THE JUDGEMENT OF THE FATHER'S Concerning the Doctrine of the TRINITY; Opposed to Dr. G. Bull's DEFENCE of the Nicene Faith. PART I. The Doctrine of the Catholic Church, during the first 150 Years of Christianity; and the Explication of the Unity of God (in a Trinity of Divine Persons) by some of the following Fathers, considered.  
London, Printed in the Year MDCXCV.   

The JUDGEMENT of the Father's concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity.  

I. The Design of Dr. Bull's Book.  
I Intent, in these Sheets, to examine Dr. Bull's Defence of the Nicene Faith: I shall prescribe to myself, to be as brief as possible I can, and to deal fairly and ingenuously.  
What is the Pretence of his Book, he tells us at pag. 5 th' and 6 th' of his Preface to it, in these Words; " To evince, that all the approved Doctors and Fathers of the Church, from the very Age of the Apostles to the first Nicene Council, agreed, in one common and selfsame 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 laughed at? For would not the Reader reply immediately, 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 Ancient Doctors have taught, and in all Places, is Catholic and Fundamental. But Mr. Bull durst not pretend to all the Doctors and Fathers before the Nicene Council; but only to certain approved. Fathers and Writers among them, about 20 among upwards of 200. The Reason is evident; he foresaw, that we should presently mind him of Theodotion, Symmachus, Paulus Patriarch of Antioch, Theodorus of Byzantium, Apollonides, Hermophilus, Lucianus; the Authors of the Apostolical Constitutions and of the Recognitions; of Melito Bishop of Sardis, who published a Book with this Title, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Creation and Birth of Christ: not to mention here the nazarenes 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 superior 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 (though 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 though 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 Logic, Natural Philosophy, Geometry, Physic, 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 Critics, and extremely curious in procuring correct Copies of the Bible. Euseb. l. 5. c. 28. They were perfectly qualified, to judge of good Copies, and to correct faulty ones; by their accurate Knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue: for St. Epiphanius (though so much their backfriend) 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 about our Saviour's Divinity. But the Critics, 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 Critic H. Valesius, (whom Dr. Bull sometimes commends, nay extols) in his first Note on Euseb. l. 5. c. 11. speaking of the Hypotyposes of St. Clemens; concerning which, Photius had observed, that they are full of Arian Blasphemies, as that the Son is but a Creature, and such like: I say, that by occasion of the said Hypotyposes, Valesius maketh this Note; Isti libri ob errores (quibus scatebant) negligentius habiti, tandem perierunt; nec alia (meo judicio) causa est, cur Papiae & Hegesippi (aliorumque veterum) libri interciderint. '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 ancient 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 Judgement and Authority of any sort of Writers; the first thing to be considered, is, what is the Character of those Writers, and their Writings: Were the Writers skilful in that sort of Learning, of which they are called to be Judges? Are the Works or Writings that are imputed to them, certainly genuine, really and undoubtedly theirs? If so; yet have they not been corrupted, by (notorious) Additions, or Detractions; so that '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) Critics; who, though 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 itself. But though 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 Judgement, and perfect Knowledge, 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. '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 ancient 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, alleged 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; chief for this Reason; because it is cited under the Name of Barnabas, by Clemens Alexandrinue, Origen, and oath Ancients. Nor can those of the adverse Party, allege 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 alleged, why this Epistle was not written by the Evangelist Barnabas? Does he not know, that divers Critics have observed, that if the Ancients 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 Judas, the second of St. Peter, the second and third of St. John: but these following are counterfeit pieces, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, the pretended Epistle of Barnabas, etc. these are Counterfeits. Dr. Bull may consider at his leisure, of what Weight the Judgement 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 scandalise 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 wondered at, if a counterfeit Apostle belies the true ones. This Crimination of the true Apostles is in the 5 th' Chapter of the alleged Epistle.  
The more learned and impartial Critics 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 ancient, being quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen: but that it was forged about the beginning of the 2 d Century, or the 2 d Century being well advanced; when also the Gospels of St. Thomas, St. Peter, St. Mathias, the Acts of St. Andrew, St. John, and other Apostles, were devised and published, as Eusebive 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 citys 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 2 d. 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 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 2 d Vision, Chap. 4.) as commanding him, that he should prepare 3 Copies of these Visions; one for Clement than 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 expressly, that he scarce ever spoke 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 Chimaeras and Follies, he fathered them on Hermas an Apostolical Man and Friend of St. Paul, as others before him had laid their spurious Offsprings to the Apostles themselves. But, 2. Some of his (Celestial) Visions contain manifest Falsehoods; 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Persons, it was not only every where laid aside, but censured as both false and foolish. Of so many of the Ancients as condemned it, we need only take notice of Eusebius; who, speaking of the Books used by Christians, whether privately or in public, 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 Ancients (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 Critics of the contrary Persuasion, have to allege 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 acknowledge 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 Knowledge 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 both the one and the other are directed to the Philippians: I say, supposing this; yet divers learned Critics are of opinion, that the genuine Epistle written by the true Polycarp, and which Ireneus intends, concludes with the 12 th' 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 12 th' 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 cain's, 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 , 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 thorough 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 ancient 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! Can 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 Ancients 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 Relics, in order to their being enshrined and worshipped; this last sort of Apparitions were every whit as true, as the first. They will prove, they say, their (consubstantial coeternal) 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 Catholic Church, the other are grounded on Visions and Apparitions to one Pionius. But let us consider the Contents of these (precious) 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 Ship against a full Wind, encompassed 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, though 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 sweeting after hard Labour; too others, standing by the Lord, with much Assurance, and in unspeakable Glory; but however, most courteously and lovingly embracing them all. 'Tis a Miracle, to me, that he had not done sweeting, 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 embrace (or seem to embrace) 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 Soldiers) to suffer there, in the Amphitheatre. In the Amphitheatre 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 decrepit 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 Soldiers (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, 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 chief, and almost wholly employed, in advising and entreating 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 Endeavour of Christians who assisted at Martyrdoms, to encourage the Martyrs, by all possible ways, to suffer courageously; 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 Amphitheatre, 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 Falsehood, 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, compliment 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 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 though he writes to a Bishop, not to a Church, he cannot forbear his (odious) Daubing. " He that thinks, says this Pseudomartyr, that he knows more than his Bishop, is ruined: Harken 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 Fullness of the Apostolical Character; which this Impostor assumes in the Epistle to the Trallians: I salute you, saith he to the Trallians, in the Fullness of the Apostolical Character. In short, no one can read these Epistles, with Judgement 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 Churchmen. 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 myself concerned, to examine the (few and impertinent) Passages, alleged 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 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 Catholic 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 Battle so bloody and cruel, but some (though 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 nazarenes 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 though (it may be) they are not rightly imputed to him, yet are a most ancient 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 itself answers; " I bel●eve in one God; so this Creed was anciently read both in the East and West; " the Father, Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth. In these Words the Father is charactered by these Names, Properties and Attributions; that he is God, the one God, Almighty, and Maker of Heaven and Earth.  
Concerning the Lord Christ, it saith; " And in Jesus Christ, his only Son (Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, only begotten Son) our Lord. So the Characters of our Saviour, are; that he is (not the one God, but) the only begotten Son of the only (or one) God, and that he is our Lord. Our Lord he is, as he is our Saviour, Teacher, and Head of the Church both in Heaven and Earth. He is called the only begotten Son of the only (or one) God, to distinguish him from all other Sons of God; from Angels, who were (not begotten, but) created Sons; from Holy Men, who are adopted Sons; and from Adam, who is called the Son of God, not because he was generated or begotten, but made or form 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 acknowledge, 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 () 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, though not a common Man, because conceived (not of Man but) of the Holy Spirit, which is the Power and Energy of God. If they had meant, or but known, that the Son and Spirit are eternal and divine Persons, no less than the Father; they have done to both of them the greatest (possible) Wrong: because in the same Creed in which they declare, that they believe that the Father is the one God, Almighty, and Maker of Heaven and Earth; they believe the Son was conceived, born, died, descended into Hell, ascended into Heaven, is next to God, that is, they believe he is a mere Man; and concerning the Spirit they believe no higher thing, than of the Church, we believe in the Holy Spirit and in the Holy Catholic 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 inquire, 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 public 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 baptised, 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 administered: 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 Catholics from Heretics. Against all Heretics and Schismatics in general, this Article was made; I believe in the Holy Catholic Church: against the Sects of the Gnostics, this Article, I believe the Resurrection of the Body. This is the Conjecture of Vossius.  
Because it was so evident, that this Creed makes only the Father to be God; and that it speaks of the Son, by only humane Characters, and says not the least Word of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit: therefore this Book of Vossius was received with a mighty Applause, among all the Denomiantions of Trinitarians; Papists, Lutherans, Calvinists, and all others. They saw themselves delivered by this Book, from such an Allegation and Aughority against the Doctrine of the Trinity; as was more than equivalent, to all their (pretended) Proofs from the Fathers, or from the Holy Scriptures, For what are all the Fathers, if indeed they were all of their side; when opposed by the College of Apostles? And what are some incidental and very dubious Expressions, of some particular Writer of Holy Scripture; against a Creed, composed by the Concurrence and Consent of all the Apostles, and of their Senate (or Council) the CXX? A Creed, in which they, not incidentally (in which case, Men often speak loosely 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 wondered, that Vossius his Book was so kindly received; or that the Trinitarians, of whatsoever Persuasion, 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 laughed out of Countenance by the Crowd 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 Mathias into the Apostolate of Judas; the Conclusion of the Apostles and Elders, assembled in Council, concerning the Ritual and Judicial Parts of the Mosaic 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 Apostolic Writings; if indeed it had been composed by the Apostles, as their Joint Work, for the Use of the whole Catholic Church.  
There are abundance of false Steps made, in this reasoning of Vossius. (1) It is evident enough, that divers most important Matters were ordained, by the joint Council and Authority of the Apostles and the CXX, which yet St. Luke did not think necessary to be inserted, into his History of the Preaching, Travels, and Persecutions of the Apostles. The Institution of the Lord's Day, instead of (or with) the Sabbath (or seventh Day) appointed by God himself in the 4 th' Commandment; the Form of Church-Government, whether you will say by Bishops, or by a Presbytery, or in the Independent Way; the solemn manner of ordaining the Church-Pastors, by Imposition of Hands, and Prayer made for them; the Love-Feasts, the Holy Kiss: all these, every one will confess, are Institutions, not of one Apostle, but of the College of Apostles and their Council the CXX; and yet St. Luke has not told us, either when or by whom they were ordained, but is as silent of their Institution by the Apostles, as of their composing the Creed. (2) 'Tis not hard to guests 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 Ancients (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 ancient Fathers is expressly 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 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 Apostolic Writings: one may say, they not only allude, but even point to it.  
And what does St. Judas (so likely) mean, in these Words; Judas 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 aught from it.  
I know not what he means, by taking aught 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 ancient 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 enlarge 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 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 Critics (even of the Trinitarian Persuasion) agree, that abundance of Words, and some whole Texts have been added. 'Tis contestable, 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 expressly denied at the first Council of Nice itself, 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 baptised 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 itself) in preserving pure and entire the Oracles of God. Epiphanius owns in direct terms, that the Orthodox put out of their Bible's 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 Bible's that have not been rectified. Anchor. n. 31.  
3. Vossius saith farther, that none of the Ecclesiastical Historians, though 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 soon) no higher, than the Conversion of Great Constantine to the Christian Faith. Therefore 'tis no wonder, that though they record the Creeds in order, as they were composed by the Councils that assembled under Great Constantine, and his Successors: yet they say nothing of the Apostles Creed, which belonged to a Period 300 Years older than the times of which those Historians write. 2. Vossius has not asked; why Eusebius, the oldest of the Ecclesiastical Historians, and who gins 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 thoroughpaced 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 Homoousians, 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 ancient 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 offered it. He says, that 'tis an Opinion established 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 talked of (it may be, be censured by his Superiors) 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 established 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 learned it by Heart; all Churches, and all Writers, would have repreated it, in the same manner and in the same terms. But the contrary is evident, for not only in the 2 d and 3 d Centuries, but in the 4 th' also there were many Creeds; and all, though the same as to Doctrine, yet different in the Expression. In the 2 d and 3 d Ages we find as many Creeds as Authors: which shows that there was not then any Creed that was reputed to be the Apostles; or even any regulated or established 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 the Praescriptione, contra Praxeam, and de Virgin. velandis. See also Origen peri Archon, lib. 1. & Dial. contr. Marc. Ruffinus in the 4 th' Age, compares three ancient Creeds, of Aquileia, Rome, and the Orient; none of which agree perfectly with the common one, nor with one another: as will appear (saith he) by the Table, containing the 4 Creeds, at the End of this Discourse. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (in his Catechetick Lectures) gives us a particular Creed, used by the Church of Jerusalem, when this Father wrote. The Authors also that have explained the Creed, as St. Austin, Serm. 119. St. Maximus, Chrysologus, Fortunatus, omit some Expressions that are found in the Apostles Creed as we now have it; as the Life everlasting: and St. Jerom says, that the Apostles Creed concludes with the Resurrection of the Body; but now it concludes with the Life everlasting. Lastly, he saith, that Ruffinus is the first, and only Person of the 5 th' Century, who asserts that the Creed was composed by the Apostles; and he proposes his Opinion, only as a Matter that depended on popular Tradition: the other Authors that are of this Opinion, he saith, took it up on the Credit of Ruffinus; and are too late in time, to be admitted as Witnesses in this Question, about the Authors of the Creed called the Apostles.  
Never was there less Truth, in so many Words; I shall therefore discuss very particularly, all that he hath said. He saith; (1) If the Apostles had made a Creed, all Churches and all Writers would have repeated it, in the same Manner and Terms. That all Churches repeated it in the same Terms and Manner, we affirm; nor will Mr. du Pin ever prove the contrary. That all Writers should repeat it in the same Manner and Terms, is a childish Supposition: for sometimes they have occasion to repeat but part of it; sometimes they repeat it Paraphrastically, thereby to put on it their own Interpretation. Therefore '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 Prescript. & 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 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 Catechumen, instead of the Apostles Creed; that People might be infected betimes, with that infidelity which the Nicene Council had established and published.  
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, Adriatic and Ionian Seas; all these (being the better Moiety of the Roman Empire) were called the Orient. The Church of Rome, though she was not (as she now calls herself) 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 persuade 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 Impassable. The Roman, I believe in God the Father Almighty: and the Aquileian said; I believe in one God, the Father, Almighty: the present (or Vulgar) Creed adds, Maker of Heaven and Earth.  
The Roman, and Aquileian, and Present, say; And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord: the Oriental transposes the word only, thus; and in our only Lord Jesus Christ, his Son.  
The Oriental, Roman and Aquileian said; who was born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary: the Present, by way of Explication; who was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.  
The Oriental and Roman said; was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was buried: the Aquileian, crucified under Pontius Pilate, buried, descended into Hell: the Present, crucified under Pontius Pilate, dead, buried, descended into Hell. But descendit ad inferos, he descended to those below, or as we render it into Hell, is confessed 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 complete, took in both the Expressions; though 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 repent 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 judge 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 Catholic or Universal.  
All the Creeds said; the Forgiveness of Sins.  
In like manner, they all said; the Resurrection of the Body; saving that the Aquileian said, of this Body.  
The Present concludes with the Life everlasting: the other three mention not the Life everlasting; because it is supposed and included in the foregoing Article, the Resurrection of the Body.  
I say now, let any one read the ten Commandments at Exod. 20. and compare them with the same ten Commandments at Deut. 5. and he will perceive, that he may better deny them to be the same Commandments, than that these four various Copies are Copies of the same Creed. The Variations of the 4 Copies are so inconsiderable, the Causes of that Variation so obvious and evident, that he that will call them, not various Readins 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 Physic. But if these are only various Readins of the same Creed, without doubt we have gained our Point, that the Apostles were the Authors of it. For I desire to know, how it was (morally) possible, that the East and West; which is to say, all the Churches of Christendom, should in all Kingdoms, Provinces and Episcopates, happen to have the very same Creed, both for Number and Order of Articles, and Manner of Expression; if they did not receive it from the very same Persons, from whom they received the Gospel and the Scriptures, namely from the Apostles and other first Missionaries and Preachers of the Heavenly Doctrine? It is granted to us, that there had been no General Council, when this Creed (as we have made it appear) was the common and only Creed both of the West and Orient: therefore when all the Fathers (without excepting any) that speak of this Creed, tell us, they have received ex traditione Majorum (by Tradition of their Predecessors) that this Creed was made by the Apostles; they give us such an Account as justifies and proves its own Truth; for no other 'Cause can be thought of, how it should become the common and only Creed of Christians.  
(2) Mr. du Pin saith; Ruffinus (in the 5 th' Century) is the first Person, who asserts that this Creed was composed by the Apostles; and that too from popular Tradition: indeed a great many other Fathers say the same thing; but they all had it from Ruffinus. First, Mr. du Pin reckons Ruffinus to the 5 th' Century; only to lessen his Authority and Credit in this Question: for it is certain, (and acknowledged by Dr. Cave, and afterwards by Mr. du Pin) that Ruffinus flourished 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 5 th' 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 expressly informs us, who were the Authors of it; though 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 (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 ancient 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) allege (as Ruffinus does) Tradition for their Ground; which, as I said before, was not only Oral Tradition, but the Tradition of the ancient Commentators. And when this Critic 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 intent, to explain the whole Creed. verbatim, but only the principal Words and Articles; namely, such as either were controverted by Heretics, 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 Critics (I willingly acknowledge 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 5 th' Age, and spoke only from popular Hear-say, 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 allege from the (confessed) 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 Readins of one and the same Creed; the very Commandments are (much) more differently related by Moses himself, than the Apostolic Creed by the Churches.   

Of St. Clemens.  
OF the Monuments and Remains of the Apostolic 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 Critics 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 Vigour, 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 ancientest (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 Critics) sigh it out, that Clemens was an undoubted Vnitarian; and the occasion of this Judgement 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 Critics.  
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 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 Sceptre of the Majesty of God. He alludes here to the Sceptre 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 enlightened and opened; meaning, by his Doctrine and Gospel; and that he is exalted above the Angels: to which purpose he citys divers Expressions of the first Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But though he there goes over that whole Chapter, for the highest Epithets he might give to our Saviour, he omits the 8 th', 9 th', 10 th', 11 th' and 12 th' 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 gins also at the first Verses of that first Chapter to the Hebrews, goes thorough 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, though 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 thorough 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 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 itself 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 Ancients 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 styled, originally in that Epistle, but have been since added.  
And hitherto of the Judgement of St. Clement. For though 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 Ancients, Eusebius, St. Jerom, and Photius: partly because the Meanness of the Style, the Dryness 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 Ancients never allege 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 endeavours to improve by paraphrasing (that is, by wresting) it; 'tis so trivial, as well as so remote, that I shall trust the Judgement of any (the meanest) Reader with it: but out of the 2 d (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 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 Judge 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 Judgement, 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 Judgement, because he is the Son of Man, John 5.27.  
Out of the 9 th' Chapter of the same Imposture, Dr. Bull alleges; 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 alleged by him, or objected to him. In short, his Reader can never rely upon his Quotations; but than least of all, when he falls to explaining or paraphrasing.   

Of the nazarenes, Ebionites, Mineans.  
LET us now proceed to the nazarenes, Mineans, Ebionites, and Alogians: concerning the former of which, Dr. Bull grants, that if the nazarenes (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 endured in a most flourishing Condition (under 15 successive Hebrew Bishops) to the times of the Emperor Adrian, were Unitarians; then is the Unitarian Belief concerning our Saviour, incontestably true, and the certain Doctrine of the Apostles? But before I argue this Point, it will not be unprofitable to the Reader, who is not versed much in these Questions, if I give a short Account of the Occasion and Reason of these Names, Nazaren, Minean, Ebionite.  
The followers of the Doctrine of Jesus, were first called Christians at Antioch; a City of Syria, out of the Bounds of Judea: but in Judea itself, they were (from the first) called nazarenes and Mineans. Nazarens, from Nazareth, the Place of our Saviour's Education: Mineans, from an Hebrew Word which signifies Heretics. Tertullus, when he accused Paul before Felix, makes this to be his Fault; that he was a Ringleader of the Sect of the nazarenes, Acts 24.5. To the other Name Minean or Heretic, 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, nazarenes; who believe in Christ, the Son of God. St. Epiphanius, in the Account he gives of this Sect, says, the nazarenes 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 alleged 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 ancient it is; and that the Sect thereby intended, not only endured, 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 ancient Unitarians, and first (genuine) Christians; though 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 Ancients affirm the one, some the other of these. Nor is the Matter worth disputing, because they are (by all) granted to have been Contemporaries with the Apostles; and that they held the Lord Christ was a Man only, the Christ, the Son of Joseph and Mary by Generation, the Son of God by Holiness, Adoption and Exaltation.  
The Question now, between Dr. Bull and us, is, not concerning the Ebionites, for he and all others grant, that the Ebionites held concerning our Saviour, that he was a mere Man; but concerning the nazarenes and Mineans; namely, whether the nazarenes and Mineans supposed, the Lord Christ was a Divine Person, and God; or only a Man, a Prophet, the true Messiah 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 nazarenes, with the Ebionites. For though they were both of them Jews, or Proselytes of the Jews, yet there was this Difference between the Ebionites and the nazarenes; 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 nazarenes 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 though the nazarenes 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 Catholic Party) who considered 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 nazarenes 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 Mosaic Law together with the Gospel: and that all Jews who own Jesus to be the Christ, are called Ebionites. Orig. contr. Cells. l. 2. p. 56. I wish, instead of his wondering at this Account given by Origen, he had been so sincere, as to let the Reader know, that Origen having lived long in Syria, nay in Palestine, which is to say, in the very midst of the Nazaren or Jewish Churches, could not but know their true State and Opinions. He saith, all the Jews that are Christians, are called Ebionites: and does not he (and with him, all the Ancients) 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 nazarenes 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 Mosaic Law: it unavoidably follows, that the nazarenes 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 nazarenes, though 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 nazarenes; because of their Agreement in the main Points, that the Lord Christ was a Man only, and that the Mosaic 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 malicious Tales which contending Sects and Parties frequently raise upon one another. So in aftertimes, the Albigenses, Waldenses, and Wiclevites, were charged with monstrous Heresies, which they not only abominated, but are refuted by the Protestant Historians, out of the Catechisms, Sermons, and other Books of those early Reformers. They were charged with teaching, that the Devil is above God; that Elizabeth was Christ's Concubine, and taken with him in Adultery; with other more horrid and foolish things, not fit to be named: but the Protestant Historians have evinced, to the Satisfaction even of all learned and ingenuous Papists, out of the Books and Catechisms of those pious Men; that these are diabolical Calumnies, devised by their Persecutors the Friars.  
Farther, Dr. Bull grants, that Theodoret (Haeret. Fab. l. 2. c. 3.) affirms expressly, that the nazarenes 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 Heretics and their Opinions; we may (surely) rely on the Account he gives. 'Twas impossible that Theodoret, whose Bishopric was in Syriâ cauâ, whereabouts the nazarenes and Mineans then most abounded; and whose very Design it was (in that Book which we allege) 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 nazarenes, the most famous as well as most ancient 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 nazarenes flourished over all the Orient; and Epiphanius, that they abounded chief in Palestine and Syriâ cauâ. 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 soon) 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 nazarenes had like Sentiments: and (Haeres. 30. c. 2.) Nazaraeos & Ebionaeos capita simul contulisse, suamque nequitiam invicem communicasse, i. e. " The Nazarens and Ebionites laid Heads together, and communicated their Impiety (by which Epiphanius, without doubt, means their Heresy) " one with another. Lastly, that Epiphanius doubts only of this; whether in this the nazarenes 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 nazarenes 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 Knowledge, charge the nazarenes with the former of these Opinions. Farther, he owns, that the Ebionites and nazarenes were extremely gracious 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 nazarenes were infected with the Ebionite Heresy, that the Lord Christ is a Man only: and of these Nazarens (whom he calls the latter nazarenes, though the Ancients never make any such Distinction, as the former and latter nazarenes) he thinks, Origen is to be understood, when he says, as was before quoted, that the Jewish Christians (i. e. the nazarenes) are Ebionites. There never was a more injudicious Paragraph, unless the Man wilfully prevaricates. For first, why doth he say, some nazarenes were infected with the Ebionite Heresy, when Origen (who is his Author) expressly says, all the Jewish Christians are Ebionites? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says Origen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; i. e. the Jews, that own Jesus to be the Christ, are Ebionites. Contr. Cells. l. 2. p. 56. Secondly, I desire to know of Dr. Bull, how Epiphanius could more effectually declare the Doctrine of the nazarenes 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 nazarenes 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 nazarenes 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.  
But I shall mind him of other Evidences, that the nazarenes 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 nazarenes 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 Messiah 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 Messiah (or Christ) should be a Man only, not God. To the Testimony of Justin, he might have added Origen contr. Cells. l. 2. p. 79. & l. 4. p. 162.  
Farthermore, when Epiphanius (in the Chapter before-quoted) makes doubt, whether the nazarenes 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 nazarenes 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 Heretics, by themselves called nazarenes; but by divers they are named Symmachians. To know therefore what the nazarenes 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 nazarenes 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 Knowledge of Sects, as to mind or understand the several Subdivisions of them: therefore because the nazarenes were so far Ebionites and Symmachians, that they held the Lord Christ was a Man only, though generated not by Joseph but by the Power of God in the Womb of the Virgin Mary; they called them Ebionites and Symmachians, though 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 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 (Platonic) 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 nazarenes, 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 allege that,  
Theodoret says, in express Terms; the nazarenes 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 cauâ: 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 allege again, that the most learned Origen, who also lived a long time in Syria and Palestine itself, 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 nazarenes are Symmachians. But he means only, they are thus far Symmachians, that they think Christ is only a Man, not God.  
Epiphanius says, the nazarenes 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; that they never belleved more than one Divine Person; and Dr. Bull himself has proved, that they expected the Messiah (or Christ) should be a Man, not God. Again, Epiphanius makes it appear, that he took it for yielded, that the nazarenes 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, happened 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 dwelled partly among the nazarenes, partly very near to them. Beside, Sulpitius was not a Divine, but a Lawyer; bred a Heathen, and went over to the Christian Religion after he had long practised (as they speak) at the Bar: 'tis easily conceived, that a New Convert to Christianity, might not be very skilful in the Knowledge and Distinction of Sects. Therefore Monsieur du Pin observes concerning Sulpitius, " That tho his Abridgement of the Ecclesiastical History is the best we have of the Ancients, 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 citys 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 Ancients, that those Bishops received and professed the true Knowledge 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 Knowledge 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 persuaded by these Considerations.  
First, Hegesippus was himself a Jewish Christian, as Eusebius (Hist. l. 4. c. 22.) witnesss: but all Jewish Christians, saith Origen, (who lived and flourished 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 Ebiovites, and Unitarian Christians.  
Thirdly, When Hegesippus (apud Euseb. ibid.) reckons up the Heresies and Heretics 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 Heretics, in the Judgement of Hegesippus, they must have come into the Catalogue of Heretics 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 Heretics; because though they were Jews by Nation, they were Christians by Religion: yet at least he would have put them into the List of Christian Heretics, which he does not. The Christian Heresies, according to Hegesippus, are the Heresy of the Simomans, Menandrians, Marcionites, Carpocratians, Valentinians, Basilidiaus, Saturninians; but not a word of the Ebionite, Cerinthian, Alogian, or Monarchian Heretics, 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 beforenamed Heresies and Heretics, adds (aliique) and others, as if some were omitted; but the Greek Text of Eusebius has no such Words. In short, I say, Hegesippus gives a Catalogue of the Heresies of the Jews and Gentiles, but does not account either the Cerinthians or Ebionites among the Heretics; 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 Ancients: 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 Knowledge 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 Apostolic Creed, as composed by them, though 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 Knowledge 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 Apostolic 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 traveled to Rome, where he lived under the Pope's Anicetus, Soter and Eleutherus, successively Popes of Rome; but both here, and in all other Episcopates, they keep the Doctrines taught by the Law and the Prophets, and by our Saviour. Briefly, he owns, that he found the Churches every where to be Orthodox and uniform: of which, if he was an Unitarian, as (I think) I have proved, the Meaning can be only this; that they believed, as the Jewish Christians do, the Lord Christ is a Man, the Prophet and Messenger of God, on whom the Logos or Divine WORD rested. This perfectly agrees with the Account that the old Unitarians (in Eusebius) give; namely, that they had kept the Doctrine delivered by the Apostles, and which was professed every where, till the Opposition made to it, by the Pope's 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 Knowledge of Christ: We answer, he borrowed this from Hegesippus, whom he took for his Author, especially in what concerned the Apostolic 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 Knowledge 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 nazarenes 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, though 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 nazarenes, that they own the Lord Christ is the Son of God. For though the Ebionites did not believe the miraculous Conception, yet they said the Lord Christ is the Son of God, progressione Virtutis, & quatenus ad sublimia coelestiaque provectus est, i. e. by Holiness, and by his Exaltation to the right Hand of God, Epiphan. Haeres. Ebion. c. 13. Iren. l. 3. c. 30. But let us recite the very Words of St. Austin, de Haeres. c. 9, 10. " The Nazarens, as they confess Christ is the Son of God, so they observe the whole Law; the which, Christians have been taught that '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 nazarenes, 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 nazarenes believe in Christ the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary: the same, say they, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, and risen again from the Dead; in whom also WE (i. e. we of the Church) believe. One would have thought, that when the nazarenes say here; We believe in the Son of God that was born of the Virgin Mary, was put to Death under Pontius Pilate, and risen 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 nazarenes 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 risen again: though 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 Mosaic Law, and yet believed in such a Christ, who was before Luciser and the Moon: and who could these be, but the nazarenes? I answer; whoever they were, they were not the Nazarens: most of the Gnostick Sects, who also observed the Mosaic 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 Judgement of the Dead and Living, and has given to him a Kingdom that shall have no end. This seems to be a mere Ebionite or Socinian-Christ; a Man, not God.  
Lastly, he quotes the Title of the 12 th' Chapter of the 6 th' Book of the Constitutions of St. Clement, that is, as Dr. Bull himself confesses, falsely entitled 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 nazarenes. But to come at that Conclusion, Mr. Bull must first prove; not only that the nazarenes believed the Lord Christ is God the WORD: but that there were no other Denominations of Christians, who observed the Mosaic Law. and also believed that Christ is God the WORD. But he knows, that the Cerinthians, and most of the Gnostick Sects, did Judaize and also believe the Pre-existence of our Saviour, and that he is God the WORD. But let us grant to Dr. Bull whatever he contends for, from this Citation; and see how it will advantage his main Cause. The Question is concerning the nazarenes, 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 12 th' Chapter is concerning those that confess (that is, so confess) and yet live after the manner of the Jews, that is, observe the Mosaic Law: and these, most certainly, were the nazarenes. But if the nazarenes 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 though 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 inferior 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 alleged in the foregoing, he will perceive, that 'tis with the greatest Justice and Truth in the World, that the present Unitarians claim the nazarenes (or first Jewish Churches and Christians) as of our Party.   

Of the Alogi, or Alogians, etc.  
FRom the nazarenes, that is, the Jewish Christians, I go on to the Alogi or Alogians, who were the ancient Gentile Christians. They were called Alogian, or Alogi, because they denied the Logos or WORD, of which St. John speaks in his Gospel, Epistles and Revelation: they said, that all those Pieces were written by Cerinthus, under the Name of St. John; to confirm Cerinthus his Conceits about the Logos, and the Millenium or thousand Years Reign of Christ here upon Earth. For though the Alogi held, that the Lord Christ is a Man only; as also did Cerinthus; yet Cerinthus (of the ancient 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 Apostles; that the Lord Christ was the great Prophet promised by Moses in the Law, and the Messiah (or Christ) intended in the Prophet Daniel, and who (in the Fullness 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 Apostolic Doctrine concerning the Unity of God, and the Person of our Saviour, without corrupting it (more or less) with Platonic Notions, or Gnostick Novelties: they were very ancient, coeval with the Apostles; and flourished (as the prevailing Party) in the Period called the Apostolic Succession, or to about the Year 140. Epiphanius all along speaks of them, as the ancient Unitarians of the Gentiles: He says also expressly, 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) Platonic 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, though never so fraudulently, to depress the Unitarians, whom he had undertaken to confute in the Person of Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra. We may take notice too, that the Excerpta at the End of Clemens of Alexandria his Books of Stromata, which bear the Title of the Oriental Doctrine of Theodotus, were not Particulars of the Doctrine of Theodotus the Unitarian; for the Doctrine of Theodotus was diametrically opposite to the Contents of those Excerpta: but the Excerpta are nothing else but a Fragment of the Hypotyposes of St. Clemens himself; which also is observed by the learned Valesius, in his first Note on Euseb. H. E. l. 5. c. 11. and again on lib. 6. c. 14. In few Words; that the Alogi held our Saviour was a Man only, is not questioned by any: that they belonged at least to the Apostolic 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 ancient 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 Catholic Church: it ought not therefore to seem strange, that the modern Unitarians allow of the Gospel and other Pieces of St. John; though they are ware that many of the Ancients, and particularly some Unitarians suspected, and (too hastily) rejected them. As it often happens, that Time detects Frauds and Falsehoods, so also (not unfrequently) it discovers and vindicates oppressed Truths.  
The last Monument or Remain of the Apostolic Succession, which agrees with the Socinian Doctrine concerning our Saviour, are the Recognitions, imputed to Clemens Romanus. They seem to be falsely reckoned to St. Clemens: but they are very ancient, published (probably) in the Beginning of the 2 d Century, or the second Century being but little advanced; when so many other spurious Pieces were set forth, under the Names of Apostles, or of Apostolical Men. The Recognitions are quoted (divers times) by Origen, who began to flourish about the Year 210. But they are much ancienter than Origen, for in a Fragment of Bardesanes (apud Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 6. c. 10.) who flourished about the Year 170, there is a Passage taken word for word out of the 9 th' Book of the Recognitions. Whereas Dr. Cave conjectures, that Bardesanes was the Author of the Recognitions; his Guess is nothing probable, nay a manifest Mistake; because the Author of the Recognitions was an Ebionite; but Bardesanes a Valentinian, that is, held the Pre-existence of our Saviour, and that he was not (as the Apostle speaks) made of a Woman, but brought his Flesh from Heaven. It remains therefore, that the Recognitions are ancienter, not only than Origen, but than Bardesanes: how much ancienter we cannot determinately say; but probably published when the 2 d Century was but little advanced, when so many affected to countenance their own Productions, with the authoritative Names of the Apostles and Apostolical Men. But though 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 Critics, of all Parties and Persuasions. I shall not need to cite particular Passages out of these Books: for 'tis confessed by the Trinitarian Critics, 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 Apostolic Fathers, and the Writings and Remains of the Apostolic Succession. I have proved, I think, that hitherto we have no certain or probable notice, that there were yet any who publicly 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 ancient 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 happened 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 herself to the Acknowledgement 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 Messiah, promised in the Law and other Book, of the Old Testament. But 〈◊〉 the Apostles themselves, and the 〈◊〉 of the Apostolic Succussion, were gathered to their Fathers, than 〈◊〉 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 (though but the instrumental, yet) the immediate Creator of all things, is to be worshipped by us his Creatures. A Son, who, though 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: though 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 repent 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 public Patron of the Apostasy, 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 counterfeit) Barnabas, the false Ignatius, alias 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 ancient 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 citys out of him, is as follows: " The Unitarians pretend, that the Apostles and all the Ancients 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 Pope's 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 ancient Hymns or Psalms, wrote from the beginning by the Brethren; which speak of Christ, as the WORD of God, and attribute to him Divinity. I will omit now, that all these, but only Justin, were but Contemporaries to Victor and Zepherin; or after them: for it is home to my purpose, that the first whom our Opposers (of those early times) could quote, was Justin Martyr, who saith himself, in his first Apology, that he presented his Apology in the Year 150. The Epistles of Barnabas and Ignatius, and the Prophecies and Visions of Hermas, were not (it should seem) yet come out of the Mint; or were so well known to be Impostures, that no Body durst to allege them, in these Controversies. The Question between Dr. Bull and the present Unitarians is, concerning the Fathers and Monuments of the Apostolic 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 Apostolic 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 Apostolic Fathers, I might now proceed immediately to the Primitive Fathers, so called, to distinguish them from the Fathers that lived after the Nicene Council, or the Year 325, who are simply called Fathers. But because I would have nothing else to do, in the 2 d and 3 d Parts of this Answer to Dr. Bull, but only to examine and discuss his (impertinent and most fraudulent) Citations out of the Fathers; and to oppose to them (the certain and clear) Testimonies of the same (and other) Fathers: therefore here I will consider the two Passages in Dr. Bull's Defence of the Nicene Council, which (in my opinion) are the only Parts of his Book that needed to be at all remarked on by the Socinians. The first is, concerning the Grounds on which Justin Martyr and the following Fathers built their new Doctrine of our Saviour's Pre-existence; and that he was (though 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 coequal 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 Patriarches, 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 Patriarches: 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 itself, 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 intent here to examine his Answers.  
1. They argue; that indeed it is said (at Exod. 3.4.) God called to Moses out of the midst of the Bush: but it is owned in the (preceding) 2 d Verse, that it was indeed an Angel of the Lord that appeared to Moses, in a Flame of Fire, in the midst of the Bush; and St. Stephen also assures us, (Acts 7.30.) There appeared to Moses an Angel of the Lord, in a Flame of Fire, in the midst of a Bush. Dr. Bull replies; 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 Style of his Master; but all Ambassadors say only, thus saith my Master.  
Now in answer to these Elusions; first, Mr. Bull has but imperfectly reported the Argument of those learned Men, to whom he endeavours to answer. For they not only allege, 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 entered 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 expressly 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: though Dr. Bull desires us, that of all Love we would grant it; for he only says it, and offers no manner of Proof, of so absurd and (in very deed) impossible a Supposition. And we give this (incontestable) Reason, why the Person who appeared in the Bush to Moses, and is called sometimes Angel, sometimes God, was only an Angel who was called God on the Account that he represented God; because if he were God, and therefore spoke these Words, I am the God of thy Fathers, in his own Name, not in the Name of another, or as representing another: He should have been called God only; and not Angel, which is to say Messenger. Nor do I know, why Dr. Bull pretends here, God is called an Angel in this Place, " Because he appeared in such manner as Angels are wont to appear: there was no Cause at all, why he should say so; at least there is nothing in the Text or Context, to countenance his so saying. But our Argument is extremely probable, while we say; if it was indeed (not an Angel, but) God himself that spoke 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 Chimaera, 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 allege; 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 2 d Evasion: " Several Fathers said, an Angel indeed appeared in the Bush; but God was in the Angel: and it was not the Angel that spoke, but God in the Angel. This is a Whimsy, though 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 Style of his Prince; but the Ambassador says only, thus saith my Master. He is a bold Man, to charge even Angels themselves; and so many Writers of holy Scripture, as ridiculous and impious; for giving the Name God to those that represent God. Has not our Saviour himself told us, that they also are called Gods, to whom the Word of God comes, that is, the Magistracy, as all confess. And for the Name Jehovah, which Dr. Bull calls the Incommunicable Name; I ask, how comes Jehovah to be a greater Name, or more incommunicable, than God? And why has he said nothing to so many Instances as the Socinians, and his own viri quidam doctissimi, give of Persons, and even of Places; on which the Name Jehovah is bestowed, in the Historical Books of Scripture? What he says of Ambassadors serves only to show, that he has forgot some part of his Academical Learning, and is but little acquainted with the World. There is no Freshman in Oxford or Cambridg, but will inform him, out of the Roman Antiquities; that Public Messengers were wont to assurne the Name and whole Style 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 Style 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 departed 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 public Messengers do not assume the Name, or the Style, 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 mistake, 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 spoke 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 (that is, the Intervention) of Moses: the Angels spoke it to Moses, in the Mount; he to the People: Heb. 2.2,3. " If the Word spoke by Angels was steadfast;— 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 not 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 gracious 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 Doorkeepers?  
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 Parlour; my Bible is on the Stool, by my Bedside, two Stories higher: is it good Manners in an Author, to oblige me to clamber up, with gouty Knees and Hands, into my Bedchamber, to search for certain Words which he himself durst not recite, for fear I should laugh at him? Well, but I have looked 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] spoke in times passed by the Prophets to the Fathers, hath in these last Days spoken to us by his Son. Here now are Dr. Bull's Father's and St. Paul at utter Variance. St. Paul says, God in times past spoke to the Patriarches 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 spoke 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 though on this Account they are reckoned grand Heretics, 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) spoke to Moses face to face, as a Man to his Friend; shall not this neither be immediate speaking? Doubtless, it must not; for if it be, Dr. Bull has lost his Cause; which is the only Reason, why, speaking audibly, visibly, face to face, and as a Man to his Friend, is not immediate speaking. But when the Apostle says; '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 thorough the Wilderness, Dr. Bull alleges 1 Cor. 10.9. " And let us not tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of Serpents. The Israelites than 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 thorough 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 Arabic Versions, to St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom, and Theophylact. Yes, the Alexandrian Copy is much ancienter 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 expressly informed us, who was the particular Man that corrupted this Text: the Heretic Martion, 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. Petau. This Corruption is very ancient, for Martion (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 Martion, 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 a part of the Jewish Cabbala, or traditional Knowledge, which that Nation derived from Moses, he from God. Hereupon he citys 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 spoke 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 Knowledge: Then, to prove this, he citys 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 Knowledge 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 ancient 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 Knowledge. He would have committed it to Writing, lest it should be lost or corrupted: He would have added it to the Canon of Scripture, when he collected all other Pieces that had been written by the Prophets, or other holy Men; He that has left to us the Proverbs of Solomon, his Book of Love, nay the Story of Ruth, would not have neglected the Divine Cabala. But I shall put this Dilemma to Dr. Bull; let him take it by which Horn he likes best. Either the Cabala of the Jews is of humane Invention, or of divine Appointment and Revelation. If the former, why has he quoted (in so great a Question as this now before us) a spurious Work, an Imposture, an impious (Pharisaical) Addition to the Holy Scripture: will such fraudulent Arts as these, help or credit his Cause? If the other, if the Cabala is a Tradition of Divine Revelation and Institution; '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 Judgement 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, pre-existent to the Creation itself; and supposing again, that the Jewish Authors (whom he citys) had taken their Doctrine from the Cabala: yet what will all this avail, when the Cabala itself is (so certainly) not a Tradition from Moses or God; but a (mad) Collection of Follies and Chimaeras, 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 Platonic 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 Patriarches. In short, neither now nor formerly have the Jews believed, that the WORD is the Son of God, but only his Power, Energy and Virtue. Dr. Bull will never produce any thing of the Cabala, that but looks this way. And see here, what Origen, who flourished about the Year 270 fays of the Jews; " I have disputed often, says this most Learned Father, with the Jewish Rabbins that were of most Esteem; but I could never meet with any of them, who approve this Doctrine, that the WORD is the Son of God: Contr. Celsum, l. 2. p. 79. Again, l. 4. p. 162. he is more express in the case; " Celsus is ignorant that the Jews do not believe, that the Messiah (or Christ) whom they still expect as to come, is not God, nor the Son of God. But Dr. Bull himself, though 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 Messiah or Christ, promised to them by their Prophets, but who shall be a mere Man. And he citys 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 leaped 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, though 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 itself; and with his Death-dealing Falchion, 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) happening on it, he hath given it us in the Greek Tongue, but with divers Additions to it, taken from the Christian Religion. Of this kind, no Man will doubt it, is this Description of the WORD, which is wholly Christian, as Christianity began to be taught about the middle of the second Age: the Jews, as we have heard from Origen, never believed such a kind of WORD; namely, that is a Person, the Son of God, or God.  
His next Allegation is from the Paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan, Jews that translated the Old Testament into Syro-Chaldaick, after a Paraphrastical way. But I cannot perceive, that any of his Citations out of these Paraphrases speak of the WORD in the Platonic 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 alleged it: whereas Jonathan seems to read, the Lord said to his WORD, Sat on my right Hand; Jonathan's Words may better be rendered thus, the Lord said by his WORD, (i. e. his Mandate or Decree) Sat on my right Hand.  
But Philo speaks home; he (expressly) calls the WORD the Son of God, his first-begotten Son: to whose Care (saith he farther) as to the Vicarius and Deputy of God, the whole Creation is committed; and by whom it was originally made. But I shall never believe, that a Jew by Religion, wrote those things concerning the WORD, that we see in Philo's Works. Eusebius suspects, Photius directly affirms, that Philo was a Christian. This last adds, that by occasion of some Displeasure taken, Philo departed from the Christian Religion. I believe, with Eusebius and Photius, that Philo was a Christian: but I make no question, that Eusebius is mistaken in thinking, that this is the Philo who was sent on an Ambassage to the Emperor C. Caligula; but a Philo of the second Age, toward the expiring of it, or of the 2 d Age just expiring. For he describes the Therapeutae, that is the Christians, both in their Discipline, their Studies, and their manner of interpreting Holy Scripture; not as they lived or were in the Apostolic 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 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 intent 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 Chimaera first sallied; did we not know, that the Propagation and Conservation of this Affront to common Sense, and to all the Principles of Knowledge 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 itself, 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 bigoted Trinitarian; he applied the Imperial Authority, and the Awe of his Armies, which comfilied (for the most part) of Soldiers 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 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 Laymen, 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 publicly burnt; denouncing horrible Punishments to such as should presume to hid or conceal any such Books. While the Civil Power acted his Part in this (outrageous) manner, the ecclesiastics were as industrious another way: the Underlings of them sought the Favour of their Superiors, by turning Informers against the Heretics 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 suffered 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 established 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 though 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 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, though 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 selfsame Substance, or the same Substance in Number, but the same for Kind and Properties; that is, their Substances are (alike) Divine, Immortal, and Unchangeable. They are consubstantial to one another, as Stars are consubstantial to Stars; that is, their Substances, though 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 Being's; 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 beforehand, 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 Catholic 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 Heretic, or to attack or write against him as such; though 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 Gloucester, Dr. Sherlock, Mr. How, and others) embrace 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 scholastic Trinity implies so many Follies, and is so certainly nothing else but a disguised Sabellianism: that the real Trinitarians may probably enough carry their Point against the Nominals; if the Difference between them, breaking out into a Contention, shall fall into the Hands of able Managers.  
We have seen how the Fathers understood the Trinity; but the Difficulty is still behind: how did they make out the Unity of God? For if there are three spiritual intellectual Substances, three infinite Spirits, three (eternal, all-knowing and all-powerful) Minds, Three, each of which is a perfect God: do we not lose the Unity of God, the principal Article of revealed Religion, and the grand Design of both the Testaments, while we believe and affirm three such Persons? Dr. Bull here offers his Hand, at a dead lift; he tells us, the Fathers easily came off from this Exception or Doubt, by saying,  
1. The Son and Spirit had their Original, their Being, and Godhead, from the Father: therefore having proceeded from him as their Principle and Fountain, they are not distinct Gods from him, but one God with him. The Fathers granted, that were not the Son and Spirit originated from the Father, the three Divine Persons being so many several Principles, would also be so many Gods: but because the Son and Spirit are not (as the Father) self-originated or unoriginated, but from the Father; therefore they are rightly said to be one God with him.  
Every one sees, that there lies this Exception, against this Account of the Unity of God. If to be originated from the Father, will make the Persons so originated to be one God with him, or one with him and with one another; it follows, that not only the Son and Holy Spirit, but Angels also and Men (nay the whole Creation, the very vilest Parts of it) shall be one God with the Father, and with the (pretended) Trinity, and one with one another, because they are all originated from the Father. Therefore the Fathers said,  
2. Bare Origination from the Father, will not constitute the Persons so originated one God (or one) with him, or with one another, unless they have the same Substance with the Father; that is, as has been said, the same for Kind and Properties. And this Consideration, they said, excludes all Creatures from being one God or one with the Father, or the blessed Trinity: for created Substances are finite, subject to Change and Accidents. In a word, they are wholly unlike to the Divine Substance.  
They foresaw, that it would be again objected here. If to be originated from another, who is of the same kind with the Persons so originated from him, will make them all to be one; for Instance, will make the Son and Spirit to be truly one, and one God, with the Father from whom they are originated: then two Sons, or a Son and Grandson, because they are originated from the same Father, and are of the same kind with him, shall also be one with him; they shall not be three Men, but one Man, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are not three Gods, but one God. To wind themselves from this most certain and solid Reasoning, the Fathers devised a third Elusion, as wise as either of the two former: they said that,  
3. Origination of two Persons from a first Person, though 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 Father's 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 organised, 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 Judgement of the Fathers) distinct Minds and Spirits.  
Secondly; But (as I said) the  Explications of the Unity of God, or how the three Divine Persons are yet but one God, are another, and an invincible Declaration; that they held the said Persons are three Minds, Spirits and Substances. If the Fathers had held, that the three Persons are but one only (numerical) Substance, one infinite Spirit, one omniscient Mind and Energy; and that they are called Persons, only because the one (numerical) Substance subsists in three Modes, that is, after three several manners: I say, if this had been the Opinion of the Fathers, the Question would not have been, how the three Persons can be but one God, but how they can be called Hypostases or Persons? As at this day, no Man is so foolish, as to charge the Nominal Trinitarians with Tritheism, or holding three Gods; but only with Gotham Philosophy and Divinity, in calling Modes (or a Substance subsisting after three manners) Persons, when it is so obvious that Modes are not Persons, but certain Affections and accidental Denominations belonging to Persons. The Fathers would never have troubled themselves, nor would any ever have objected it to them, or demanded it of them; how they could say there is but one God, if the three Persons (by them so called) were but one (numerical) Substance subsisting three manner of ways, or in three relative Modes: all the Question (as I said) would have been, what they meant by this Gibberish, subsisting in three Modes or three manner of ways? What Occasion was there for the Fathers to tell us, the three Divine Persons may be called one God; because the Son and Spirit are originated from the Father, are like to him in all Divine Properties, and subsist in him: what need, I say, was there of these Excuses, or how are they possibly applicable to the three Divine Persons; if the Persons were not taken to be so many Spirits, Minds and Substances, but only a threefold manner of Subsistence of the same (numerical) Substance, Mind and Spirit?  
I omit (for the present) a great deal that might be farther said on this Subject; because when the Nominal Trinitarians have called, till they are hoarse, weary and ashamed, 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 Being's, 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,  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 established, 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 complete 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 myself, against the first of these Propositions; for if I disprove the second, the first will fall of itself: if three Hypostases or Spirits cannot be one God, this sort of Trinitarians must either give up their three distinct Substances, their three Minds and Spirits; or openly profess, that they believe three Gods. Notwithstanding, it will not be amiss, or besides our Purpose, if we show these Gentlemen, that whatever Arguments militate against a Plurality of Gods, prove also (no less effectually and directly) that there can be but one Divine (intellectual) Substance, but one infinite Spirit and Mind.  
How do Philosophers and Divines establish the Unity of God; or, that there neither is, nor can be more than one God? They say; all Plurality of Being's of the same kind and sort, is from the Imbecility, Weakness and Unsufficiency (in some respect or other) of those Being's: for if a Being be absolutely perfect, infinite in all Perfections, all-sufficient for itself, and for the Being's 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; wherever 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 Being's 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,  
It was Aristotle that observed, and 'tis an Observation worthy of so great a Man; that the Unity of God is discernible 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 itself in its present State; moreover, these Parts continue in their first Motion and Course, so steadfastly 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 alwise 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 persuaded 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 persuaded; that though 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 before-given; 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 Being's, and distinct Gods, from him; as distinct and separate as Cause and Effect can be, which is the very first of Distinctions. 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 allege, 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 (specific) Substance and Properties that he hath; that is, when the originated Persons have, like him, immortal, unchangeable 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 specific Properties. I ask, what is it that constitutes or essentiates a God; is it not this, That we suppose a spiritual Substance, that is immortal and unchangeable, 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 acknowledge, 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 confessed (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 itself; 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 inability 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 inexist in the first; and he in them. But if this be the Meaning of inseparably; it is impertinently, as well as falsely added. Impertinently, because the word always had been enough; and only proper to be here used. Falsely, 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: as three Men embracing one another, are three distinct Men, not one Man; or as God and the Creation are separate Substances, though 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 Platonic 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 Union. All Philosophers, but only the Platonists who understand not Physics, or the Nature of things, will assent to this Reasoning: and I doubt not, it was one of the Causes, why the Schoolmen (who were learned Philosophers) unanimously agreed, that three distinct (Divine) Substances are most certainly three Gods; and they (the Divines of the Schools) have been followed by all the Divinity-Chairs in Christendom, from about the Year 1200 to this present time. I do not believe, there is a Chair in Christendom that will own more than one Divine Substance; or will admit that three Divine Substances can be one God. Dr. Bull will not approve his Hypothesis to the Chairs, or to Universities or Schools of Learning. I am of opinion however, that so arrogant a Man as Dr. Bull will not let go his Hypothesis; it being too the Doctrine of the Fathers, and of a great many learned Men who treat of these Questions as Divines, not as Philosophers: and Dr. Bull having acquired so great a Reputation all over Europe, by his Book; the Chairs and Nominal Trinitarians will not, it may be, adventure to attack him.  
But if after all, Dr. Bull, fearing the Numbers and Reputation of the Nominal Trinitarians, will deny his Hypothesis; and (in hopes to compound with them) pretend that it differs not (or not materially) from the Doctrine of the Schools: besides that all discerning and ingenuous Men will laugh at his Pusilanimity; I shall not desire an easier Task, than to prove from his own Book, and from innumerable Quotations of the Fathers, that both they and he hold three distinct Divine Substances, and consequently so many Minds and Spirits, both which are rejected as Heretical (nay as Tritheistical) by the Schools and their Followers.  
I will conclude this first Part of my Answer, with observing, that though 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, gold's, 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 specific 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 Antenicens chief urged the Unity of Love, or else of Monarchy: the most learned (but least judicious) of the Post-Nicens served themselves of the (pretended) Consubstantiality, or that the three Persons having like Substances and Properties, are therefore one God; as all Men or Mankind are called Homo, and as three (or more) golden Coins are called Aurum, Gold; never Aura, Golds. But of these things I shall speak fully, in the Conclusion of the third Part of this Answer to Dr. Bull.   

The CONCLUSION.  
I Have said what I intended in this first Part. In the Second I will report the Doctrine of the following Fathers, concerning the Trinity and the Person of our blessed Saviour, in their own Words: By the following Fathers I mean those Fathers who flourished from about the Year 150, to the Nicene Council, or the Year 325. In the last Part I shall discover Dr. Bull's Fraud's and Mistakes, detect his Sophistries and Elusions; and confront his Misrepresentation of the Fathers, with the Confessions and Judgement of the Critics, who have either published or commented on the Writings of the Fathers. Here and now it remains only, that I inform the Reader, who hath not seen Dr. Bull's Books, why I have answered so indifferently, and without any particular Deference to the Merit of his Learning and Abilities: for it cannot be denied, that this Gentleman is a dextrous Sophister; or that he has read the principal Fathers with a more than ordinary Application, Diligence and Observation. Dr. Bull has written two Books, his Defence of the Nicene Faith, and Judgement of the Catholic Church, designedly and directly against the Unitarians; whether they be Arians or Socinians. In the first of these he attacks more particularly Chr. Sandius, a very learned Arian; and the Author of Irenicum Irenicorum, who was Dr. Zwicker M. D. a Socinian. Dr. Zwicker is complemented by Dr. Bull, with such Flowers as these; Bipedum ineptissimus, the greatest Fop in Nature: Omnium odio, qui veritatem & candorem amant, dignus; deserving the Hatred of all Lovers of Truth and Sincerity. Of Sandius he saith, He hath shipwrecked his Conscience, as well as his Faith; a Trifler, a mere (empty) Pretender: He adds at p. 331. He hath only transcribed the Author of Iren. Irenicorum; and in one Place, he prays for Sandius as one that is mad. This, and such as this, is Dr. Bull's constant Language concerning these two very learned Men: nor doth he ever reply to them, without pretending an absolute and incontestable Victory; and casting some most unworthy Scorn or other upon them, by occasion of his supposed Advantage. He never calls the Arians by any other Name but Ariomanitae, the mad Arians; and Socinianism is always with him the Atheistical Heresy, I do not remember that he ever calls our Doctrine by a better Name. In short, he hath expressed such a Malevolence; and hath so notoriously and infamously broke the Cartel of Honour and Civility, that was thought to be agreed and established between Persons of excellent Learning, or great Abilities, when they happen to be engaged in contrary Sides; that no Respect or Tenderness can be shown to him by any Unitarian. His Barbarities and Immanities' towards a Person so little deserving such Usage, and so much above Mr. Bull in all Regards, as Sandius was; and his Arrogance towards, and (harebrained) Contempt of all Unitarians, whether ancient or modern: I say, his Temerity and Extravagance in this kind, is so excessive, or rather is so outrageous, that he hath lest to himself no manner of Right or Claims to the very lest Degree of Humanity or good Manners towards him.  
And see here what Judgement he makes, of the late Socinian ●…atises, that have been published 〈…〉 six or seven Years last passed; 〈…〉 face to the Judgement of the Catholic Church: " Divers impious Wretches, within these few Years, have attacked the principal Article of the Faith; namely, the Divinity of our Saviour: Some of them are Arians, others Samosatenians or Socinians; I may say of both, as the great H. Zanchius somewhere does of L. Socinus, Fr. Davidis, Blandrata, and other Founders of the Socinian Heresy in the last Age. I do not read, without Disdain, the silly and mad Defences of the new Arians and Photinians: for I cannot meet in their Writings with the very lest Degree of Wit, or good Sense; they have nothing but the Repetition of old exploded Follies, or new Weaknesses of their own. But lest they should think that they have gained the Victory; or should misled the Weak, some pious and learned Men have deserved the public Praise and Thanks, by opposing themselves to the Sophistries of these Triflers. It is in this strain that Dr. Bull has treated us, every where; in every Page of his two Books: therefore it could not be reasonably expected, that in answering, we should fall prostrate to such an inveterate and supercilious. Malevolence and Arrogance; or make court to such a Hildebrand as this Man (even) affects to show himself.  
I know not, whether he will persuade many that a Diabolical Spirit is a fit Guide to be chose, in the Search of sacred Truths: or that those have the true Faith, who have not the least Grain of Charity? If Mr. Bull had railed so bitterly, only at the present English Socinians, and their Writers, we might have imputed his Intemperance to his Fear, or to his Ambition. We might apprehend, that he gins to doubt, that this (growing) Sect may, one day, turn him out of his Parsonage, or his Prebend: or that by Zeal and Bigotry he intended to recommend himself to his Superiors in the Church, and merit a Bishopric or Deanery. But why has he insulted the Dead; nay looked back 1200, and 1400 Years, scattering his Gall and Venom into the U●…s of Confessors and Martyrs, of the second and third Ages of Christianity? Even those whom Dioclesian and Julian the Apostate, not only spared, but honoured and rewarded for their Sanctity and Learning; Dr. Bull has broke up their Monuments, and scattered their Ashes.  
His Metropolitan not only preached it, to the most considerable Audictory of England; but published it too, from the Press, to all the World: " That the Socinians argue Matters, with Temper and Gravity; that they reason closely, and clearly, with extraordinary Guard and Cantion, with as much Dexterity and Decency. The ablest Managers, saith he, that ever yet meddled with Controversy; in comparison of whom the Jesuit is a Scold and a Bungler. Archbish. 2 d Ser●… on the Divin. of our Saviour. 〈…〉 But Mr. Bull, because 〈…〉 more Wit and Judgement than three Archbishops, answers immediately from the Oxford-Press; that his Grace is either mad, or dotes; that since he (Dr. Bull) has wrote against the Socinians, 'tis impossible they should have the least Temper, Dexterity, good Sense, or aught else, that may recommend them to Esteem. The Man grows warm; let us part for the present, lest we also grow as foolish as he.  
Aug. 19 1695.  
FINIS.