them also tempted and were destroyed of Serpents The Israelites then were destroyed of Serpents for their tempting that is provoking the Lord Christ with their Sins while in the Appearance of an Angel he led them thorow the Wilderness To this Text Grotius answers that without doubt Let us not tempt Christ is a false Reading and that we ought to read with the Alexandrian Copy Let us not tempt God as some of them tempted and were destroyed of Serpents Dr. Bull replies the Authority of the Alexandrian Copy cannot be opposed to the Syriac Latin and Arabick Versions to St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom and Theophylact. Yes the Alexandrian Copy is much antienter than any of those Versions or Fathers the Latin which is the first was made by St. Jerom above 100 Years after the Alexandrian Copy But why has Dr. Bull suppressed it that one of his own Historians St. Epiphanius has expresly informed us who was the particular Man that corrupted this Text the Heretick Marcion instead of let us not tempt the Lord that is to say God published in his Copies let us not tempt Christ Epiphan l. 1. T. 1. p. 358. Edit Petav. This Corruption is very antient for Marcion one of the first that defended our Saviour's Pre-existence and to support that Doctrine corrupted this Text flourished about the Year 150. But after the Nicene Council 't is no wonder that many Trinitarians followed in this Text the Copies of Marcion as being then near 200 Years old and it was after the Nicene Council that all the Versions and Fathers to whom Dr. Bull appeals concerning this Text appeared But to confirm farther the Pre-existence of the WORD or Son of God Dr. Bull dares pretend that 't is a part of the Jewish Cabbala or traditional Knowledg which that Nation derived from Moses he from God Hereupon he cites some Words of the Apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon which according to him is a very autient Book also some Expressions of Philo Judaeus supposed to be a Jew by Religion as well as by Nation He appeals also to the Chaldee Paraphrases or Translations of the Old Testament by Onkelos and Jonathan as if these spake of the WORD as a Person and the great Messenger of God under the Old Testament And finally he says Masius on Joshua has quoted a certain Rabbi and an old Jewish Book called Tanchumam which speak of the WORD much after the manner as doth the Author of the Wisdom of Solomon He saith first that the Pre-existence of the WORD as a Divine Almighty Person and as the Son of God is a part of the Jewish Cabbala or traditional Knowledg Then to prove this he cites Passages out of Philo the Wisdom of Solomon the Paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan a certain Rabbi and the Book Tanthumam He thinks it should seem that these Jewish Writers had their Notion of the WORD from the Jewish Cabbala I cannot but wonder I coufess that a Protestant Divine should believe the Jewish Cabbala or think that the Jews had a traditional Knowledg or Institution concerning God and Religion distinct from the Books of Moses and the Prophets I had thought that all Protestants nay all Christians were agreed that the Cabbala is the Invention of the Pharisees and Masters of the Pharisaical Sect not a Trudition from Moses If the Cabala had come from Moses or had it been acknowledged by the Prophets and antient Jewish Church as of Divine Revelation and Institution it would have been often mentioned appealed and alluded to in the Books of the Old Testament and there is no question that Ezra when he made the Collection of Canonical Books and Monuments immediately after the Return from the Babylonish Captivity would have had an especial Care of the Divine Cabala or Traditional Knowledg He would have committed it to Writing lest it should be lost or corrupted He would have added it to the Canon of Scripture when he collected all other Pieces that had been written by the Prophets or other holy Men He that has left to us the Proverbs of Solomon his Book of Love nay the Story of Ruth would not have neglected the Divine Cabala But I shall put this Dilemma to Dr. Bull let him take it by which Horn he likes best Either the Cabala of the Jews is of humane Invention or of divine Appointment and Revelation If the former why has he quoted in so great a Question as this now before us a spurious Work an Imposture an impious Pharisaical Addition to the Holy Scripture will such fraudulent Arts as these help or credit his Cause If the other if the Cabala is a Tradition of Divine Revelation and Institution 't is of equal Authority with the Writings of Moses and the Prophets and Dr. Bull ought to bind it up with the other two Parts of Holy Scripture namely the Old and New Testaments Dr. Bull may do as he pleases but the Socinians acquiesce in that Judgment which our Saviour himself has made of the Cabala at Mat. 15.6,9 where he calls this Traditional Law the Commandments of Men a mere humane Pharisaical Figment he adds there that by this Tradition of theirs they contradicted and made void the true and genuine Commandments of God It is in vain therefore that Mr. Bull tells us of a Cabala of the Jews of which he precariously and without having read it or so much as knowing what it is supposes that it not only speaks of the WORD but speaks of it as a Person and the Son of God and afterwards falls to citing some Jewish Authors who from this Cabala as he again untruly supposes discourse of the WORDâ—… a pre-existent Person the Son of 〈◊〉 by Generation and God's Messenger 〈◊〉 Minister during the times of the Old Testament I say this Pretence of Dr. Bull is vain because supposing the Cabala did speak of the WORD as a Person and the Son of God pre-existent to the Creation it self and supposing again that the Jewish Authors whom he cites had taken their Doctrine from the Cabala yet what will all this avail when the Cabala it self is so certainly not a Tradition from Moses or God but a mad Collection of Follies and Chimeras the sickly Dreams of the Fanatical Pharisees The Jewish Cabala is so far from owning a Trinity that this very Doctrine of Apostate Christians is the chief Offence that the Jews take at the Christian Religion it is the great thing that their learned Men in all Books and Conferences object to us that we have departed from the first Commandment and have advanced a second and a third God Farther they as little believe the WORD when taken in the Platonick Sense namely for a Person or that God has a Son who was his Minister in the Creation of all things and his Messenger or Angel to the Patriarchs In short neither now nor formerly have the Jews believed that the WORD is the Son of God but only his Power Energy and Virtue Dr. Bull will
among them witnesses that all Jews who were Christians were named Ebionites or the poor ones partly from the poor Opinion they had of our Saviour's Person partly because they adhered still to the beggarly Principles and Rites of the Mosaick Law it unavoidably follows that the Nazarens were Ebionites in this Sense that they held the Lord Christ was a Man only and observed the Law together with the Gospel I said Ebionites in this Sense because as was noted before the Ebionites more strictly so called believed our Saviour was the Son of Joseph and Mary but the Nazarens tho they believed he was a Man only yet they held he was miraculously conceived in the Womb of Mary by the sole Power and Energy of God without the Concurrence of any Man As Origen makes no Distinction of the Ebionites into Ebionites and Nazarens because of their Agreement in the main Points that the Lord Christ was a Man only and that the Mosaick Law must be observed by all Jewish Christians no more does Eusebius who contents himself to observe that some Ebionites hold the miraculous Conception others of them say he was the Son of Joseph and Mary Euseb H. E. l. 3. c. 27. But neither he nor Origen charge either of them as Epiphanius in after Ages from no Author does that they owned of the Old Testament only the Books of Moses and Joshua not the Prophets or that they calumniated St. Paul and rejected his Epistles publishing also certain Acts of St. Paul wherein they charge him as an Apostate from the Law only because he could not obtain for his Wise a Priest's Daughter Epiphanius imputes this not to the Nazaren-Ebionites but to those Ebionites who held our Saviour was the Son of only Joseph and Mary but as I said he quotes no Author and therefore this seems to be one of the malitious Tales which contending Sects and Parties frequently raise upon one another So in after-times the Albigenses Waldenses and Wiclevites were charged with monstrous Heresies which they not only abominated but are refuted by the Protestant Historians out of the Catechisms Sermons and other Books of those early Reformers They were charged with teaching that the Devil is above God that Elizabeth was Christ's Concubine and taken with him in Adultery with other more horrid and foolish things not fit to be named but the Protestant Historians have evinced to the Satisfaction even of all learned and ingenuous Papists out of the Books and Catechisms of those pious Men that these are diabolical Calumnies devised by their Persecutors the Friars Farther Dr. Bull grants that Theodoret Haeret. Fab. l. 2. c. 3. affirms expresly that the Nazarens honour the Lord Christ only as a holy Man not as God or a Divine Person Because this Father also lived in Syria was a most learned and inquisitive Person and writeth in that Work before-quoted of all Hereticks and their Opinions we may surely rely on the Account he gives 'T was impossible that Theodoret whose Bishoprick was in Syriâ cavâ whereabouts the Nazarens and Mineans then most abounded and whose very Design it was in that Book which we alledg to set down the peculiar Opinions of all the Distinctions and Denominations of Christians I say 't is impossible he should not certainly know the Doctrine of the Nazarens the most famous as well as most antient of all those Denominations which dissented from the Church or prevailing Party of those Times And whereas Dr. Bull excepts that Theodoret is a later Father than some he quotes 't is a mere and a wretched Subterfuge First because St. Jerom before cited witnesses that then the Nazarens flourish'd over all the Orient and Epiphanius that they abounded chiefly in Palestine and Syriâ cavâ Secondly because in very Deed Theodoret was contemporary with Sulpitius Severus who is as we shall see Dr. Bull 's only Author the only Father who ever mistook the Nazaren Doctrine concerning our Saviour and the Occasion of his Mistake was that he lived so remote from them they in the Orient he in the West that is to say at about 2000 Miles distance Sulpitius began to write at soonest about the Year 401. Theodoret was made Bishop in 420. so Theodoret might be the older Man But however that be one lived in Syria among the Nazaren Churches the other in the remotest Parts of Gaul distant from the Nazarens the whole length of the Roman Empire when in its greatest Extent and therefore 't is no wonder if he mistook the Nazaren Doctrine He grants again that Epiphanius Haeres 30. c. 2. informs us Cerinthianis Nazaraeis fuâ—sse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cerinthians and Nazarens had like Sentiments and Haeres 30. c. 2. Nazaraeos Ebionaeos capita simul contulisse suamque nequitiam invicem communicasse i. e. The Nazarens and Ebionites laid Heads together and communicated their Impiety by which Epiphanius without doubt means their Heresy one with another Lastly that Epiphanius doubts only of this whether in this the Nazarens agreed with the Cerinthians that the Lord Christ was a common and ordinary Man or was miraculously generated by the Holy Spirit or Power of God in the Womb of Mary Let us put this together Epiphanius says the Nazarens and Cerinthians had like Opinions but did the former believe as the other did that the Lord Christ was a common Man born as all other Men are of a humane Father and Mother or did they grant that he was a Man indeed but miraculously conceived by the Divine Power in the Womb of a Virgin Epiphanius professes that he cannot upon his own Knowledg charge the Nazarens with the former of these Opinions Farther he owns that the Ebionites and Nazarens were extremely gratious and intimate and communicated in the same Impiety that is Heresy These Testimonies do stagger Dr. Bull so that at last Judic Eccl. p. 56 57. he is willing to grant that at length some Nazarens were infected with the Ebionite Heresy that the Lord Christ is a Man only and of these Nazarens whom he calls the latter Nazarens tho the Antients never make any such Distinction as the former and latter Nazarens he thinks Origen is to be undestood when he says as was before quoted that the Jewish Christians i. e. the Nazarens are Ebionites There never was a more injudicious Paragraph unless the Man wilfully prevaricates For first why doth he say some Nazarens were infected with the Ebionite Heresy when Origen who is his Author expresly says all the Jewish Christians are Ebionites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Jews that own Jesus to be the Christ are Ebionites Contr. Cels l. 2. p. 56. Secondly I desire to know of Dr. Bull how Epiphanius could more effectually declare the Doctrine of the Nazarens concerning the Quality of our Saviour's Person than by saying they hold as the Cerinthians do and they mutually communicate their Heresy with the Ebionites For was
Lord Christ the eternal God Yes says Dr. Bull for the Constitutions chap. 11. have a Confession to that purpose and the 12 th Chapter is concerning those that confess that is so confess and yet live after the manner of the Jews that is observe the Mosaick Law and these most certainly were the Nazarens But if the Nazarens confessed in the Form there mentioned they were far from believing as Dr. Bull and the Church now believe Let us hear the Confession at chap. 11. to which the Title urged by Dr. Bull does refer It saith We teach but one God the Father of Christ not a second not a third not a manifold God but one eternal God One would think this were Socinus or J. Crellius de uno Deo Patre but towards the Conclusion the Author or Authors show that he held the same Doctrine with Arius for tho he had said there is but one God who is Eternal or from Eternity yet he owns that Christ is not a mere Man but is also God the WORD That is there is but one true one eternal God yet the Son or WORD is also God in an inferiour Sense namely a God that was generated in time and is set over the Works of the Creation Monsieur du Pin deals ingenuously when he owns that the Author of the Constitutions seems to have been an Arian he rightly adds that the Constitutions as we now have them were forged after the times of St. Epiphanius for that Father quotes them far otherways than nay contrary to what they now are Eccl. Hist Cent. 1. p. 29 30. If the Reader compares this Section with what I have alledged in the foregoing he will perceive that 't is with the greatest Justice and Truth in the World that the present Unitarians claim the Nazarens or first Jewish Churches and Christians as of our Party Of the Alogi or Alogians c. FRom the Nazarens that is the Jewish Christians I go on to the Alogi or Alogians who were the antient Gentile Christians They were called Alogian or Alogi because they denied the Logos or WORD of which St. John speaks in his Gospel Epistles and Revelation they said that all those Pieces were written by Cerinthus under the Name of St. John to confirm Cerinthus his Conceits about the Logos and the Millenium or thousand Years Reign of Christ here upon Earth For tho the Alogi held that the Lord Christ is a Man only as also did Cerinthus yet Cerinthus of the antient Unitarians had these two things peculiar to himself 1. That the World was made not immediately by God but by God by the Ministry of his Angels 2. That the Lord Christ was a Man only the Son of Joseph and Mary but there rested on him the Logos or Divine WORD which he also called the Christ by which Cerinthus intended the Spirit Energy or Power of God that Power by which he created Original Matter and made the World but as the Christ or WORD descended on Jesus at his Baptism so it left him at his Crucifixion The Alogians believed none of these things they said they had only received from the Aposiles that the Lord Christ was the great Prophet promised by Moses in the Law and the Messias or Christ intended in the Prophet Daniel and who in the Fulness of Time was sent by God to unite both Jews and Gentiles under one common Institution or Law of Religion Epiphanius is the first who gave to them the Name of Alogi before him that is before the Year 368 they were simply called Christians without any other Name that might signify them to be a particular Sect. They were those Christians of the Gentiles who retained the sincere Apostolick Doctrine concerning the Unity of God and the Person of our Saviour without corrupting it more or less with Platonick Notions or Gnostick Novelties they were very antient co-eval with the Apostles and flourished as the prevailing Party in the Period called the Apostolick Succession or to about the Year 140. Epiphanius all along speaks of them as the antient Unitarians of the Gentiles He says also expresly Theodotus adjunxit se Haeresi Alogorum Theodotus joined himself to the Sect and Churches of the Alogians Theodotus appeared about the Year 190 by joining himself to the Alogian Sect we learn that before he was of the Number of the new Platonick Christians who held the Pre-existence of our Saviour Eusebius is strangely out or prevaricates too notoriously when he says Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 28. that this Theodotus was the first who held that our Saviour was a mere Man for not only the Alogians so held but so also did both sorts of Ebionites and that by Confession of Eusebius himself elsewhere particularly H. Eccl. l. 3. c. 27. But Eusebius takes all Occasions tho never so fraudulently to depress the Unitarians whom he had undertaken to confute in the Person of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra We may take notice too that the Excerpta at the End of Clemens of Alexandria his Books of Stromata which bear the Title of the Oriental Doctrine of Theodotus were not Particulars of the Doctrine of Theodotus the Unitarian for the Doctrine of Theodotus was diametrically opposite to the Contents of those Excerpta but the Excerpta are nothing else but a Fragment of the Hypotyposes of St. Clemens himself which also is observed by the learned Valesius in his first Note on Euseb H. E. l. 5. c. 11. and again on lib. 6. c. 14. In few Words that the Alogi held our Saviour was a Man only is not questioned by any that they belonged at least to the Apostolick Succession is proved because 't is confessed by the Trinitarian Historians that the Theodotians who appeared about the Year 190 joined themselves to the Alogian Churches and because Epiphanius speaks of them throughout as flourishing in that Period We have therefore deservedly here reckoned them among the antient and first Witnesses of the true Doctrine As to the Reasons which they gave and which I affirm not against the Gospel and other Works which we now account to St. John I have already briefly intimated them in the Considerations on the 4 Sermons of his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury It was 400 Years before the Epistle to the Hebrews was received as Canonical any where in the West and but in few Places of the Orient and other Books of the New Testament especially St. John's Revelation were not presently admitted by the Catholick Church it ought not therefore to seem strange that the modern Unitarians allow of the Gospel and other Pieces of St. John tho they are aware that many of the Antients and particularly some Unitarians suspected and too hastily rejected them As it often happens that Time detects Frauds and Falshoods so also not unfrequently it discovers and vindicates oppressed Truths The last Monument or Remain of the Apostolick Succession which agrees with the Socinian Doctrine concerning our Saviour are the
Recognitions imputed to Clemens Romanus They seem to be falsly reckoned to St. Clemens but they are very antient published probably in the Beginning of the 2 d Century or the second Century being but little advanced when so many other spurious Pieces were set forth under the Names of Apostles or of Apostolical Men. The Recognitions are quoted divers times by Origen who began to flourish about the Year 210. But they are much antienter than Origen for in a Fragment of Bardesanes apud Euseb Praep. Evang. l. 6. c. 10. who flourished about the Year 170 there is a Passage taken word for word out of the 9 th Book of the Recognitions Whereas Dr. Cave conjectures that Bardesanes was the Author of the Recognitions his Guess is nothing probable nay a manifest Mistake because the Author of the Recognitions was an Ebionite but Bardesanes a Valentinian that is held the Pre-existence of our Saviour and that he was not as the Apostle speaks made of a Woman but brought his Flesh from Heaven It remains therefore that the Recognitions are antienter not only than Origen but than Bardesanes how much antienter we cannot determinately say but probably published when the 2 d Century was but little advanced when so many affected to countenance their own Productions with the authoritative Names of the Aposiles and Apostolical Men. But tho the Recogaitions are not the Work of Clemens Romanus yet they serve to let us know what Doctrines and Rites were current or in use in those times and to this purpose they are quoted by the severely Criticks of all Parties and Perswasions I shall not need to cite particular Passages out of these Books for 't is consessed by the Trinitarian Criticks and by Monsieur du Pin who hath written last on the Fathers that the Author of the Recognitions was a manifest Ebionite Eccl. Hist cent 1. p. 28. But hitherto of the Apostolick Fathers and the Writings and Remains of the Apostolick Succession I have proved I think that hitherto we have no certain or probable notice that there were yet any who publickly professed to hold the Pre-existence of our Saviour or that he was God in any Sense of that Word But on the contrary the Apostles Creed the true and by all confessed St. Clemens Romanus the Nazaren Minean or Ebionite that is the Jewish Churches the Alogians or Gentile Churches Hegesippus the Father of Ecclefiastical History the most antient Author of the Recognitions were all of them Unitarians that is held there is but one Divine Person and the Lord Christ was a Man only It should seem then that very thing hapned to the Christian Church which had formerly come to pass in the Church of the Jews For as the Author of the Book of Judges Judg. 2.7 says The People of Israel served the Lord all the Days of Joshua and of the Elders that outlived Joshua but when all that Generation was gathered to their Fathers there arose another after them which knew not the Lord so the Children of Israel did Evil in the sight of the Lord and served Baalim i. e. the Gods In like manner while the Apostles lived and those Elders who had conversed with the Apostles the Christian Church kept her self to the Acknowledgment and Worship of the one true God and preserved the true Doctrine and Faith concerning the Person of the Lord Christ that he was a holy Man the great Prophet and Messias promised in the Law and other Book of the Old Testament But 〈◊〉 the Aposiles themselves and the 〈◊〉 of the Apostolick Succussion were gathered to their Fathers then 〈◊〉 Corruptions to prevail apace 〈◊〉 they sancied a pre-existent 〈◊〉 of God God's Minister and Instrument in the creating of all things and but little less than his Father A Son said they who being tho but the instrumental yet the immediate Creator of all things is to be worshipped by us his Creatures A Son who tho with respect to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they still spoke the true and very God the Father is but a Minister and Subject yet with respect to us his Creatures is a God A Son who must be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a God tho only the Father may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the God that is God by way of Excellence and true Propriety In a word after the Apostles and Apostolical Elders or Pastors were composed to rest the next Generation like the Jewish Church did Evil in the Sight of the Lord and served Baalim that is the half-Gods of their own devising Nemo repente fit turpissimus therefore here they stop a considerable time namely from about the Year 140 and 150 to the Nicene Council or the Year 325. at what time as we shall see hereafter Superstition and Impiety made a sudden and wonderful Advance The first Defender and publick Patron of the Apostacy mentioned in the foregoing Paragraph was Justin Martyr about the Year 150. Our Opposers can quote no Father or genuine Monument older than Justin Martyr for the Pre-existence of our Saviour or that he ought to be called a God in so much as the restrained inseriour Sense before said Dr. Bull indeed pretends to prove the contrary from the counterseit Barnabas the false Ignatius aliàs Pionius and the Impostor Hermas how injudiciously I think hath been competently shown in these present Papers but I will yet oppose to him one Authority which I doubt not will convince the indifferent unprejudiced Reader Eusebius that capital Antagonist of the Nazaren and Alogian Christians and who searched with the utmost Diligence into the remotest Antiquity for whatsoever might seem to make against them quotes H. E. l. 5. c. 28. a very antient Author whom in his foregoing Chapter he reckons among the Ecclesiastical Writers that deserve saith he to be esteemed for their laudable Zeal and Industry This laudable Man you must know wrote a Book against the Theodotians and Artemonites who were Branches of the Alogians what Eusebius there cites out of him is as follows The Unitarians pretend that the Apostles and all the Antients held the very Doctrine concerning the Person of our Saviour that is now maintained by the Unitarians and that it is but only since the Times of the Popes Victor and Zepherin that the Truth has been adulterated and discountenanced This would be credible if first the Unitarian Doctrine were not contrary to Holy Scripture and if divers before Victor and Zepherin had not contended for the Divinity of the Lord Christ namely Justin Martyr Miltiades Tatianus Clemens of Alexandria Ireneus Melito To whom we may add the antient Hymns or Psalms wrote from the beginning by the Brethren which speak of Christ as the WORD of God and attribute to him Divinity I will omit now that all these but only Justin were but Contemporaries to Victor and Zepherin or after them for it is home to my purpose that the first whom our Opposers of those early times could quote was