius, or so much as names the Man; but only repeats a Saying of a certain Christian Martyr, which Saying the Forger of the Epi­stles of Ignatius thought fit to insert into those Epistles, which himself wrote in the Name and Person of Ig­natius. In short, I say, Eusebius, and before him Origen, owned the present Epistles of Ignatius, because they considered the Matter but light­ly; as not being any way concerned to disprove them. And Ireneus (ol­der than they) quotes an Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians; as also (elsewhere) some Words that are now found in an Epistle imputed to Ignatius: but supposing that we now have that Epistle of Polycarp, yet it seems likely that the Epistle did then conclude with the 12th Chapter, without any mention of the Epistles of Ignatius; and we cannot be assu­red that Ireneus quotes the Words of one of the Epistles of Ignatius, ra­ther than that the Forger of those Epistles borrowed those Words from Ireneus.

If it be said; but why all this Sus­piciousness? it will be hard to prove any Matter of Fact, of remote Ages; if such close and strict Proofs be re­quired. I answer; there is too much Cause to start these Doubts and Suspi­cions. For we have the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, as also the Epistles of Ignatius, and the Mar­tyrdoms of Ignatius and Polycarp, whereof the latter is contained in an Epistle (pretended to be written) by the Church of Smyrna; with this Advertisement at the end of them: ‘"This Epistle (concerning the Mar­tyrdom of Polycarp) was transcri­bed by Cains, from the Copy of Ireneus, who was a Disciple of Po­lycarp. And I Socrates transcribed it at Corinth, from the Copy of Caius.—After which, I Pionius wrote it from the Copy before­mentioned, having searched it out by the Revelation of Polycarp, who directed me to it; having gathered these things together, now almost corrupted by Time, that Jesus Christ may also gather me, toge­ther with his Elect ones.’

Here then is an Epistle; namely, the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, concerning the Martyrdom of Poly­carp; and as the Advertisement saith, other things that were almost corrupted[Page 12]thorow Process of Time; namely, a Relation of the Martyrdom of Ig­natius, and seven Epistles of Igna­tius: all these miraculously discover­ed to Pionius (the good) by Poly­carp, after his Death. It should seem, Polycarp could not rest, even in Rest; nor be blessed, in Blessed­ness; till he had broke from the Abodes of Bliss, and appeared to (honest) Pionius; to make known to him, where these Golden Remains were to be found. If we should un­derstand the Advertisement so, as say­ing that the Epistle concerning Poly­carp's Martyrdom came to Pionius by Revelation; and the other Pieces and Epistles were collected by the proper Industry of Pionius: yet thus, the whole Collection depends on the Credit of Pionius; who with most, I doubt, has utterly ruined his Cre­dit, as a Publisher of antient Monu­ments, by his Pretence that (at least) part of them are by Revelation. The Clowns will certainly cry out, Away with Impostors: let Pionius take his Bandle to himself, both his own Collection, and Polycarp's Revela­tion; for coming from him, we must needs believe them to be true alike! Could not this Knave (will they say) be content, to personate first the Church of Smyrna, in a most palpable Fiction; then the Assistants at the Martyrdom of Ignatius, and finally Ignatius himself; but he must seek too to confirm his counterfeit Wares by Revelations from Heaven, by Visions and Apparitions of de­parted Saints? We demand Autho­rities out of the Antients concerning the (pretended) Divinity of our Sa­viour, from Writings and Monu­ments that are verified by some good humane Testimony; our Opposers an­swer us out of Books, which some of their Fraternity received by Appari­tions, by Revelations from the Dead: but if once we allow of such Proofs, what end will there be of Fictions? The departed Saints were first called up, to bear witness to certain Epi­stles and Books: but in the next Age, when the first Cheat had taken with many; they were made to witness to their Bones and Reliques, in order to their being inshrined and worshipped; this last sort of Apparitions were eve­ry whit as true, as the first. They will prove, they say, their (consub­stantial co-eternal) Trinity, not on­ly from the Antenicene Fathers; but from the Apostolical Fathers, that is the Fathers that had Converse with the very Apostles, and flourished (some of them) to the Year 150: but when these Authors are produced, they are Barnabas the Apostle, the Prophet Hermas, the Martyrdoms and Epistles of Polycarp and Ignatius; whereof the two former (we have seen) are rejected as spurious by the Catholick Church, the other are grounded on Visions and Apparitions to one Pionius. But let us consider the Contents of these (pretious) Pieces, the Pionian [...].

The Martyidom of Polycarp saith, ‘"That when the Fire began to blaze to a great height; the Flame ma­king an Arch, like the Sail of a [Page 13]Ship against a full Wind, incom­pass'd the Martyr's Body at a di­stance, without hurting it; while from his Body proceeded a Smell, like to Frankincense, or some other rich Spices.’ The first of these Mi­racles would make the Boys wonder, and shout; and was of no farther Use: the other is yet more suspicious, for could not the Assistants distinguish the Smell of Frankincense; no not from any other of the Oriental Spices, tho both that and they were every day used (in those times) in their Funeral Piles? But the Tale goes on; ‘"When the Wicked saw, that the Martyr could not be hurt by the Fire, they commanded the Exe­cutioner to stick his Dagger into Polycarp, and so dispatch him: which the Hangman presently did; but behold two other Miracles, and (believe me) as credible as either of the former. For out of the Wound, which was in the Martyr's side, sprang a Live-dove; and then, such a Torrent of Blood (out of the Body of an old Man, upwards of 86 Years) as wholly extinguished all that great Fire.’ This Text needs no Comment.

The Martyrdom of Ignatius affords another sort of Wonders, Appariti­ons and Visions. For the Night in which he suffered, he appeared to the Christians, who had assisted at his Martyrdom: to some, as one sweat­ing after hard Labour; to others, standing by the Lord, with much As­surance, and in unspeakable Glory; but however, most courteously and lovingly imbracing them all. 'Tis a Miracle, to me, that he had not done sweating, now that he was ar­rived at Blessedness; or do Souls (in their Etherial Vehicles) sweat? But 'tis a greater Miracle, that appearing at Christ's right Hand in Heaven, he could at the same time imbrace (or seem to imbrace) those upon Earth.

As to the Epistles of Ignatius, con­sidering by whom they are said to be written, and to whom; they are more marvellous than the Martyr­doms. Ignatius was Bishop at An­tioch, where he was condemned to Martyrdom by the Emperor Trajan; but was sent to Rome, (guarded by ten Souldiers) to suffer there, in the Amphitheater. In the Amphithea­ter the Condemned fought with Beasts, Lions, Leopards, and such like, till one or the other were kil­led. And for this Reason, they chose out of the Prisoners of War, and the Condemned, the most robust young Men, that could make some Sport for the People, by the valiant Resistance they made to the Beasts. Therefore here are two things very incredible; that Ignatius, a decrepid old Man, for he had been a Bishop above 40 Years, should be condemned (con­trary to Custom, and to the Inten­tion of those Sports) to fight the Li­ons. And next, that in order there­to, he should be sent with ten Soul­diers (lest he should master, and got away from four or five) to guard him, above 1500 Miles. To what pur­pose should they be at so vasi a Charge, especially when it had been more pro­per,[Page 14]and more effectual to their pur­pose, to execute him in his own Ci­ty of Antioch? The (pretended) E­pistles however suppose all this; they are written to divers Churches, as the Old Man passes from Antioch to Rome, to fight the Lions: and either these Epistles must be granted to be forged, or we must admit these (ex­travagant incredible) Suppositions. But the Epistles themselves more plainly discover the Imposture.

That to the Romans is chiefly, and almost wholly imployed, in advising and intreating the Christians of Rome, that they should not rescue him from the Execution, but permit him to undergo his Sentence. The true Ig­natius could never write such an ab­surd thing. Was it ever heard of, that Christians attempted to rescue their Martyrs; on the contrary, Mar­tyrdom was reckoned (in those days) the very highest Glory of a Christian: and it was the Indeavour of Christi­ans who assisted at Martyrdoms, to incourage the Martyrs, by all possi­ble ways, to suffer couragiously; in short, they would as little have rescu­ed a Martyr, as they would have com­mitted Sacrilege. Besides, were the Number and Power of the Christians at Rome, in those early times, so considerable, that they might reaso­nably attempt so bold an Action, as to attack the Amphitheater, and the Imperial Guards, on behalf of a Priso­ner? Ignatius perfectly knew the contrary to all this; and therefore could not be Author of an Epistle, which supposes these Follies.

The Epistle to the Ephesians is full of weak things. He tells them there, with equal Silliness and Falshood, that the Virginity of Mary, her Deli­very, and the Death of Christ, the three great Mysteries (saith he) of the Gospel, were kept concealed from the Devil; and done in secret by God. He adds, that the Star, which appeared before our Saviour's Nativi­ty, did exceedingly outshine the Sun, and all other Lights of Heaven. Pio­nius did not consider; that if so, it would not have been called a Star, but another Sun: and that there would have been no Night in Judea, till this Star disappeared.

But see, how they have made a dying Man, a Bishop and Saint of the first Age of Christianity, complement with the Church of the Magnesians: ‘"I have been judged worthy to see you, by Damus, your most excel­lent Bishop; by your very worthy Presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and by my Fellow-Servant Socio, your Deacon: In whom I rejoice, because he is subject to his Bishop as to the Grace of God; and to the Presbytery, as to the Law of Christ.’ Who sees not, that this is more like a Master of the Ceremo­nies, than an Apostolical Bishop, and a primitive Martyr? In the same Epi­stle, he exhorts them not to observe the Sabbaths: but it is certain that the Sabbaths were observed, together with the Lord's Day, till after the Times of Great Constantine; it is not likely, the true Ignatius would oppose the Custom and [Page 15]Practice of the Universal Church.

To the Trallians he saith, that the Deacons are to be reverenced as Jesus Christ; the Bishops, as God the Fa­ther; the Presbytery, as the College of Apostles. A complicated Blasphe­my! He tells them afterwards, that their particular Bishop is such, that his very Look is instructive. He that writes thus of Bishops and Church­men, must needs be an approved Do­ctor; but I dare almost to give them my corporal Oath, he never was a Doctor of the first Age.

Writing to the Philippians, he forgets not (his usual and constant Custom) to claw their Bishop. Your Bishop, saith he, is able to do more by his Silence, than others by their Speech. There are many Bishops still of this mind; but our Saviour's Motto was, My Sheep hear my Voice.

To the Smyrneans he says; ‘"'Tis a good thing to be subject to God, and to the Bishop.’ Then he sa­lutes their very worthy Rishop; their venerable Presbytery; your Deacons my Fellow-Servants; the very excel­lent Daphnus and Eutychus.

The last Epistle is to Polycarp; and tho he writes to a Bishop, not to a Church, he cannot forbear his (odi­ous) Daubing. ‘"He that thinks, says this Pseudo-Martyr, that he knows more than his Bishop, is ruined: Hearken to the Bishop, that God may hearken to you.’ In the Conclusion of this Epistle, as if he were a Prophet, he says; my Grace be with Attalus, and with thee Polycarp. A strain which, some will think, exceeds the Fulness of the A­postolical Character; which this Im­postor assumes in the Epistle to the 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, 'tis 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[Page 16]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 bel [...]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.

[Page 17]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[Page 18]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 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[Page 19]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 'tis 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 4th 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[Page 20]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) 'Tis 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, 'tis an Observation made by all Church-Hi­storians, that the Antients (of a long time) purposely forbore to commit the Creed to Writing; partly, be­cause they would not expose the My­steries of Religion, to the Contempt, Raileries and Opposition of the Hea­then: partly, to oblige their own People, to be more careful to learn it exactly. To this purpose, they cite, among divers others, the Testimony of St. Jerom, Epist. ad Pam. ‘"In the Creed, says St. Jerom there, which is not written with Ink and Paper; but on the (fleshly) Ta­bles of the Heart.’ (3) It is not true, what Vossius adds, that the A­postles do not seem to allude or refer to this Creed, in any of their Epi­stles. St. Paul says, Rom. 6.17. Ye have obeyed (from the Heart) the Form of sound Doctrine, which was delivered to you. The [...], Exemplar (or Form) of Do­ctrine (here) cannot be better inter­preted, than of the common Creed.

It seems also to be meant, Rom. 12.6. Let him that prophesieth (or, preacheth) preach, [...], according to the Analogy (or, the Rule) of Faith. The Scrip­tures of the New Testament not be­ing yet written, the Christian's Rule of Faith could be no other but the Creed; which (accordingly) by the most antient Fathers is expresly called Regula fidei, the Rule of Faith.

1 Tim. 6.20. O Timothy, keep, [...], the Deposi­tum, (or, the thing committed to thy Trust) and turn not aside. The Depositum or Trust, from which Ti­mothy might not turn aside, is (ge­nerally and very reasonably) under­stood by Interpreters, to be the true Doctrine or Faith of the Gospel: but if so, 'tis very probable, that the[Page 21]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, 'tis 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. 'Tis known to all[Page 22]the World, that she has added to, and taken away, from the Sacraments and the Scriptures: therefore 'tis, 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. 'Tis 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 'tis no wonder, that tho they record the Creeds in order, as they were composed by the Councils that assembled under Great Constantine, and his Successors: yet they say nothing of the Apostles Creed, which belonged to a Period[Page 23]300 Years older than the times of which those Historians write. 2. Vos­sius has not asked; why Eusebius, the oldest of the Ecclesiastical Histori­ans, and who begins his History from the very first, has not mentioned or recited the Apostles Creed; because he foresaw, it would be answered; that Eusebius was a thorow-paced Arian, a great Opposer of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra (against whom also he particularly wrote) who held the Doctrine that the Socinians now do; therefore perceiving that the Apostles Creed was as much against the Arians as the Homo-ousians, and that it whol­ly favoured Marcellus, he forbore to take notice of it in his History. I shall grant, that Eusebius was a most learned Historian, and that we are extremely in his debt, for the Col­lection of antient Monuments and Memoirs he has left to us: but I could give, and hereafter shall give, divers Instances, of his designed sup­pressing whatsoever of Antiquity, that favoured the Nazarene and Mi­nean (or as we now speak, the Soci­nian) Doctrine.

4. The last Argument of Vossius, is propounded by (the present fa­mous) Monsieur du Pin (in his Eccl. Hist. c. 1. p. 9.) in more advan­tageous Terms and Manner than by Vossius: I will therefore examine it, as Mr. du Pin has offer'd it. He says, that 'tis an Opinion establish'd on ve­ry good Grounds, that this Creed was made by the Apostles: but that they wrote, or dictated it, word for word, just as we now have it; he thinks is very improbable. He chose to propound his Opinion, after this fallacious manner, that he might not be talk'd of (it may be, be censured by his Superiours) for maintaining in terminis an Opinion, which might be judged to be heretical. For in very deed, Mr. du Pin does not only not believe, that the Apostles wrote this Creed word for word, as we now have it; but he thinks, they were not Authors of it at all, in any Sense; according to him, the Apostles nei­ther made, nor designed to make a Creed. He saith indeed, that 'tis an Opinion establish'd on very good Grounds, that the Apostles made this Creed; and the Proposition he undertakes to prove, is only this, that the Apostles did not write this Creed word for word, just as we now have it: but his Arguments (which are the same with those of Vossius) aim at this; that the Apostles neither wrote, nor intended to write any Creed at all. I have already consi­dered all his Arguments, but only the last; which both he and Vossius (seem to) suppose, to be the stron­gest: in truth, it is the weakest, as being made up of Accounts that are (too notoriously) false; it is this.

If the Apostles had made a Creed, saith Mr. du Pin, it would have been found the same in all Churches, of all Ages: all Christians would have learnt it by Heart; all Churches, and all Writers, would have repreated it, in the same manner and in the same terms. But the contrary is evident, for not only in the 2d and 3d Centu­ries,[Page 24]but in the 4th also there were many Creeds; and all, tho the same as to Doctrine, yet different in the Expression. In the 2d and 3d Ages we find as many Creeds as Authors: which shows that there was not then any Creed that was reputed to be the Apostles; or even any regulated or establish'd Form of Faith. For Ire­neus exhibits one Creed, lib. 1. c. 2. and another, lib. 1. c. 19. Tertul­lian makes use of three several Creeds, in his Books de Praescriptione, contra Praxeam, and de Virgin. velandis. See also Origen peri Archon, lib. 1. & Dial. contr. Marc. Ruffinus in the 4th Age, compares three antient Creeds, of Aquileia, Rome, and the Orient; none of which agree per­fectly with the common one, nor with one another: as will appear (saith he) by the Table, containing the 4 Creeds, at the End of this Dis­course. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (in his Catechetick Lectures) gives us a particular Creed, used by the Church of Jerusalem, when this Father wrote. The Authors also that have explained the Creed, as St. Austin, Serm. 119. St. Maximus, Chrysolo­gus, Fortunatus, omit some Expressi­ons that are found in the Apostles Creed as we now have it; as the Life everlasting: and St. Jerom says, that the Apostles Creed concludes with the Resurrection of the Body; but now it concludes with the Life ever­lasting. Lastly, he saith, that Ruffi­nus is the first, and only Person of the 5th Century, who asserts that the Creed was composed by the Apostles; and he proposes his Opinion, only as a Matter that depended on popular Tradition: the other Authors that are of this Opinion, he saith, took it up on the Credit of Ruffinus; and are too late in time, to be admitted as Witnesses in this Question, about the Authors of the Creed called the Apostles.

Never was there less Truth, in so many Words; I shall therefore dis­cuss very particularly, all that he hath said. He saith; (1) If the Apostles had made a Creed, all Churches and all Writers would have repeated it, in the same Manner and Terms. That all Churches repeated it in the same Terms and Manner, we affirm; nor will Mr. du Pin ever prove the con­trary. That all Writers should re­peat it in the same Manner and Terms, is a childish Supposition: for sometimes they have occasion to re­peat but part of it; sometimes they repeat it Paraphrastically, thereby to put on it their own Interpretation. Therefore 'tis but weakly urged by Mr. du Pin, that Ireneus gives us two Creeds, Tertullian three, Origen yet another: for of these Writers, Ter­tullian (de Virgin. veland.) designed to repeat but only a part of the Creed; the same Tertullian (de Praescript. & contr. Prax.) as also Ireneus and Origen repeat the Creed Paraphrastically or Exegetically, that their Reader might take it in their Sense. 'Tis to no purpose, that Mr. du Pin urges the Creed in St. Cyrill, used in the Church of Jerusalem; for no Body denies that after the[Page 25]Council of Nice (that is, after the Year 325.) the Nicene Creed, and the Creeds made in imitation of that, were explained in many Places to the Youth and Catechumens, instead of the Apostles Creed; that People might be infected betimes, with that Insidelity which the Nicene Council had establish'd and publish'd.

But whereas he has given us a Ta­ble of 4 Creeds; namely, the Vul­gar, the Aquileian, that of Rome, and that of the Orient: We ought to thank him, for (implicitly) gi­ving up the Question to us. The Reader is to know, that by the Ori­ent (in the Age of Ruffinus, from whom Mr. du Pin takes the Aqui­leian, Roman and Oriental Creeds) was meant the Eastern Part of the Roman Empire; namely, all the Provinces, that spoke the Greek Tongue; which is to say, all Illyri­cum and Grecia, the Kingdoms and Provinces of Asia, the Provinces and Kingdoms of Syria, as far as the Euphrates and Tigris, Egypt, the Islands in the Archipelago, Adriatick and Ionian Seas; all these (being the 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[Page 26]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[Page 27]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 5th 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 5th 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 Christ 410 or 411. and from hence Mr. du Pin has taken occasion, to call him a Father of the 5th Cen­tury. Ruffinus being the first of the Fathers, that ever wrote an Exposi­tion on the Creed; I mean, the first of those now extant: 'tis no wonder that he is also the first that expresly informs us, who were the Authors of it; tho if he had not told us, who were the Compilers, the Universali­ty and Antiquity of it, are alone suf­ficient to declare the Authors and Compilers. Nor does he say, that he had learned who were the Framers of the Creed, by popular Report; but tradunt rajores nostri, our Predeces­sors[Page 28](in the sacred Function) have so delivered to us. Which is not to be understood neither, of bare oral Tra­dition by the preceding Bishops and Presbyters; but of the antient Wri­ters who had commented on the Creed, who (be saith) were very many. None of them are come down to our Times; but of the Number was Photinus, Archbishop of Sirmium and Metropolitan of Illy­ricum, who held as the Socinians now do, that the Lord Christ was a Prophet, not God. Whereas Mr. du Pin adds, that all the other Fathers (whom he confesses to be very many, he should have said, All that mention this Creed) took it on the Credit of Ruffinus, that the Apostles were the Compilers of it: it is rashly said, None of them quote Ruffinus for their Author; and divers of them (parti­cularly St. Austin) alledg (as Ruffi­nus does) Tradition for their Ground; which, as I said before, was not on­ly Oral Tradition, but the Tradition of the antient Commentators. And when this Critick urges, in the last Place, that St. Austin, Maximus, and some others, who have expound­ed the Creed after Ruffinus, omit di­vers Words, nay and Expressions, that are found in the Creed as we now have it; why has he concealed, that the Words or Expressions omitted by these Expositors, are only such, as they supposed to be included in other equivalent Expressions of the Creed? Tho it might also sometimes happen, that they did not intend, to explain the whole Creed. verbatim, but only the principal Words and Articles; namely, such as either were contro­verted by Hereticks, particularly by the Ghosticks and Manichees, or were misunderstood by Heretical Per­sons. His Instance of the Life ever­lasting, omitted by Expositors, will do him no Service: for 'tis not an Article (no more than dead, or gone to those below are Articles) but only an Illustration or fuller Explication of the Article foregoing, the Resurrection of the Dead.

These are the Arguments of these two very learned Criticks (I willing­ly acknowledg them to be such) Vossius and Monsieur du Pin, against the Apostles Creed: I have (I think) not only fully satisfied them; but at the same time defended our Argu­ments, for it, against their Evasions. For whereas to our Argument, from the Testimony of all the Fathers who have ever spoke of this Creed; and especially of Ruffinus, a most learned and judicious Father, equalled by Mr. du Pin to St. Jerom; they reply, that Ruffinus was but of the 5th Age, and spoke only from popular Hear­say, and that all the other Fathers took it from him: I have shown, that these are partly untrue, partly rash and ungrounded Affirmations. And whereas to what we alledg from the (confess'd) Antiquity, and the Universality of this Creed; they answer, the Creeds of the Orient and West were different: I have evinced, that the (pretended) Differences are apparently only the various Read­ings of one and the same Creed;[Page 29]the very Commandments are (much) more differently related by Moses himself, than the Apostolick Creed by the Churches.

Of St. Clemens.

OF the Monuments and Remains of the Apostolick Age, next to the Apostles Creed, is the Epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corin­thians. This is that Clemens, of whom St. Paul makes respectful Men­tion, Phil. 4.3. He has written an Epistle, in the Name and by the Or­der of the Church of Rome, to the Church of Corinth. All the Criticks on the Fathers, when they speak of this Epistle, without an Eye to the Trinitarian Controversies, own, not only that 'tis unquestionably genuine, but that 'tis a most pious, most judi­cious, and an elegant Composition: Mr. du Pin very truly adds; ‘"One may discern in this Writer, a great deal of Energy and Vigor, ac­companied with much Prudence, Gentleness, Zeal and Charity.’ But when they consider the Doctrine of it, with regard to the Trinity, and the Person of our Saviour, the ablest and antientest (and particular­ly great Photius, the most judicious Censor of the Fathers, and himself a Father) cannot mention it, with­out Tears in their Eyes. Besides Photius, Petavius and Huetius (fa­mous modern Criticks) sigh it out, that Clemens was an undoubted Ʋni­tarian; and the occasion of this Judgment is, because of the low and merely humane Characters, which (throughout this Epistle, even where he affects to speak of our Saviour in the highest manner) he gives of our Saviour's Person and Dignity. But I shall be more particular, than they have been, in referring to the Passages of this Epistle; which have so grie­ved the Trinitarian Criticks.

First, he always distinguishes the Lord Christ from God; and often so distinguishes him, that it amounts to a flat and direct Denial, that he is God.

The Apostles, saith he, ch. 42. have preached to us, from our Lord Jesus Christ; and the Lord Christ from God. The Lord Christ then, according to St. Clement, was not himself God; but one that has preach­ed to us from God, as the Apostles preached from Christ.

At chap. 58. he hath these (de­ciding) Words; ‘"God the Inspe­ctor of all things, the Father of Spirits, the Lord of all Flesh; who hath chosen our Lord Jesus Christ, and us by him; grant to you Peace, Long-suffering, Pati­ence, through our High Priest and Protector Jesus Christ: by whom be Glory, and Honour, and Ma­jesty unto God, now and for ever­more.’ What a Socinian Account[Page 30]is here, of our Saviour? He is, saith St. Clement, the chosen of God, as we also are; our High Priest and Pro­tector, by his effectual Prayers and Intercession for us: and let Honour, Glory and Majesty, be given to God, by him, now and for ever. Did he think the Person, of whom he so speaks, was himself God?

But when he intends to say a very high thing, of our Saviour; he calls him (at ch. 16.) the Scepter of the Majesty of God. He alludes here to the Scepter of King Ahasuerus, which he stretched out to Queen Esther, in token of his Acceptance and Favour. The Lord Christ therefore, in the Doctrine of this Father, differs just so from God; as the Ensigns and Marks of Power and Majesty, differ from that Majesty and Power of which they are only the Marks and Signs.

But besides these diminutive Ex­pressions, and absolutely inconsistent with our Saviour's being God; I observe, that when he endeavours most of all (at ch. 36.) to extol the real Greatness of our Saviour, he minds the Corinthians, that by him our Hearts and Understandings are inlightned and opened; meaning, by his Doctrine and Gospel; and that he is exalted above the Angels: to which purpose he cites divers Ex­pressions of the first Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But tho he there goes over that whole Chapter, for the highest Epithets he might give to our Saviour, he omits the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th Verses; in which the Title God is bestowed on him, and the Creation of the Hea­vens and Earth is (thought at least to be) ascribed to him. This makes me doubt, that those Verses were not originally in that Epistle; but have been since added. St. Clement endea­vours there, to ascribe to our Saviour all the most glorious Prerogatives and Pre-eminencies, that (with Truth) he could; he himself saith divers magnificent things of him: he be­gins also at the first Verses of that first Chapter to the Hebrews, goes tho­row the whole Chapter, and con­cludes with the last Verses of it; and yet neither calls him God, nor im­putes to him the Creation of Heaven and Earth; nay, of that whole Chapter he omits only those five Verses which so speak of him, tho they were most of all to Clement's Design and Aim. It is true, that in those Verses our Saviour is called God in no other Sense, than Solomon was so called; for the Author uses the ve­ry Words that the Psalmist had used of Solomon; and the Heavens and Earth there meant, are only the New Heavens and Earth foretold by the Prophets, even the Gospel-Oecono­my and State: yet these Characters of our Saviour are so noble, were so highly to Clement's Purpose and De­sign, and it was so impossible for him (who went thorow the whole Chapter) to overlook them, that I cannot believe these Verses were then a part of the Epistle to the Hebrews, but (as many other Passages, both in the Gospels and Epistles) have been fraudulently added. Or it may [Page 31]be, they were at first a marginal Note, by some Copier; and being taken by succeeding Copiers as Words that had been overseen, and not as a Note or Annotation, were by them put into the Text it self of the Epistle. This Corruption might the more easily happen, without being opposed by any; because it was a long time (near, if not full 400 Years) before this Epistle was owned as a genuine part of Scripture, any where in the West, or in many Churches of the Orient. That which makes this Conjecture (that these Verses have been added to the Epi­stle to the Hebrews) still more proba­ble, is, that those Antients who owned this Epistle as written by St. Paul, said, it was originally wrote by him in the Hebrew Tongue, and translated into Greek (as we now have it) by St. Clement, Euseb. H. E. l. 6. c. 3. Theophylact. Com. in C. 1. Epist. ad Hebr. But if so; how can we think, that Clement should omit what was most for his Design, in an Epistle which himself had translated, and therefore was perfectly acquainted with it; and in a Chapter too, out of which he had cited so many Passages, that were much less to his purpose? The short is, St. Clement describes our Saviour, as the High Priest of the Priests of the New Testament: and when he had the fittest Occasion, and the greatest Opportunity, from an Epistle of St. Paul, which himself had tran­slated into Greek, to call our Saviour God and Creator, he calls him nei­ther; but only our High Priest, as St. Paul does throughout that Epistle. From whence, I say, we have these 2 (very probable) Consectaries; that neither did St. Clement think our Savi­our to be God or Creator, in any Sense of those Words; nor were those 5 Verses of that Epistle of St. Paul, wherein Christ is so stiled, originally in that Epistle, but have been since added.

And hitherto of the Judgment of St. Clement. For tho something might be added out of a second Epistle, which also bears the Name of St. Clement, I shall omit it; partly, because the Epi­stle is rejected as counterfeit, by the most Learned of the Antients, Eu­sebius, St. Jerom, and Photius: partly because the Meanness of the Stile, the Driness and Flatness of the Thoughts, and the Inelegance of the Composi­tion, most plainly discover, that it was none of St. Clement's. Eusebius adds, that the Antients never alledg or cite the (pretended) second Epistle of Clement. Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 38.

As to what Dr. Bull quotes out of the first Epistle, and indeavours to improve by paraphrasing (that is, by wresting) it; 'tis so trivial, as well as so remote, that I shall trust the Judgment of any (the meanest) Reader with it: but out of the 2d (counterfeit) Epistle, he has abused his Reader with a broken Citation, which may seem to his purpose, when indeed it is not. The Words are these, being the very first Words of the Epistle; ‘"We ought (Brethren) to think of Christ, as of God.’ It was knavishly done, to omit the next [Page 32]Words, which were designed by the Author, to explain these: ‘"We ought, says this Pseudo-Clemens, to think of Christ as of God; as the Judg both of the Dead and Living.’ His Meaning therefore was; We ought (Brethren) to think of Christ, as we do of God; name­ly, that he also is our Judg. He himself has taught us, that God hath committed to him all Judgment, John 5.22. And why; because he is God? No, but because he is Man: for so himself adds in that very Con­text; God hath given to him to exe­cute Judgment, because he is the Son of Man, John 5.27.

Out of the 9th Chapter of the same Imposture, Dr. Bull alledges; Jesus Christ being first a Spirit, was made Flesh. He should not have left out the following Words; so also shall we, in the Flesh, receive our Re­ward. In both the Expressions he seems to design, that the Souls of Men being first created, are afterwards infused into Bodies. They are not the Harmony of the Body, nor derived ex traduce; but first really made and existent, and then incarnated by the Divine Power. But it is Dr. Bull's constant Method, to omit what goes before or after; by which his Au­thor's Intention may be cleared: or to feign (by occasion of some ambi­guous preceding Passage) an Inten­tion which was never in the Author's Mind; and by such (pretended) In­tention to interpret the Places, either alledged by him, or objected to him. In short, his Reader can never rely upon his Quotations; but then least of all, when he falls to explaining or paraphrasing.

Of the Nazarens, Ebionites, Mineans.

LET us now proceed to the Na­zarens, Mineans, Ebionites, and Alogians: concerning the former of which, Dr. Bull grants, that if the Nazarens (or Mineans) were indeed Unitarians, if these held that the Lord Christ was a Man only; the Question is at an end. He yields, that the Nazarens being the Christi­ans of Jerusalem and Judea, who were converted by the Lord Christ and the Apostles, and flourished there under a Succession of 15 Bishops, whereof the first was St. James 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[Page 33]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 [Page 34] 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, [Page 35]nay in Palestine, which is to say, in the very midst of the Naza­ren or Jewish Churches, could not but know their true State and Opini­ons. He saith, all the Jews that are Christians, are called Ebionites: and does not he (and with him, all the Antients) every where tell us, that the Ebionites were all of them Unita­rians; nay were called Ebionites, from their poor and low Opinion of our Saviour, that he was a Man on­ly, not God? Let Dr. Bull produce any of the Fathers, who have ever named the Ebionites, who do not also (explicitly) confess, that they believed our Saviour to be a Man on­ly. In short, the Nazarens are grant­ed by all (and by Dr. Bull in particu­lar) to be those Christian Jews, that were gathered into Churches in Je­rusalem and Palestine, by the Mini­stry of the Apostles themselves: Ori­gen (who lived among them) wit­nesses, that all Jews who were Chri­stians, were named Ebionites or the poor ones, partly from the poor Opini­on they had of our Saviour's Person, partly because they adhered still to the beggarly Principles and Rites of the Mosaick Law: it unavoidably fol­lows, that the Nazarens were Ebio­nites in this Sense; that they held the Lord Christ was a Man only, and observed the Law together with the Gospel. I said, Ebionites in this Sense; because, as was noted before, the Ebionites, more strictly so called, believed our Saviour was the Son of Joseph and Mary: but the Nazarens, tho they believed he was a Man only, yet they held he was miraculously con­ceived in the Womb of Mary, by the sole Power and Energy of God, with­out the Concurrence of any Man.

As Origen makes no Distinction of the Ebionites, into Ebionites and Nazarens; because of their Agree­ment in the main Points, that the Lord Christ was a Man only, and that the Mosaick Law must be observed by all Jewish Christians: no more does Eusebius, who contents himself to observe, that some Ebionites hold the miraculous Conception; others of them say, he was the Son of Joseph and Mary. Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 27. But neither he nor Origen charge ei­ther of them, as Epiphanius in after Ages (from no Author) does; that they owned of the Old Testament, only the Books of Moses and Joshua, not the Prophets: or that they ca­lumniated St. Paul, and rejected his Epistles; publishing also certain Acts of St. Paul, wherein they charge him as an Apostate from the Law, only because he could not obtain for his Wise a Priest's Daughter. Epipha­nius imputes this, not to the Naza­ren-Ebionites, but to those Ebionites who held our Saviour was the Son of only Joseph and Mary: but as I said, he quotes no Author; and there­fore this seems to be one of the mali­tious Tales which contending Sects and Parties frequently raise upon one another. So in after-times, the Al­bigenses, Waldenses, and Wiclevites, were charged with monstrous Here­sies, which they not only abomina­ted, but are refuted by the Prote­stant[Page 36]Historians, out of the Cate­chisms, Sermons, and other Books of those early Reformers. They were charged with teaching, that the De­vil is above God; that Elizabeth was Christ's Concubine, and taken with him in Adultery; with other more horrid and foolish things, not fit to be named: but the Protestant Historians have evinced, to the Satis­faction even of all learned and inge­nuous Papists, out of the Books and Catechisms of those pious Men; that these are diabolical Calumnies, de­vised by their Persecutors the Friars.

Farther, Dr. Bull grants, that Theodoret (Haeret. Fab. l. 2. c. 3.) affirms expresly, that the Nazarens honour the Lord Christ, only as a holy Man, not as God or a Divine Person. Because this Father also lived in Syria, was a most learned and inquisitive Person, and writeth in that Work (before-quoted) of all Hereticks and their Opinions; we may (surely) re­ly on the Account he gives. 'Twas impossible that Theodoret, whose Bishoprick was in Syriâ cavâ, where­abouts the Nazarens and Mineans then most abounded; and whose ve­ry Design it was (in that Book which we alledg) to set down the peculiar Opinions of all the Distinctions and Denominations of Christians: I say, 'tis impossible he should not certainly know the Doctrine of the Nazarens, the most famous as well as most anti­ent of all those Denominations which dissented from the Church (or pre­vailing Party) of those Times. And whereas Dr. Bull excepts, that Theo­doret is a later Father than some he quotes; 'tis a mere and a wretched Subterfuge. First, because St. Je­rom (before cited) witnesses, that then the Nazarens flourish'd over all the Orient; and Epiphanius, that they abounded chiefly in Palestine and Syriâ cavâ. Secondly, because in very Deed Theodoret was contempo­rary with Sulpitius Severus, who is (as we shall see) Dr. Bull's only Au­thor, the only Father who ever mis­took the Nazaren Doctrine concern­ing our Saviour: and the Occasion of his Mistake was, that he lived so re­mote from them; they in the Ori­ent, he in the West, that is to say, at about 2000 Miles distance. Sulpitius began to write (at soonest) about the Year 401. Theodoret was made Bi­shop in 420. so Theodoret might be the older Man. But however that be, one lived in Syria among the Naza­ren Churches; the other in the re­motest Parts of Gaul, distant from the Nazarens the whole length of the Ro­man Empire, when in its greatest Extent; and therefore 'tis no won­der, if he mistook the Nazaren Do­ctrine.

He grants, again; that Epiphani­us (Haeres. 30. c. 2.) informs us, Cerinthianis & Nazaraeis fu [...]sse, [...], the Cerinthi­ans and Nazarens had like Senti­ments: and (Haeres. 30. c. 2.) Na­zaraeos & Ebionaeos capita simul con­tulisse, suamque nequitiam invicem communicasse, i. e. ‘"The Nazarens and Ebionites laid Heads together, and communicated their Impiety’ [Page 37](by which Epiphanius, without doubt, means their Heresy) ‘"one with another.’ Lastly, that Epi­phanius doubts only of this; whether in this the Nazarens agreed with the Cerinthians, that the Lord Christ was a common and ordinary Man, or was miraculously generated by the Holy Spirit (or Power of God) in the Womb of Mary. Let us put this together; Epiphanius says, the Nazarens and Cerinthians had like Opinions: but did the former be­lieve (as the other did) that the Lord Christ was a common Man, born (as all other Men are) of a hu­mane Father and Mother; or did they grant, that he was a Man in­deed, but miraculously conceived by the Divine Power, in the Womb of a Virgin? Epiphanius professes, that he cannot, upon his own Knowledg, charge the Nazarens with the former of these Opinions. Farther, he owns, that the Ebionites and Naza­rens were extremely gratious and in­timate, and communicated in the same Impiety; that is, Heresy.

These Testimonies do stagger Dr. Bull, so that at last (Judic. Eccl. p. 56, 57.) he is willing to grant, that at length some Nazarens were infected with the Ebionite Heresy, that the Lord Christ is a Man only: and of these Nazarens (whom he calls the latter Nazarens, tho the Antients never make any such Distin­ction, as the former and latter Naza­rens) he thinks, Origen is to be un­destood, when he says, as was be­fore quoted, that the Jewish Christi­ans (i. e. the Nazarens) are Ebionites. There never was a more in­judicious Paragraph, unless the Man wilfully prevaricates. For first, why doth he say, some Nazarens were in­fected with the Ebionite Heresy, when Origen (who is his Author) expresly says, all the Jewish Christians are E­bionites? [...], says Origen, [...]; i. e. the Jews, that own Jesus to be the Christ, are Ebionites. Contr. Cels. l. 2. p. 56. Secondly, I desire to know of Dr. Bull, how Epiphanius could more ef­fectually declare the Doctrine of the Nazarens concerning the Quality of our Saviour's Person, than by saying, they hold as the Cerinthians do; and they mutually communicate their He­resy with the Ebionites. For was it ever made a Question, or dares he question it, that the Cerinthians and Ebionites held, the Lord Christ was a Man only? 'Tis a ridiculous Sub­terfuge, when he pretends, the Na­zarens might at first hold the Divinity of our Saviour, but afterwards (some­what before Origen's time) sell off to the Cerinthian and Ebionite Do­ctrine. For I request him, to pro­duce but the least Intimation from any Father or Historian, that the Na­zarens changed their Opinion, by falling off from the Trinitarians to the Unitarians, as he pretends they did: 'tis a mere shift, to which he was forced, by the Clearness of the Testimonies given by Origen and Epiphanius.

[Page 38]But I shall mind him of other Evi­dences, that the Nazarens were Uni­tarians; or held but one Divine Per­son, and that our Saviour was a Man only. Epiphanius (Haeres. Naz. c. 7.) says; Nazaraei à Judaeis nullâ in re dissentiunt, nisi quod in Christum cre­dunt: i. e. ‘"The Jews and Naza­rens differ in nothing, saving that the latter believe in Christ.’ But if the Nazaren Christians had held more than one Divine Person, or that the Messias or Christ was to be God; they had differed from the Jews, in two the highest Points of all: for all Men know and own, that the Jews believed but one Divine Person; and Dr. Bull himself has largely proved, (out of Justin Martyr) that the Jews expected, that the Messias (or Christ) should be a Man only, not God. To the Testimony of Justin, he might have added Origen contr. Cels. l. 2. p. 79. & l. 4. p. 162.

Farthermore, when Epiphanius (in the Chapter before-quoted) makes doubt, whether the Nazarens held that the Lord Christ was the Son of Joseph and Mary, or was miracu­lously generated by the Holy Spirit in the Womb of Mary: who sees not, that he took it for granted and cer­tain, that they denied he was God or a Divine Person; if he had not first supposed that, he could never have made it a Question, whether they did not think he was the Son of only Jo­seph and Mary? Because he know, that the Nazarens believed the Lord Christ was only a Man; therefore he questions, and otherwise could not question; whether they held, he was the Son of Mary by Joseph, or of Mary by the Holy Spirit?

To add now no more, St. Austin (contr. Cresc. l. 1. c. 31.) says; Et nunc sunt quidam Haeretici, qui se Nazaraeos vocant; à nonnullis tamen Symmachiani appellantur, i. e. ‘"There are now certain Hereticks, by themselves called Nazarens; but by divers they are named Symma­chians.’ To know therefore what the Nazarens held, we need only to inquire, what Symmachus held. Eu­sebius will answer; Symmachus was an Ebionite, and maintained Christ to be the Son of Joseph and Mary. Euseb. H. E. l. 6. c. 17. But here we are to note two things. First, the Nazarens did not hold, that the Lord Christ was the Son of Joseph and Mary; but the Son of God, by miraculous Conception in the Virgin Mary. But divers (as St. Austin has cautiously worded it) were not so critical, or so well versed in the Knowledg of Sects, as to mind or understand the several Subdivisions of them: therefore because the Naza­rens were so far Ebionites and Sym­machians, that they held the Lord Christ was a Man only, tho generated not by Joseph but by the Power of God in the Womb of the Virgin Ma­ry; they called them Ebionites and Symmachians, tho both these (the Symmachians and Ebionites) not on­ly believed that Christ was but a Man, but that he was the Son of Joseph by his Wife Mary, not of God by the Virgin Mary. Secondly, Symmachus [Page 39]and the Ebionites, as they held our Saviour to be the Son of Joseph and Mary; so they contended, that the first Chapter of St. Matthew's Go­spel was added by the Greek Tran­slator. St. Matthew wrote his Go­spel in Hebrew; when it was tran­slated into Greek, the Translator pre­faced it with a Genealogy, and a Narration that our Saviour was con­ceived by the Holy Spirit of God, and was not the Son of Joseph: but this Genealogy and Narration, said Symmachus and the Ebionites, is not in the Hebrew Gospel of St. Mat­thew, nay is the mere Invention of the Translator. As for the other Go­spels, the Ebionites and Symmachus did not receive the Gospel of St. Luke: and for that of St. John, they said it was indeed written by Cerin­thus, to confirm his (Platonick) Conceits about the Logos or WORD; which he supposed to be the Christ, or Spirit of God that rested on, and inhabited the Person of Jesus.

Let us now, for the Ease of the Reader, sum up this whole Evidence concerning the Nazarens, in short Paragraphs. All grant, they were the Jewish Christians, whose first Churches were gathered by the Apo­stles themselves in Judea, Jerusalem, Palestine, Syria, Arabia, and the whole Orient. The Question is, what they held concerning Almighty God, and the Person of our Saviour Jesus Christ: whether they said, there is but one Divine Person, and our Sa­viour is a Man only; or whether they held a Trinity of Divine Persons, and that our Saviour is God most High? We affirm the former of these, Dr. Bull the latter. We alledg that,

Theodoret says, in express Terms; the Nazarens honour the Lord Christ, not as God, but only as a holy Man. We observe, that Theodoret lived where (Epiphanius informs us) the Nazaren Churches then most abound­ed, in Syriâ cavâ: and that in the Work by us quoted, it is the very Design of Theodoret, to tell us the particular Opinions of the several De­nominations and Sects of Christians.

We alledg again, that the most learned Origen, who also lived a long time in Syria and Palestine it self, says; that all Jewish Christians were Ebionites. And Eusebius, that all Ebionites hold the Lord Christ is a Man only; but they are divided (says he) into two Sects: for the Symma­chians and such like Ebionites believe, Christ is a Man, the Son of Joseph and Mary; others of them say, he is a Man (miraculously) generated by the Holy Spirit, or Divine Power, in the Womb of a Virgin.

St. Austin says, the Nazarens are Symmachians. But he means only, they are thus far Symmachians, that they think Christ is only a Man, not God.

Epiphanius says, the Nazarens communicated in their Heresy with the Ebionites; and that they held as the Cerinthians do: both which belie­ved, that our Saviour was a mere Man. He says, they agreed in all Points with the Jews; concerning whom, 'tis certain and granted;[Page 40]that they never belleved more than one Divine Person; and Dr. Bull himself has proved, that they ex­pected the Messias (or Christ) should be a Man, not God. Again, Epi­phanius makes it appear, that he took it for yielded, that the Nazarens be­lieved the Lord Christ to be a Man only; in that he doubts, whether they did not also hold, that he is the Son of only Joseph and Mary.

To Dr. Bull's Objections concerning the Nazarens.

AS to what Dr. Bull objects, I shall now evince, how frivo­lous and impertinent it is. He ob­jects first, the Authority of Sulpitius Severus, who began to write about the Year 401. Sulpitius says, ‘"The Emperor Adrian drove all Jews out of Jerusalem: but this tended to the Advantage of the Christian Religion; for at that time almost all of them believed in Christ God.’ Hist. sacr. l. 2. c. 31. This Expul­sion of all Jews, from Jerusalem, hapned about the Year of Christ 135. The Words almost all are intended to signify, that as the Jews were the Ma­jority of the Inhabitants and Citizens of Jerusalem; so the most (the far greater Number) of them were Christians. But when he adds, they believed in Christ-God; I have pro­ved it to be a Mistake, by the Testi­mony of those Fathers who lived among the Jewish Christians, name­ly, Origen and Theodoret; and of other Fathers who were much nearer to them than Sulpitius, even Epipha­nius and St. Augustin. Epiphanius was Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, an Island just by Palestine; and he himself was a Native, and had his Education in Palestine: St. Austin, from Hippo in Africa, informed him­self of the State of the Syrian and Pa­lestine Churches, not only by Letters to and from the Learned Men of those Churches and Provinces; but also by some of his Clergy, whom he main­tained at Jerusalem and the Holy Land, only for Intelligence and In­formation. On the contrary, Sul­pitius lived in Aquitain, a Province of Gaul, in the (remotest) western Parts of the Roman Empire; at the Distance of above 2000 Miles from Palestine and Syria, where the Jewish Christians had their Churches; or as their Enemies (particularly St. Je­rom) spoke, their Synagogues. We cannot much wonder, that at so great a Distance from the Jewish Christians, Sulpitius mistook their Doctrine, concerning the Quality of our Saviour's Person, or whether he were God or Man: nor will any Man of Prudence think, that one Sulpitius, at such a Remotion from them, is to be believed, against so many most learned Fathers, who dwelt partly among the Nazarens, partly very[Page 41]near to them. Beside, Sulpitius was not a Divine, but a Lawyer; bred a Heathen, and went over to the Chri­stian Religion after he had long pra­ctised (as they speak) at the Bar: 'tis easily conceived, that a New Con­vert to Christianity, might not be ve­ry skilful in the Knowledg and Di­stinction of Sects. Therefore Mon­sieur du Pin observes concerning Sul­pitius, ‘"That tho his Abridgment of the Ecclesiastical History is the best we have of the Antients, yet it is not very exact: He commits di­vers Faults against the Truth of History, especially the Ecclesiasti­cal.’ Eccl. Hist. cent. 5. p. 112.

Dr. Bull cites also Euseb. Hist. l. 4. c. 5. where that Historian says; that the first 15 Bishops of Jerusalem sat but a very short time; but that he finds in the Writings of the Antients, that those Bishops received and pro­fessed the true Knowledg of Christ. I believe, there is no learned Man will doubt, that Eusebius his Author for this, was Hegesippus; who was the first that wrote an Ecclesiastical Histo­ry, which he published about the Year of Christ 170, a Work now lost, to the great Regret of learned Men. But when Hegesippus says, the Bishops of Jerusalem professed the true Knowledg of Christ, did he mean, as Dr. Bull supposes, that Christ is God most High? No, he meant, that they professed (in opposition to the Docetae and others, who held the Pre-existence of our Saviour, and that he was not a Man) he was a true and very Man, and a Man only: Of this I am perswaded by these Con­siderations.

First, Hegesippus was himself a Jewish Christian, as Eusebius (Hist. l. 4. c. 22.) witnesses: but all Jew­ish Christians, saith Origen, (who lived and flourish'd above 100 Years before Eusebius) were Ebionites, that is, denied the Divinity of Christ.

Secondly, The same Eusebius (ibid) says, that Hegesippus made use of St. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel; which was used only by the Ebiouites, and Unitarian Christians.

Thirdly, When Hegesippus (apud Euseb. ibid.) reckons up the Heresies and Hereticks of the Jewish Nation, that were (saith he) against the Tribe of Judah, and against Christ; he names the Samaritans, Pharisees, Sad­duces, Esseans, Masbotheans, Gali­leans, Hemerobaptists: but if the Denial of our Saviour's Divinity had been a Jewish Heresy, if the Ebionites or Cerinthians had been Hereticks, in the Judgment of Hegesippus, they must have come into the Catalogue of Hereticks that were against Christ, for 'tis certain (and yielded on all hands) that both these Sects denied the Divinity of our Saviour. If it be said, Hegesippus might not reckon the Ebionites and Cerinthians among the Jewish Hereticks; because tho they were Jews by Nation, they were Christians by Religion: yet at least he would have put them into the List of Christian Hereticks, which he does not. The Christian Heresies, accord­ing to Hegesippus, are the Heresy of the Simomans, Menandrians, Mar­cionites,[Page 42]Carpocratians, Valentinians, Basilidiaus, Saturninians; but not a word of the Ebionite, Cerinthian, Alo­gian, or Monarchian Hereticks, who were all Unitarians. But the Rea­der must here take care, that he is not imposed on by Valesius his Tran­slation of Eusebius: for the Transla­tion, after the Enumeration of the before-named Heresies and Hereticks, adds (alii (que)) and others, as if some were omitted; but the Greek Text of Eusebius has no such Words. In short, I say, Hegesippus gives a Cata­logue of the Heresies of the Jews and Gentiles, but does not account ei­ther the Cerinthians or Ebionites among the Hereticks; which he cer­tainly would, if he himself had held the Pre-existence and Divinity of our Saviour.

Lastly, I have before cited Vale­sius, owning and professing, that the Ecclesiastical History of Hegesippus was lost by the Antients: because (like the Hypotyposes of St. Clemens) it was observed to agree with the Uni­tarians. If it be said, But did not Eusebius know this; and yet he al­ways speaks respectfully of Hegesip­put: I answer, without doubt he knew it; but durst not take notice of it: it was not for Eusebius, to find fault with an Apostolical Father; he could only dissemble his Knowledg of what the Unitarians (and particu­larly his Antagonist Marcellus) would not fail to make Advantage; and this also is the Reason, as I hinted be­fore, why this crafty Arian will take no notice of the Apostolick Creed, as composed by them, tho he recites paraphrastically (that so he may im­pose on his Reader) the Heads of it. Hist. l. 1. c. 13.

But if Hegesippus (Unitarian He­gesippus) was the Author whom Eu­sebius follows, in the Account he gives of the first 15 Bishops of Jeru­salem, that they professed the true Knowledg of Christ; which will not be questioned by any that are conver­sant in Eusebius, or have observed that he professes (Hist. l. 4. c. 8, & 22.) to follow Hegesippus concerning the Apostolick and following times: we have also gained another very great Point; namely, this. That not on­ly the Jewish Christians, but those of Rome and all the great Churches to which Hegesippus had resorted, to know their Doctrine and Discipline, were also Unitarians; that is, held (with Hegesippus) that the Lord Christ is a Man only. For he saith (apud Euseb. l. 4. c. 22.) ‘"That he travelled to Rome, where he lived under the Popes Anicetus, Soter and Eleutherus, successively Popes of Rome; but both here, and in all other Episcopates, they keep the Doctrines taught by the Law and the Prophets, and by our Sa­viour.’ Briefly, he owns, that he found the Churches every where to be Orthodox and uniform: of which, if he was an Unitarian, as (I think) I have proved, the Meaning can be only this; that they believed, as the Jewish Christians do, the Lord Christ is a Man, the Prophet and Messenger of God, on whom the Logos or Di­vine [Page 43]WORD rested. This perfectly agrees with the Account that the old Unitarians (in Eusebius) give; name­ly, that they had kept the Doctrine de­liver'd by the Apostles, and which was professed every where, till the Op­position made to it, by the Popes Victor and Zepherin, who succeeded to E­leutherus, as he to Soter, and Soter to Anicetus, with which Orthodox Popes Hegesippus had conversed. The short is; We grant that Eusebius says, the Jerusalem-Bishops professed the true Knowledg of Christ: We an­swer, he borrowed this from Hege­sippus, whom he took for his Author, especially in what concerned the A­postolick Times, and the Times that followed, to the taking of Jerusalem by the Emperor Adrian in the Year 135, that is, while the 15 Bishops (concerning whom our present Que­stion and Debate is) governed the Churches of Jerusalem and Judea. But Hegesippus being himself a Jewish Christian, that is, one that believed our Saviour to be a Man only, when he said, the Jerusalem-Bishops pro­fessed the true Knowledg of Christ, he undoubtedly meant, that our Lord was a true and mere Man; against the Docetae and other platonizing Christians, who held his Pre-ex­istence, and denied that he was a Man.

Dr. Bull is not ashamed to infer, from St. Austin's Saying, that the Nazarens confess Christ is the Son of God; that they held he is so the Son of God, that he was born of God from all Eternity. I say, he is not ashamed of this Inference, tho he knows that all Ebionites believed Christ was a Man only; and yet E­piphanius says of them, divers times, as St. Austin does of the Nazarens, that they own the Lord Christ is the Son of God. For tho the Ebionites did not believe the miraculous Con­ception, yet they said the Lord Christ is the Son of God, progressione Virtu­tis, & quatenus ad sublimia coelestia (que) provectus est, i. e. by Holiness, and by his Exaltation to the right Hand of God, Epiphan. Haeres. Ebion. c. 13. Iren. l. 3. c. 30. But let us recite the very Words of St. Austin, de Haeres. c. 9, 10. ‘"The Nazarens, as they confess Christ is the Son of God, so they observe the whole Law; the which, Christians have been taught that 'tis to be understood and taken spiritually, not carnally. The Ebionites also say, that Christ is a Man only, and observe the cer­nal Precepts of the Law.’ These Words, the Ebionites also say, that Christ is a Man only, would be Non­sense; if the Nazarens, of whom he speaks immediately before, had not likewise so held.

In like manner he would put a false Meaning on these Words of St. Je­rom; ‘"The Nazarens believe in Christ the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary: the same, say they, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rose again from the Dead; in whom also WE (i. e. we of the Church) be­lieve.’ One would have thought, that when the Nazarens say here; [Page 44]We believe in the Son of God that was born of the Virgin Mary, was put to Death under Pontius Pilate, and rose again from the Dead: they had sufficiently declared, that the Son of God in whom they believed was the Man Christ Jesus; not a Son of God that could not be born of the Virgin Mary, or die, or rise again. But because St. Jerom says, in whom also we believe; Dr. Bull cries out, Look here, the Nazarens believed in that Son of God, in whom the Ortho­dox believed. We think so too, Doctor; because both Parties believed in the Son of God, who was generated and born of Mary, died, and rose again: tho the Orthodox (so called) invented also another Son of God; a Son that could not be generated and born of Mary, a Son that could not die, a Son as old as his Father, a se­cond Almighty, another Creator, first made known by the Council of Nice.

Next, Dr. Bull produces as Passage out of Justin Martyr, to prove that there were some Christians who ob­served the Mosaick Law, and yet be­lieved in such a Christ, who was be­fore Luciser and the Moon: and who could these be, but the Nazarens? I answer; whoever they were, they were not the Nazarens: most of the Gnostick Sects, who also observed the Mosaick Law, beld the Pre-existence of our Saviour. What hinders, but that they might be the Cerinthians? Besides, it is uncertain, whether Justin meant to say, that there were some Christians who keep the Law of Moses, and yet believe that Christ was before Lucifer and the Moon: to make out this Sense, Dr. Bull is forced to add these Words to the Words of Justin, such a Christ as you before described. Judic. Eccl. p. 52. which Addition seems also contrary to the Context, where 'tis inserted by Dr. Bull; for Dr. Bull contends for a Christ (in that Context) who was before Lucifer and the Moon; and the Context describes a Christ that was crucified, and to whom GOD has com­mitted the Judgment of the Dead and Living, and has given to him a King­dom that shall have no end. This seems to be a mere Ebionite or Soci­nian-Christ; a Man, not God.

Lastly, he quotes the Title of the 12th Chapter of the 6th Book of the Constitutions of St. Clement, that is, as Dr. Bull himself confesses, falsly in­titled to Sr. Clement. The Words are these, Of those who confess, but yet live after the manner of the Jews: Dr. Bull would have it thought, that this Title speaks of those who confess that Christ is the most High and Eter­nal God. These, Mr. Bull thinks, could be no other but the Nazarens. But to come at that Conclusion, Mr. Bull must first prove; not only that the Nazarens believed the Lord Christ is God the WORD: but that there were no other Denominations of Christians, who observed the Mo­saick Law. and also believed that Christ is God the WORD. But he knows, that the Cerinthians, and most of the Gnostick Sects, did Ju­daize and also believe the Pre-ex­istence[Page 45]of our Saviour, and that he is God the WORD. But let us grant to Dr. Bull whatever he contends for, from this Citation; and see how it will advantage his main Cause. The Question is concerning the Nazarens, whether they held, as the Church now does, that there is more than one Divine and Eternal Person; are there two, or three such Persons, is the Lord Christ the eternal God? Yes, says Dr. Bull; for the Constitu­tions (chap. 11.) have a Confession to that purpose; and the 12th Chap­ter is concerning those that confess (that is, so confess) and yet live af­ter the manner of the Jews, that is, observe the Mosaick Law: and these, most certainly, were the Nazarens. But if the Nazarens confessed in the Form there mentioned; they were far from believing as Dr. Bull, and the Church, now believe. Let us hear the Confession at chap. 11. to which the Title urged by Dr. Bull does refer. It saith, ‘"We teach but one God, the Father of Christ; not a second, not a third, not a manifold God; but one eternal God.’ One would think, this were Socinus, or J. Crellius de uno Deo Patre: but towards the Con­clusion, the Author (or Authors) show, that he held the same Doctrine with Arius; for tho he had said, there is but one God who is Eternal or from Eternity, yet he owns that Christ is not a mere Man, but is also God the WORD. That is, there is but one true, one eternal God, yet the Son or WORD is also God in an inferiour Sense: namely, a God that was generated in time, and is set over the Works of the Creation. Mon­sieur du Pin deals ingenuously, when he owns, that the Author of the Con­stitutions seems to have been an Ari­an: he rightly adds, that the Consti­tutions, as we now have them, were forged after the times of St. Epipha­nius; for that Father quotes them far otherways than, nay contrary to, what they now are. Eccl. Hist. Cent. 1. p. 29, 30.

If the Reader compares this Secti­on, with what I have alledged in the foregoing, he will perceive, that 'tis with the greatest Justice and Truth in the World, that the present Unita­rians claim the Nazarens (or first Jewish Churches and Christians) as of our Party.

Of the Alogi, or Alogians, &c.

FRom the Nazarens, that is, the Jewish Christians, I go on to the Alogi or Alogians, who were the an­tient Gentile Christians. They were called Alogian, or Alogi, because they denied the Logos or WORD, of which St. John speaks in his Gospel, Epistles and Revelation: they said, that all those Pieces were written by Cerinthus, under the Name of St.[Page 46] John; to confirm Cerinthus his Con­ceits about the Logos, and the Mille­nium or thousand Years Reign of Christ here upon Earth. For tho the Alogi held, that the Lord Christ is a Man only; as also did Cerinthus; yet Cerinthus (of the antient Unita­rians) had these two things, peculiar to himself. 1. That the World was made, not immediately by God; but by God, by the Ministry of his Angels. 2. That the Lord Christ was a Man only, the Son of Joseph and Mary; but there rested on him the Logos or Divine WORD, which he also called the Christ, by which Cerinthus intended the Spirit, Ener­gy or Power of God, that Power by which he created Original Matter, and made the World: but as the Christ or WORD descended on Je­sus at his Baptism, so it left him at his Crucifixion. The Alogians be­lieved none of these things: they said, they had only received from the Aposiles; that the Lord Christ was the great Prophet promised by Moses in the Law, and the Messias (or Christ) intended in the Prophet Da­niel, and who (in the Fulness of Time) was sent by God to unite both Jews and Gentiles under one com­mon Institution, or Law of Religion.

Epiphanius is the first, who gave to them the Name of Alogi: before him, that is before the Year 368, they were simply called Christians; without any other Name, that might signify them to be a particular Sect. They were those Christians of the Gentiles, who retained the sincere Apostolick Doctrine concerning the Unity of God, and the Person of our Saviour, without corrupting it (more or less) with Platonick Notions, or Gnostick Novelties: they were very antient, co-eval with the Apostles; and flourished (as the prevailing Par­ty) in the Period called the Aposto­lick Succession, or to about the Year 140. Epiphanius all along speaks of them, as the antient Unitarians of the Gentiles: He says also expresly, Theo­dotus adjunxit se Haeresi Alogorum; Theodotus joined himself to the Sect and Churches of the Alogians. Theo­dotus appeared about the Year 190; by joining himself to the Alogian Sect, we learn, that before he was of the Number of the (new) Platonick Christians; who held the Pre-ex­istence of our Saviour. Eusebius is strangely out, or prevaricates too no­toriously, when he says, Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 28. that this Theodotus was the first, who held that our Saviour was a mere Man: for not only the Alogians so held, but so also did both sorts of Ebionites, and that by Con­fession of Eusebius himself elsewhere, particularly H. Eccl. l. 3. c. 27. But Eusebius takes all Occasions, tho ne­ver so fraudulently, to depress the Unitarians, whom he had undertaken to confute in the Person of Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra. We may take notice too, that the Excerpta at the End of Clemens of Alexandria his Books of Stromata, which bear the Title of the Oriental Doctrine of Theodotus, were not Particulars of the Doctrine of Theodotus the Unita­rian;[Page 47]for the Doctrine of Theodotus was diametrically opposite to the Contents of those Excerpta: but the Excerpta are nothing else but a Frag­ment of the Hypotyposes of St. Cle­mens himself; which also is observed by the learned Valesius, in his first Note on Euseb. H. E. l. 5. c. 11. and again on lib. 6. c. 14. In few Words; that the Alogi held our Sa­viour was a Man only, is not questi­oned by any: that they belonged at least to the Apostolick Succession is proved; because 'tis confessed by the Trinitarian Historians, that the Theo­dotians (who appeared about the Year 190) joined themselves to the Alogian Churches; and because Epi­phanius speaks of them (throughout) as flourishing in that Period. We have therefore deservedly here reckoned them, among the antient and first Witnesses of the true Doctrine. As to the Reasons which they gave, and which I affirm not, against the Go­spel, and other Works, which we now account to St. John, I have al­ready (briefly) intimated them, in the Considerations on the 4 Sermons of his Grace the Archbishop of Can­terbury. It was 400 Years before the Epistle to the Hebrews was re­ceived as Canonical, any where in the West, and but in few Places of the Orient; and other Books of the New Testament, especially St. John's Revelation, were not presently ad­mitted by the Catholick Church: it ought not therefore to seem strange, that the modern Unitarians allow of the Gospel and other Pieces of St. John; tho they are aware that many of the Antients, and particularly some Unitarians suspected, and (too hastily) rejected them. As it often happens, that Time detects Frauds and Falshoods, so also (not unfre­quently) it discovers and vindicates oppressed Truths.

The last Monument or Remain of the Apostolick Succession, which agrees with the Socinian Doctrine concern­ing our Saviour, are the Recognitions, imputed to Clemens Romanus. They seem to be falsly reckoned to St. Cle­mens: but they are very antient, published (probably) in the Begin­ning of the 2d 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 9th 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[Page 48]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 2d 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 'tis 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[Page 49]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,[Page 50]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; 'tis 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 2d and 3d 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, 'tis 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) 2d 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; 1st. 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. 2dly. 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. 3dly. 'Tis 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.

[Page 52]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 'tis ex­presly said concerning a mere Angel, that the Name of God was in him: And next, that very often the Nature and Quality of the Action, that is imputed to the Person who bears the Names Jehovah and God, evinces, that the Person spoken of, is Jehovah and God, only by Representation. But let us now weigh Dr. Bull's An­swers.

He saith, first, the Divine WORD, who is true God, might be called an Angel, when he appeared to Moses in the Bush; ‘"Because God appear­ed in such manner, as Angels are wont to appear.’ But we cannot grant, that if God appears in such­manner as Angels are wont to ap­pear, God may therefore be called an Angel: tho Dr. Bull desires us, that of all Love we would grant it; for he only says it, and offers no manner of Proof, of so absurd and (in very deed) impossible a Supposition. And we give this (incontestable) Reason, why the Person who appeared in the Bush to Moses, and is called some­times Angel, sometimes God, was only an Angel who was called God on the Account that he represented God; because if he were God, and therefore spoke these Words, I am the God of thy Fathers, in his own[Page 53]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, 'tis (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: 'tis 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 2d 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, 'tis 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 [Page 54]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 'tis 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 the Me­diation [Page 55](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 'tis 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 [Page 56]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, 'tis but in these last Days, or in the Gospel-Age, that the Son of God hath spoken to M [...] 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. 'Tis 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[Page 57]the Apostle says; 'tis 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, 'tis 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 'tis[Page 58]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 [Page 59]credit his Cause? If the other, if the Cabala is a Tradition of Divine Re­velation and Institution; 'tis 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 WORD [...] 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, pre­existent 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 [Page 60]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. 'Tis 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, [Page 61]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 2d 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: 'tis for this very Doctrine, that the Jews have[Page 62]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 and by himself, as the Athanasian Creed speaks) a most per­fect God, are but one God, is so monstrous a Paradox; that we might justly wonder, such a contra­dictory and impossible Doctrine be­ing (unhappily) got abroad, was not immediately hissed again, into the Hole, from whence the Chimera first sallied; did we not know, that the Propagation and Conservation of this Affront to common Sense, and to all the Principles of Knowledg and Silence, was the Work and Effect of such penal Laws, as would equally have restored the whole Body and Sy­stem of Paganism. While the Que­stion about the Trinity was disputed, only by Argument and Authorities of Holy Scripture; the Proverb was, all the World is against Athanasius, and Athanasius is against all the World. And in Constantinople it self, the then capital City of the whole Roman Empire, the Trinitarian Conventicle was so thin, that it had more Benches than Men to fit on them: and their Preacher was forced to comfort his al­most empty Fold with such Reflecti­ons as these: ‘"The Unitaries, says he, have the Churches, but we (we Trinitarians) are the Tem­ples of God; they have the Peo­ple, but the Angels are with us: my Flock indeed is little, I easily tell all my Sheep; but they hear my Voice, they follow me, and will not follow Strangers.’ Greg. Nazianz. Serm. 35. against the Ari­ans. But the Empire falling at length to a Prince, who was a bigotted Tri­nitarian; he applied the Imperial Au­thority, and the Awe of his Armies, which comfilied (for the most part) of Souldiers and Officers who had been born (bred and continued) Pa­gans, to establish Trinitarianism by Terrors and Force. He ('twas Theo­dosius) and his Successors began with taking the Churches, [...] in all Uni­tarians, by military Force: then they were prohibited to hold their Assem­blies, Conventicles they were now [Page 63]called, within the Preciucts of Cities or Towns. Next, he called general Councils, but admitted none to Ses­sion or Vote but Trinitarians: to whose Creeds and Canons, all that stood for any (the very least) Church-Preferment, must subscribe, before they were admitted to their Places. Afterwards, all Disputes against the Decisions of these Councils were for­bid to all without Exception: to Churchmen and military Officers, on pain of Deposition; to Lay-men, if they were free, under the Penalty of Banishment; to Servants, under pain of corporal Chastisement, and that too (saith the Law) after the se­verest manner. They proceeded far­ther, they required all Persons, to deliver up all Heretical Books, that they might be publickly burnt; de­nouncing horrible Punishments to such as should presume to hide or con­ceal any such Books. While the Ci­vil Power acted his Part in this (out­ragious) manner, the Ecclesiasticks were as industrious another way: the Underlings of them sought the Favour of their Superiours, by turn­ing Informers against the Hereticks and their Assemblies; others (that could read and write) took upon them the corrupting, or as they then spoke, the correcting the Bibles; ad­ding and leaving out as themselves pleased. Nor would they have left to us, any Remain of genuine Chri­stianity; or suffer'd a single Unitarian to escape their Barbarities: but that their Divisions concerning their own Doctrine, their own Disputes de Asini umbrâ, diverted often their Rage and Treachery, from the Scrip­tures and the Unitaries, to the Mem­bers of their own Party and Commu­nion. Dares Dr. Bull, or any other, deny any thing of this? when they do, this (and much more) shall be proved upon them, from the most allowed of their own Historians, and from the Codes which contain the Im­perial Constitutions.

We may say then, that Trinitaria­nism is not so much a Religion, as the Law of the Bizantine (or Con­stantinopolitan) Emperors; it was first introduced by military Force, then confirmed by Edicts of the Ar­bitrary Emperors of Constantinople. Well, but when Folly and Impiety are once establish'd by Law, and are the only way to Preferment, there will never want a great Number, who will court the Favour of the Government, by endeavouring to represent the current Doctrine of the Times, as possible, nay as reasona­ble and agreeable to Scripture: and from hence came the Explications of the Trinity, by the Parasites of those times; whom now, in regard of their Antiquity, we call the Fathers, These Explications were various, and contrary to one another; Dr. Bull has made choice of the most tolera­ble and passable Accounts given by the Fathers: and tho he has patched up one Hypothesis (or Explication) out of many and divers, I will be content to take it, as he gives it. He represents it, as the ordinary Expli­cation, of all the Fathers; as well [Page 64]the Ante-nicene as Post-nicene: let us see what it is, and then make our Reflections upon it.

They said, there are three infinite Persons, known by the Names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; each of which has all Divine Perfections, and in their highest Degree. They are so many distinct, tho not divided or separated Substances and Essences: they are as much three Spirits, as they are three Substances and Persons; each has his own proper and personal di­stinct Understanding, Will, and (Al­mighty) Energy. It is true, that they said also, that the three Divine Persons are consubstantial, or have the same Substance: but they did not mean thereby the self-same Substance, or the same Substance in Number, but the same for Kind and Properties; that is, their Substances are (alike) Divine, Immortal, and Unchangable. They are consubstantial to one ano­ther, as Stars are consubstantial to Stars; that is, their Substances, tho divers in Number, have the same Properties and Qualities. In short, the Father, Son and Spirit, are di­stinct (intellectual) Substances; and are consubstantial (or of the same Substance) as their Substances or Es­sences are alike infinite, immutable and immortal: they are also (and therefore) distinct Beings; and be­cause they are intellectual and spiritu­al, they are three Minds and three Spi­rits, as much as they are three Per­sons and Substances. Lastly, because each has all possible (real) Perfections, therefore each of them is true God.

I dare to affirm before-hand, that Dr. Bull is so well satisfied, that this is the Notion that the Fathers had of the Trinity, that he will own it for theirs and his, and will not (disinge­nuously) deny that he intended this Explication or Account of the Trini­ty, in the several Chapters of his De­fence of the Nicene Faith, where he speaks (either designedly or inciden­tally) of this Point. And his Book has given him such a Reputation all over Europe, even in the Catholick Countries; and his Citations out of the Fathers, so plainly evince, that this was their Sense; that (I believe) no Trinitarian will be so rash or har­dy, as to call him Heretick, or to at­tack or write against him as such; tho others (of less Esteem) are now loudly challenged of Heresy, for this very Explication. In very deed, it is the Doctrine of the (Post-nicene) Fathers, and of all the real Trinita­rians: and since the Revival of these Controversies, divers learned Wri­ters (by Name Dr. Cudworth, the late Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Glocester, Dr. Sherlock, Mr. How, and others) imbrace this Notion of the Trinity. 'Tis 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. 'Tis 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 [Page 65]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, [Page 66]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, 'tis 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, [Page 67]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[Page 68]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 'tis 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[Page 69]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 are propa­gated from him. But they can never answer, either why the Father should propagate from himself, only two Spirits as perfect as himself; or why, seeing those two are as perfect as he, they also should not generate their like? If the two propagated Persons and Spirits cannot generate their like; they are not such perfect Beings as the Father is: and consequently are neither Gods, nor absolutely perfect Spirits. If it be said only, they will not generate their like, because three absolutely perfect Spirits are enough; 'tis not only frivolous, but silly: for if three perfect Spirits are more desi­rable by one another, or more ne­cessary to the World than one such Spirit or Mind, by an unavoidable Parity of Reason, seven or ten Spi­rits and Minds, that are all-sufficient and absolutely perfect, must be more desirable, and more requisite to the World than Three. Again,

[Page 70]It was Aristotle that observed, and 'tis an Observation worthy of so great a Man; that the Unity of God is discernable in the Constitution and Frame of the World. For such is the Uniformity and good Order of the whole; and all the Parts (both in their Qualities and Motions) so manifestly tend to one and the same End, namely the Service of Man, and the Conservation of the World it self in its present State; moreover, these Parts continue in their first Mo­tion and Course, so stedfastly and in­variably: that it appears they were contrived, and are regulated, not by more Gods, Makers, or Almighty Spirits, but by one only Law and Mind.

Last of all, that there is an all­wise God; we prove beyond Con­tradiction, by that perpetual Wisdom, Contrivance and good Sense, which is seen in the Whole and the Parts of the World; and which must be pre­vious to the World and its Parts, else how came (blind unthinking) Mat­ter into such a wise Order? But we have no manner of Proof, not the least Intimation, that there are more such Gods; as undoubtedly there would be, both in Nature and by Revelation, if indeed there were more such.

These Reasons have always per­swaded all Philosophers and Divines, that there is but one (supreme and infinite) God; and they proceed as directly against more infinite all-per­fect and creating Spirits or Minds, as against more Gods. In very deed, there never was any Philosopher that made any Distinction, between three Gods and three infinite Minds and Spirits: he would have been esteem­ed not in his right Senses, by the Philosophers, who should talk of one God and three infinite all-perfect Spi­rits; with them, one God, and one all-perfect Spirit were convertible Terms, and used for each other; and indeed they ever will be, by all that consider what they say.

But Dr. Bull, and the Fathers whom he follows, are perswaded; that tho all Nature and Reason are against it, yet 'tis a Divine Revela­tion, that there are three infinite (in­tellectual) Substances, three all-per­fect Spirits, three all-sufficient Minds: and that they may be said to be but one God, on the Accounts before­given; and which I will now exa­mine. He, and his Fathers say,

1. The second and third Minds are originated from the first; the Son and Spirit have their Being, Life and Godhead from the Father: therefore they are one God with him. There never was a more absurd thing said by Men. They pretend to prove the Unity, or declare the Unity; by what is the first Cause of Distinction, Diversity, and separate Existence. God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, are propagated, from God the Father; therefore they are one God with him: no Friends, no; therefore they are separate Beings, and distinct Gods, from him; as di­stinct and separate as Cause and Effect can be, which is the very first of Di­stinctions.[Page 71]and the Ground and Rea­son of all subsequent Distinction.

And what kind of God have these Gentlemen devised? A God who is, in one part of his Composition, in that part which they call the Father, unoriginated; but in his two other Parts, the Son and Spirit, not only originated as to his Godhead; but as to his very Being and Life. To say, as Dr. Bull and the Fathers do, that the Son and Spirit have their Being, Life and Godhead from the Father, or are originated in respect of all these from the Father; implies that they differ from the Father as prior and posterior, former and latter: for the originated Spirits (or Parts of God) must of necessity be posterior (latter or postnate) to that Spirit (or part of him) from which they are origi­nated; the very term Origination is a Confession of a natural Posteriority, which cannot be in God. To grant to our Opposers that Distinction of theirs, prior in Nature and prior in Time; they cannot thereby secure their Cause: for if the Son and Spi­rit are originated, as to their Sub­stance, Being, Life and Godhead, from the Father; they are posterior in Nature to him, and therefore can neither be God, nor essential Parts of him. Posterior in Nature (or post­nate) is as incompatible to God, as posterior in Time; for it implies an Accession to him, and a Change in him. If there be something in God, that is posterior in Nature, to some­thing else in God; then the whole of God is not connate, there has been a Change and Accession in him: which because our Opposers dare not say, neither ought they to say the other; namely, that there is somewhat in God, that is posterior in Nature to somewhat else in him; and yet to give up that, they know, is to give up their Cause.

But themselves, that they may not seem stark Fools, take notice; that if to be originated from the Father, will make the Son and Spirit to be one God with the Father; the whole Creation, the very vilest parts of it, shall be one God with him, because they are originated from him; that is, they give up this first Solution or Explication of the Unity; and they alledg, in the next Place, after this manner;

2. We do not affirm, that bare Origination from God, can make the Persons so originated, to be one God with him: but only when they are so originated from God; as to have the same (specifick) Substance and Properties that he hath; that is, when the originated Persons have, like him, immortal, unchangable Substances; and are omniscient, om­nipotent, and the rest that God is. As who should say; we make it out, that three infinite Spirits are but one God, by increasing their first Distin­ction and Diversity. They were suf­ficiently three Gods, by the Origina­tion of the second and third, from the first; but we will more ascertain them to be so, by the Multiplication of Substances and specifick Proper­ties. I ask, what is it that consti­tutes [Page 72]or essentiates a God; is it not this, That we suppose a spiritual Substance, that is immortal and un­changable, and has the Divine Pro­perties of Omniscience and Omnipo­tence? If so, then by supposing more such Substances, with such Pro­perties belonging to them; we do not suppose one God, but three. In short, I say; they propose such an Explication how three infinite Minds and Spirits are but one God, as all Men of Consideration will take to be a Declaration and Assertion of three Gods: for they will have three infi­nite Minds to be one God, because they have three distinct Divine Sub­stances, qualified each of them with (all) distinct Divine Properties; when these Substances and Properties are the very Marks and Notifications of their distinct Divinities, or that they are distinct Gods.

But themselves also acknowledg, that if Origination from the Father, and to be (specifically) consubstanti­al with him, were sufficient to make the Son and Spirit one God with the Father: then James and John being originated from their Father Peter, and consubstantial in all Respects with him, it will follow, that Peter, James and John, are not three Men, but one Man; or Peter, James and John are one Man with Peter. To get rid of this, they advance a third Bull, more ridiculous than either of the two former: it is this.

3. If the originated and consub­stantial (and Divine) Persons are propagated (from the first Person) by an internal Production; so that they are always and inseparably in the Person that produced them; they are thereby most truly one God with him. Here the Reader needs only to consider, that we are arguing con­cerning three such Persons as are con­fess'd (by these Opposers) to be three distinct Substances. Now to say of two of these Substances, that they are propagated by an internal Production, is a Bull; to add, that that they are inseparably in the Person that produced them, is another: but 'tis worst of all, to say; that by their Inexistence in the Father, the Son and Spirit are one God with him; this (I say) is a worse Blunder, a more inexcusable Oversight, than internal Production, or inseparable Substances.

Internal Production, when said of Substances, is a Contradiction, both in the Sense and Terms: 'tis as much as to say, a Production not produced; a Generation not generated.

And a Substance being that which can exist separately, or by it self; and needeth not, as an Accident, to inexist in something else: therefore an inseparable Substance is a Sub­stance without being a Substance, or a Substance and no Substance. Dr. Bull will answer, it may be, the Sub­stances of the Son and Spirit are al­ways and inseparably in the Father; not from a natural Inhability to sub­sist (as they are Substances) by them­selves, or separately: but only be­cause the Nature of the Divine Unity requires, that the second and third Persons of the Godhead, should al­ways[Page 73]inexist in the first; and he in them. But if this be the Meaning of inseparably; it is impertinently, as well as falsly added. Impertinently, because the word always had been enough; and only proper to be here used. Falsly, because things are not inseparable, if only they are not actu­ally separated, but of their own Na­ture have an Hability to exist sepa­rately. The Bull therefore remains, against whatsoever Excuses: but were that which the Doctor aims to say never so true, we shall see pre­sently, it will not in the least avail his Cause.

For, as I said, the greatest Blunder and Inobservance of all, is what Dr. Bull (and the Fathers) take to be the Strength of this Hypothesis; namely this; that the second and third Persons being always in the first, are therefore one God with him. For it is to be noted, that these Gentle­men hold, not only that the Son and Spirit are in the Father, but he also in them: it is the mutual Inexistence of all the three Persons, and not on­ly of the Son and Spirit in the Fa­ther, that maketh them to be one God. I ask hereupon, whether this mutual Inexistence, Immeation or Penetration of the three Persons, be such; that their Substances become continuous, as the Parts (for Instance) of the same Piece of Gold are; or only contiguous, like more Pieces of Gold that are heaped (or bagged) together? Are the Substances of the three Divine Persons, I say, continu­ous; as (to use another Instance) the Parts of the same Angel or Soul are continuous and indiscerpible? or are the only contiguous, as God or the Divine Substance (which pervades all things, Spirits as well as Bodies) is contiguous to the things which it pervades and immeates?

If Dr. Bull says, that the Divine Per­sons, Minds and Spirits, or the three Divine Substances, have such a mu­tual Inexistence, that they become continuous; as the (assignable con­ceivable) Parts of each Person's own Substance are, or as the Parts of an Angel or Soul are: He says thereby, and therein, that the Substances and Persons are identified; which is He­resy, because (as the Athanasian Creed speaks) it confounds the Per­sons. If the Substances are continu­ous, and thereby identified, the Pro­perties also of the three Substances, in Mr. Bull's Hypothesis, will be identified too: for in this Hypothesis there cannot be distinct Understand­ings, Wills and Energies, if the Sub­stances are not distinct, but continu­ous, and (thereby) identified. But we need not to insist on this; for Dr. Bull dares not say, that the Sub­stances of the Divine Persons are identified or continuous: he must say, and will say, that they do so in­exist in one another, that they are only contiguous; there is only a Con­tact of their Substances, not an Iden­tification or Continuity. But if there be only a Contact of the three Substances, they are as much three Gods, and separate Substances in the Physical Sense of the word separate: [Page 74]as three Men imbracing one another, are three distinct Men, not one Man; or as God and the Creation are sepa­rate Substances, tho he inexists in (pervates or immeates) the Works he hath made, and they again exist in him.

The Fathers that were Philoso­phers, when they said, the three Divine Persons or Substances are in one another, meant, by their mutual Love and Agreement: but those Fa­thers that were not learned, or un­derstood only the Platonick Philoso­phy, which is wholly moral and me­taphysical, and never meddles with the natural Reasons of things; I say, the Fathers that were not natural Philosophers imagined such an Inex­istence of the three Persons, that the said Persons were physically and sub­stantially in one another, and thereby (say they) one God. They knew not, that a substantial Inexistence must either be by the Continuity of the Substances; which confounds the Substances or Persons: or only by Contiguity or Contact, which can no more make three Divine Persons and Spirits to be one God, than three Men fitting close on the same Bench, are thereby one Man; or than God, who is in all Spirits (whether An­gels or Souls) and they in him, are the same Being or the same Substance, not separate Substances.

In short, Dr. Bull and these Fa­thers say; the three Divine Persons are three distinct several Substances, and do substantially immeate (or in­exist in) one another: yet so, that they are not continuous or identified, as the Parts of the same (numerical) Substance are, but only contiguous. We say hereupon, that this will ne­ver make them to be one God, be­cause mere Contact is only a juxta-Position, not a real Ʋnion. 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.

[Page 75]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 'tis 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: [Page 76]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.